Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee voiced their strong support for building the Keystone pipeline during today’s debate on the House floor.

“It's time, after almost five years, to get the Keystone pipeline working and the people working.”– Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), author of H.R. 3

“Not one dime of federal or taxpayer dollars will be in this pipeline – an $8 billion project, 20,000 jobs...”– Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY)

“Only in America would this be controversial…It’s a win for the consumers in America and it’s a win for the workers in America…”– Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton (R-TX)

“It is time that this body take action to bolster our economy, move our nation towards energy independence - areas where this president has failed miserably.”– Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

“If you look at the facts about what this means to America: 20,000 jobs immediately. Energy security where we’re going to be getting 830,000 barrels of oil a day from a friend in Canada that we don’t have to get from Middle Eastern countries who don’t like us.”– Rep Steve Scalise (R-LA)

“America needs action. America needs 20,000 jobs. America needs 800,000 barrels a day coming from Canada. America needs national security that comes from energy security. America needs the Keystone XL pipeline.”– Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX)

“The fact that we can create 20,000 jobs is a good thing - the fact that the National Federation of Independent Businesses support this pipeline, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, manufacturers, the labor unions, support the construction of this pipeline.”– Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO)

“Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline is a significant element of America’s all-of-the-above energy policy, and it will help lower energy costs, create jobs, and reduce our dependence on dangerous sources of foreign oil.”– Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)

“This a job creating opportunity. This is an opportunity to take energy resourses from a friendly ally in Canada, use it here in America, or make sure that it goes to our friends and our allies rather than our competitors like the Chinese.”– Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH)

“In truth, the only thing that is unprecedented is the lengthy delays that we’ve already encountered for a project that has been the subject of over 15,000 pages of federal environmental review, and, yes, found to be safe.”– Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI)

###

1:31 P.M. EDT
 
MR. CARNEY: Hello, everyone.  Welcome to the White House.  Thanks for being here.  Before I take your questions I wanted to mention something that I think is breaking now, as Wolf Blitzer would say, and that is that on Sunday, May 26th, the President will travel to the Oklahoma City area to see firsthand the response to the devastating tornadoes and severe weather that have impacted the area on Sunday night and Monday.  He will visit with affected families as well as thank first responders. 
 
The President has directed his administration to provide all available resources to support the response, led by the Governor and her team. 
 
More detail on the President’s travel will be released when available.  With that, I'll go to your questions.  Nedra.
 
Q    Thanks, Jay.  I have some questions, but first, happy birthday.
 
MR. CARNEY:  You're very kind.  Thank you -- 29 forever.  (Laughter.) 
 
Q    First on the IRS controversy, given that you all had pledged your full cooperation with the investigations on Capitol Hill, what’s the White House response to Lois Lerner taking the Fifth Amendment today?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Let me say that, as you heard from the President immediately after the release of the independent Inspector General’s audit, he is absolutely committed to finding out everything that happened here, finding out who’s responsible for the failures, holding them accountable, and ensuring that the IRS take steps so that this will never happen again.
 
As you know, within the immediate aftermath of the release of that report, Secretary Lew, acting on the President’s direction, accepted the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner and the President appointed a new acting IRS commissioner. 
 
As you also know, the responsibilities that Secretary Lew has assigned to Danny Werfel in that job through Secretary Lew  -- the President has, rather, through Secretary Lew -- include within 30 days, Commissioner Werfel reporting back to the President and to Secretary Lew about progress made in three areas:  One, ensuring the staff who acted inappropriately are held accountable.  Two, examining and correcting any failures in the system that allowed this behavior to happen.  And three, taking a forward-looking, systemic view of the agency’s organizations.
 
So the President has directed these actions to be taken at the IRS.  Danny Werfel, the new acting commissioner, starts today.  Today is his first day.  That 30-day review begins today.  Additionally, we have made clear that we are cooperating with and will continue to cooperate with congressional oversight.  That's an important component in a situation like this.  And the Department of Justice, the Attorney General has announced a criminal investigation into this matter. 
 
So you see two separate branches of government in three different areas working to find out what happened, to find out who’s responsible for the failures, the clear failures, the inappropriate behavior, the improper conduct, to hold them accountable, and to ensure that procedures are put in place so that it doesn’t happen again.
 
Q    How can you find out what happened if a person who’s in Ms. Lerner’s position is taking the Fifth --
 
MR. CARNEY:  As far as the President is concerned -- and I would assume this is true of Congress, and I’m assuming it’s true of the Department of Justice -- there is a commitment here to get to the bottom of what happened, and I can assure you that the President intends to do that.
 
Q    Can I talk to you also about the investigation into Benghazi and the report that there are five suspects that are under around-the-clock surveillance?  Some lawmakers are raising concerns today that the U.S. might lose these suspects as they’re being monitored to find more evidence.  Does the White House share that concern?
 
MR. CARNEY:  We have seen the report, and I would refer you, of course, to the FBI on the status of their investigation, which, as you know, is ongoing.  What I cannot -- while I can’t discuss, rather, the specifics of that ongoing investigation or the internal deliberations related to it, I can say what the President said on the day after those attacks:  “Make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.”  And I would also point you to something that the Attorney General recently said, which is that we have made very substantial progress in that investigation.
 
The President is committed, as he made clear from day one, to two things:  Finding and bringing to justice those who killed four Americans.  Two -- making sure that the failures that led to the deaths, in terms of security, of four Americans be corrected.  And he is, through the FBI investigation that he ordered up, ensuring that the first objective is achieved; and through the process that he instituted through the Secretary of State and the Accountability Review Board, ensuring that the second objective is being achieved.  He is also following through on that second objective by calling on Congress, as you heard him say recently, to ensure that there is funding available to upgrade our security at our diplomatic facilities around the world.
 
Q    Is it his preference or his direction that the investigation and that justice be brought through the civilian courts?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I will tell you simply that when we succeed in capturing suspected terrorists who pose a threat to the American people, our other critical national security objective is to maintain a viable authority to keep those individuals behind bars.  The strong preference of this administration is to accomplish that through prosecution either in an Article 3 court or a reformed military commission.
 
With regards to the disposition of this specific investigation, to the progress being made, I’d have to refer you to the FBI.  But that has been our position.
 
Yes, sir.
 
Q    Jay, Happy birthday.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Thank you, sir.  I appreciate that.  This is how I chose to spend it.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    Lucky you.
 
MR. CARNEY:  You know what -- I agree with that sentiment.
 
Q    On immigration.  Yesterday, the President released a statement saying that the immigration bill that passed out of committee reflected his principles, but that he hoped it would be improved in the amendment process.  What improvements is he looking for?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, what I think he has said all along is that he had some bottom-line principles that were articulated in the proposals that were put forward online and presented to you and the public that have guided what he has said about immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, throughout this process.
 
And he has said and he made clear in that statement again last night that the measure that passed out of committee last night with a bipartisan vote does reflect those principles.  He has also said that he does not expect that in a bipartisan process that is dealing with a matter of the magnitude of comprehensive immigration reform, that he is going to get everything exactly as he would write it.  And he doesn’t expect that anyone in this process will feel, when it’s over, that he or she has gotten everything that he or she wanted, or that the bill emerges exactly as they would have written it.
 
But he will, of course, as we work with Congress, as this process moves forward, work to have the bill reflect as closely as possible what he believes are important objectives.
 
Q    Can you be specific about what else he would like in terms of improvement?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think there are some issues -- I mean, I think you know that he supported the -- that he supports an amendment regarding the rights of LGBT individuals, and he made that clear I think in answer to a question he took on his trip to Latin America.  And this is not limited to that specific issue.
 
Q    So he’d like that back in?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think he’s made clear that he supports that and would like to see Congress support that.  He’s also made clear that he doesn’t expect to get everything he wants in this bill.  It doesn’t mean he won’t fight for everything he wants, but he understands that compromise means not getting every single thing that you want. 
 
But the process cleared a significant hurdle last night and, in an otherwise busy news environment, it’s important to note that a major objective, a major bipartisan objective, has been making significant progress in the Senate as well as the House, and cleared that significant hurdle last night.  There’s more work to be done, to be sure.  We are not there yet, but that is something that the President believes needs to be noted, that the senators responsible for that progress need to be commended for, and that serves as a useful reminder of the fact that we are capable here in Washington when we focus, when we work together, when we accept that we’re not going to get everything we want, and if we want to achieve something in a bipartisan way, we can do big things.  And we’ve done it before.  And last night’s success coming out of committee demonstrates that we can do it again.
 
Q    One quick follow-up on the IRS.  We’ve talked -- you’ve talked a lot in the briefing room about Kathy Ruemmler and how people were informed.  Can you say how many people on the senior staff were included when she informed people?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I want to say in response to I think Hans and some other questions here, we have endeavored to provide a great deal of information to you very quickly.  And in a situation like this, we face a choice that when we have a ton of incoming questions, legitimate questions, you guys are doing your job, as I said in answer to a question from Mark I believe last week.  This kind of environment when there are a lot of news stories, there are a lot of legitimate questions out there, it’s part of our democracy, and it’s a great part of our democracy.
 
And the approach we take is we get the information to you that we have as soon as we can.  And we try to get that information to you as quickly as possible and as comprehensively as possible. 
 
Now, quickly and comprehensively are not objectives that always meet.  And our approach is we get the information we have to you, and as we get more information, we fill in the details.  And if it turns out that the information that -- new information we have requires a correction, we do that.  That's what I did on Monday when it came to the so-called timeline.
 
So you guys -- we have a team here that works really hard at trying to anticipate the questions you’re going to ask.  The problem is there are a lot of you, and you're good at your jobs and you’re smart.  And we almost invariably do not anticipate every question that you ask.  So sometimes, we don't have the answers, and sometimes we need to go back and get them.
 
But overall in this effort, I think that what the information we’ve provided to you shows is that in response to the notification that people received about the pending completion of an independent Inspector General’s review of inappropriate activity by IRS personnel, a decision here was made to wait until that report was finished before any action or any comment was made.  Because the cardinal rule here, even though it can be inconvenient from a communications point of view or even a political point of view, is that you don't intervene.  You don't prejudge.  You don't use the weight of this podium or this building or the presidency to get ahead of the kind of independent investigation that this particular IG audit represents, or in the case of some other matters we’ve talked here about, criminal investigations that take place under the aegis of the Department of Justice.  So --
 
Q    But without filling in details, my question was can you tell us --
 
MR. CARNEY:  And here’s what I’m going to tell you.  (Laughter.)  No, no, and I just wanted to say that because I think it’s important that -- there’s been some legitimate criticisms about how we’re handling this, and I say legitimate because I mean it.  But we are endeavoring to pursue those two objectives.  In an environment that really never has existed before in terms of the speed and information flow, the rapidity with which information is conveyed and then released, we are working to get you everything we can as quickly as we can and as comprehensively as we can. 
 
And the alternative, of course, is to -- and it may be a better approach -- you and others can decide -- is to then say, look, I can't answer any of these questions until later.  And then we can spend all our time trying to get everything that we know, that we can find, and then waiting sometimes hours, days.  But the demands of the news environment make that very difficult. So we take the path we've taken and accept that it’s got some potholes in it and diversions that aren't always enjoyable.   
Having said that, in answer to your question, here’s what I can tell you.  As you know, there was an initial communication to a lower-level person in the White House Counsel’s office through email just as part of a number of updates on the status of a number of Inspector General matters that included reference to this Inspector General audit coming to conclusion.  That was, I believe -- whatever I said -- April 16th.  But the White House Counsel herself did not find out until April 24th.  She then notified some members -- but not all -- some members of senior staff.
 
I can't tell you because -- she notified some -- I can't account for every conversation that might have been had outside the White House Mess.  I can't tell you how many people knew.  What I can tell you is she alerted the Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff; obviously, others in her office knew. 
 
And from everything we've gathered and all the evidence shows -- whether it was April 16th or April 24th or May 10th, when the news broke, our approach to this has been the same, which is that we should not do anything, we should not act on this information until the report is finished, the independent Inspector General’s audit is completed.  And that's the approach we took.
 
And there’s been criticism of that.  I think it was the right call, personally.  But obviously others have different opinions.
 
Yes.
 
Q    Well, we appreciate your respect for the free press.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, it’s sincere.  I think you know that.  But go ahead.
 
Q    In that spirit, in the President’s quest for balance between freedom of the press and prosecution of potential criminal leaks, and in the interest of transparency, would he ask his Justice Department to release the names of all reporters and all news organizations whose phone records have been subpoenaed, who are currently being monitored, or who are in any way being investigated as a part of any potential leaks investigation?
 
MR. CARNEY:  It’s a very interesting question and -- (laughter) -- no, seriously.  Here’s the challenge it presents, is that that would be -- the action you're suggesting any President might take would be to actively involve himself or herself, any President, in an ongoing criminal investigation.  And the consequences of doing that are potentially enormous.  And that's why it’s very difficult, when you talk about ongoing activity, to suggest that the White House or the President should intervene or take action. 
 
What I can tell you is what I told you yesterday, and that is that the President -- that I've spoken with the President about this issue and I've spoken to him about it generally in terms of his views on press freedoms, the First Amendment, the need for journalists to do their jobs, and on the question that I think I had been asked on an earlier day with regard to one of these specific cases but then extracted not to have -- so that it did not pertain to a specific case, should -- the President’s view is that if you were to ask him should a reporter ever be prosecuted for doing his or her job, the answer in his view is no.
 
But there’s also a balance here, and I think that everyone involved in these cases who has thought about it and written about it in a thoughtful way, or talked about it on television in a thoughtful way, recognizes that there are real issues here when we talk about our secrets.  And as I mentioned the other day, if there were no consequences to divulging highly sensitive classified information, then we might as well not have it.  We might as well not have secrets.
 
Q    But that’s an extreme -- no consequences.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, no, but --
 
Q    So we’re talking about --
 
MR. CARNEY:  So there has to be a mechanism by which we ensure that national security information that is highly sensitive, the divulgence of which could have enormous and detrimental consequences, is protected.  And there has to be an enforcement mechanism to that.  I think that -- I know that’s this President’s view.  I believe it’s been the view of his predecessors.
 
It is also his view that we need to ensure that reporters are able to conduct investigative journalism freely and that they are not prosecuted for doing their job.  And I think that, again, broadly speaking, not commenting on specific cases because I cannot and should not, that there are procedures in place that deal with this issue, as I understand it, and there should be more done, in the President’s view.  And that’s why he supports a media shield law.  And that’s why he thinks, as I said yesterday, that this conversation is important to have and that the broader discussion is important to have, and that the questions surrounding these issues are legitimate and that this is one of these issues that he believes should be discussed.
 
Q    Jay, you just stated the President’s preference that no reporter should be prosecuted for doing their job.  So would it be the President’s preference -- not intervening -- but would it be the President’s preference that the Justice Department release the names of news organizations and --
 
MR. CARNEY:  You’re saying that --
 
Q    It’s not a direction.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Look, I understand, and it’s a smart way to ask the question, but I can’t suggest that the President would, as a matter of preference or action, intervene.
 
Q    How can reporters do their jobs if they don’t know whether they’re being investigated while they’re doing it?  How can they fairly ask people to share information if these people are going to lose their jobs, their livelihood?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I mean, the second part of your question -- look, I think that any of us who works for the federal government and who has been cleared for access to classified information is -- we have a public trust not to violate and divulge that classified information.  And a decision to do that is a decision that should carry consequences.  I think most Americans would --
 
Q    Should reporters not know if they’re being monitored?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I believe and I know the President believes that there needs to be adequate provisions in the law that allow for the press to operate freely, and that is reflected in his support for the media shield law.  It’s reflected in what he has said.  It is also the case, Jessica, as I’ve tried to be expansive about in a way that pushes right up against the line here, that he believes that this discussion is important to have and he believes that the questions being asked now are worth asking.
 
Mr. Karl.
 
Q    Jay, Happy birthday.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Thank you, sir.
 
Q    So I appreciate fully your point about not being able to interfere with an investigation.  I just want to try to understand the limits of presidential power in this case.  The President would prefer that reporters not be prosecuted for doing its job --
 
MR. CARNEY:  It is his view that reporters should not be prosecuted.
 
Q    Exactly.  And if he knew that such a thing was going on with the Justice Department, if there were cases that went over that line, would he have any power to intervene, or would the fact that those were ongoing investigations mean that he would --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not aware of, I mean, again, based on publicly available information, that any reporter has been or is being prosecuted.  But what I would say is that of course he could not or should not intervene directly in such a hypothetical case.
 
The President can set policy for his administration and he can have policy discussions with his administration and with Congress, especially if policy considerations require legislation.  He has done that and he will do that.  But the hypothetical you set up, I think the answer to that is, no, because it would be inappropriate to do that.
 
Q    Even if those prosecutors in the President’s view were abusing that power that they have?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, it’s a hypothetical that isn’t really germane to what we know now.  And he obviously believes that investigations ought to be conducted properly, that rules and procedures ought to be followed, and in general, as I’ve said, believes that the press needs to be accorded significant freedom in doing its job.
 
Q    And then on the IRS, is the President comfortable -- I know there’s still this 30-day review that’s just starting, there’s still a criminal investigation -- but does he feel that knowing what we know now, the right people have been held accountable at the IRS?
 
MR. CARNEY:  No.  He believes that we need to find all the facts.  And I’m not saying that we know what all those facts are yet, but he believes that the Inspector General, the independent Inspector General, conducted an audit, identified clearly that inappropriate activity was taking place that was wrong and that should not have happened regardless of the motivation.  And he believes -- and that is why he has insisted that what’s taking place take place, that the 30-day top-down review be instituted.  He believes that we need to find out who’s responsible for the failures at the IRS and to hold them accountable, but we need to get the facts before we make judgments about who is accountable. But he’s insisting that that take place and that this move expeditiously.
 
Concurrently, as we speak, there is congressional oversight being undertaken.  There are senior administration officials participating in that congressional oversight.  We will cooperate with all legitimate congressional oversight, as we have in the past.  And we think that's entirely appropriate.
 
We also note that the Attorney General has announced a criminal investigation into this matter.  So I think that folks out in the country can look at the response from both the congressional and executive branches of government here and at least recognize that there is a united sense of seriousness about this problem and the need to find out what happened, to hold people accountable, and to put in place measures that ensure it doesn't happen again.
 
Q    But you don't think Republicans are politicizing this?
 
MR. CARNEY:  No.  Look, as I said yesterday -- and I want to be clear because I think some of it got -- like my first answer to Major was reported and then not the second answer, which is:  Let me be clear, the President believes the activity here, the actions here were wrong and inappropriate.  He wants to get to the bottom of it.  He wants people held responsible if they are responsible.
 
I think it’s also clear, as others have reported, that there has been some attempt to politicize this.  I think that generally speaking, as I’ve said, congressional oversight from both parties is wholly appropriate.  The President believes that.  But there’s been some analogies thrown out and some other characterizations made, some accusations that are unfounded, that are backed up by zero evidence, that I think represents some attempts to politicize this.
 
But that is not to -- making that observation in this case is not to dismiss the severity of what we know, based on the IG report.  And the President, as I think you’ve heard and seen, is not happy about it and he wants action taken.
 
Major.
 
Q    Jay, Mr. Shulman said in testimony today, when asked about his many visits to the White House -- White House logs have him coming about 118 times in 2011 -- did he discuss the ongoing situation with the IRS with anyone here at the White House, he said, “Not to my memory.”  Have you, here in the White House, asked everyone who might have been involved if there was any conversations anyone in this building had with anyone at the IRS in the relevant years about this pending matter?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I have, obviously, seen what you just reported -- that former Commissioner Shulman in sworn testimony says that he does not -- he did not, to his recollection, talk to anyone at the White House about the handling of 501(c)(4) applications, and I certainly have no information to the contrary that would contradict that.  I think he was also asked if he had been directed to have the IRS participate in this activity and he said no.  And I obviously have no information to contradict that.
 
An IRS commissioner appropriately has -- or his designees has meetings on matters of policy all the time but not discussions about enforcement or applications for tax exempt status.  And, again, I have absolutely zero evidence to suggest that he’s wrong in that assertion.
 
Q    And in your process here in the White House, as you gather information, have you asked that question of everyone in the senior staff?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I can tell you -- and I think I would point you to my explanation for how we are trying to answer all the legitimate questions that we’ve been asked here -- that I certainly have no evidence to the contrary finding the absence or finding -- proving a negative can be difficult, obviously, but he has testified to that effect.  The IG, the Inspector General himself said that in his audit he found no indication, no evidence of --
 
Q    But he didn’t ask anybody here at the White House.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I know, but for the people who -- for the activity itself, he said that there was no evidence of outside influence or pressure from higher-ups.  Again, that’s his finding, independent Inspector General.  There is additional investigating being done by Congress, by the Department of Justice, by the IRS.  But I have no -- we have no information that contradicts what former Commissioner Shulman has testified to.
 
Q    In the testimony of Mr. Shulman, Stephen Lynch, a Democrat from Massachusetts, was expressing some frustration about the inability to get answers not only related to that, but to Lois Lerner.  And he said if we can’t get answers, this inevitably will lead to calls not just from Republicans but from Democrats for a special prosecutor.  And the President said last week he doesn’t believe that’s necessary.  Is that the permanent position of the White House that it will never be necessary?
 
MR. CARNEY:  That’s a hypothetical.  What I would say is --
 
Q    In this matter.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, we intend to get answers.  We intend to get answers.  The President insists that we get answers.  Congress rightly insists that we get answers.  I expect -- independent criminal investigations, so I haven’t had this conversation -- but I expect that the Attorney General and those who will work on the investigation at the Department of Justice expect to get answers.  And, again, I think you have a 30-day top-down review at the IRS with new leadership.  You have congressional oversight.  You have Department of Justice investigating.  I think that demonstrates the seriousness that both branches of government are -- the seriousness with which both branches of government here are addressing this matter.  And I don't think that there’s any indication given that seriousness, given that determination, to get to the bottom of this, to get the facts and to hold people accountable, that there’s any reason to take that step.  And that's the President’s view as he said last week.
 
Q    Will the President revisit that if Congress proves incapable or frustrated with its ability to get answers?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Major, I would simply say that he expects results.  He expects answers.  And he has put in place a process that will hopefully fulfill that objective.  There is another process in Congress that we are cooperating with that we believe should have that as its objective, and there is a separate criminal investigation undertaken by the Department of Justice.
 
Q    Before I let you go, there’s a report in Germany today.  The German intelligence now has completely reassessed --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Okay, so when I said that there are sometimes questions we do not anticipate, I’m pretty sure this is one of them.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    No, just an assessment of Syria and the civil war.  And its assessment is that Assad is in a much better position, and that his armed forces have inflicted considerable losses on the rebels; that their own disorganization, which is well understood, is increasingly a problem, and they now predict that Assad is more than likely to hold on.
 
Two questions:  Would you and this government disagree with that assessment, that Assad is in a stronger position than he was, say, six months or twelve months ago?  And even if you don't agree with that, is there a question now about the efficacy of the entire U.S. policy there if, in fact, Assad is able to hold on?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I have not seen the German assessment that you referred to, and I don't know whether it is our assessment that Assad is stronger now than he was a month ago or six months ago or weaker.  I mean, clearly, he is significantly weaker than he was two years ago.  And in that time, the opposition has gotten significantly more organized.  It has received assistance from a variety of places, including from the United States.  And our efforts to assist the opposition, working with our partners and allies, continue.  Our efforts with the international community to -- and with the opposition -- towards implementing the Geneva Communiqué continue, because we believe that ultimately there has to be a political transition, and that the sooner that process begins the better, and that that process has to result in a post-Assad Syria.
 
There is no question that Bashar al-Assad continues to butcher his own people, to take brutal actions as he clings onto power.  And there is no question, as I talked about yesterday, that Hezbollah, for example, is assisting him in that effort.  And I think that demonstrates the kinds of friends that Bashar al-Assad has in the world.  And we've made clear our views on that.
 
That is why we have stepped up our assistance.  That is why we have stepped up our humanitarian aid.  That is why we have stepped up our efforts to bring about a political transition.  But no question this is a difficult situation and that --
 
Q    It’s relevant because one of the decisions before the President is whether to step up the movement of arms to the rebels.  And if they’re losing, there are vast policy implications to the U.S. government to make that decision.  If they think they’re going to lose, why would you make that decision in the first place?  It’s relevant, it seems --
 
MR. CARNEY:  No, I think that's -- look, this is a difficult challenge, and I think your question is excellent.  I do not know if it is the assessment -- if the assessment that the opposition is losing is one we share.  I'm not sure that that's the case.  But it is definitely a brutal environment there and Assad continues to cling onto power. 
 
When we review our options and when the President reviews our options, and he reviews all options, including the question of whether or not to provide lethal assistance to the opposition, we have to look at all the factors.  We constantly review that option.  To this point, we have made the policy judgment that that is not the right course to take.
 
And we've had really interesting discussions in this room and elsewhere about that you have to look at the potential consequences of making a choice like that, and make sure that if you were to make a choice like that, that you were doing it in a way that helped bring about the policy objective you seek, because this is a very fraught business, as you know.  And we’ve talked about composition of the opposition and the need to examine that.  We've talked about whether introducing more arms into an incredibly violent situation will, in fact, help bring about the political transition that the Syrian people deserve.  We look at that.
 
Which is not to say that this option doesn’t remain on the table; it absolutely does.  But I think that the approach that we have taken has been one that has always looked at the potential consequences of these kinds of policy decisions.  And that's why we have stepped up our aid, have provided aid directly to the opposition, directly to the Supreme Military Council, but why we have made the decision about what we’re not providing to this point that we have made. 
 
Thank you, Major.
 
Q    Jay, back on Justice, since you say the President feels so strongly about the press freedoms, why not take a more specific action, write a letter to the Attorney General from the President saying, I’m not going to interfere with criminal investigations, I’m not going to get into individual details, but my principle, the principle of this administration is we should not be surveilling reporters, we should be protecting their rights?  Why can't he put that in writing?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, what you said is not specifically what I annunciated yesterday in terms of -- there is --
 
Q    Reporters should not be prosecuted for doing their jobs.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, okay.  I did say that, and speaking for him I said that; reflecting actually a direct conversation I had with him, I said that.  And I think it’s fair to say that since the President believes this is a conversation worth having, and he believes that these are legitimate questions and that if we remove them from the specifics of this case so that he can talk about them, he believes that he would participate in that conversation.
 
But I don't have any -- I don't have --
 
Q    But he’s the President and he believes this, and yet this is going on in his own administration.  And it appears --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think you have to be careful about what “this” means, okay?  And we have --
 
Q    The New Yorker is reporting that it was more than just James Rosen’s phones that were being looked at by the government.  So the President says one thing, his administration appears to be doing something else.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, no, I don't think that's the case.  Again, I can't specify -- speak to a specific criminal investigation.  I can speak to the fact that publicly available information has indicated that that particular investigation is over, and that charges related to that investigation that will be brought have already been brought.  So there’s that.  And again, that's commenting on publicly available information.
 
More broadly, I think that we can't comment on the specifics of an ongoing criminal investigation.  There’s the other matter that was discussed a lot last week and earlier this week, and appropriately so.  Because as I think we’ve learned from these public reports, published reports and others, one of the issues here is that when there are leak investigations, investigations of the improper disclosure of classified information tends to mean an investigation at least in part into some portion of an administration.  So of course, the White House cannot or should not -- the President cannot or should not insert himself or itself into that process because that would at the very least create the appearance of interfering.
 
But the President does believe that broader discussion needs to be held.  He does believe that there are important policy issues here.  He’s made that clear in his views on legislation, and I’m sure he looks forward to having that conversation in the future.
 
Q    On the IRS, the President said he was outraged last week by the IRS scandal.  Is he outraged then that Lois Lerner is taking the Fifth since you’ve said repeatedly that he wants answers?  Is he outraged that she’s taking the Fifth?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I can't speak to any individual’s decision about how they’ll approach congressional hearings.  What I can tell you is that the President will not be deterred in the effort to find what happened here and who is responsible.  He does not expect that Congress will be deterred in its pursuit of what happened here and finding out who was responsible, and insisting that those responsible be held accountable.
 
He does not expect -- again, independent and criminal investigation -- but he does not expect and nor do I that the Justice Department would be deterred in pursuit of finding out that information. 
 
So the President has made clear what he thinks needs to happen here.  He’s made clear how seriously he views this misconduct.  And he has put in place a process at the IRS that will, as its purpose, gather more information and more facts to find out who is responsible and to ensure that they're held accountable, and to ensure that procedures are put in place so that it doesn't happen again.
 
And we are and we’ll continue to cooperate with congressional oversight into this matter and with any investigation that the Justice Department might be engaged in.
 
Q    So you say the President wants to hold people accountable in this scandal.  Why then is Lois Lerner still working at the IRS today?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think it’s important to find the facts before you hold people accountable.  That's why the President through Secretary Lew has instructed a new acting commissioner on the job today to institute a 30-day review.  We have, as our starting point, the Inspector General’s audit clearly identifies improper conduct, the improper targeting of specific conservative groups in the application process for nonprofit status -- clearly inappropriate.  And now we need to find out who’s responsible.  We need to be clear about those facts, and then we need to take action to make sure that those people are held accountable.
 
Q    Last thing on -- you mentioned immigration, making some progress.  Other second-term items for the President have not made progress -- gun control, a budget deal.  A bit frustrated by those, but he is making progress on immigration reform.  Is there any frustration here inside the White House that he’s making progress on this big item, it’s being overshadowed by the IRS, by the questions about some of these other stories?
 
MR. CARNEY:  No, I think that we absolutely recognize that the IRS issue is significant and deserves attention.  We absolutely understand that some of the reporting on what are apparently criminal investigations are of interest, and in particular interest to reporters, and absolutely valid questions about that, as I’ve said.  So that’s an environment that’s legitimate and we understand.
 
But what he has made clear to all of us who work for him here and who work for the American people here is that there’s an agenda that the American people expect us to act on.  And in the case of comprehensive immigration reform, that has become, rather rapidly, a bipartisan objective.  And that is a good thing.  And I think it demonstrates that even in this environment, which at times can be fractious and partisan, that there is the potential for significant progress on a difficult issue in a bipartisan manner, and the President believes that those senators and also those House members who have worked on this issue -- Democrats and Republicans -- and worked with the objective of reaching a deal and a compromise should be commended; and that, amidst everything else, they should be lifted up and pointed to as individuals who are making an effort -- as is the President -- to find compromise on the kinds of issues that only move forward if there’s bipartisan cooperation.
 
Peter.
 
Q    For our bookkeeping purposes, if today is the first day of the 30-day review --
 
MR. CARNEY:  For your -- what did you say?  Booking purposes?
 
Q    Bookkeeping purposes.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Oh, bookkeeping.  I thought you wanted to book an interview for 30 days from now.
 
Q    I appreciate it -- why don’t we do that as well if you want to.  (Laughter.)  But is it 30 days from now?  And can you set a date by which the President is expecting to have the results or that you guys want to hear the results of this review?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, full transparency -- the President, through the Secretary of Treasury, has insisted that the new acting commissioner conduct this top-down 30-day review.  It is a fact that today is his first day on the job.  And I think it’s safe to say that that clock starts ticking today.  I would refer you, obviously, to IRS and Treasury for their specific timeline within that 30 days and what they expect the end day to be.
 
But as far as the President is concerned, Danny Werfel, the new acting commissioner, who is enormously qualified and has experience under administrations of both parties on these matters, is getting to work today and ought to make this his top priority.
 
Q    On separate topics -- there’s a U.N. Nuclear Agency report today that says that Iran has increased its capacity to refine uranium by installing hundreds more centrifuges.  I just was hoping to get the White House’s reaction to that news.
 
MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate the question.  I can tell you that I don't have more specific information on that except to say that we're reviewing the IAEA Director General’s report and we will discuss how best to respond to it with other members of the board.  But we're currently reviewing the report.  It is just released, as you said.
 
On this matter, the fact that Iran is engaged in continued pursuit of nuclear weapons is clear.  We have worked assiduously with our international partners, as well as unilaterally to hold them accountable for their refusal to abide by their international commitments with regards to their nuclear ambitions.  And we will continue to do that.
 
We have instituted the most stringent sanctions regime in history, a regime that has had a dramatic impact on Iran, that has made clear that there is a significant cost to their flouting of their international obligations.  But I don't have --
 
Q    -- hundreds more -- that's why I posed the question.
 
MR. CARNEY:  We're reviewing this report and will have a comment on it.  We believe, and we are engaged in a process that we know that there is still time for Iran to make this decision to choose to abide by its international obligations.  And we are working with the P5-plus-1, which put forward a substantial offer in Almaty to bring that about.  And now it’s up to the Iranians to respond substantively to that proposal and to address the international community’s concerns about the nature of its nuclear program.
 
Q    Another headline made news today that an Army sergeant first class at West Point Military Academy has been accused of planting hidden cameras in the shower in locker room facilities of female cadets.  Given what we heard recently from the President in terms of his referring to those who commit these crimes as unpatriotic and the like, how involved is he in knowing about the specifics of individual events, as there’s now been a consistent line of new headlines from around the --
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don't know about the specific report.  I can tell you that the President is very focused on this.  And you heard him -- I think it was in the East Room when he addressed this -- make very clear that he has zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military and that he believes that those who participate in it dishonor the uniform they wear, and that those who are victims of it and who wear the uniform should know that the Commander-in-Chief has their backs. 
 
And he is insisting that action be taken.  He has met with Secretary Hagel about this.  You have heard Secretary Hagel address this.  This is a very serious matter.  And he finds it unconscionable and there has to be action taken.
 
Q    And just finally, if you can -- what can you tell us right now about what we can anticipate in terms of tomorrow’s National Defense University speech on counterterrorism?  Is there any new guidance you can offer us?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think I went through yesterday what sort of topic areas that you can expect the President to discuss.  I think these are weighty, substantive matters.  This is a speech that he has looked forward to giving.  It is one that he telegraphed in his State of the Union address.  These are matters that, in some ways, similarly to the subject we were just discussing, he believes are subject to legitimate questions and that these are issue areas that he believes we need to be as transparent as possible about.  And I think you’ll see that reflected in his remarks tomorrow.
 
Q    We’ll hear from him tomorrow then about what his plans are going forward.  But I'm curious, now five years in after the President’s pledge, before he came into office, that he would close Guantanamo Bay what he blames for that not having occurred to this point.  Obviously, Congress has been an obstacle in this as well, but one of the things this administration did was shut down the office -- the special envoy who was in charge of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and I'm curious if that action has in some way contributed to this.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I clearly don't think that's an action that's contributed to the fact that Guantanamo Bay is still open and I think the President -- you will hear the President discuss this subject, and I don't want to get ahead of the specifics.  But it is the President’s view that we should be determined, as he is, to see the Guantanamo Bay detention facility closed. 
 
Keeping it open is not efficient, it’s not effective, and it’s not in the interests of our national security.  And I think senior members of the military have testified to that fact.  Senior members of sort of the broader national security apparatus of both parties have expressed that opinion.  The President’s predecessor has expressed that opinion.  The President’s opponent in the 2008 election, Senator McCain, has expressed that opinion.
 
The fact is Congress has enacted and renewed legislation in order to foreclose our ability to close the detention facility.  The legislation restricts our experienced counterterrorism professionals from exercising their best judgment as to what the most appropriate disposition is of the individuals still held there. 
 
The President is considering a range of options for ways that we can reduce the population there and move toward ultimate closure, some of which we can take on our own, but some of which will require working with the Congress, which we hope will engage more productively on this process in the future than it has in the past.
  
And to your point, I would say that one of the options is reappointing a senior official at the State Department to renew our focus on repatriating or transferring those detainees.  I would wait for the President’s remarks for a fuller view of this important issue.
 
Q    So that’s an option, but not an answer.  Okay, thank you.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Yes, ma’am.
 
Q    Thank you, Jay.  The Secretary of State is in the Middle East today and he is going to discuss the new effort to restart Israel-Palestine peace negotiation.  Is the Obama administration hopeful of Kerry’s effort?  Do you think that his fourth-time trip will help to reduce (inaudible) between in both sides?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think you saw from the President’s visit, and the immediate follow-up by Secretary Kerry, and his follow-ups thereafter that we are focused on this issue, and that we are looking for progress from both sides.  And I wouldn’t characterize our level of optimism, because this is a difficult and challenging issue and has been for decades.
 
But we believe that there is an opportunity to move forward in the peace process, and it requires both sides to be willing to negotiate directly on the issues that remain unresolved.  And we are engaging in that process, but it certainly requires both sides to be willing to engage as well.
 
Chris.
 
Q    Thanks, Jay.  I want to go back to immigration reform. Senator Leahy yesterday withheld amendments that would have included gay couples as part of a larger package.  Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that the White House had asked him to hold off on those measures.  Did the White House, in fact, ask Senator Leahy to revoke those amendments?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think you heard the President address this issue -- I think it was in an interview in Costa Rica.  I think the President supports that amendment, and he also made clear that he knows he won’t get everything, necessarily, that he wants in the final comprehensive immigration bill that he hopes the Senate will pass and the House will pass and will arrive on his desk.  But he will push for those things that he believes ought to be in it. 
 
He thinks it’s important that we make sure that everyone who’s engaged in this process understands that they may not get everything they want, but I think he expressed very clearly his strong support for that amendment.  He would hope that if it comes up again that there would be strong bipartisan support for it -- and we’ll have to see.  But his support I think he expressed very clearly.
 
Q    It’s clear that the President supports that amendment, but that response doesn’t really get to the issue of whether the White House asked Senator Leahy to pull out --
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have -- I think you saw the manner in which it was discussed in the hearing by Senator Leahy, who introduced it, and other members of the committee who discussed it.  We are obviously engaged in conversations with the main players on this issue on a regular basis.  And I don't have the contents of all those conversations.  What I can tell you is that the President supports --
 
Q    But you don't deny it?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I’m sorry?
 
Q    You don't deny the report.
 
MR. CARNEY:  I’m not aware of that conversation.  What I can tell you is the President supports the amendment.  The President also believes, as he made clear in Costa Rica, that we need to accept that we may not get everything we want.  It doesn't mean we’re not going to fight for the things that we believe in, and this President will.
 
Q    I just want to follow up --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Yes, sure.
 
Q    During the markup last week, it was like one Democrat after the other was -- Senator Feinstein, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer said they couldn’t bring themselves to support the measure.  And these are senators from the President’s own party.  Isn’t there a reasonable expectation that the President should have worked to bring them on board in time for that vote in accordance with decisions -- in accordance with the decision for immigration reform?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think each senator expressed himself or herself and his or her own views, so I would refer you to them.  The President’s views are clear.  He believes this amendment should be passed and has made his views clear on that.  I can't speak for other senators.
 
Q    Jay, does the President’s support of the media shield law acknowledge any existing problems with media protections or any potential abuse of power that this administration or another administration might use?
 
MR. CARNEY:  What I would say is the President believes we need a media shield law because we need added protections reflected in the media shield law.  And I would note that the negotiated bill from 2009 had the support of media organizations and prosecutors, and that reflects I think the balance that the President seeks.
 
I’m not suggesting that the media shield law if it were to pass tomorrow and be signed into law next week would end the discussion or would solve the challenges that this issue represents and contains within it, but he does believe that more needs to be done.  That's why he has long supported a media shield law.
 
Q    Does he trace the need for the law to the Patriot Act?  Does he trace it to something more ontological with press freedoms?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I confess that it would probably be more fruitful if you look back at the statements he made as a senator when he supported a media shield law, which obviously was prior to his administration, and to the statements that he and his administration made when this matter was up before the Senate in 2009 in terms of the origins of his concerns.
 
Q    And about the speech tomorrow, Jay, on the promise that the President made in the State of the Union on drones, does the President feel like he has been as transparent as he has promised to be since then in the intervening months?
 
MR. CARNEY:  On the issue of drones?  I’m sorry --
 
Q    Yes, targeted killings.
 
MR. CARNEY:  We have in a variety of forums, through senior members of the administration -- from the President to the Attorney General to John Brennan and others -- provided a substantial amount of information and had a number of substantive discussions about this issue.  The President made clear that he wants to expand that even further, that he believes that we need to be as transparent about a matter like this as we can, understanding that there are national security implications to this issue and to the broader issues involved in counterterrorism policy.  That is why he is delivering this speech tomorrow, which will encompass a number of issues, including some of the specifics around counterterrorism execution and policy, as you described, also Guantanamo Bay and other issues.
 
But this is a matter that, as I said before and as the President has said, he thinks is an absolutely valid and legitimate and important area of discussion and debate and conversation, and that it is his belief that there need to be structures in place that remain in place for successive administrations so that in the carrying out of counterterrorism policy, procedures are followed that allow it to be conducted in a way that ensures that we’re keeping with our traditions and our laws.
 
Q    But the President set the bar very high.  Has he met his own bar?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, obviously, if you ask the President, I think he has endeavored to meet that bar in keeping with the fact that he believes more information rightfully should be disclosed, he’s giving a speech tomorrow about it.  And I hope everybody settles in -- I expect it will not be brief.
 
April.
 
Q    Happy birthday.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Thank you, April.
 
Q    You’re welcome.  On the matter of the IRS and this whole other issue, has the President been updated on the delay in the federal tax refunds?  Has he been told as to if the delay has ceased the refunds going out?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t know the answer to that question so I’ll have to take it and get back to you.
 
Q    Was he made aware of the delay in the tax refunds?
 
MR. CARNEY:  He may have been, April.  I just don’t know the answer, so I’ll have to take that question.
 
Q    Jay, do you have a comment on this terror attack in London and whether the President has spoken to Cameron?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I’m afraid I don’t.  I’ll have to take the question, but we’ll get back to you on it. 
 
Thanks, all, very much.  Appreciate it.
 
END
2:28 P.M. EDT
 

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Keystone XL pipeline and in strong support of the Northern Route Approval Act that will finally make this project a reality for the American people.

There may be a few of my colleagues who are tired of Keystone bills, but the American people are also tired - tired of $3.70 a gallon gasoline, tired of unemployment above 7 percent, and tired of four years of delays that continue to block this critical jobs and energy project. Remember, the President pledged to the nation in January 2012 that he would do “whatever it takes” to create U.S. jobs.

Every stated reason for previous delays has now been addressed, most recently the re-route of a portion of the pipeline through Nebraska. In fact, you can count Nebraska’s Governor Jim Heinemann among the many Americans who want to see Keystone XL built. And while some may try to make this a partisan issue here in Congress, it is not partisan issue across the country, with a majority of Americans – Democrats, Republican, and Independents – supporting the pipeline.  

I give credit to President Obama for saying some of the right things as of late. Last Friday during a visit to Baltimore, Maryland, manufacturer Ellicott Dredges, the President declared, “one of the problems we’ve had in the past is that sometimes it takes too long to get projects off the ground.” He added that, “there are these permits, and red tape, and planning, and this and that, and some of it’s important to do, but we could do it faster.” In fact, the day before the President’s visit, the CEO of Ellicott Dredges was on Capitol Hill testifying in support of the Keystone pipeline and how it would help his business. The president has it exactly right, and Exhibit A is the Keystone pipeline.

Some are trying to claim that this bill is an unprecedented attempt to rush the process. In truth, the only thing that is unprecedented is the lengthy delays we have already encountered for a project that has been the subject of over 15,000 pages of federal environmental review and found to be safe.  

Congress faced much the same dilemma 40 years ago, when federal red tape was holding up the Alaska pipeline project. At the time, Congress realized that the bureaucratic process had gotten out of hand, and that a pipeline that was clearly in the national interest was being subjected to never-ending delays. But thanks to the bipartisan 1973 Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, the red tape was cut and ground was broken on the project. The Alaska pipeline soon became an incredible success story – a game changer for American energy policy, providing thousands of jobs and billions of barrels of oil while safeguarding Alaska’s environment. H.R. 3 takes much the same approach for Keystone XL.

Unfortunately, while the delays over Keystone XL grow longer, the excuses grow more outlandish. Some argue that Keystone won’t create very many jobs and that most of them would be temporary. Tell that to the labor unions and American workers who are begging for this pipeline to be built. Even the administration’s own State Department found Keystone would support over 40,000 jobs during the pipeline’s construction. That’s a lot of jobs to me. And the paychecks created by Keystone XL would be paid for by the private sector – not taxpayer dollars.

Some also claim that Keystone XL won’t impact gasoline prices. But the law of supply and demand still stands, and Keystone would deliver up to a million barrels per day of reliable Canadian oil to American refineries. And remember, we already receive 1.4 million barrels each day from Canada.

So, if not a pipeline, the oil will come by truck or rail – a riskier form of transport and not nearly as cost efficient. Keystone XL would be the most technically advanced and safest pipeline ever constructed - costing approximately $4 million per mile - and adhering to new pipeline safety standards that we worked together on a bipartisan basis to get signed into law last year and 57 additional safety standards specific to the project. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, it is time to build the Keystone pipeline.

###  

"The Center for Mental Health Services, housed at SAMHSA, has a budget of approximately $1 billion per year. It awards most of these funds through a combination of competitive and formula grants. I’m concerned, because the committee has seen substantial evidence that too many of these grants are directed to advancing services rooted in unproven social theory and feel-good fads, rather than science," said Chairman Murphy. "As an agency of the U.S. Public Health Service, we expect SAMHSA’s work to be firmly rooted in evidence-based practices, enduring high-level scientific peer review at the hands of licensed mental health professionals. Perhaps some of it is but much of it appears to fall far short of such standards."

Full committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, “While the vast majority of individuals with a mental health condition are nonviolent, in March, the subcommittee learned from Dr. Tom Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, the important fact that treatment can reduce the risk of violent behavior fifteen-fold in persons with serious mental illness.”

Dr. Sally Satel, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, explained that SAMHSA and the CMHS suffer from a lack of psychiatric experts in leadership roles as well as an ideology that does not adequately and properly serve all patients. “The agency’s guiding ideology leads it to overlook millions of people with long-term psychotic disorders. Very few SAMHSA programs help reduce the impact of mental illness on the communities – that is, on rates of incarceration, homelessness, and dangerousness,” said Satel. “The agency’s relative neglect of those with severe mental illness is only part of the problem. As the testimony of other panelists will make clear, the agency also supports activities that actively sabotage their welfare. This is strong language, I am aware. I refer here to CMHS’s seemingly uncritical support of both ‘consumer’ groups and legal aide workers (though its Protection and Advocacy, PAIMI, program) who either condemn the use medications or are hostile to formal psychiatric care. The efforts of these advocates have been decidedly harmful to patients with schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses.”

Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, Founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center, implored the committee to take action to improve the work that SAMHSA does. “What I wish to emphasize most strongly is that this failure has consequences that affect us all, “ said Torrey. “The important issue is what SAMHSA is not doing to improve the broken mental illness and substance abuse treatment system in the United States. Because people with severe mental illnesses are not receiving treatment, tragedies occur every day of which Tucson, Aurora and Newtown are merely the most prominent.”

Providing members an example of the tragedies that can occur from failures in the mental health system, Joe Bruce told the subcommittee of the tragic, and what he believes to have been preventable, murder of his wife committed by their son, Will, who suffers from severe mental illness. “Tragedy visits families every day. That is a sad fact of life. But an unbearable aspect of Amy’s death is that my own tax dollars helped make it possible. A retired nurse from Riverview may have summed it up best. She wrote: 'Mr. Bruce . . . Your losses didn’t happen for reasons other than your family’s misfortune to become involved with the mental health system, when politics (now) override sound medical decisions.'"

###

In Arizona—a state that will be deeply impacted by immigration reform—volunteers have been especially active this spring. Last month, the Tucson chapter held a rally in front of the offices of Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain. At the podium, local attorney Vince Rabago summed it up: "We must resolve the system in a fair, human, and responsible way."

Meanwhile in Phoenix, 39 supporters came together with handmade signs at Indian Steele Park to hear from speakers like Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego, Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, and Promise Arizona. Rep. Gallego encouraged Senators McCain and Flake, two of the members of the "Gang of Eight" who helped write the immigration bill, to make reform a reality.

Go digital with your action today—tweet your senators and help seize this moment during the March for Innovation.

Join the #iMarch

“This Congress can and must do more to protect our children from abuse, neglect and sexual or violent offenders while at school,” said Rep. Miller. “This legislation will prevent more children from being put in unsafe environments because the adults responsible for their well-being had been convicted of crimes against children.”

A 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation found that people with histories of sexual misconduct were being hired by school systems across the country, despite state laws designed to prevent it from happening. The report, conducted at the request of Rep. Miller, also found gaps in state laws regarding which adults at schools must be checked and the types of offenses that disqualify staff from employment. The GAO report highlighted 15 cases in which teachers or coaches were hired, or kept on school staffs, despite histories of sexual misconduct. In at least 11 of the cases, the offenders who were hired or retained had previously targeted children. In at least six of the cases, the offenders abused more children after they were hired.

The Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act would also prohibit schools from hiring or retaining anyone with access to children who has been convicted of certain violent crimes, including crimes against children, crimes involving rape or sexual assault, and child pornography.

Today’s introduction caps off a month focused on the safety needs of our children as a national priority. Miller also reintroduced this month two pieces of legislation to protect children and teenagers from abuse and neglect in schools and in residential programs.

Earlier this month, Miller reintroduced the Keeping All Students Safe Act. The legislation would protect schoolchildren from abusive use of physical restraints and solitary confinement while in school. It would also, for the first time on a national level, set minimum safety standards in the nation’s schools, similar to those protections already required at medical and community-based facilities, against the misuse of restraint and seclusion in classrooms. It would provide school personnel with the necessary tools, training, and support they need to ensure the safety of all students and school personnel.

Last week, Miller reintroduced the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act. The legislation would protect teenagers attending residential treatment programs from abuse by staff personnel. It would set common-sense, minimum safety standards that states would need to adopt and enforce to protect teens from physical, mental and sexual abuse in these programs. The bill would also create easily accessible information for parents about the safety record of programs so that parents could make sound decisions about where to send their children.

During his remarks on the House floor, Miller urged Congress to rewrite the nation’s education law to ensure that students and schools have the support needed to address all aspects of violence.  Miller underscored that Democrats, through ESEA reauthorization, will fight for critical services, including violence prevention activities, bullying and harassment prevention, and drug and alcohol abuse prevention, to ensure that schools and students have the necessary support to provide key non-academic services essential for students to succeed in a safe and healthy learning environment.

“We owe it to parents and to the children and to the school officials who follow the rules to consider these bills,” said Miller. “We also owe it to them to send a strong message that people who abuse children or do not do their jobs to keep children safe will face serious consequences.”

The Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act previously passed the House on December 21, 2010 and is supported by the Children’s Defense Fund and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

For more information on the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act and all the student-safety initiatives introduced by Rep. Miller, click here.

Watch Rep. Miller speak on the House floor about the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act and child safety below.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

“We believe that it is time to end the delay and to move forward with the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Teamsters Union believes that the Keystone XL pipeline will contribute to enhanced energy security, economic prosperity and, of critical importance, the creation of good paying jobs. … If the pipeline is not built, important socioeconomic benefits will not be realized – the positive impacts of local, state and federal revenue, spending by construction workers, and spending on construction goods and services. Building the Keystone XL Pipeline will enhance U.S. energy and economic security. It is time to move forward without further delay.”

Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO

“America’s Building Trades Unions emphatically support the construction of Keystone. Our unions have been actively involved with this project since its inception almost 5 years ago. We are adamant in our belief that the economic, energy security and national security benefits associated with the construction of this pipeline are too important to allow it to be delayed any longer. … The Keystone XL project will create tens of thousands of good paying jobs here in the United States and Canada. For many members of our unions, Keystone XL is not just a pipeline; it is, in the most literal sense, a life line. … We cannot delay any longer. Congress has spoken with a strong bi-partisan voice time and time again in support of Keystone XL. Support H.R. 3 and let’s put American construction workers back to work.”

Click here to view a complete listing of those organizations who have lent their support to this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

###

11:19 A.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA:  Good morning.  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Good morning, everyone.  Thank you.  I am truly delighted to be here. 

But before I begin, I want to just take a moment to say that our thoughts and prayers are with all of the people in Oklahoma.  And as you all know, my husband and his team continue to monitor the situation, and he has directed the full resources of the federal government to be there for the people of Oklahoma as they begin to recover and rebuild. 

And it's important to remember during these times that the spirit of unity and resolve and resilience that has defined that situation as we watch the people in Oklahoma recover and work together, that that’s the kind of resilience that has defined this country since its inception.  It's who we are as Americans.  And it’s that history that brings us together today. 

So I want to start by thanking Fred for that very kind introduction, but more importantly, for his leadership throughout so many presidents to tell the story of this country; as well as Ken and Stephanie for their leadership and hard work to make this day possible.  We should give them all another round of applause for their efforts.  (Applause.) 

For nearly 200 years, as our country has grown and evolved, the Decatur House has grown and evolved right along with it.  This house has hosted parties and social events with some of our nation’s foremost leaders.  It’s been a residence for secretaries of state, and at one time, it served as headquarters for the Army Subsistence Department of the Civil War.

But from the back of the house, from a structure far less lavish, comes even more history -- the kinds of stories that too often get lost, the kinds of stories that are a part of so many of our families’ histories, including my own.  I’m talking about the slaves here at Decatur House who spent their lives within shouting distance of one of the most powerful buildings on the planet -- a bastion of freedom and justice for all.

Yet, within this very place, about 20 men and women spent their days serving those who came and went from this house and their nights jammed together on the second floor of the slave quarters, all the while holding onto a quiet hope, a quiet prayer that they, too, and perhaps their children, would someday be free.  These stories of toil, and sweat, and quiet, unrelenting dignity -- these stories are as vital to our national memory as any other.  And so it is our responsibility as a nation to ensure that these stories are told.

So more than anything, today, I simply want to say thank you.  Thank you for coming together to preserve these stories for years to come.  Thank you to everyone from American Express for making such a generous commitment to honor all of our nation’s history.  Of course, thank you to the White House Historical Association and the National Trust for Historic Preservation for finding new ways to engage with our past. 

And finally, I want to thank all of you for all of the educational opportunities you’re giving to our young people.  I’m about to go on a wonderful tour with some students from Willow Springs Elementary School in Fairfax, Virginia.  And what’s most exciting is that they’re not just going to look at some pictures on a wall, they’re going to take part in the re-enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation.  I'm not sure what I'm going to do while they do it.  (Laughter.)  I'm going to look on.   

So truly, it is this type of engagement that you all are providing for young people that will continue to draw them into these spaces and give them an opportunity to really grow and understand, and understand the stories that create this country and their place in that history. 

So you all aren’t just teaching our young people about history, you’re inspiring them to believe that they can make history as well.  And that’s really what history is for -- it's for the next generation, it's for us to continue to learn and grow.  So these spaces are critical.  The work that you all are doing is vital.  They would not exist without the work that you do, and we couldn’t be more grateful.

So with that, I guess I get to go do the fun thing -- I get to go hang out with some kids, which is my favorite thing to do and one of the reasons why you've done all this work.  But I want to thank you all for your continued efforts.  There are many more spaces that need this kind of attention and this kind of support.  I hear it all the time, and those conversations do not fall on deaf ears.  I know that these resources are vital to this country, so you all should be very proud of the work you have done and I hope you continue to do for centuries to come. 

Thank you all.  Take care.

END               
11:25 A.M. EDT

WASHINGTON, DC – The following are prepared remarks by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT), the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee’s Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, for the hearing on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

***

Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Walberg for calling today's hearing to examine the important work the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is undertaking through the leadership of the Commission's chair Jacqueline Berrien. Chair Berrien, I want to thank you for being with us today to update the subcommittee on the work of the EEOC.

The work of the EEOC is critical, particularly when we look to the challenges facing the unemployed in our nation. Even as the economy has improved, with 7.5 unemployment rate last month, the unemployment gap has remained high for minorities – for African Americans, it was 13.2 percent and for Latinos, 9.0 in April. And we know, as labor economists and experts point to, that discrimination remains one of factors for the disparity.

Every worker in this country- whether a job applicant or employee- deserves the right to be treated fairly in the workplace and judged based upon ability to do the job. The foundation of our civil rights laws is to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to participate in society, to provide for themselves and their families, and to contribute to the economy.

Unfortunately, far too often workers are not hired, paid less or fired from their jobs because they are a woman, or a pregnant woman, or an African American or have a disability.

The EEOC plays an essential role in ensuring fairness and equal opportunity in the workplace through its enforcement of our federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against an employee or job applicant because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information.

Despite these protections, nearly 100,000 new charges of discrimination were filed with the EEOC last year. And despite the Commission's efforts to achieve resolutions in these cases, they continue to have a backlog which stands to grow as a result of budget cuts and sequester.

Congress has a responsibility to this nation's workers to ensure that should they become a victim of workplace discrimination, they have a place to seek justice.

I'm proud that the Democratic –led 110th and 111th Congresses, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, made critical improvements to this nation's civil rights laws through the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Also, passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restored the law to what it was prior to the misguided Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear.

Despite the progress we have made, there is still much left to be done. And I believe there are many issues where Democrats and Republicans can join together to strengthen our civil rights laws.

The Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which I am proud to cosponsor, would prohibit discrimination in the workplace because of someone's sexual orientation or gender identity was recently introduced in both the House and Senate with both Democratic and Republican co-sponsors.

I urge Chairman Walberg and Chairman Kline to work with Representatives Polis and Ros-Lehtinen, the bill's bipartisan sponsors, to bring this long overdue legislation back before the Committee for its immediate consideration.

I would also urge Chairmen Walberg and Kline to work with us on the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This legislation has been modified since it was originally brought before the Committee under Chairman Miller's leadership and is now a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Grassley and Harkin in the Senate. I believe we too could find common ground on this bill to protect this nation's older workers.

In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which has been passed twice by this House on a bipartisan basis should be brought up for immediate consideration so that gender-based pay discrimination is finally put on equal footing with our other civil rights laws.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this hearing. I am confident we can find opportunities to work together to strengthen this nation's civil rights laws. I also want to once again thank Chair Berrien for being before us today and thank her for her dedication and hard work on behalf of this nation's workers. 

President Obama said, “As Acting Director, Dan helped restore the trust of the American people in the General Services Administration by making the agency more efficient, accountable and transparent. I want to thank Dan for his leadership over the past year and for agreeing to continue serving in the Administration."
           
President Obama announced his intent to nominate Dan Tangherlini as Administrator of the General Services Administration:

Dan Tangherlini, Nominee for Administrator, General Services Administration
Dan Tangherlini is currently the Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration, a role he has held since April 2012.  He was designated by the President to this position from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where he has been the Chief Financial Officer since 2009 and also served as the Assistant Secretary for Management from 2009 to 2012.  Prior to that, Mr. Tangherlini served as the District of Columbia City Administrator and Deputy Mayor from 2006 to 2009.  In 2006, he served as the Interim General Manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.  From 2000 to 2006, he served as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Transportation and from 1998 to 2000 as Chief Financial Officer of the Metropolitan Police Department.  Mr. Tangherlini served in the Office of Policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1997 to 1998 and at the Office of Management and Budget from 1991 to 1997.  Mr. Tangherlini received a B.A. and an M.P.P from the University of Chicago, and an M.B.A. from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.

Dr. Jill Biden walks with the procession of graduates of the Navajo Technical College Class of 2013, Navajo Tech President Elmer Guy, Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly and the Board of trustees on the Navajo Tech campus in Crownpoint, New Mexico. May 17, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

On Friday, I had the honor of addressing a class of graduates at Navajo Technical College in Crownpoint, New Mexico. The Navajo Tech graduating Class of 2013 earned certificates in 34 fields that will provide the tools they need to serve their community as teachers, nurses, engineers, mechanics, bankers, chefs and countless other opportunities all made possible by their commitment and dedication to improving themselves through the pursuit of a higher education.

Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) play a key role in President Obama’s educational goal of making the United States home to the best-educated, most competitive workforce in the world. TCUs are critical institutions that build tribal communities, create good jobs across Indian Country, and provide Native Americans with the skills they need to do those jobs.

As a community college teacher, I love seeing what a tremendous difference a community like the one I saw at Navajo Tech can make in the lives of its students.

The impressive class of graduates included veterans like Jerrilene Kenneth, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan as an Army mechanic, before she became the first college graduate in her family with an Associate Degree in Early Childhood Education. It also included Navajo Tech Student of the Year Sherwin Becenti, who dropped out of college more than ten years ago but returned to school in order to build a better life for his family and set a good example for his children. Dwight Carlston, who grew up with no running water or electricity, was also among the graduates. Dwight maintained a 3.8 grade point average, ran cross country, served as Student Senate President and was recently elected as the Student Congress president of all 38 tribal colleges.

read more

“The sugar industry is vital to Idaho’s economy, bringing in $1.1 billion in revenue each year,” Crapo said.  “The sugar program ensures sugar beet growers have access to the tools they need to produce an affordable, abundant food supply.  U.S. farmers and producers have proven themselves time and again to be the most efficient in the world, but they cannot be left alone to face a trade market undermined by foreign government manipulation, especially at a time when domestic prices have dropped nearly 50 percent since 2010.”

The amendment failed with a 45-54 vote.  The Senate will continue to debate and vote on amendments to the Farm Bill this week.

The Lautenberg-Vitter “Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013” is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), Charles Schumer (D-New York), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisana), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) and John Hoeven (R-North Dakota).

“After almost twenty-five years, Republicans and Democrats have come together on an important and significant environmental reform measure,” said Senator Crapo, Ranking Member of the EPW Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health. “The Chemical Safety Improvement Act works to improve the safety of American consumers and ensure that risks from chemical substances are adequately understood and managed, while recognizing the enormous benefit the chemical industry brings to the economy.”

“This bipartisan agreement is an historic step toward meaningful reform that protects American families and consumers.  Every parent wants to know that the chemicals used in everyday products have been proven safe, but our current chemical laws fail to give parents that peace of mind,” said Senator Lautenberg, who first introduced legislation to reform TSCA in 2005.  “Our bipartisan bill would fix the flaws with current law and ensure that chemicals are screened for safety.”

“Our bill strikes the right balance between strengthening consumer confidence in the safety of chemicals, while also promoting innovation and the growth of an important sector of our economy,” said Senator Vitter, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. “Chemical manufacturing is a big part of Louisiana’s economy and across the country, and the Chemical Safety Improvement Act establishes a program that should provide confidence to the public and consumers, by giving the EPA the tools it needs to make critical determinations while providing a more transparent process.  The benefit of such a system is that industry should also have more confidence that the federal system works to facilitate innovation and grow our economy.”

“For far too long, American families have been exposed to chemicals that have never been tested for safety,” said Senator Gillibrand. “This bill will finally allow the EPA to test those chemicals that pose the greatest hazard to our children and pregnant women, and it will give the companies that manufacture the chemicals certainty that what they are selling is certified safe across all 50 States.”

“I am proud to be part of this bipartisan group that came together to solve a critical problem, and I hope it serves as a model for future agreements,” said Senator Manchin. “This bill proves that bipartisan compromise can still work in Washington when people are committed to coming together to find commonsense solutions. Our agreement shows that protecting our health and environment does not have to impede our economic growth.” 

Senator Alexander said, “This legislation would allow consumers to rest easier, knowing there are protections in place that ensure the chemical products we use are safe. And it would give companies like Eastman Chemical Co., which employs more than 6,000 Tennesseans, the long-overdue clarity in the law they need to better innovate and create jobs in our 21st-century economy.”

The legislation also has the support of public health advocates and chemical industry representatives. 

“This bill is both a policy and political breakthrough.  It gives EPA vital new tools to identify chemicals of both high and low concern, and to reduce exposure to those that pose risks.  And while this bill represents a hard-fought compromise, it opens, at last, a bipartisan path forward to fix our badly outmoded system to ensure the safety of chemicals in everyday use,” said Richard Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund.  

“From life-saving medicines, to energy efficient build materials, chemistry is responsible for countless innovations that have transformed society. America’s chemical industry is a critical source of economic growth and good-paying jobs across the country.  Achieving sound, balanced TSCA reform that enhances public confidence in the safety of chemicals and enables America to remain the world’s leading innovator is our top priority,” said Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council.  “This bipartisan compromise legislation will put safety first, while also promoting innovation, economic growth and job creation – goals that are critical to our industry, to our nearly 800,000 employees and to the many other industries that rely on the products of chemistry.”

In contrast to existing law, the Lautenberg-Vitter “Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013” would:

• Require Safety Evaluations for All Chemicals: All active chemicals in commerce must be evaluated for safety and labeled as either “high” or “low” priority chemical based on potential risk to human health and the environment.  For high priority chemicals, EPA must conduct further safety evaluations. 
• Protect Public Health from Unsafe Chemicals: If a chemical is found to be unsafe, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the necessary authority to take action.  This can range from labeling requirements to the full phase-out or ban of a chemical.  
•  Prioritize Chemicals for Review: The Environmental Protection Agency will have to transparently assess risk, determine safety, and apply any needed measures to manage risks.
• Screen New Chemicals for Safety: New chemicals entering the market must be screened for safety and the EPA is given the authority to prohibit unsafe chemicals from entering the market. 
• Secure Necessary Health and Safety Information: The legislation allows EPA to secure necessary health and safety information from chemical manufacturers, while directing EPA to rely first on existing information to avoid duplicative testing. 
• Promote Innovation and Safer Chemistry: This legislation provides clear paths to getting new chemistry on the market and protects trade secrets and intellectual property from disclosure. 
• Protect Children and Pregnant Women: The legislation requires EPA to evaluate the risks posed to particularly vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women, when evaluating the safety of a chemical—a provision not included in existing law.
• Give States and Municipalities a Say:  States and local governments will have the opportunity to provide input on prioritization, safety assessment and the safety determination processes, requiring timely response from EPA, and the bill establishes a waiver process to allow state regulations or laws to remain in effect when circumstances warrant it.       

         Under current law, the EPA can call for safety testing only after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical may be dangerous.  As a result, EPA has only been able to require testing for roughly 200 of the more than 84,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States, and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances since TSCA was first enacted in 1976.  These shortfalls led the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to identify TSCA as a “high risk” area of the law in 2009.  

Comprehensive reform of chemical regulations is important to consumers and job creating businesses that need the ability to compete in the global marketplace. Chemicals are used to produce 96 percent of all manufactured goods consumers rely on every day and over 25 percent of the U.S. GDP is derived from industries that rely on chemicals.

“The FDA is joining a long list of federal agencies pushing costly regulations on Idaho farmers,” said Crapo.  “Presently, the majority of produce grown in the United States is designated as low risk.  However, FDA’s assertion that even minimum risk commodities should be subject to the same rules based on evidence that has not materialized is particularly concerning.  FDA should focus its efforts on proven risks, not impose costly regulatory burdens on producers based on hypothetical evidence.  Such action will have a major impact on Idaho’s agriculture community by driving up costs on small and mid-sized farmers, leading to significant drops in food production and higher prices.”

“It is unfortunate that the FDA is working to find a solution to a problem that they themselves have created.  This proposed rule will create needless additional burden and costs at a time when we should do more to assist the agricultural industry in keeping our food supply safe and affordable for all Americans," said Risch.

“These new regulations are just another example of Washington bureaucrats hurting families and farmers here in Northern Michigan.   Once again, these guys in the federal government are thinking up new rules that make life harder and hurt the economy.  I’m all for having a safe and protected food supply in this country, but we need to do it in a reasonable way that doesn’t hurt our farmers and jack up the price of our food,” said Dr. Benishek, a general surgeon from Iron River and Michigan’s only member of the House Committee on Agriculture.  “Our farmers work hard every day to deliver quality products to our table.  The last thing they need is federal bureaucrats making their jobs more expensive and more complicated.  We need to get the FDA to use some more common sense and listen to our farmers, instead of just passing tons of new costly regulations.”

On January 4, 2013, the FDA announced a proposed rule for growing, harvesting, packing and holding fresh produce on domestic and foreign farms.  The proposed rule was issued pursuant to the Food Safety Modernization Act, which Congress passed in December 2010.  It would require weekly testing of all agricultural water at a cost of $35 to $40 per week.  If levels of coliform bacteria exceed the FDA’s standard, the farmer must cease irrigation until the water is in compliance, running a high risk of ruining a crop.  The FDA estimates that the cost of implementation will cost a producer roughly $5,000 to $30,600 per farm, depending on size, and with a total industry price tag of $460 million.

Crapo and Risch will introduce the SCRAP Act as an amendment to the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013, known as the Farm Bill, which is currently being considered on the Senate floor.  Dr. Benishek will introduce the SCRAP Act as a standalone bill in the House of Representatives. 

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Through every chapter of the American story, ordinary men and women have accomplished extraordinary things as members of the United States Merchant Marine. When the idea of America depended on the success of a revolution, mariners took on the world's most powerful navy and helped secure our future as a sovereign Nation. In the decades since, they have sustained critical supply lines for our troops abroad -- at times enduring profound losses to keep our sea lanes open. And through war and peace alike, the Merchant Marine has driven our economic growth by shipping our products all around the world. On National Maritime Day, we honor the generations of mariners who have served and sacrificed to make our country what it is today.

To keep America moving forward in the 21st century, we need to expand trade and commerce that creates good jobs for our people. Businesses in every corner of our country are stepping up to meet that challenge, ramping up manufacturing and selling more goods and services overseas. As they do, our Merchant Marine is making sure our products get wherever they need to go -- from ports here at home to new markets halfway across the globe. Their work is essential to growing our economy, and my Administration remains committed to getting our mariners the support they need to carry out their mission.

Whether equipping our service members in the theater of war or guiding our maritime industry in the calm of peace, the United States Merchant Marine has helped keep America strong for more than two centuries. Let us mark this day by reflecting on that legacy of service, honoring the men and women who forged it, and saluting the proud mariners who carry it forward today.

The Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 20, 1933, has designated May 22 of each year as "National Maritime Day," and has authorized and requested the President to issue annually a proclamation calling for its appropriate observance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 22, 2013, as National Maritime Day. I call upon the people of the United States to mark this observance and to display the flag of the United States at their homes and in their communities. I also request that all ships sailing under the American flag dress ship on that day.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

“Cyber attacks have grown in scope and sophistication to include nearly every industry and asset that makes America work. That is why this committee is well-positioned to lead, oversee, and review policies and solutions to these wide-ranging and evolving threats,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who chaired the hearing.

“As the nation becomes more reliant on digital communications technology, we also increase our exposure to cyber threats,” said Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI). “But combatting such threats requires a cybersecurity regime that provides ample flexibility to afford owners and operators of critical infrastructure the ability to protect against and respond to rapidly evolving threats. A one-size-fits-all approach to cybersecurity is ill-suited for the diverse range of critical infrastructure sectors, each of which has its own complex characteristics.”

The full committee hearing focused on steps the federal government and the private sector are taking to bolster the security of our nation’s critical infrastructure and mitigate exposure to cyber attacks. Members discussed the president’s Executive Order to improve critical infrastructure cybersecurity, including the latest on the order’s implementation and the administration’s development of a voluntary cybersecurity framework. The committee also examined security solutions to better protect against cyber threats, including enhanced information sharing, public-private partnerships, and greater industry collaboration.

“Any efforts to better protect critical infrastructure need to be supported and implemented by the owners and operators of this infrastructure. It also reflects the reality that many in the private sector are already doing the right things to protect their systems and should not be diverted from those efforts through new requirements,” said Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Dave McCurdy, President of the American Gas Association and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, explained the need for reliable information sharing, telling the committee that improving the flow of information will allow the private sector to adequately prepare and respond to cyber threats. McCurdy said, “There is no single solution for absolute system protection. However, through a combination of cybersecurity processes and timely and credible information-sharing amongst the government intelligence community and industry operators, America’s natural gas delivery system remains protected, safe and reliable, and will remain so well into the future.”

Dr. Michael Papay, Vice President and Chief Information Security Officer of Northrop Grumman Information Systems, added, “We must be mindful, however, that our nation’s cybersecurity cannot be fixed with one law or policy change. Effective cybersecurity policies should be risk- based and as adaptable as the threat itself.”

Dr. Phyllis Schneck, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of the Global Public Sector at McAfee, Inc., similarly called for “outcome based” approaches that allow for innovation and flexibility as technologies and threats evolve. "The problem is that sometimes regulation is overly specific about a technology and ends up hindering rather than helping companies to be optimally secure,” said Schneck. "Innovation, such as treating networks as smart, adaptive ecosystems that both produce and consume intelligence about threats, is also key."

Speaking to the president’s Executive Order and its resulting framework, Duane Highley, President and CEO of the Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas, explained that a public-private partnership will aid both sides in their work to secure critical infrastructure. He said, “The framework should be focused on a much broader task, leveraging the federal government’s capabilities and expertise with that of the nation’s private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators, to ensure cybersecurity protection and resiliency through rapid sharing and adoption of voluntary standards, guidelines and best practices and close cooperation with our federal government partners.”

The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing examined how to secure the communications network supply chain, focusing on potential vulnerabilities and the wide-ranging impacts on national security and the economy.

Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) said, "Supply chain risk management is essential if we are to guard against those that would compromise network equipment or exploit the software that runs over and through it."

Mark Goldstein, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the Government Accountability Office, discussed the magnitude of our nation’s communications and technology networks and explained the vital role these networks play in the safe and secure operation of our country. He said, “The United States, like many other nations, is reliant on commercial communications networks for business and personal communication as well as for matters of national and economic security… Government, industry, and the public rely on communications networks to such a great degree that federal policy has included them in a category of national assets deemed critical infrastructure, making their protection a national priority. Many other critical infrastructure sectors such as banking and finance, energy, transportation systems, and water also rely on communications networks to sustain their operation.”

Dean Garfield, President and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council, urged the government to tread lightly, as history shows that communications and technology companies have best innovated and responded to threats without government involvement. “The government has long recognized that taking a light touch approach to regulating the telecommunications industry has fostered innovation and competition, to the benefit of the American consumer,” said Garfield. “And all the while, the communications industry has been consistently cited as one of the leading sectors in cybersecurity. We encourage Congress to continue this light-touch approach when looking at the communications supply chain and thereby, to enable industry to respond to evolving threats with innovation, flexibility, and the most updated and appropriate global standards and best practices.”

To further examine ways to secure our nation’s communications supply chain, Subcommittee Chairman Walden today launched a bipartisan working group.

###

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Every year, the United States Coast Guard joins partners nationwide to raise awareness about boating responsibly. We highlight that important work during National Safe Boating Week, and we encourage all boaters to take appropriate precautions before casting off this season.

Safe boating starts onshore. Americans planning to spend a day on the water should prepare by filing a float plan with family or a friend, getting a free vessel safety check, and participating in a boating safety course. As they embark, boaters should make sure they have checked the marine forecast and all passengers are wearing a life jacket. And to put an end to preventable accidents that claim too many lives every year, individuals should never operate a boat under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Boating is an important part of our national heritage. This week, let us carry that tradition forward by following commonsense safety procedures and keeping our lakes, rivers, and oceans safe for all to enjoy.

In recognition of the importance of safe boating practices, the Congress, by joint resolution approved June 4, 1958 (36 U.S.C. 131), as amended, has authorized and requested the President to proclaim annually the 7-day period prior to Memorial Day weekend as "National Safe Boating Week."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 18 through May 24, 2013, as National Safe Boating Week. I encourage all Americans who participate in boating activities to observe this occasion by learning more about safe boating practices and taking advantage of boating education.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden meet with DREAMers who have received Deferred Action and U.S. citizen family members of undocumented immigrants, in the Oval Office, May 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

As the Senate debates bipartisan immigration reform legislation, the President and the Vice President hosted a meeting today in the Oval Office with young immigrants, also known as DREAMers, as well as with the siblings and spouses of undocumented immigrants. The meeting was an important opportunity for the President and the Vice President to hear directly from people whose families are affected daily by our nation’s broken immigration system.

The President and the Vice President were moved by the stories of courage and determination these young immigrants shared. The DREAMers shared how the deferred action changed their lives for the better and emphasized that they and their families need a permanent solution that will allow them to fully contribute to the country they call home. Their stories were both powerful and authentic, inspiring us all to remember the important task and responsibility we carry as public servants and members of the Obama administration.

read more

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden meet with DREAMers who have received Deferred Action and U.S. citizen family members of undocumented immigrants, in the Oval Office, May 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

As the Senate debates bipartisan immigration reform legislation, the President and the Vice President hosted a meeting today in the Oval Office with young immigrants, also known as DREAMers, as well as with the siblings and spouses of undocumented immigrants. The meeting was an important opportunity for the President and the Vice President to hear directly from people whose families are affected daily by our nation’s broken immigration system.

The President and the Vice President were moved by the stories of courage and determination these young immigrants shared. The DREMAers shared how the deferred action changed their lives for the better and emphasized that they and their families need a permanent solution that will allow them to fully contribute to the country they call home. Their stories were both powerful and authentic, inspiring us all to remember the important task and responsibility we carry as public servants and members of the Obama administration.

read more

Adopting a cash voucher system would disrupt the cost-effective delivery of food aid

By Elijah E. Cummings, Duncan Hunter, Nick Rahall

U.S. News and World Report

May 21, 2013

Elijah E. Cummings is a Democratic representative from Maryland, Duncan Hunter is a Republican representative from California, and Nick J. Rahall II is a Democratic representative from West Virginia.

For generations, the United States Food for Peace program has helped deliver food assistance to millions of hungry and malnourished people across the world. Through the program, food grown on American farms is transported on U.S. ships to those in need. This mutually beneficial partnership allows food aid to reach all corners of the globe while supporting domestic farm production and ensuring that the United States is able to maintain vital sealift capabilities during peacetime.

Despite this legacy of success, the Obama administration recently proposed restructuring the food aid program as primarily a cash voucher system – effectively handing out cash overseas, not food. Supporters of this drastic change, including the Washington Post, are missing important facts about U.S. food aid programs and the U.S. merchant marine. 

Our existing food aid programs are reliable and transparent, and by shipping aid on U.S. vessels they utilize the most proven method for cost-effective delivery of food aid to hungry populations abroad. The administration's proposal is unproven on a large scale and could not be implemented with the same levels of accountability and transparency that characterize our existing food aid programs.

Additionally, the supporters of these changes mischaracterize the importance of the U.S. merchant marine and the essential policy nexus between it and food aid programs. Since 1936, U.S. law has held "that the United States shall have a merchant marine sufficient to carry . . . a substantial portion of the water-borne export and import foreign commerce of the United States and . . . capable of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency." 

In 1975, there were more than 850 ocean-going vessels sailing under the U.S. flag. At the end of 2012, there were just 109 U.S.-flagged ocean-going vessels. Not surprisingly, the percentage of U.S. commercial cargoes carried on American vessels has also fallen. Thus, a study issued in 1981 by the Comptroller General found that the total percentage of U.S. commercial cargo carried in U.S.-flagged vessels had declined from 10 percent in 1959 to just 4 percent 20 years later. A study issued by IHS Global Insight in 2009 found that barely 2 percent of U.S. foreign trade is now moving in U.S.-flagged vessels.

To our peril, U.S.-flagged vessels no longer carry a "substantial portion" of our commercial cargoes, but we must maintain adequate sealift capacity, both to support our military and to ensure that our nation retains at least a core of skilled merchant mariners and commercial vessels of all types. If not, our national objectives will be dependent on foreign-flagged vessels operated by foreign mariners.

Food aid, carried on U.S.-flag commercial vessels pursuant to cargo preference laws, provides essential cargo for our domestic fleet. The Department of Defense has indicated that any savings that might result from reductions in such cargoes will have to be offset with substantial new expenditures to maintain sealift readiness.

We note that the merchant mariners and vessels sustained by food aid cargoes have provided 95 percent of the sealift capacity that has supported our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq at a cost dramatically lower than if the Pentagon had to maintain this capacity using wholly government-owned assets and federal employees. 

The plain fact ignored by those who now advocate changing the scope of our highly successful food aid program is that the taxpayers have saved money by utilizing the U.S. commercial fleet to provide military sealift and food aid assistance under our cargo preference laws. Before considering such dramatic alterations to existing food aid programs, we must recognize that there are no viable, lower cost alternatives to replace this vital sealift capacity. We also should acknowledge that any such changes would only speed the decline of the U.S.-flag commercial fleet and destroy the livelihoods of the thousands of U.S. seafarers who sail those vessels.

1:08 P.M. EDT
 
MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being here.  Before I take your questions I just wanted to say a couple of things. 
 
As you heard from the President, his thoughts and prayers are with the people of Oklahoma as they continue to respond and recover from devastating tornadoes and severe weather.  Last night the President approved a major disaster declaration for Oklahoma, making federal funding available to support affected individuals, as well as additional federal assistance to support immediate response and recovery efforts. 
 
Since yesterday afternoon, the President has spoke with Governor Fallin, Representative Tom Cole, and the Mayor of Moore, Oklahoma, Glenn Lewis.  Earlier today, the President received a briefing in the Oval Office from his team on the latest response efforts underway.  Participants included Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Lisa Monaco; Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; Chief of Staff Denis McDonough; Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco; and FEMA Deputy Administrator Richard Serino.  The President will continue to receive updates from his team as well as from officials in the region.
 
At the President’s direction, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate is now on the ground in Oklahoma to make sure that federal resources are available and fully supporting the efforts of the Governor’s team.  Additionally, tomorrow Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will travel to Oklahoma to meet with state and local officials and ensure that first responders are receiving the assistance they need in ongoing response and recovery efforts to the severe weather that has affected the region. 
 
FEMA has been providing resources since Sunday to support Oklahoma as they respond to deadly storms.  As of this morning, more than 150 FEMA personnel were on the ground to assist in the response, with more on the way.  Briefly, I'll say this includes a national incident management assistance team and two regional IMATs are deployed to the State Emergency Operations Center in Oklahoma City to coordinate with state and local officials in support of recovery operations.  Three national urban search and rescue teams, one from Texas, one from Nebraska, and one from Tennessee, and an additional incident support team -- together they have all been deployed to support the immediate response efforts.
 
Two mobile emergency response support teams -- MERS -- are in Oklahoma to provide self-sustaining telecommunications, logistics, and operations support elements to assist in the immediate response needs, and additional teams are being deployed.  Finally, three disaster survivor assistance teams are scheduled to arrive later today into communities to help address immediate and emerging needs of disaster survivors, including onsite registration, applicant status checks, on-the-spot needs assessments, and access to partners offering survivor services.
 
With that, I'll go to your questions.  Julie.
 
Q    Thank you.  I had two quick questions about Oklahoma.  I know that it's still early -- the tornadoes just happened yesterday -- but are there any plans for the President to travel to Oklahoma in the coming days?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have an announcement to make.  And as you know, Julie, in situations like this, we always make decisions in the first instance based on the President's insistence that his travel does not interfere with recovery efforts, does not drain resources from those efforts.  So those are the kinds of considerations that go into decisions like that, and at this time I don’t have an announcement of travel.
 
Q    Do you also know yet whether you're going to have to ask Congress for more money for Oklahoma, or whether FEMA has enough funds?
 
MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you at this stage is that the President has made clear that we will make sure that Oklahoma has the resources that it needs, including the resources we have already announced.  And generally speaking, we are pleased that Congress has allowed us to do what is needed in situations like this.  In this specific case, obviously in this short time period since the major tornado passed through, we're still in the process of assessing those needs.
 
Q    If you were to need to ask Congress for additional funds, would you want that funding to be offset?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think what I would say about this is that in a situation like this, we have been pleased to work with Congress and we've been pleased by the fact that Congress has allowed us to do what is needed in situations like this, and that means being able to respond to the state's needs.  Right now, FEMA has sufficient resources to do that.  Further assessments will obviously be forthcoming.
 
Q    Okay.  And I just had one on the IRS.  A Treasury official said last night that the Treasury Department told the White House twice about possible plans that the IRS had to make the targeting of conservative political groups public but didn’t tell the White House in the third and final instance.  It almost seems too convenient that the White House knew about two of these possible plans but not the third and final plan.  Do you feel like the White House should have been told by Treasury?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I mean, I can simply tell you the facts, which are as described, and that is that in the communications I mentioned yesterday between Treasury officials and the Counsel's office as well as the Chief of Staff's office, and over here, the Chief of Staff's office and the Council's office, that there were discussions about the timing of the release of this information and the findings of the report. 
 
The only two instances that those discussions encompassed were the discussion about the possibility of a speech by, I believe, Ms. Lerner -- which, as I understand, did not happen -- and then the possibility that the acting commissioner would get a question in testimony about these issues and whether or not he would -- what he would say in response to that, again, with regard to the ongoing IG audit.  But we were not aware of what ultimately led to the first reporting on this on May 10th.
 
Q    After the speech by Lerner didn’t happen and after Miller did not get the questions in testimony, did the White House ask Treasury what the plan then was for the IRS to announce this publicly?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, the general discussions as described had to do with the timing of the release of the information and the findings of the actual audit.  Our focus was I think, again, reflected in what I've said about this, on the expectation that when the report was finally completed and published, that that would be the appropriate time to respond to it and to direct any action in response to it. 
 
Because, again, it's important to note that while there were discussions of draft findings and general conclusions, these kinds of things, history tells us, tend to change as they are finalized.  And it was very important in our view, in keeping with what I said yesterday is the cardinal rule around here that we not take any action that could even be seen to create the appearance of intervening in an ongoing investigation like this  -- in this case, an independent Inspector General audit.  And so, of course, we did not.
 
Q    Who did Treasury talk to here at the White House?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think that’s been reported.  It was Mark Childress, Deputy Chief of Staff.
 
Q    And he did not -- what did he do with the information?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, this was part of just trying to find out when and under what circumstances this information would be released, made public, and what those findings would be.  Again, we did not know until the actual report was published.
 
Q    And the President was not made aware of this notification either?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Absolutely, he was not.  And I think we made that clear.  Some people have suggested that was unwise; I think people in the know and people who understand why it’s important to maintain distance from these kinds of things for a White House understand that that was the right call in our view and, again, many outsiders have said that as well.
 
The point being that, at least in this case, there was an ongoing, still not complete IRS audit -- IG audit of the IRS.  And there was nothing the President could or should do until that process was completed.  And upon the release of that information, the release of the final report, the President moved very quickly to make clear his feeling that the conduct portrayed within it was outrageous and inappropriate and wrong, and that action needed to be taken immediately to begin to correct the problem. And that included, obviously, working with Secretary of the Treasury Lew to ask for and accept the resignation of the acting commissioner; to appoint a new action IRS commissioner, who then has instituted a 30-day, top-down review to find out more about who was responsible for the unacceptable behavior, to hold them accountable and to make sure that there are processes in place that prevent this from happening again.
 
Q    Can I ask you briefly about his speech on Thursday, Jay?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Sure.
 
Q    How specific will he be in offering proposals to close Guantanamo Bay?  And what will he say about drones?  You say there will be a legal framework -- what exactly will that entail?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me speak broadly and then I’ll go to the specific questions.  As you know, in his State of the Union address in February, the President pledged to “continue to engage Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.” 
 
In line with that pledge, on May 23rd, the President will give a speech at the National Defense University on the administration’s counterterrorism policy.  In his speech, the President will discuss our broad CT policy, including military, diplomatic, intelligence, and legal efforts.  He will review the state of the threats that we face, particularly as al Qaeda core has weakened but new dangers have emerged.  He will discuss the policy and legal framework under which we take action against terrorist threats, including the use of drones.  He will review our detention policy and efforts to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.  And he will frame the future of our efforts against al Qaeda, its affiliates and its adherents.
 
I’m not going to get on the specifics of what he will say about Gitmo.  I’m not going to get ahead of the President except to say that he is determined to see the facility closed and that he will address that subject in his speech.
 
Beyond what I just said about drones, I’m not going to get ahead of the President, but he will discuss that subject in the speech.  It is, as he pledged in his State of the Union address, a subject that he believes deserves focus and attention.  It is one around which he believes there have been and continue to be legitimate questions asked.  He is very concerned about the need to put an architecture in place that governs counterterrorism policy for now and into the future.  And that is what he’ll be discussing on Thursday.
 
Jessica.
 
Q    Thanks.  On the hurricane -- the tornado -- excuse me  -- first of all, does the President have concerns about, given the devastation to the structures there, concerns about the stability of the building codes there, the stability of the structures, and does the building code need to be looked into?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don't know that at this point the President has focused on those questions.  I think right now the President’s focus is on ensuring that we here in Washington through FEMA are doing everything we can to provide the necessary assistance to Oklahoma and to the residents who have been affected by the terribly severe weather and the tornadoes.
 
I’m sure when something like this happens, those kinds of questions are, understandably, asked and I believe will be looked at.  Again, I’m just assuming this based on past instances of storms.  But I haven’t heard the President discuss those issues in the immediate response to the weather in Oklahoma.
 
Q    Does he think they should rebuild in this area?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think you heard the President pledge that we'll provide assistance to Oklahoma to recover from these efforts.  And I would point you to the statements of Oklahoma officials about how they see the future in the recovery from this storm.
 
Q    On the spending, I know you don't need more FEMA money at this moment.  But already today, some on the Hill have said that any spending needs to be offset, but how we would offset it is not an appropriate question.  The quote is “it's insensitive to even talk about it now.”  So what would the President say, what do you say to politicians who are already insisting that additional spending for tornado victims needs to be paid for, but it's insensitive to talk about how it would be paid for?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would simply say that the President has made clear that we will make sure that Oklahoma has the resources that it needs, including the resources we have already announced. And we are pleased that Congress has allowed us to do what is needed in the past in situations like this -- in other words, to provide resources that are needed when they're needed. 
 
I think it's too early to assess what kinds of needs there will be as Oklahoma moves from the immediate recovery from the storm to assessing the longer-term damage.  Right now, as you mentioned, we believe that FEMA has the resources sufficient to deal with this.  But we will, obviously, be making regular assessments with all the team members we have on the ground, working with state officials. 
 
Q    One clarification on the IRS and then I'm done.  Yesterday, you made clear that Denis McDonough and others were informed by Kathy Ruemmler.  Acknowledging the view that there is no action that the White House could or would have taken, putting that aside, just asking you about how forthcoming the White House is being about this issue -- when this information was not revealed last week and throughout the week, was that because you didn't know or because you didn't want to say?
 
MR. CARNEY:  No.  Here's the thing.  I answered the questions that were asked of me.  The point was -- I was asked when did the White House know.  At that point, Kathy Ruemmler was the point of contact and she learned the week of April 22nd.  I did find out that prior to that, someone in her office was -- part of a list of items that were coming forward related to IG matters, that this was one of the line items on it provided to someone in her office.  But Kathy Ruemmler became aware of it April 24th. 
 
And I would just say that what I provided yesterday was in response to some of the -- in the rapid development of information about this story and the stories that were being written, there was some confusion about that timeline and I provided more details about it.
 
I would also say it is still just a few days since the report was released, and we have been extremely transparent in providing information.  The information I provided yesterday, just a few days after this report was released, I think reflects an effort here to provide information.  And I think, again, the fundamental issue here is that in, I believe, June of 2012, the IG, in response to requests from Chairman Issa, began an audit as I understand it -- obviously Chairman Issa was aware of that -- in October or sometime in the fall of 2012.  The fact of this audit was publicly announced on a website.  And the conduct was finished, as we understand it, based on the IG's report in May of 2012. 
 
And everything that we have told you reinforces the fundamental facts here that we follow the cardinal rule:  We do not interfere in -- this is an important fact.  It is in many ways, with regards to the White House, it's the most important fact -- that we do not interfere with or intervene in criminal investigations or independent Inspector General audits.  And that is the case here.
 
Q    But as to the question why this didn’t come out last week, it's because we didn’t ask?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I gave you the information in response to the questions, and we have provided an enormous amount of information about the communications that we've had -- who learned what about this and when, the fact that the President was not informed, how he reacted when he was informed -- and have walked you through that process.  And again, I think any comparison of this, the speed with which we provided that information to the general practice, I think shows a determination to get you information very quickly. 
 
Jon.
 
Q    Jay, I'm a little confused on the audit question.  Just quickly -- so if there's an Inspector General audit going on on a given action, the White House can't take any action to deal with it?
 
MR. CARNEY:  To intervene in an independent Inspector General's audit?
 
Q    No, to take action about the underlying --
 
MR. CARNEY:  I would love to see the ABC story on that.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    -- well, no, no, to intervene on the underlying activity, is what I'm asking.
 
MR. CARNEY:  But we weren't aware of an underlying activity. There were accusations.  Congressman Issa asked for the Inspector General to look into it, as I understand it -- and I think he's spoken to this.  He has said that it would have been unwise to comment on that as it was ongoing, from his perspective, until the report was concluded.  And the fact that there was an audit ongoing we know now was publicly announced by the IG on a website that fall.
 
Once there is an independent investigation, if you will -- in this case, termed an audit --
 
Q    Your hands are tied, you can't do anything.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, we're certainly not going to intervene in an independent investigation.  And the IRS is a unique agency, a component of the Treasury Department but it is properly insulated from political interference because it is paramount for the confidence of the American people in the way that the tax laws are applied that that insulation exists.  And we interact -- or don’t interact for that reason -- with the IRS.  And I think that, again, the information I provided yesterday reflects that absolutely due caution.
 
Q    Okay.  Now, on Lois Lerner -- so if my understanding is correct, you're saying there were some preliminary discussions with the White House about the IRS issuing an apology through a Lois Lerner speech?
 
MR. CARNEY:  As I said yesterday and as has been reported today, there were discussions between the Treasury Chief of Staff's office and office of General Counsel and the White House Counsel's office and Chief of Staff's office about the timing of this information release and the findings themselves.  It was all about the -- the whole point of a heads-up, as I understand it in a case like this, is that when a matter is coming to a conclusion, as the IG audit was, that when a matter like that is likely to get congressional or public attention that a heads-up is given.
 
And so we were simply -- and the conversations were just about finding out when that information was going to be released and what it was going to say -- because, I think as I made clear yesterday, until we had the report we did not know the final conclusions of the Inspector General.
 
Q    So if the message got to the White House that, well, the plan is that we’re going to plant a question at an ABA conference --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, it’s a nice hypothetical but that didn’t happen.
 
Q    No, but if that happened, would you have said no?  Would you have objected to that kind of a tactic?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think every case we have deferred I believe  -- well, not we -- the only conversations here were between members of the White House staff and Treasury staff.  But our approach has always been to be hands off and to defer.  But I would refer you --
 
Q    So if someone --  
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, you’re going to ask me speculative questions about things that didn’t happen -- I think there are probably people here who have questions about things that --
 
Q    Well, I'm just asking, so you would have said, okay, go ahead and do whatever you guys want, if you guys want to plant a question, that’s okay?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, we didn’t have that information.
 
Q    It seems like a strange way to release information.
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think you should ask others who knew about it whether they objected.
 
Q    No, no, would you object to that?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, our interest was always in waiting for the IG report to be completed before we acted on it or commented on it.  And I think that’s the way the American people would expect a White House and a President to handle a situation like this.
 
Q    I just find it odd that you have no objection to the idea of releasing a sort of planted question.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, since we didn’t know about it, I think you should ask those who did.
 
Yes.
 
Q    Separate from that, you did know that Lois Lerner intended to apologize for this conduct, correct?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, some folks here had that conversation that that was possible, based on what the Treasury Department --
 
Q    So it wasn’t just about a question of conduct; it was about the proper way to apologize for conduct that needed to be apologized for.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Our interest was in finding out --
 
Q    The White House understood that there would be something worth apologizing for.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Our interest was in finding out the timing of the release of the information.  We did not have the final results.  We did know --
 
Q    You knew enough that there was something to apologize for -- is that correct?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think I said yesterday that we knew that Kathy Ruemmler was notified of the topline assessment that there had been improper targeting of conservative groups using the names that I described yesterday.  But beyond that, we didn’t have any more specifics.  And we did not -- and it was very clear to us that there was not a final report, but that these were the draft conclusions.
 
Q    Not a final report, but it was bad.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, based on what we knew, there were the conclusions that I said.  But, again, our interest was only in finding out when the information would be released and when the IG report would be finished.
 
Q    And to the question that some people have raised that this seemed like a concerted effort to insulate the President from this bad news, you would say what?
 
MR. CARNEY:  No, I would say that it is the appropriate approach by Counsel, in this case, to dealing with incomplete information about an ongoing audit by an independent Inspector General, and that if the opposite had happened in this or any other White House, there would be questions about -- if a President were informed of what a White House had learned about a still ongoing independent investigation, there would be questions about what the President might have done with that information. 
 
In this case, it was the judgment of Counsel -- and I think you’ve seen from outside people writing about this and talking about this who have experience in these matters, that this was the right judgment -- that it was not appropriate in this matter to alert the President about this until the report itself was complete.  And the fact is the President found out about it through news reports because the news of this emerged prior to the completion of the report, prior to the publication of the report.
 
Q    On Sunday, Dan Pfeiffer said that one thing Republicans do when they lack an agenda is try -- I’m quoting him directly -- “try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped-up hearings and false allegations.”  Can you describe what he’s talking about?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think we have a history here already for the past several years of attempts by Republicans to politicize matters --
 
Q    Is there anything that's -- an issue now fall into that category in your opinion -- in the White House’s opinion?
 
MR. CARNEY:  On which issue?
 
Q    I’m asking you.  Do you have anything that's happening now, swirling around, that falls into any of these categories?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I would say -- again, Republican obsession with the talking points surrounding Benghazi --
 
Q    Would fall into that category.
 
MR. CARNEY:  -- is provably and demonstrably political and has focused on talking points instead of the tragedy that happened in Benghazi, the need to find those responsible for the deaths of four Americans and hold them to justice, and the need to take -
 
Q    Does the IRS fall into that category?
 
MR. CARNEY:  -- and the need to take action to ensure that what happened in Benghazi doesn't happen again -- which is why you heard the President call on Congress to take action to provide the funds necessary to enhance our security around our embassies around the world.
 
Q    Does the IRS fall into that category?
 
MR. CARNEY:  On this, I think you have seen -- I’m not going to catalogue some of the more outlandish statements that we’ve seen from some Republicans on this matter, on the IRS, but it is absolutely the case that there have been Republicans who have tried to politicize this right away and tried to turn it into a partisan issue.
 
But the President, from the moment he found out what the results of this inquiry were, was absolutely clear about how outraged he was by the conduct, how absolutely unacceptable the conduct was, and his insistence that people be held accountable for that conduct.  And I think that that was reflected in what Dan Pfeiffer said on Sunday and what the President has said on the times that he’s spoken about this.
 
Q    Does congressional curiosity about the Department of Justice dealing with the AP situation fall into that category?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Not that I’ve seen yet.  I think that these are matters in terms of specific investigations that, appropriately, we can't comment on.  But that doesn't mean that there aren’t legitimate questions that are asked by Congress or other parties on matters like this.
 
Q    Do questions raised about HHS Secretary Sebelius and her efforts to raise funds through the private sector for Enroll Now fall into that category?
 
MR. CARNEY:  We can go down the list of -- we could say what about the President’s birth certificate?  Was that legitimate --
 
Q    I’m not asking about that.  I’m not asking about that.  I’m just asking -- this is the last thing --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Okay.  I am sure that as is the case with --
 
Q    Is that a legitimate form of inquiry?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I can answer your question about that matter and the precedent for what Secretary Sebelius has done and is doing, and there is precedent for it, including in the previous administration.  And so, yes, I would say that when it comes to the Affordable Care Act, in keeping with an institution in the House of Representatives with its leadership that has now voted 39 times to repeal something that the Speaker of the House himself said after last election was law, and that he should -- they were rethinking their strategy on this, demonstrates a political and partisan approach to some of these issues that isn’t helpful when it comes to what the American people really want us to be doing here, which is addressing their concerns -- addressing their focus on the economy and the need for it to continue to grow; addressing their sense that the middle class still needs Washington to help it grow and thrive, and for Washington to take action to ensure that the economy is creating the kinds of jobs in the future that will support a middle-class family.
 
That's the President’s focus.  And I think that there have been repeated instances, and I think many of you have written and reported on them, where there has been an attempt to take an issue and turn it into a political or partisan football.
 
Q    And the precedent you were going to cite?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I’m sorry?
 
Q    Of the precedents you were going to cite for Secretary Sebelius Enroll Now?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Let’s see if I have that here.  I believe when the Medicare Part D issue was passed in the previous administration that there was similar fundraising done, or similar efforts to engage private and nonprofit institutions into the effort to publicize the enrollment of people into the new program that was started under the previous administration -- and unpaid for we can always remember.
 
What I can say is that we are aggressively engaging in a wide range of stakeholder conversations about the President’s health care law, as was done, as I mentioned, in previous administrations implementing Medicare Part D and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
 
The White House and HHS officials routinely and appropriately engage with outside groups on the implementation of the health care law, including educating these groups about what we are doing and finding out about the work they are doing.
 
Meanwhile, as I mentioned, Republicans are trying to fight old political battles that have been decided -- a law that was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court, much discussed and debated in a presidential election that President Obama won.  And we are about the business of implementing health care reform so that it can continue to provide benefits to millions of Americans.
 
Q    But you’re bedeviled by the fact that there’s not sufficient funding for the Enroll Now component.  Isn’t this why you’re going outside of the system?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think as you know, the Public Health Service Act gives the Secretary -- well, maybe you don't know so I’ll tell you.  The Public Health Service Act gives the Secretary the authority to encourage support for educational efforts related to health care.  Specifically, it allows her to “support by grant or contract and to encourage others to support private, nonprofit entities working in health information and health promotion, preventive health services, and education in the appropriate use of health care.” 
 
And we, of course, support the Secretary exercising her authority under the law, just, as I mentioned, previous Secretaries have.
 
Scott.
 
Q    Thanks, Jay.  When the President learned about the findings in the IRS audit in the newspaper, did he ask senior advisors why he was learning about this from the newspaper?
 
MR. CARNEY:  No, I don't believe he did.  I wasn’t present when he learned about it, but I know that he was not happy with the apparent conduct -- because, again, this was incomplete information; the IG report had not been finalized or released. But I think that the tenor of the President’s public comments about it both in his statement Tuesday night and his public comments the next day reflect his feelings upon learning about the apparent conduct by IRS officials in Cincinnati.
 
Q    Just a quick follow-on.  Did he ever ask -- not necessarily in a critical vein, but just to sort of get a sense of how the White House is operating -- why he wasn’t informed of that earlier?  Or was that self-apparent?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I was asked yesterday about this.  The President believes and has faith -- believes that the Counsel’s decision was the right one and has faith in her judgment on these issues.  This is the kind of thing that was an ongoing -- again, let’s be clear.  Let’s step back and look at what we’re talking about here.  This was an uncompleted, ongoing, independent Inspector General’s audit of activity by IRS personnel that turned out to be wholly inappropriate and wrong.  It would have been wrong for him to do anything about it while the audit was still underway.  It would have at the very least created the appearance of intervening in an ongoing investigation or audit.  And the cardinal rule here, as it should be, is that you do not intervene in ongoing criminal investigations or ongoing independent Inspector General audits.
 
Q    I understand your point.  Mine is more -- that was so obvious to him that he didn't need to ask anyone about why he wasn’t informed --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I wasn’t privy to every conversation that he had about this, but I know that he has faith in his Counsel’s judgment, which I think has been testified to by numerous people who actually know what they're talking about in this area. 
 
And this is not about public relations.  Obviously when a story like this breaks, we had to make the decision not to react to it until we had the actual facts, as opposed to reacting to partial information that appeared in the press.  And that can be judged as inconvenient from a communications point of view, but it’s absolutely the right thing to do from a substance and policy point of view.
 
Q    Jay?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Yes, sir.
 
Q    Thank you.  Last week, when the Turkish Prime Minister was here, President Obama said that they both agreed that Assad needs to go.  He needs to transfer power to transitional body, and that is the only way that they are going to resolve this crisis.  Does it mean that the military option now is off of table, or “all options on the table” rule is still valid? 
 
MR. CARNEY:  All options remain on the table as they have been.  Regardless of the options that the President is reviewing and the options that he implements, it is absolutely our position that the only outcome that is right for the Syria people is the transition in Syria from the Assad era to a post-Assad era.  And it has long been our position that the best way to accomplish that is through a political transition. 
 
That is why we have, with the Russians, reinvigorated the Geneva framework or approach that we talked about -- the Geneva Communiqué -- that envisions that political transition.  And we have made clear that in our view, the Syrian people have made clear that the future cannot include Bashar al-Assad because he has the blood of his own people on his hands and he has proven himself to be a terrible tyrant and a murderer of his own people.
 
Q    So one detail -- the U.S. administration is okay with negotiating with the Assad regime, but not --
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think we have made clear that it is up to the Syrian opposition to decide in that transition with whom they will have those conversations, which members of the present government or the Assad government they would have those discussions.  They have made clear that they do not view Assad as having a role in that process.  We have made clear that we do not believe that Assad has any place in Syria's future.  But obviously, the decisions about the process itself and who participates in it would have to be agreed to by the Syrian opposition.
 
Q    Jay, can we just go back to the IRS here real quick?  Because there have been a few questions --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Hans, I'll get to you.  I'll get to you.
 
Q    Okay.
 
MR. CARNEY:  There are important matters around the world -- Syria is one of them.  Go ahead.
 
Q    Jay, are you welcoming Iran for the next Geneva Two meetings?  What's your position on that?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I'll have to get back to you.  I don’t have an answer to that question.
 
Hans.
 
Q    Okay.  So can I just clarify on the Childress-Patterson meeting, was that separate and distinct from the --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, there were -- it was communication.
 
Q    Okay, excuse me.  Was the Patterson-Childress communication different than what Ruemmler was -- did that happen in a different forum than when Ruemmler was informed on the 24th?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Different forum?
 
Q    Was Ruemmler part of that conversation?
 
MR. CARNEY:  As I said yesterday, when the White House Counsel, Kathy Ruemmler, was informed of this she informed some members of senior staff, including the Chief of Staff.  Mark Childress, Deputy Chief of Staff, was among those who was informed.  
 
Q    So the Childress --
 
MR. CARNEY:  And it was after that that he had the communication --
 
Q    Okay, so the Childress-Patterson kind of communication happens after April 24th?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I'm not sure if it happened the same day, but it was after he was informed by Kathy Ruemmler about this issue.
 
Q    Okay.  And then who initiated that conversation?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t know.
 
Q    You don’t know whether it came from the White House to the Treasury?
 
MR. CARNEY:  As I said yesterday, there were discussions between Office of the General Counsel and Chief of Staff office in Treasury, on the one hand, and Counsel's and Chief of Staff's office on the other about the issue of timing and the issue of the findings themselves.  And that is the context within which the communication between Mr. Childress and Mr. Patterson took place.
 
Q    When Ruemmler made the announcement internally, did she do that through email?  Did she do it at a staff meeting?  When and how was that done?  And was it done on the 24th or the 23rd?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again -- I think two things -- one, it was not an announcement.  It was she informed some members of the senior staff. 
 
Q    Which members?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think I've just said -- Denis McDonough, Mark Childress, some other members of senior staff.
 
Q    And only those two knew?
 
MR. CARNEY:  No, I didn't say that.  But here's the point.  Some members of senior staff were informed by Kathy Ruemmler about the fact that --
 
Q    And how were they informed?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don't know that she -- she may have had conversations, but there was certainly an email perhaps.  But the point --
 
Q    Perhaps or for certain?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Hans, can I ask what is it that you're trying  --
 
Q    I'm trying to figure out how people in this building knew, what they knew, and when they knew it. 
 
MR. CARNEY:  Let's step back.  Here's what they knew.
 
Q    -- for not asking precise questions.  Here I am asking precise questions and you're acting like I'm petulant.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm just trying to figure out what it is -- we've provided you -- I can't believe anybody would ever call you petulant.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    Or you forthcoming. 
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, we've provided you with a significant amount of information about how we found out, who found out, conversations that took place.  And the fundamental fact is that every action we took was mindful of the need to allow the Inspector General to continue and finalize and complete his audit.  We did not in any way intervene, because we follow the cardinal rule here.  And our only effort here was to find out information about when this information would be made public and what it would be, because, again, we don't intervene in internal Inspector General investigations.  I think I've given you a lot of --
 
Q    Do you know how Ruemmler informed members?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I don't have more information to give you here. The fact is that she found out; she alerted some other members of senior staff; there were conversations with Treasury involving some members of senior staff.  The President was not informed.  The whole nature of the conversation was simply about the fact that this Inspector General was completing an audit that would likely find, as I said yesterday, that IRS line personnel had improperly targeted conservative groups.  And our interest was simply in finding out when the report would be concluded and when that information would be made public.
 
Q    At the risk of being petulant, on April 24th, when Ms. Ruemmler informed some White House staff -- I realize you might not want to name everyone -- did she inform you?  Were you one of the people? 
 
MR. CARNEY:  I was not informed.
 
Q    Are you disappointed in that?  Since this -- well, not just from your standpoint here, but in terms of you're the press secretary and this was going to have to be conveyed to the public at some point, and now the White House Counsel has an inkling officially that there's a report that maybe a bunch of conservative groups were targeted and it might create a political firestorm, shouldn't the press secretary have been brought in?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think I found out -- or would have found out the way that -- let's back up.  The Inspector General was completing a report.  If that report contained the information that was indicated, it would be something that we would want to respond to.  And as you saw, the President responded very firmly to it. 
 
I was perfectly capable of assisting in that response upon learning the information.  Again, the suggestion that I should have known or that the President should have known earlier so that I could have said something or done something, again, suggests all the --
 
Q    But you need to be prepared to respond.
 
MR. CARNEY:  It suggests that -- all these questions suggest that somehow the President should have done something in the midst of an independent --
 
Q    I didn’t suggest that.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Or I.  What if I come out and started --
 
Q    Because you’re the -- you have to cover this podium and deal with these questions for days.
 
MR. CARNEY:  And I think that we -- the response that we had upon the release of that report was very clear.  The President spoke firmly about how outraged he was by the behavior.  He made clear that we would hold -- that he expected people to be held accountable, and that changes ought to be made. 
 
Q    So what day did you learn?
 
MR. CARNEY:  The same day the President did.
 
Q    From news reports?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Correct.
 
Q    So no one in this building told you?
 
MR. CARNEY:  That’s correct.
 
Q    Okay.  And then real quick on the timeline.  Yesterday the timeline changed a little bit, maybe just by a few days, but it did change from the week of April 22nd, Ms. Ruemmler being notified.  You said yesterday it was actually a broad heads-up, not detailed, but a broad heads-up on April 16th.  Are you now confident from that podium that April 16th is the actual day that anyone in this building was notified that this report was being put together?  Or might this change again?  Are you saying now this is it?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I am confident that this is when the first notification came as part of a series of items that were being included in a general heads-up about pending matters to a member of the White House Counsel’s office.  And the White House Counsel herself was not made aware of this until April 24th.  Again -- because I think it’s important -- because all of these questions about what we knew in April of 2013 about an ongoing independent Inspector General inquiry has no bearing on the conduct itself, which concluded in May of 2012 --
 
Q    Unless someone knew before that.  That’s part of my question.  Are we certain April 16th is it, or did someone know in 2012 in this building?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Not in this building.  And I think it’s been made clear that, like Congressman Issa and others, others at Treasury were aware that there was an Inspector General audit going on.  It was publicly posted we’ve come to learn by the Inspector General in the fall of 2012 that this audit was being conducted.
 
But in terms of the fact that the IG was concluding his audit and that the findings were, at least preliminarily, that there had been this conduct, we learned about it first in that full form on April 24th, as I said yesterday, and prior to that as part of a number of items on April 16th.
 
Q    And in terms of voracity, how do you know that it’s April 24th in terms of like has the White House Counsel done some formal review, gone through email, interviewed people, just to make sure that someone in this building did not --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, Ed, I think it’s been looked at and we’ve provided you the information.  And, again, I would just --it would be great for everybody to step back and ask themselves what is it that we're learning about the White House and what --
 
Q    The voracity of when the White House knew something and tells the public that they learned of it is an important issue, you would agree?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Absolutely.  And we've been absolutely forthcoming about that and provided more specificity than I think has been the case in previous administrations on matters like this.  And the fundamental fact here is that we did not intervene in an ongoing Inspector General audit of the IRS because we shouldn’t and it would be inappropriate to do so.  We waited to respond and to take any action for the completion of that report. 
It is also -- again, going to the tenor and focus of your questions -- it is important to note that the report itself and the Inspector General himself has said that they found no indication of outside influence or political motivation behind this.  And regardless of the motivation, by the way, as the President has made clear, the activity was improper, inappropriate, and wrong.
 
Q    Last thing.  With the James Rosen case, yesterday you repeatedly said it's an ongoing criminal investigation so you can't comment.  Overnight, various Justice Department officials have told Huffington Post, Washington Post, maybe others that they have no plans to press criminal charges against James Rosen. Is that your understanding?  Is that what the White House --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I obviously would not know about or have comment on prosecutorial decisions in an ongoing criminal investigation. 
 
But, look, I'm glad you asked me this because I wanted to follow up on our discussions yesterday, because I know this is an issue that everyone here cares deeply about and it's an issue I care deeply about.  It's something I have talked to the President about in the past, and it's something that I talked to the President about yesterday after the briefing. 
 
And while, again, he cannot and I cannot comment on the specifics of any ongoing criminal matter, I can tell you that in our conversation yesterday he reiterated just how important he believes it is that reporters, that all of you and your colleagues, are able to do your jobs in a free and open way.  And as he has said, he believes there is an important balance to be found here, and he thinks the questions about how that balance is being struck are entirely legitimate and he welcomes the public discussions, again, about the broad question of the balance that needs to be struck.
 
Because there is no question that when classified information is leaked, that is a violation of the law.  And it is a serious matter, as we have seen in some cases, and as Director Mueller and others have stated about some of the investigation -- matters under investigation.  It is also vital to our democracy  -- and the President believes this deeply -- that the press is allowed to pursue investigative journalism freely.  He is a fierce defender of the First Amendment, of press freedom, and will continue to be. 
 
And you asked, again, about a specific matter, and I can't comment on the specifics of any ongoing criminal matter.  But if you're asking me whether the President believes that journalists should be prosecuted for doing their jobs, the answer is no. 
 
Peter.
 
Q    Jay, during the Senate Finance Committee hearing on the IRS today, soon-to-be-former acting commissioner Steve Miller said that the IRS has, in his words, "clarity" on the person who initiated the practice of targeting conservative groups, but that he didn’t know the name, in his language, "off the top of his head."  Will you tell us the name of the person?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, we don’t have independent information about this.  This is an independent Inspector General --
 
Q    This is being done on Capitol Hill.  This is not from the IG report; these are conversations happening today.  So what does the White House --
 
MR. CARNEY:  I understand that, but --
 
Q    -- hey, this guy knows who it is, we want to know who it is.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, we want accountability.  That is why the President appointed a new acting commissioner and why he is undertaking the effort to conduct a 30-day top-down review to find out as much information as possible in addition to what we've learned in the IG report about what happened here and who's responsible for the inappropriate behavior, making sure that people are held accountable, and that we take steps to ensure it doesn’t happen again. 
 
Again, the question suggests that we have some independent investigative apparatus here that would have insight into this.  We don’t.  There was an independent IG investigation into this.  He reached his conclusions, including that there was this wholly inappropriate activity going on.  And the President has spoken very clearly about his views on that.
 
Q    But if you reached out to Jack Lew at Treasury and told him that we'd like this person to resign -- which he did -- isn't it possible that the White House could reach out and say, this guy who we've asked to resign has resigned, and he knows the person who's in charge of this, and without waiting for 30 more days --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, Peter, I think you can be sure that one of the purposes of the 30-day review is to find out, with specificity, more detail about what happened and who is responsible, and to hold those people accountable, and also to make sure that there are procedures in place so that it doesn’t happen again.  I'm not going to get into individuals as that 30-day review is being conducted.  I can simply point you to the information that we all have, which is the IG report that was released last Wednesday.
 
Q    I brought that up only because when Lois Lerner made her comment on the Friday before, we were saying the report is not done so we can’t conclude, even though she apologized and said this is in fact what happened.  In this case, it’s another person saying this is in fact what happened.  So I figured we might be --
 
MR. CARNEY:  But the IG report has said this is in fact what happened.  Getting more information beyond the IG report is part of what the 30-day top-down review was about.  There’s obviously, as we’ve said, legitimate congressional oversight to be conducted here and I think also the Department of Justice has said it’s looking into this matter.
 
Q    -- but then what?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I’m not even sure what you’re -- I think that, appropriately, the White House is not doing an independent investigation of the IRS.  That is happening in places where it should happen.  And that includes the IRS itself, overseen by Treasury; it includes Congress; and it includes the Department of Justice.
 
Q    Let me ask you just briefly on a different topic.  I know that the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, is testifying today and a Senate panel said that Apple is avoiding billions of dollars in U.S. taxes by shifting its profits to foreign affiliates.  Obviously this doesn’t help in terms of the White House’s view on the way taxes and companies in the U.S. should help their own country in terms of paying taxes.  What’s the White House’s position on Apple?  Or on this situation?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Thank you for the question.  I can say that I can’t comment, for obvious reasons, on a specific company’s taxes.  But the broader issue is one that is of concern to the President and one that he’s focused on, because in terms of the policy matters that it raises, the report by Senators Levin and McCain raises a set of broader issues around companies that ship their profits and their jobs offshore. 
 
And it is our view that Senators Levin and McCain have done an important job in raising awareness of this issue and putting forward ideas to cut back on the abuses.  As you know, the President has long argued that the tax code today is tilted against companies that want to create jobs in America while it rewards companies for shipping jobs and profits overseas.
 
As a result, he has long championed a set of proposals to ensure that American companies cannot use offshore profit shifting to avoid paying taxes, including a proposal for a minimum tax on foreign earnings that would provide a comprehensive solution to this problem.
 
We look forward to working with Senators McCain and Levin, and anyone else who will work with us to reform our tax code in a way that makes sure that everyone is paying their fair share and that our tax code is designed to reward job creation opportunities in the United States instead of tax avoidance and profit-shifting opportunities to low-tax countries around the world.
 
And as anyone knows who’s been covering the President from the beginning here, and certainly in the discussions we’ve had about tax policy in the last few years, this has been a major priority of his because he thinks it is inexplicable that our tax code would actually be written in a way that rewards companies for taking jobs and profits offshore, and thereby penalizes companies for doing what we want them to do, which is create jobs and opportunity here in the United States.
 
Q    And very briefly, concluding on the tornadoes that are taking place, during the Sandy aid bill deliberations, 36 Republicans in the Senate voted against the Sandy aid bill.  In the words of Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, he described it as a slush fund because it had monies not just for those in the Northeast who had been affected, but other places like the Virgin Islands, he says, and roof and roads in Washington, D.C.  Would the President exclusively sign an aid bill going forward if the money is limited exclusively to Oklahoma, or will he sign a bill if there is anything outside of Oklahoma in that aid bill?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think you’re way ahead of the process and any assessment of what needs there might be in the recovery effort after this terrible severe weather and tornado in Oklahoma.
 
Right now, as I said, FEMA has sufficient resources to respond.  It has generally been our position that we have been appreciative of Congress’s willingness to work with us to ensure that people and regions affected by these kinds of natural disasters are assisted right away and that the resources necessary are provided to them.  But, again, that is a general proposition.  We are not at the stage yet in assessing the impact of the storms and weather in Oklahoma to know what kind of needs there will be.
 
Steve Collinson.
 
Q    Yesterday the President called President of Lebanon and raised concern about Hezbollah’s role in fighting on the side of the Assad regime.  Is this a sign the White House is concerned that this link-up, which is also involving Iran, could tip the conflict back towards the Assad government?
 
MR. CARNEY:  It's a sign that we are concerned, as are our partners and allies, about the expansion of this conflict.  We have condemned, and condemn again, Hezbollah's direct intervention in the assault on Qusayr -- if I'm pronouncing that correctly -- where Hezbollah fighters are playing a significant role in the regime's offensive.  Hezbollah's occupation of villages in Syria and its support for the regime and pro-Assad militias exacerbate and inflame regional sectarian tensions and perpetuate the regime's campaign of terror against the Syrian people.
 
I think, as asked earlier about something we've discussed in the past about Iran's support for Assad and Hezbollah's support for Assad, I think it says a lot about Assad that this is where he is looking for assistance.  And we strongly condemn that direct intervention.  And as the President reiterated in his call with the Lebanese President yesterday, we continue to fully support Lebanon's stated policy of "disassociation" from the Syria crisis, and urge all parties in the region to act with restraint and respect for Lebanon's stability and security.
 
Q    Does this growing role of Hezbollah complicate or sway the deliberations the President is taking about how U.S. support for the rebels will evolve?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think that there are a number of things that are factored into the deliberations about the options that the President's team is constantly reviewing.  The fact that you have this involvement by Hezbollah is something that we strongly condemn because of the effects that it has and the impact it has on inflaming regional tensions and sectarian tensions.
 
It is precisely why we need to move


]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 17:10:00 CDT Tue, 21 May 2013 16:53:30 CDT

	Secretary Duncan Joins House GOP in Support for Long-term Solution to Student Loan Interest Rates	From: EdWorkforce Views: 41 1 ratings
	Time: 03:08	More in News & Politics

]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 16:35:04 CDT

	Thune on Senate Floor on IRS Targed Audits Senator John Thune (R-SD) speaks on the Senate Floor regarding the IRS deliberately targeting Conservative groups.	From: U.S. Senator John Thune Views: 5 0 ratings
	Time: 08:53	More in News & Politics

]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 16:34:35 CDT

	Thune at Commerce on Vehicles of the Future Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, delivers his opening statement at the "The Road Ah...	From: U.S. Senator John Thune Views: 3 0 ratings
	Time: 04:58	More in News & Politics

]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 16:31:47 CDT The House will vote tomorrow on legislation to finally allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion private sector energy infrastructure project that will bring thousands of jobs and greater energy supplies to America. Rep. Lee Terry’s (R-NE) bill, H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, will bypass the president’s delays by removing the need for a Presidential Permit. The legislation also includes several provisions to prevent additional regulatory hurdles and legal challenges. H.R. 3 would limit the judicial review process, satisfy all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, and streamline the permitting and approval process for all other necessary federal permits.

This is not the first time Congress has had to intervene to build a pipeline. Legislation was necessary forty years ago to achieve construction of the game-changing Trans-Alaska Pipeline after facing many of the same challenges as Keystone XL. Both pipelines faced litigation from environmental groups that would delay or block the projects, both projects underwent lengthy NEPA reviews, and both projects needed rights of way across federal lands. Congress ultimately had to intervene to cut the red tape and allow the Trans-Alaska pipeline to move forward, and now similar action is needed to build Keystone XL. In fact, many provisions of H.R. 3 are modeled after the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. The House approved this historic piece of legislation in 1973 by a vote of 361-14, with Democrats voting 187-13 in favor of the measure. The Senate approved the conference report on the legislation 80-5, with 44 Democrats voting for it.

During markup of H.R. 3, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) explained, “This is not the first time Congress has debated a pipeline project held captive by federal red tape despite its great potential to create jobs and increase the supply of North American energy. Forty years ago, we faced a very similar situation with the Alaska pipeline. It took an act of Congress to break the bureaucratic impasse, limit the litigation, and achieve the Alaska pipeline’s construction, and now we must do the same for Keystone XL. H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, will end the needless delays and finally allow construction of this landmark jobs and energy infrastructure project.”

To learn more about H.R. 3, click HERE.

To view a copy of the committee’s report, “A History Worth Repeating: The Alaska Pipeline and Its Lessons for Keystone XL,” click HERE.

###

- - - - - - -

AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 13639

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Amendment to Executive Order 13639. Section 2 of Executive Order 13639 of March 28, 2013 (Establishment of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration), is amended by striking subsection 2(a) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(a) The Commission shall be composed of not more than ten members appointed by the President. The members shall be drawn from among distinguished individuals with knowledge about or experience in the administration of State or local elections, as well as representatives of successful customer service-oriented businesses, and any other individuals with knowledge or experience determined by the President to be of value to the Commission."

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

The President and the Vice President were moved by the stories of courage and determination of these young immigrants and their families. The Dreamers shared how their lives have been positively affected by the deferred action process and emphasized that they and their families need a permanent solution that will allow them to fully contribute to the country they call home.

At the meeting, the President reiterated his commitment to passing a bipartisan, commonsense immigration reform bill this year. He made clear that while the current bill is not perfect, it does represent an important step towards the broad principles that need to be part of any immigration reform package.

The President underscored that their stories are a good reminder that immigration isn’t just a policy issue, but it’s about our families, our communities and it’s about our common future. The President and the Vice President thanked participants for their leadership, courage and on-going efforts to move immigration reform legislation forward.  The President also encouraged them to continue to share their stories with the American public to move the hearts and minds of individual leaders and to propel the immigration debate forward. 

The following people participated in the today’s meeting. Participants are visiting Washington to speak to their elected representatives as the Senate considers immigration reform legislation:

• Diana Colin. Diana is a legal permanent resident who currently resides in Los Angeles, California. One of her brothers received deferred action.
• Kate Kahan, Legislative Director, Center for Community Change. Kate is the Legislative Director for the Center for Community Change, a national social justice organization that is a member of the Alliance for Citizenship coalition in support of commonsense immigration reform.
• Angie Kim. Angie is a South Korean immigrant who resides in New York, New York; she received deferred action. 
• Miguel Leal.   Miguel is a U.S. citizen who resides in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. He is an Iraq war veteran. Miguel is an immigrant from Cuba; his wife in undocumented.
• Kevin Lee. Kevin is a South Korean immigrant who received deferred action. He currently resides in Los Angeles, California. Both of his parents are undocumented.
• Mehdi Mahraoui. Mehdi came to the United States from Morocco when he was 7 years old. He is a legal permanent resident and lives in New York, New York. His parents and his older sister remain undocumented.
• Melissa McGuire-Maniau. Melissa’s husband is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico. Melissa is a U.S. veteran; she and her husband reside in Winter Park, Florida.
• Justino Mora. Justino received deferred action; he currently resides in Los Angeles, California.

The UFCW is not the first union that has expressed concern over the law. Recently, the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers International President Kinsey M. Robinson warned, “In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the Act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer sponsored coverage could keep it.” And concluded by “calling for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act…” The Hill also quotes an unidentified labor official who referenced hearing concerns at a recent meeting that the more union members "learn about it, the more upset they are."

May 21, 2013

Unions Break Ranks on ObamaCare

Labor unions are breaking with President Obama on ObamaCare.

Months after the president’s reelection, a variety of unions are publicly balking at how the administration plans to implement the landmark law. They warn that unless there are changes, the results could be catastrophic.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) — a 1.3 million-member labor group that twice endorsed Obama for president — is very worried about how the reform law will affect its members’ healthcare plans.

Last month, the president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers released a statement calling “for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.”

UNITE HERE, a prominent hotel workers’ union, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are also pushing for changes.

In a new op-ed published in The Hill, UFCW President Joe Hansen homed in on the president’s speech at the 2009 AFL-CIO convention. Obama at the time said union members could keep their insurance under the law, but Hansen writes “that the president’s statement to labor in 2009 is simply not true for millions of workers.”

Republicans have long attacked Obama’s promise that “nothing in this plan will require you to change your coverage or your doctor.” But the fact that unions are now noting it as well is a clear sign that supporters of the law are growing anxious about the law’s implementation.

Many UFCW members have what are known as multi-employer or Taft-Hartley plans. According to the administration’s analysis of the Affordable Care Act, the law does not provide tax subsidies for the roughly 20 million people covered by the plans. Union officials argue that interpretation could force their members to change their insurance and accept more expensive and perhaps worse coverage in the state-run exchanges.

Hansen, who is also the head of the Change to Win labor federation, told The Hill that his members often negotiate with their employers to receive better healthcare services instead of higher wages. Those bargaining gains could be wiped away because some employers won’t have the incentive to keep their workers’ multi-employer plans without tax subsidies.

“You can’t have the same quality healthcare that you had before, despite what the president said,” Hansen said. “Now what’s going to happen is everybody is going to have to go to private for-profit insurance companies. We just don’t think that’s right. ... We just want to keep what we already have and what we bought at tremendous cost.”

If the administration were to expand the subsidies to cover the Taft-Hartley plans, it’s likely that the price tag for ObamaCare would rise, though it’s unclear by how much.

Union angst over the healthcare law is being matched by some Democrats on Capitol Hill. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has said the law’s implementation could be a “train wreck,” while other senior Democrats, including House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), have expressed reservations.

Both parties agree that ObamaCare is going to be a major issue in the 2014 midterm elections, especially because the bulk of the law is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1 next year.

Labor recently shared its concerns with senior Democrats.

Earlier this month, the subject of how multi-employer health plans would be treated under ObamaCare was brought up at a private May 8 meeting between union leaders and the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee.

“A number of people were making this point at that meeting. People said that their members are upset about this and the more they learn about it, the more upset they are,” said one union official.

“I was pretty blunt about it,” said Hansen. “I told them it was a very serious issue. That it was wrong. Taft-Hartley plans should be deemed as qualified healthcare providers and I also said it’s going to have political repercussions if we don’t get this fixed.”

Hansen wants the Obama administration to use its regulatory powers to address the matter; a legislative remedy is all but impossible in the divided 113th Congress.

“When [the Obama administration] started writing the rules and regulations, we just assumed that Taft-Hartley plans — that workers covered by those plans, especially low-wage workers — would be eligible for the subsidies and stay in their plans and they’re not,” Hansen said.

Union anger on multi-employer plans has been percolating for months. In January, The Wall Street Journal reported that UNITE HERE and the Teamsters were pressing the administration. UFCW was also mentioned in that report.

Asked why he decided to raise the volume on his worries about ObamaCare, Hansen said he needed to speak out in support of his members.

“I owe it to my members to do everything I can to see if we can make this law better,” Hansen said.

He added, “[Administration officials] have given us a lot of time and attention. We just don’t agree and I still think that I have taken the correct position. They have been responsive as far as trying to get the meetings. It’s just we can’t get it across the finish line and we need to do that.”

Hansen, however, said he has no regrets about endorsing Obama or supporting the healthcare reform law. UFCW is a major Democratic donor, contributing to several of the party’s candidates and giving to last year’s convention in Charlotte, N.C., and this year’s inauguration.

The union president said changes to his members’ health insurance might lead to problems at the ballot box for candidates.

“What happens in 2014 could be at issue here. ... There is going to be a lot of disenchantment with how did this happen and who was in power when it happened. No matter what I say, that’s going to be there,” Hansen said. “They are upset already and it hasn’t even taken effect already.”

To read the article online, click here.

###  

WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan testified today before the House Education and the Workforce Committee emphasizing important progress made in education during President Obama’s first term and highlighting urgent educational challenges that remain, such as rewriting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

“Education is not just an expense—it’s an investment,” said Secretary Duncan. “In fact, it is one of the most critical investments in the future that we, as a Nation, can make.  America cannot win the race for the future without investing in education—it’s that simple.”

President Obama’s fiscal year 2014 budget reflects a strong commitment to students and families. Specifically, the president’s budget increases federal investment across several key education programs including: early learning aimed at ensuring all children enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school and life, K-12 education that makes school safer, rigorous, and attuned to needs of the whole child, and making college affordable for all, especially low-income students.

“For each of the past two years, Republicans have released budgets filled with giveaways to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of educating our nation’s children,” said Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. “In contrast, I’m glad to see the president’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposal seeks to ensure our nation is equipped to grow our economy and help retain our global competitiveness.”

Miller drew stark contrasts between the president’s budget and the budget released by House Republicans in March. Unlike President Obama’s proposal, the proposed Republican budget for fiscal year 2014 drastically cuts vital education resources and makes it more difficult for students to get a college education and pay off debt. The Republican budget not only leaves in place the across-the board cuts known as sequestration but calls for more cuts to education programs across the country, freezes the maximum Pell award at fiscal year 2013 levels for the next ten years, and allows interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent for 7.2 million students. 

Last week, Republicans on the committee passed legislation that would make a college education more expensive by charging students and families nearly $4 billion more in higher interest payments for their loans.  The independent, nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that students and parents will pay more for their student loans under the Republican plan – more even if interest were to double on July 1.

Miller also pointed out the urgent need for Congress to work together to reform and update the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in order to address current national needs and the laws' shortfalls. In the face of Congressional inaction, the Department has awarded 37 states and the District of Columbia needed relief from parts of ESEA.

“I wish we did not need to discuss waiver renewals. I wish we were working in a bipartisan fashion to renew this law—the way we have done for years. It’s the only way we could get a bill to the president’s desk and signed into law,” said Miller.

5/22/13

Overnight, the President continued to receive updates from his team on the ongoing response in Oklahoma. Following yesterday's call to the Mayor of Moore Oklahoma, Glenn Lewis, the President spoke again to Governor Fallin expressing his concern for those who had been impacted and to reiterate that he had directed his Administration to provide all available resources to support the response led by the Governor and her team. Last night, the President also spoke with Senator James Inhofe to make clear that FEMA stood ready to continue to support the people of Oklahoma through the immediate response phase as well as the recovery, and to let the Senator know that Oklahomans remained in his thoughts and prayers.

On Tuesday, at the President’s direction, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate arrived in Oklahoma to ensure that federal resources were effectively supporting the response efforts. Administrator Fugate is on the ground again today, and this morning Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will also travel to the affected area to meet with local officials and see ongoing response efforts first hand.

As of this morning, FEMA has more than 400 personnel already on the ground supporting the response, including three national Urban Search and Rescue Teams, an Incident Management Assistance Team, as well as personnel focused on helping survivors register for and receive the federal assistance made available by the major disaster declaration signed by the President on Monday night. As of 2 a.m. this morning, more than 1,000 individuals affected by the tornadoes and severe weather in Oklahoma had registered for assistance with FEMA.

The President received a briefing this morning by his team, and will continue to be updated on the response throughout the day.

5/21/13

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on the ongoing response to the devastating tornadoes and severe weather that impacted Oklahoma, in the State Dining Room of the White House, May 21, 2013. Vice President Joe Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and FEMA Deputy Administrator Richard Serino accompany the President. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

Update 3: As response and recovery efforts continue on the ground in Oklahoma, the Department of Homeland Security announced this afternoon that Secretary Janet Napolitano will travel to the area tomorrow to meet with state and local officials and ensure first responders are receiving the assistance they need to help those affected by the tornadoes.

Update 2: This morning, President Obama delivered a statement on the devastating tornadoes and severe weather that impacted Oklahoma. He described the response efforts underway, and assured the people of Moore and all the affected areas that they "would have all the resources that they need at their disposal."

For there are homes and schools to rebuild, businesses and hospitals to reopen, there are parents to console, first responders to comfort, and, of course, frightened children who will need our continued love and attention. There are empty spaces where there used to be living rooms, and bedrooms, and classrooms, and, in time, we’re going to need to refill those spaces with love and laughter and community.

"Americans from every corner of this country will be right there with them, opening our homes, our hearts to those in need," President Obama said. "Because we're a nation that stands with our fellow citizens as long as it takes. We've seen that spirit in Joplin, in Tuscaloosa; we saw that spirit in Boston and Breezy Point. And that’s what the people of Oklahoma are going to need from us right now."

Watch the full statement below or read the remarks here.

read more

• Robert F. Bauer  –  Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Benjamin L. Ginsberg  – Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Brian Britton – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Joe Echevarria – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Trey Grayson – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Larry Lomax – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Michele Coleman Mayes – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Ann McGeehan – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Tammy Patrick – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Christopher Thomas – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration

President Obama said, “The right to vote is one of the most essential rights provided by the Constitution.  As I said in my State of the Union Address, when any American, no matter where they live or what their party, is denied that right simply because too many obstacles stand in their way, we are betraying our ideals.  We have an obligation to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without unwarranted obstructions or unnecessary delay. I am pleased that these committed individuals have agreed to offer their expertise to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration and I look forward to working with them in the coming months.”

President Obama announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration:

Robert F. Bauer, Appointee for Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Robert F. Bauer is currently a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and General Counsel to the Democratic National Committee.  He previously served as General Counsel to Obama for America and served as White House Counsel from 2009 to 2011.  In his 30 years of practice, Mr. Bauer has provided counseling and representation on matters involving regulation of political activity before courts and administrative agencies for national party committees, candidates, political committees, individuals, Federal officeholders, corporations and trade associations, and tax-exempt groups.  He received a B.A. from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.

Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Appointee for Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Benjamin L. Ginsberg is currently a partner at Patton Boggs LLP where he represents campaigns, candidates, members of Congress and state legislatures, Governors, corporations, trade associations and individuals participating in the political process.  He was formerly General Counsel to the Republican National Committee, and currently represents the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.  He also serves as Counsel to the Republican Governors Association.  Mr. Ginsberg recently served as National Counsel to the Romney for President campaign and previously served as National Counsel to the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign in 2000 and 2004.  He received an A.B. from the University of Pennsylvania and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

Brian Britton, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Brian Britton is currently the Vice President of Global Park Operations and Initiatives at Walt Disney World Company.  He joined Disney in 1999 and was previously the Vice President of Labor Operations, Operations Strategy, and Operations Support.  He is a board member of Community Based Care of Central Florida, a non-profit organization that manages Central Florida's foster care program, and a board member for the Florida Attractions Association, a tourism industry trade association.  Mr. Britton is a Navy veteran and a former Naval Aviator.  He received a B.S. in Systems Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy, a Master's degree equivalent in the theory and operation of avionic systems in Naval Flight Officer School, and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.

Joe Echevarria, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Joe Echevarria has served as Chief Executive Officer of Deloitte LLP since June 2011.  Mr. Echevarria joined Deloitte in 1978 and became an audit partner in 1988.  Since that time, he has held a wide range of leadership positions, most recently as U.S. Managing Partner for Operations.  As part of his current role, Mr. Echevarria chairs the U.S. Executive Committee, and is a member of the U.S. Board of Directors, the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited Board, and the Americas Executive Committee.  Mr. Echevarria serves on the Board of Trustees and chairs the University of Miami School of Business’s Board of Overseers.  He received a B.A. in Business Administration from the University of Miami.

Trey Grayson, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Trey Grayson is currently the Director of the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.  Mr. Grayson previously served as Secretary of State for Kentucky, elected in 2003 and re-elected in 2007.  Prior to his election, Mr. Grayson practiced law at the law firms of Greenebaum Doll & McDonald and Keating Muething & Klekamp.  Mr. Grayson has served as the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), chair of the NASS Elections Committee, and vice chair of the NASS Committee on Voter Participation.  He received an A.B. from Harvard College, and a J.D. and M.B.A. from the University of Kentucky.

Larry Lomax, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Larry Lomax is currently the Clark County Registrar in Nevada, a position he has held since 1999.  Mr. Lomax serves as Nevada’s representative to the Election Assistance Commission’s Standards Board, was elected by the board’s members to the Standards Board Executive Board, and served on a Pew Foundation Committee focused on modernizing our nation’s system of registering voters.  He previously served as Assistant Registrar in Clark County from 1998 to 1999.  Prior to working in Clark County, Mr. Lomax was a Professor of Leadership and Ethics at the Air War College.  As a former Air Force pilot, he accumulated over 4,000 hours of flying time in a 30-year career.  He served two tours on the Joint Staff in Washington D.C. and was chosen to serve as the Air Force Colonel on the staff group supporting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Mr. Lomax received a B.A. from Stanford University and an M.B.A. from the University of North Dakota.  He is a Distinguished Graduate from the U.S. Air Force Officer Training School.

Michele Coleman Mayes, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Michele Coleman Mayes is currently Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary for the New York Public Library (NYPL).  Ms. Mayes joined NYPL in August 2012 after serving as Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Allstate Insurance Company since 2007.  She served as a Senior Vice President and the General Counsel of Pitney Bowes Inc. from 2003 to 2007 and in several legal capacities at Colgate-Palmolive from 1992 to 2003.  In 1982, Ms. Mayes entered the corporate sector as managing attorney of Burroughs Corporation.  After Burroughs and Sperry Corporation merged, creating Unisys Corporation, she was appointed Staff Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Worldwide Litigation.  From 1976 through 1982, she served in the U.S. Department of Justice as an Assistant United States Attorney in Detroit and Brooklyn, eventually assuming the role of Chief of the Civil Division in Detroit.  Ms. Mayes received a B.A. from the University of Michigan and a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.

Ann McGeehan, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Ann McGeehan is currently the Assistant General Counsel of the Texas County and District Retirement System.  Previously, she served 22 years in the Elections Division of the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, including as the Director of Elections from 1995 to 2011 and the Director of the Elections Legal Section from 1991 to 1995.  Ms. McGeehan is a past president of the National Association of State Election Directors, and a former member of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Standards Board and Technical Guidelines Development Committee.  Ms. McGeehan also served on an advisory group to the Pew Center on the States’ Election Initiative.  She received a B.A. from the University of Texas and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law.

Tammy Patrick, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Tammy Patrick is currently a Federal Compliance Officer for the Maricopa County Elections Department in Arizona.  In 2013, she became a voting member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ working group on developing standards for a universal format for election results reporting.  She is also a representative on the Mailer’s Technical Advisory Committee to the U.S. Post Office and serves as the co-chair of the Postal Task Force for the Election Center.  She has previously served as a member of the Election Assistance Commission’s working group on Language Assistance for Unwritten Language, as an organizer of the 2007 Native American Voter Outreach Summit, and as a member of the Election Center’s National Task Force on Education and Training.  Ms. Patrick received her B.A. from Purdue University.

Christopher Thomas, Appointee for Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Christopher Thomas is the Director of Elections in the Michigan Department of State, a position he has held since 1981.  Mr. Thomas also teaches election law as an Adjunct Professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.  From 1977 to 1981, Mr. Thomas served as Director of Campaign Finance Information and Director of Campaign Finance Operations for the State of Michigan.  Mr. Thomas served as the Director of Public Communications at the Federal Election Commission from 1975 to 1977.  He began his election administration career in 1974 in Washington, D.C. where he was a Staff Assistant responsible for managing campaign finance filings in the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Mr. Thomas is a founding member of the National Association of State Election Directors and currently serves as President.  Mr. Thomas has served on the Board of Advisors to the Election Assistance Commission since 2005.  He received a B.A. from Michigan State University, an M.A. from St. Louis University, and a J.D. from the Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

“As technology evolves so does the urgency to secure our nation’s communications networks,” said Chairman Walden. “Supply chain risk management is essential if we are to guard against those seeking to compromise network equipment or exploit software that runs over and through it. The working group will examine the security of the communications supply chain, the vulnerabilities, the effectiveness of public-private partnerships and the role of the federal government.”

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Ranking Member Anna Eshoo (D-CA) will serve as the group’s co-chairs. The members include Reps. Bob Latta (R-OH), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Lee Terry (R-NE), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), and Jim Matheson (D-UT).

“Protecting our networks from cyber attacks and intruders needs to be a multi-prong attack,” said Rep. Rogers.  “There is no one silver bullet and it cannot be fixed by government alone.  I look forward to working with Chairman Walden to further these initiatives.”

“The implications of foreign-controlled telecommunications infrastructure companies providing equipment to the U.S. market is a very serious threat, which Congress must review carefully," Rep. Eshoo said. “I’m pleased to co-chair the subcommittee’s newest working group focusing on supply chain security. Through stakeholder meetings, we can better understand what steps can be taken to protect U.S. telecommunications infrastructure from inappropriate foreign control or influence.”

###  

Thank you to all the first responders, teachers, and community members who've selflessly helped their friends and neighbors in this moment of hardship.

President Obama promised to make sure that in the weeks and months to come, the communities affected will get everything they need.

If you'd like to help with the relief efforts, please consider supporting the Red Cross today.

Give to Red Cross

A broad number of diverse organizations have lent their support to this commonsense, bipartisan legislation, which creates a clear path forward for the job-creating Keystone XL pipeline. A complete listing of those organizations is available here.

American Commitment

• “H.R. 3 would clear away all remaining regulatory roadblocks to the pipeline and we therefore urge its expeditious passage. There has never been a more ‘shovel ready’ project in history than the Keystone XL pipeline…”

American Council of Engineering Companies

• “To enhance our energy security and develop more reliable and stable long-term energy sources, the U.S. must pursue every avenue possible towards achieving a greater degree and balance of energy self-sufficiency, ranging from innovative alternative/renewable energy sources to natural gas and oil. … The Keystone XL pipeline will help address our energy needs over the long term and will also create significant job growth at an important time in our country.”

American Energy Alliance

• “This project is years overdue, and American families and businesses need and deserve the lower prices that a greater supply of energy always brings. … H.R. 3 recovers proper congressional authority over all aspects of the pipeline’s construction, and enables our elected officials to take decisive action to improve our nation’s economy and energy security.”

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers

• “Completion of the Keystone XL pipeline would strengthen our nation’s energy security by adding another source of supply from our ally and neighbor Canada. It would also provide significant job growth, reduce our nation’s reliance on oil from unstable nations, increase local, state and federal tax revenues, and improve the economy, without having any significant impact on the environment. … AFPM strongly urges approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and fully supports H.R. 3.”

American Petroleum Institute

• “With no clear indication from the administration that this critical energy infrastructure project will be approved, it is appropriate for Congress to prepare an alternative approval process. The Keystone XL Pipeline will create thousands of good paying jobs for the safest, most highly trained workers of the building trades at a time when construction workers have an unemployment rate far higher than the national average.”

Americans for Tax Reform

• “Poll after poll show that the American people are tired of waiting for Keystone pipeline construction to begin. It is time to spur economic growth. It is time to bolster the U.S.’s international standing. It is time to build the Keystone XL Pipeline.”

Associated General Contractors of America

• “The Keystone XL pipeline is a multibillion dollar private-sector infrastructure project. It will bring thousands of jobs and greater energy security to America.”

Association of Oil Pipe Lines

• "Each one of these many pipeline projects will provide good-paying jobs for American construction workers, spur good paying manufacturing jobs supplying steel and pipeline components, and create numerous indirect jobs supplying the services required to support construction workers. … Pipelines are the safest possible way to transport petroleum and Keystone XL will be the safest possible pipeline."

Chamber of Commerce of the United States

• “The Chamber has long been on record in support of this project because it produces good, high paying jobs, increases supplies of Canadian and American crude to refiners, and therefore further bolsters American economic and energy security. And with more than 50 percent of the Gulf Coast segment of the pipeline complete, additional administrative delay of the project seems counterproductive to our national interests and certain to hurt American consumers and industry.”

FreedomWorks

• “(T)his bill would allow for the completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline without any further delay or interference... It’s time to get government out of the way and let the Keystone XL Pipeline be completed.”

Frontiers of Freedom

• "Unfortunately, the pipeline needed to bring this oil to American refineries has been delayed by the never ending litany of approvals, permits, threatened litigation and bureaucratic delays. … It is time to proceed. … Building the pipeline is best for American jobs and the environment."

Heritage Foundation – The Foundry

• “President Obama has stalled Keystone XL’s construction and thus prevented increased energy supply and job creation for far too long. The Northern Route Approval Act would not only set those wheels in motion but prevent other problematic hurdles for Keystone from occurring.”

International Union of Operating Engineers

• “It’s time to unlock the jobs this massive private investment will create and put Operating Engineers to work.”

Laborers’ International Union of North America

• “Too many hard-working Americans are out of work, and the Keystone XL Pipeline will change this dire situation by creating thousands of construction jobs, with good wages and good benefits. For these workers, the Keystone XL is not just a pipeline, it is a lifeline.”

Let Freedom Ring

• “H.R. 3 is a measured, appropriate, and bipartisan response to the continued foot-dragging by the Obama Administration that has blocked the pipeline from moving forward. … Enough is enough. For jobs, for energy security, for future economic growth, we urge the passage of the Northern Route Approval Act.”

National Association of Manufacturers

• “H.R. 3 would bring to a close the unnecessarily protracted regulatory process for the Keystone XL pipeline and allow the project, a clear manufacturing job creator, to move forward.”

National Electrical Contractors Association

• “The benefits of constructing the Keystone XL pipeline are clear: job creation, energy security, energy independence, economic growth; such construction is in the national interest.”

National Federation of Independent Business

• “Providing more affordable energy will directly help small businesses reduce the impact high energy prices have on their business. … NFIB believes construction of this 875-mile portion of the pipeline is important for reducing America’s reliance of foreign energy and helping to lower the cost of fuels small businesses use every day.”

National Restaurant Association

• “The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline could boost our nation’s economy by creating thousands of jobs and increasing North American energy security”

National Taxpayers Union

• “This legislation would clear the way for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, bringing with it 20,000 much-needed jobs over time, and supporting thousands of other jobs in many sectors, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute. The pipeline would also have the potential to deliver an additional 500,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada, our largest and most stable trading partner, injecting our economy with billions of dollars in additional activity.”

Thibodaux Chamber of Commerce

• “The Thibodaux Chamber of Commerce supports construction of this pipeline as a means of reducing America’s reliance on foreign oil and to reduce the cost of fuels. In addition, the project will promote job opportunities and create a positive impact on our economy across the nation.”

For more information on H.R. 3, click HERE.

###

Keystone Pipeline is An Economic Slam Dunk for AmericaIt's Time to Build the Keystone XL Pipeline By Rep. Marsha Blackburn

The Keystone XL pipeline is a line in the sand issue, dividing those who want to utilize our energy resources to create jobs and propel America toward economic growth and energy self-sufficiency and those whose sole goal is to stop the development of fossil fuels.

There doesn't seem to be any middle ground, which is why it is so perplexing that President Obama has yet to make a decision on the project after weighing the issue for over four years.

The pipeline, if fully constructed, would be able to carry nearly a million barrels of oil per day, bringing supplies from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, as well as U.S. crude from the Bakken oil fields being developed in North Dakota and Montana.

A report from the Department of Energy estimates that the increased energy supplies and gains in energy efficiency could essentially eliminate U.S. dependence on Middle East oil.

This pipeline could tip the global oil market's balance of power in North America's favor, taking back this power from politically unstable regions of the world.

This is welcome, real progress for America. But progress for the environmental extremists is to hold back this opportunity and the power of our energy abundance through review, regulation and red tape.

Just as Keystone has become a rallying cry for environmentalists, it has also become a rallying cry for American workers.

Construction of the pipeline would support the creation of tens of thousands of jobs across several different sectors of the economy.

Even the administration cannot deny the job-creating power of the pipeline. In its most recent Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Statement, the State Department found that the project would support approximately 42,100 average annual jobs over the construction period.

Many labor unions, outraged over the administration's decision to put politics over jobs, have rallied together to express their support for the project and a desire to move forward.

As one labor witness expressed at a recent committee hearing, "For many members of the Laborers, this project is not just a pipeline; it is in fact a lifeline."

Contrary to the claims of some Keystone critics, the science is complete and overwhelmingly in favor of building the pipeline.

The State Department started its NEPA review of the original Keystone XL permit application over four years ago and has since publicly released over 15,500 pages of documents related to its analysis.

And time and again, the science has shown Keystone to be safe.

The inescapable truth is that with or without the Keystone XL pipeline, Canada's oil sands will continue to be developed.

The only question is whether this valuable oil supply will be refined in the U.S. or shipped overseas to places like China.

This is not a debate about the science, but a debate about the future of American energy policy. While the administration continues to delay and debate this landmark jobs and energy project, House Republicans have a clear vision for America's future — a future full of growth and prosperity where we can continue to safely and responsibly develop our energy resources.

My colleagues and I in Congress are tired of waiting on the president to decide which road he will choose, which is why we are taking matters into our own hands.

The House will vote this week to approve legislation, which will move Keystone XL beyond the regulatory process and finally allow construction of this landmark jobs and energy project to begin. H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, will address all necessary federal permits for the pipeline, including the Presidential Permit, and limit litigation that could further delay the project.

It will end the regulatory delays once and for all. We've been down this road before, as Congress had to intervene 40 years ago to cut through the red tape and get the Trans-Alaska Pipeline built.

That pipeline was a game changer then for U.S. energy policy, and Keystone XL will be a game changer today with its critical role in achieving North American energy independence.

It has now been over 1,700 days since the original Keystone XL application was first filed with the State Department.

Instead of siding with jobs, the president has allowed the environmentalists to hijack the project.

We can't afford to wait any longer. The lines has have been drawn. It's time to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

Rep. Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee, is vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Read the column online here.

###

10:08 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.  As we all know by now, a series of storms swept across the Plains yesterday, and one of the most destructive tornadoes in history sliced through the towns of Newcastle and Moore, Oklahoma.  In an instant, neighborhoods were destroyed.  Dozens of people lost their lives. Many more were injured.  And among the victims were young children, trying to take shelter in the safest place they knew -- their school.

So our prayers are with the people of Oklahoma today. 

Our gratitude is with the teachers who gave their all to shield their children; with the neighbors, first responders, and emergency personnel who raced to help as soon as the tornado passed; and with all of those who, as darkness fell, searched for survivors through the night. 

As a nation, our full focus right now is on the urgent work of rescue, and the hard work of recovery and rebuilding that lies ahead.

Yesterday, I spoke with Governor Fallin to make it clear to Oklahomans that they would have all the resources that they need at their disposal.  Last night, I issued a disaster declaration to expedite those resources, to support the Governor’s team in the immediate response, and to offer direct assistance to folks who have suffered loss.  I also just spoke with Mayor Lewis of Moore, Oklahoma, to ensure that he’s getting everything that he needs.

I've met with Secretary Napolitano this morning and my Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor, Lisa Monaco, to underscore that point that Oklahoma needs to get everything that it needs right away.  The FEMA Administrator, Craig Fugate, is on his way to Oklahoma as we speak.  FEMA staff was first deployed to Oklahoma’s Emergency Operations Center on Sunday, as the state already was facing down the first wave of deadly tornadoes.  Yesterday, FEMA activated Urban Search and Rescue Teams from Texas, Nebraska, and Tennessee to assist in the ongoing search and rescue efforts, and a mobile response unit to boost communications and logistical support. 

So the people of Moore should know that their country will remain on the ground, there for them, beside them as long as it takes.  For there are homes and schools to rebuild, businesses and hospitals to reopen, there are parents to console, first responders to comfort, and, of course, frightened children who will need our continued love and attention. 

There are empty spaces where there used to be living rooms, and bedrooms, and classrooms, and, in time, we’re going to need to refill those spaces with love and laughter and community.

We don’t yet know the full extent of the damage from this week’s storm.  We don't know both the human and economic losses that may have occurred.  We know that severe rumbling of weather, bad weather, through much of the country still continues, and we're also preparing for a hurricane season that begins next week.

But if there is hope to hold on to, not just in Oklahoma but around the country, it's the knowledge that the good people there and in Oklahoma are better prepared for this type of storm than most.  And what they can be certain of is that Americans from every corner of this country will be right there with them, opening our homes, our hearts to those in need.  Because we're a nation that stands with our fellow citizens as long as it takes. We've seen that spirit in Joplin, in Tuscaloosa; we saw that spirit in Boston and Breezy Point.  And that’s what the people of Oklahoma are going to need from us right now. 

For those of you who want to help, you can go online right now to the American Red Cross, which is already on the ground in Moore.  Already we've seen the University of Oklahoma announce that it will provide housing for displaced families.  We've seen local churches and companies open their doors and their wallets. And last night, the people of Joplin dispatched a team to help the people of Moore.

So for all those who’ve been affected, we recognize that you face a long road ahead.  In some cases, there will be enormous grief that has to be absorbed, but you will not travel that path alone.  Your country will travel it with you, fueled by our faith in the Almighty and our faith in one another. 

So our prayers are with the people of Oklahoma today.  And we will back up those prayers with deeds for as long as it takes.
 
Thank you very much.

END
10:13 A.M. EDT

5/21/13

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on the ongoing response to the devastating tornadoes and severe weather that impacted Oklahoma, in the State Dining Room of the White House, May 21, 2013. Vice President Joe Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and FEMA Deputy Administrator Richard Serino accompany the President. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

Update 2: This morning, President Obama delivered a statement on the devastating tornadoes and severe weather that impacted Oklahoma. He described the response efforts underway, and assured the people of Moore and all the affected areas that they "would have all the resources that they need at their disposal."

For there are homes and schools to rebuild, businesses and hospitals to reopen, there are parents to console, first responders to comfort, and, of course, frightened children who will need our continued love and attention. There are empty spaces where there used to be living rooms, and bedrooms, and classrooms, and, in time, we’re going to need to refill those spaces with love and laughter and community.

"Americans from every corner of this country will be right there with them, opening our homes, our hearts to those in need," President Obama said. "Because we're a nation that stands with our fellow citizens as long as it takes. We've seen that spirit in Joplin, in Tuscaloosa; we saw that spirit in Boston and Breezy Point. And that’s what the people of Oklahoma are going to need from us right now."

Watch the full statement below or read the remarks here.

read more

5/21/13

Update 2: At 10:00 a.m. ET President Obama will deliver a statement on the devastating tornadoes and severe weather that impacted Oklahoma. Watch the remarks live here, or at whitehouse.gov/live.

Update 1: The President continued to receive updates overnight from his team on the ongoing response to the devastating tornados and severe weather that impacted Oklahoma Sunday night and Monday. Last night, following his call to Governor Mary Fallin, the President also spoke with Congressman Tom Cole to express his concern for those who had been impacted and his deep condolences for the many who have lost loved ones as a result of the horrible tornados. The President praised the brave first responders, and made clear that the country would stand behind the people of Oklahoma as they continued to respond and recover.

Last night, the President approved a Major Disaster Declaration for Oklahoma, making federal funding available to support affected individuals, as well as additional federal assistance to support immediate response and recovery efforts.

This morning the President will receive a briefing in the Oval Office on the response byAssistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco and other senior members of the President’s response team.

President Barack Obama talks on the phone with Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin in the Oval Office, May 20, 2013. The President spoke with Gov. Fallin to express his concern for those who have been affected by the severe weather beginning last night and continuing today. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

5/20/13

This evening, the President spoke with Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin to express his concern for those who have been affected by the tornadoes last night and continuing today.

As the President told Governor Fallin tonight, the administration — through FEMA — is committed to providing all the assistance it can to Oklahoma as the response effort unfolds. Already, FEMA has deployed an Incident Management Assistance Team, Urban Search & Rescue Teams, and an Medical Emergency Response Support Team to provide resources to hard-hit areas in Oklahoma.

FEMA is urging those in impacted areas to listen carefully to instructions from local officials, and to take the recommended protective measures. Residents should monitor local radio or TV stations, or the National Weather Service at www.weather.gov.

As the response effort develops, here is a list of resources for those affected:

Department of Homeland Security
On Twitter: @DHSgov
On Facebook: www.facebook.com/homelandsecurity

FEMA
On Twitter: @FEMA
On Facebook: www.facebook.com/FEMA
Blog Updates from FEMA

American Red Cross
Latest updates
On Twitter: @RedCross
On Facebook: www.facebook.com/redcross

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today, Secretary Lew comes before the Committee to testify in his first hearing as Treasury Secretary.

The Secretary wears many hats.  He is responsible for formulating and recommending a number of domestic and international financial, economic and tax policies for the Administration.

As Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) Chairman, he is required to appear before this Committee annually to testify on the activities of the Council and to answer questions concerning the Council’s most recent annual report.

The Council’s 2013 Annual Report covers many areas of the Council’s activities and lists a number of potential emerging threats to the financial stability of the United States.

I want to focus my opening statement on one particular area that needs personal attention from Secretary Lew.

The U.S. capital markets must remain the preferred destination for investors throughout the world.

Capital is the lifeblood of U.S. businesses, which in turn are the engines of job creation and economic growth.

Unfortunately, infighting among U.S. financial regulators and their overseas counterparts is causing investors to look elsewhere for productive investment opportunities.

The list of problematic cross-border issues that need to be addressed is growing, and the frustration from foreign regulators over the lack of international coordination on financial reform measures has reached an unprecedented level.

After the so-called Volcker Rule was proposed in 2011, a number of foreign regulators submitted a letter to the Treasury Department expressing concerns that the proposed rule could reduce the liquidity of their sovereign bonds and damage international cooperation efforts.

More recently, a number of foreign regulators have weighed in on the Federal Reserve’s rule proposal to implement enhanced prudential standards for foreign banking organizations.

For example, the European commissioner in charge of financial regulation, Michel Barnier, warned in a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the Fed’s proposed rules affecting European banks doing business in the United States will duplicate work already done in Europe and create additional costs.

Commissioner Barnier also warned that the Fed’s proposal could risk a protectionist backlash and threaten the global economic recovery.

The frustration reached a new level when nine finance ministers wrote to Secretary Lew expressing their concerns about the lack of progress in developing workable cross-border rules as part of reforms of the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets.

They warned that without clear direction from regulators working together, derivatives markets will recede into localized and less efficient structures.

Derivatives end-users will find it more difficult to manage risk and suffer from burdensome regulatory conditions.

I look forward to hearing from Secretary Lew about the specific steps he will take to avoid cross-border conflicts and the unnecessary costs imposed by them.

Finally, although this hearing is focused on Secretary Lew’s role as the Chairman of the FSOC, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to question him about the recent IRS scandal.

The largest bureau within the Treasury Department is the Internal Revenue Service. 

Last week, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report that documents a number of troubling and disturbing actions regarding the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.

These actions should never be tolerated.

President Obama has directed Secretary Lew to make sure that all of the Inspector General’s recommendations are implemented quickly.

I look forward to hearing how Secretary Lew will carry out the President’s directive.  I also look forward to hearing what additional steps Secretary Lew is taking to ensure that no future income tax audits will be conducted in a discriminatory manner ever again.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The President's action makes federal funding available to affected individuals in the counties of Cleveland, Lincoln, McClain, Oklahoma, and Pottawatomie.

Assistance can include grants for temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other programs to help individuals and business owners recover from the effects of the disaster.

Federal funding also is available to state and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work in the counties of Cleveland, Lincoln, McClain, Oklahoma, and Pottawatomie. 

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Sandy Coachman as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area.

FEMA said that damage surveys are continuing in other areas, and more counties and additional forms of assistance may be designated after the assessments are fully completed.

FEMA said that residents and business owners who sustained losses in the designated counties may apply for assistance by registering online at http://www.DisasterAssistance.gov or by calling 1-800-621-FEMA(3362) or 1-800-462-7585 (TTY) for the hearing and speech impaired. The toll-free telephone numbers will operate from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (local time) seven days a week until further notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT:  FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@DHS.GOV

President Barack Obama talks on the phone with Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin in the Oval Office, May 20, 2013. The President spoke with Gov. Fallin to express his concern for those who have been affected by the severe weather beginning last night and continuing today. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

This evening the President spoke with Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin to express his concern for those who have been affected by the tornadoes last night and continuing today.

As the President told Governor Fallin tonight, the administration -- through FEMA -- is committed to providing all the assistance it can to Oklahoma as the response effort unfolds. Already, FEMA has deployed an Incident Management Assistance Team, Urban Search & Rescue Teams, and an Medical Emergency Response Support Team to provide resources to hard-hit areas in Oklahoma.

FEMA is urging those in impacted areas to listen carefully to instructions from local officials, and to take the recommended protective measures. Residents should monitor local radio or TV stations, or the National Weather Service at www.weather.gov.

As the response effort develops, here is a list of resources for those affected:

Department of Homeland Security
On Twitter @DHSJournal
On Facebook www.facebook.com/homelandsecurity

FEMA
On Twitter @FEMA
On Facebook www.facebook.com/FEMA
Blog Updates from FEMA

American Red Cross
Latest updates
On Twitter: @RedCross
On Facebook:  www.facebook.com/redcross

2:15 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being here.  I have no announcements to make, so I will go straight to your questions.  Julie Pace.

Q    Thank you.  There seems to be a little bit of confusion about what exactly the White House Counsel’s Office was told the week of April 22nd about the IG report.  Can you tell us what Kathy Ruemmler was told?

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.  Well, I appreciate the question.  (Laughter.)  There have been a lot of questions this morning that we've gotten based on recent reports about when we here at the White House learned of the Inspector General’s report, what we learned and how we learned, so I'd like to back up and just go through the fundamentals here first, if I may.

Number one, as the independent Inspector General testified and as his report says, he found no evidence that anyone outside of the IRS had any involvement in the inappropriate scrutinizing of conservative groups who were applying for tax exempt status. 

Number two, no one in this building intervened in an ongoing, independent investigation or did anything that could be seen as intervening in that investigation.

Number three, the misconduct had stopped in May of 2012.  So despite all the media interest in our April 2013 awareness, it’s important to remember that the misconduct, of course, had stopped almost a year earlier.

But going to your question, and in light of those questions, let me walk you through this because we don't have any interest in being anything other than clear with you about that timeline.

So, as we have said, the White House Counsel, Kathy Ruemmler, learned during the week of April 22nd -- the specific date is April 24th -- that the Inspector General was finalizing an audit.  That's what they call this kind of report.  At the time, the audit was still ongoing and the Inspector General had not issued its final report. 

The White House Counsel’s Office routinely receives notification of pending Inspector General matters, as does Congress, and in fact, this was one of several IG reports likely to be released soon that were communicated to staff in the White House Counsel’s Office on April 16th in a series of items.

But on April 24th, as I said, the White House Counsel, Kathy Ruemmler, was informed that the Inspector General for Tax Administration was completing a report about line IRS employees improperly scrutinizing what are known as 501(c)(4) organizations by using words such as “tea party” and “patriot.”  Counsel was further informed that the report had not been finalized and the publication date of the report was uncertain but likely soon.

While we had an indication of the likely findings, until the IG finalizes his report, the findings and conclusions are subject to change.  And in fact, many IG reports do change significantly before they are published. 

So to be clear, we knew the subject of the investigation and we knew the nature of some of the potential findings, but we didn’t have a copy of the draft report; we did not know the details, the scope or the motivation surrounding the misconduct; and we did not know who was responsible.  Most importantly, the report was not final and still very much subject to change.

After that initial notification in April, the White House Counsel informed the Chief of Staff and other members of the senior staff.  At no time did anyone on the White House staff intervene with the IRS Inspector General audit.  There were communications between White House Counsel’s Office and White House Chief of Staff’s Office, with Treasury Office of General Counsel and Treasury’s Chief of Staff Office to understand the anticipated timing of the release of the report and the potential findings by the IG.

We know that the Hill also got briefings.  As Congressman Issa said, he was aware of “approximately” what was in the report.  But he, rightly, chose to not take action, because the cardinal rule is to not intervene in an independent investigation or take any steps that could be seen as intervening.  That’s what we abided by, and that’s what any White House should do.

I just want to say that some reporting today suggests -- and this is I think worth noting -- suggests that given awareness of the potential findings, we should have done more.  That could not be further from the right course of action.  The cardinal rule, as I said, is that you do not intervene in an independent investigation, and you do not do anything that would be -- that would give such an appearance, particularly when the final conclusions -- as was the case here -- have not been reached.  And that’s the doctrine we followed. 

And the bottom line is -- and this isn’t just the most important fact, it’s what we have said from the beginning -- not the White House, nor Treasury intervened in the Inspector General’s audit.  So I hope that -- anticipating this question, understanding there was some confusion about it, I hope that supplies the answers that you were hoping to get.

Q    It supplies some of them.  Can I just clarify a couple things?  You said someone was told on April 16th in the Counsel’s Office.

MR. CARNEY:  White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler was notified on April -- the week of April 22nd.  There was also a notification as part of just a series of items, IG-related items, from Treasury that this was upcoming -- again, very top line.  But White House Counsel herself was not notified until later -- the next week.

Q    And who was she notified by?

MR. CARNEY:  Either within Treasury or by someone else in the White House Counsel’s Office.  But the same notification process.

Q    And who else besides Chief of Staff Denis McDonough was told about this?

MR. CARNEY:  Some other members of the senior staff.

Q    Can you tell us who?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a list for you, no.

Q    And then last week, when this all first came out, you said that the Counsel was told very broadly, but you didn’t mention anything else about other staff knowing.  You didn’t mention some of these more specific details that they were told, including some of the words that this IRS office used to target some of these groups.  Is that, what you’re telling us today, consistent with your statement last week that the Counsel was only told very broadly about this report?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think she was, as I just described and that the entirety of what she was told, broadly, that there is an Inspector General audit reaching its conclusion; the potential findings are that some people improperly targeted conservative organizations in their applications for tax exempt status.  But there was no specificity about who, about motivation, certainly no names of involvement.  And it was not concluded.  And it’s important to know the way these things work, IG reports, that the finalization process can result in significant changes.

So our whole point has been that knowing that this was coming does not change the fact that there was nothing we could have or should have done about it, because it was an independent Inspector General report.  And, again, as I said at the end, I think it’s somewhat ironic that there has been some suggestion that action should have been taken because we were aware that the IG was -- an independent IG was reaching the conclusion of a report and that it might have these findings, that somehow the President should have been notified or that we should have done something. 

And, of course, the opposite is true, because these kinds of independent investigations need to be independent.  There should be no intervention by a White House.  And, of course, there was not in this case.  And that’s why we had to wait, appropriately, until the report was publicized, or published, for the President to be able to review it and respond, as he did very quickly.  He took action right away.  He made sure that Secretary Lew asked for and accepted the resignation of the acting commissioner.  He appointed a new acting commissioner.  He very quickly made sure that the new acting commissioner would institute a top-down 30-day review of everything we could find out about this, or they could find out about this, to make sure that those who participated in the failings are held responsible, and that the activity doesn’t happen again.

Q    But what I don’t understand is if the White House felt comfortable with the Counsel, the Chief of Staff, and other members of his senior staff knowing about this report, even very broadly, and was not concerned that just the mere fact of knowing it created the potential for interference, why couldn’t the President have also just known that this was coming without interfering?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, because it’s a judgment, in this case, the judgment of the White House Counsel, that this is not a matter that you should -- or that she should convey to the President.  And that was her opinion that she expressed to other members of the senior staff -- that this is not the kind of thing, when you have an ongoing investigation or an ongoing audit, that requires notification to the President -- because what is important is that we wait until that kind of process is completed before we take action.  And that’s what the President did.

Q    Did the White House know in advance that the IRS was going to plant a question at the American Bar Association event on May 10th?

MR. CARNEY:  No.

Q    As a way of getting news out?  No?

MR. CARNEY:  No.

Q    And was the White House involved at all in the strategy for sort of rolling out the disclosure of the report’s findings?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that, as you’ve seen, we didn’t know that it was coming, and when it was reported on that Friday, that's how the President found out about it and some of us found out about it.  So, no, we weren’t involved.

Q    And further to what Julie had asked, you’ve given us some details --

MR. CARNEY:  I just want to be clear because I said this in the earlier part -- there were conversations -- after White House Counsel was notified and told some senior staff members, there were conversations between staff here and Treasury about what was the timing going to be, what would the findings likely be, in anticipation of that.  But there was no foreknowledge of when this happened. 

Q    And today you’ve talked about -- you’ve given us some more details about who knew what when -- the April 16th detail, the discussions between the Counsel’s Office and Treasury, et cetera.  Why didn’t you tell us that week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday when you talked about this?

MR. CARNEY:  I just told you what I told you last week, which is that Kathy Ruemmler, the White House Counsel, was made aware the week of April 22nd.  I've now gotten the specific date of April 24th.  It does turn out when we looked at this that there was, as part of this notification process, a series of IG  -- pending IG matters that was conveyed to, communicated to someone on the staff of the White House Counsel’s Office, but that information did not reach Kathy Ruemmler until the following week.

Q    Can you just say when the other White House staffers were notified?

MR. CARNEY:  After Kathy Ruemmler was notified on the 24th.

Q    She briefed them?

MR. CARNEY:  She informed them, yes. 

Q    Because when you were asked about this in a briefing last week about White House officials being aware, you just mentioned the Counsel's Office.  You never mentioned that the Chief of Staff and others were notified.

MR. CARNEY:  I think I said that White House Counsel knew.  I think I said that I didn’t know until Friday.  But I didn’t -- I'm getting this information to you now.  The point is Counsel knew on April 24th -- White House Counsel did.  And she informed some other senior staff.  And in informing she also made clear that it was her view, and others shared this view, that there was not a need, in a situation like this with an ongoing investigation or audit, that the President should be notified.

Q    What did Denis McDonough and the other members of the senior staff do with that information?  Did they share it with others?

MR. CARNEY:  There were discussions here and, as I said, there were conversations from the White House Chief of Staff’s Office with general counsel at Treasury and the Chief of Staff’s Office at Treasury about the timing -- anticipated timing of the release of the report and the potential findings, but there was  -- again, the point was no intervention, no action, because it would be entirely inappropriate to do anything except ultimately wait for what the findings would be and then act.

Q    Just to be clear, what’s the point of notifying anyone if nothing can be done?

MR. CARNEY:  The way, as I understand it and it’s been described to me, is that when there are IG reports -- and it’s important to know because this is Washington-speak when we're talking about IG audits and things like that, but there are inspectors general all across the government and they are routinely looking into matters that are assigned to them or that they take up, and there are reports routinely completed or near completion.  And when there is one that might get -- that an IG feels, or the overseeing body -- in this case Treasury -- feels might get a lot of attention, there are notifications made just to -- “on your radar” kind of thing.  But there’s no action that's taken -- at least there should be no action taken.  And that was the case here.

Q    Well, why did she feel incumbent to tell Denis McDonough but not the President?  Is it standard practice to insulate the President from controversial IG reports across the board?

MR. CARNEY:  I think it was, again, a notification, just so you know, this is coming down, here’s what we know about it, we'll find out more when it’s completed, IG reports -- I'm just paraphrasing as sort of an example -- IG reports tend to change a lot before finalized, we don't know the specifics of who did this, why they did it --

Q    -- know a draft audit was shared with Treasury in mid-March.

MR. CARNEY:  Right, but not shared with us.  Treasury oversees the IRS.  That's my understanding, but I would refer you to Treasury.  But, again, we did not -- as I described it to you, that was what we learned about -- or the Counsel learned about the potential or likely findings, that there were line employees at the IRS who improperly targeted conservative groups with the language that I just used, and that this report was likely to be completed soon, although we didn’t have a specific date.

Q    It doesn’t answer why the President wasn’t told but McDonough was.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think as I noted earlier, in these situations, the Counsel made the decision that this is not the kind of thing that you notify the President of, of an investigation that’s not complete, because it wouldn't be appropriate to do so.

Q    Can you just figure out -- confusion about how involved Sarah Hall Ingram has been at the IRS division in question.  If you go to their website, she’s still to this day listed as commissioner of the Office of Tax Exempt/Government Entities Division.  But the IRS says she’s also been assigned to help head up the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  So throughout the time in question, was she in charge of the office that did targeting --

MR. CARNEY:  I think you would have to ask -- my understanding based on what I've seen is that she was reassigned to another responsibility.  I understand the title may have -- she may have kept the title, but that's the kind of detail that you’d have to ask IRS and Treasury.

Q    Would the President like to see somebody else --

MR. CARNEY:  I think it’s also important to note that, as I understand it, based on the IG’s report, which is how I got my information on this, that she is not named in the report, and as far as we know, there’s been no suggestion that she did anything improper.  But the President has asked the new acting IRS commissioner to conduct a top-down 30-day review to look at these questions about accountability and look at how -- to take measures to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.

Q    Would he like her to recuse herself from the role for 30 days?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, this is a question I think appropriately addressed to the new leadership at IRS and at Treasury.  IRS is conducting a 30-day review.  Before you decide that somebody is culpable of something I think you need to get the facts first.  And based on my understanding of the IG report, this is not addressed.  So there is a 30-day top-down review being conducted by the new acting IRS commissioner, and I expect that some of these issues will be looked at.

Jon.

Q    Jay, but for all the questions about who knew what a few weeks ago at the White House, isn't the question back further?  How was this allowed to go on for 18 months?  I mean, there were public reports while this was still happening of groups complaining that they had been asked these outrageous questions --

MR. CARNEY:  I think that's a great question.  I think that's why there was an IG audit, I believe in response in part to congressional inquiries, and the finding -- but I take your question.  That's why you saw the President’s response, which was very clear.  He was outraged by the behavior; he thought the conduct was inappropriate, that people need to be held responsible -- and that process has begun -- and we need to make sure that nothing like this can happen again.  Nobody has been more outraged by the reported conduct here than the President of the United States.

Q    Jay, with all due respect, the outrage from the President came last week.  This was going on --

MR. CARNEY:  The outrage of the President came within hours after the release of the report. 

Q    What I'm saying is there were public reports that this stuff was going on almost a year before the presidential election.  How is it that nobody in the administration had some responsibility even before there is an Inspector General report  -- say, hey, by the way, this kind of activity shouldn’t be going on, so let’s make sure and take steps --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I would direct you to the IG who investigated this matter, to the Treasury Department and others who addressed this matter.  I can tell you that what we're talking about here was the ongoing Inspector General audit, the fact that we were notified -- the White House Counsel was notified that it was coming to a conclusion.  And like Chairman Issa and others, we did not prejudge it; we waited until the report came out before we acted.  And the President acted very quickly.

Q    You're missing the point of my question.  Public reports almost a year before the election.  Is there any responsibility from the administration of saying, hey, IRS, we don't treat groups differently based on politics?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that it is absolutely --

Q    Or we wait for the report after the election to make a comment.

MR. CARNEY:  You're saying accusations, and I think -- my understanding is in response to those accusations, there was an IG audit launched.  That is appropriate.  And the findings are what we now know.  And the President’s response to those findings could not be more clear.  People need to be held responsible, and we need to make sure that this activity doesn’t happen again. Because it’s very important that the American people believe that the IRS applies our tax laws fairly and neutrally.

Q    Okay.  And I'm also just a little confused on this planted question.  First of all, does the White House approve of that tactic, of releasing information through a planted question?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't know anything more about it than what I read in the paper.  Our feeling has been from the beginning, since we were notified of the impending completion of the IG report, that we would refrain from commenting on reports about draft language, reports about what may or may not be in the findings of the IG until the IG actually published his report.  When that happened, the President responded very quickly, both within hours after the publication of the report, and then again the next day when he met with Treasury leadership and the acting IRS commissioner’s resignation was accepted and the President appointed a new IRS commissioner.

Q    And just one more question.  Does the President approve of the Justice Department’s handling of the Jin-Woo Kim leak investigation?  We now know that the FBI investigators in this case not only seized James Rosen’s phone records; they went through and read his emails, they tracked his comings and goings inside the State Department.  Does the President approve of that kind of action by the Justice Department against a reporter?

MR. CARNEY:  I will refer you to what the President said in response to a question about another matter along these lines, and that is that he is a strong defender of the First Amendment and a firm believer in the need for the press to be able to conduct investigative reporting and facilitate a free flow of information.  He is also, as a citizen and as Commander-in-Chief, insistent that we protect our secrets, that we protect classified information, and that leaks -- that we take very seriously the leaks of classified information because leaks can endanger the lives of men and women in uniform and other Americans serving overseas for our country.

And that is the balance he seeks and it is reflected in the media shield law that his administration negotiated with the Senate in 2009 and which the President is very happy to see the Senate take up again.  That’s a balance that was endorsed at the time by -- from media organizations to federal prosecutors. 

I cannot, of course, comment on a specific ongoing criminal investigation.

Q    Jay, do you approve of those kind of tactics as a former reporter?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I cannot comment on a specific ongoing investigation.  I certainly share -- and I think most Americans do -- the President’s belief that we need to have a press that is able to pursue investigative journalism and that we have to defend the First Amendment.  And I also think it’s very important, as I think members of both parties have said, that we need to make sure that leaks are not tolerated, because leaks that can endanger the lives of our men and women, and that endanger our national security need to be taken very seriously.

But that is, again, not a comment on a specific case because I cannot comment on a specific case.

Q    To follow up then -- the subpoena says James Rosen is a potential criminal because he’s a reporter.  Is the White House comfortable with that standard never before seen in a leak investigation?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, Major, I understand the question and I appreciate it, but I cannot comment on an ongoing --

Q    But that’s not ongoing.  That happened.  That’s in the subpoena.  You can read it on the web right now. 

MR. CARNEY:  I know, but it’s part of an ongoing criminal investigation, Major, and I simply can’t comment on it.

Q    -- to regard a reporter in a subpoena as a potential criminal for doing what reporters do?

MR. CARNEY:  Major, I understand the question.  I think that the appropriate place to address these questions is to the Department of Justice and to those actually engaged in this criminal investigation.  I think if you look at the story, there are people who are talking about it, and I would refer you to them.  I simply cannot, again, go into --

Q    But the President has prioritized leak investigations in ways no other Commander-in-Chief has.  It’s his priority that the Justice Department is carrying out.

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President, like his predecessors, believes that --

Q    I’m curious if he’s comfortable with this particular application of his priority.

MR. CARNEY:  The President believes, I think as all of his predecessors believed, that it is imperative that leaks that can jeopardize the lives of American men and women serving overseas should not be tolerated, and that leaks that can jeopardize our national security are very serious matters. 

And I would point you to what the FBI Director, Director Mueller, and the Attorney General have said about the seriousness of one of these leaks.  Director Mueller testified that, “Leaks such as this that threaten ongoing operations put at risk the lives of sources, make it much more difficult to recruit sources, and damage our relationships with our foreign partners.” 

That is why we have to take these seriously.  It is also why we need to find the right balance to ensure that our First Amendment is defended and to assure that reporters are protected. That’s why the President helped negotiate the media shield law that made its way out of committee in 2009, and that’s why he supports its reintroduction today.

Q    In your summary at the top, talking about the IRS, you mentioned that the IG audit -- which is the proper word for it -- it’s not an investigation, it’s an audit -- concluded that there was no outside interference or suggestion.  Do you believe that closes the question?  Because several of the committees on Capitol Hill don’t believe it closes the question.

MR. CARNEY:  We support congressional oversight, legitimate congressional oversight in this matter.  We support -- in fact, the President asked for the 30-day top-down review that will be conducted by the new acting IRS commissioner.  And I believe I’ve seen reported that the Department of Justice is looking into this matter.  All of this is appropriate as far as we are concerned.  I am simply telling you that the matter that sparked --

Q    But it doesn’t close it? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that there can and will be and should be oversight and more questions asked.  I mean, one of the things that I made clear in answer to Jessica’s question is that we don’t have all the details about who was responsible for this inappropriate behavior.  And that’s why the President wants those who are responsible to be held accountable, and he wants steps taken to ensure that it cannot happen again -- because he has zero tolerance for this.  He believes it’s very important that the IRS carry out and implement our tax laws in a neutral and fair way, and that Americans needs to be confident that that is happening.  And any indication that it’s not needs to be taken very seriously, which is how he has taken it.

Q    You obviously asked more questions in preparation for this briefing than were asked and answerable last week.  So I’m curious -- do you know if Treasury Secretary Geithner was informed of the IG report, even in its preliminary state, and if he in any way communicated that to the President?

MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you to the Treasury Department.  And I think that Secretary Lew and others have addressed this, but I have no knowledge of that.

Q    Can I follow on IRS?  I just want to know -- just yesterday, Dan Pfeiffer, on the shows, was saying that the Treasury Department informed the White House but did not get into any, in his word, “details” of what happened on the IRS situation.  And yesterday -- last week, rather, at this podium, you said that, in the week of April 22nd, you were only informed that the IG was finishing a review about matters involving the office in Cincinnati.   

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that’s one of the things I said.  I made clear that it was topline conclusions, and that’s --

Q    But no details.

MR. CARNEY:  And there were no details.  I think I just explained to you the details -- the phrases and the fact that they would likely find, likely conclude that this conduct had occurred inappropriately.  But we still do not know who’s responsible --

Q    That sounds like some detail.  Not like every single detail, but it’s beyond --

MR. CARNEY:  I think you’re parsing my words.  I’m here to tell you that the information that I just provided to you at the top is the information that White House Counsel received; it’s the information that she conveyed to the some senior staff.  And the most important point here is that, contrary to some suggestions about how we should have responded to that, there was no effort to intervene in an ongoing Inspector General inquiry/audit report/investigation, nor should there be.

And that is why, to the chagrin of some who would have liked us to get out in front of this more, we appropriately waited until the Inspector General published that report and we had all of the information that was available at least in that report to act on and respond to.

Q    You also said at the top of this briefing the President acted right away, took decisive action, you say.  So why then is -- the key person who has been pushed out is Steven Miller, who was planning to retire in June anyway, but also --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, you know that’s actually mischaracterization.  His title was expiring.  He could easily have been reappointed had this not happened and I suppose he might have been.

Q    But he’s on the job today.  He’s leaving Wednesday, as I understand it.

MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you -- he may be, Ed.  I can refer you to the IRS.

Q    So in terms of accountability, how is the person still on the job?

MR. CARNEY:  I believe he might he be testifying on the Hill, Ed, which I’m sure some people would like to see.  So the fact is he was resigned from that post --

Q    He can also testify as a private citizen, of course.

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not sure I take your point.  But the fact is he’s resigned entirely from the IRS, and a new acting commissioner has been appointed.

Q    How can you say, on the James Rosen situation, that part of the goal here is to protect reporters when the administration went through his personal email?  How are you protecting reporters?

MR. CARNEY:  What I did say was not respond specifically to a question about the case.  I said that the President believes it’s important that we find the proper balance between the need, absolute need to protect our secrets and to prevent leaks that can jeopardize the lives of Americans and can jeopardize our national security interests, on the one hand, and the need to defend the First Amendment and protect the ability of reporters to pursue investigative journalism.

That balance is reflected in the media shield law that the administration negotiated with the Senate in 2009 and that the President supported and which he supports to this day, and is being reintroduced.  That bill that the administration negotiated was endorsed by media organizations and federal prosecutors.  And I think that that is an indication of the fact that it at least came some way to achieving the balance that the President has talked about.

Q    While we wait for the legislation to potentially pass, in the meantime, the administration is acting in the AP case and in the Rosen case as well.  Do you actually believe, as a former reporter, that someone trying to get sensitive information from government officials as a reporter is a criminal?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Ed, I would just tell you that I can’t comment on a specific case.  I’m here as --

Q    But in principle?

MR. CARNEY:  But I’m here as a spokesman for the President and the White House.  I can’t comment on an ongoing criminal investigation, nor should I.  And I think there’s tons of precedent for why that is the case.

Secondly, I think that I share the President’s -- personally, as a former reporter, but also in this capacity -- I share the President’s belief that we need to find a balance.  And I think that most Americans believe that we need to protect our secrets and make sure that classified information that, if leaked, could endanger the lives of Americans or sources is not leaked, and that we take that seriously.  But we also have to allow for reporters to freely investigate as part of their jobs. And that’s what I was referring to when I was talking to his support for the media shield law.

Q    Can I just follow that quickly?

MR. CARNEY:  Sorry, let me --

Q    No, I want to -- I guess I’m trying to understand.  So does the President believe in the media shield law -- the one that he didn’t like and then you guys renegotiated -- does he believe in the media shield law that a reporter’s private email and private phone calls should be subject to some sort of subpoena?

MR. CARNEY:  I recognize that, as a former practitioner, as a clever way to get me to comment on a specific case, but I can't.  What I can tell you is that the President believes that the media shield law that his administration helped negotiate with the Senate achieves, at least in part, the balance that he says he supports and that he wants to see. 

And as a firm defender of the First Amendment and the freedom of the press, he seeks that balance even as Commander-in-Chief.  He believes it’s essential that we are able to take seriously very serious leaks that can jeopardize our national security, jeopardize our men and women.  And the fact that we describe it as a balance reflects that this is a difficult issue. But --

Q    Is the point of going after leakers an attempt to keep people from leaking?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I would refer you to the Justice Department.  I think in general the issue is to make sure that leaks that are very serious are taken seriously.  In terms of how that action -- how that is acted upon by the Department Justice, I would refer you to them.

Q    No, but, I mean, is the intended consequence to prevent people from giving out any information?

MR. CARNEY:  You’re asking me about the purposes of a criminal investigation, and I think that if there’s a criminal investigation writ large, obviously there is at least a suspicion of criminal activity.  I would refer you to the Department of Justice about the purpose of a criminal investigation.

Q    But your intent is to make sure people are --

MR. CARNEY:  I think the intent of criminal investigations is to uncover whether crimes have been committed and to hold people who have committed crimes accountable.

Q    All right.  On the IRS, is the President at least upset that basically his entire senior staff knew of this and he didn’t?

MR. CARNEY:  First of all, his entire senior staff did not know.  There were some senior staff who were alerted by White House Counsel.  Secondly, the President -- well, believes and I think he has faith that it is entirely appropriate that nobody here took any action in any way to intervene in an ongoing audit investigation by the Inspector General.

Q    Nobody is saying any action, but just not giving him a heads-up?

MR. CARNEY:  I wouldn’t say nobody is saying that -- or at least suggesting it.  But, no, he believes it’s entirely appropriate that some matters are not appropriate to convey to him, and this is one of them.  The fact that there’s an ongoing  --

Q    You’ve asked him this specific question -- is he satisfied that he had to learn through the media and not through his senior staff?

MR. CARNEY:  The President is obviously aware of the course of these reports.  I would tell you that it is entirely appropriate that the President not be notified of something of an ongoing, not concluded Inspector General audit of IRS activity -- because I guess the suggestion of alerting him is that then he would do something.  And if he were to do something, imagine what that story would look like. 

It’s something that we can look to the history books to get a feel for.  And it is absolutely the cardinal rule, as we see it, that we do not intervene in ongoing investigations.  And that’s true of one of the matters that’s come up with regards to reporters, and it’s true -- because that’s an ongoing criminal investigation or criminal investigations conducted by the Department of Justice -- and it’s true of an Inspector General’s audit of the IRS.

Q    Is the President satisfied with the job Eric Shinseki has done as Secretary of Veterans Affairs?

MR. CARNEY:  The President is.  He has also made clear to --

Q    He is satisfied with the job he’s done?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, he is.  He is satisfied.  He has confidence in General Shinseki.  But he has made it clear to, as I’ve said in the past, to the General and to others that he expects results as they try to tackle this very difficult issue of the backlog at the VA. 

And this is something that has the attention of the President.  It has the attention of the Chief of Staff.  We are monitoring efforts to alleviate the backlog very closely.  This is something that the President has made clear to all of us he wants to see action on.

Peter, then Mark.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  Does the President believe that the Justice Department has complete autonomy in how it pursues or carries out leak investigations?  Or does the President believe there are some -- there is a balancing act between protecting the working rights of journalists and also getting to the bottom of leak investigations?  Has he shared his opinion with Attorney General Holder about how that balance should be struck?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can tell you that back in 2009 there was a letter from, I believe, the Attorney General and the ODNI in support of -- if my memory is correct -- in support of the media shield legislation.  And I think that reflects as a policy matter the President’s position.  I don’t have any conversations to read out to you that the President has had in the past with the Attorney General.  I think that that President’s views are clearly expressed and have been for some time, since he was a senator.

There are, as I understand it -- but I think you have to get this information more specifically from the Department of Justice -- rules and procedures that are followed in these matters.  But again, that’s something not housed here.  That’s just something I read in the paper.

Q    A follow-up question.  In terms of the timeline issue, Congress is now looking into questions involving the IRS.  They want to know -- they’re asking questions about what administration officials knew what when.  To what degree will the White House cooperate with these reviews and inquiries?  Will you share emails, provide witness testimony?  To what degree --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not going to anticipate how that would play out, excect to say that, as I said earlier and as others have said, that we believe that legitimate oversight in this matter is something that we will cooperate with, and should. We think it’s a very serious issue. 

As the President has made clear, we think that it’s wholly inappropriate that this conduct occurred regardless of the motivation.  And, again, we have some information about whether  -- what the motivation was or wasn’t, based on the IG’s report and his testimony.  But even if the motivation wasn’t nefarious or partisan or political, it is still inappropriate conduct.  It is still not the kind of conduct that we can tolerate at the IRS, which is why the President has spoken out so clearly and why he’s taken the action that he has.

Q    Last question.  Republicans on the Hill have said part of the reason the President may have found out when he did from media reports is to preserve deniability for him, that White House officials might have been interested in that.  Could you speak to that particular charge?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, it’s an absurd suggestion.  It is entirely appropriate, as the White House Counsel did, to decide that this was not a matter to inform the President about.  It was an ongoing investigation or audit by the Inspector General into activity at the IRS.  It was past conduct -- I think that’s important, too.  This was not something that could be that upon learning about, someone could have said, okay, we need to take action now because it’s happening as we speak.  It was conveyed that this was past conduct that had ceased almost a year prior and, therefore, it was entirely appropriate to wait until there were the final results of the IG report before acting.  And, again, that is why the President found out from news reports, because those news reports occurred prior to the report actually being released.

Mark.

Q    Jay, it’s still not clear to me why senior staff wouldn’t think it was worthwhile to let the President know if there’s something possibly politically explosive coming down the pipeline, and that, Mr. President, you ought to know that this is coming even though you can’t act on it right now.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, that was a decision made, appropriately, by the White House Counsel that this was --

Q    You say “appropriately.”  Did the President not feel, you should have told me about this kind of thing; it’s coming down the pipeline --

MR. CARNEY:  No.

Q    -- you can prepare to act even if you’re not going to act right away.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, that’s not something that was necessary to inform the President about.  It is not appropriate. Because, again, it begs the question, as you included in your question, okay, then what should he do?  And it would be inappropriate for him or anyone else here to take any action that would intervene in an ongoing investigative matter like the IRS audit of -- or rather, the IG audit of IRS activity.  And that’s why it was the appropriate action to take to wait until the report came out. 

I mean, I think that that -- it was conduct that had happened in the past.  It was not ongoing.  There was an indication at the topline level of what the findings would likely be, although the audit was not complete and those findings can and have changed in the past.  And once that report was released, the President acted very quickly and responded very quickly.  And it was not necessary or appropriate to inform him of an ongoing IG audit.

Q    Are you aware of any information that was withheld from the President that he later said, hey, you should have let me know that was coming?

MR. CARNEY:  No.

Q    Jay, last Monday you said that it was your understanding that the Counsel’s Office was alerted the week of April 22nd, this year, only about the fact that the IG was finishing a review about matters involving the office in Cincinnati.  But that now sounds more like what you’re describing the Counsel’s Office found out about on April 16th.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, no -- look, matters involving -- that was shorthand -- “matters involving the office in Cincinnati” -- in other words, the fact that there was conduct --

Q    But that’s sounds pretty topline.  And now you’re saying that the information was actually -- that the finding that line IRS employees had improperly scrutinized certain 501(c)(4)  organizations by using words like “tea party” and “patriot.”

MR. CARNEY:  Right.  And I’m making clear now what activity in Cincinnati -- because it had been reported already when I answered that question -- was very specifically about, as I just said, line IRS employees in Cincinnati improperly scrutinizing 501(c)(4) organizations by using words like “tea party” and “patriot.”  The Counsel was further informed that the report had not yet been finalized, and the publication date of a report was uncertain but likely soon. 

So that’s the extent of what the notification was.  In any case, the most important point is that that information was based on a report that -- a notification about a report that had not been concluded, and that no action could or should be taken until that report was concluded, which is why -- and no intervention -- which is why we adopted the posture we did, which was, in spite of the incoming from the press and others, we waited appropriately until the report was published before the President took action in response to the report.  Because up to that point, it was just press reports based on supposed leaks or partial leaks of a draft report from the IG.

Q    But what was the difference, really, between the information that was found out on April 24th and then the news reports on May 10th?  Because it was that information about the IRS using words like “tea party” and “patriot” to scrutinize these groups, and the President still waited the whole weekend to comment on this after --

MR. CARNEY:  He waited until he -- I mean, he was asked -- he had to make some general comment in response to a question, but we waited for a full response until we had a report.  I mean, I think you’re point is right -- it was basic information when the White House Counsel got it.  It was still basic information when it hit the news reports.  And our decision was that it would not be appropriate for the President of the United States to take action based on press reports on anonymously sourced leaks, partial leaks of a draft IG report.

Q    But there was essentially three weeks between both of those times of getting that information from April 24th to May 10th.  And White House officials, senior staff, had had discussions, as you just said, about how to respond to it and what those preliminary findings would be.  So why did it seem like the White House, the President wasn’t better prepared to address this when it came out on May 10th?

  MR. CARNEY:  Again, the conversations were based on notification of this as yet, at that point, completed IG audit.  There were discussions about when that audit would be completed and what its potential findings might be.  And as I said earlier, that kind of notification via Treasury comes when there is an expectation with a conclusion of a report that there might be interest in it at a congressional or media level.  But all of that is anticipating the release of a report and the reaction we might have to it.

And, again, the initial disclosure of it on that Friday was not anticipated.  The report was not completed.  We were waiting until the report was completed.

Q    And just to clarify, is it the Treasury General Counsel’s Office that tells the White House General Counsel’s Office, or is it another channel from Treasury?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that’s correct, that that’s how the notification happened.

Q    This is not a question about an ongoing criminal investigation.

MR. CARNEY:  Excellent.  (Laughter.)

Q    It’s a question about the balance that the President says he wants to strike between press freedoms and national security interests.  Does the President see a circumstance in which a reporter soliciting information from a government source is committing a criminal act in doing so?

MR. CARNEY:  As I said to Chuck, that is --

Q    It’s not.  It’s about what the President believes and it’s valid.

MR. CARNEY:  The President believes that we need to find this balance.  The President believes in and defends the First Amendment.  The President believes the press needs to be able to pursue investigative journalism.  The President also believes that, as Commander-in-Chief and as a citizen, that it is important that classified information that, if leaked, could be harmful to our national security and endanger the lives of Americans or those who are helping the United States must be taken seriously, that we cannot allow that to happen, and if we don’t take it seriously, there are consequences to that.

And so that is the balance he seeks.  Asking me that question --

Q  Who decides that harm?  If a government source wants to give it up they’re making a judgment then and there as well --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I can't address the question about -- that goes specifically to a report today about an ongoing criminal investigation.  I understand the interest in it, but it is just not appropriate for me, again, based on a news report, or in any case, to talk about an ongoing criminal investigation --

Q    I just don't think that's what I'm asking.

MR. CARNEY:  -- into what is being reported into a very serious leak.  I can't do it.  What I can tell you is where the President comes down broadly on these issues, as reflected not just in what he said last week but where he’s been since he was a senator and the legislation that he supports -- that he supported and supports to this day.   

And as I think I said last week on the broad matter, I know because I've spent time talking to him in general as a former reporter and as someone who works with him and for him now that he believes very strongly in the need for reporters to be able to pursue investigative journalism; that he believes that that balance has to be struck in a way that allows that freedom to take place.  But he also has to be mindful of the need to protect classified information because of our national security interests.  

Peter.

Q    On a non-ongoing criminal investigation --

MR. CARNEY:  Are you going to ask me about Myanmar?

Q    No, I'm asking -- prior to your service here you were bureau chief of Time magazine -- one of your reporters just prior to you becoming bureau chief got caught in a leak investigation. What would you have said if the government told you that he had been involved in a crime for reporting on the Valerie Plame case?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, Peter, it’s really --

Q    I'm asking about -- talking about this as your years as a journalist.

MR. CARNEY:  I understand the interest because of my former occupation and I can tell you that I feel as the President does, very strongly in the need to ensure that we have a press that's able to pursue investigative journalism freely, but we also have to protect those national security interests that are at stake.

And again, I think I mentioned what Director Mueller had said about one of the matters that's under discussion now.  This is serious -- these are serious issues.  In terms of procedures that are followed in their investigations, I have to refer you to the Department of Justice.  They’re the ones who have the answers.

Q    I'm talking about in 2005, should Matt Cooper have gone to jail for reporting --

MR. CARNEY:  That's a hypothetical based on --

Q    It’s not a hypothetical -- that was a very real case, a very real situation.  As bureau chief, what would you have said if the Department of Justice came to you and said Matt Cooper was going to jail because he --

MR. CARNEY:  You're saying, what would I have said if they had said, and that's a hypothetical.

Q    It was a very real case and they could have made the exact same logical leap that the Department of Justice seemed to have made in 2009 in this case --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, there’s a Department of Justice ongoing criminal investigation into a specific matter that I can’t comment on.  And that case has been played out and written much about, including by Mr. Cooper and others, and the history of that is well known.  I’m not going to extrapolate hypothetically about what might have happened in that and how it relates to an ongoing criminal investigation.  But I think it was a great effort.  (Laughter.)

Q    I mean, is it fair to say, though, that President Obama’s view of this balance tilts extremely heavily towards the government’s interest and away from the press’s?

MR. CARNEY:  Absolutely not.  That’s why it’s called a balance.

Alexis.

Q    Jay, can I just go back on the IRS to April 16?  You mentioned that the White House Counsel was given information in a series of items for her attention and that this was relatively routine to alert her, and then she discussed it with the White House Chief of Staff.  I just want to follow up to make sure I understand.  If that series of items or any other series of items that was presented to her includes information about an IG report, it is the President’s desire and the practice here that he is not notified of an IG report when it’s underway until it’s completed.  Is that what you’re saying?

MR. CARNEY:  I can't tell you that, as a general matter, when there are ongoing investigations like this, the White House Counsel makes the call about whether or not, after she’s been notified, who she should also alert.  And in this case -- and I think that it reflects a general approach when there is an ongoing investigation, or audit, as it is termed here, into a matter like this that was not complete, that it was not necessary or appropriate to notify the President.  Because we knew that that report would be concluded; we knew that there would potentially be changes in the report.  I mean, as a general matter, that can happen between -- in the final stages of an IRS audit -- I mean, IG audit in this case of the IRS.  And so that was the decision of Counsel and the recommendation of Counsel to others.

But, truly, as a routine matter, this is not -- this is just -- there’s a lot of information that courses through a White House, and matters that rise to the level of presidential attention.  There’s a lot of decision-making that goes into that, and this was certainly not one that it was deemed appropriate or necessary to alert the President to.

Q    So you're saying, for audits or IG investigations, the President is sometimes informed?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not, I’m just saying -- you’re trying to put words in my mouth, and --

Q    I’m trying to clarify.

MR. CARNEY:  No, I understand you’re trying to get a general principle here.

Q    Yes.

MR. CARNEY:  I think that the Counsel, as I’m sure has been the case in past White Houses, makes a decision about what information, what notification that he or she receives merits conveying to the President or conveying to other senior staff.  And in this case, she made the judgment that it did not.

And again, I think that the focus on this is interesting --

Q    I'm not talking about the results --

MR. CARNEY:  No, but the focus on this is interesting because it does beg the question -- if there is criticism out there that the President wasn’t notified in advance, what is the suggestion, that he should have done something about it in advance?  Because --

Q    No, I’m interested because --

MR. CARNEY:  -- obviously that would wholly inappropriate.

Q    I’m just interested because IG reports are not unusual, and members of Congress in this case requested this.  And my question is really about is the President always going to wear blinders if an IG report is going on?  And that's what I’m trying to get at.

So in the last month -- I just want to make sure I understand -- when the President sat down every day with his Chief of Staff or he met with his Treasury Secretary, they understood in general what was happening with this particular issue and they never said anything to the President?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that's correct, beginning with April 24th, in terms of the White House Counsel and the Chief of Staff. Again, I think any examination of the previous three weeks, leading up to last week, would say that there was a lot of information that could be discussed in the meetings with the President, and there was.

Q    One other follow-up.  The President has a Legislative Affairs Director and you all monitor what goes on on the Hill very closely.  That's routine.  When a member of Congress requests an audit, an independent audit, isn’t the White House customarily aware through the Legislative Affairs Office which members of Congress are requesting that and whether that was --

MR. CARNEY:  I don't think we have members of Congress come through the White House on their way to requesting action by inspectors general.

Q    No, no, no, but you monitor what they're doing, so --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not sure that in that case that we’re not -- I don't know as a broad matter how closely that’s monitored.  Again, I think it’s fair to say there are scores of ongoing inspector general audits and investigations happening as we speak, so --

Q    So, for instance, what Congressman Issa does, you do monitor pretty closely, correct?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, because a chairman like this is engaging directly with the White House and the administration, requesting information as part of an oversight matter.  That is different from asking or requesting an independent inspector general review or audit --

Q    So you’re saying you don't know, though?  You just -- you don't know.  I'm just asking, just saying --

MR. CARNEY:  Alexis, I think you’re kind of -- I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here.  But the fact is that there’s a lot of ongoing IG reviews happening and they're routine in the sense of their number.  Some of them have to do with very serious matters.  Some of them conclude that non-serious things happened.  This was obviously something that concluded that activity took place that, as the President views it, is entirely inappropriate, and that people need to be held accountable and we need to take action to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Q    So one other clarification.  When you were gathering information last week -- just to follow up on what the front row was asking -- in what you could tell us about when the White House first knew about the IRS discussion and everything that you told us about the White House Counsel, I just want to make sure I understand -- you did, or you did not, know that she had also advised Denis McDonough, the Chief of Staff, and other senior members of the staff?

MR. CARNEY:  What I knew at the time is, again, what I’ve just said today, is that the White House Counsel, Kathy Ruemmler, was notified in the week of April 22nd.  I did find out that that specifically was April 24th, and that she notified other members of senior staff.

Q    You’re talking about last week?

MR. CARNEY:  I can't remember specifically.  But the point is, is that --

Q    Why didn’t you tell us?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not sure that I knew it at that time.  But the point is Kathy Ruemmler is the point of contact here.  She made the decision or the judgment that it was not necessary or appropriate to inform the President of this, and that didn't happen.  And most importantly, no action was taken by anyone in this building to intervene -- because the focus here is on, well, if you know that, then what?

Q    Right, but --

Q    Did she tell staff they couldn’t tell the President?

MR. CARNEY:  No, she didn't tell -- it was her judgment that it was not necessary to.

Q    But she didn’t tell the staff they couldn’t do it?  I’m sorry, Alexis.  I’m confused by --

MR. CARNEY:  This was a handful of staff, not the entire staff.

Q    My question to you is, were you walled off from a fuller picture of what people knew and when they knew it last week as compared to today?

MR. CARNEY:  No, no.

Q    So then it was your choice, you chose --

MR. CARNEY:  I’m just saying that we’re obviously dealing with a lot of informati]]> Mon, 20 May 2013 18:54:34 CDT

	Confirming Judge Polster Chappell	From: SenBillNelson Views: 4 0 ratings
	Time: 07:29	More in News & Politics

]]> Mon, 20 May 2013 18:37:36 CDT 3:30 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I want to welcome President Thein Sein to the United States of America and to the Oval Office.

Last year, I was proud to make a historic visit to Myanmar as the first U.S. President ever to visit that country.  And now President Sein is able to return the favor by making a visit to the United States, and my understanding is that this is the first visit by a leader of Myanmar in almost 50 years.

Obviously, during this period in between there have been significant bilateral tensions between our countries.  But what has allowed this shift in relations is the leadership that President Sein has shown in moving Myanmar down a path of both political and economic reform.

Over the last two years, we’ve seen a steady process in which political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, have been released and have been incorporated into the political process.

We’ve seen credible elections and a legislature that is continuing to make strides in the direction of more inclusivity and greater representation of all the various groups within Myanmar. 

President Sein has also made genuine efforts to resolve longstanding ethnic conflicts within the country, and has recognized the need to establish laws that respect the rights of the people of Myanmar.

As a consequence of these changes in policy inside of Myanmar, the United States has been able to relax sanctions that had been placed on Myanmar, and many countries around the world have followed suit.

And this has also allowed the United States and other countries and international institutions to participate in engagement with the Myanmar government about how we can be helpful in spurring economic development that is broad-based and that produces concrete results for the people of Myanmar.  And that includes the prospect of increasing trade and investment in Myanmar, which can produce jobs and higher standards of living. 

But as President Sein is the first to admit, this is a long journey and there is still much work to be done.  And during our discussions, President Sein shared with me the fact -- the manner in which he intends to continue to move forward on releasing more political prisoners; making sure that the government of Myanmar institutionalizes some of the political reforms that have already taken place; how rule of law is codified so that it continues into the future; and the process whereby these ethnic conflicts that have existed are resolved not simply by a ceasefire but an actual incorporation of all these communities into the political process.

I also shared with President Sein our deep concern about communal violence that has been directed at Muslim communities inside of Myanmar.  The displacement of people, the violence directed towards them needs to stop, and we are prepared to work in any ways that we can with both the government of Myanmar and the international community to assure that people are getting the help that they need but, more importantly, that their rights and their dignity is recognized over the long term.

As I indicated to President Sein, countries that are successful are countries that tap into the talents of all people and respect the rights of all people.  And I’m confident that if Myanmar follows that recipe, that it will be not only a successful democracy but also a thriving economy.

We also discussed some very concrete projects that we’ve already initiated.  For example, USAID is already working to evaluate how we can improve agricultural productivity in Myanmar that can benefit farmers, increase incomes, and improve standards of living in a largely agricultural country.

And we’re also working, for example, on projects like improving the road that currently exists between Rangoon and Mandalay.

Finally, I want to thank President Sein for his participation in ASEAN and the East Asia Summit in which the United States is actively engaged in, all the countries in Southeast Asia, as part of our broader refocusing on the Asia Pacific region -- a region of enormous growth and potential with which we want to continue to strengthen our bonds.

So, Mr. President, welcome to the United States of America.  We very much appreciate your efforts and leadership in leading Myanmar in a new direction, and we want you to know that the United States will make every effort to assist you on what I know is a long, and sometimes difficult, but ultimately correct path to follow.

PRESIDENT SEIN:  (As interpreted.)  I would like to express my sincere thanks to President Obama for inviting me to come to the United States.  Indeed, this is my very first visit to Washington, D.C., as well as to the White House. 

And I am also very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss about the democratization process and reform process undertaken in my country.

Our two countries established diplomatic relations since 1947, a year before our independence.  And since then we have been able to enjoy -- historically, our two countries have enjoyed cordial relations, and there were also exchange of -- high-level exchange of visit between our two countries.

But I have to say that in the past there were difficulties in our bilateral relationship.  But now we are very pleased that our relations have been improved significantly, and I am very thankful that in 50 years I am repaying a visit to the United States at the invitation of President Obama.  And I am very grateful for extending an invitation to me to pay a visit to the United States.

Now that our country, Myanmar, has started to practice democratic system, so we can say that we have -- both our countries have similar political system in our two countries.

As you all know, our government is just -- our democratic government is just two years old.  And we have -- within the short period of two years, our government has carried out political and economic reforms in our country.  Because we are in a very nascent stage of democratic -- a democratic stage, we still need a lot of democratic experience and practices to be learned.  And we have seen successes.  At the same time, we have been encountering obstacle and challenges along our democratization process -- path.

The improvement in our relation is also in recognition -- U.S. government’s recognition of our democratization efforts and our genuine efforts for democratization process in our country.  And it is also due to -- thanks to President Obama’s reengagement policy to reengage with our country so that we have seen improvement in our bilateral relation within a short period of time.

Myanmar, being a developing country, and as we are undertaking changes of our democratization reforms, it is a daunting task ahead of us.  We encounter many challenges, such as the present -- our poverty rate in the country is quite high and we have very few job opportunity, and then as well as we have a -- we do not have much middle class in our country.  And then we -- our people needs to be all familiar with democratic practice, democratic norms and values. 

So we have a lot of challenges ahead of us, but we have to -- thanks to the U.S. government and the people support them for understanding that we will be able to encounter these challenges as we undertake the reform process in our country.

During my meeting with -- our discussion with President, as he has already elaborated, we discussed about the rule of law in our country; the strengthening of judicial bodies; the providing assistance so that our police and military force become professional forces.  And then to reiterate, we also discussed what related to the poverty alleviation for the rural people and farmers, agriculture, development, as well as how uplifting the health and education sectors of our countries. 

So we had a very fruitful discussion with President Obama, and then I must say that I am very pleased to have this opportunity to have a candid and frank discussion with President Obama.  And I believe that I have my visit to the United States is quite successful and meaningful.

So for democracy to flourish in our country, we will have to move forward and we will have to undertake reforms -- political reforms and economic reforms in the years ahead.  We will also have to -- we are trying our best with our own efforts to have political and economic reforms in our country.  But we will also need -- along this path, we will also need the assistance and understanding from the international community, including the United States. 

And what I want to say is that President Obama has frequently used the word “forward.”  And I will take this opportunity to reiterate that Myanmar and I will continue to take the forward -- move forward so that we will have -- we can build a new democratic state -- a new Myanmar, a new democratic state in our country. 

I thank you all.

                                                                                      END           3:50 P.M. EDT

President Barack Obama holds a bilateral meeting with President Thein Sein of Myanmar in the Oval Office, May 20, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Today President Obama welcomed President Thein Sein of Myanmar to the White House for a bilateral meeting, the first visit to the United States by a leader of that country in almost 50 years. 

“During this period in between there have been significant bilateral tensions between our countries,” President Obama said. “But what has allowed this shift in relations is the leadership that President Sein has shown in moving Myanmar down a path of both political and economic reform.”

But as President Sein is the first to admit, this is a long journey and there is still much work to be done.  And during our discussions, President Sein shared with me the fact -- the manner in which he intends to continue to move forward on releasing more political prisoners; making sure that the government of Myanmar institutionalizes some of the political reforms that have already taken place; how rule of law is codified so that it continues into the future; and the process whereby these ethnic conflicts that have existed are resolved not simply by a ceasefire but an actual incorporation of all these communities into the political process.

read more

'From Colorado's traditional timber industry to biomass energy projects, Colorado is showing the nation how we can turn brown trees into a new kind of green. This new proposal from Xcel Energy is the latest example of how Colorado is a model for a balanced and innovative energy policy — and smart forest management,' Udall said. 'I look forward to seeing this idea considered further and I applaud Xcel Energy's work to create jobs and improve the health of our spectacular national forests.'

Udall has been a strong proponent of woody biomass projects. Last year, he welcomed the U.S. Forest Service's partnership with J.R. Ford and the Pagosa Land Company to extract forest material designated by the U.S. Forest Service for removal to promote forest health and convert the material into electricity. Udall also has heralded the efforts of private companies, like Montrose Forest Products, that are creating jobs by turning beetle-kill and other forest products into commercial lumber.

Udall also is traveling the state this year to connect with Colorado energy industry officials, local leaders and the public to highlight how Colorado's balanced approach to energy development and innovation is a model for the country. As part of his tour, Udall has visited the National Wind Technology Center in Louisville and the Elk Creek Mine and methane-capture project in Somerset.

President Obama said, “We remember Sally Ride not just as a national hero, but as a role model to generations of young women. Sally inspired us to reach for the stars, and she advocated for a greater focus on the science, technology, engineering and math that would help us get there. Sally showed us that there are no limits to what we can achieve, and I look forward to welcoming her family to the White House as we celebrate her life and legacy.”
 
Americans were first introduced to Dr. Sally Ride when she traveled on the Space Shuttle in 1983.  After leaving NASA in 1987, she focused her efforts on science education and on teaching girls in particular that there are no limits to what they can accomplish.  Dr. Ride founded Sally Ride Science in 2001 to develop and provide classroom materials, programs, and professional development opportunities for K-12 science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) educators.  She placed a strong emphasis on gender and racial equality in the classroom and on introducing students to working scientists, engineers and mathematicians who exemplified this diversity in their respective fields.  Dr. Ride was one of the architects and drivers of the Administration’s ongoing efforts to maximize participation of underrepresented groups in STEM classes and careers. And her devotion to the exploration of space never wavered, as multiple Administrations, including President Obama’s, called on Dr. Ride to serve on advisory boards focused on national space exploration efforts.

Dr. Ride’s partner, mother, and sister were notified last week of the President’s decision to award her with the Nation’s highest civilian honor for her contributions to the U.S. space program and education system. The remainder of the honorees selected by the President will be announced over the coming weeks and the awards will be presented at a White House ceremony later this year.

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon will travel to Beijing on May 26-28 to prepare for this meeting.  

The President will meet with a wide array of leaders from government, business, and civil society, including youth, to discuss our strategic partnerships on bilateral and global issues.  The trip will underscore the President’s commitment to broadening and deepening cooperation between the United States and the people of sub-Saharan Africa to advance regional and global peace and prosperity.

Jon M. Holladay, of Virginia, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Agriculture, vice Evan J. Segal.

“That we should develop oil and gas resources with appropriate environmental controls is obvious, as is the long-term need to diversify our energy production portfolio. But the approval of the Keystone pipeline is not ultimately a hard decision on its merits.” -- Our Views: Build pipeline from Canada, February 26, 2013

“Canada will either sell its tar sands crude to the United States via safe pipeline or ship it to China. This is a no-brainer, and the president needs to realize that as soon as possible.” -- Keystone pipeline needs no more delays, January 23, 2013

“(T)he latest environmental impact statement confirms there’s no substantial environmental or safety reason to stop the Keystone XL pipeline.… President Obama should approve the pipeline permit in the best interest of the United States."  -- TransCanada pipeline permit should be issued soon, March 18, 2013

“The Keystone XL pipeline will create jobs during construction, assist our Canadian allies, help move North Dakota crude oil to those Southern refineries and support a well-reasoned national energy policy. Again, the president should approve the Keystone XL pipeline.” -- Open the door for Keystone XL, March 5, 2013

"(I)t seems to us that we have finally reached the ‘enough already’ moment in this debate… Rather than encourage more study, President Barack Obama should now prod the State Department to move as fast as possible to approve the pipeline and get this overblown and needlessly divisive controversy off the nation’s agenda." -- Approve Keystone Now, April 29, 2013

“So, all that’s left for President Obama now is to approve the pipeline and get out of the way of economic progress and U.S. energy independence, or further confirm the widespread suspicion that he wants to promote alternative energy by sabotaging the oil industry. The clock is ticking…” -- No more excuses for delaying Keystone pipeline, March 10, 2013

"It's time to approve, at long last, this pipeline. And to let the North American energy industry make the most of the opportunity afforded by the mining of shale-oil deposits and the expanded use of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, to produce natural gas and oil. Allow America to draw on its bounty. The economy will benefit. The nation will be more secure and successful. And Americans will go to work." -- Energy security and American jobs, March 29, 2013

“Stopping the pipeline will not stop oil drilling or consumption, however. That is a conclusion of the U.S. State Department’s new report on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would carry crude oil from western Canada to U.S. refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. This conclusion will make it harder for the Obama administration to block the project, especially since Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman gave his OK once the pipeline route was shifted to avoid Nebraska’s Sandhills region and the Ogallala Aquifer.” -- Blocking Keystone pipeline won't end oil drilling, March 4, 2014

“The Keystone XL Pipeline, carrying Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico could be a significant piece of America's drive to break its dependence on oil from unsavory places. That alone is a powerful incentive for approving the project.” -- Build the Keystone Pipeline, January 31, 2013

“Helping our friendly neighbor to the north increase oil production is in our security interests and, as an economic plus, the oil would be refined in Gulf states, boosting jobs there. We believe the increased efficiencies and economic benefits that the pipeline will create will benefit Montana and the rest of the nation.” -- XL Pipeline will boost Montana and the nation, March 23, 2013

“President Obama has run out of reasons to block expansion of the Keystone XL Pipeline. With the sign-off by Nebraska's governor on a new route for the pipeline that avoids environmentally sensitive areas in the Cornhusker state, the president should give the project the green light.” -- Let the Keystone XL Pipeline be built, January 28, 2013

"‘The Keystone XL pipeline will create tens of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border,’ said Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver. Not to mention raising badly needed tax revenue, both at the state and federal level. The best part is that this is a privately funded project, unlike such boondoggle government ‘investments’ like Solyndra…” -- State: No Environmental Reason To Delay Keystone XL, March 4, 2013

“Obama should allow the pipeline to proceed. He needs to worry more about the millions of Americans it would benefit…” -- Obama should allow Keystone XL pipeline, February 24, 2013

“One by one the Obama administration's objections to the $7 billion project, which would carry 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day from Canada's tar sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast, have been met.” -- One less excuse not to build Keystone XL pipeline, January 24, 2013

“On March 1, the State Department released its supplemental EIS. It is now conducting the 45-day public comment portion of this laborious and time-consuming process. Once this chapter of the Keystone XL pipeline saga has ended, Obama should finally close the book on it. He should go ahead and sign the permit.” -- Obama, approve Keystone, March 26, 2013

“(R)egarding the Keystone pipeline, the administration should face down critics of the project, ensure that environmental standards are met and then approve it. As Nature has suggested before, the pipeline is not going to determine whether the Canadian tar sands are developed or not.” -- Change for good, January 23, 2013

“Doing the right thing on the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline became easier for President Barack Obama Friday when the latest study concluded it would do little environmental damage. He should green-light the massive construction project.” -- For jobs and economy, build the Keystone pipeline, March 4, 2013

“President Obama has no grounds for further delay. The project has been proposed, studied and debated. The routing has been changed to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. Keystone would expand U.S. access to the third-largest oil reserves in the world. It would bring oil to this country from a neighbor who is a friend and an ally. The meter is running. It's past time for this project to get a green light.” -- Long past time to give Keystone XL project the green light, February 24, 2013

“Federal approval still is needed and should be granted. The United States benefits from a steady supply of crude oil from our northern neighbor, Canada. A recent study suggested that Nebraska could get $1.8 billion in economic benefits if the pipeline were built.” -- Nebraska's voice on Keystone XL pipeline is heard, January 23, 2013

“The pipeline from Western Canada to the Gulf of Mexico would provide jobs, and oil, would give us fuel from a friend instead of from a foe, would very likely lower the cost of gasoline at the pump. There’s an awful lot to like there.” -- Keystone pipeline protesters offering no alternative, February, 21, 2013

“Besides the fact that there is clearly not an adverse environmental consequence to having the pipeline, there are also positive economic results if the pipeline is initiated. It’s estimated that 20,000 well-paying jobs will be created as a result. That’s one key reason that unions, which are traditionally huge supporters of the Democrats, are firmly behind the Keystone XL pipeline.” -- OK the Keystone pipeline, March 8, 2013

“But killing this pipeline would achieve nothing. It would deprive America of jobs at a time when the need is pressing. It would tremendously aggravate one of our closest allies and our biggest trading partner. And it would damage our efforts to wean our dependence on unstable or hostile regimes.” -- Keystone critics misfire on climate charge, February 20, 2013

“The tar sands crude will find its way to refineries and that work can create jobs at U.S. refineries and spin-off jobs. The pipeline expansion also will create a more cost-efficient method for moving oil from fields in Montana and western North Dakota to U.S. refineries. … It’s time to approve the project and increase the flow of crude to U.S. Refineries.” -- Keystone extension should get OK soon, April 28, 2013

“Regardless of whether the U.S. permits the pipeline, as long as the price of oil remains high enough to make a profit, oil will be produced from the tar sands in Alberta, Canada… It's time for the president to allow the $3.3 billion project to proceed.” -- Reason enough for a pipeline, March 11, 2013

“If the Alberta oil doesn’t flow south to America via the Keystone XL, it will flow west to China via other pipelines or rail. … The larger issue is whether the U.S. wants to continue to be considered a serious economic nation with rising living standards and a modern energy supply. If Mr. Obama turns down Keystone XL, the Chinese will be laughing at us as they buy Canadian oil and build their economic power...” -- No More Keystone Excuses, March 3, 2013

“The issue is coming back, and the president has even less reason to nix the project than he did last time. After years of federal review, there was little question last year that construction of the pipeline… should proceed.” -- Keystone XL is coming back, January 23, 2013

“Reducing our dependence on the Middle East while simultaneously reducing our unemployment problem ought to be a no-brainer. … By signing off on Keystone XL, Mr. Obama would bolster his lagging credibility in claiming to pursue an ‘all of the above’ national energy policy.” -- Keystone XL deja vu, January 29, 2013

“The plan is to pump about 700,000 barrels of Canadian oil a day to U.S. refineries. Obviously, that would have a substantial effect on prices Americans pay for gasoline - as well as our national security. Every barrel of oil we buy from Canada is one less we have to import from Venezuela or the Middle East. It’s construction would provide a much-needed employment spike. … (T)he pipeline makes too much sense.” -- Time for Obama to stop blocking Keystone pipeline, February 25, 2013

“(I)t is time to build the pipeline. Not only would it benefit North Dakota in creating a way to get oil from the Bakken to refineries in Texas, it would benefit the nation as a whole.” -- It is time to approve the Keystone Pipeline, March 16, 2013

###

WASHINGTON, DC – Last week, the leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee launched an investigation into reports that Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius may have solicited funding or assistance from the health care industry to support the work of Enroll America, a private nonprofit group dedicated to assisting the implementation of the health care law. This weekend, The Washington Post Editorial Board expressed their reservations about Sebelius "dancing around serious ethical lines." Read more below.

In addition to seeking more information from HHS, the companies it may have solicited, and Enroll America, Chairman Upton has joined a request for GAO to conduct an investigation to determine whether the administration has violated the law.

May 18, 2013

Editorial: Kathleen Sebelius dances on an ethical line

ONE OF THE BIGGEST questions hanging over the health-care system is how many young Americans will sign up for coverage once the Affordable Care Act begins to phase in this October. If too few buy insurance on the markets that the government is creating, insurance companies would be stuck covering primarily the old and the the (sic) sick. They would have to pay out more per customer. Their customers, in turn, would have to pay more to those companies for coverage. The stakes for the Health and Human Services Department, which is overseeing the transition, are tremendous.

But they are not high enough to justify HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius dancing around serious ethical lines.

The department admitted recently that Ms. Sebelius has solicited private support — including from insurance companies — for Enroll America, a nonprofit group devoted to expanding access that a former Obama administration staffer runs.

HHS argues that there is no problem here. Ms. Sebelius didn’t ask companies in the health-care industry for money, but other sorts of support for Enroll America’s efforts.

Besides, the department also says, the secretary would have been well within the law to do both; a 1976 statute specifically allows the government to encourage others to support groups that promote public health.

So far, HHS says it has asked only two entities to donate money — the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and tax firm H&R Block — and neither company is regulated by the agency.

But Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) says that Ms. Sebelius has violated the principle that Congress is the body empowered to establish funding levels for the government’s activities and that no administration can short-circuit that process by soliciting and directing donations for things it deems important. In a letter to Ms. Sebelius, he argues that her actions “may violate federal appropriations laws,” and he demands information on how much HHS has coordinated with Enroll America.

The legal question is still murky. The ethical one is less so. The Post’s Sarah Kliff, who broke the story, reports that at least one official in the health-care industry felt pressure to give money and other forms of support to Enroll America. Given that HHS directly controls the markets in which the insurers operate, we would hardly blame them for reading a lot, even too much, into the secretary’s requests and feeling nervous about them. But even if they didn’t, it would have been easy to expect donations to curry favor with Ms. Sebelius.

When we hear that Congress hasn’t given HHS the money it needs to implement the Affordable Care Act, we sympathize. When we see a cabinet secretary leaving herself open to accusations of impropriety, we can’t.

To read the editorial online, click here.

###