Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:50 P.M. EST

MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. I want to do a quick statement at the top, and then we'll go to your questions.

As you saw from the statement issued by the President last night, we welcome the vote by the United Kingdom to join coalition partners striking ISIL targets in Syria. We congratulate the United Kingdom on their strikes overnight against ISIL targets in Syria and commend their ability to join this mission so quickly following the vote.

As the President's statement noted, we also welcome the announcement by the German cabinet that Germany will commit up to 1,200 troops in support of coalition efforts to fight ISIL. While this commitment requires German parliamentary approval, it is a clear sign of Germany's continued commitment to the counter-ISIL campaign and to working with a broad range of partners to defeat this shared threat.

These steps from the UK and Germany, two of our most important security partners, sends a clear signal that ISIL increasingly can find no safe haven even in Syria and Iraq. We all know this will be a long and challenging fight, but our coalition is united and resolute. We are striking at ISIL's core in Iraq and in Syria. We are intensifying our support to local partners fighting ISIL on the ground. We are increasingly syncing our efforts to prevent foreign fighters from destroying our homelands. And we are intensifying our efforts to shut down ISIL's effort to finance their reign of terror. And together, the United States and our 65 coalition partners, will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.

The one other note that I wanted to do at the top is to say that there obviously is understandable interest that all of you have in the ongoing investigation into the terrible tragedy that occurred in San Bernardino, California yesterday. The President noted in his comments in the Oval Office a couple of hours ago that the FBI is now leading that investigation. They do so with continued close coordination and cooperation with local authorities that have been involved since the minute that this incident was reported.

The details of this investigation are essential facts that will guide the investigators, but the investigators themselves will make the decision about when and which facts to make public. So I come prepared today to answer as many of your questions as I possibly can, but I do not come prepared to share with you new information about the ongoing investigation. Those new facts and details, as they are uncovered, will be communicated to all of you and to the American public by the FBI.

So, with that caveat, let me do the best that I can to try to engage in a robust conversation this afternoon. So, Kathleen, do you want to get that started?

Q: Sure. I wanted to go back to the President's statement a little, if we could expand --

MR. EARNEST: Sure.

Q: He mentioned warning folks not to rush to judgment on the facts of the case, but I wonder if you'd be more specific. Is he worried about backlash against the Muslim community because of the religious beliefs of the suspects? How concerned is he that people are going to be rushing to judgment, I guess, and taking a broad brush?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think what the President is acknowledging is that this is an incident, a terrible tragedy that occurred less than 24 hours ago, and the desire on the part of the American public to understand exactly what transpired in the lead-up to this event and in the immediate aftermath is understandable. In fact, the President shares that intense desire. That's why the President convened a meeting of members of his national security team, including the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General, and the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, because he himself is determined to get to the bottom of what exactly happened.

And so what he had in mind when he made that comment is to urge people to not jump to conclusions and to allow the investigators to do their important work. There are hundreds of federal law enforcement officials that are working on this case even as we speak. And the intensity of this investigation and the intensity of the President's interest and his determination to get to the bottom of what exactly happened should give people confidence that that will occur. And it is a reason for people to resist the urge to jump to conclusions about what exactly happened and about what the potential motives of these two killers may have been.

Q: So he's not specifically worried about backlash against Muslims?

MR. EARNEST: Again, when the President made those comments that you just cited, he specifically had in mind that people should not jump to conclusions; that he's not going to jump to conclusions; investigators are not going to jump to conclusions. They're going to allow the facts to guide the investigation, as they should.

Q: And he didn't specifically note Congress' objection to -- or Republicans' objections to new gun control measures in his statement today. I'm wondering if that means that he's -- he talked about legislatures maybe having to get involved. Is he shifting focus at all in his gun control push to something broader, outside of Washington? Has he sort of decided he's defeated here and looking elsewhere?

MR. EARNEST: Of course not. I think the President is determined to do everything that he possibly can to try to make our country safer, and he certainly believes that members of Congress should have the same impulse. And unfortunately, too many members of Congress have allowed politics to block that impulse.

We know -- we know -- that there are some things that Congress can do, and that only Congress can do, that would make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. And those laws can be implemented in a way that doesn't undermine the basic constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. And unfortunately, Congress hasn't acted.

And the President has talked at great length about how frustrating and, in some cases, infuriating that is to him. That's why the President himself has asked his team to scrub the law and determine if there are additional steps that the administration can take using his executive authority. And, of course, he would support steps that are taken by local governments or even state governments that could enhance security in the communities that they govern. But that certainly has not given Congress a pass. The President feels as strongly as ever that congressional action is needed to make America safer. It's that simple.

Let me just add the usual caveat, which is the President doesn't envision a law that would prevent every single act of violence from occurring. No such law exists. But there are surely some common-sense measures that can be taken that would make it just a little bit harder for people who shouldn't have guns from getting their hands on them, or from people who shouldn't have access to guns getting their hands on weapons of war. And that continues to be a priority, and it continues to be the President's view that Congress should act.

Q: So if he's continuing to scrub the law, could you say whether or not he's decided if he believes he has the authority to close the gun show and Internet sales loophole? And if he hasn't yet figured that out, is there a reason why that's such a difficult legal question?

MR. EARNEST: I don't have an update for you at this point on the ongoing effort to "scrub the law," as the President described it.

Q: And then, if I could just -- one last question on a different topic. Vladimir Putin gave his state of the nation address. I don't know if you may have seen some of it.

MR. EARNEST: I didn't.

Q: Oh, you didn't.

MR. EARNEST: Is this the traditional event where he takes hours of questions?

Q: I think this is the traditional event where he rails on you guys for a little while. (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST: I see. Or us, maybe in this case.

Q: -- Washington for creating in the Middle East a "zone of chaos and anarchy threatening the entire world."

MR. EARNEST: I didn't see his entire remarks, but I just would note that the ongoing and intense military effort by the Russians to prop up a dictator inside of Syria that is the root cause of so much chaos makes it a little ironic for him to be pointing the finger at anyone else.

As we've said for some time, we would welcome a constructive Russian contribution to our 65-member-nation counter-ISIL coalition. But Russia has different aims, apparently, if you look only at their military strategy. Now, they suggest that they support something else, and we would like to see Russia be more constructive in trying to confront this problem.

Roberta.

Q: After the shooting in Roseberg, when the President spoke to us from the podium, he said he was going to talk a lot about what he said were the political choices that lawmakers had made about guns and access to guns. And his tone then was one of frustration, as you have described earlier. But today his tone in the Oval, there was a lot less of that frustration. I wonder if you could explain to us why he was less frustrated or less, I guess, passionate about the need to have tougher gun laws today. And is it because of the uncertainty about what has happened in this case?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Roberta, let me just start by saying that I assure you that the President's passion for laws that would make it harder for individuals who shouldn't get guns from getting them has not waned, particularly because the President believes those laws can be implemented in a way that don't undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.

The President, on a variety of occasions -- tragically, on a variety of occasions -- has had a forum for making that point with passion. And that passion has not waned at all. I think the comments that the President delivered today were primarily focused on helping the American people understand where the investigation currently is.

The President had just been briefed on the ongoing investigation by the Director of the FBI, by his Attorney General, and other members of his national security team, and I think that would account for the difference in the remarks. But it is not an indication at all of a change in the President's strong support for congressional action that would make the country safer.

Q: Can you give us any update or any sense of where things are at in the process of scrubbing the laws or regulations to look for additional measures on gun safety?

MR. EARNEST: I don't have an update for you other than to confirm for you that it's ongoing.

Let's move around a little bit. Gregory.

Q: Yes, Syrian refugees. We've reached a point where this is no longer sort of an abstract rhetorical argument, it's actually having some impact on families and communities. You had Texas yesterday filing suit against the federal government in the 10th to halt refugees from coming in their state. This week, in Indiana, a family that Catholic Charities are trying to resettle in Indiana instead had to go to Connecticut because the governor there will not allow state participation in the refugee resettlement process. So my question is, do these actions by these governors violate the Refugee Act or the Civil Rights Act? And if so, what is the administration prepared to do to make sure that all states participate in the refugee resettlement process?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Gregory, the thing that I would say in terms of an analysis of the law is I'd refer you to the Department of Justice and they can give you a sense of how and whether those actions are consistent with established law.

I'll just say as a general matter something that you heard the President talk about quite a bit, which is that there is a long tradition in this country of taking those from overseas that are fleeing violence or are themselves victims of terrorism. Those individuals are only admitted to the United States after they have undergone the most strict screening process of anybody who attempts to enter the United States. And it's the President's view that admitting those individuals to the United States is part of what makes our country great.

The United States, through the U.N. program, has for years been the world's leader in resettling refugees. And those refugees, despite their small numbers, have made important contributions to the success of our country. And you've seen over the course of the last few weeks from the White House, testimonials from great Americans who were either refugees themselves or arrived in the United States because their parents were -- or ended up in the United States because their parents were refugees. And that's made our country even stronger. And that is a legacy and a reputation, and a set of values that we are proud of and are worth defending.

Q: But the governors say that all they're looking for is a guarantee from the administration that these refugees are not dangerous. And there are all kinds of laws that require Cabinet Secretaries to certify or sign off on certain things all the time that the administration does. What is it about certifying these refugees as not being a threat to national security is so difficult for the administration to accept?

MR. EARNEST: Well, let me say a couple things about that. The first is, there actually have been some constructive steps that this administration has taken to respond to concerns that have been raised by some governors. The administration has, just earlier this week, made a specific commitment to governors to give them more frequent and periodic updates about the security precautions that are in place.

But, look, the facts are what they are. Refugees resettled in the United States are subjected to more intense screening than any other individual who attempts to enter the United States. They're subjected to background checks. They are subjected to in-person interviews. Biographical and biometric information is collected. That information is then run through databases that are maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center, other intelligence community resources, law enforcement resources, the Department of Defense, international law enforcement resources. So that's why we can be confident about the individuals.

And in fact, one statistic that seems relevant that I've cited before is that over the last several years, about 2,000 Syrian refugees have been resettled in the United States. None of them have been detained or deported because of concerns about their links to terrorism.

So I think there are a variety of ways in which the American people can continue to be confident that those who are admitted to the United States, resettled in the United States as a result of the refugee program are subjected to the kind of screening that's necessary to keep the American people safe.

Cheryl.

Q: Thanks, Josh. To follow on yesterday's conversation about the appropriations bills, Republicans aren't giving up on their riders on that omnibus bill. Is the President prepared to veto that bill if those riders remain on there?

MR. EARNEST: You're asking about the omnibus?

Q: Omnibus bill.

MR. EARNEST: What I noted yesterday at the beginning of the briefing is that this is still a subject of negotiation between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. And based on reports that we've received from Capitol Hill, some of which you all have written about -- or written -- Republicans are risking another government shutdown. And they're doing that by insisting on the inclusion of a substantial number of ideological riders that are nothing more than giveaways to special interests. Now, these happen to be special interests that are significant contributors to the Republican Party. That's a relevant fact. What's also a relevant fact is that these are special interests who are some of the largest firms on Wall Street and some of the biggest polluters of our air and water.

So Republicans may think that they can threaten a government shutdown to get the President to go along with giveaways to big polluters and the largest financial institutions in America. They're wrong about that. The President is not going to go along with that. I don't think the American people are either. I also don't think that the Senate Majority Leader wants to preside over the second government shutdown engineered by Republicans in two years. I also feel confident in telling you the Speaker Ryan doesn't want to preside over a government shutdown six weeks into his new office.

So there's a lot of work to be done here. But Republicans are going to have to demonstrate a willingness to actually work in bipartisan fashion to find common ground on budget issues. We have a template for that. We saw that Congress has been making important progress, for example, on the Every Student Succeeds Act. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that got 340-some-odd votes in the House of Representatives. That's a substantial bipartisan accomplishment. Neither side believes that that piece of legislation is perfect, but both sides agree that passing that legislation would do something good for the country and do something important for our children.

Republicans are going to need to take the same approach when it comes to budget issues. And if they don't, we're looking at another government shutdown.

Mara.

Q: I know the investigation is ongoing and we still don't know all the details, but if it turns out that the shooter, who was born in America, was radicalized and this has an element of terrorism in it, the discussion is going to change pretty fast from Syrian refugees to what is the administration's strategy to deal with Americans who are self-radicalized, or radicalized in another way. And I'm wondering if you could just review for us what the White House strategy is against that kind of terrorism.

MR. EARNEST: Well, I'm going to start by saying that I am not going to jump to conclusions here.

Q: I don't want you to.

MR. EARNEST: And so I don't want what I'm about to --

Q: I'm not saying --

MR. EARNEST: I understand. Let me finish. I don't want what I'm about to say to be interpreted as being complicit in an effort to jump to conclusions.

That said, the manifestation of extremism that we've seen in this country has claimed innocent lives. We saw that extremism manifest itself in a terrible shooting incident in Charleston, South Carolina. We saw that violent extremism manifest itself in the context of a shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. We saw that violent extremism manifest itself in the context of a shooting in a parking lot at a Jewish community center outside Kansas City.

And there are things that we could do about that. One thing that we can do about that is to make it harder for people who shouldn't get guns from getting them. The second thing we can do about that is we can make it harder for those individuals to get their hands on assault weapons, on weapons of war. Another thing we can do about that is Congress could pass a law that would prevent individuals who are deemed by the government too dangerous to board an airplane from buying a gun.

The other thing that we can do -- and this is an effort that has been underway in the administration for quite some time -- is also to engage in an effort to counter the online efforts of some extremist organizations to radicalize people. And that is going to require a variety of efforts. And one important way that we can confront that is to work closely with trusted voices, with alternative voices who can be lifted up, who can be elevated to counter the hateful, radicalizing tactics and ideology that is propagated by some extremist organizations online. And that has been part of the intense focus of the administration, as well.

Q: Just to follow up on that, I mean, several of the guns were bought legally. We know that. We know that California has some of the toughest gun laws there is. So I'm wondering what specifically might have stopped that. But also, in terms of these trusted alternative voices, this kind of -- I guess you're talking about this chorus of Muslim anti-extremism that's --

MR. EARNEST: That's one example.

Q: But where is it?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Mara, you're not exactly the target audience for that. But to answer your first question, one thing we could do is we could ban the sale of assault weapons. That certainly would make it harder for those individuals who shouldn't have them from getting them. And, as you point out, the ATF has confirmed that four firearms that were recovered at the scene of the final shootout yesterday that were wielded by the assailants were purchased legally under the laws that are currently in place. That would be an indication to some common-sense-thinking people that we should consider some different laws, particularly if we can implement those laws in a way that doesn't undermine the basic constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.

Secondly, as it relates to this effort to counter sort of the online radicalization efforts of a variety of extremist groups, including some who have attempted to burrow into the Muslim community, in particular, we have seen that some of our adversaries are quite skilled. We've talked a little bit about how ISIL has a rather sophisticated operation when it comes to social media. And what we have sought to do is to recognize that in many cases -- probably in almost all cases -- the United States government is probably not going to be the most effective voice to try to counter them.

So one of the things that we have done is we've established a center in the UAE, that's hosted by the UAE, that can be a forum for alternative voices to counter the radicalizing ideology and tactics of ISIL. The President recently traveled to Malaysia, and while he was there, discussed with the Prime Minister the intent to establish another of those centers in Malaysia. And that is part of the strategy that we have undertaken.

The other thing that we need to also do here in the United States is recognize that -- again, just to take one example -- that leaders in the Muslim community should be our partners in this effort. They have an interest in making sure that vulnerable members of their community are not targeted and radicalized by terrorists overseas. So we should work with them to coordinate our efforts to counter online radicals. And the administration has worked hard to do that.

Surely, some of the rhetoric that we see that gets thrown around in the political context is often not helpful in that regard. But that is an important part of our strategy, nonetheless.

Q: Just to clarify, when you say we're not or I'm not the target audience, are you saying there's actually a robust anti-extremist message being delivered by Muslims and we're not hearing it, or that it just hasn't gotten to critical mass yet? I'm a little confused by that. This effort that you're talking about in the Muslim community to counter this extremist ideology, you're saying we're not the target audience. Are you saying that so we wouldn't hear it, or that it just isn't loud enough or robust enough yet?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I guess -- Mara, I don't know a whole lot about your online --

Q: You just said we're not the target audience.

MR. EARNEST: I was referring to you, specifically.

Q: Oh, okay.

MR. EARNEST: So, again, I say that without a whole lot of personal knowledge about your online social media habits. I don't know if you're --

Q: I thought you were suggesting there is a robust anti-extremist message coming from Muslims, but we're just not hearing it? I just want you to assess how strong that message is.

MR. EARNEST: I'm just suggesting that you may not -- there may be a reason that that's not showing up on your Twitter feed, and it's that you're probably not following them.

Q: Okay. But are you saying that that counter-message, that anti-extremist message coming from inside the Muslim community from Muslim leaders is robust, or not?

MR. EARNEST: I'm saying that it is important to our efforts. We certainly believe that there is more that can be done and that effort could be further fortified and strengthened and more effective. But it is -- there is already important work that's being done.

Alexis.

Q: I have a couple questions. I want to follow up on what Mara is asking. You know there is a report today that the State Department has determined that its social media effort is unsuccessful, should not be continued, because it is not considered a trusted origination of a message. So my question, related to what Mara is asking, is -- and you just described the vulnerabilities and the President's frustrations -- if you abandon a U.S. government effort on social media, what fills that gap?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, Alexis, we've acknowledged for some time we approach this from the standpoint of understanding just as a matter of common sense that trying to counter messages from ISIL who are attempting to radicalize, for example, vulnerable members of the Muslim population, that the United States government may not be the most effective voice in countering that strategy. What we need to do is to look for other voices that can be lifted up, that can be engaged in this effort, leaders across the country. In some cases, maybe they're faith leaders. In some cases, they're political leaders. But in any event, they're people who can be effective in countering or at least providing alternative visions.

And that's important work. It's hard. It's hard to get your arms around it. But it's critically important to our efforts. And as I just acknowledged to Mara, there's important work that's being done and important progress that's being made. But there's surely room for improvement.

Q: Well, I just want to follow up again. It's not that anyone is saying this isn't hard. The question, though, is can you give us an update on where this is now? Where does this rest now? Where is this happening? How far along is it? Can the U.S. media describe what's happening so that the counter-messaging is a broader counter-message? You're talking to NPR. You're talking to The New York Times. You're talking to the Post. So what's going on?

MR. EARNEST: I guess I don't really understand your question. When you say "it" what are you talking about?

Q: The counter-message.

Q: The counter-message -- the chorus of what you describe as Muslim leaders speaking out against extremism.

MR. EARNEST: Well, look, if you guys want us to provide you some examples, I didn't bring any with me, but I'm happy to provide you some examples if that would be helpful in answering your questions.

Q: I have two more questions. One is, the President has described numerous times -- and again this week -- his belief that this should not be the new normal, that this has to be rarer, right? That the United States and the world community has to work on that. I just want to ask, does the President believe that this is the new normal and it will be the new normal for some period of time?

MR. EARNEST: No, the President has been direct in insisting that he -- that it will not be.

Q: But is his fear it already is? I'm just talking about the rapidity of events since Sandy Hook.

MR. EARNEST: The President refuses -- despite the routine that sometimes sets in, the President refuses to consider this normal.

Q: Okay. And then last question. As you know, the Daily Beast reported this week that there is an American man being held by the Haqqani Network for more than a year as a captive. Can you describe if the President is fully briefed? Or could we understand what's being done to get him back?

MR. EARNEST: Alexis, I'm not in a position to confirm that report. I'm not able to testify to its accuracy at all. What I will just say in general is that the United States, in our efforts to recover those who have been taken hostage overseas, we've often found that it does not serve our efforts and does not advance our strategy for rescuing those individuals to talk about individual cases publically. So I'm not in a position to either describe the report or even confirm its authenticity at this point.

Jon.

Q: When the President told Norah O'Donnell right after the news broke of the shooting -- he said we need to have stronger background checks, among other things -- did he have any indication at that point that Congress instituting stronger background checks would have prevented the shooting?

MR. EARNEST: In this instance?

Q: Yes.

MR. EARNEST: Of course not. But the President is confident, and I think common-sense-thinking Americans are confident, that if there are things that Congress can do that would make it harder for individuals who shouldn't have guns from getting them, then Congress should act and pass a law accordingly, because that law can be implemented in a way that doesn't undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.

Q: And he also said -- he also cited the no-fly issue, saying that people that are on the no-fly list should not be allowed guns. Was there any indication then or has there been any indication since that such a provision would have prevented this shooting from happening?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, Jon, we're still learning exactly what happened in this particular --

Q: Yes, so I'm asking -- have you seen any indication to this point that either tougher background checks or doing what the President has proposed for the no-fly list would have prevented the shooting from happening in San Bernardino?

MR. EARNEST: Of course not, Jon. But the point here is it is common sense that if the government thinks it's too dangerous for you to get on an airplane, then you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. That is common sense. And Congress, for reasons that they can't explain -- or at least I haven't heard them articulate -- can't explain why they haven't passed that law yet. Republicans can't even explain why they actively oppose the passage of that law.

Q: But the President made these comments specifically related to this shooting, when asked about this shooting. So I'm wondering why the kind of immediate fallback to Congress needs to pass more gun legislation in response to a shooting when there's no evidence -- as you've just said, we've seen no evidence, certainly not at the time the President had spoken, and even to this moment that any of the proposals that you have been talking about would have prevented this shooting.

MR. EARNEST: Because the President is determined to ensure that these kinds of incidents of mass shootings aren't considered routine. And he's determined to press Congress at every turn to take steps --

Q: But you just acknowledged these proposals --

MR. EARNEST: -- to take steps --

Q: -- wouldn't have done anything to prevent this incident.

MR. EARNEST: But, Jon, we're talking about future incidents. If we want to make it harder for individuals to carry out these kinds of acts in the future, it's time for Congress to pass laws that makes it harder for people who shouldn't have guns from getting them.

That is a simple proposition. I don't understand -- actually, I do understand why it's controversial, and it's simply because we've got too many members of Congress that are terrified of the NRA, where right now there are a lot of people across this country that are terrified of a mass shooting and Congress not doing anything about it.

Q: I'm just trying to figure out -- what's the relevance to what happened yesterday in San Bernardino? What is the relevance to what happened in San Bernardino? If the provisions you're talking about, as you acknowledge, would have done nothing to prevent this shooting, why is it part of this discussion?

MR. EARNEST: This discussion is about what we can do to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Q: Well, shouldn't the discussion be how can we prevent what happened yesterday from happening?

MR. EARNEST: That will be part of the discussion as we conduct an investigation and learn more exactly about how these individuals carried out this act and what their motive was. That certainly should be part of the discussion. That's why we're conducting an investigation. That's why the President is determined to get to the bottom of it. That's why the President summoned his national security team to come to the Oval Office today to provide him an update on the investigation.

So, of course, those facts matter. And, of course, we're going to get to the bottom of what exactly happened -- because we can learn from those facts what additional steps can be taken to prevent these kinds of things from happening in the future.

The point is we don't need to conduct an investigation to determine that a common-sense thing like preventing an individual who is on the no-fly list from being able to buy a gun would actually make all of us safer. It would make it harder for a person with bad intentions from getting a gun and using it and carrying out an act of violence.

Q: Does the President believe that tougher background checks would prevent terrorist incidents? I mean, does he believe that --

MR. EARNEST: It could.

Q: You think so.

MR. EARNEST: It could. It could.

Q: How so?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, it's a hypothetical, but it could.

Q: One question on the investigation. The fact that the FBI is now taking the lead on this, is it fair to discern from that that the FBI is taking the lead because of the high likelihood that this, in fact, was terrorist-related?

MR. EARNEST: The FBI is taking the lead in this investigation because of the possibility that this was an act of terrorism.

Peter.

Q: President Obama yesterday jumped to say that this mass shooting means it's time for common-sense gun laws. Does the President really think that common-sense gun laws would deter terrorists, now that he has admitted these two may have been terrorists?

MR. EARNEST: Yes. The President believes that passing common-sense gun laws that makes it harder for people with bad intentions to get guns makes the country safer.

Q: But so the President thinks that when there are potentially two terrorists sitting around planning a mass murder, they may call it off because President Obama has put in place common-sense gun laws?

MR. EARNEST: Peter, we're still learning of the precise motives of the individuals who carried out this heinous act of violence yesterday. One thing we do know is that the four firearms that they were wielding were legally purchased under the laws that are in place now. That's a fact. So that might lead some to conclude that we should have made it a little bit harder for them.

Would that have changed the entire outcome? We're still investigating the situation. But I guess the question is, why wouldn't we? Why wouldn't we make it harder for them? What's the explanation for that? I don't think there is one, particularly if we know that these laws can be implemented in a way that don't undermine the basic Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Preventing people who are on the no-fly list from buying a gun -- that doesn't undermine the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, but it could keep us safer. But for some reason, Congress hasn't acted.

Q: Something else the President said today -- we don't know if this was workplace violence or an act of terror. These attackers were coordinated. They left booby traps, and they filmed, reportedly, their attacks with GoPros. That sounds a lot like something that we hear about terrorists doing. What kind of workplace violence have you ever heard of where that kind of coordination, that kind of execution was involved?

MR. EARNEST: Peter, I think this sort of goes to where I started the briefing today, which is that you've pulled out a couple of facts, some of which I don't believe have been confirmed, to jump to a conclusion about that. And I would strongly encourage people to not do that until the FBI has an opportunity to consider all of the facts at stake here. One of those facts is that this individual carried out the violence at his workplace. So that's a relevant fact, as well.

Q: And final question. Last night, President Obama said that ISIS does not pose an existential threat to the United States. But what good is it doing to downplay the threat? Because there is a report that somebody in the neighborhood saw some suspicious activity at these attackers' house, and he didn't call it in because he didn't want to be accused of racial profiling, and so he didn't and now 14 people are dead.

MR. EARNEST: I haven't seen that report.

Ron.

Q: Just listening to all this, I recall something the President said the other day that there are these ritual responses, these predictable, routine responses --

MR. EARNEST: Feels like we're doing one now, doesn't it?

Q: Exactly.

MR. EARNEST: Right, to all of you? Doesn't it?

Q: Exactly.

MR. EARNEST: Some nodding heads. Are you guys tired of it, too? Maybe I'm the only one.

Q: And I guess what I'm trying to get at, Josh, is -- you mention the assault weapon ban, which we've been through many times -- or not; the no-fly list provision. Does the President have any particularly new ideas? Or can you further elaborate on what these laws are that Congress could pass that would change things, that really provide some kind of constructive element to this whole discussion now going forward? Because it feels like we're going to be right back at the same place we have been, tomorrow, after today, unless something changes. And he wouldn't say anything about this team that's scrubbing the laws -- there's no update on that. So what does the President really, realistically think he can accomplish with his remaining time here that would change the game, to some extent?

And he's being very modest -- "just a little harder." I mean, that sounds like he's not giving up, but he sees the political reality of what changing these laws would take. So what do you realistically thing he can accomplish in the remaining time left?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Ron, I think I should start by saying that the President acknowledged the political reality of the situation back in 2013 when the President gave a statement in the Rose Garden, surrounded by the families of those who were lost in Newtown, in the immediate aftermath of the Senate blocking passage of common-sense gun safety legislation. And the President was pretty blunt at that point, in the face of that very disappointing legislative defeat, that we're going to need to see a basic shift in the political environment here.

We know that the vast majority of Americans agree that Congress should take action on common-sense gun control. We know from a lot of surveys that a majority of gun owners even agree that things like closing the background check -- the gun show loophole on background checks is something that they support. But until the intensity of that side of the argument matches the intensity of the minority, we're unlikely to see Congress take that kind of action. And I think the kind of public statements that you see from the President and other officials, including some members of Congress who are ardent advocates of this issue, are trying to motivate people. And I think that's the fact.

I think the second thing is -- to answer your question slightly more directly -- we're certainly open to additional good ideas, but the fact is there are some situations where you encounter thorny policy problems and you think to yourself, boy, it's hard to know exactly what we could do to make this situation better -- this is not one of those instances. We've got lots of ideas of things that, as you point out, would make it at least a little bit better.

Q: Like what?

MR. EARNEST: So let's close the gun show loophole.

Q: Is that under consideration as an executive action, executive order, still?

MR. EARNEST: I don't have any update on those ongoing efforts. But we know that Congress could take that step. The American people -- the vast majority of the American people would support it. There's legislation that could be taken up by Congress right now that would do that.

We certainly know that Congress could pass a law that would prevent people who are on the no-fly list from being able to legally purchase a firearm. That seems like a common-sense thing we could do. That certainly seems like something that would make the American people safer. But Congress hasn't acted.

There is strong support in Congress -- this is slightly more controversial, but there is still strong support in Congress for reinstating the assault weapons ban. We know that the two individuals that carried out this heinous incident yesterday were using legally purchased assault weapons. So, presumably, a law like that would have made it at least harder for them to get their hands on those guns. Why wouldn't we do that?

Q: Something else. One of my colleagues asked about the climate that's happening now and concerns about the Muslim community, and so on and so forth. Donald Trump today said something that I wonder if you're aware of or if the President would respond to. He said in criticizing the President for not saying -- embracing the term "radical Islamic terrorism," generally -- he said, "There's something going on with him that we don't know about." Your reaction to that?

MR. EARNEST: I don't have one.

Margaret.

Q: Can I just -- last one. Does the President still have faith in Director Clancy at the Secret Service?

MR. EARNEST: Absolutely. Absolutely, he does. We've seen the Secret Service encounter some significant challenges over the last couple of years. But under the leadership of Director Clancy, the Secret Service has worked hard to implement a series of reforms that have strengthened that organization and have confidence in it in a way that allows the men and women who are professionals in that organization to live up to the high standards they have set for themselves.

There is more work that needs to be done. And I think the United States Secret Service acknowledged that in the statement that they put out in response to the report. But Director Clancy's commitment and capacity to implement those reforms is significant. And the President has strong confidence in his ability to continue to lead that important organization.

Margaret.

Q: Josh, on CBS "This Morning," Speaker Ryan was on. He was responding in some ways to Norah's interview with the President, but also the San Bernardino shootings more broadly. And he spoke a great deal about mental health really being an issue here and really needing to see some movement on the Hill on that front. Do you see that as a diversion from the issue at hand? Or does he have a point?

MR. EARNEST: I think it's a little hard to take that seriously, primarily because he has been involved in the effort to on more than 50 occasions seek to repeal the legislation that has extended mental health care protections to more Americans than any other bill in history. So it's a little hard to take seriously the concerns raised by Republicans about strengthening mental health when they're trying to dismantle the piece of legislation that's done more to strengthen mental health care in this country than any other bill in history.

Q: But on the issue itself, putting his personal record aside, does he have a point here, that there is a serious flaw in the mental health system in this country that needs to be addressed and plays a role in these kind of mass shootings?

MR. EARNEST: Surely, there are some things that we could do to strengthen our mental health care system. My point is that Speaker Ryan has been leading the effort to actually dismantle some of the most significant improvements that have ever made to the health care system, so it's a little hard to take his critique or his proposed prescription all that seriously.

Q: But is this idea even part of some of the scrubbing the law that the White House would be doing? Beyond guns specifically, are there other loopholes, other areas, other things that can be done by the President to prevent these kind of slaughters from happening?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, if there is a genuine interest in Congress for investments in greater mental health care, we certainly would welcome those proposals. We haven't seen them yet. And again, it's going to be a little hard to take them seriously considering their track record on these issues. But we certainly would welcome that kind of conversation.

As it relates to the ongoing effort to scrub the law, I just don't have any updates at this point.

Q: Well, on a related issue to this shooting, one of the thing that comes up oftentimes in these cases is investigators looking and sort of scrubbing the digital footprint of the attackers to see what was happening in their lives leading up to that point. This is also an area that's really hard for investigators because of the way the law protects users, right, and their freedoms. Is that something that the White House is looking at, the ability for investigators to be able to get into encrypted information or perhaps looking more at the digital footprint, following it ahead of time? Is that on the table at all?

MR. EARNEST: There have been a number of discussions led by the administration to consider what can be done to strike the appropriate balance between the need for investigators to be able to disrupt acts of violence while also protecting the privacy of the American people. And this is an example of a particularly thorny policy issue where the obvious improvements are few and far between.

But I think there is a recognition on both sides -- let me just state affirmatively, there certainly is an appreciation on the part of the President that there is a strong need for strong encryption and the President believes firmly in protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans. At the same time, we do need to make sure that our law enforcement investigators and our national security professionals can do the important work of keeping the country safe. Even the leaders of technology companies would acknowledge that there is a balance to strike here. And so trying to find the right place to strike that balance is very difficult work and is thorny and complicated and is certainly made even more complicated by cutting-edge technology. But there is an incentive that we all have to try to resolve those issues. And that's work that's going on all the time here.

The President did talk about this at some length at the Cybersecurity Summit that the administration hosted back in February out at Stanford University, where the President had the opportunity to talk through some of these issues. And again, this sort of falls in the category of something that's not going to get solved overnight -- and it's probably not going to get solved permanently because we see that as technology evolves, it means that additional creative solutions may be required to strike the right balance. But this is something that is a high priority of the administration and of law enforcement and something that we are actively working on.

Q: And there's been a lot of talk around visas, these days and the status of people entering this country -- they should or should not be allowed to do so. The fiancée in this case out in San Bernardino entered on a K-1 visa. Is there any concern or can you address a concern that some might raise about her ability to have entered the country legally and then carried this out?

MR. EARNEST: Well, this is part of the ongoing investigation and so, at this point, I don't want to comment on where that stands. But this is -- her involvement in this case is certainly something that is under close investigation right now.

Q: But would you discourage people from seizing on that issue?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, I think, at this point, until all of the facts are out, I would encourage people to avoid jumping to conclusions.

I'll just say on a related matter, that we have seen a proposal from -- a bipartisan proposal from the House of Representatives emerged today that would make some positive reforms to our Visa Waiver Program. And this has been the subject of ongoing conversation between administration officials and leaders on Capitol Hill. And we're pleased to see that those talks that have been going on for a few weeks now have yielded a piece of legislation that would actually make the country safer. So we're obviously pleased to see that bill emerge from the House of Representatives today. We're also encouraged that's a bill that actually has bipartisan support, which means it's much more likely to pass than a partisan measure would.

Toluse.

Q: Thanks, Josh. I know you don't have an update on where the scrub of the law stands right now. Does the President have a deadline for when he wants that to be completed?

MR. EARNEST: There's no deadline that I have to set for you at this point.

Q: Okay. And Speaker Ryan said this morning that when it comes to the issue of the no-fly list that he does have an objection to it. He said that people are put on this no-fly list arbitrarily by government employees and there's no due process for taking their Second Amendment rights away based on this position on this no-fly list. I'm wondering if you have a reaction to that.

MR. EARNEST: Again, I think I'd just got back to my basic question: If the government has determined that it is unsafe for you to board an airplane, then why should it be legal for you to buy a gun? I guess Speaker Ryan is certainly willing to offer up whatever explanation he would like, but I don't think he's answered that basic question.

Q: I was going to ask about the Pentagon clearing all women for all different types of combat roles. Does the White House have a reaction to that? Do you have a reaction to this decision being made despite some objections by the Marine Corps against this proposal?

MR. EARNEST: Well, this is a policy decision that was made by the Secretary of Defense. And I think while I've been standing here, he's delivered a statement explaining how he made that decision. And I think he was quite clear about his view that our national security is strengthened when we use the resources and capabilities of every American to defend the country. And that means giving those Americans -- men or women, who can satisfy the necessary requirements -- the opportunity to serve and defend their country.

And again, that is a conclusion that is drawn by the Secretary of Defense, rooted in his judgment about the best way to protect the country. But it's obviously one the President supports.

Carol.

Q: In October, after the mass shooting in Oregon, the President spoke very passionately and promised to mount a national campaign to talk on a regular basis about gun violence, he said, to politicize the issue. Why has he not started that campaign two months later?

MR. EARNEST: Sadly, Carol, I think you've heard the President talk a lot about gun violence lately.

Q: But he's reacting. What he promised when he spoke in October was that he was going to use the bully pulpit and go around the country and talk about this issue, and we haven't seen that from him. Is there a reason for that?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think part of the reason is the President spent the better part of the last three weeks overseas tending to important business overseas. But I also think that, as a practical matter, this is a debate that the country is paying attention to right now and I don't think there's anybody that's been more prominent in that debate than President Obama.

Q: Should we expect to see him do this soon and launch some sort of sustained campaign that he promised two months ago? Is he waiting for his executive orders to come out, and that will be the launch pad for that?

MR. EARNEST: I think you can expect to see the President, over the course of the 13 or 14 months that he has remaining in office, that he's going to continue to be quite outspoken on this issue and continue to advocate for common-sense steps that Congress can and should take to make it harder for people who shouldn't have them to get guns.

Sarah.

Q: Thanks, Josh. The President just met with members of Congress on criminal justice reform, a bipartisan group. Did he happen to bring up the gun restrictions that he'd like to see Congress pass during that meeting?

MR. EARNEST: Sarah, the meeting was ongoing when I walked out here, so I don't have a readout of that meeting. But once the meeting has been completed, we'll get you a written readout. And if there's more detail that we can provide that would answer your question, then we'll provide that to you, as well.

Q: And is the President concerned that more talk about gun restrictions would hurt Democrats running for President in 2016?

MR. EARNEST: No, not at all. More importantly, I don't think the Democratic candidates themselves believe that the discussion on this issue is going to have a negative impact on their campaigns. I also think that, certainly when it comes to the President and when it comes to at least the Democrats who are running for President, that I've seen talk about this, I think, frankly, they think thi issue is more important than politics. And even if their pollsters might encourage them not to discuss the issue, I think a lot of them are speaking with the kind of conviction and passion that would prompt them to speak out anyway.

Lalit.

Q: On the climate summit in Paris, the first draft of the agreement is out. What are your views on that? Are you okay with that first draft? Is the administration okay with it?

MR. EARNEST: Lalit, I'll have to confess I haven't been briefed on the first draft that has been issued. But let me check with the team who's had a chance to take a look at it and see if we can get you a response.

Q: And does the administration believe that India is the only stumbling block in arriving at its goals in Paris on climate change?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Lalit, I think any time you're talking about 180 countries coming together to agree on a single draft text of an agreement, it's going to require a lot of people to work together to find that common ground. And that's what our negotiators are focused on, is trying to bring everybody together. Certainly, the substantial commitments that every country, including India, has made prior to the Paris conference will be an important factor in our success.

But we're going to continue to work in that multilateral forum to bring the world together. There's no denying that the significant commitments that have been made by the United States in conjunction with China have catalyzed an international reaction that makes an agreement -- an historic agreement more likely. But there's still another week of negotiations that remain. And the hard work of bringing the world together I think probably means more sleepless nights for some of our negotiators.

John Gizzi.

Q: Thank you, Josh. Two brief questions. I think the President's passion on getting Congress to act on gun control legislation or taking executive action is unquestioned, but many who share his views wonder why is it that the administration -- particularly the Justice Department -- has been lax in this regard by not relitigating unfavorable court decisions on gun control? And I note particularly the failure of the Justice Department to try to retry or file an amicus curiae brief with the Heller decision overturning the District of Columbia's gun control laws?

MR. EARNEST: Well, John, for questions about the litigation strategy, I'd refer you to the Department of Justice. They're obviously the ones that are making those decisions based on their knowledge of the law and based on their analysis about the likelihood of successfully pursuing those cases. I think our case is rooted in the idea that there are common-sense things that Congress can do that would keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. We continue to be confident that those laws can be implemented in a way that would not undermine the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. The vast majority of the American public agrees, according to many polls. A majority of gun owners even agree. That's the question facing Congress and that's the reason that you hear the President continue to urge Congress to take action.

Q: So he's never said that relitigating Heller, for example, or other cases are also common-sense decisions?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I haven't heard him say that, but, again, you should check with the Department of Justice about that.

Q: My other question is, you mentioned earlier in the briefing ideological riders as good reasons the President would veto an omnibus spending bill if they're included. Congressman Babin of Texas has offered the measure -- and they discussed it at the House Republican conference today -- to defund the Office of Refugee Resettlement -- in other words, toughen up the language of the SAFE Act through the omnibus spending bill and have no funding for resettlement. Is that something that would trigger a presidential veto of the omnibus spending bill if it got in?

MR. EARNEST: Well, John, that's obviously something the administration would vigorously oppose. But what I'm going to resist the urge to do is to pass judgment on the possible inclusion of one proposal or another that's floated by members of Congress. So that obviously is not the kind of thing that the President believes would be good policy, but I'm not going to get into the habit of issuing more veto threats based on random proposals that are floated by members of Congress.

Q: To be continued then.

MR. EARNEST: Joe.

Q: Josh, something that just crossed the transom while you're up there. Are you aware of this report from the House Committee on Oversight, Jason Chaffetz and Elijah Cummings, about the Secret Service? Among other things, a guy posing as a member of the Black Caucus entering a backstage security area, speaking with the President. A year earlier, four people going fishing in President Joe Biden's backyard, detected only when neighbors called the Secret Service. Are you aware of any of this stuff from House Oversight about the Secret Service and the additional problems there, and is there any comment?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Joe, I think this is what Ron was alluding to when he asked me about the President's view of the Secret Service. So this is a 450-page report. I haven't reviewed it. The Secret Service is reviewing it. And I think my positive comments about the important reforms that Director Clancy is implementing at the Secret Service and the importance of him setting a standard and an example that the men and women of the United States Secret Service live up to is something that's important.

And we've seen that that's what the vast majority of men and women at the Secret Service do. They are highly trained professionals who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect the White House and to protect the President. And these are individuals who live up to an extraordinarily high standard of service. And those are standards they set for themselves, and we obviously support Director Clancy's efforts to ensure that everyone in the department does.

Q: On San Bernardino, are you aware of any credible claims of responsibility by international terrorist groups for the shooting?

MR. EARNEST: Not that I have been informed of.

Q: These two people apparently had a huge amount of firepower -- 12 pipe bombs, they had a bunch of other stuff. When you look at this situation, does this sort of mitigate in favor of a policy emanating out of Washington that says local police departments need more military-style equipment in order to do their jobs?

MR. EARNEST: Well, the Department of Justice has an office in place that is responsible for being a liaison with local police departments and considering requests from local police departments for sort of this higher-caliber equipment that may be necessary to respond to contingency situations. So I'd defer to the experts to make those kinds of decisions about whether or not the decisions that they've made in the past should be reconsidered in light of this particular incident.

Q: So, widely reported now that at least one of these suspects had overseas contacts, radicalized, lots of planning, lots of equipment. And I heard the President at first say it could be terrorism, it could be workplace. Then he said, it could be both. Given what we know, is it just more likely that they're trying to rule in the possibility of workplace? Because international terrorism looks pretty clear, doesn't it?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Joe, I think given what we know right now, it's not possible to determine precisely what the motives of these two individuals were. And that is why the President is urging people to allow the investigation to move forward. It's been less than 24 hours since this grotesque incident occurred. And we need to let the investigators do their work.

The President is as interested as anybody in getting to the bottom of what happened and what their motives might have been and if there's anything that could have been done to prevent it. And this is all part of the ongoing investigation. And I would urge people not to jump to conclusions prior to the completion of that investigation.

Q: It looks right now as if the President has actually gone out public about 16 times during the course of his administration talking about crimes committed with firearms. Does this President feel as though among the domestic issues he's tried to handle, gun violence and the inability to get something substantively done is the most frustrating thing of his term?

MR. EARNEST: I think the President himself was asked this question in an interview by the BCC prior to leaving on a recent foreign trip. And the reason that I remember that is the President was asked specifically about the most frustrating part of his presidency, and he cited the inability to prevent gun violence. Less than 24 hours later, we saw a mass shooting a movie theater in Louisiana. And I think in the minds of a lot of people that that served as a pretty apt illustration of the reason that the President does find this so frustrating and, as I mentioned earlier, in some cases, infuriating. And it's why he is resolute and determined to continue to push Congress and to continue to use every element at this disposal to try to keep guns out of the hands of those individuals that shouldn't have them.

Yes, ma'am. I'll give you the last one.

Q: Earlier you said that the U.S. government probably isn't the best choice to counter online terrorist recruiting, but you did say that faith leaders could play that role. What specifically would you ask them to do online or otherwise?

MR. EARNEST: Well, there are a couple of things. The first is there is a strong desire on the part of the United States government to work with community leaders. We understand the important sway that community leaders have and the vested interest they continue to have in ensuring that those vulnerable members of their community are not radicalized and are not targeted by extremist organizations. So I think the first and most important thing would be to continue to have a partnership.

The second thing is, is to use that partnership, to capitalize on that partnership, and to follow-through that work together with the government to address this issue.

Obviously, we do want people to make their voices heard. And there are influential voices that are making their voices heard and speaking our clearly and saying, for example, that the ideology propagated by ISIL does not represent the true vision of Islam. I understand why people might think that doesn't have a lot of credibility when I say it. But if you're talking about somebody who actually is a Muslim and is a Muslim leader, and is somebody who has gotten formal training in that religion, if they were to say something like that, you could imagine what kind of impact that might have.

So that's the kind of thing that we're talking about. And as I mentioned to Mara earlier, if there are specific examples that we can provide for you of people who are doing that important work, then we can do that.

Thanks a lot, everybody. We'll see you tomorrow.

END 1:58 P.M. EST