President Obama Speaks to Senior Leaders of the Federal Workforce

December 09, 2014 | 18:02 | Public Domain

On December 9, 2014, President Obama thanked Senior Leaders of the Federal workforce for their service to the American people.

Download mp4 (665MB) | mp3 (17MB)

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Detention and Interrogation Report - Via Conference Call

Via Conference Call

12:51 P.M. EST

MS. MEEHAN:  Thank you very much, everybody, for joining us today.  This will be a background call on the Intelligence Committee’s release of this report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation program.  This call will be on background.  We have five senior administration officials with us today.  You are welcome to quote them, but in your reporting you must refer to them as senior administration officials, and not refer to them by name, agency or title. 

So with that, I will turn it over to senior administration official number one to give a laydown, and once we go through a laydown we will -- senior administration official number three, excuse me -- we will open it up to questions. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call.  I’ll give some broad points and then I’ll turn it over to my colleagues to walk through a bit of what we’re doing in terms of assuring the security of our personnel and facilities overseas.

As you all know, earlier this year, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence asked the White House to declassify the executive summary findings and conclusions of the committee report on the CIA’s former detention and interrogation program.  President Obama determined that the report should be declassified with the appropriate redactions necessary to protect national security. 

To be clear, he supports the committee’s release of the declassified report.  You’ve seen his statement expressing the importance of transparency.  And again, we’ve been through this process with the committee precisely because we felt it was important to allow for public representation of their work while taking necessary precautions for national security.

So the declassified executive summary findings and conclusions that are being released by the committee today -- or that have been released are the results of considerable effort by the director of national intelligence working with the CIA, the Department of Defense, Department of State, and other agencies to declassify the documents with the appropriate redactions.  And in the interest of transparency, to put into context this effort, 93 percent of the report is declassified -- 93 percent, again, of the executive summary and findings and conclusions of the committee were released with the redactions, focused on our most acute national security concerns.

As we’ve made clear time and again, the decisions following the 9/11 attacks relating to this former program are part of our history as Americans.  They’re not representative of the way we deal with the threat from terrorism that we still face today.  So the committee’s report contains a review of a program that included interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects in secret facilities at locations outside the United States. 

But in one of his first executive orders after taking office, President Obama prohibited the use of harsh interrogation techniques, and ended the detention and interrogation program described in the report.  As he said, he believes that those actions were not consistent with American values and that we are better able to secure our country using other methods.

So as Americans, we are committed to sending a clear message to the world that we support transparency.  And that’s how we resolve to never use these types of techniques again.  That is why the President supported the declassification of these documents.  I think we set an example as a democracy by showing that we have a process for working through these issues; that that process includes, again, taking an accounting of what took place, having a degree of transparency about what’s been done in the past, but again, resolving to move forward together as one country using our resolve to secure our country but also using different techniques in the -- than we’ve used in the past.  And that’s part of the strength of our Democratic institution.

We have made clear that torture is prohibited at all time and in all places, with respect to U.S. personnel.  And our ability to demonstrate our commitment to that principle is also how we can help support that principle around the world.  It’s part of how we more effectively promote human rights and democracy.

I’d add that we value our partnerships around the world.  We hope and have confidence that foreign governments and foreign publics will understand that this is a program that was ended years ago.  The United States greatly values our close cooperation with our allies on a range of shared initiatives, and that won’t change.  And again, we very much appreciate the close counterterrorism cooperation we’ve had from a number of governments around the world over the years.  We frankly could not protect the American people without the cooperation of foreign governments.  We also would not be able to protect publics and our closest allies if we did not have close counterterrorism cooperation.

So I think it’s very important as we review the content of this report that we also lift up the principle that collaboration between governments and countering terrorism is essential not just to the security of the American people but to the security of people around the world.

The other thing I’d just close by saying is that the President believes that the men and women serving in the U.S. intelligence community have done extraordinary and heroic and patriotic work in protecting our nation and our allies across the globe.  And at no time has that been clearer than in the days since 9/11, when an extraordinary burden was put on the intelligence community.  Suddenly, we were confronted with a catastrophic scale of terrorism that came to our shores on that day, and it was immediately the responsibility of people in the intelligence community to protect the United States, to disrupt and dismantle networks that span the globe, to carry out national security policies that were significantly prioritizing terrorism in a new way. 

And while we recognize that there are strong emotions raised by the release of this report, the one thing that we want to be absolutely clear is that the men and women who continue to protect our country have the respect of everybody in this government and of the American people.

And so again, I think our general view here is that the release of this report is an important milestone in bringing a degree of transparency to this program, of underscoring why we have prohibited these types of techniques, and underscoring our commitment to human rights around the world.  And we hold ourselves to a high standard in that respect.  At the same time, it’s important that we lift up how much we value the contributions and service of people in the United States government who are asked to do an extraordinarily difficult job every single day, often without any praise, any even knowledge of their service.  And so that’s something we’re very mindful of here.

But with that, let me turn it over to my colleagues who can talk to some of the other elements.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks very much.  Well, first, throughout this process of preparing for the committee’s release of this report, the protection of our personnel -- diplomatic, military and other U.S. citizens serving abroad -- has been of paramount concern.  Towards that end, the White House has led an interagency effort over the past -- over five months to mitigate and prepare for potential threats that might be generated by reactions to the release of the report that has come out today. 

The intelligence community, working with the State Department, conducted a threat assessment -- and I know my colleagues in the State Department will have more to say on this -- but a full threat assessment was conducted based on the content of the report and the ultimate redactions to it.  And we undertook an effort working through the intelligence community, working through our State Department colleagues, to identify those locations that might be most at risk and to address our protections and threat posture and security posture accordingly. 

Based on these assessments, all diplomatic missions abroad were directed to perform reviews of their security posture, and to discuss potential threats in connection with the release of the report. 

The Pentagon, in addition, in concert with individual combatant commanders issued force protection guidance.  And they are, at the discretion of military commanders, adjusting their alert postures to best support diplomatic missions in their individual areas of responsibility, and of course, to conduct appropriate force protection measures for our men and women serving abroad.

Domestically, federal law enforcement has engaged with their state and local counterparts in a number of venues and working through joint terrorism task forces and other venues to coordinate community outreach as well, and to take steps to be attentive to any reactions from homegrown violent extremists. 

I think finally, what I would just say is that there has been significant coordination across the government amongst the diplomatic, intelligence and military communities.  And we worked through a predetermined period of heightened alert that was agreed upon at the federal level, but we will constantly reassess that and make sure that we are adjusting our security posture based on the intelligence that we see as we watch in the coming days after the release of the report.  So, I’ll leave it there.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you.  One measure of a country’s democratic institutions, as the President, the Secretary and others have said today, is whether it can be transparent about its mistakes, learn from them and change.  That is a message that we constantly deliver to our foreign partners and that is exactly what the United States has done with respect to this report.  We have prepared our embassies and our foreign partners for the release of this report to ensure that we have mitigated risks to the security of our embassies and personnel serving abroad and to American citizens abroad, and to explain to our foreign partners why we decided to make this difficult decision. 

As we worked with the White House, the intelligence community, the Defense Department, the entire interagency and the committee on this issue over the last several years, we were constantly mindful of the impact the release of this report could have on the security of our embassies and personnel serving abroad.  There are obviously a range of reactions that we might see.  The protection of our people is our top priority, and in anticipation of today’s release, the State Department reviewed its global security posture in every single post around the world. 

As my colleague indicated, late last week, the Secretary of State asked all chiefs of mission to conduct what we called EACs, Emergency Action Committees, at each of their posts.  These are advisory bodies of subject matter experts, and our ambassadors convened to assist in preparing for and responding to threats, emergencies and other crises.  After they are convened, they report back with their findings, and are tasked with maintaining vigilance in these kinds of situations over a considerable period of time.

We will pay close attention to any possible security threats resulting from the release of this report, and take prudent steps to address any threats should they arise.  We are working very closely, as my colleague said, with our counterparts in the Defense Department to ensure we have all of the resources that we might need.  We will also advise American communities abroad about changes in the security environment and any recommended precautions.  This outreach to private American citizens is something we take very seriously. 
At this time, we are not announcing any changes to our current posture, but just as the just-released FBI-DHS joint intelligence bulletin noted, the report’s release could be exploited by violent groups at home and overseas.  So we will be watching social media especially to see how terrorist groups might use this release for propaganda purposes or to threaten our people or Americans in general.

In addition to the security issues this report’s release might entail, we’ve also been focused on the possible impact on our diplomatic relationships overseas.  On the one hand, we have a responsibility to work to protect sensitive information that may be related to past programs and other countries, while at the same time ensuring people around the world know that we no longer use these interrogation techniques, and are committed to human rights.

We at the State Department have to address both challenges.  We value our partnerships and have confidence that foreign governments, foreign publics and our coalition partners battling ISIS in Iraq and Syria all understand that this program ended long ago, and it has no bearing on the joint fight we are engaged in today against ISIL. 

And it’s worth reminding foreign governments and publics, as we have been doing, that in one of the first executive orders he issues, President Obama directed that individuals detained in any armed conflict shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.  To work to address these issues proactively over the past several days, the Secretary and our ambassadors and other senior officials have been reaching out to our foreign partners.  We have explained the importance of the report as part of our political oversight process in underscoring that our security and prosperity are inextricably linked with one another.  We are your partners, we have said, and we are in this together.  And we have heard the same from other governments.

We’ve also said that we don’t have to choose between our security and our values.  This diplomatic outreach is ongoing.  However, I’m not going to comment on the details of these diplomatic discussions for reasons I think you can understand.

As Americans, we are committed to sending a clear message to the world that we support transparency, and that we should never, as the President said, resort to these kinds of techniques ever again.  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just one more thing before we take questions is -- with respect to the CIA, they’ve actually posted on their website I think their response -- earlier response to the committee, so people have that as a document that reflects some of the agency’s positions.

Q    Hi, folks.  One of the pieces of information that the Senate investigators did not have access to is the legal reasoning for why the Justice Department decided not to prosecute anybody.  And I wonder, in the interest of transparency, whether you would support releasing at least the legal reasoning, properly redacted because it’s a product of grand jury secrecy or whatever -- but that’s going to be a big question coming out of this, is why was no one charged criminally.  And the answers that the Justice Department, they don’t really shed much light.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, look, as I think you would expect, as it relates to decisions about whether or not to pursue prosecution, we really have to defer to the Department of Justice as it relates to their process and decision-making there.  So they’re the best venue to answer those questions.  They have conducted a review, they had made determinations to not pursue prosecution, but again, I think they’re in the best position to speak to both that decision-making and also the underlying information.  It’s frankly not our place to insert ourselves in that process.

Q    Hi.  I just want to go back if I can to some of the criticism of this report, including that there are no recommendations.  And particularly, I want to ask about the President’s statement today that was released today that -- he said he’s going to continue to use his authority to make sure we don’t resort to those methods again.  And how do you assure that this stance that the President has taken so clearly continues into future administrations?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Look, I’d leave it to the committee to describe their thinking as it relates to recommendations. 

What I will say is, from the President’s perspective, number one, the prohibition in the executive order is clear.  That’s what guides U.S. policy and U.S. actions under this administration.  The fact that he did it at the beginning of his administration I think sent a clear message that this is what we were going to stand for as a government.

In terms of going -- how this endures going forward, frankly, I think that there is value in transparency in the sense that by being transparent and by providing this information to the public, I think it adds another strong piece of evidence as to why we should not do these things as a country.

So in other words, the President’s prohibition is what guides our actions as a government, but the release of this type of information and this type of transparency I think helps cement the notion that we should not do these things because in our democracy the American people can take a hard look at this information themselves.  And I think generally speaking, the American people reject the notion that we have to utilize these types of brutal tactics in service of our own security.

Congress obviously has its own decisions to make as it relates to legislative action.  But in terms of the President’s position, it’s clearly expressed in the executive order.  We’d of course leave it to Congress to make their own determinations about how they want to interact with this debate going forward.  But I do, again, think that the release of the information itself helps strengthen in some respect the consensus for there being a prohibition on this type of activity, because people can take a look themselves at just how contrary it is to our values.

Q    Hi, guys.  Thanks for doing the call.  Two quick questions.  One is, in August, the President said flatly, “we tortured some folks,” but this statement today doesn’t say that.  It says, I unequivocally banned torture when I took office, but when he talks about what actually happened, he doesn’t call it that.  He says the -- techniques, and so forth and so on.  Does he believe this was torture?  When he spoke off the cuff in August -- is he retreating from what he said?  And the second quick question is about the Poland call today.  Was that meant to reassure Poland in some ways because of the release of this report, and them being a -- having been a site of the CIA prison?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, Peter, on your first question, no I wouldn’t draw that conclusion.  The President has said that we committed torture.  He’s been clear on that point for many years.  That’s been his position.  And we’re not going to go case by case in a report like this and try to affix a label to each action, but I think as a general matter, that’s what he has said on this.

With respect to the Poland call, that was one topic of discussion.  So they did discuss the release of this report.  They also, however, discussed a number of other issues in our bilateral relationship including the situation in Ukraine, including our NATO alliance.  So it was one part of a broader agenda.

Q    Hi, thanks for doing the call guys.  I actually have  question about the CIA’s response today, which says in part -- in particularly the agency disagrees with the study’s unqualified assertions that the overall detention and interrogation program did not produce unique intelligence that lead terrorist plots to be disrupted, terrorists to be captured, or lives to be saved.  The CIA seems to be saying that torture worked.  I’d like your reaction to that.  And in addition to that, I wonder if there’s any concern about CIA director Brennan remaining in place after having supported many of these enhanced interrogation techniques that the administration says should never have existed?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll start, and my colleague may want to add.  Well, on your second question the President has complete confidence in CIA director Brennan and believes he performed extraordinary service over the length of his time in government. 

With respect to this question about information that was obtained, we are not going to engage in this debate.  I think that would miss the overriding point that the President has made clear, which is that some of these techniques were contrary to our values and were overall detrimental to our security given, among other things, the response overseas to the fact that the United States was engaged in these techniques.  And that is of course why the President prohibited these interrogation techniques as one of his first acts in office. 

I would also just add, you’re essentially being asked, are you a counterfactual in this debate, because you are being asked to arrive at a view that another interrogation method may have gotten the same information or more information or less information.  We cannot know what the outcome of that counterfactual is.  We cannot know what other interrogation methods may have yielded. 

So for us, the reason for prohibiting the techniques is that they were contrary to our values.  We do believe that there are interrogation methods that can gain valuable intelligence.  We use those every day, in terms of when there are needs to interrogate terrorism suspects.  But that’s all I would add to that, but my colleague may want add some more words.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just to give you a sense -- I think you might look at Director Brennan’s cover memo to Feinstein and Chambliss that was also released today in response to the study.  What he says specifically in that is that he agrees with the President’s decision to terminate the program, and that under no circumstances will it be re-initiated while he’s Director.  And he personally remains firm in his belief that enhanced interrogation techniques are not an appropriate method to obtain intelligence, and that they’re used -- impairs our ability to continue to play a leadership role in the world. 

I think, as my colleague indicated, that there are sort of different pieces to this as you parse it out.  And on the first piece, the question of whether or not there was unique and valuable information that came out of the program, the answer that the CIA’s consistently indicated is that, yes, that’s our view, and there’s a fair amount of discussion about that in the response.  But the sort of other piece to the puzzle I think is that many people will say, but there were other ways to get that information and -- that might have been more effective even in some circumstances.  And that, just as my colleague said, and as the response indicated, is the unknowable piece to this.

Q    Thanks for doing the call.  Yesterday, Josh Earnest said that the vast majority of folks involved in the intelligence community were true patriots, and he said in the report, leaving aside the legal justifications here, that these actions shouldn’t have taken place, these EITs should never been put in place.  Is anyone -- this is directed at senior administration officials four and five -- is anybody currently in the employ of the intelligence community who was involved in those EITs still there now?  And for the full cohort, why are they still there if the President believes these actions never should have been taking place and undermined American national security?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  I think there’s two pieces to that.  The first is that I think -- there’s the question of whether or not EITs ever should have been authorized and whether or not a program should ever exist again that has such techniques in it.  At the time, they were authorized and they were reviewed as legal, and people acted within the program with that understanding, under the direction of the President. 

So I think that is -- the thing that this administration, including John Brennan, said that’s not an appropriate way to do things -- variety of ways in which that’s been said, but basically everybody’s on the same page for saying that this should never be done and never be done again.  And I think that doesn’t condemn everybody who had contact with the program as a consequence.  So I think that’s one piece. 

I think for the second piece, I mean, is there anybody who’s referenced in the report or otherwise, we just don’t engage in those kinds of case-by-case personnel questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just to hit the second question again -- we released, early in the administration for instance, the Office of Legal Counsel memos that related to this program.  The fact of the matter is, insofar as individuals are carrying out U.S. government policy consistent with Office of Legal Counsel judgments, consistent with directions that they’ve been given, we're not going to aim to hold them accountable if they're operating within the guidelines they’ve been given.

More broadly, the Department of Justice has taken a broader look at this program and has made their own determination not to pursue prosecution.  That's something that they can speak to.  But again, the key point here is whether or not individuals were acting consistent with the guidance, including the legal analysis that had been done, related to the program.  That's why it was ended as a matter of policy by President Obama so that our policy would change, and we would resolve to be not utilizing these specific enhanced interrogation techniques, to be treating detainees humanely in accordance with a variety of international conventions.  So that’s what’s guided our approach to how we deal with personnel.

Q    Hi, thanks for doing the call.  So two questions, one of which is a follow-up I think to Zeke’s question.  First, can you say does the President agree with the conclusion in the report that the CIA repeatedly misled policymakers at the White House, Congress and the public about aspects of the program?

And the second, to follow on Zeke’s question, you said that the standard is if people were following the guidelines, it seems to me the meat of this report from the Senate is about incidents where people were not -- clearly not following the guidelines, exceeding the directive.  Senator Feinstein said directly that a lot of these techniques, the way they were applied went well beyond what the Justice Department had authorized.  Is it your position that no employment action is appropriate for people that did those sorts of things, that it’s either criminal prosecution or nothing, and that that amounts to the sufficient accountability for people that departed from directives that they were given?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So again, on the criminal side of this, I have to leave this to Justice to make determinations about activities that may have been inconsistent with the law.

In terms of the agencies, look, individual agencies have the responsibility and have processes for reviewing what their employees have done.  And the fact of the matter is this took place long before we were in office, so even by the time we took office, there had been inspector general reports, there had been processes within these agencies. 

So again, some of this -- all of this activity predates this administration.  And even some of the personnel and inspector general reports predate this administration being in office.  And I think as a matter of practice, particularly within our intelligence community, agencies do not publicly discuss what actions are taken related to certain activities that are classified.

With respect to the CIA’s engagements with Congress, again, all we can speak to is what we have done as an administration.  And it is our belief that the CIA has worked very diligently with Congress throughout the course of the last several years to provide what is really unprecedented access to documents and materials that provide the basis of this report. 

So we have encouraged the agency to work collaboratively with Congress.  Obviously, this process has been difficult at times.  We would all acknowledge that.  But, frankly, where there has been difficulties in the process, we’ve again encouraged the agency and Congress to work cooperatively together to work through those differences, and they have.  And the fact that you have an executive summary and findings and conclusions that are 93 percent of what we were provided with -- so a minimal amount of redactions I think speak to the collaborative nature of the process.

I don't know if my colleague may want to jump in here.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I just want to add that the issue of where people acted outside of the line -- an absolutely fair one.  And something that is in our response to the study is that we fell short -- the CIA did -- when it came to holding individuals accountable for poor performance and management failures.  And across the board, I think you’ll see that in the statement and comments.

There were serious mistakes that were made, and -- in the implementation of the program.  And where those occurred, those are things that there should be accountability for.  And that's something that we have a number of processes -- short of the criminal piece -- but there have been referrals to the IG and so on.  And I think that is something that systemically, we’ve seen some issues that we’ve been essentially in the process of correcting.

Q    In May of 2009, the President fought the release of photographs documenting abuse of prisoners.  And the reasoning at the time was basically that it would set off a deadly backlash against American troops and other American interests.  Can you talk about his -- why his thinking is different here?  Is there an evolution?  Is there specifics of the case that make those two different?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, John, I remember that one well.  And we're always balancing this question of the transparency that is essential for our democratic institutions and actions that are aimed at protecting our individuals and facilities overseas. 

What I would say is remembering that particular instance, at that time, we did not believe that the release of that tranche of photographs would reveal anything new or different from what had already been released in the public record.  That was part of a larger body of materials, and there had been similar photographs released at different points.  So at that particular instance and time, the President believed the release of those photographs would raise the risks to U.S. personnel overseas.  We also had at that period of time some 150,000 Americans serving in harm’s way in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  We obviously have significantly less today.

However, I think that this report is qualitatively different in the sense that it does represent a much more comprehensive view of this program than anything that has been released publicly before.  So the transparency value of this report we think is qualitatively different than a set of photographs that did not add significantly new information to the public record.

And look, so this is not an exact science, but the President has to make calls on different issues related to declassification.  I think our judgment is to try to be as transparent as possible and manage the risk associated with transparency.  But again, at the end of the day, the committee was determined to release this report.  And the President believed that there was value in there being a declassified report.  And that's why we worked with them to facilitate the declassification that would enable them to release the report today.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I would just add to my colleague’s statement, all of that said, the President has been extremely focused on the protection of our personnel overseas as I laid out at the beginning.  And the redactions that were done were done mindful of the national security implications.  And we have taken a series of steps both in conducting the threat assessment and the mitigation measures that I indicated to address the potential reaction.

Q    Hi, guys.  Thanks for doing the call.  I have a couple for you.  The first is that the Senate report, or their summary, includes the suggestion that the CIA on a systematic, ongoing basis leaked classified information to reporters that was painting -- that painted the agency in a positive light.  I’m wondering whether you consider that a proper use of classified information?  Whether that’s also a policy pursued by the White House?  And then separately, I’m still trying to square the circle -- how can the President say “we tortured some folks,” and then you guys take the position that that was legal?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, let me unpack that.  So on the second question, the President’s determination was that he has said over many years, dating back to the time that he was in the Senate, that he believes that the United States carried out activities that amounted to torture.  That’s his determination.  That is one of the reasons that led him in one of his first acts in office to prohibit the use of those techniques.

So I think he rendered his judgment publicly about whether or not the United States had engaged in torture.  He rendered his judgment on the broader program when he ended it upon taking office.  And one of the several reasons he cited for that action was the need for the United States to be in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and a variety of international conventions and laws as it relates to the humane treatment of detainees.

On the first question, we absolutely do not believe that classified information should be provided outside of, again, a process of declassification.  I mean, part of what you see here is the very rigorous nature of activity that needs to be undertaken in order to declassify information and release it to the public.

So we do believe that there’s value in declassification where we can provide additional transparency, but we believe that that should take place through normal channels and procedures.  And you’ve heard us say this in many instances from whistleblowers to the process of redaction that we see with this report, that our approach is that there are existing protocols for declassification that can provide information to journalists and the public.  It’s very important that information reach journalists and the public, but that we work through existing protocols. 

Of course, we live in a world where lots of information gets out there.  But that is always our preference.  But I’d really --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, absolutely agree.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I guess, with respect to your first question, I think, about legal positions, no one is taking legal positions here.  That’s obviously the purview of the Department of Justice.  They conducted multiple reviews of the conduct related to this program, and a career prosecutor determined not to bring charges.

Q    Thank you very much.  Do you have concerns about what the CIA and other intelligence agencies might be doing that the White House does not know about, given the fact that this report alleges that there was a whole lot that wasn’t briefed even to the Bush White House, where the agency knew that it had support for this program?  And conversely, are you concerned about morale in the intelligence community?  And should the President or anybody on his behalf do anything to work that issue, given how battered they are in light of this report?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We worked very collaboratively with the intelligence community, and we’ve gone through a number of exhaustive reviews with different intelligence agencies that speak to how important we think their work is and that speak to the need for collaboration.

Just to take the example of our surveillance activities, we worked very closely with NSA and other agencies over many months leading up to the President’s speech earlier this year on our approach to those policies.  We worked very closely with the CIA as it relates to our counterterrorism policies around the world.  And we have a great deal of confidence in both the leadership and workforce of our different intelligence agencies.

So I think we have confidence that there is a good collaborative process in place for intelligence agencies to cooperate with one another and to cooperate with the interagency and the White House.  I’d give some credit here to Director Clapper I think who as the DNI has put a premium on coordination and management of the community which, again, helps assure that there is not abuse, there’s oversight within the U.S. government and there’s a coordination of what’s taking place.  Again, I can’t account for every single activity in the government, but I think our general view is that we feels it’s a collaborative relationship and a collaborative environment. 

I’ll leave my colleagues to speak to the workforce issues.  I do think -- look, we recognize that every time there’s a difficult and painful chapter that is revealed in such a manner as this report, that that can be challenging for the workforce.  As I said earlier, the fact of the matter is, I know, as all my colleagues do, individuals who are in the intelligence community who work tirelessly to protect the United States, some of them work at great danger to their lives.  They get no recognition for the work that they do.  Sometimes they can’t even tell their families what their work is.  Sometimes their families don’t even know exactly where they are.  And since 9/11, they’ve been going 100 miles per hour 24 hours a day trying to keep America safe.

And we are certainly sympathetic that those individuals not feel that their entire agency, that their entire professions is being painted with a broad brush here with the release of this report.  Because the fact of the matter is, if it weren’t for the CIA and the intelligence community, more Americans would have been killed by terrorists since 9/11.  They have saved lives.  They’re saving lives as we speak with what they’re doing against al Qaeda and against ISIL.  And it’s very important that we lift that up even as we are transparent about what went wrong in the past, both from, in our view, a matter of policy, but also, in certain cases, when individuals went beyond those policy guidelines.

But I think we have to make very clear that that is not the norm of behavior in the intelligence community, and that we ask these people to do very hard things in very difficult places.  And we have to be thankful for their service.  We have to not paint them with a broad brush.

And I think it’s entirely appropriate to step back and express gratitude for what they do, given the fact that we’re not going to be able to thank them like we thank our troops.  We’re not going to be able to see an intelligence agent in the airport and shake their hand in the same way Americans can deal with a servicemember or servicewoman. 

And I think that’s a message that the President has consistently delivered.  He delivered it back in 2009 when he went out to the CIA after the release of the OLC memos.  I think he’ll continue to do so, as will other members of the administration.  But my colleagues are going to add to that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I would just add and -- point you to Secretary Kerry’s statement that was released this afternoon, which ended, “As that debate is joined, I want to underscore that while it’s uncomfortable and unpleasant to reexamine this period, it’s important that this period not define the intelligence community in anyone’s minds.  Every single day the State Department and our diplomats and their families are safer because of the men and women of the CIA and the intelligence community.” 

And then he goes on to speak to what was just said about risking their lives -- As we go forward in the days and weeks and months ahead, whether it is ISIL, whether it is al Qaeda, whether it is some other group, whether it is some lone wolf out there responding to this report, we will be very dependent on the intelligence community to help keep not only our diplomats safe, who also put their lives at risk every -- but keep Americans citizens traveling the world safe -- American business -- traveling the world safe every single day.  And we are very grateful -- help us do so.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I just -- as you can already tell -- and thank you very much for the question -- we do get a tremendous amount of support from the White House and the interagency on these issues.  And the morale of the workforce is something that we’re spending an awful lot of time on right now for all of the reasons that you can imagine.

John put out a note to the workforce.  He’s going to be talking to them.  We’ve talked to them before.  We’ve established folks who they can call if they want to have a conversation about things in our medical services pieces, and there’s all kinds of support that we think is important.  And it’s support for the idea that you may be part of a program and the policy may change, and you’re still going to be supported, but also support for understanding that when mistakes are made -- as they were in the implementation of this program -- that we also live up to that and that we change our practices, and that we do everything we can to make sure that they don’t happen again, and that that’s okay and that’s part of being a learning organization, and we can still be proud of our organization even when those kinds of mistakes are made.

And in terms of the issue of sharing, I’d just tell you that the director, myself and leadership and everybody that we work with -- essentially extraordinarily committed to sharing everything that we can and should with the White House.

MS. MEEHAN:  Thank you everyone for joining this call.  As a reminder, this call was on background with comments attributable to senior administration officials.  Thank you.  Have a good day.

END
1:40 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President in Immigration Town Hall -- Nashville, Tennessee

Casa Azafran
Nashville, Tennessee

2:26 P.M. CST
 
THE PRESIDENT:Thank you, everybody.Thank you.(Applause.)Thank you so much.Everybody, please have a seat.Thank you very much.Everybody, please have a seat, have a seat.
Well, hello, Nashville.
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:Hola.
 
THE PRESIDENT:Hola.Cómo estás?
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:Bien, bien.
 
THE PRESIDENT:Bien.Thank you, Renata, for the wonderful introduction.I’ve brought some friends with me who I think you may know -- your Congressmen, Jim Cooper -- (applause) -- as well as Congressman Steve Cohen from Memphis is here.(Applause.)And I want to thank -- is your mayor still here?Where did he go?There he is right there, doing a great job.(Applause.)And his wonderful daughter -- we’ve got to brag about her, she’s a junior at Barnard.I just embarrassed her.(Applause.)When you’re the father of daughters, your job is to embarrass them, and I’m trying to give an assist here.(Laughter.)
 
I want to thank Casa Azafran for hosting us, and for being home to so many organizations that do important work welcoming immigrants to the community.And that’s why I’ve come here today.I won’t make a long speech, because I want to have a dialogue, but I wanted to give some remarks at the top.
 
As Renata mentioned, some people might think Nashville was an odd place to talk immigration.It’s not what comes to mind when people think about gateways to America.But, as all of you know, Nashville’s got one of the fastest-growing immigrant populations in the country.“New Nashvillians” -- they’re from Somalia, Nepal, Laos, Mexico, Bangladesh.And Nashville happens to be the home of the largest Kurdish community in the United States as well.
 
“They” are “us.”They work as teachers in our schools, doctors in our hospitals, police officers in our neighborhoods.They start small businesses at a faster rate than many native-born Americans.They create jobs making this city more prosperous, and a more innovative place.And of course, they make the food better.(Laughter.)I know that Tennessee barbeque is pretty popular, but Korean barbeque is pretty good too.(Laughter.)
 
And the point is, welcoming immigrants into your community benefits all of us.And I was talking to your Mayor, Karl Dean, on the way over here, and he understands this.He’s been a great partner when it comes to preparing immigrants to become citizens.
 
A couple of weeks ago, I create a Task Force on New Americans that’s going to help do this kind of work all across the country.But, as we all know, our immigration system has been broken for a long time.Families who come here the right way can get stuck in line for years.Business owners who treat their workers right sometimes are undercut by competition from folks who are not just hiring undocumented workers but then underpaying them or not paying them minimum wage, or not giving them the benefits that they have earned.Nobody likes the idea of somebody reaping the rewards of living in America without its responsibilities as well.And there are all kinds of folks who want to gladly embrace those responsibilities, but they have no way to come out of the shadows and get right with the law.
 
And a year and a half ago, a big majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents in the Senate –- including both of your senators -– passed a bipartisan bill to fix our broken immigration system.The bill wasn’t perfect, but it was a common-sense compromise.It would have doubled the number of border patrol agents.It would have made the legal immigration system smarter and faster.It would have given millions of people a chance to earn their citizenship the right way.It was good for our economy -- independent economists estimated that it would not only grow our economy faster but shrink our deficits faster.And if the House of Representatives had simply called for an up-or-down vote, it would have passed.It would be the law.We would be on the way to solve -- solving this problem in a sensible way.But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House blocked this simple up-or-down vote.
 
I still believe that the best way to solve this -- is by working together to pass the kind of common-sense law that was passed in the Senate.But until then, there are actions that I have the legal authority to take that will help make our immigration system smarter and fairer.And I took those actions last month.
 
We’re providing more resources at the border to help law enforcement personnel stop illegal crossings and send home those who cross over.We’re going to focus our enforcement resources on people who actually pose a threat to our communities -- felons rather than families, and criminals rather than children.We’re going to bring more undocumented immigrants out of the shadows so they can play by the rules -- they have to pass a criminal background check, pay taxes, contribute more fully to our economy.
 
So this isn’t amnesty, or legalization, or even a path to citizenship.That can only be done by Congress.It doesn’t apply to anybody who’s come to this country recently, or who might come illegally in the future.What it does is create a system of accountability, a common-sense, middle-ground approach.And what we’re saying is, until Congress fixes this problem legislatively, if you have deep ties to this country and you are willing to get right by the law and do what you need to do, then you shouldn’t have to worry about being deported or being separated from your kids.
 
These are the kind of lawful actions taken by every President, Republican and Democrat, for the past 50 years.So when members of Congress question whether I have the authority to do this, I have one answer:Yes, and pass a bill.(Laughter.)If you want Congress to be involved in this process, I welcome it, but you’ve got to pass a bill that addresses the various components of immigration reform in a common-sense way.
 
And I want to work with both parties to get this done.The day I sign this bill into law, then the executive actions I take are no longer necessary and some of the changes that I’ve instituted administratively become permanent.
 
Unfortunately, so far, the only response that we’ve had out of the House was a vote taken last week to force talented young people and workers to leave our country.Rather than deport students or separate families or make it harder for law enforcement to do its job, we just need Congress to work with us to pass a common-sense law to fix the broken immigration system.

And meanwhile, Washington shouldn’t let disagreements on this issue prevent action on every other issue.That’s not how our democracy works.Americans are tired of gridlock.We’re seeing the economy move forward.We need to build on that.And certainly my administration is ready to work for it on a whole range of issues.
 
I do recognize that there are controversies around immigration -- there always have been, by the way.Even those who know we need to reform the system may be concerned about not having Congress get it done.Then there are some folks who worry about immigration changing the fabric of our society, or taking jobs from native-born Americans.And I understand those concerns, but, as I said, they’re not new.As a country, we have had these concerns since the Irish and Italians and Poles were coming to Boston and New York, and we have the same concerns when Chinese and Japanese Americans were traveling out West.
 
But what our history and the facts show is that generation after generation, immigrants have been a net-plus to our economy, and a net-plus to our society.And that’s what cities like Nashville prove is still the case.And this city proves that we can address these concerns together and make sure that immigration works for everybody -- that it strengthens our economy, that it strengthens our communities, that we can talk about some of the tensions and concerns in a constructive way rather than yelling at each other.
 
And so let me close with a story of somebody who’s working to bring people together.David Lubell, who many of you know and who’s here today -- where’s David?There he is.(Applause.)So David used to run the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.And he knew that some folks were skeptical about immigrants changing the face of Nashville.And he also knew, though, that these immigrants were good people.So he saw an opportunity for immigration to unite this city rather than divide it.And in 2005, he started “Welcoming Tennessee,” which connects long-term residents in the community with new immigrants.And you’d have dinners and church socials, and at Rotary clubs, and folks got to know each other and maybe feel some empathy, and see themselves in new arrivals.
 
And the conversations weren’t always easy, but it created a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.And today, David’s initiative is expanding across the country.I think we -- you said, David, that we’ve got these kinds of efforts going on in 42 cities around the country.
 
This is what makes America exceptional.We welcome strivers.We welcome dreamers from all around the world.And it keeps us young, and it keeps us invigorated, and it keeps us striving and pushing the boundaries of what’s possible.And then we all bind ourselves together around similar ideals, a similar creed.And one generation in, suddenly those kids are already Americans like everybody else, and we have the same dreams and hopes for them, the same aspirations.
 
And if we keep harnessing that potential, there’s no limit to what this country can achieve.So Nashville is helping to lead the way in getting this conversation right.We hope that if it happens around the country, that eventually it will drift into the House of Representatives -- (laughter) -- and we’re going to get the kind of comprehensive legislation that we need to actually solve this problem.
 
So with that, let me start taking some questions.Thank you very much, everybody.I appreciate it.(Applause.)
 
So I’ve got a microphone here.This is a nice, intimate group.And so there’s no rules really.I’d just ask everybody who wants to speak to raise their hand.I’ll call on you one at a time.We’ve got some microphones in the audience.And why don’t you, when you’re asking your questions, stand, introduce yourself, tell us a little about yourself, and then ask your question.Try to keep your question relatively brief so -- and I’ll try to keep my answers relatively brief.(Laughter.)I don’t always succeed, but I’ll do my best.I’m going to take off my jacket because it’s warm in here.Is Marvin back there?Okay, we’ve got some -- here we go.Thanks.
 
All right.Who wants to go first?Yes, right here in the front.
 
Q Hi, Mr. President.Thank you so much for coming to Nashville, and the Latin community loves you and welcome you to Nashville.My question is -- and I think it’s a concern in the community that -- what is going to happen if the next administration decide not to follow what you -- the executive action?And I think many of the communities -- afraid are they going to be first in line to deportation because they give their information.And that would be my question.
 
THE PRESIDENT:Well, I think it's a good question.So let me just -- let me go over the mechanics of what’s going to happen.
 
First of all, part of what we’re saying is that we can’t deport 11 million people and it would be foolish to try, as well as I think wrong for us to try.Congress only allocates a certain amount of money to the immigration system, so we have to prioritize.And my priority is not to separate families who have already been living here but to try to make sure that our borders are secure, to make sure that people come through the right way; to focus on criminals, focus -- those who pose a real risk to our society.
 
And so what’s happened is, is the Department of Homeland Security, which is in charge of the immigration services, what it said is, is that we’re going to set up priorities in terms of who is subject to deportation.And at the top are criminals, people who pose a threat, and at the bottom are ordinary people who are otherwise law abiding.And what we’re saying essentially is, in that low-priority list, you won’t be a priority for deportation.You’re not going to be deported.We’re not going to keep on separating families.And that new priority list applies to everybody, all 11 million people who are here -- I mean, not 11 million, let’s say, whatever the number is.So even if somebody didn’t sign up, they’re still much less likely to be subject to deportation.That’s because we’ve changed our enforcement priorities in a formal way.
 
What we’re also saying, though, is that for those who have American children or children who are legal permanent residents, that you can actually register and submit yourself to a criminal background check, pay any back taxes and commit to paying future taxes, and if you do that, you’ll actually get a piece of paper that gives you an assurance that you can work and live here without fear of deportation.That doesn’t apply to everybody, but it does apply to roughly five million -- about half of what is estimated to be the number of undocumented workers here.
 
Now, that is temporary.Just like DACA, the program that we put in place for young people who are brought here who otherwise are good citizens, are studying, working, joining our military -- we did that several years ago, where we said, it doesn’t make sense for us to subject these young people to a deportation risk; they’re Americans in their heart even if they don’t have the right piece of paper.That’s temporary as well, although it's been subject to renewal.
 
And so it's true that a future administration might try to reverse some of our policies.But I’ll be honest with you, I think that the American people basically have a good heart and want to treat people fairly.And every survey shows that if, in fact, somebody has come out, subjected themselves to a background check, registered, paid their taxes, that the American people support allowing them to stay.So I think any future administration that tried to punish people for doing the right thing I think would not have the support of the American people.
 
The real question is, how do we make sure that enough people register so that it's not just a few people in a few pockets around the country.And that’s going to require a lot of work by local agencies, by municipalities, by churches, by community organizations.We’ve got to give people confidence that they can go ahead and register; also make sure that they understand they don’t have to hire a lawyer or go to the notary in order to pay for this.Because what we saw during DACA when the young people were given this opportunity, a lot of people signed up but sometimes you would see advertisements, come and give us $1,000 or $2,000 and we'll help you -- you don't have to do that.And so we've just got to build an effective network around the country.And the Department of Homeland Security will be working with local organizations to make sure that people get the right information.
 
But I think the main response to people that we have to assure them of is that the American people actually are fair-minded and want to reward rather than punish people who do the right thing.And if you register, I'm confident that that's going to be something that allows you to then get on a path to being here in this country with your children and watching them grow up and making a life for yourself, as you already have.
 
Last point.It still is important for us, though, because this is temporary to make sure that we keep pushing for comprehensive immigration reform.Without an actual law, an actual statute passed by Congress, it's true that theoretically a future administration could do something that I think would be very damaging.It's not likely, politically, that they’d reverse everything that we've done, but it could be that some people then end up being in a disadvantageous position.And nobody is going to have a path to actual citizenship until we get a law passed.
 
Now, the Senate law would call for people to go to the back of the line, so it would take 10, 13 years before they have citizenship, but at least there’s that pathway.That's why we still need a law.
 
And then there are some areas like, for example, the business sector, a lot of high-tech businesses are still looking for young graduates from computer science programs or physics programs around the country.And instead of being able to recruit them and put them to work, those kids are all going home and starting new businesses and creating jobs someplace else.And that doesn’t make any sense.So that's another area where we couldn't do anything administratively about that.We were able to streamline some of the legal immigration system, but we've still got more work to do.
 
Okay?Good.I'm going to go boy, girl, boy, girl to make sure that it's fair.(Laughter.)So, right here.
 
Q Thank you.Good afternoon, President.Thank you so much for doing what you did.I was undocumented for 10 years from 1996.I took advantage of the amnesty.I want to thank you.I'm a community organizer with the Center for Community Change in Washington, D.C., working with the immigrants from the Human Rights Coalition.And I really thank the people from Nashville, Tennessee for hosting future Chicagoans – of course, I'm from Chicago, too.(Laughter.)
 
And my question to you is, thank you for the 5 million, but what about the others.There are millions of people who are going to be in the limbo, at risk of being deported.And the second question is, since talking about confidence -– people are skeptical about this, because they are afraid to apply for this.So what is your administration going to do to get the confidence -- and people to feel safe to apply for this program that you just passed?Thank you.
 
THE PRESIDENT:Okay.Well, I sort of answered the question, but I'll try to answer it one more time.The prioritization in terms of deportation -- that applies to everybody, even if you don't do anything.Now, this will take time to get ICE officers at the ground level to understand what these new priorities are and to apply them in a consistent way.And so there are still going to be stories around the country where some family is separated.
 
Over time, though, we're really going to be pushing to retrain and refocus and reprioritize ICE officers to understand let’s focus on criminals, let’s focus on felons, let’s not focus on families.
 
In terms of setting up the system to sign people up to register so they can get an actual piece of paper that says they can work here, that's probably going to take a couple of months. And so that gives us time then to communicate through our community organizations, through our churches, through our cities and towns to make sure that people have good information.
 
So the folks who, as you said, are in limbo, it's true that they’re not going to qualify for the DACA-like registration process that I described.They’ll still be, if they’re law-abiding, otherwise, if they’re working, peaceful, then they’re much less likely to deportation now than they would have been in the past.And they don't have to do anything for that.But the registration process, if you qualify, is powerful because you’re now able to go to work without being in the shadows, and you're paying taxes, which is good for everybody, because we want people to be above board and to do things the right way.
 
And I think that those who register -- my belief is, is that when we do get to passing a law, finally, I think those who have taken the time to register, pay taxes, gone through a criminal background check, they’ve got documentation and proof that they’ve done all that, they’re going to have an easier time then qualifying, I think, for a more permanent legal status because they will have already gone through the screening.And that's one incentive for why people should want to sign up.
 
But building trust will take time.But that's where you come in, so that's your job.I'm going to work with you.I'll work with Renata and I'll work with other activists here to make sure it happens.But we're going to have to do this together.
 
I will point out that you already had incredible courage among young people when we announced DACA.Now, we didn’t get 100 percent of young people who qualified signing up, but we got more than half of the people who were qualified signing up.And slowly then, each person who has the courage to sign up, that creates more confidence across the board.
 
All right, it's a young woman’s turn now.Yes, go ahead.
 
Q Hi, Mr. President, and thank you so much for being here with us and giving us this opportunity to speak out our fears.I would like to ask you –- I'm with the Tennessee Immigrants and Refugee Rights Coalition.I'm part of the Migrant Women Committee.And I would like to ask you –- people like me that will probably benefit from this executive order, there is a lot of fear still for people that can have the path to a citizen but not immediately.But they apply for DAPA, the Deferred Action for Parents.Will they face a bar from being in this situation?
 
THE PRESIDENT:No, I think that those who are -- look, I would encourage anybody who has another path for legalization to follow that path.But this does not short-circuit whatever other strategies you're pursuing.If you are already trying to get legal permanent resident status or citizenship through some of the existing laws, then you should feel free to continue that.What this does do is it simply says that it gives you an opportunity to make sure that deportation is not going to happen during this period -- which will extend for several years.
 
Can Big Marvin get me my cup of tea back there?Oh, here it is.All right.This isn't Big Marvin, but he’s big.(Laughter.)
 
All right.Gentleman there in the back.
 
Q I’m a member of the Coalition for Education -- Immigration.I'm an immigrant to Nashville.I grew up -- Chicago, have lived here the last 12 years.
 
THE PRESIDENT:It's warmer here.(Laughter.)
 
Q I do miss the White Sox.
 
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
 
Q My question is about -- one of the many things I appreciate so much about your leadership is the civil way in which you approach the most difficult of problems, in spite of hearing the rancor you do from those who disagree.(Inaudible)
-– community like this, trying to talk with reason only to be greeted by deep emotion and anger and rhetoric that is demeaning. It's almost as if we need a civility platform for our nation, an office of civility -- maybe for our U.S. Congress.Excuse me, Jim.But I'm serious about how do we teach young people to act in a civil way if we don't role-model the civility?And how important is that for us to move forward, that we can engage in the kinds of conversations in the tone that you present problems?
 
THE PRESIDENT:Well, look, first of all, I don't know anybody more civil than Jim Cooper.(Applause.)He is an extraordinary gentleman, and always has been, ever since I've had a chance to know him since I came to Washington.
 
Look, immigration, as I said before, has always elicited passion.And it's ironic because unless you are a member of a Native American tribe, you came here from someplace else, or your people did.And I know that sometimes folks talk about, well, we came here the right way rather than the wrong way.And it's true that previous generations came through Ellis Island or they came through Angel Island or other ways of arriving here.
 
But I think sometimes we overstate the degree to which that was some really elaborate bureaucratic process.There’s a reason, for example, that these days a lot of people named Smith used to be named Smithsowsky or Smitharea or whatever it is.What happened is when they came in somebody just said, what’s your name, and they stamped them and if they couldn't pronounce it -- you always hear stories about they Anglicized it.A lot of times people’s papers were not necessarily being checked because folks might not have had papers.And who came in and who didn’t varied depending on how big of a workforce -- or how much industry was looking for new labor, and what the political climate was at that particular time.
 
And so what happens is, is that once folks are here we kind of forget that we used to be there.And what I try to do when I talk about these issues is just try to put yourself in somebody else’s shoes and feel some empathy, and recognize that to some degree, if you’re American, somewhere back there, there was somebody who was a newcomer here too.And it wasn’t always neat and orderly the way the American population expanded across the West.And if we have that sense of empathy then maybe that creates civility.That’s why the kinds of efforts were seeing here in Nashville just conversations where people get to know newcomers is so important.
 
It's interesting -- I was telling Steve and Jim, I get about 40,000 correspondence every day, and some of them are just writing to say you’re doing a good job, keep going.Some of them are you are the worst President ever, you’re an idiot, a lot of them are just people asking for help.
 
But more than once, multiple times during the course of my presidency, I’ve gotten letters from people who say I don’t agree with you about anything, I am a Republican, I used to be really angry with you about your immigration posture and then I found out that my son Jim’s best friend, Jose, was undocumented and he wasn’t going to be able to apply to the local college because he was afraid about being deported, and this is a kid who has played in my back yard, helped me wash my car, and been on the ball team with my kid and I loved this kid and so I don’t think it's right that this young person shouldn’t be treated the same way that I would want someone to treat my son.And I’ve gotten a lot of letters like that.And they say, even though I still don’t agree with you about anything -- (laughter) -- I do ask you -- that you give Jose a chance.
 
And so that’s where civility comes from.It's that interaction and personal experience as opposed to just being able to stereotype somebody one way or the other.Now, it's important, by the way, though, that the civility runs both ways.And I do think -- obviously I’ve been at the receiving end of people really angry at me about not just these executive actions, but have been ginned up by some of the conservative talk shows that think that I'm usurping my authority despite the fact that every previous President has exercised the same authority or they think I'm favoring immigrants over red-blooded Americans.And so that’s a lot of the criticism directed at me.
 
But what’s also true is sometimes advocates on behalf of immigrants have suggested that anybody who is concerned about the impact of immigration, or asks questions about comprehensive immigration reform, that they must be racist or they must be anti-immigrant or their ignorant.And, that’s not true either.
 
There are people who are good people who actually believe in immigration, but are concerned about rewarding somebody who broke American laws.There are good people who believe in immigration but are concerned, will new immigrants depress wages, particularly in the low-wage sectors of the economy.Those are legitimate questions, and we have to be just as civil in addressing those questions as we expect people to be when we are talking to them.Because I think the facts are on our side, I think the studies have shown that over time immigrants aren’t lowering wages but in fact improving the economy, and over time, boosting wages and jobs for everyone.
 
So I would rather just make the argument on the facts, but just because somebody thinks that instinctually doesn’t mean that they are bad people.So civility is good, but it doesn’t just run one way.And I think -- the good book says, don’t throw stones in glass houses, or make sure we’re looking at the log in our eye before were pulling out the mote in other folks eyes.And I think that’s as true in politics as it is in life.
 
Okay.Let’s see if I’ve got any women who want to ask questions today.I'm going to make sure I'm fair.That young lady in the back right there.You.
 
Q Hi.I'm part of an organization that works with refugees and immigrants.And one question I have -- was there a particular reason why the parents of the DACA -- the DREAMers, the DACA recipients, were excluded in your new executive order?
 
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, there is.And it was -- the actions I took were bound by the legal authority that the Office of Legal Counsel determined I had in this area.The office -- I don’t want to get too technical here, but the Office of Legal Counsel is a special office in the Department of Justice that is mandated to give me independent judgment not subject to politics or pressure from me about what my legal authorities are.
 
And so we presented to them the various things that we’d like to do.They were very clear about my legal authority to prioritize and then provide this temporary protection for parents whose children were Americans, or -- American citizens, or legal permanent residents.Because the argument they found compelling, and there was a lot of precedent for, was -- essentially humanitarian argument -- that if we’re prioritizing, why would we want to separate families.
 
The challenge we had in the minds of the Office of Legal Counsel was, if you’ve already exempted the young people through DACA, and then you bootstrap off of that the capacity to exempt their parents as well, you’re not rooted originally in somebody who is either a citizen or a legal permanent resident.So it was a legal constraint on our authority.It was not because we did not care about those parents.
 
And I know that there are a lot of DREAM Act kids who are concerned that their parents may not still qualify.A sizable number do because they have a sibling who ended up being born in the United States.But not all do.This is one more reason why we still need to pass comprehensive immigration reform.Because what we did was to do everything that I could within my legal authority, but not go beyond the legal authority that we possessed.
 
This young man right here.I think the mic is coming from behind you.
 
Q Thank you, Mr. President.We are delighted to have you here in Nashville and in Casa Azafran.I’m a member of the mayor’s New American Advisory Council, and also direct a nonprofit that’s housed here called AMAC, the American Muslim Advisory Council.And my question to you is that -- in 2004, when you gave that speech about -- at the Democratic convention, kind of alluded to this idea that we are one nation, there’s no black and blue -- blue or red America.But when it comes to this issue of immigration, as someone that works in this community, our mantra here in Nashville is, Nashville for all of us, and Tennessee for all of us.
 
So to come around that idea for America for all of us, that we don’t keep having this conversation -- as the President, you have been in this position the past six years.What would you say to other -- Americans who are feeling now on that side even considering the newly elected Congress that are adamant on stopping these steps?Because I got the privilege of being the -- welcoming Tennessee director, and being in those conversations -- and inherently, Tennesseans are the nicest people.Those people are in charge of the -- that we used to have those conversations with.But what would you say to the rest of the nation -- who thinks that now new Americans or immigrants are getting this special treatment?
 
THE PRESIDENT:Well, I, I addressed the nation when I announced this action, and I made a couple of simple points.
 
First of all, America is a nation of immigrants, but it’s also a nation of laws.And there does need to be accountability if you came here in a way that was not in accordance with the law.The question then becomes, how do you make that person accountable?I mean, one way of doing it is randomly or sporadically separating families, but you don’t have uniform enforcement, you’re pushing people into the shadows.They may not be paying taxes.They may be taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers.You are using all those resources instead of strengthening borders.And that’s not a smart outcome.
 
The second approach would be to pass laws that say, let’s improve the legal system.Because sometimes people actually would be qualified to come here if the system was just a little smoother, but they end up with a situation where they’ve got to wait years to be reunited with a family member who’s legally here and the heartache just becomes too great.So we’re -- in some cases, we’re pushing people into the illegal system because we’re not making the legal system smart enough.
 
We can get people out of the shadows.We can acknowledge they are our neighbors, our friends, our coworkers.And then we still have to be serious about border security.And there have been times -- I want to be very frank -- there have been times where I’ve had arguments with immigrant rights activists who say, effectively, you know, there shouldn’t be any rules, these are good people, why should we have any kind of enforcement like this.And my response is, in the eyes of God, everybody is equal.In the eyes of God, some child in Mexico, Guatemala, Libya, Nepal is the equal of my child.
 
I don’t make any claims that my child is superior to somebody else’s child.But I’m the President of the United States, and nation states have borders.And, frankly, because America is so much wealthier than most countries around the world, if we had no system of enforcing our borders and our laws, then I promise you, everybody would try to come here, or if not everybody -- maybe you wouldn’t have that many Swedes or Singaporians try to come here, but a whole lot of folks would try to come.And that we couldn’t accommodate.And it wouldn’t be fair, because there’s -- you have to have some sort of line.It can’t just be -- it can’t be whoever is able to get in here first, and then -- it’s sort of first one to win the race.Because sometimes it’s just an accident that one person lives in a country that has a border with the United States, and another person in Somalia, it’s a lot harder to get here.
 
So the idea is, then, that what we try to do is to have a system that resets; that acknowledges -- and this is where I think most Americans are.They recognize, you know what, people who are already here -- many times they’ve been here 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, they’ve got deep roots here, they’ve shown themselves to be good people, their kids are for all practical purposes Americans -- let’s just acknowledge they’re part of our community, they’re part of our society.
 
But then the tradeoff is, let’s try to make the legal system fairer, and in some cases, that means, for example, doing more work at the borders -- although, by the way, the real work at the borders is not simply to just -- more fencing and more people every five minutes at the borders, because we’ve already got a whole lot of folks at the borders.We can do some other additional stuff, but a lot of it is helping Mexico or helping Central American countries strengthen their economies so people don’t feel desperate and compelled to come here.
 
But I guess the bottom line is, what I say to folks on the other side of this debate is, work with me to reflect the wisdom of the American people.And I think the American people’s wisdom is, people who are already here, let’s give them a shot, let’s get them out of the shadows, but let’s also set up a legal system that is more reliable, more certain, more fair, doesn’t have people jumping the line, is more honest and reflecting the fact that families, it’s very hard for them to stay separated for 10, 15 years and so you shouldn’t set up a legal system that requires that.You’ve got to figure out a way to have it more reflective of human nature.
 
Now, does that mean everybody is going to listen to me on the other side?Not necessarily.They’re pretty sure I’m an illegal immigrant.(Laughter.)That was a joke.(Laughter.)But I mean, there are going to be some who just disagree with you.
 
The good news is, is that over time, these issues work themselves out.Anybody who is of Irish extraction -- and that includes me, because I’ve been to a little town in Ireland called Moneygall, where my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather came over here.It turns out he was a boot maker, and it turns out Biden’s guy, Biden’s great-great-great-great-great came from I think the adjoining county within like 20 years.So me and Biden are -- really are cousins.(Laughter.)
 
But anybody of Irish extraction just has to -- read your history and look at how people talked about Irish immigrants.I mean, it was just -- everything that’s said today was said about them -- they’re criminals, they’re shiftless, they are draining our resources, they’re irresponsible, they’re going to change our culture.
 
And so if you read those passages, then you have to understand that this is not a new phenomenon.But the good news is, it should also be a source of optimism, because over time, essentially, new people get absorbed.And it’s always messy.It’s always a messy piece of business.
 
But the one thing that I want to emphasize -- because sometimes this doesn’t get emphasized enough, and it seems somewhat abstract -- but any economist will tell you that economies with younger workforces grow faster than economies with older workforces.One of the biggest advantages America has over Europe, over Japan, over China is we have a younger population.And it’s almost a mathematical certainty that we will grow faster than they do, all things being equal -- I mean, we’ve got to make good choices about investing in research and development and education and all that stuff -- but all things being equal, we will grow significantly faster than those other countries because our population is younger.
 
The only reason our population is younger is because we have this tradition of immigrants.Otherwise -- because native-born Americans, actually, our birth rates are as low as Europeans’ are.But we replenish ourselves, and that’s good.And, by the way, people who are about my age right now, and who are going to be looking to draw on Social Security, when you’re 70, the way Social Security works, it’s the current workforce that pays for the retired workforce.And so you have a stake in these folks working and paying taxes, these young people, to support your retirement.So this is -- it’s good for the economy as well as for our society.
 
How much time do I have?I want to make sure I’m not -- am I doing pretty good?I’ve got a priest here who’s got his hand up, but it’s a woman’s turn first so this is -- I’m a little nervous about not calling on him right away but I’m trying to stick to the rules here.(Laughter.)So all right, young lady right in the front here.
 
Q Hello, Mr. President.I am a senior in high school.And my question to you would be, how can we as young people in our communities get involved to address issues such as immigration or the access to a post-secondary education?What are some things we can do?
 
THE PRESIDENT:Well, if you’re here, you must already be involved.(Laughter.)You know, getting young people involved in civic life and activism and voting is one of the most important things we can do as a society.Because there are exceptions and there are people who are young at heart and young at mind, but the truth is, you get older, you get stuck in your ways and you start looking backwards and really focused on what was instead of what could be.
 
And again, part of the reason America has done so well is because we constantly reimagine ourselves, and we have a youthful culture that says, well, let’s -- in the words of Robert Kennedy, some people ask why, and we have a tendency to ask why not.And that’s good.
 
Now, young people are also busy with -- I got a couple young people at home -- they have other things that they’re interested.I won’t name all of them.Hopefully some if it is their books and doing their homework.(Laughter.)And one of the most concerning things I had about the midterm elections was young people -- the voting rates among young people dropped off drastically.
 
Young people have tended to vote at very high level during my presidential campaigns, but in between, they lose interest.And part of what your peers have to do is to understand that politics and government and policy and all the decisions that are going to shape your lives are not just a matter of one election, but it has to be sustained over time.
 
And when you think about what’s at stake right now, immigration is obviously a major issue.Climate change -- most of those of us who are 50 or over, by the time the problems of a warming climate really hit, we’ll be gone, but you’ll still be around and your kids will be here.And if it’s having a significant impact on weather patterns, and drought, and wildfires, and flooding, and food, and migration, it’s not going to be pretty.So you have to get involved now to do something about it.
 
When we look at higher education costs, historically, Congress and state legislatures are more attentive to the demands of seniors than they are the demands of young people for one simple reason:Seniors vote, young people don’t.If you want state legislatures to increase support for higher education that then can help reduce tuition, then young people have to vote at a higher percentage than just 12 percent of those who vote.
 
Look at what’s happening right now with respect to concerns about bias and law enforcement, and policing.I mean, I met with a group of young activists, including several from Ferguson, to talk to them, and I was very impressed with how they presented themselves, and they were very serious and thoughtful.And I told them, I said, listen, I want you to continue to be active, because that’s how change happens.You need to be respectful.You need to understand that you’re not going to get 100 percent of the change that is needed, because that’s never been how society works, but if you are steady and you sustain it and you push it and you don’t tired or disappointed when you get half a loaf instead of a whole loaf, over time, the country and the world is transformed.
 
And I’m confident that -- I said in an interview recently -- America is a more just place, and issues of racial discrimination are lessened today than they were 50 years ago or 20 years ago, but that didn’t just happen by accident, that happened because people -- especially young people -- helped to make it happen.And over time, change occurs and people adjust to a new reality, and they open their heart and mind to new possibilities.And young people are typically the triggers of that.
 
So I think when your leaders like -- young leaders like you are talking to your friends, you’ve got to just remind them that you have responsibilities and obligations.And make sure that you serve pizza at the meetings -- (laughter) -- because free food always helps when getting young people involved in social causes.(Laughter.)
 
All right, Father.Thank you for your patience there, sir.You’ve got a microphone behind you.
 
Q Father Joseph Freen (ph), native Nashvillian.I think I speak on behalf of a good number of people, Mr. President, of both parties -- some you know may not agree with some of your policies.But I think I can speak for so many who are so proud of you for giving such a great example of a husband, of a father, and doing your very best as a President.
 
So we are very proud of you, grateful you’ve come to Nashville.We wish for you -- I’m sure on behalf of all of us -- a joyful and a blessed Christmas to you.
 
THE PRESIDENT:Well, I appreciate that very much.That's very nice.Thank you.(Applause.)
 
I appreciate that, Father.It’s worth considering the Good Book when you're thinking about immigration.This Christmas season there’s a whole story about a young, soon-to-be-mother and her husband of modest means looking for a place to house themselves for the night, and there’s no room at the inn.
 
And as I said the day that I announced these executive actions, we were once strangers too.And part of what my faith teaches me is to look upon the stranger as part of myself.And during this Christmas season, that's a good place to start.
 
So thank you for your generous comment.But if we're serious about the Christmas season, now is a good time to reflect on those who are strangers in our midst, and remember what it was like to be a stranger.
 
Last question.That was a pretty good place to end, though.(Laughter.)I got to admit.I kind of want to -- but I’m going to call on one more person.Gentlemen, you can all put your hands down.I’m going to call on this young lady right here.
 
Q Hi, Mr. President.I’m an immigration attorney.And I wonder, what are the things that you deem necessary for comprehensive immigration reform if Congress does act soon?
 
THE PRESIDENT:Well, the Senate bill is a pretty good place to start.I do think there’s more work we can do at the borders.As I said before, it’s not just a matter of pouring money down there.
 
I’ll give you one very simple example.You’ll recall that some of the politics of this shifted during the summer when these unaccompanied children were here.And there was two weeks of wall-to-wall coverage.And we were being invaded by 8-, and 12- and 13-year-olds.I mean it was just terrifying, apparently.But it reflected a serious problem.You had smugglers, coyotes, who were essentially taking money from family members here, shuttling these kids up -- it wasn’t that they weren’t apprehended.It wasn’t like they snuck through the border.What happened was they basically presented themselves at the border.They’d come in.And because there are so few immigration judges down there, because we hadn’t done a very good job cooperating with Central America and Mexico to deal -- go after these smugglers, you’d then have a situation which the kids would oftentimes simply be released to the family member, and then that was the end of the things.
 
And so one of the things that we’ve done is -- well, several things we did.Number one, I met with the Central American leaders down there and said, listen, you can't -- you've got to do something to message to families down here:Do not send your children on a dangerous path like this because we don't know how many of them might have gotten killed, gotten abducted, trafficked in some terrible way.We have no way of keeping track of that.You can't have them take this dangerous journey.
 
And to their credit, those Central American countries worked with us.We said to Mexico, you've got to do something more about the southern border.They did that.We now have the number of unaccompanied children below the rate that it was two years ago.So this was a momentary spike.
 
But also what we need to do is make sure that we have enough immigration lawyers down there that you can process kids and immigration judges to process kids in a timely fashion, but with due process so that if they have legitimate refugee claims, those can be presented, and if not, then they can be returned home.
 
So that's not a strict border issue.It’s not a fence issue.It’s “have you set up a sensible process” issue.So I think that's one pillar.
 
Second pillar is improving the legal immigration system.I already mentioned this but I’ll just repeat a couple of examples.Somebody who potentially qualifies to be a resident here, forcing them to leave the country and then waiting for years before they come back when they’ve got family members here, that's just not how the human heart works.It’s very hard to expect somebody to do that.
 
Let’s have a more sensible, streamlined system.Let’s reduce some of the backlogs that already exist for people who actually qualify, but it’s just they're waiting in line so long that they get frustrated.Let’s do something for especially talented and skilled people who are graduating.We educate them.We should be stapling a green card to graduates of top schools in fields that we know we need.And by the way, we can charge fees that we then use to make sure that American kids are getting the kinds of scholarships and training they need for those same jobs in the future.
 
We need to do more work.We need to deal with the agricultural sector.I’m generally skeptical when you hear employers say, well, we just can't find any Americans to do the job.A lot of times what they really mean is, it’s a lot cheaper if we potentially hire somebody who has just come here before they know better in terms of what they're worth.
 
But in the agriculture sector, there’s truth.We enjoy a lot of cheap fruits and vegetables and food stuffs because of the back-breaking work of farm workers.And we should find a system that is fair, make sure that they are not subject to exploitation, and helps us run the economy.We should make sure that we're cracking down on employers who are purposely hiring undocumented workers so that they can get around minimum wage laws or overtime laws, so forth.
 
And finally, as I’ve discussed this whole afternoon, we should get people out of the shadows.And the Senate bill I thought had a sensible approach, which said, if you've been here a certain amount of time, you've got a clean record, you're willing to submit yourself to a background check, you're willing to pay back-taxes, you're willing to pay a fine, learn English, go to the back of the line, but if you do all that, you can stay here for now and we're going to put you on a pathway where eventually you can earn your citizenship, although it will be many years into the future because we still have to clear out those folks who did it the right way.
 
This concept -- what I just described, that package -- has bipartisan support.It’s not that it doesn't have bipartisan support.The challenge is, is that there’s a certain segment -- primarily within the Republican Party, although in fairness, in the Democratic Party there are some people who are resistant as well, who just keep on believing this notion of, that's amnesty, that's amnesty.
 
And what amnesty implies I think in the minds of the American people is that you're getting something for nothing; that you're getting over.And when you describe for people that, in fact, you do have to get a background check, you do have to register, you do have to pay fines, you do have to pay back-taxes, then people feel differently.But that's never advertised by opponents.And that's one reason why, by the way, that I’ve said to immigrant rights groups, you have to describe the responsibility side of this and not just the rights side of this.Because I think sometimes -- I appreciate the immigrant rights groups.They speak from the heart, and they know the people involved.And they love them, and they want to just do right by them.And I get that.
 
But this is where you need to look at the other side of the equation and what people feel like is, you know what, if you're just coming here for nothing, and I don't know that you're paying your taxes and you broke the law, and now suddenly I’m paying for your kid’s school and your kid’s hospitalization, and if feels unfair -- at a time when people are already feeling burdened by their own challenges, trying to afford their own kid’s college education, or feeling like they're worried about their own retirement.
 
So the langue we use I think is important.You have to speak to the fact that -- if somebody broke the law, even if they're good people, they’ve got to be held accountable.And there are going to be responsibilities involved in it.Because if it’s just rights and no responsibilities, then people feel resentful.
 
That make sense?All right, guys, I enjoyed spending time with you.Thank you.(Applause.)
 
END
3:37 P.M. CST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Josh Earnest Aboard Air Force One En Route Nashville, Tennessee

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Nashville, Tennessee

1:12 P.M. EST

MR. EARNEST:Good afternoon, and welcome aboard Air Force One as make our way to Music City, Nashville.The President is looking forward to the opportunity to talk about some of the steps that he’s taken in recent weeks to reform our broken immigration system.Nashville is an example of an American city that has done really interesting work to integrate new immigrants to their city in a way that has led to a lot of dynamism in their community and a lot of dynamism in their local economy.And the President is looking forward to talking about this issue.

He’s going to visit a community center called Casa Azafran.This is a center that facilitates some of that integration.They do a lot of really good important work with immigrant communities in Nashville.And while he’s at the community center, the President will make some brief remarks and then we’ll plan some time to take questions from the audience.So that’s what you have to look forward to.

After the town hall meeting, the President will do interviews with Jose Diaz-Balart from Telemundo and Jorge Ramos from Univision.And those interviews will air at 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time this evening.And the interviews will be embargoed until then, so you can advise your colleagues back to tune in.

Q On the torture report, in light of the Justice Department closing its investigation without any action against any individual, does the President believe that this report suggests that someone should be held accountable?

MR. EARNEST:Well, Nedra, the release of the report is important because it is important in the mind of the President that we’re crystal clear about what American values are.And it’s important for us to be clear with the American public and with the world that every element of our government is doing everything possible to live up to those values and to live up to that high standard.The President believes that maintaining those high standards makes us safer.It also strengthens our standing in the world.It certainly gives us more moral authority.

The other thing that’s clear is to be as transparent as possible when some officers in the name of the United States of America have fallen short.Being candid about those shortcomings, being candid with the American public and with the world about their shortcomings and vowing to do better, and being clear about how we’re going to do better I think is something that’s pretty uniquely American.Even as I was getting ready to come back and talk to you, I was looking through some of the materials that have been prepared for this, and this does seem like something that only the United States of America would do -- to step forward and have the courage to acknowledge where we’ve fallen short, and to allow that to be an example for the world about raising our standards and doing better.And the President thinks that that only serves to strengthen our national security.

And it is I think also a testament to our men and women in the intelligence community who, again, don’t get a lot of attention for their work.By nature, a lot of the work that they do is work that can’t be discussed publicly.These are men and women who show up to work, work long hours, use their unique skills.In some cases, they travel to faraway lands to protect America.And the President believes that the men and women of our intelligence community are patriots, and their work should be recognized, and they should be honored for their service to this country.

Q But it also says that some of the techniques went beyond the bounds of the law.So should anyone be held accountable for that?

MR. EARNEST:Well, I haven’t read all of the executive summary, but I don’t believe that they’ve reached a legal conclusion.I think that they reached some conclusions expressing concerns about the techniques that were used.This sort of -- questions about the legality or about the decision to prosecute are made entirely at the Department of Justice, as it should be.And so for questions about how the Department of Justice will consider these findings and whether that will lead them to reconsider any legal conclusions that they’ve reached, they can speak to that better than I can.

Q Josh, does the White House have a position on whether prosecution should ensue?And do you see any reason for immunity to be granted to anyone, even at the highest levels, who were involved in these techniques?

MR. EARNEST:Well, again, Jeff, decisions about prosecution will be made by the Department of Justice.And again, those kinds -- that protocol is followed for a reason; that we would not want there to be even the appearance of any sort of political interference with what should be a decision that’s made on the merits.And so I will leave that decision to the experts, to our Department of Justice and our federal prosecutors.

As it relates to any sort of thinking about immunity or pardons or anything like that, I don’t have anything to share with you on that.

Q Does the White House have any regrets, now that the report is out, that it was released at all and that it was released at all at this time?

MR. EARNEST:Well, Jeff, as I mentioned in the briefing yesterday, the administration has been preparing for a number of months now for the eventual release of this report.Those preparations were rooted in the possibility that the release of this report may have an impact on the security situation of U.S. facilities around the globe.And the President has directed that the State Department and the Department of Defense and other organizations that maintain a U.S. presence overseas take the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of those facilities and their personnel.Extensive planning has gone into this.

So this is something that we had been preparing for.That also serves to highlight that there probably is never a good time to release something like this because of the potential reaction that we may see overseas.But sufficient planning, prudent planning has taken place to do everything that we can to ensure the safety of American personnel and facilities around the globe.

But as I was mentioning in response to Nedra’s question, the President has strongly supported the release of this declassified report because the President does believe it’s consistent with our national values to be candid about what our values are and to be candid when we’ve fallen short.And it is evident from this report that there are circumstances where we’ve fallen short of those values.That’s why the President ended those practices during the first couple of days that he was in office -- because an unequivocal ban on torture is consistent with our values as a country, and does enhance our national security.The President strongly believes that and he continues to believe that today, and believes the decision to release a declassified version of this report is consistent with those values and consistent with that interest.

Q Josh, based on the findings of the report, are there any changes the President thinks still need to be made?In the statement he talked about changes he has made, but is there anything else from these findings that he still thinks needs to be done?

MR. EARNEST:Well, the President gets regular advice from our men and women in the intelligence community and, more broadly, from his national security team about procedures that can be reformed or strengthened.And those are the kinds of things the President considers regularly.The President, in fact, encourages members of his team to come forward with recommendations about what we can do and do better to protect the American people.

So we’re talking about many classified programs, so it’s – (inaudible) talk about that in a lot of detail.So even if there are some changes made, they may not be the kind of changes that we could announce.But the President’s posture when he confronts these kinds of situations is to always keep any eye open for opportunities to reform procedures, strengthen procedures, and to initiate changes that would strengthen the national security of the United States of America.

Q Josh, I know you don’t want to get into the legal aspect of prosecutions, but one thing that the report also says, or at least suggests, is that CIA officials lied to the last White House about the effectiveness of these techniques.Is misleading the White House, does that not rise to the level of mass resignations or firings?

MR. EARNEST:Well, Jared, I understand that some of those former administration officials have said in recent days that they did not feel like they were lied to or misled.I’ll let them speak for themselves.They obviously were here and I wasn’t.But I will tell you that as a general matter, the President believes that our men and women in the intelligence community are genuine patriots who put their lives on the line in some cases -- in some cases every day to protect the American people and to protect our national interests.And the President believes that we owe them a debt of gratitude.

The President in the written statement that he issued this morning made reference to the Wall of Stars that appears there at the entrance to the CIA Headquarters in Langley.And that does serve as a very stark reminder that there are men and women in the intelligence community who have given their lives to protect this country.And that is a sentiment and a culture that I think is indicative of the kinds of values that are embodied in our intelligence community.And the President is proud of our intelligence community and the work that they are putting in right now to keep us safe.

Q So just to be clear, that the White House doesn’t necessarily agree with the conclusion that the CIA aimed to mislead the last administration?

MR. EARNEST:Well, I think that’s something that we’re not passing judgment on.That’s something that the Senate Intelligence Committee has investigated.That is something that members of the previous administration have denied.That’s something that some current members of the intelligence community have denied.So there is a vigorous debate ongoing about this.And I think it’s fair for you to characterize the current administration’s position is not passing judgment on that but expressing our full support for our men and women in the intelligence community.

Q What does the administration pass judgment on?I mean, there’s a lot of -- like you said, the CIA is criticizing the way that this report was put together, a lot of the findings, many of the details.Does the President believe it’s accurate?

MR. EARNEST:Well, there are a number of things that we’ve passed judgment on.The first is, we’ve certainly been clear about the President’s view that this report -- this declassified version of it should be released; that it’s important for the American people and the world to understand where -- what our values are, where we’ve fallen short and what we’re going to do to correct them.

We’ve passed judgment on the fact that the men and women who serve in our intelligence community are genuine patriots.The President has passed judgment on the fact that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were employed on occasion by the CIA in the previous administration were wrong.That’s why he unequivocally banned torture during his first couple of days in office.

So I think the President has been pretty clear about what his position is on a range of these complicated topics.

Q But does he think the Senate report is accurate?

MR. EARNEST:Well, again, it’s -- the report that you’re referring to is -- we’ve seen a 600-page executive summary be released.So I’m not in a position to pass judgment on every element of the report.I can tell you that the White House has been satisfied with the efforts of the intelligence committee and the CIA to litigate the necessary redactions; that this was the subject of some dispute as well, about what parts of the report needed to be redacted in order to protect national security, or to protect members of the national security team.And that was a painstaking effort that the White House was involved in at the request of the chair of the committee.

But we are certainly satisfied that those -- and pleased that those differences were resolved in a way that allowed for the report to be released, and in a way that only redacted 7 percent of the report.

Q Josh, did the President make any calls to allies or -- to inform them or talk to them about the report?And is he backing off at all on his characterizations of the report?He only used the word “torture” once in the statement and didn’t at all say that any of it resulted in a crime.

MR. EARNEST:I don’t have any additional conversations that I can read out in terms of conversations the President may have had with foreign leaders about the report.In terms of the President’s description of the report, I would say -- we put out a fairly lengthy written statement from the President today, and I do think that it accurately describes his view, which is that the tactics that are described in the report are tactics that should not have been employed.And that’s why he banned them within a day or two of taking office.

Q But he seems to stop short of calling them crimes.

MR. EARNEST:Well, this goes back to Jeff’s question, which is that -- the determination of when a crime has been committed or when a certain action should be prosecuted is a decision that is left entirely to the Department of Justice.And that is -- that protocol is in place to ensure that there is not even the appearance of political interference with a decision -- with a prosecutorial decision.

Q He had said before, “we tortured some folks.”Does he still believe that statement is true, considering that that term was not really used in the statement --

MR. EARNEST:He stands by that statement, yes.

Q Is he planning to speak about this report at all today at the event?

MR. EARNEST:I don’t anticipate that the President will have much to say about it at the event.Obviously, Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Ramos will be able to ask the President any question that they deem appropriate, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they take the opportunity to ask him.But you have to check with them what their plans are.I’m not sure exactly what they intend for the --

Q One other topic.There’s a tax bill sponsored by Dave Camp that the tax committees are considering taking up in the next couple days that would make permanent some tax breaks for charities.There was an earlier version that the White House earlier this year threatened to veto.What’s the President’s opinion on the new version when they come up?

MR. EARNEST:My understanding, Angela, without actually having seen the text of the legislation, is that it tracks very closely with the legislation that the President’s senior advisors had previously recommended he veto.So I think it’s fair for you to assume that our view of the new version that appears very similar to the old version is the same.

Q Josh, on another topic, has the White House had any contact with Gruber ahead of his testimony and the latest dustup?

MR. EARNEST:Not that I’m aware of, though that’s saying -- asking whether or not the White House has been in touch with him requires me to account for a lot of different conversations -- none that I’m aware of, certainly none at a high level.

Q Do you have any reaction?

MR. EARNEST:Nothing beyond that I certainly did make note of the apology that he offered to the committee.And I think given his comments and given how they do not at all reflect the view of this administration or the President in terms of how the bill was passed or how it’s been implemented, it seems that his remarks of regret were appropriate.

Q -- a report this morning that there was a misuse of the funds for the child tax credit, which obviously was a big part of the President’s agenda.Do you have any response to that?

MR. EARNEST:I have to be honest, Nedra, I have not seen that report but we can follow up with you on that.

Q -- spending bill from the Hill at some point today or tomorrow.Is the President still comfortable in signing something that treats homeland security differently because of the immigration executive actions that he’s announced?

MR. EARNEST:We’ll see what Congress is able to produce.We continue to believe, as you’ve heard me say over the last week or so, that Congress should fulfill their responsibility to pass a full-year budget for the full federal government.That continues to be our view, and that, frankly, will continue to be our view moving forward.That was our view when Democrats were in charge and it’s our view now that Republicans are in charge too.

But we’ll wait and see.And I’ll reserve judgment on anything that they pass until we have an opportunity to take a look at it.

Q But a full year for everything except one particular department, not going a full year with that department.Is that something that you could find acceptable?

MR. EARNEST:It’ll depend on the details.So we’ll take a look at it when it’s produced.It certainly is falling short of what we believe is the minimum required in terms of passing the full-year budget for the full federal government.Again, this is not a standard that we’ve laid out, this is the standard that’s laid out by our Founding Fathers in giving Congress the power of the purse; that it’s their responsibility to pass a budget for the full federal government.They should do so for the full year.

By their own accounting, this is clearly in the best interest of our economy, and given the kind of economic weakness that we’re seeing on the international economic -- that we see across the international economy, I should say, we believe that they should pass a full-year budget.The last thing we need are additional headwinds from Congress here.

The last jobs report was very encouraging because it did indicate that the American economy at least is demonstrating some tremendous resilience -- 10 consecutive months of more than 200,000 private sector jobs created is a streak that we haven’t seen in more than two decades, or almost two decades.

So we obviously would like to see Congress take steps that are consistent with a Congress that’s interested in strengthening our economy, or at least putting in place the kinds of policies that are going to give our economy the best opportunity for success.

All right, everbody.We’ll see you on the ground.

END
1:30 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Proclamation -- Human Rights Day and Human Rights Week, 2014

HUMAN RIGHTS DAY AND HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK, 2014

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

On December 10, 1948, nations from six continents came together to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  This extraordinary document affirmed that every individual is born equal with inalienable rights, and it is the responsibility of governments to uphold these rights.  In more than 430 translations, the Declaration recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of all people and supports their right to chart their own destinies.  On the anniversary of this human rights milestone, we join with all those who are willing to strive for a brighter future, and together, we continue our work to build the world our children deserve.

The desires for freedom and opportunity are universal, and around the world, yearnings for the rule of law and self-determination burn within the hearts of all women and men.  When people can raise their voices and hold their leaders accountable, governments are more responsive and more effective.  Children who are able to lead healthy lives and pursue an education without fear are free to spark progress and contribute to thriving communities.  And when citizens are empowered to pursue their full measure of happiness without restraint, they help ensure that economies grow, stability and prosperity spread, and nations flourish.  Protecting human rights around the globe extends the promise of democracy and bolsters the values that serve as a basis for peace in our world.

It is our obligation as free peoples to stand with courageous individuals who raise their voices to demand universal rights.  Under extremely difficult circumstances -- and often at grave personal risk -- brave human rights defenders and civil society activists throughout the world are working to actualize the rights and freedoms that are the birthright of all humankind.  The United States will continue to support all those who champion these fundamental principles, and we will never stop speaking out for the human rights of all individuals at home and abroad.  It is part of who we are as a people and what we stand for as a Nation.

My Administration supports free and fair elections, and we will always oppose efforts by foreign governments to restrict the freedoms of peaceful assembly, association, and expression.  We will continue to defend the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, call for the release of all who are unjustly detained, and insist that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons be treated equally under the law.  We will press forward in our efforts to end the scourge of human trafficking, our fight to ensure the protection of refugees and other displaced persons, and our tireless work to empower women and girls worldwide.

The United States will always lift up those who seek to work for the world as it should be.  This is part of American leadership.  On Human Rights Day and during Human Rights Week, let us continue our urgent task of rejecting hatred in whatever form it takes and recommit to fostering a global community where every person can achieve their dreams and contribute to humankind. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 10, 2014, as Human Rights Day and the week beginning December 10, 2014, as Human Rights Week.  I call upon the people of the United States to mark these observances with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

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

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President to Senior Leaders of the Federal Workforce

Washington Hilton

Washington, D.C.

11:47 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you so much, everybody.  Thank you very much.  Everybody, have a seat, have a seat.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  Well, thank you for that introduction, Elliott, and your service.  Thanks to all of my members of the Cabinet who are here today.  And welcome, everybody who is here, as well as joining us online. 

My message here is simple:  Thank you.  I’d like to come bearing raises and perks.  (Laughter.)  But I can’t.  (Laughter.)  But what I can do is tell you how important you are not just to me, but to the country. 

Many of you do what you do at extraordinary sacrifice.  You could work at a lot of places.  You made a decision at some point in your life to serve your country -- your country is stronger because you made that decision.  You keep America running -- our airports, our embassies, our financial system.  You take care of our troops and their families.  You do it without fanfare -– in fact, doing your job right often means nobody hears about you.  (Laughter.)  They only report when something goes wrong, or when there’s a shutdown and suddenly somebody notices -- oh, we need that and nobody is doing it.  (Laughter.) 

And in recent years, it’s gotten more challenging for so many of you.  You work under tough circumstances, whether it’s sequestration, pay freeze, shutdown, and, more importantly, a political climate where folks too often talk down government for cheap applause.  (Applause.)   

So my main message is, thank you.  But part of my message today also is to recognize that we do have an issue that we’ve got to address, and that is, Americans don’t trust government like we used to.  Part of that is a very deliberate strategy of trying to undermine government.  Part of it is political opportunism.  But part of it is our need to constantly adapt to the demands of the 21st century.

That’s why we need you, and that’s why we need the best and brightest of coming generations to serve.  And that’s why those of us who believe that government can and must be a force for good; those of us that believe that together, we can keep our country safe, and guarantee basic security, and make sure everybody has a shot at success; those of us who believe, as President Lincoln did, that there are some things we should and must do on our own, but there are some things that we can and should do better together; those of us who believe in both individual initiative, but also the common good -- we’ve got to work harder to make sure that government works.

We have to constantly ask ourselves, how can we serve Americans better?  How can we yank this government into the 21st century and make it smarter and faster and more responsive?  Because if all we’re doing is hunkering down and trying to push back against complaints and criticisms -- many of which are unfair -- but we’re not engaging in self-reflection and trying to figure out how every single day we can be doing our jobs a little bit better, then we’re failing the American people, and we’re failing an incredible tradition that helped to build this country that you are a part of.

So I’ve got a couple suggestions in this process; I want to know yours.  But first, I want to just offer a few examples of people who ask themselves that question:  How can I do it better every single day, and, as a consequence, make this country stronger?

Case study number one:  When the Ebola outbreak began, Gary Penner and the State Department’s Medical Services team helped swiftly transport American aid workers with Ebola to the United States for life-saving treatment.  And then Gary traveled to our embassies in Liberia and Sierra Leone and Guinea to brief all our personnel in the region on the steps they should take to stay safe.  And at a time of stress and fear, Gary and his team helped keep people calm and prepared and healthy.  And so Gary’s been an integral part of a team that, as we speak, is in West Africa saving lives.  And for that, we want to thank Gary.  (Applause.) 

Example number two:  We worked with the international community to destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons, which have made the region and the world safer.  And it was Kevin Tokarski’s job to help get those stockpiles out of Syria and onto a ship so they could be taken away and destroyed.  You probably never heard of Kevin’s team at the Transportation Department -- that’s what happens when you do your job well.  (Applause.)  Fortunately for the world, they did their job well, and we thank you, Kevin, for not making news and getting those chemical weapons out.  (Applause.)  

Example number three:  Although everybody here is doing remarkable work, let’s face it, usually what we do isn’t rocket science -- unless it is.  (Laughter.)  So Julie Kramer White is helping America launch a new era of space exploration.  Julie is NASA’s chief engineer for Orion, the new spacecraft that could carry humans farther into space than we’ve ever seen before.  (Applause.)  I’m sure you were all as proud as I was to see Orion’s first successful flight test last Friday.  America was already the first nation to land a rover on Mars; when an American is the first human to set foot there, we’ll have Julie and her team to thank.  And at that point, I’ll be out of the presidency and I might hitch a ride.  (Laughter.)  So thank you, Julie, for your great work.  (Applause.) 

I could go on indefinitely.  Our senior leaders here and around the globe are the best of the best.  I have to tell you, by the way, increasingly, we’re attracting folks from the private sector to come and work with us and help brainstorm with us around issues, and it always amuses me when they have been around here for a while and they report back to me, wow, these people are really smart, they really work hard.  (Laughter.)  Yes, it shouldn’t surprise you.  But it's a testament to the fact that, too often, you don’t get that notice.  And with your help, we’re working to give you a little more support to keep attracting the new talent that we’re going to need for the future.

So first, we’re creating a new initiative called the White House Leadership Development Program for Future Senior Career Executives.  Talented civil servants are going to have a chance to rotate through different agencies on high-priority assignments, and then they’ll bring back their new expertise to their home agency.  We want great ideas to have the chance to spread.  We want people to get new experiences that reenergize them, reinvigorate them.  We want those ideas to cross-pollinate across agencies.  We want the next generation of leaders to have the experience of solving problems and building relationships across the government.  Because one thing that we have to acknowledge is that our government often statutorily was organized for the needs of the 1930s or ‘40s or ‘60s, and too often, we get stove-piped at a time when we need people with different skillsets and different agencies to be working together.  So this is a terrific opportunity for folks to create networks across government.  

Second, we want to do more to recruit, develop, and retain exceptional civil servants, and nobody knows how to do that better than you.  So we’re creating a White House Advisory Group on Senior Executive Service Reform, and it's going to include leaders from large and small agencies as well as rising leaders –- we want to hear from them too.  And we also want to make sure you’re hearing from your employees.  Every year, they give feedback through the federal employee survey, but too few of you see it.  So starting today, all of you are going to have access to a website where we’ve assembled that feedback in a way that’s clear and easy to read.  It’s called UnlockTalent.gov -- it's worth checking out.  

One of the things that we know in the private sector about continuous improvement is you've got to have the folks right there on the front lines able to make suggestions and know that they're heard, and to not simply be rewarded for doing an outstanding job, but to see their ideas implemented in ways that really make a difference.  Because most of the time, people get involved in government because they want to make a difference.  And there’s no greater satisfaction than when you see something that you identified as a better way of doing things implemented. 

Third, in recognition of those who go above and beyond every day, we’re creating an award to recognize outstanding service.  I’m surprised this hasn’t been done before, but we're going to start.  When an American needs something from their government –- whether an education grant, or a passport, or help turning a great idea into a small business -– they’re interacting with many of you.  You can make enormous differences in the lives of individual Americans every single day. 

We are going to honor the people who do this job best.  Because ultimately, that’s what it’s about -– making sure our government serves the American people.  And I’m going to keep doing everything I can to support you and your teams.  I want you to know that I’ve got your back, because I know that for many of you, this job is more than just a paycheck -- it’s a chance to serve the country that you love.  That’s why some of the best civil servants never quite leave the job.  Even after they retire, or could retire, they keep on serving.   

Which brings me to two public servants that many of you know.  When Elton Lester began his career at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the department was still pretty new.  He was the only person of color in the General Counsel’s office.  And today, thanks in part to Elton’s efforts, HUD’s workforce has grown more diverse.  And now Elton helps oversee every one of HUD’s insured housing and assisted housing programs even though, after more than 40 years in public service, he could retire.  He could be getting a check every month and not working.  And that's dedication, that he’s still showing up, because he knows his stuff and he wants to make a difference.

Dwight Ink was a member of the civil service under seven Presidents -- briefed President Eisenhower, led the recovery effort after the 1964 Alaskan earthquake.  I confess I didn't know there was an earthquake in Alaska in 1964.  (Laughter.)  I was three at the time.  (Laughter.)

When he was 70, he retired -- kind of.  He stayed active on the issue he’s most passionate about, and that's strengthening the civil service, helped lead public administration organizations, wrote articles about how to make government better.  Today, Dwight is 92.  He’s still at it.  He and his wife, Dona, are here with us here today.  I’d ask all of you to join me in giving Dwight and all the retired civil servants here a big round of applause.  There’s Dwight back there.  (Applause.) 

So that's the kind of spirit of service that built America.  That's the commitment that keeps America strong.  And now it’s up to us to build upon the work that generations of public servants have done to make our nation stronger and more prosperous.  And every day, I am proud to be your partner.

This is going to continue to be a tough environment.  There’s not going to be a lot of new money flowing.  There is going to continue to be ideological battles about -- for those who think that the market is king and there’s no room for any kind of regulatory efforts to make our air and water cleaner, or to make our workers be in a safer work environment, to assure that every child, not just some, get opportunity.  It’s going to continue to be easy copy for the press to focus on the one thing that goes wrong instead of the 99 things that go right -- that's not going to change.

But what I tell my team in the White House every single day, and I want to tell all of you -- and some of you know this and some of you have lived it, Dwight certainly has -- there is no greater opportunity to help more people, to make a bigger difference -- in some cases to help millions, in some cases to help billions around the world -- than to be in the positions that we are privileged to be in right now.

And for the short time that we're on this Earth, I always tell my daughters there are two things you need to learn.  One is you need to learn how to love and make connections with people, to show empathy and be able to stand in somebody else’s shoes, and understand what it is to be a friend or a spouse or a parent.  And the other thing is being useful, just being of use -- knowing that when you wake up every day, you have the chance to maybe make sure that somebody who didn't have a job last week has a job; to make sure that somebody who is driving to work gets there safely because the road is safe; to make sure that somebody who didn't have health care now has it, and as a consequence, are able to catch that disease before it kills them; to make sure that some child somewhere that doesn't have much of a chance suddenly gets that chance, and their whole world, their whole life suddenly unfolds differently because of what you did. 

What an incredible privilege that is.  (Applause.)  What better way to spend your careers than what you do right now.  I want you to wake up every day knowing that the President of the United States appreciates you for making that difference. 

Thank you.  God bless you, God bless America.  (Applause.)

END
12:06 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama Announces Presidential Delegation to the Kingdom of Belgium to Attend the World War II Battle of the Bulge 70th Anniversary Commemoration Events

President Barack Obama today announced the designation of a Presidential Delegation to the Kingdom of Belgium to attend the World War II Battle of the Bulge 70th Anniversary Commemoration in Bastogne on December 13, 2014.

The Honorable Thomas Nides, Vice Chairman of Morgan Stanley and former Deputy Secretary of the State Department, will lead the delegation.

Members of the Presidential Delegation:

The Honorable Denise Campbell Bauer, U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium, Department of State

The Honorable Brad R. Carson, Under Secretary of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense

General Philip M. Breedlove, USAF, Commander, U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

General Montgomery Meigs, USA (Ret), Former Commander of U.S. Army Europe and Former Commander of International Stabilization Force in Bosnia

The Honorable Thomas John Brokaw, Special Correspondent, NBC News

President Obama Takes Over the Colbert Report

As the Colbert Report winds down to its final episode, Stephen Colbert traveled south to George Washington University last night to sit down with President Obama -- or, as Stephen prefers, the man who once sat down with Bill O'Reilly. 

It was a memorable meeting of two great leaders -- one of the free world, the other of "medium cable ratings." They discussed health care reform, the President's recent actions on immigration, climate change, and the presidency vs. punditry. 

Of course, the President had the final word -- or decree -- on health care:

Most young people can get covered for less than $100. How is the President going to get that message out to the kids?  He could try to appeal to them directly through a speech or a press conference, but young people don’t watch real news shows like this one. They watch comedy shows, and I just don’t see the President going on one of those. They’re beneath his dignity.

Watch it.

Here are a few great exchanges you won't want to miss from last night's interview: 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

FACT SHEET: Increasing Safety and Efficiency while Saving Money at the Pump

Administration Announces: NASCAR, Tire Manufactures & Retailers Partner with the Department of Transportation to Raise Awareness about Tire Safety and Take Action to

Cut Carbon Pollution and Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil

The Obama Administration is committed to taking responsible steps to promote safety, combat climate change, cut energy waste, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Every year, there are roughly 11,000 tire-related vehicle crashes in the U.S. Many of these crashes can be prevented through proper tire maintenance—including tire inflation, balance, alignment, and rotation—and understanding tire labels, aging, recalls and complaints. Meanwhile, 232 million passenger cars and light trucks in the U.S. consume about 134 billion gallons of fuel each year.

Making smart consumer choices when purchasing tires and maintaining tires properly can cut fuel use and save money at the pump, reducing the carbon pollution that causes climate change.  In fact, by enabling a driver to travel farther on a gallon of fuel, proper tire maintenance combined with the use of low rolling resistance tires could save a driver up to $80 per year, and avoid up to 560 pounds of annual carbon dioxide pollution, equivalent to nearly 600 miles of emission-free driving.

Keeping tires properly inflated and choosing low-rolling resistant tires can have a national impact. If 10 million drivers kept their tires properly inflated, they could save nearly $500 million dollars and 1.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution a year. And if just 10 percent of consumers buying aftermarket tires bought tires that were 10 percent more efficient, the annual savings would be more than $200 million and 690,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution.

To minimize the number of tire-related crashes, reduce carbon pollution and save drivers on fuel costs, the Department of Transportation is taking the following actions:

  • Announcing they will set a goal to finalize a rule establishing a tire fuel efficiency consumer information program by 2017 so consumers can identify the most energy efficient tires.
  • Partnering with NASCAR on a Drive for Safety initiative in next year’s racing season.
  • Collaborating with tire manufactures, fuel distributors, and tire retailers to kick off a Tire Safety Awareness Month from December 9, 2014 to January 9, 2015.  
  • Releasing guide on how to Be TireWise: Save Money at The Pump, Increase Efficiency, and Protect Your Safety available here.

EXECUTIVE ACTIONS & PRIVATE SECTOR COMMITMENTS

To increase awareness about tire safety and efficiency the Administration and tire manufactures, fuel distributors, and tire retailers are taking the following actions:

Setting a Goal to Finalize a Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program in 2017: The Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is developing a tire fuel efficiency consumer information program to help consumers make informed decisions about replacement tire purchases.  DOT is working to complete the rulemaking with the goal of a final rule in 2017. Work on this rule will supplement the work that DOT is completing, in collaboration with EPA and the White House, to implement historic fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks -- including an aggressive effort to meet the President's mandate of completing a second round of standards for medium and heavy duty trucks by 2016.  The tire fuel efficiency consumer information program targets consumers who are driving on the estimated 141 million tires sold annually that do not already have good rolling resistance. The program is focused on replacement tires because, although automobile manufacturers often equip new passenger cars and light trucks with low rolling resistance tires that are fuel efficient, consumers often replace a vehicle’s original tires with higher rolling resistance tires. A key component of the program will be to finalize a rule establishing a tire fuel efficiency consumer information program that will provide consumers with the information necessary to identify which tires are the most efficient. In fact, NHTSA estimates that if just 10 percent of aftermarket passenger car tires were upgraded to tires with a 10 percent improvement in rolling resistance, the annual savings would be more than $200 million from 72 million gallons of fuel and 690,000 metric tons of CO2, equivalent to the emissions from more than 1.6 billion miles of emission-free driving. 

Driving for Safety: For more than 10 years, NASCAR and NHTSA have worked together to promote positive traffic safety messages, including the importance of tire safety. This longstanding partnership is fueling the “Drive for Safety” campaign, which aims to promote messages that will keep drivers safe on the road.  NHTSA and NASCAR will announce new opportunities to expand their collaboration in the 2015 driving season. 

Kicking Off Tire Safety Month: Over the course of the next month, the Administration will initiate an enhanced effort to raise consumer awareness about the common-sense measures we can take to maintain our tires and save money, increase efficiency, and protect drivers across the country.  Building on the TireWise campaign, the following manufacturers, retailers, oil and gas companies have committed to partner with DOT to offer free inspections and tire inflation and to raise driver awareness through a number of activities:

  • Bridgestone Americas commits to supporting Tire Safety Month with free tire inspections at more than 2,200 Bridgestone Retail Operations stores under the brand names of Firestone Complete Auto Care, Tires Plus and Wheels Works; maintaining a website to inform consumers about tire safety and regular tire inspections; and promoting Teens Drive Smart, a hands-on program dedicated to equipping young drivers with knowledge and skills, including proper tire care.

  • The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company commits to supporting Tire Safety Month with tire care education on its website; offering free inflation pressure services at its more than 600 company-owned retail stores and making tire care information available to new car buyers and when consumers purchase tires at Goodyear dealer and retail locations.

  • Cooper Tire & Rubber Company commits to supporting Tire Safety Month with information prominently on their website, providing drivers with safety education and maintenance information with every tire purchased, providing a free tire safety kit to those who buy Cooper tires.  On social media, Cooper Tire will promote tire care messages targeted to younger drivers and to the blogging community that focuses on assuring that women --and particularly moms--have critical tire safety information.

  • Michelin North America commits to supporting Tire Safety Month through "Beyond the Driving Test," an initiative designed to increase the awareness among teen drivers of the importance of tire maintenance and safety in all the driver's education instruction programs across the nation. In addition Michelin will alert its dealer networks to support Tire Safety Month and offers tire care information on its web site.

  • Pirelli Tire North America commits to supporting Tire Safety Month through efforts to notify its dealer networks and to provide consumer tire care information on its website. Pirelli also commits to promoting tire care and safety through the Be Tire Smart-Play Your PART program, an ongoing industry effort by the Rubber Manufacturers Association to educate consumers about proper tire maintenance.

  • Continental Tire the Americas commits to supporting Tire Safety Month by working with tire dealers to educate them on the proper installation, inflation, and use of tires so that consumers will achieve maximum safety and fuel efficiency benefits from their products. Continental will support Tire Safety Month through consumer safety messages on their Web site and by providing tire maintenance and safety messaging on their social media channels in conjunction with the RMA efforts. Continental offers tire care information on its website.

  • Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc. commits to supporting Tire Safety Month. Toyo Tires will partner with the Rubber Manufacturers Association to promote the importance of tire inflation pressure as it relates to safety, and encourage consumers to perform routine checks of their tires. Toyo Tires will communicate to our dealers about Tire Safety Month, and offer tire care information through its websites.

  • Yokohama Tire Corporation commits to supporting Tire Safety Month by emphasizing tire care information on its website and partnering with our communities and tire dealer network.

  • The Rubber Manufacturers Association, the national trade association for tire manufacturers that produce tires in the U.S., commits to supporting Tire Safety Month by offering tire care information to consumers through its Be Tire Smart-Play Your PART program, providing free downloadable tire care brochures and booklets; alerting 20,000 tire and auto service locations and others who participate in RMA’s Be Tire Smart program to support Tire Safety Month; and providing alerts, tips and information on social media networks and media outreach.

  • The National Association of Convenience Stores will communicate the Tire Safety Month to its 40,000 subscribers of its daily news feed, as well as on its website. It will encourage fuel retailers to consider POS signage, whether at the pump or inside the store, to communicate the initiative. Convenience stores sell an estimated 80% of the fuel purchased in the country. Both NACS and its members will also conduct outreach to the media to further enhance the visibility of the initiative.  This effort will include working to identify flagship locations to help encourage other service stations to, over the coming months, find additional opportunities to educate consumers about the importance of tire maintenance, for example, through using pumptoppers, hosetags, or other visible media.

  • ExxonMobil will increase the visibility of a :30 TV commercial, called “Tires.” in national network and cable rotation.  The spot communicates the fact that “if every driver in the US kept their tires properly inflated, the US would save up to 4 billion gallons of fuel.”  In addition to TV, the tire inflation message will be promoted via ExxonMobil social media channels, like Twitter and LinkedIn, to quickly and simply convey the tie between tire inflation and fuel efficiency.

  • BP, in conjunction with Tire Safety Month, will work to promote safety, savings to consumers and increased energy efficiency.  Over the coming months, BP will expand messaging through its retailer website and through its periodic newsletter sent to a database of some 1.8 million consumer-members of the "Driver Rewards" program. 

  • Discount Tire is committing to improving tire safety awareness and fuel efficiency nationwide through several integrated campaigns with national industry partners. Discount Tire will integrate TireWise campaign materials into a public service announcement (PSA) kit including targeted press releases, blogs and other special messaging events; utilize its website to highlight partnership and distribute downloadable PSA kit documents; activate social media around the awareness campaign; utilize in-store locations by displaying awareness information and providing campaign packets including free air gauges and TireWise materials to customers.

  • TireRack.com commits to supporting Tire Safety Month with information prominently on its website, and providing all drivers who visit with safety education and tire maintenance information.  On social media, Tire Rack will promote tire care messages targeted to drivers of all ages and to the blogging community.

Today’s actions build on substantial progress to improve fuel economy and increase driver safety, through the following actions:

Launching TireWise: In May 2014, NHTSA launched its TireWise campaign, which provides consumers and retailers with essential information about choosing and caring for tires. The TireWise web site has pages for Tire Buying, Maintenance, Aging, Labeling, and Fuel Efficiency as well as a page for Tire Retailers. The Fuel Efficiency page highlights the benefits of proper tire inflation pressure and low rolling resistance tires.

Accelerating the Use of Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems: All new light vehicles beginning with model year 2008 are required to be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS), which provides a warning to drivers when one or more of a vehicle’s tires become significantly underinflated (25% or more below the recommended inflation pressure).  Underinflation of tires increases the likelihood of many different types of crashes, including those involving skidding loss of control of the vehicle, and blowouts.  NHTSA estimates that TPMS saves about 120 lives each year.

Supporting the Development of Efficient Tire Technology: The Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) is currently supporting five tire research and development projects focused on improving the fuel economy of cars and trucks up to 4%.  These projects total $12M, including a government share of $6M, and support new tire designs with reduced rolling resistance, while maintaining or improving the safety and handling performance of current, state-of-the-art tire designs.  Projects include the development of improved tread materials, improved structural designs for lower weight, and tires that maintain proper inflation through decreased leakage or automatic inflation technology.

Highlighting the Benefits of Efficient Tires: EPA's SmartWay Technology program has conducted and published research findings that demonstrate the significant fuel savings achieved by using low rolling resistance tires in heavy-duty trucks. EPA verifies the performance of commercially available low rolling resistance tires for tractor trailer applications as well as other fuel saving technologies. EPA has demonstrated that over three percent fuel savings can be achieved in long haul trucks with low rolling resistance tires compared to ‎other popular tires. These savings can even be as high as seven to ten percent when compared to higher rolling resistance tires. EPA also estimates trucks can achieve up to one percent fuel savings benefit by using automatic tire inflation systems. EPA includes information about these technologies as well as other fuel saving information at www.epa.gov/smartway/about/outreach.htm

Working on the Next Round of Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Earlier this year, the President directed the EPA and the DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop and issue the next phase of medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards by March 2016. Under this timeline, the agencies are expected to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by March 2015. This second round of fuel efficiency standards will build on the first-ever standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (model years 2014 through 2018), which were proposed and finalized by these agencies and will save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs and save a projected 530 million barrels of oil. The agencies expect that new standards will encourage medium- and heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers to employ lower rolling resistance tires in multiple segments of the next generation of commercial vehicles, from large pickups and vans all the way up to big-rig tractors and trailers.

Leading by Example: The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), which acquires and leases vehicles for Federal fleets, issued guidance in 2008 on tire pressure maintenance. In fact, due to continued efforts to implement measures such as rightsizing the fleet, utilizing alternative fuel vehicles, and ensuring proper tire pressure maintenance, carbon pollution from the entire Federal fleet has decreased by 7.8 percent since 2008. The Department of Defense, with one of the largest Federal fleets requires users to maintain tires at the maximum pressure recommended by the vehicles’ manufacturers. For example, the Air Force requires vehicle operators to document tire pressure inspections each month at a minimum. The Navy requires vehicle operators to check tire pressure before using a vehicle and conduct preventive maintenance on vehicles, including tire pressure and tread checks, at least every 3 months, 5,000 miles, or 200 hours of use. Similarly, the Defense Logistics Agency requires vehicle operators to check vehicle equipment, including tire pressure, daily.

Issuing Historic Standards for Passenger Vehicles: In President Obama’s first term, he called on the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation to take action to double fuel economy standards by 2025 and cut vehicle greenhouse gas emissions in half. These actions combat climate change and help American families save money – more than $8,000 in fuel costs for each car by 2025. In fact, over the duration of the program, Americans will save a total of $1.7 trillion in fuel costs and reduce oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels per day. And we are on track to roughly double fuel economy by 2025, proving once again that addressing climate change can go hand in hand with strong economic growth.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Readout of the President’s Call with Polish Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz

President Obama spoke yesterday with Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz of Poland.  The President affirmed the strong partnership between the United States and Poland, and thanked the Prime Minister for Poland’s steady support for Ukraine.  The two leaders agreed on the need to assist the new Government of Ukraine to implement reforms to stabilize the economy and strengthen governance, and called on Russia to end its destabilizing actions in Ukraine and to fulfill its commitments to support the peace process in eastern Ukraine.  The President also thanked the Prime Minister for Poland’s significant contributions to the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the two leaders agreed on the need for continued international cooperation in support of these missions.  The President reaffirmed the commitment of the United States to the collective defense of its NATO allies.