MR. RHODES: Thanks. And as Robert said, we'll do questions on the rest of the trip tomorrow and later in the week. But we wanted to focus on India today.
So I'll just -- let me just say a few things and then go through the schedule. First of all, as you’ve heard me say a number of times, we believe that Asia is critical to our foreign policy strategy. It’s the fastest-growing markets in the world. It’s fundamental to our export initiative. So India is a cornerstone of our broader Asia approach,
which is focused on, again, expanding exports for U.S. goods, deepening partnerships in important part of the world, partnering together in the G20 and other forums -- which Mike has the pleasure of representing us in.
...
From Mumbai, we then move on the Delhi. And the first event that the President will do in Delhi is a cultural stop. He’s going to visit
Humayan’s tomb 
, which is one of the great cultural marvels in New Delhi. And the President felt it was important give the rich civilization that India has to pay tribute to that through this stop.
U.S. exports have already -- goods exports have already quadrupled over the last seven years to about $17 billion. And service exports have tripled to about $10 billion a year. So it’s a fast-growing economic relationship. And it’s a two-way street as well. Indian companies are the second-fastest-growing investors in the United States. And they are creating --
they now support about 57,000 jobs here in the U.S.
So
it’s a great market for U.S. exports. It’s a good place -- source of investment for the United States. There are a lot of jobs in the United States tied to both of those things. And that’s the reason why the President will be there, focusing, as Ben said, on the first day on the economic and commercial relationship --
...
Q
Given the President’s concern about outsourcing U.S. jobs, how does he deal with the large number of Indians who are involved in computer skills and various interconnections with U.S. business?
MR. FROMAN: I think one of the major themes I think that the President is likely to emphasize is that while that is part of the relationship, India is also a tremendous market, potential market, for U.S. exports and a source of investment back in the U.S. And so it’s more than a unidimensional relationship and it’s a tremendous opportunity for goods, services, agriculture that he'll be pursuing while he‘s there for supporting jobs back here in the U.S.
Q -- quantify it?
MR. FROMAN: The opportunity?
Q The relationship, the difference --
if there’s a trade imbalance of it there’s a job imbalance at all.
MR. FROMAN:
The trade relationship is broadly balanced, including goods and services -- is broadly balanced at the moment.
Q Just to briefly follow on that, I wonder how will he deal from a communications standpoint with the concern that
many Americans express that so many jobs are being outsourced to India -- that when you call a credit card company or an airline, the phone is picked up by somebody in India? Will he acknowledge and address that in any way?
MR. GIBBS: Look, India is in many ways fundamental to his economic message and has been for many years. I think, as Mike said, we are -- and I think we'll see as we get closer -- not just the genuine potential of the market for American companies but some tangible impact in supporting and creating jobs here in America.
MR. RHODES: Just to add to that, this is part of -- consistent with the national export initiative. I think there will be a series of things that we talk about there that the President and the administration has done to promote U.S. exports, increase trade financing, advocate on behalf of U.S. companies seeking to export from the U.S. and creating jobs back here.
Q
So he’s okay with the number of times Americans pick up the phone and they get somebody in India answering their questions so long as other exports have greater access there?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again,
I think if you’ve been to any of our rallies in the past, say, four years, I think you’ve heard the President discuss changing the way our tax code is and ensuring that our taxpayers are getting a better deal. That is not to say that
given the size and the emergence of the market, that we're going to ignore opportunities for companies -- big, recognizable companies here in the United States to sell and distribute their goods in India, which creates jobs back here in America.
Q But
is the President going to talk, though, about that issue, the concern of outsourcing? I mean, you talked about what the U.S. is doing, but that issue, in particular, is he going to say, listen, I realize there are concerns out there about the imbalance caused by outsourcing?
MR. FROMAN: I don't want to preempt what the President is going to say. I would simply say that a key part of the message is going to be that we want to make sure there’s opportunities for U.S. jobs, U.S. exports. And that's a big part of his mission there.
Q Will the President talk
about the recently passed nuclear power law, ask for changes in it? This 80-year sort of warranty --
MR. FROMAN: I’m going to leave that Bill as our resident expert on that issue.
Q There are reports that there are
$12 billion worth of orders are being (inaudible) for the U.S. This includes $5 billion for the defense and another $7 billion of commercial deals like the Boeing aircraft, which will create 50,000 to 60,000 jobs in the U.S. alone.
How do you think it is justified to level allegations like jobs are being outsourced to India?
MR. FROMAN: Well, I don't think I’d add anything to what we’ve already said. I think the important thing is that there’s a large potential market there; that the President and the administration are active in promoting exports to ensure that there’s a level playing field there, there’s open markets there, and that our exports have an opportunity to penetrate that market and support jobs back here.
Q -- has come out with a report expressing concerns about
some of the protectionist measures being taken by this administration and the Congress. How do you plan to address that concern to U.S.-Indian companies?
MR. FROMAN: We are the most open economy in the world by any measure, and we have nothing at all to be concerned about with regard to our practices.
Q You were in
Copenhagen. You were aware of some of the frustrations in the negotiations both bilaterally and in the talks in general. Do you think that the President will address any issues? And do we have any leverage or latitude given the failure of the climate change legislation on the Hill?
MR. FROMAN: I think he and Prime Minister Singh have had a series of discussions every time they’ve met about issues like climate change. And I imagine they will have a discussion about it as part of their bilateral dialogue.
Clearly -- and this is another area where we work very closely with India -- whatever success there’s going to be in talks like climate change or in Doha will be in part because of the U.S. and India are working together on it.
Q What do you want to see from the Indians in these negotiations? Is there anything in --
MR. FROMAN: On climate change negotiation?
Q -- in these conversation? Is there anything particularly you --
MR. FROMAN: Together with Prime Minister Singh and other leaders, President Obama crafted the Copenhagen accord last year. And we’ve been working over the course of the year, including with our Indian counterparts, to try and make those more concrete and institutionalize some of the agreements that were made in Copenhagen.
Q Are you moving ahead with implementation of the standards that were adopted in Copenhagen?
MR. FROMAN: We’ve got more work to do, but we’re moving ahead.
Q
Can you be a little more specific about trade issues that are going to be on the bilateral agenda? Are we likely to see resolution of anything -- financial services, anything from the summit?
MR. FROMAN: I think there’s an ongoing dialogue between the two governments about outstanding trade issues, and the President, I imagine,
will make clear the importance of removing barriers to U.S. exports and U.S. participation in their market. But I won’t get into any specifics about what we expect to reach agreement on.
Q The administration is obviously -- has obvious conflicts with China on aspects of economic policy, exports. Could you talk about
how perhaps India offers any better opportunities? Is there more openness? Is there more potential for U.S. investment and exports there?
MR. FROMAN: I think all I’d say is each country is different. Both are fast-growing economies. We have a strong interest in ensuring that the fastest-growing economies in the world are open, create a level playing field for U.S. exporters, and allow us to take advantage of that growth to support jobs back here at home.
...
Q -- earlier in your comments that the U.S. was going to consummate new deals while they were there. What were you referring to? New economic deals might be announced?
MR. FROMAN: All I was saying was that there are a number of large contracts being worked on between U.S. companies and their Indian counterparts,
oftentimes with the support of the U.S. government in terms of our advocacy efforts or our trade finance being available. And we hope to consummate some of these deals in the run-up to the President’s visits.
...
Q Yes. I thought it was more of a business question, but I guess it’s a political question, too. Will the President ask for
changes in the recently passed nuclear power law that I guess U.S. companies are seeing as a problem breaking into that market?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, I'd say several things. I mean, just to repeat, the signing today by the Indian government of the Convention on Supplemental Compensation, which is the basic international standard involving this kind of cooperation, is a very positive step. What we seek is a level playing field for our companies. India leadership has said that’s what it wants to ensure, too, and so I think we’re making progress.
Q Do you expect any gains in getting
some Indian companies off the entities list? Some of them are very unhappy about being -- it’s barring them from getting --
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I mean, that’s one of the subjects we’re talking about in the broad category of export controls, and we’ve had quite intensive discussions with the Indians about that. So we’ll see where we get.
Q I have two questions. One is, first of all, on communications.
A lot of Americans are going to be wondering how this trip affects them, particularly after a very intensive political campaign here and you focused a lot on the economy. Should we expect the President to make a concerted effort in all of his events to try to connect this trip to how this affects people in their real lives here?
MR. GIBBS: I think you’ll see from the very outset of the trip -- and if you think about it, we're talking about one of the -- well, first of all, we're talking about the fastest-growing economic region of the world. And our ability to interact with it, to sell our goods and our services in that region of the world -- you heard the statistics that Mike had about our growing business investment in India.
The trip goes on; it includes the G20. So the trip is basically economic in focus. I don't think -- and I think when people see the first day of this, they’ll understand that it is -- our relationship with this region of the world and with this country is not disconnected in any way from what’s important to them in
our ability to export our goods, to sell those products, and to create and support jobs here in America. I don’t think that will be -- you won’t have to do much to demonstrate that from literally the moment that we land.
MR. RHODES: I'd just add to that, Ben, real quick, there’s -- in the 21st century, there’s really not -- a relationship with a major emerging power like India is something that directly affects the lives of the American people. And if you just look at what we’re doing, in every way these are issues that directly impact within our borders.
So you’ve heard us talk a lot about the economic potential, the potential for job creation connected to exports and Indian investment in the American economy. Counterterrorism -- the same kinds of extremist groups who have threatened India and in some instances launched attacks are connected to a broader network that threatens us. So the counterterrorism cooperation that we have with India every day directly affects our security.
The climate negotiations that Glenn asked about -- the President’s key point on climate was
we need to move beyond Kyoto simply because we need to bring in the United States into an international climate framework, but also countries like China and India that are the world’s fastest-growing emitters.
So I think
the economic message is very clear; the market potential is clear. And then in a whole broad range of issues, these are things that directly affect the American people.
...
Q Just another question on messaging. One of the lines we hear from the President on the stump now is when he’s talking about the Republican tax plan, saying that
it’s going to cost $700 billion over 10 years and they would cut 20 percent of education funding, and India is not cutting education funding and China is not, either. So how does he reconcile that message and then go to India and try and form this partnership and --
MR. GIBBS: First of all, I don’t think when he says it --
he’s not casting aspersions on the Indians or the Chinese.
Q -- competition.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he’s -- look, go back to virtually -- well, almost every speech he’s made, I think he picks -- there’s a -- I think the President has made clear in these speeches we don’t compete -- as he would say, kids in Chicago or kids in D.C. don’t just compete with kids in Richmond or kids in St. Louis. They compete with kids all over the world to be among the best-educated workforce that we have available to create the types of goods and services that allow us to sell our products in India and in China and in other places.
And I think it’s important -- again, the President is not casting aspersions on those governments for not cutting their education.
He is challenging us as a country to ensure that we make critical investments in what is ultimately going to be the most important thing that we’re going to be involved in, and that is ensuring that we have the best, most highly educated workforce in the world that can attract the type of jobs that are likely to be created in the 21st century.
...
Q Will the President talk publicly or privately about
Kashmir and the tensions between India and Pakistan? Obviously, any progress there might provide a (inaudible) effect on the campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the U.S. campaign. And can you talk about why he decided to go to Pakistan next year and not on this trip?
MR. RHODES: I’ll take the second one and then I’ll let Bill take the first because he is closer to that. But I think again we have -- the President believes that the U.S. relationship with India and the U.S. relationship with Pakistan does not take place within any kind of zero sum dynamic. It’s often been viewed that way in the past, that if we become closer to one it’s at the expense of the other. And we’ve tried to send the signal that it’s the opposite with this administration; that, in fact, actually you see that borne out in the fact that we had a very successful strategic dialogue here, with the Pakistanis in town last week, discussing greater security cooperation in governance and economic issues. And as a part of that, the President met with the Pakistani delegation and ended up speaking to President Zardari yesterday to discuss that strategic dialogue and said that he’d very much like to visit Pakistan next year and is planning to visit Pakistan next year.
On this specific trip, again, we have a limited amount of time. We have hard dates in terms of summits that we’re attending in Seoul and in Japan. And we have a very robust program in India on the front end. And so he wanted to make sure we have the proper focus on that Pakistan trip when it does take place.
So he looks forward to that visit. Again, we don’t see it as kind of a zero sum equation. And I think the strategic dialogue speaks to the fact that we’re cooperating closely with Pakistan just as this visit speaks to a deepening relationship with India.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: And the only thing I’d add is that we have always welcomed dialogue between India and Pakistan and certainly encouraged efforts to improve relations between those two very important countries. Obviously, the pace, scope and character of that dialogue is something that Indians and Pakistanis have to shape. But we’ll continue to both welcome and encourage it.
...
Q Just to follow Steven’s question on Kashmir.
Will the President be making some public remarks explaining the U.S. position on Kashmir? And will he also be addressing -- explaining the U.S. relationship with Pakistan publicly?
MR. RHODES: I wouldn’t -- I don't want to get into prefacing with precision what his comments are, in part because he’ll be answering a lot of questions there in the town hall and press conference and we haven’t -- we’re still working through his remarks on certain things.
So I will say that he’ll -- I think to echo two points that have been made, on the first question,
I think we do support efforts by India and Pakistan to pursue a dialogue with one another, so we'll express support for that, as we always do.
And on the second, I think the point I made is an important one, which is that we believe that a positive relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, a deepening relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, does not in any way, shape or form have to be seen through a zero-sum lens as it relates to India, and that we want to have a -- we want to take the U.S.-Indian relationship to a new level on this visit. We want to expand cooperation on economic issues, but also on security cooperation, counterterrorism and military ties, cooperation on issues like clean energy and, again, as the world’s two largest democracies, working together both bilaterally and also around the world.
And, again, we believe that both of these goals can be -- I mean, our central message -- and it’s a message, really, to the region -- is that both of these relationships can be advanced and deepened at the same time on a parallel track, and that that does not in any way demonstrate a preference for one relationship over the other, that these things can be mutually reinforcing, in fact.
...
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Sure. No, the only thing I would say is, first, the United States recognizes the significance of looking at ways to adapt international architecture, including the U.N. Security Council, to reflect the realities of the 21st century. We want to approach that challenge in a way that ensures the effectiveness -- and hopefully strengthens the effectiveness -- of the Security Council.
Given India’s rise and its significance, we believe that India will be a central part of any consideration of a reformed Security Council.
Q
Can you just maybe explain a little more about why not just do it? What is the thinking behind not moving ahead quickly with this?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: That's about as far as I’m going today. (Laughter.)
Q
There is a downside, though, in your view? You just don't want to articulate what it is?
MR. RHODES:
It’s a very complicated issue that involves international architecture in many countries. But we’ll continue to work -- to talk this through as we move forward on the trip.
