The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
August 29, 2013

FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence

Today, the Obama administration announced two new common-sense executive actions to keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands and ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities. These executive actions build on the 23 executive actions that the Vice President recommended as part of the comprehensive gun violence reduction plan and the President unveiled on January 16, 2013.

Even as Congress fails to act on common-sense proposals, like expanding criminal background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime, the President and Vice President remain committed to using all the tools in their power to make progress toward reducing gun violence.

Building on the 23 Executive Actions the President and Vice President Unveiled Last January

  • Last December, the President asked the Vice President to develop a series of recommendations to reduce gun violence. On January 16, 2013, they released these proposals, including 23 executive actions. With the first Senate confirmation of an ATF Director on July 31, 2013, the Administration has completed or made significant progress on 22 of the 23 executive actions. The new executive actions unveiled today build on this successful effort. 

Closing a Loophole to Keep Some of the Most Dangerous Guns Out of the Wrong Hands

  • Current law places special restrictions on many of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns.  These weapons must be registered, and in order to lawfully possess them, a prospective buyer must undergo a fingerprint-based background check.
  •  However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation.  At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run.  ATF reports that last year alone, it received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.
  • Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole.  The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually.  By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.

Keeping Surplus Military Weapons Off Our Streets

  • When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval.  Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms.
  • Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums.  This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets. 

President Obama Marks the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington

August 28, 2013 | 28:11 | Public Domain

President Obama delivers remarks at the Let Freedom Ring ceremony on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

Download mp4 (1065MB) | mp3 (68MB)

Read the Transcript

Remarks by the President at the "Let Freedom Ring" Ceremony Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington

Lincoln Memorial

3:07 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  To the King family, who have sacrificed and inspired so much; to President Clinton; President Carter; Vice President Biden and Jill; fellow Americans.  

Five decades ago today, Americans came to this honored place to lay claim to a promise made at our founding:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In 1963, almost 200 years after those words were set to paper, a full century after a great war was fought and emancipation proclaimed, that promise -- those truths -- remained unmet.  And so they came by the thousands from every corner of our country, men and women, young and old, blacks who longed for freedom and whites who could no longer accept freedom for themselves while witnessing the subjugation of others.

Across the land, congregations sent them off with food and with prayer.  In the middle of the night, entire blocks of Harlem came out to wish them well.  With the few dollars they scrimped from their labor, some bought tickets and boarded buses, even if they couldn’t always sit where they wanted to sit.  Those with less money hitchhiked or walked.  They were seamstresses and steelworkers, students and teachers, maids and Pullman porters.  They shared simple meals and bunked together on floors.  And then, on a hot summer day, they assembled here, in our nation’s capital, under the shadow of the Great Emancipator -- to offer testimony of injustice, to petition their government for redress, and to awaken America’s long-slumbering conscience.

We rightly and best remember Dr. King’s soaring oratory that day, how he gave mighty voice to the quiet hopes of millions; how he offered a salvation path for oppressed and oppressors alike.  His words belong to the ages, possessing a power and prophecy unmatched in our time.

But we would do well to recall that day itself also belonged to those ordinary people whose names never appeared in the history books, never got on TV.  Many had gone to segregated schools and sat at segregated lunch counters.  They lived in towns where they couldn’t vote and cities where their votes didn’t matter.  They were couples in love who couldn’t marry, soldiers who fought for freedom abroad that they found denied to them at home.  They had seen loved ones beaten, and children fire-hosed, and they had every reason to lash out in anger, or resign themselves to a bitter fate.

And yet they chose a different path.  In the face of hatred, they prayed for their tormentors.  In the face of violence, they stood up and sat in, with the moral force of nonviolence.  Willingly, they went to jail to protest unjust laws, their cells swelling with the sound of freedom songs.  A lifetime of indignities had taught them that no man can take away the dignity and grace that God grants us.  They had learned through hard experience what Frederick Douglass once taught -- that freedom is not given, it must be won, through struggle and discipline, persistence and faith.

That was the spirit they brought here that day.  That was the spirit young people like John Lewis brought to that day.  That was the spirit that they carried with them, like a torch, back to their cities and their neighborhoods.  That steady flame of conscience and courage that would sustain them through the campaigns to come -- through boycotts and voter registration drives and smaller marches far from the spotlight; through the loss of four little girls in Birmingham, and the carnage of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and the agony of Dallas and California and Memphis.  Through setbacks and heartbreaks and gnawing doubt, that flame of justice flickered; it never died.

And because they kept marching, America changed.  Because they marched, a Civil Rights law was passed.  Because they marched, a Voting Rights law was signed.  Because they marched, doors of opportunity and education swung open so their daughters and sons could finally imagine a life for themselves beyond washing somebody else’s laundry or shining somebody else’s shoes. (Applause.)  Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed, and Congress changed, and, yes, eventually, the White House changed.  (Applause.)  

Because they marched, America became more free and more fair -- not just for African Americans, but for women and Latinos, Asians and Native Americans; for Catholics, Jews, and Muslims; for gays, for Americans with a disability.  America changed for you and for me.  and the entire world drew strength from that example, whether the young people who watched from the other side of an Iron Curtain and would eventually tear down that wall, or the young people inside South Africa who would eventually end the scourge of apartheid.  (Applause.)

Those are the victories they won, with iron wills and hope in their hearts.  That is the transformation that they wrought, with each step of their well-worn shoes.  That’s the debt that I and millions of Americans owe those maids, those laborers, those porters, those secretaries; folks who could have run a company maybe if they had ever had a chance; those white students who put themselves in harm’s way, even though they didn't have; those Japanese Americans who recalled their own internment; those Jewish Americans who had survived the Holocaust; people who could have given up and given in, but kept on keeping on, knowing that “weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” (Applause.)

On the battlefield of justice, men and women without rank or wealth or title or fame would liberate us all in ways that our children now take for granted, as people of all colors and creeds live together and learn together and walk together, and fight alongside one another, and love one another, and judge one another by the content of our character in this greatest nation on Earth.  (Applause.)

To dismiss the magnitude of this progress -- to suggest, as some sometimes do, that little has changed -- that dishonors the courage and the sacrifice of those who paid the price to march in those years.  (Applause.)  Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Martin Luther King Jr. -- they did not die in vain.  (Applause.)  Their victory was great. 

But we would dishonor those heroes as well to suggest that the work of this nation is somehow complete.  The arc of the moral universe may bend towards justice, but it doesn’t bend on its own.  To secure the gains this country has made requires constant vigilance, not complacency.  Whether by challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote, or ensuring that the scales of justice work equally for all, and the criminal justice system is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails, it requires vigilance.  (Applause.) 

And we'll suffer the occasional setback.  But we will win these fights.  This country has changed too much.  (Applause.)  People of goodwill, regardless of party, are too plentiful for those with ill will to change history’s currents.  (Applause.)  

In some ways, though, the securing of civil rights, voting rights, the eradication of legalized discrimination -- the very significance of these victories may have obscured a second goal of the March.  For the men and women who gathered 50 years ago were not there in search of some abstract ideal.  They were there seeking jobs as well as justice -- (applause) -- not just the absence of oppression but the presence of economic opportunity.  (Applause.)

For what does it profit a man, Dr. King would ask, to sit at an integrated lunch counter if he can’t afford the meal?  This idea -- that one’s liberty is linked to one’s livelihood; that the pursuit of happiness requires the dignity of work, the skills to find work, decent pay, some measure of material security -- this idea was not new.  Lincoln himself understood the Declaration of Independence in such terms -- as a promise that in due time, “the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance.”  

And Dr. King explained that the goals of African Americans were identical to working people of all races:  “Decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old-age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children, and respect in the community.”

What King was describing has been the dream of every American.  It's what's lured for centuries new arrivals to our shores.  And it’s along this second dimension -- of economic opportunity, the chance through honest toil to advance one’s station in life -- where the goals of 50 years ago have fallen most short. 

Yes, there have been examples of success within black America that would have been unimaginable a half century ago.  But as has already been noted, black unemployment has remained almost twice as high as white unemployment, Latino unemployment close behind.  The gap in wealth between races has not lessened, it's grown.  And as President Clinton indicated, the position of all working Americans, regardless of color, has eroded, making the dream Dr. King described even more elusive. 

For over a decade, working Americans of all races have seen their wages and incomes stagnate, even as corporate profits soar, even as the pay of a fortunate few explodes.  Inequality has steadily risen over the decades.  Upward mobility has become harder.  In too many communities across this country, in cities and suburbs and rural hamlets, the shadow of poverty casts a pall over our youth, their lives a fortress of substandard schools and diminished prospects, inadequate health care and perennial violence. 

And so as we mark this anniversary, we must remind ourselves that the measure of progress for those who marched 50 years ago was not merely how many blacks could join the ranks of millionaires.  It was whether this country would admit all people who are willing to work hard regardless of race into the ranks of a middle-class life.  (Applause.)

The test was not, and never has been, whether the doors of opportunity are cracked a bit wider for a few.  It was whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many -- for the black custodian and the white steelworker, the immigrant dishwasher and the Native American veteran.  To win that battle, to answer that call -- this remains our great unfinished business. 

We shouldn’t fool ourselves.  The task will not be easy.  Since 1963, the economy has changed.  The twin forces of technology and global competition have subtracted those jobs that once provided a foothold into the middle class -- reduced the bargaining power of American workers.  And our politics has suffered.  Entrenched interests, those who benefit from an unjust status quo, resisted any government efforts to give working families a fair deal -- marshaling an army of lobbyists and opinion makers to argue that minimum wage increases or stronger labor laws or taxes on the wealthy who could afford it just to fund crumbling schools, that all these things violated sound economic principles.  We'd be told that growing inequality was a price for a growing economy, a measure of this free market; that greed was good and compassion ineffective, and those without jobs or health care had only themselves to blame.

And then, there were those elected officials who found it useful to practice the old politics of division, doing their best to convince middle-class Americans of a great untruth -- that government was somehow itself to blame for their growing economic insecurity; that distant bureaucrats were taking their hard-earned dollars to benefit the welfare cheat or the illegal immigrant.

And then, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that during the course of 50 years, there were times when some of us claiming to push for change lost our way.  The anguish of assassinations set off self-defeating riots.  Legitimate grievances against police brutality tipped into excuse-making for criminal behavior.  Racial politics could cut both ways, as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination.  And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support -- as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child, and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself.

All of that history is how progress stalled.  That's how hope was diverted.  It's how our country remained divided.  But the good news is, just as was true in 1963, we now have a choice. We can continue down our current path, in which the gears of this great democracy grind to a halt and our children accept a life of lower expectations; where politics is a zero-sum game where a few do very well while struggling families of every race fight over a shrinking economic pie -- that’s one path.  Or we can have the courage to change. 

The March on Washington teaches us that we are not trapped by the mistakes of history; that we are masters of our fate.  But it also teaches us that the promise of this nation will only be kept when we work together.  We’ll have to reignite the embers of empathy and fellow feeling, the coalition of conscience that found expression in this place 50 years ago. 

And I believe that spirit is there, that truth force inside each of us.  I see it when a white mother recognizes her own daughter in the face of a poor black child.  I see it when the black youth thinks of his own grandfather in the dignified steps of an elderly white man.  It’s there when the native-born recognizing that striving spirit of the new immigrant; when the interracial couple connects the pain of a gay couple who are discriminated against and understands it as their own. 

That’s where courage comes from -- when we turn not from each other, or on each other, but towards one another, and we find that we do not walk alone.  That’s where courage comes from. (Applause.)

And with that courage, we can stand together for good jobs and just wages.  With that courage, we can stand together for the right to health care in the richest nation on Earth for every person.  (Applause.)  With that courage, we can stand together for the right of every child, from the corners of Anacostia to the hills of Appalachia, to get an education that stirs the mind and captures the spirit, and prepares them for the world that awaits them.  (Applause.)

With that courage, we can feed the hungry, and house the homeless, and transform bleak wastelands of poverty into fields of commerce and promise.

America, I know the road will be long, but I know we can get there.  Yes, we will stumble, but I know we’ll get back up.  That’s how a movement happens.  That’s how history bends.  That's how when somebody is faint of heart, somebody else brings them along and says, come on, we’re marching.  (Applause.)

There’s a reason why so many who marched that day, and in the days to come, were young -- for the young are unconstrained by habits of fear, unconstrained by the conventions of what is.  They dared to dream differently, to imagine something better.  And I am convinced that same imagination, the same hunger of purpose stirs in this generation.

We might not face the same dangers of 1963, but the fierce urgency of now remains.  We may never duplicate the swelling crowds and dazzling procession of that day so long ago -- no one can match King’s brilliance -- but the same flame that lit the heart of all who are willing to take a first step for justice, I know that flame remains.  (Applause.)  

That tireless teacher who gets to class early and stays late and dips into her own pocket to buy supplies because she believes that every child is her charge -- she’s marching.  (Applause.)

That successful businessman who doesn't have to but pays his workers a fair wage and then offers a shot to a man, maybe an ex-con who is down on his luck -- he’s marching.  (Applause.)

The mother who pours her love into her daughter so that she grows up with the confidence to walk through the same door as anybody’s son -- she’s marching.  (Applause.)

The father who realizes the most important job he’ll ever have is raising his boy right, even if he didn't have a father -- especially if he didn't have a father at home -- he’s marching.  (Applause.)

The battle-scarred veterans who devote themselves not only to helping their fellow warriors stand again, and walk again, and run again, but to keep serving their country when they come home -- they are marching.  (Applause.)

Everyone who realizes what those glorious patriots knew on that day -- that change does not come from Washington, but to Washington; that change has always been built on our willingness, We The People, to take on the mantle of citizenship -- you are marching.  (Applause.)

And that’s the lesson of our past.  That's the promise of tomorrow -- that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it.  That when millions of Americans of every race and every region, every faith and every station, can join together in a spirit of brotherhood, then those mountains will be made low, and those rough places will be made plain, and those crooked places, they straighten out towards grace, and we will vindicate the faith of those who sacrificed so much and live up to the true meaning of our creed, as one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  (Applause.)  

END
3:36 P.M. EDT

Close Transcript

50 Years of American Heroes

Valerie Jarrett
Valerie Jarrett
August 28, 2013
07:52 PM EDT

Watch: President Obama's speech from the Lincoln Memorial

Read his full remarks

Fifty years ago, the heroic voice of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. rang out across our capital, our country, and the world, and called on us to become the more perfect union he believed we were destined to be. A country which endows every man, woman and child with unalienable rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  

These are words which we repeat so often, that their depth and relevance today can easily be missed.

Any nation which pledges to honor its citizen’s right to “life” should enact and protect laws which ensure high quality and affordable access to the doctors, treatment, and preventative care we need to live full and healthy lives.  

Any country committed to defending “liberty” should protect our fundamental right as Americans; the right to vote. Our liberty is dependent upon free and inclusive elections, and our ability to peacefully hold our leaders accountable, while directing the course of our country. Dr. King was the first to tell us that the “arc of the moral universe is long, but that it bends toward justice.” President Obama went further today, to remind us all that "the arc of the moral universe may bend toward justice, but it doesn't bend on its own."

The right to “pursue happiness” is most secure when we put the education of all of our children, the growth of our economy, the health of our businesses, the creation of jobs, and the stability of our markets ahead of self-interest, and political posturing. Every American deserves to feel the pride of a hard-earned paycheck, and the opportunity to achieve their dreams, regardless of who they are, or the zip code of their birth.

Valerie B. Jarrett is a Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama. She oversees the Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs and chairs the White House Council on Women and Girls.
Related Topics: Civil Rights, Alabama, Georgia

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
August 28, 2013

Remarks by the President at the "Let Freedom Ring" Ceremony Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington

Lincoln Memorial

3:07 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  To the King family, who have sacrificed and inspired so much; to President Clinton; President Carter; Vice President Biden and Jill; fellow Americans.  

Five decades ago today, Americans came to this honored place to lay claim to a promise made at our founding:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In 1963, almost 200 years after those words were set to paper, a full century after a great war was fought and emancipation proclaimed, that promise -- those truths -- remained unmet.  And so they came by the thousands from every corner of our country, men and women, young and old, blacks who longed for freedom and whites who could no longer accept freedom for themselves while witnessing the subjugation of others.

Across the land, congregations sent them off with food and with prayer.  In the middle of the night, entire blocks of Harlem came out to wish them well.  With the few dollars they scrimped from their labor, some bought tickets and boarded buses, even if they couldn’t always sit where they wanted to sit.  Those with less money hitchhiked or walked.  They were seamstresses and steelworkers, students and teachers, maids and Pullman porters.  They shared simple meals and bunked together on floors.  And then, on a hot summer day, they assembled here, in our nation’s capital, under the shadow of the Great Emancipator -- to offer testimony of injustice, to petition their government for redress, and to awaken America’s long-slumbering conscience.

We rightly and best remember Dr. King’s soaring oratory that day, how he gave mighty voice to the quiet hopes of millions; how he offered a salvation path for oppressed and oppressors alike.  His words belong to the ages, possessing a power and prophecy unmatched in our time.

But we would do well to recall that day itself also belonged to those ordinary people whose names never appeared in the history books, never got on TV.  Many had gone to segregated schools and sat at segregated lunch counters.  They lived in towns where they couldn’t vote and cities where their votes didn’t matter.  They were couples in love who couldn’t marry, soldiers who fought for freedom abroad that they found denied to them at home.  They had seen loved ones beaten, and children fire-hosed, and they had every reason to lash out in anger, or resign themselves to a bitter fate.

And yet they chose a different path.  In the face of hatred, they prayed for their tormentors.  In the face of violence, they stood up and sat in, with the moral force of nonviolence.  Willingly, they went to jail to protest unjust laws, their cells swelling with the sound of freedom songs.  A lifetime of indignities had taught them that no man can take away the dignity and grace that God grants us.  They had learned through hard experience what Frederick Douglass once taught -- that freedom is not given, it must be won, through struggle and discipline, persistence and faith.

That was the spirit they brought here that day.  That was the spirit young people like John Lewis brought to that day.  That was the spirit that they carried with them, like a torch, back to their cities and their neighborhoods.  That steady flame of conscience and courage that would sustain them through the campaigns to come -- through boycotts and voter registration drives and smaller marches far from the spotlight; through the loss of four little girls in Birmingham, and the carnage of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and the agony of Dallas and California and Memphis.  Through setbacks and heartbreaks and gnawing doubt, that flame of justice flickered; it never died.

And because they kept marching, America changed.  Because they marched, a Civil Rights law was passed.  Because they marched, a Voting Rights law was signed.  Because they marched, doors of opportunity and education swung open so their daughters and sons could finally imagine a life for themselves beyond washing somebody else’s laundry or shining somebody else’s shoes. (Applause.)  Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed, and Congress changed, and, yes, eventually, the White House changed.  (Applause.)  

Because they marched, America became more free and more fair -- not just for African Americans, but for women and Latinos, Asians and Native Americans; for Catholics, Jews, and Muslims; for gays, for Americans with a disability.  America changed for you and for me.  and the entire world drew strength from that example, whether the young people who watched from the other side of an Iron Curtain and would eventually tear down that wall, or the young people inside South Africa who would eventually end the scourge of apartheid.  (Applause.)

Those are the victories they won, with iron wills and hope in their hearts.  That is the transformation that they wrought, with each step of their well-worn shoes.  That’s the debt that I and millions of Americans owe those maids, those laborers, those porters, those secretaries; folks who could have run a company maybe if they had ever had a chance; those white students who put themselves in harm’s way, even though they didn't have; those Japanese Americans who recalled their own internment; those Jewish Americans who had survived the Holocaust; people who could have given up and given in, but kept on keeping on, knowing that “weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” (Applause.)

On the battlefield of justice, men and women without rank or wealth or title or fame would liberate us all in ways that our children now take for granted, as people of all colors and creeds live together and learn together and walk together, and fight alongside one another, and love one another, and judge one another by the content of our character in this greatest nation on Earth.  (Applause.)

To dismiss the magnitude of this progress -- to suggest, as some sometimes do, that little has changed -- that dishonors the courage and the sacrifice of those who paid the price to march in those years.  (Applause.)  Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Martin Luther King Jr. -- they did not die in vain.  (Applause.)  Their victory was great. 

But we would dishonor those heroes as well to suggest that the work of this nation is somehow complete.  The arc of the moral universe may bend towards justice, but it doesn’t bend on its own.  To secure the gains this country has made requires constant vigilance, not complacency.  Whether by challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote, or ensuring that the scales of justice work equally for all, and the criminal justice system is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails, it requires vigilance.  (Applause.) 

And we'll suffer the occasional setback.  But we will win these fights.  This country has changed too much.  (Applause.)  People of goodwill, regardless of party, are too plentiful for those with ill will to change history’s currents.  (Applause.)  

In some ways, though, the securing of civil rights, voting rights, the eradication of legalized discrimination -- the very significance of these victories may have obscured a second goal of the March.  For the men and women who gathered 50 years ago were not there in search of some abstract ideal.  They were there seeking jobs as well as justice -- (applause) -- not just the absence of oppression but the presence of economic opportunity.  (Applause.)

For what does it profit a man, Dr. King would ask, to sit at an integrated lunch counter if he can’t afford the meal?  This idea -- that one’s liberty is linked to one’s livelihood; that the pursuit of happiness requires the dignity of work, the skills to find work, decent pay, some measure of material security -- this idea was not new.  Lincoln himself understood the Declaration of Independence in such terms -- as a promise that in due time, “the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance.”  

And Dr. King explained that the goals of African Americans were identical to working people of all races:  “Decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old-age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children, and respect in the community.”

What King was describing has been the dream of every American.  It's what's lured for centuries new arrivals to our shores.  And it’s along this second dimension -- of economic opportunity, the chance through honest toil to advance one’s station in life -- where the goals of 50 years ago have fallen most short. 

Yes, there have been examples of success within black America that would have been unimaginable a half century ago.  But as has already been noted, black unemployment has remained almost twice as high as white unemployment, Latino unemployment close behind.  The gap in wealth between races has not lessened, it's grown.  And as President Clinton indicated, the position of all working Americans, regardless of color, has eroded, making the dream Dr. King described even more elusive. 

For over a decade, working Americans of all races have seen their wages and incomes stagnate, even as corporate profits soar, even as the pay of a fortunate few explodes.  Inequality has steadily risen over the decades.  Upward mobility has become harder.  In too many communities across this country, in cities and suburbs and rural hamlets, the shadow of poverty casts a pall over our youth, their lives a fortress of substandard schools and diminished prospects, inadequate health care and perennial violence. 

And so as we mark this anniversary, we must remind ourselves that the measure of progress for those who marched 50 years ago was not merely how many blacks could join the ranks of millionaires.  It was whether this country would admit all people who are willing to work hard regardless of race into the ranks of a middle-class life.  (Applause.)

The test was not, and never has been, whether the doors of opportunity are cracked a bit wider for a few.  It was whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many -- for the black custodian and the white steelworker, the immigrant dishwasher and the Native American veteran.  To win that battle, to answer that call -- this remains our great unfinished business. 

We shouldn’t fool ourselves.  The task will not be easy.  Since 1963, the economy has changed.  The twin forces of technology and global competition have subtracted those jobs that once provided a foothold into the middle class -- reduced the bargaining power of American workers.  And our politics has suffered.  Entrenched interests, those who benefit from an unjust status quo, resisted any government efforts to give working families a fair deal -- marshaling an army of lobbyists and opinion makers to argue that minimum wage increases or stronger labor laws or taxes on the wealthy who could afford it just to fund crumbling schools, that all these things violated sound economic principles.  We'd be told that growing inequality was a price for a growing economy, a measure of this free market; that greed was good and compassion ineffective, and those without jobs or health care had only themselves to blame.

And then, there were those elected officials who found it useful to practice the old politics of division, doing their best to convince middle-class Americans of a great untruth -- that government was somehow itself to blame for their growing economic insecurity; that distant bureaucrats were taking their hard-earned dollars to benefit the welfare cheat or the illegal immigrant.

And then, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that during the course of 50 years, there were times when some of us claiming to push for change lost our way.  The anguish of assassinations set off self-defeating riots.  Legitimate grievances against police brutality tipped into excuse-making for criminal behavior.  Racial politics could cut both ways, as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination.  And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support -- as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child, and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself.

All of that history is how progress stalled.  That's how hope was diverted.  It's how our country remained divided.  But the good news is, just as was true in 1963, we now have a choice. We can continue down our current path, in which the gears of this great democracy grind to a halt and our children accept a life of lower expectations; where politics is a zero-sum game where a few do very well while struggling families of every race fight over a shrinking economic pie -- that’s one path.  Or we can have the courage to change. 

The March on Washington teaches us that we are not trapped by the mistakes of history; that we are masters of our fate.  But it also teaches us that the promise of this nation will only be kept when we work together.  We’ll have to reignite the embers of empathy and fellow feeling, the coalition of conscience that found expression in this place 50 years ago. 

And I believe that spirit is there, that truth force inside each of us.  I see it when a white mother recognizes her own daughter in the face of a poor black child.  I see it when the black youth thinks of his own grandfather in the dignified steps of an elderly white man.  It’s there when the native-born recognizing that striving spirit of the new immigrant; when the interracial couple connects the pain of a gay couple who are discriminated against and understands it as their own. 

That’s where courage comes from -- when we turn not from each other, or on each other, but towards one another, and we find that we do not walk alone.  That’s where courage comes from. (Applause.)

And with that courage, we can stand together for good jobs and just wages.  With that courage, we can stand together for the right to health care in the richest nation on Earth for every person.  (Applause.)  With that courage, we can stand together for the right of every child, from the corners of Anacostia to the hills of Appalachia, to get an education that stirs the mind and captures the spirit, and prepares them for the world that awaits them.  (Applause.)

With that courage, we can feed the hungry, and house the homeless, and transform bleak wastelands of poverty into fields of commerce and promise.

America, I know the road will be long, but I know we can get there.  Yes, we will stumble, but I know we’ll get back up.  That’s how a movement happens.  That’s how history bends.  That's how when somebody is faint of heart, somebody else brings them along and says, come on, we’re marching.  (Applause.)

There’s a reason why so many who marched that day, and in the days to come, were young -- for the young are unconstrained by habits of fear, unconstrained by the conventions of what is.  They dared to dream differently, to imagine something better.  And I am convinced that same imagination, the same hunger of purpose stirs in this generation.

We might not face the same dangers of 1963, but the fierce urgency of now remains.  We may never duplicate the swelling crowds and dazzling procession of that day so long ago -- no one can match King’s brilliance -- but the same flame that lit the heart of all who are willing to take a first step for justice, I know that flame remains.  (Applause.)  

That tireless teacher who gets to class early and stays late and dips into her own pocket to buy supplies because she believes that every child is her charge -- she’s marching.  (Applause.)

That successful businessman who doesn't have to but pays his workers a fair wage and then offers a shot to a man, maybe an ex-con who is down on his luck -- he’s marching.  (Applause.)

The mother who pours her love into her daughter so that she grows up with the confidence to walk through the same door as anybody’s son -- she’s marching.  (Applause.)

The father who realizes the most important job he’ll ever have is raising his boy right, even if he didn't have a father -- especially if he didn't have a father at home -- he’s marching.  (Applause.)

The battle-scarred veterans who devote themselves not only to helping their fellow warriors stand again, and walk again, and run again, but to keep serving their country when they come home -- they are marching.  (Applause.)

Everyone who realizes what those glorious patriots knew on that day -- that change does not come from Washington, but to Washington; that change has always been built on our willingness, We The People, to take on the mantle of citizenship -- you are marching.  (Applause.)

And that’s the lesson of our past.  That's the promise of tomorrow -- that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it.  That when millions of Americans of every race and every region, every faith and every station, can join together in a spirit of brotherhood, then those mountains will be made low, and those rough places will be made plain, and those crooked places, they straighten out towards grace, and we will vindicate the faith of those who sacrificed so much and live up to the true meaning of our creed, as one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  (Applause.)  

END
3:36 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
August 28, 2013

Statement by the President Announcing the Appointment of Ambassador Donald Booth as U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan

Today I am pleased to announce the appointment of Ambassador Donald Booth as the new U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan.  Ambassador Booth is one of America’s most experienced diplomats, with broad experience helping promote peace and prevent conflict across Africa, including most recently as our Ambassador to Ethiopia.  With his considerable diplomatic talents, deep knowledge of the continent, and unwavering determination, I am confident that Ambassador Booth will advance U.S. interests in pursuing a durable and lasting peace between and within Sudan and South Sudan.

As my envoy, Ambassador Booth will spearhead U.S. efforts to press the parties to implement last year’s September 27 agreements and resolve their outstanding issues, including with respect to borders, the final status of Abyei, and ensuring the uninterrupted flow of oil.  He will also lead our efforts to bring the conflicts in Blue Nile, Southern Kordofan, and Darfur to a peaceful end, and to promote inclusive governance and full respect for human rights in both states.

Much work remains, but we know that when the governments of Sudan and South Sudan show political courage and put the interests of their people first, peace and progress are possible.

Click HERE for a photo of the President’s meeting with Ambassador Booth today in the Oval Office.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
August 27, 2013

Readout of the President’s Call with Prime Minister Cameron of the UK

The President and Prime Minister Cameron spoke today as part of their ongoing consultations about Syria.  The two leaders discussed possible responses by the international community to the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons on August 21 and agreed to stay in close consultation in the coming days.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
August 27, 2013

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology

On August 9, President Obama called for a high-level group of experts to review our intelligence and communications technologies.  Today the President met with the members of this group: Richard Clarke, Michael Morell, Geoffrey Stone, Cass Sunstein and Peter Swire.

These individuals bring to the task immense experience in national security, intelligence, oversight, privacy and civil liberties. The Review Group will bring a range of experience and perspectives to bear to advise the President on how, in light of advancements in technology, the United States can employ its technical collection capabilities in a way that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while respecting our commitment to privacy and civil liberties, recognizing our need to maintain the public trust, and reducing the risk of unauthorized disclosure.

The President thanked the Members of the Group for taking on this important task and looks forward to hearing from them as their work proceeds. Within 60 days of beginning their work, the Review Group will brief their interim findings to the President through the Director of National Intelligence, and the Review Group will provide a final report and recommendations to the President.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
August 27, 2013

Statement by the Press Secretary on North Korea

Today the State Department announced that the President’s Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues, Ambassador Robert King, will be adding a stop in North Korea to his current travels in the region.  We remain deeply concerned about the health and welfare of Kenneth Bae, the American citizen currently detained in North Korea.  We urge the government of North Korea to grant special clemency to Mr. Bae immediately and allow him to return home with Ambassador King.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
August 27, 2013

White House Appoints 2013-2014 Class of White House Fellows

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships announced the appointment of the 2013-2014 Class of White House Fellows. The Fellows come from diverse backgrounds, varied professions, and have all shown a strong commitment to public service and leadership. The 2013-2014 Class of Fellows and their biographies are included in the following pages.

The White House Fellows Program was created in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson to give promising American leaders “first hand, high-level experience with the workings of the Federal government, and to increase their sense of participation in national affairs.”  This unique opportunity to work within our nation’s government is designed to encourage active citizenship and a lifelong commitment to service. The Fellows also take part in an education program designed to broaden their knowledge of leadership, policy formulation, and current affairs. Community service is another essential element of the program, and Fellows participate in service projects throughout the year in the Washington, DC area.

Selection as a White House Fellow is highly competitive and based on a record of professional achievement, evidence of leadership potential, and a proven commitment to public service. Each Fellow must possess the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute meaningfully at senior levels in the Federal government. Throughout its history, the program has fostered leaders in many fields, including leaders in government, business, law, media, medicine, education, diplomacy and the military. Additional information about the White House Fellows program is available at www.whitehouse.gov/fellows.

2013-2014 Class of White House Fellows:

Charina Choi, San Francisco, CA, is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemistry at Stanford University. Her work focuses on the design of nanomaterials with unique optical and electronic properties and their development for biomedical, electronics, and energy applications. Charina’s research has produced several peer-reviewed publications, a patent, and presentations at national and international conferences. Her contributions have been further recognized through the UC Berkeley Dauben Fellowship, Benjamin Boussert Memorial Award, Materials Research Society Graduate Student Gold Award, and National Science Foundation American Competitiveness in Chemistry Postdoctoral Fellowship. Charina is the founder of Sciimpact, an annual conference for students and teachers from underserved Bay Area high schools, focused on the power of science to effect global change. She served on the founding committee for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Institute for Globally Transformative Technologies. Her community involvement includes volunteer work for numerous Bay Area organizations including Children’s Hospital Oakland, Camp Okizu, Chemistry in the Classroom, and the Youth Emergency Assistance Hostel. Charina received a B.S. in Chemistry with Honors from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley.

Brent J. Cohen, New York, NY, is the Director of Legislative and Government Affairs for the New York City Department of Probation, and an Adjunct Assistant Professor at New York University where his courses focus on juvenile justice reform.  In his role as Director, Brent successfully developed relationships with state and local elected officials to implement the department’s ambitious reform agenda, including the passage of the landmark “Close to Home” legislation, which realigned the juvenile justice system. Previously, Brent was the Special Assistant to the Commissioner for the New York City Departments of Correction and Probation where he conducted high-level policy analysis related to correction, probation, community development and effective city governance. Brent began his career in education, working for five years with a charter management organization where he spent two years as a teacher in South Los Angeles, and served as a founding staff member for three separate schools.  He earned a Bachelor of Arts in American Studies from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master of Public Administration from New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. 

Daniel Feehan, Chicago, IL, is a recent graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School where he studied urban poverty as well as education and veterans policy. Previously, he worked as a public school teacher, teaching 5th and 6th grade math in Gary, Indiana through Teach For America. Dan became a teacher after serving for four years as an Active Duty Army Officer and two years in the Illinois National Guard. He completed two deployments to Iraq where he served as an Engineer and Scout Platoon Leader responsible for finding roadside bombs and capturing insurgents that posed an imminent threat to the Iraqi people. He is the recipient of the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal with Valor, and the Ranger Tab. He holds a Master’s Degree in Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School and a Bachelor’s in the Science of Foreign Service from Georgetown University. He is a Dubin Fellow through the Harvard Center for Public Leadership, a Tillman Military Scholar, and a Chicago Mayoral Fellow. His athletic interests include long distance running, Ultimate Frisbee, and golf. Dan and his wife Amy are the proud parents of a two-year old son named Conor.

Justin Finnegan, Darien, CT, is Managing Director and Co-Founder of the Mountain Hazelnuts Group (MHG).  As Bhutan’s first 100% foreign direct investment, MHG takes a systemic approach to creating reliable income generation opportunities for Bhutan’s poorest families while restoring ecosystem health and maintaining community cohesion.  Justin oversees the operations of the social venture, which is planting 10 million hazelnut trees on degraded and fallow mountain slopes and connecting subsistence farmers to valuable international markets.  With nearly ten years of operations experience in Asia, he previously helped open and manage WestPoint Home’s Asia head office in Shanghai.  WestPoint Home was the world’s second largest home textile company with extensive manufacturing operations throughout Asia.  Justin was both a Fulbright and Trustman Scholar and spent two years conducting research in rural villages near China’s border with Tibet and Myanmar, focusing on the effects of agricultural policy on subsistence farmers.  He was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.  He received a BA from Harvard College in East Asian Studies, where he was named a Harvard-Yenching scholar, and an MBA from Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business.  Justin is fluent in written and spoken Chinese and proficient in French, Spanish, and Yunnanese.

Shirlethia V. Franklin, Shaw, MS, is a Senior Associate with the law firm Alston & Bird LLP in Atlanta, Georgia.  She is responsible for managing and defending complex litigation matters and counseling clients in the areas of product liability, toxic tort, mass tort, and medical malpractice law.  She currently serves as Vice-Chair of the Defense Research Institute’s Young Women in the Law Subcommittee and was the recipient of the Outstanding Subcommittee of the Year award while serving as Chair of the organization’s Public Service Subcommittee.  She was also selected as a 2012 Volunteer of the Year Honoree by the Truancy Intervention Project in recognition of her commitment to pro bono legal service.  Prior to joining Alston & Bird, Shirlethia served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Alexander Williams, Jr., in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.  She received a J.D. from Howard University School of Law, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal and was the sole recipient of the school’s Student of the Year and Next Generation Leadership awards.  She received a B.A., summa cum laude, in English from Tougaloo College, where she graduated class valedictorian and served as student body president.      

Erica Gonzalez, Pico Rivera, CA, is the Director of Public Policy and Community Partnerships for Green Dot Public Schools. She is responsible for executing Green Dot’s reform agenda by advocating at the local, state and federal level for education reform, supporting existing schools with compliance and oversight, the development of new schools and overseeing the implementation of community school models at the new Locke Wellness Center.  Prior to working at Green Dot she was the Associate Director of Barrio Action Youth and Family Center overseeing the capital campaign and construction of a $3.6 million new youth and family center and also worked as a legislative analyst for the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission.  She is a proud alumni of the Public Policy and International Affairs program, and the Hispanas Organized for Political Equality (HOPE) Leadership Institute.  In 2012, she was awarded the Mujer Destacada/Exceptional Woman award in the education category by La Opinion, the largest international Spanish language print newspaper.  She earned a B.A. in Political Science from the University of California Berkeley and Master of Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and had the opportunity to study abroad at the National Autonomous University in Mexico City, UNAM.

Cara LaPointe, Bethesda, MD, is a Commander in the United States Navy.  She serves as the Deputy Technical Director of the Littoral Combat Ship Program where she provides government technical oversight to $7 billion of shipbuilding contracts.  Previously, she served at the Naval Sea Systems Command working on surface force architecture and unmanned vehicle technology integration.  Cara is a patented engineer, and she has deployed to the Persian Gulf and the Pacific in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle. An avid volunteer and humanitarian, Cara has served as an advocate for victims of sexual assault, volunteered in rural communities internationally from Honduras to Fiji, and, most recently, founded the Engineering Duty Officer Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Outreach Initiative.  Cara earned her Ph.D. in Mechanical and Oceanographic Engineering jointly from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, as well as an M.S. in Ocean Systems Management and a Nav.Eng. from MIT.  As a Fitzgerald Scholar, she received an M.Phil. in Development Studies from the University of Oxford where she studied marine resource management in the South Pacific.  Cara graduated as valedictorian of the United States Naval Academy with a B.S. in Ocean Engineering.

Debra McCoy, San Francisco, CA, manages Emerging and Frontier Market Investment Initiatives for Stanford Management Company, the entity responsible for investing the Stanford University endowment. At Stanford she conceived, developed, and co-taught a course in the Graduate School of Business about investing in frontier markets. She was also a Director of the Stanford Institute for Innovation in Developing Economies. Debbie’s professional background is global, with expertise in operating, investing, and advisory work. Debbie began her career at Bain & Company in San Francisco and Johannesburg. She subsequently was based in New York and New Delhi with Citigroup, and later worked on real asset projects and infrastructure related business expansion for investors and operating companies in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Her first job, building latrines in a rural Mexican town, inspired Debbie to dedicate her career efforts to advancing economic growth in developing economy countries through private enterprise and capital provision. Debbie graduated with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, from Howard University, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and received her MBA from Harvard Business School.

Robert McFarlin, Detroit, MI, is a Lieutenant Commander and Surface Warfare Officer in the United States Navy.  He has deployed to over 30 nations on six continents, most recently as Commanding Officer of USS TYPHOON in the Arabian Gulf supporting Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.  While in command, his crew earned the Golden Anchor award for outstanding retention and the coveted Battle “E” award as the number one ship in the Squadron.  In 2008, he circumnavigated South America on a counternarcotics deployment leading to the publication of an article on Strategic Communications in the historic U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings.  He served as an Assistant Professor at the University of Rochester and is the Co-Founder of TurnKey CashFlow Properties, LLC, a startup dedicated to transforming dilapidated inner city property into safe, low-income housing. He volunteers as a Big Brother mentor, with Habitat for Humanity and globally through the Navy’s Community Relations program.  He is a national director of the Surface Navy Association and the recipient of the peer-nominated Navy/Marine Corps Association Leadership Award.  Mac holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy and a Master of Business Administration from the University of Rochester’s Simon School of Business.

Kapil Parakh, Washington, DC, is a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins. He is the Director of Heart Failure at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center and Assistant Professor in the Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Behavior & Society. He leads heart failure quality improvements in collaboration with the Joint Commission's Center for Transforming Healthcare, using entrepreneurial techniques to cost-effectively improve outcomes. Kapil's research focuses on understanding the increased mortality in patients with depression after a heart attack. Passionate about teaching, Kapil is a clinician-educator and has mentored trainees in award winning research. Kapil is the co-founder of Health for America, a non-profit that mobilizes youth to improve the health of communities through innovation while shaping the next generation of leaders. In recognition of his contributions to public health, Kapil was recently inducted into the Delta Omega Public Health honor society. He has 27 scientific publications and serves as a peer-reviewer for a number of journals. Kapil is board certified in Internal Medicine, Cardiology and Advanced Heart Failure and Transplantation. Kapil received a BS and MD from the University of Zambia with honors, as well as a MPH and PhD from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Maura Sullivan, Palo Alto, CA, is a Senior Director at RMS, a global risk modeling firm, where she leads the development of multidisciplinary structural models for managing complex systemic risks in life and health markets. She advises the financial and insurance industry on mortality-causing catastrophic events, such as infectious disease pandemics, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks, and was part of a taskforce charged with developing financial risk regulations in Europe. She creates medical models that assess the impacts of changes in society, policy, and medical technology on longevity, and assists financial institutions in offsetting their mortality and longevity risk internally and by transferring the risk to the capital markets. Maura is active in community activities related to emergency response, disasters, and technology entrepreneurship. Her search and rescue dog specializes in wilderness rescue for the California Rescue Dog Association and Yosemite National Park. Maura played collegiate rugby and lacrosse, holds a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and is an active kiteboarder, swimmer, and runner.  She earned a Ph.D. in epidemiology from Emory University as a recipient of the Woodruff Fellowship, and a B.S and M.S. in earth systems from Stanford University, focusing in energy engineering and climate modeling.

Victor Wu, Kingsport, TN, is a primary care physician, and most recently served as Chief Medical Resident at Grady Memorial Hospital for the Emory University Internal Medicine Residency program. He helped oversee daily training of resident physicians and coordinated medical student and resident education. Before this, Victor completed his clinical training at Emory working primarily with Atlanta’s underserved and vulnerable patients at Grady Hospital. He was recognized for excellence in clinical care (Most Outstanding Intern, Outstanding Primary Care Award), professionalism (HOPE award), and research (Helen Miller Research award).  Additionally, Victor has published several peer-reviewed manuscripts and collaborated with the Institute of Medicine developing a Health Insurance Literacy tool kit. He has also worked for McKinsey & Co in its healthcare practice. Victor is active in his community where he volunteers at the Open Door Community homeless medical clinic, captained an Ultimate Frisbee team that has competed at the USAU National Championships multiple years, served as a high school tutor for low-income students, and participated in local health advocacy through HealthSTAT. Victor earned his M.D. from Emory University, his M.P.H. in Health Policy and Management from  Rollins School of Public Health, and graduated summa cum laude and Tau Beta Pi from Vanderbilt University with a B.E. in Biomedical Engineering.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
August 27, 2013

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 8/27/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:02 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being here, as ever.  I have no announcements to make at the top of this briefing, so I will go straight to Julie Pace.

Q    Thank you.  Has the President made any decision in the last 24 hours or so on what the U.S. response to the Syrian chemical weapons attack would be?

MR. CARNEY:  The President continues to work with his national security team reviewing the options available to him.  And when he has made a decision and has an announcement to make he'll make it.  So that process continues.

Q    So he has not made a decision at this point?

MR. CARNEY:  Correct.

Q    And there’s a lot of speculation that this intelligence report that presumably would link Assad directly to the chemical weapons attack might be released today.  Can you give us an update on the timing?

MR. CARNEY:  What I would say is that yesterday I made clear that the intelligence community is working on an assessment and that once we had that assessment we would provide information to the public about it in the coming days.  And that remains true.  I think that that’s speculation that it would come today rather than some other day.  But it will come and I think you can expect it this week. 

Let me also say, and I think that both Secretary Kerry and I attempted to make clear yesterday that there is no doubt here that chemical weapons were used on a massive scale on August 21st outside of Damascus.  There is also very little doubt, and should be no doubt for anyone who approaches this logically, that the Syrian regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on August 21st outside of Damascus. 

We have established with a high degree of confidence that the Syria regime has used chemical weapons already in this conflict.  We have made clear that it is our firm assessment that the Syrian regime has maintained control of the stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria throughout this conflict.  It is also the case that the Syrian regime has the rocket capacity to deliver the chemical weapons as they were delivered with repugnant results on August 21st outside of Damascus.

So the deliberations that are taking place now and the options that are being considered by the President and his national security team are not around the question of whether or not chemical weapons were used in Syria on a significant scale, causing mass death and injury to innocent civilians -- to women and children.  It is not around the question of whether or not the Syrian regime is responsible.  It’s around the question of what is the appropriate response to this clear violation of international norms.

Q    But it’s your expectation the intel report -- that it will provide some type of evidence that clearly shows, beyond sort of taking all of these pieces that we know and inferring that this must be the Assad regime -- will this be tangible evidence --

MR. CARNEY:  There will be more information provided with what we can give to you in an unclassified manner to the public from the intelligence community.  But this is not just an inference.  This is not just the U.S. government asserting it.  I think you saw the statement from the Arab League.  I think you’ve seen multiple eyewitness accounts, video accounts.  You’ve seen statements from independent organizations working in Syria, like Doctors Without Borders.  Some of your colleagues who are risking their lives to cover this story in Syria have provided substantial confirmation of what occurred on August 21st. 

So what the President is engaged in is a process of deciding, as he consults with international allies and as his administration consults with Congress, about what the appropriate response to this flagrant violation of international norms should be.  And there must be a response.

Q    And then finally, British Prime Minister David Cameron is recalling Parliament this week.  There’s going to be a motion put forward on Thursday, a vote on authorizing the British response.  Is it fair to say that President Obama is not going to recall Congress to seek some type of similar measure before proceeding?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, I don’t want to engage in speculation about a course of action that has not been decided upon.  When the President has an announcement to make, he’ll make it.  As this process is undertaken, we are consulting directly with House and Senate leaders in Congress.  We are consulting directly with the leadership of the relevant committees as well as with other members of Congress who have a keen interest in this matter.  I think you’ve seen that documented by some members who have spoken to it.  And that process will continue.  We think it’s very important that the consultation process take place in a matter like this of such gravity. 

We are also, as we’ve made clear, engaging with our international partners.  There’s a substantial list of communications that the Secretary of State has had.  The President himself, as we’ve read out to you, has had consultations with Canadian Prime Minister Harper today, and in recent days with British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Hollande, and Australian Prime Minister Rudd.  And I would anticipate that the President will continue to make calls to his counterparts throughout the week.

When it comes to processes -- I think which goes to your question -- I’m not going to -- it presupposes a course of action that hasn’t been decided upon.

Q    But that fact that Cameron is in a position to recall his Parliament, says he’s going to put forward a motion on Thursday, seems to suggest that there is something that's been decided.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me just make a broad statement.  Obviously, this is a different country with a different form of government.  There is --

Q    I’m just talking about whether something has been decided.  I mean, the fact that he’s in a position to take this step on Thursday seems to indicate something has been decided.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, no, nothing has been decided, as I said in response to your first question.  We are in direct contact with Prime Minister Cameron and his government, and the President himself has spoken with the Prime Minister, as he has with other foreign leaders, and those consultations will continue.  And we share the views of the British government about the appalling nature of the transgression that occurred in Syria, and are consulting with the British and other allies and partners about the appropriate response. 

Q    Jay, you were very firm in saying just now that there’s little doubt that the Syrian regime was, in fact, responsible for this chemical attack.  So in that context, what is the purpose of this intelligence report?  Is it to legitimize -- to get rid of any remaining doubt and, therefore, legitimize a response in the eyes of the international community?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not aware of any doubt that exists.  I think that maybe if you take Bashar al-Assad seriously on these matters you might have some doubt.  But there's no evidence to suggest that he has any credibility when it comes to his statements about the use of chemical weapons in Syria.  The actions taken by his regime in response to in the immediate aftermath of this heinous attack demonstrate his lack of credibility.  And we believe that a careful review of the facts leads to the conclusion that the regime was behind this. 

Again, it's undeniable that chemical weapons were used on a large scale.  We know that the regime maintains custody of the chemical weapons in Syria and uses the types of rockets that were used to deliver chemical weapons on August 21.  The opposition does not.  We also know that the opposition does not have the capabilities that the Syrian regime has.  And, as I mentioned earlier, we have already had an assessment by the intelligence community with a high degree of confidence that the Syrian regime has used on a smaller scale chemical weapons in this conflict already.  So suggestions that there's any doubt about who is responsible for this are as preposterous as suggestions that the attack itself didn’t occur.

Q    Secretary Hagel said, I guess it was yesterday, that any actions taken would be in concert with the international community and within the framework of legal justification.  Is any legal justification lacking prior to any action by the United States on this?  And does the international community need any further convincing?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not going to make legal justifications for actions that haven't been decided upon.  When the President makes a decision about what the appropriate response for the United States is, we will and he will provide ample context for the decision that he makes.  But prior to that, I'm not going to speculate about what that context will be because an announcement has not been made and a decision is pending, as the President and his team review the options available to them.

Q    And finally, the United States yesterday postponed with Russia talks in The Hague.  Russia calls that regrettable.  What is the United States trying to say or communicate to Russia about Syria -- that it should accept a military response; that it should not stand in the way or object?  What are we trying to communicate to Russia?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the meeting that you mentioned has been postponed, not cancelled.  We are very engaged in the process of pursuing a political resolution to this conflict.  We have stated for a long time that there is no military solution available here; that the way to bring about a better future in Syria is through negotiation and a political resolution.  And it is our firm belief that Bashar al-Assad has long since forsaken any legitimacy that he might have to lead, and that Syria's future must be one that is without Assad in power.  But that is a process that has to take place through negotiation.  And we will continue to engage in all of the many ways that we have in an effort to bring about that reconciliation -- or that process, that settlement. 

But what we are focused on this week, obviously, is the response to a specific violation of international norms.  And I think it's important -- I was asked about this yesterday and I think it's important to look at what we're talking about when we talk about international norms.  The effort to deal with the scourge of chemical weapons has been undertaken at an international level since the mid-19th century, and in particular, since the end of World War I, when forces on both sides of that conflict engaged in the horrific use of poison gas. 
The Chemical Weapons Convention has more than 150 signatories and makes clear that the use and proliferation of chemical weapons is a clear violation of international norms, and that it is absolutely in the national security interest of the Unites States and in the international community that the use of chemical weapons on the scale that we saw on August 21st cannot be ignored.  It must be responded to. 

Because to allow it to happen without a response would be to invite further use of chemical weapons and to have that international standard dissolve.  And the consequences of that, given the volatility of the region and the concerns that this nation and many others have about proliferation of chemical weapons, would be very serious indeed.

Jim.

Q    I don't want to say that there are word games going on here, but you’re saying that there will be -- I’m definitely not saying that.

MR. CARNEY:  Sure, sure.

Q    But you're saying that there will be a response, but the President has not made a decision yet.  It is safe to say, though, at this point that the Syrian government will pay a price for what has happened?

MR. CARNEY:  There must be a response.  Secretary Kerry made that clear, at the President’s instruction, yesterday.  I echoed that here yesterday, and I’m echoing it again today.  There must be a response.  We cannot allow this kind of violation of an international norm with all the attendant grave consequences that it represents to go unanswered.  What form that response will take is what the President is assessing now with his team.

Q    And as the President weighs his options, does he want to take out Assad?  And would his death be a welcomed outcome at this White House?

MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate the question.  I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change.  They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.

We are also very much engaged in an effort to support the opposition in its struggle with the Assad regime as the Assad regime continues to try to massacre its own people in an effort to maintain power.  And it is our firm conviction that Syria’s future cannot include Assad in power.

But this deliberation and the actions that we are contemplating are not about regime change.  We believe, as I said earlier in answer to Mark’s question, that resolution of this conflict has to come through political negotiation and settlement.

Q    And because so much blood and treasure has been spilled and spent in both Afghanistan and Iraq, if some sort of military action will be taken -- obviously the President will be talking about that to the American people -- but how much should the American people expect, prepare themselves for, in terms of sacrifices being made by people inside the armed forces?  And are there cost estimates being put together in terms of how much this is going to cost?  And will it run us up against that debt ceiling sooner than expected?

MR. CARNEY:  All excellent questions, most of them assuming a decision has been made, and I’m not going to sort of speculate about a decision that hasn’t been made yet.  So a lot of those questions we’ll certainly take once the President has announced the course of action that he’s chosen,  What I can tell you is the President has made clear that he does not envision a situation in Syria that would lead to U.S. boots on the ground, and that remains the case.  And I’ve also tried to make clear that --

Q    You can have boots in the air.  (Laughter.) 

MR. CARNEY:  I'm trying to see that.  Yes.

Q    Theoretically speaking. 

MR. CARNEY:  Theoretically speaking.  But I think the President has been clear about that, Jim.  And I think that that applies generally to the Syrian conflict, but also specifically to the responses contemplated here with regards to the use of chemical weapons. 

Yes, Jim.

Q    So just so I'm clear, the White House has decided that there must be a response.  Does that mean that there must be a military response?  Or are there other things possible still on the agenda?  Could it be further sanctions, or economic in any way, or is this a military response you're talking about?

MR. CARNEY:  I'll say two things.  First, we have made clear for a long time, notwithstanding our views about the fact that we don’t envision U.S. boots on the ground in Syria, that we retain -- and the President retains all options available to him in Syria, and that includes military options.  And that is the case here in response to this transgression.

But a decision about the use of military force has not been made.  The President is reviewing his options -- plural.  And obviously, his options are many and they include a variety of possibilities that are not limited to the use of force.

Q    And one other thing I wanted to ask you about, and that is on the -- you say that the reason why the United States has come to the decision that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack was because they have the rockets to deliver it. And there's no evidence that they -- are we sure there's no evidence that they have lost any control of any stockpiles of chemical weapons?  Is our intelligence that there's not been a chemical depot somewhere that's been overrun by al Qaeda forces or other rebels in that country?  Do we know that?

MR. CARNEY:  We have a high degree of confidence, based on our assessments, that the Syrian regime has maintained full control of its chemical weapons stockpiles throughout this conflict.  It is our conviction that the Syrian regime has the rocket capability that was employed to devastating effect in this chemical weapons attack. 

It is abundantly obvious to those who have covered this conflict, who were covering it last week, to the international organizations present on the ground, that the Syrian regime was engaged in an effort to clear these particular regions of opposition forces with violent force prior to the use of chemical weapons and, in the immediate aftermath of the use of chemical weapons, prevented the U.N. inspections team from going in to establish that weapons had been used as they continued to bombard the neighborhood.  And they continued to do that yesterday after the U.N. inspection team, finally, after being attacked, was able to make it to one area that they needed to visit.  After they left they continued to bombard the area, which is a clear effort to try to dispose of evidence.

Q    And finally, just one more if I could, and that is, if the aim here is to make sure or to punish the Syrian government for using chemical weapons and to discourage them from using them again, there are those who argue that the best way to do that is, in fact, to take out Assad and to have regime change.  What is the argument against that from the White House, from those who are calling for --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as I noted earlier, the options that are being considered do not contain within them a regime change focus, and that is not what we are contemplating here.  We are examining options to respond to this violation. 

And as I tried to say yesterday, this is obviously a terrible conflict that has exacted a horrific price on the Syrian people and the region, and it is ongoing.  And we have stepped up our support for the opposition and our humanitarian support for the Syrian people and for the countries that are dealing with the refugee crisis related to the Syrian conflict.

The use of chemical weapons on the scale that we saw is a separate and distinct fact that needs to be responded to, and it will be responded to in some form.  Because the President believes, and many of our allies and partners clearly believe, and as I stated earlier and I understated the number of nations who have participated in the Chemical Weapons Convention -- it’s 189 nations representing about 98 percent of the global population -- all have a stake in ensuring that that international norm is maintained and respected.  And so a clear violation of it, a flagrant violation of it, that has resulted in mass death, the killing of innocent women and children, has to be responded to.

Q    And I understand that, Jay.  But what my question is, what is the response as to -- if the way to do this, as some say is, and prevent it from happening again is to take out the guy who’s doing it, what’s the reason why the White House doesn’t want to do that?  Why don’t you want to do that?

MR. CARNEY:  It is not our position -- it is not our policy position to respond to this through regime change.  We will take an appropriate response, and we are evaluating -- the President and his team are evaluating the options available to them.  And the President will make an assessment and an announcement in due time. 

We also maintain a policy with regards to the conflict which has us providing significant support to the opposition, significant humanitarian support to the Syrian people that is designed to help bring about a transition in Syria, a political transition, that will allow Syria the future that its people deserve.

Q    But I don’t think you’re answering why you ruled it out.  The why is --

MR. CARNEY:  It is not our policy to respond to this transgression to a regime change.

Yes.

Q    Is it necessary for the United Nations to arbitrate this international violation?

MR. CARNEY:  Obviously, the United Nations has an interest in this.  They have an inspection team in.  They and others have made clear that the mandate of that inspection team is to establish whether or not chemical weapons were used.  That has absolutely and undeniably already been established.  They are not assigned the responsibility of assigning culpability.  So the work of that team is redundant, you might say, because it is clearly established already that chemical weapons have been used on a significant scale.

We are engaged in international consultations.  And we have not decided upon what course of action the United States will take, and therefore it’s premature to talk about the context and the means of moving forward once a decision has been made.  Once we have something to announce we’ll provide the context around it.

Q    But it’s not necessarily required, from the President’s point of view, that the United Nations and the Security Council be the one to say, yes, an international violation has occurred and therefore something must be done in response?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don't think there’s any doubt, and I don't see anyone contradicting it -- anybody with any credibility in the world -- that chemical weapons were used on a significant scale in Syria, so the transgression is established.  Beyond that, we will have more to say once a decision has been made about the response that will be taken.

Broadly speaking, I think it’s important to note that it is in the clear national security interest of the United States that the use or proliferation of chemical weapons on this scale not go unanswered.  The consequences of a dissolution of that norm would be profoundly not in the interest of the United States or in the international community, in particular in this highly volatile region, but also around the world.

Q    You’ve mentioned the volatility of the region.  Syria said if there is an attack, there might be a response directed at Israel.  Israel has said it will respond forcefully to anything that comes its way from Syria.  Among the risks, which are many, involved in this, how concerned is the President and the White House about this not becoming just a Syrian problem but a wider regional problem if, in fact, there is a military response that has a coalition of not just the United States but Britain, France and others?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I’m not going to speculate about decisions that haven’t been made, and we’ll have more to say when an announcement is forthcoming.

I would note that the Syrian conflict has already had profound negative conflict -- consequences to other countries in the region.  I would note also that when we talk about the instability in the region and the volatility in the region that Syria borders an ally -- a NATO ally of the United States in Turkey, and a close friend and partner of the United States in Jordan.  And both of those nations have felt significant consequences as a result of this conflict and have a great deal at stake when we talk about the use and proliferation of chemical weapons.

So, again, I'm not going to go down the road of making justifications for actions that have not been decided upon.  I urge you to wait until we have an announcement to make.

Q    But is one of the reasons not to seek regime change and to have something that is being described as singular and responsive to chemical weapons and therefore of shorter duration and likelihood to avoid the spillover effects that might occur if there was a more sustained military campaign?

MR. CARNEY:  There's all sorts of hypotheticals we could engage in about decisions that haven't been made, and they're all substantive and interesting.  But I think that before we go down that road, I want to make clear that the President is engaged in a process of reviewing his options in response to the undeniable use of chemical weapons and our conviction that those weapons were used by the regime.  And not just our conviction; I would point you to the statement today by the Arab League, which was very forceful, as well as by Prime Minister Cameron and others.

Ed.

Q    Congresswoman Barbara Lee -- you'll remember she was the only member of Congress to vote against the war in Afghanistan after 9/11 -- she said today she agrees with you that chemical weapons were used, that it's troubling, it's unacceptable, but she said there's no military solution in Syria. And so she said, "Congress needs to have a full debate before the U.S. commits to any military force."  Do you disagree?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I made clear I think, in answer to other questions, that we completely agree that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria, that there has to be a political transition.  And we are engaged in a process with many countries as well as with the opposition to help bring about that transition.  In the meantime, as Assad continues to brutally assault and murder his own people, we have provided assistance and stepped up assistance to the military opposition in Syria as we help the opposition itself unify.

Q    But should Congress have a full debate on whether or not military force would be used?

MR. CARNEY:  We are engaging in what we believe our responsibility is here, which is to consult with Congress -- that process is underway -- about what happened --

Q    Authorize -- not consult, but authorize force.

MR. CARNEY:  Again, you're asking me to speculate about courses of action --

Q    This discussion has to happen before military force is used --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, as I said -- you're talking about courses of action based on --

Q    So the President is not considering military action? 

MR. CARNEY:  I certainly didn’t say that.

Q    He’s considering military action, so why not have a debate in Congress about whether that’s the right way?

MR. CARNEY:  Congress can have the debate.  The issue here is you're asking me about what Congress should do if the President makes a certain decision.  And what I've made clear repeatedly, both yesterday and today, is that the President is reviewing his options with his national security team.  We have never taken military force off the table and we will not now in response to this flagrant violation of international norms.  And when we have an announcement to make, we'll make it.  And we will provide all the necessary context about the response that we've decided upon.

Q    In 2007, the Boston Globe asked candidates running for president to answer a series of written questions, and one was in the context of Iran:  Does the President have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use of force authorization from Congress?  Candidate Obama said, "The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Does the President still agree with that? 

MR. CARNEY:  Absolutely.  But you're also trying to get me to engage in a discussion about a decision that has --

Q    But it's not a hypothetical anymore. 

MR. CARNEY:  It is a hypothetical, Ed.

Q    You have to admit the military option has been on the table for a year, a year and a half.

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.

Q    Now it's not about hypotheticals.  We are maybe within days, if not hours, of the President making a decision, correct?

MR. CARNEY:  It is correct that the President is working with his national security team reviewing the options available to him to respond to the clear violation of an international norm by the Syrian regime with the use of, on a significant scale, chemical weapons against innocent civilians, A. 

B, as I made clear, it is clearly in the United States' national security interests that that norm be maintained because the consequences of that standard dissolving are enormous and very detrimental to the interest of the United States and very detrimental to the international community, to our allies and partners in the region, and to the world at large.

Q    But you're saying that's the standard today.  But I'm saying the standard in 2007 to candidate Obama was an actual or imminent threat to the nation.  Do you believe that exists right now, an actual imminent threat to the United States?

MR. CARNEY:  I believe that absolutely allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security interests. 

Q    Not just to our allies in the region, but to the United States?

MR. CARNEY:  Correct. 

Q    Jay, I just want to be clear on the role that the U.N. investigators are playing.  You said yesterday during the briefing that you do not have confidence the U.N. can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened.  So does that mean that their findings won't play a role in President Obama's ultimate decision?

MR. CARNEY:  The mandate of the inspection team is to establish whether or not chemical weapons were used.  That's been established incontrovertibly, undeniably.  I don't think anybody in this room, anybody who is covering it, any international organization that's there, or any nation that I'm aware of outside the Syrian regime has made an assertion to the contrary.

Q    So does the President need to wait for them to come to their ultimate conclusion before making a decision?  Will he?

MR. CARNEY:  There is the issue of were chemical weapons used; that is what the United Nations inspection team is mandated to discover.  Since that has been already discovered, I'm not sure that they need to fulfill their mandate.  But as I say that, I want to be clear, as I was yesterday, that this country, this administration has been a strong proponent of the U.N. inspection team and having it provided all the necessary access to establish whether or not chemical weapons have been used.  And of course, Assad has blocked that repeatedly.

And even in this case, where they said in the initial aftermath of the attack that they welcomed an inspection team, they then blocked -- even though the inspection team was 45 minutes way -- they blocked access for four or five -- for five days, as they bombarded the neighborhoods to try to eliminate the evidence of chemical weapons use.

So the credibility of the Assad regime here is obviously close to zero.  The use of chemical weapons on a significant scale is undeniable, and so the mandate has been fulfilled in many ways.

Q    So just to be clear, they could be there until Sunday. President Obama could make a decision before Sunday.  Should we expect that?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals about when decisions are going to be made, when courses of action may be engaged in.  I will simply say, as Secretary Kerry did yesterday, that the violation is undeniable.  It is our firm conviction that the Assad regime is responsible.  Logic dictates that conclusion, as well as the hard facts.  And the President is working with his national security team to evaluate the options available to him to respond, as well as consulting with international allies and consulting with members of Congress.

Q    I just want to get your reaction to something that Senator John McCain said, Jay.  He said, “Assad was able to use chemical weapons before and there was no response.  And so why not do it again?  This should surprise no one.  They viewed that not as a red line, but as a green light, and they acted accordingly.”  What is your reaction?  And is the President satisfied he’s done enough to prevent --

MR. CARNEY:  As I said yesterday when we established with a high degree of confidence that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons on a small scale, relatively small scale, we did respond and we stepped up our assistance to the Syrian --

Q    But did you stop this apparent larger attack? 

MR. CARNEY:  And there will be a response to this not “apparent,” but clear and undeniable large-scale attack.  And that is what is under deliberation at this time.

Carol.

Q    I just want to clarify -- at the beginning of the briefing you said that you had very little doubt the Assad regime was responsible for this, and you said there should be no doubt. And then you just most recently said the White House has a firm conviction that it was the Assad regime.  So are you -- in the White House’s view, you’re 100 percent sure that the Assad regime is responsible for this?

MR. CARNEY:  We see no evidence of any alternative scenario. The regime has already used chemical weapons in this conflict against its own people on a small scale.  It has maintained firm control of the stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria.  It has the rockets and the rocket capability that were employed in this chemical weapons attack.  And it was engaged in an assault against these neighborhoods prior to the use of chemical weapons and in the aftermath of the use of these chemical weapons.  You would have to be credulous indeed to entertain an alternative scenario that could only be fanciful. 

Obviously, we are working and discussing this with our international partners.  We are consulting with members of Congress.  And, as I mentioned earlier, the intelligence community is working on an assessment, and we will have conclusions that can be provided to the public available this week.  But I think it’s important to note that it is clear already that chemical weapons were used on a large scale -- undeniable -- and that the Assad regime is the only possible force that could have deployed them.  And there has to be a response to that clear violation of international norms.

Q    And then just one other thing, more broadly -- when the President is facing a situation like the deliberations that he’s currently having about what to do in response to Syria, what does the White House think its obligations are under the War Powers Resolution?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don’t want to speculate about courses of action that haven’t been decided upon, and that involves --

Q    I understand.  I mean, in general, what is the President’s philosophical -- how does he view his role and the White House’s role in terms of what he’s obligated to do under that resolution?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we feel, generally, that it is essential to consult with leaders of Congress, and that is what we’re doing in a matter like this, even as we engage in a process of evaluating the options available to us.  And that’s why we’re doing what we’re doing.  And that’s why we’ve, as I think you’ve seen reported, had discussions with relevant members of Congress, and leaders of committees and leaders of the Congress at large.

Q    Jay, following the inevitable response, whatever it will be, what steps is the U.S. prepared to take to secure the chemical weapons stockpiles?

MR. CARNEY:  The disposition of chemical weapons in Syria has long been a significant concern of the United States and our allies and partners, and it will continue to be a significant concern.  We have, as I’ve said earlier, confidence that the Syrian regime has maintained control of the chemical weapons in Syria.  They have also used the chemical weapons under their control in Syria against innocent Syrians on several occasions on a small scale, and now on August 21st on a large scale, and that's a repugnant fact. 

But I can't predict anything beyond the fact that this remains a significant concern of the United States.  The proliferation -- the disposition of weapons of mass destruction, the potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is an obvious concern of the United States, and the President has made it a very high priority to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Q    So you’ve excluded -- the President has -- boots on the ground in Syria.  You’ve also outlined the concerns about the threats to the neighbors there.  So short of boots on the ground, what could the U.S. do to make sure that those stockpiles are secure?

MR. CARNEY:  We have made clear throughout this conflict our views about the disposition of and the potential use or proliferation of chemical weapons in Syria.  That's what we’re discussing now.  The violation is clear, and it has to be responded to in order to establish around the world that the Chemical Weapons Convention that 98 percent of the population has signed on to has to be respected.  Because the consequences of not respecting it are significant and grave, and threaten the national security of the United States as well as the international community.

So I can't predict, as this conflict continues, what course of action the regime might take with its stockpiles of chemical weapons.  What I can tell you is that the use of those weapons or the proliferation of those weapons must be, in our view, responded to because of the gravity of that transgression. 

Roger.

Q    Whatever decision is made and whenever it's made, will the President seek U.N. approval or some sort of backing?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I can't speculate about context here until the President has decided upon a course of action in response to this violation.  There will be a response, but questions like that depend on the course of action he decides to take. 

Q    So you’re leaving the door open for now?

MR. CARNEY:  I suppose you could say that, Roger.  I'm simply saying that I'm not going to speculate about a course of action that hasn't been decided upon.

Q    One other thing.  Does it make sense for the President to consult with G20 leaders in person next week before deciding?

MR. CARNEY:  The President believes that this is a grave transgression and it merits a response.  He will obviously take the time necessary to evaluate the options available to him in deciding upon what is the appropriate response by the United States in consultation with our allies and partners, in consultation with leaders in Congress.  And when he has decided upon a course of action, he will obviously inform the public about it.  I wouldn’t put a timetable on it. 

The President will be, as you know, attending the G20 Summit, but that’s a fixed date and we are in the process of evaluating options in response to this transgression this week.

Q    Jay, you said earlier that Assad had a strategic purpose in using these weapons -- he was trying to clear this area.  Putting aside the goal of regime change, which you said is not yours right now, do we have any strategic goal at all?  In developing this response, is the goal to change the dynamic on the ground, balance of power, in any way?

MR. CARNEY:  It is our view that the use of chemical weapons on the scale that we have seen now on August 21st, in Syria, merits a response.  And it has to be clear that there is a consequence to that clear a violation of international norms.

So the goal here is to make clear that this is unacceptable; that it is a red line that has been crossed, and it is a red line that was established by 198 nations -- 98 percent of the world's population.  And to allow it to happen without a response would be to give a green light to the Assad regime and other potential users of chemical weapons that there will be no consequences to the use of chemical weapons, and that is profoundly not in the interest of the United States, our allies and partners, to the region, or the world.

Q    Is that a strategic goal, or are you just trying to send a message?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not sure the distinction you're making.  We are making -- we are evaluating options available to the United States to respond to this clear violation of an international norm.

Q    Is the goal to have an impact on the conflict?

MR. CARNEY:  I think I made clear yesterday that we are engaged in a long-term policy of supporting the opposition in its struggles against the brutal war being waged upon it by the Assad regime.  We are not evaluating this option as a measure to -- as part of an effort to effect the --

Q    This is a completely separate matter.

MR. CARNEY:  It is a separate matter, in our view, because it is a transgression of an international norm.  And our policy of support -- as I said multiple times today and yesterday, it is our view that the conflict, the ongoing conflict in Syria has to be resolved through a political transition.  It cannot be resolved through a military resolution.

Q    One of the reasons you're supporting the rebels is to convince Assad to come to the negotiating table.  I thought that was the purpose of -- sometimes military effort is to achieve a negotiated outcome.  So this is not -- you’re not trying to --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, there’s no question that we view it as the correct policy, as do many nations around the world, to support the opposition in its efforts to withstand the brutal assault that Assad has been waging.  Ultimately, though, there has to be a political process that creates the transition necessary for Syria’s future.

Q    So I guess my follow-up to that is you’re potentially about to spend many hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in this response.  If it doesn't have a strategic purpose, why bother?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the purpose of a response is to make clear that the violation of an international norm that has been agreed to by the overwhelming majority of the nations of this world cannot go without a response, because the consequence of that would be damaging to U.S. national security interests, to the national security interest of nations around the world, and would do great harm to an already extremely volatile region of the world.

Q    Is there any message in your response for Iran?  Obviously, the message to Syria is pretty clear, as you've described it.  Any message in this for Iran? 

MR. CARNEY:  Our view is that the use or proliferation of chemical weapons -- weapons of mass destruction -- has to be responded to.  And I think that that has to be made clear to any potential user of these kinds of weapons. 

Christi.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  The President just on Thursday said that if one country attacked another without a U.N. mandate, it would raise questions about whether international law supported it.  When he said “U.N. mandate” in that context, what did he mean?

MR. CARNEY:  Christi, I don't want to engage in speculation about what decision the President will make or a course of action he has decided.  I think as I said in answer to Ed's question, that the President has long said as a candidate and as President that he will absolutely take action when he views that the national security interests of the United States are at stake.

Q    So let me just ask this:  Is it possible to have a U.N. mandate without having a Security Council resolution?

MR. CARNEY:  You'd have to ask our U.N. representation.

Q    But just conceptually, is that possible?

MR. CARNEY:  Conceptually, I think it's related to the question at hand.  And I'm not going to speculate about what courses of action we're going to take until the President has decided on the option he wants to embrace. 

Q    Today, a Wall Street Journal article says that why Obama is going into Syria after two years later -- the answer is Iran, because Iran has already involved itself in the war in Syria.  The Iran factor, in short, is the elephant in the room.  So is Iran a bigger trigger than chemical weapons for U.S.?

MR. CARNEY:  Iran has been involved in supporting the Assad regime for a long time in this conflict.  We've made clear that fact and what it says about who Assad's friends are.  The options we are assessing at this time have to do with our belief that the use of chemical weapons needs to be responded to.  And that is the context of the decision-making process that's underway.

April.

Q    Jay, at this time, is there irony for this White House and the President as you're 50 years out from celebrating and commemorating nonviolence and peace, and the President is looking at strong options against Syria?

MR. CARNEY:  The President has made clear ever since he launched his campaign for President that he, as Commander-in-Chief, will take actions necessary to defend the United States, to defend the national security of the United States, to defend the American people at home and abroad.  I think he gave a memorable speech about it, about his views on this matter, in Copenhagen in 2009.  And I think you've seen throughout his presidency his commitment to ending wars, as he has demonstrated by withdrawing from Iraq -- when he views that as in our national security interests -- to winding down the war in Afghanistan, which is happening now. 

But he has also demonstrated a commitment and a conviction that when national security interests of the United States are at stake, he will take action.  Again, that's a broad statement.  I am not presupposing in answer to any of these questions a course of action.  When the President has an announcement, he'll make it.

Q    Well, I'm going to ask you one last question.  What do you say to those -- especially those loud voices that we've heard with some of the most recent wars, people who don't want strikes, who just want peace?  What do you say to them?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't want to go down the road of answering a question that presupposes that the President has decided upon a course of action when he is evaluating options available to him. There are a variety of options available to him, and I will leave it to him to make that announcement when he has --

Q    Even though there are not boots on the ground, there could be military in the air.  And there are still possibilities as well.

MR. CARNEY:  Sure, that’s speculation about the options that are available to him.  But he is evaluating those options now. 

Let me make this -- Mike, the last one.

Q    The goal is essentially to punish the Assad regime and set an example of the Assad regime for violating the international norms.  How do you do that without weakening the Assad regime in a sort of a de facto way, turning the tide of the civil war, which you say should not happen -- their differences should be resolved by political means?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm saying that the decision to respond to the use of chemical weapons and the options that are under consideration as a response to that clear violation have to do with the use of chemical weapons. 

We have a policy of support for the opposition in Syria.  We have a policy of significant humanitarian support for the Syrian people and for refugees in other countries.  And that will continue.  But this is a clear and distinct violation of an international norm, and it is our view that, as Secretary Kerry made clear yesterday, that we must respond to it.

Q    So is it the goal of the United States to degrade the Assad regime's ability to deliver those chemical weapons?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, you're presupposing courses of action that haven't been decided upon. 

Q    But whatever the action is, would that be your goal?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, you're presupposing courses of action, when you're talking about degrading military capacities, that haven't been decided upon. 

Q    Could I ask a non-Syria question? 

MR. CARNEY:  Okay, last one.  Non-Syria.

Q    The President is meeting with mayors this afternoon about gun -- how to curb gun violence.  Is there some particular reason -- we haven't seen that in a while.  Is there a particular reason that’s on the plan for -- the schedule for today, this week?  And can you tell us, is there some specific piece of legislation or specific --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President remains committed to taking the action that we can, in the wake of Congress's and the Senate's, in particular, regrettable failure to pass common-sense legislation to improve our background check system, to take steps that we can to reduce gun violence in the United States. 

And we put forward -- the President put forward, with the Vice President, a comprehensive approach that included not just the legislative action that we believe needed to be taken, but also some executive action.  And we continue to work on those issues, and we continue to engage with stakeholders around the country, including mayors, on this issue because it is of great concern to them, as it is to this administration. 

Q    Are they talking about legislation then?  Possible legislation?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I'm not going to read out a meeting that hasn't happened.  But I would say that we continue to engage in an effort to do everything we can to reduce gun violence in the United States against the clear majority will of the country, of states that are not normally considered blue or even purple, the Senate chose to block common-sense legislation that would have simply improved a background check system that everybody believes is necessary to make sure that people who should not have guns can obtain them.  So I don't have a specific agenda for you except that this remains an issue the President and the administration are concerned about.

Q    I understand they're not coming out.  Will you release the list of mayors, please?

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll have to take the question.  I’m not sure of what our --

Q    Jay, on the speech tomorrow, can you --

MR. CARNEY:  I got to run, guys.  I hope you all can -- 

Q    Do you brief tomorrow, Jay?

MR. CARNEY:  Meetings, meetings.  We’ll see. 

END  
1:55 P.M. EDT