The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
April 24, 2013

Remarks by Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor to the President At the Launch of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy

Introduction

Thank you, Jason.  During your time at the White House, the President and our team counted on your deep knowledge of energy, climate and national security.   Thank you also to Columbia University.  You chose well in Jason and there could scarcely be a more timely moment for a Center like this one.   Finally, a special thanks to Dan Yergin, who has made an unparalleled contribution to how we understand and talk about energy.  Dan, I look forward to our discussion today.  But, I want to tell you that I think I should be interviewing you.  Congratulations also on hiring David Sandalow, who has been an important part of our team at the Department of Energy for the past four years, as your inaugural fellow. 

It is a bit unusual for a National Security Advisor to address an energy conference like this one.   So let me begin with a straightforward proposition:  energy matters profoundly to U.S. national security and foreign policy.   It matters because the availability of reliable, affordable energy is essential to our economic strength at home, which is the foundation for our leadership in the world.  It matters because scarce resources have driven both commerce and conflict since time immemorial—and still do today.   It matters because energy supplies present strategic leverage and disposable income for countries that have them.  It matters because the challenge of accessing affordable energy is one shared by people and businesses in every country in the world—in young democracies, emerging powers and developing economies; in allies and adversaries alike.  It matters because disruptions in supply anywhere can have economic impacts that are global. 

Energy shapes national interests and relations between nations.  It shapes politics, development and governance within nations.   And it shapes the security and stability of the climate and environment.   For all these reasons and many others, increasing global access to secure, affordable and ever cleaner supplies of energy is a global public good and a national interest of the United States.

Finally, at this moment in history, energy matters to those of us entrusted with U.S. national security because the United States is reaching an inflection point in the story that Dan Yergin has so expertly told.  We are in the midst of two changes that have presented themselves with great speed:  first, the substantial increase in the supply of available, affordable energy inside the United States – which is having important impacts on U.S. economic growth, energy security and geopolitics.  Second, a transformation in the global climate, driven by the world’s use of energy, that is presenting not just a transcendent challenge for the world but a present-day national security threat to the United States.  Both push us toward the same longer-term endpoint: the comprehensive transformation of the world’s energy economy toward cleaner, more sustainable energy solutions.
 
Today, I want to talk first about the changes underway and why they matter for U.S. national security.  Then, I want to explain how we intend to work, domestically and internationally, to seize the opportunities this moment presents and meet its challenges head on.

What We Are Seeing:  A Transformational Moment

Let me begin with a brief discussion of the changing context.   The current optimism about the U.S. and global energy picture is a relatively new development.  

In the 1940s, 50s and 60s, America was largely self-sufficient in oil production.  But in 1970, U.S. oil production peaked at over eleven million barrels per day, unable to keep up with growing U.S. demand.  In his Pulitzer-winning book, The Prize, Dan Yergin tells the story of the day in 1972 when the Texas Railroad Commission ended its decades-long practice of rationing oil supplies.  There was no more surplus oil left to ration.  The United States needed to consume it all.  This was a negative turning point whose implications for U.S. power in the world became painfully clear during the Arab oil embargo the following year.  Suddenly, the United States thought of itself as an energy poor nation, dependent on oil and subject to events beyond our shores.  That mindset held for nearly forty years. 

When President Obama took office, the energy picture looked decidedly different than it does today.  Indeed, forecasters said that the U.S. would need to double its imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) over the next five years.  There was renewed talk of “peak oil.”  Nearly every prediction about our energy future made five years ago has been turned on its head.  U.S. innovation and technology are allowing us to tap unconventional energy resources.  Total U.S. oil consumption peaked in 2005 and has been declining since—a trend the President’s energy efficiency initiatives, including new fuel efficiency standards and investment in new energy sources, will only deepen.   

To understand just how significantly and quickly the landscape has shifted, consider a few statistics: 

  • Domestic oil and natural gas production has increased every year President Obama has been in office. We now produce seven million barrels of oil per day, the highest level in over two decades. 
  • The International Energy Agency has projected that the United States could be the world’s largest oil producer by the end of the decade. Of course, we recognize that these are early days and prediction is a risky business.
  • In 2005, sixty percent of U.S. oil was imported.  Today the number is forty percent and falling—a dramatic move towards fulfilling the President’s goal of cutting our oil imports in half by 2020. 
  • Today the United States is the top natural gas producer in the world. Our natural gas production has grown by one-third since 2005, driven by the increase in shale gas, which now accounts for forty percent of our natural gas output.  
  • The domestic price of natural gas has dropped from over $13 per million Btu in 2008 to around $4 today.   Natural gas imports are down almost sixty percent since 2005, and we are exporting more natural gas by pipeline to Mexico and Canada.
  •  U.S. energy-related greenhouse gas emissions have fallen to 1994 levels due in large part to our success over the past four years in doubling electricity from renewables, switching from coal to natural gas in power generation, and improving energy efficiency.

New opportunities are also emerging globally.  The Western Hemisphere is poised to be a major energy supplier in the decades ahead.  The Americas have been responsible for half of the growth in incremental oil supply over the past five years, and BP predicts that the Americas will account for almost two-thirds of the growth in global oil supply between now and 2035.  That also means more supplies from relatively more stable nations with greater commitment to the rule of law and open markets.   When the President travels in early May to Mexico and Central America, energy will be among the issues discussed.  

The nature of global energy demand is also shifting to reflect the changes in global economic growth.  Demand across Asia, the Middle East and Latin America is surging.  This year may well mark the first time in history that oil demand from developing economies surpasses that of developed nations. Last December, Chinese net oil imports exceeded those of the United States for the first time.  China alone has accounted for half the growth in global oil demand since 2000 and became the world’s largest energy consumer by 2009.  Coal met about forty percent of developing economies’ energy demand, but over seventy percent of China’s energy needs in 2011.

We are just beginning to understand and appreciate the geostrategic impacts of these changes to the U.S. and global energy landscape, but let me set out a few that I see:

First, the new U.S. energy posture and outlook will directly strengthen the nation’s economy.  There are not a lot of iron laws of history.  But one is that, as the President has said, a country’s political and military primacy depends on its economic vitality. Our strength at home is critical to our strength in the world, and our energy boom has proven to be an important driver for our economic recovery—boosting jobs, economic activity, and government revenues.  Take the example of North Dakota, where unemployment has dropped to near 3 percent, the lowest in the country, and the state has a $3.8 billion budget surplus, largely due to increased unconventional gas and oil production in the state.   IHS CERA estimates that shale gas supported direct and indirect employment for 600,000 Americans in 2010, a number that could double by 2020. 

America’s natural gas boom is helping to spark a domestic manufacturing revival.  Manufacturers in energy-intensive sectors have announced up to $95 billion investments across the U.S. to take advantage of low-cost natural gas.   The largest investments announced have been in the chemicals sector which uses natural gas as a feedstock, but there have also been major announcements in other industries like steel, plastics, and glass.  For the first time in over sixty years, the United States is exporting more refined petroleum than it is importing.   The reduction in energy imports has a positive impact on our trade balance, helps lower domestic and global energy prices, and allows a greater share of the money Americans spend on energy to remain within the U.S. economy. 

Furthermore, as a result of the Administration’s historic investments in clean energy, tens of thousands of Americans have jobs and America is now home to some of the largest wind and solar farms in the world.

Domestic economic developments like these improve U.S. standing and send a powerful message that the United States has the resources, as well as the resolve, to remain the world’s preeminent power for years to come. 

Second, America’s new energy posture allows us to engage from a position of greater strength.  Increasing U.S. energy supplies act as a cushion that helps reduce our vulnerability to global supply disruptions and price shocks. It also affords us a stronger hand in pursuing and implementing our international security goals.

For example, the United States is engaged in a dual-track strategy that marshals pressure on Iran in pursuit of constructive engagement to address the world’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.  As part of the pressure track, the United States engaged in tireless diplomacy to persuade consuming nations to end or significantly reduce their consumption of Iranian oil while emphasizing to suppliers the importance of keeping the world oil market stable and well supplied.   The substantial increase in oil production in the United States and elsewhere meant that international sanctions and U.S. and allied efforts could remove over 1 million barrels per day of Iranian oil while minimizing the burdens on the rest of the world.   And the same dynamic was at work in Libya in 2011 and in Syria today.

Third, the development of a more global natural gas market benefits the U.S. and our allies.  We have a strong interest in a world natural gas market that is well supplied, diverse, and efficiently priced.  Increased U.S. and global natural gas production can enhance diversity of supply, help delink gas prices from expensive oil indexed contracts, weaken control by traditional dominant natural gas suppliers, and encourage fuel switching from oil and coal to natural gas. 

A decade ago, market analysts forecast that the U.S. would need to import large volumes of natural gas by pipeline and LNG. Since then, domestic production has reached historic highs and domestic natural gas reserves have almost doubled. Gas supplies originally destined for the United States are being redirected to other countries.   

Many of our allies have expressed interest in the potential of the United States as a global natural gas supplier. The Department of Energy is currently reviewing at least seventeen applications to export U.S. LNG to non-Free Trade Agreement countries. It will conduct a comprehensive review of all relevant factors to determine whether each non-FTA LNG export project is deemed to be consistent with the public interest.

Global demand for natural gas is projected to rise by one-fifth over the coming decade. Burning natural gas is about one-half as carbon-intensive as coal—which makes it a critical “bridge fuel” as the world transitions to even cleaner sources of energy.

Fourth, reduced energy imports do not mean the United States can or should disengage from the Middle East or the world.   Global energy markets are part of a deeply interdependent world economy.  The United States continues to have an enduring interest in stable supplies of energy and the free flow of commerce everywhere.   

We have a set of enduring national security interests in the Middle East, including our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security; our global nonproliferation objectives, including our commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon; our ongoing national interest in fighting terrorism that threatens our personnel, interests and our homeland; our strong national interest in pursuit of Middle East peace; our historic stabilizing role in protecting regional allies and  partners and deterring aggression; and our interest in ensuring the democratic transitions in Yemen, North Africa and ultimately in Syria succeed. 

Which brings me to my fifth point: though it is typically discussed in terms of its energy, environmental or economic implications, the changes to our climate that we are seeing are also a national security challenge.  

The national security impacts of climate change stem from the increasingly severe environmental impacts it is having on countries and people around the world. Last year, the lower 48 U.S. states endured the warmest year on record.   At one point, two-thirds of the contiguous United States was in a state of drought, and almost 10 million acres of the West were charred from wildfires. And while no single weather event can be directly attributed to climate change, we know that climate change is fueling more frequent extreme weather events. Last year alone, we endured 11 weather-related disasters that inflicted a $1 billion or more in damages – including Hurricane Sandy. 

Internationally, we have seen the same: the first twelve years of this century are all among the fourteen warmest years on record.  Last year, Brazil experienced its worst drought in five decades; floods in Pakistan affected over five million people and damaged or destroyed over 460,000 homes; severe flooding across western Africa and the Sahel impacted three million people across fifteen countries--to give just a few examples among many. 

The fact that the environmental impacts of climate change present a national security challenge has been clear to this Administration from the outset. The President’s National Security Strategy recognizes in no uncertain terms that “the danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe.  The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of land across the globe.”

The Department of Defense’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, issued by Secretary Robert Gates, warned not only that climate change “may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world” but also of the potential impacts of climate change on our operating environment, and on our military installations at home and around the world. A National Intelligence Assessment in 2008, multiple Worldwide Threat Assessments produced by the Director of National Intelligence, and numerous expert analyses have reached similar conclusions.  This underscores the need – for the sake of our national security -- to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and to ensure that we are as prepared as possible for the impacts of climate change.

U.S. Policy

These are a few of the changes we are seeing and what they mean for U.S. national security.  Let me now turn to what we are doing about it. 

First and foremost, the United States is leading at home, which is where our energy and climate policy begins.  The United States is pursuing an “all of the above approach” to develop new sources of energy, expand oil and gas production, boost renewable power generation, support growth in nuclear power and increase energy efficiency, while also working to reduce reliance on imported oil. 

I do not believe that the dramatic and fast-paced energy changes we have seen in the United States in recent years were as likely to have begun elsewhere first.  It is not just that the U.S. has a substantial unconventional resource base.  Many other countries have promising shale deposits.  The reason that development has succeeded in the U.S. is because we have the right balance of an open investment climate, innovative entrepreneurial spirit, environmental safeguards, infrastructure and skilled service companies.  The U.S. shale experience demonstrates the powerful results that a complex resource base, combined with open markets, wise early government investments in key technologies, a vibrant private sector, access to capital, a predictable investment climate, and responsible regulatory structure can deliver.

Under President Obama, the United States has also made unprecedented investments in clean energy, research and development, and renewable fuels.  The President put in place historic new fuel standards for cars and light-duty trucks that will nearly double the efficiency of our fleet; doubled the amount of power produced by wind, solar, and geothermal; and boosted the efficiency of buildings and our industrial sector.   He has also called for the creation of an Energy Security Trust that will support new research and development of cost-effective advanced transportation technologies, and he is leading domestic and international efforts to support the safe use of nuclear power.
It is important to note that America has achieved a significant reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.  Last year energy-related U.S. emissions fell to their lowest levels since 1994—a remarkable twelve percent below where we stood in 2005.  Even as our economy recovers, we are determined to keep moving toward our target for 2020: to bring greenhouse gas emissions approximately seventeen percent below 2005 levels.

In that spirit, the President will not hesitate to use existing tools and authorities to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase the preparedness and resiliency of our communities to climate change, and accelerate clean energy deployment. 

Second, we are working to manage potential causes of energy-related conflict.

For example, the promise of offshore energy resources is contributing to tensions in the South and East China Seas that will test East Asia’s political and security architecture.  While the United States has no territorial claims there, and does not take a position on the claims of others, the United States firmly opposes coercion or the use of force to advance territorial claims.  We have consistently made clear our position that only peaceful, collaborative and diplomatic efforts, consistent with international law, can bring about lasting solutions that will serve the interests of all claimants and all countries in this vital region. 

The Arctic is another place where the potential for new supplies of energy and new shipping routes could lead to rising tensions.  So far, that has not been the case and the United States looks forward to meeting with our partners in the eight-country Arctic Council next month, which we value as a forum for open and collaborative dialogue among littoral states on a range of Arctic issues.  The United States will promote productive dialogue to address international disputes in the region as they arise on issues from transportation to resource claims.  As ice caps melt, shipping routes open and energy supplies are made more accessible, the United States will work to ensure open access and transit, rules-based resolution of territorial disputes and adherence to the highest environmental standards.

To put ourselves on the strongest possible footing to prevent energy-related conflict, the United States must take the long overdue step of ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty.  Every businessperson I speak with, every military leader, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and many, many others all come to the same conclusion:  ratifying the treaty will only strengthen America’s hand economically, diplomatically, and in terms of our security. 

Another example is Iraq.  After the U.S. has invested significant blood and treasure, we have a strong interest in seeing a peaceful and prosperous country emerge.  Key to that will be the successful development of Iraq’s energy resources.  This is a good example of where energy diplomacy matters.  Iraq’s energy sector has the potential to deepen internal and regional divisions, but it can also help unify the country.  And so we are working to help Iraq expand its oil production, build out its export infrastructure, and diversify its energy transportation routes.

Over the past two years, Iraq’s crude oil production has grown 25 percent to three million barrels per day, surpassing Iranian output and reaching levels not seen in over two decades.  We envision Iraq fulfilling its tremendous oil supply potential, with multiple existing and potential export routes, including from Basra to Ceyhan.  Getting there will require active diplomatic engagement and an agreement among Iraqis to share export revenues equitably, as set forth in their constitution, so that all Iraqi citizens benefit from their natural resources.  It is a long-term vision, but one that is essential for Iraqi stability, our own national security, and the future stability of global energy markets. And the United States will support this vision as a central priority in our partnership with Iraq.

Third, we are building on the unique diplomatic, regulatory and technical capacity of the United States to help other nations increase energy supply, build capacity and strengthen the institutions that enable international cooperation.  We are working to help develop supplies across the Western Hemisphere, where the use of conventional and new technologies in the United States, Canada and Brazil and Colombia is making an essential contribution to growing global energy supplies. 

Through bilateral and multilateral initiatives, technical and regulatory exchanges and trade and investment, the United States is helping countries accelerate this trend responsibly.  Last year, for example, the United States signed an important Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement with Mexico to develop our shared oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico in an environmentally safe and responsible way.   

We have actively engaged countries such as Poland, Ukraine, Jordan, China, Colombia, Chile and Mexico to exchange lessons on developing unconventional energy resources.  We are sharing best practices on issues such as water management, air quality, permitting, contracting, and pricing—because countries and companies have seen from the U.S. experience that creating the right policy and investment environment is critical to successful development.  We are also working with countries in Africa, such as Mozambique and Tanzania, to help them establish responsible, sustainable ways to develop and manage their newfound energy resources.  

The United States does not view our energy security in zero-sum terms, and we are working with our partners around the world to ensure that they do not either.  For example, China will be increasingly reliant on imported oil and natural gas through this decade and beyond.   That means secure, affordable and cleaner supplies of energy is a goal we share with Beijing—and one we are working to fulfill through regulatory, technical, and industry exchanges led by the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and State.

As emerging economies consume an ever greater share of global energy, the International Energy Agency and other institutions will have to modernize to reflect evolving energy market realities. As major consumers, China, India and Brazil have a common interest in healthy and more transparent markets that function efficiently and effectively. It is critical that these countries are brought closer to the IEA and participate in coordinated responses to energy supply disruptions and reporting on energy markets.

But we should think about the modernization of the IEA more broadly.  When the IEA was established in the 1970s, oil was not a globally traded commodity. There was no financial market in oil.  Gasoline prices were heavily regulated.  Disruptions in supplies tended to show up as physical disruptions with long lines at gas stations. The global energy market has changed dramatically since then:  oil is now traded globally. There is a financial market that dwarfs the size of the physical market.  Gasoline prices are deregulated.  And disruptions in supply are more likely to show as price spikes than physical shortages.  The policies and practices of an IEA for the 21st century should reflect these changes as well.

Fourth and finally, we are working with other nations to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, prepare for the climate impacts it is too late to avoid, and bring about a global conversion to cleaner sources of energy. 

When it comes to climate change, action at home is necessary but insufficient.  We have to galvanize action from others.  Here, too, there is progress to report.  In Copenhagen in 2009, President Obama and other world leaders negotiated a climate agreement that for the first time included international emission reduction commitments from each of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters.  Under the agreement reached at Durban in 2011, we are working to negotiate a robust new international climate agreement by the end of 2015 that would take effect in 2020 and commit all of the major carbon polluting countries to take ambitious action. 

Alongside global talks, the Administration has looked for creative ways to convene key stakeholders to take concrete actions together.   Through the Major Economies Forum, we launched a new Clean Energy Ministerial where a group of nations representing more than three-quarters of global GHG emissions collaborate on deploying clean energy technologies and enhancing energy efficiency.  By the same token, the United States led in assembling the Climate and Clean Air Coalition of nations working to achieve targeted reductions in short-lived climate pollutants that account for over thirty percent of current global warming.   And we have worked to address climate change by leading global efforts to encourage countries to phase out harmful fossil fuel subsidies.

As we look forward, we are fortunate to welcome into the Obama Administration one of the most experienced and impassioned climate diplomats America has ever had: John Kerry, who already has launched a new process to ensure that climate change will be a central part of our Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China later this year.

Even as we work through all available channels to mitigate climate change, we are also working to prepare for the climate impacts it is already too late to avoid.  The United States is building greater climate resilience at home and helping developing nations withstand the impacts as well.  The U.S. intelligence community continues to study where and how climate-fueled security challenges may emerge.  The Defense Department is funding research projects and factoring climate change into analysis and planning, recognizing the challenge it presents for mission-critical infrastructure and military installations, capabilities, and readiness.

Conclusion

Energy and climate are critical elements of U.S. national security.  These issues have risen to the top of U.S. diplomatic agendas around the world: with Europeans considering their energy future; with China and other emerging powers addressing their growing needs; and with major energy consumers and producers, old and new.  How the United States manages these changes to our energy economy and to our climate will be an important measure of U.S. leadership for many years to come. 

There is a vigorous debate underway among international relations experts and commentators about so called “declinism” – the notion that America is a power on the wane. It is a proposition that I reject in the strongest terms.  In his most recent book, Strategic Vision, one of my predecessors, Zbig Brzezinski, presents what he calls “America’s Balance Sheet,” where he tallies America’s strategic assets and liabilities.  Many of our assets are well known:  economic and military strength, an unrivaled network of alliances spanning two oceans, favorable demographics and geography and unparalleled innovators and educators – all that ensures that the United States remains a global leader into the 21st century. 

When President Obama took office, America’s energy future would have been typically listed among the liabilities – and let’s be clear: an essential transition to cleaner sources of fuel still lies ahead.  But after years of talking about it, we are poised to control our own energy future. Under President Obama’s leadership, we are moving the U.S. energy position from a liability we manage into an asset that secures U.S. strength at home and leadership in the world.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
April 24, 2013

Statement by the President on Armenian Remembrance Day

Today we commemorate the Meds Yeghern and honor those who perished in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.  Ninety-eight years ago, 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.  We pause to reflect on the lives extinguished and remember the unspeakable suffering that occurred.   In so doing, we are joined by millions across the world and in the United States, where it is solemnly commemorated by our states, institutions, communities, and families.   We also remind ourselves of our commitment to ensure that such dark chapters of history are not repeated.
 
I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view has not changed.  A full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all of our interests.  Nations grow stronger by acknowledging and reckoning with painful elements of the past, thereby building a foundation for a more just and tolerant future.  We appreciate this lesson in the United States, as we strive to reconcile some of the darkest moments in our own history.   We recognize those courageous Armenians and Turks who have already taken this path, and encourage more to do so, with the backing of their governments, and mine.
 
The history and legacy of the Armenian people is marked by an indomitable spirit, and a great resiliency in the face of tremendous adversity and suffering.  The United States is stronger for the contributions Armenian-Americans have made to our society, our culture, and our communities.  In small measure we return that contribution by supporting the Armenian people as they work toward building a nation that would make their ancestors proud: one that cherishes democracy and respect for human liberty and dignity. 
 
Today we stand with Armenians everywhere in recalling the horror of the Meds Yeghern, honoring the memory of those lost, and affirming our enduring commitment to the people of Armenia.
 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
April 23, 2013

Remarks by the President and Amir of Qatar after Bilateral Meeting

Oval Office

4:28 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I just want to welcome the Amir of Qatar and thank him and the people of his country for the friendship they've shown toward the United States. There's an excellent relationship between the United States and Qatar on a whole range of levels -- with respect to security, with respect to our military cooperation, our commerce and our trade. 

Qatar has been a center of innovation. We've seen enormous progress within the country on everything ranging from education to health care. And I think His Highness has shown extraordinary leadership over the last many years in helping to guide this country. 

Obviously, Qatar is also an important country in the region, and has an influence that extends beyond its relatively small population. And so we had an opportunity to discuss a whole range of issues that directly relate to U.S. interests and U.S. security, but, more importantly, the security of the entire world.

We had a conversation about the situation in Syria. And obviously we've been cooperating closely with Qatar and other countries in seeking to bring about an end to the slaughter that's taking place there; the removal of President Assad, who has shown himself to have no regard for his own people; and to strengthen an opposition that can bring about a democratic Syria that represents all people and respects their rights regardless of their ethnicity or their religious affiliations. And I'm very pleased that we are going to be continuing to work in coming months to try to further support the Syrian opposition, and we'll be closely coordinating our strategies to bring about a more peaceful resolution to the Syrian crisis.

We also had an opportunity to discuss the situation in Egypt, where we both very much want to see success on the part of Egyptian democracy.  And both of our countries are committed to trying to encourage not only progress in this new democracy, but also economic progress that can translate into actual prosperity for the people there.

We had an opportunity to discuss the situation with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we both agree that peace is in the interest of everyone -- a secure Israel side-by-side with a sovereign Palestinian state.  And we exchanged ideas about how we can advance those negotiations, and I've shared the importance of providing support to President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority so that they can be in position to have fruitful negotiations with the Israelis that can bring about, in a timely fashion, a two-state solution.

And I had an opportunity to thank the Amir for the strong support that his country has provided to our efforts in Afghanistan, including the efforts that he has personally been involved with in getting a dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban that might potentially result in some sort of political reconciliation. 

These are all very difficult issues and neither of us are under any illusions that they will be solved overnight.  But what we agree with is that if our two countries are communicating frankly and constructively, and pursuing common strategies, that we can be a force for good for the entire region and for a vision of a Middle East that is democratic, that is prosperous, that is tolerant, that is representative of all peoples, and that is a force for good around the world.

And so I want to thank the Amir for this visit and for his friendship.  And I look forward to working with him and the government of Qatar for many years to come. 

AMIR HAMAD:  (As interpreted.)  I was delighted to have this very positive meeting with the President today.  We discussed several issues of mutual concern to both our countries, especially the situation in Syria.  We also addressed issues concerning our mutual military relationship, which is good, as you know, and also exchanges in education.  As you know, there are several universities, American universities that opened branches in Qatar. 

We also discussed our economic relationship.  There are joint oil and gas projects between the two countries.  We also talked about the serious changes that are affecting the Middle East, especially countries like Egypt, which we consider to be a very important country, and also important for peace with Israel.

And for Qatar, it’s very important for us to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and to see also a good relationship between Arab countries and Israel once a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement is reached.

AMIR HAMAD:  Actually, she meant by gas and oil that we will talk with the President, but we have a relation between us and America to be with American companies like ExxonMobil -- enjoy working with us in the sector of the hydrocarbon.

The other thing is the Syrian issue.  As you know -- (speaks in Arabic and then is interpreted.)  We also discussed the Syrian issue.  What’s happening in Syria is a major, horrific tragedy in the region and the world.  And we hope to find a solution for the bloodshed in Syria and for this current government to leave power to give room to others to take over.  And we hope that any party that succeeds the current regime would be supportive of democracy and the political process.We in Qatar support the peace process and finding a political peace, and Qatar supports that. 

And we once again would like to thank the President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you, everybody.

END                          4:38 P.M. EDT

 

President Obama Welcomes Amir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani of Qatar to the White House

Colleen Curtis
Colleen Curtis
April 23, 2013
08:04 PM EDT

President Obama today met with Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the Amir of Qatar, a nation the United States works with on a range of issues, including security, military cooperation, commerce and trade. 

In remarks following the bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, the President praised  Qatar as "a center of innovation" and said the country has shown enormous progress ranging from education to health care under the Amir's leadership. 

But President Obama said that most of the leaders' conversation was focused on security issues in that region, relating to U.S. interests and those of the entire world:

"We had a conversation about the situation in Syria. And obviously we've been cooperating closely with Qatar and other countries in seeking to bring about an end to the slaughter that's taking place there; the removal of President Assad, who has shown himself to have no regard for his own people; and to strengthen an opposition that can bring about a democratic Syria that represents all people and respects their rights regardless of their ethnicity or their religious affiliations. And I'm very pleased that we are going to be continuing to work in coming months to try to further support the Syrian opposition, and we'll be closely coordinating our strategies to bring about a more peaceful resolution to the Syrian crisis.

We also had an opportunity to discuss the situation in Egypt, where we both very much want to see success on the part of Egyptian democracy. And both of our countries are committed to trying to encourage not only progress in this new democracy, but also economic progress that can translate into actual prosperity for the people there.

We had an opportunity to discuss the situation with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we both agree that peace is in the interest of everyone -- a secure Israel side-by-side with a sovereign Palestinian state. And we exchanged ideas about how we can advance those negotiations, and I've shared the importance of providing support to President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority so that they can be in position to have fruitful negotiations with the Israelis that can bring about, in a timely fashion, a two-state solution.

And I had an opportunity to thank the Amir for the strong support that his country has provided to our efforts in Afghanistan, including the efforts that he has personally been involved with in getting a dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban that might potentially result in some sort of political reconciliation. 

These are all very difficult issues and neither of us are under any illusions that they will be solved overnight.  But what we agree with is that if our two countries are communicating frankly and constructively, and pursuing common strategies, that we can be a force for good for the entire region and for a vision of a Middle East that is democratic, that is prosperous, that is tolerant, that is representative of all peoples, and that is a force for good around the world."

Related Topics: Middle East and North Africa, Foreign Policy

President Obama Meets with the Amir of Qatar

April 23, 2013 | 9:37 | Public Domain

President Obama Meets with the Amir of Qatar, His Highness Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani.

Download mp4 (352MB) | mp3 (23MB)

President Obama Honors the 2013 National Teacher of the Year

April 23, 2013 | 15:00 | Public Domain

President Obama recognizes Jeff Charbonneau, of Zillah, Washington, as the 2013 National Teacher of the year.

Download mp4 (552MB) | mp3 (36MB)

Read the Transcript

President Obama Honors the 2013 National Teacher of the Year

Twelve years ago, Zillah High School had no engineering classes. The science curriculum was lagging behind, and students had to go off campus to take technology classes.

Jeff Charbonneau, who returned to his hometown 11 years ago to teach at Zillah High,  was determined to change that. And he did. Science enrollment is way up. Kids are graduating with college-level science credits. The school expects to have to hire more teachers now to meet the demand. 

And today, President Obama honored Jeff as the 2013 National Teacher of the Year.

Jeff teaches chemistry, physics, and engineering, and works to create accessible, interactive lessons that help convince kids that the science classes most students consider hardest are worth diving in to, not running away from. But President Obama said that it’s not just his work in the classroom that distinguishes Jeff.

“He started an outdoors club,” President Obama said. “He brought his passion to the drama program. He’s even helping out other schools.” Because of Jeff, hundreds of students all over Washington are now participating in high-skills robotics competitions and gaining valuable engineering experience.

“There’s nothing that Jeff will not try to give his students the best education in every respect,” President Obama said.

President Obama said that what's true for Jeff is also true for the other Teacher of the Year finalists, who stood behind President Obama at today’s event.

They understand that their job is more than teaching subjects like reading or chemistry. They’re not just filling blackboards with numbers and diagrams. In classrooms across America, they’re teaching things like character and compassion and resilience and imagination. They’re filling young minds with virtues and values, and teaching our kids how to cooperate and overcome obstacles. 

President Obama thanked Jeff and his fellow educators for their hard work and commitment to America's young people.

What you do matters. It's critical to our success as a country, but most importantly, it's critical to those kids themselves. I cannot think of something more important than reaching that child who maybe came in uninspired, and suddenly, you've inspired them. 

“Teaching is a profession and it should be treated like one,” President Obama said. 

Educators like Jeff and everyone up here today, they represent the very best of America -- committed professionals who give themselves fully to the growth and development of our kids.  And with them at the front of the classroom and leading our schools, I am absolutely confident that our children are going to be prepared to meet the tests of our time and the tests of the future. 

 

 

Close Transcript

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
April 23, 2013

Readout of Vice President Biden's Meeting with Amir Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani of Qatar

The Vice President held a breakfast meeting with Amir Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani of Qatar to discuss a range of bilateral and regional issues.  The Vice President affirmed the importance of the United States’ strategic cooperation with Qatar in a changing Middle East.  They discussed how best to advance U.S. and Qatari efforts in Syria to hasten Bashar Assad’s departure while also empowering moderate elements of Syria’s opposition and marginalizing extremists.  They spoke about ongoing U.S. and Arab efforts to support Israeli and Palestinian progress toward peace.  The Vice President underscored both the enduring U.S. commitment to peacemaking and the pivotal role of Arab nations in the process.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
April 23, 2013

President Obama Signs New York Disaster Declaration

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of New York and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the area affected by a severe winter storm and snowstorm during the period of February 8-9, 2013.

Federal funding is available to state and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe winter storm and snowstorm in Suffolk County.

In addition, federal funding is available to the state and eligible local governments on a cost-sharing basis for snow assistance for a continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period in Suffolk County.

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

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

FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
April 23, 2013

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

David Michael Bennett, of North Carolina, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service for a term expiring December 8, 2018, vice Thurgood Marshall, Jr., term expired.

Roberto R. Herencia, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for a term expiring December 17, 2015.  (Reappointment)

Carlos Pascual, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Energy Resources), vice John Stern Wolf.

Yvette Roubideaux, of Maryland, to be Director of the Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, for the term of four years.  (Reappointment)

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
April 23, 2013

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/23/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:16 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon.  Thanks for being here.  I have no announcements, so I will take your questions.  Julie.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  I just want to say at the top that it appears as though AP’s Twitter account has been hacked, so anything that was just sent out about any incident at the White House is absolutely false.  And we'll be putting something out shortly to clarify that, if that hasn’t happened already.

MR. CARNEY:  Good, I thank you for that.  I appreciate that, and I can say that the President is fine.  I was just with him. 

Q    On another topic, Israel said today that they believe that Syria has used chemical weapons, joining Britain and France in making that assessment.  I'm a little unclear on this about what the White House and the U.S. position on this is.  Does the U.S. disagree with those assessments, or is the U.S. just not in a position or have enough information at this point to be able to make that similar assessment?

MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate the question.  We are, as you know, concerned about reports of potential chemical weapons use, which is precisely why we've called for a thorough investigation. As the President has stated, we know the Syrian government has the capacity to carry out chemical weapons attacks.  We also know that there are those in the Syrian government who have expressed a willingness to use chemical weapons to protect their interests and prolong the rule of the Assad regime.

We remain skeptical of any claim that the opposition used chemical weapons. 

It’s important that we do whatever we can to monitor, investigate and verify any credible allegations, given the enormous consequences for the Syrian people and given the President’s clear statement that chemical weapons use is unacceptable.  We will also continue to monitor closely Syria’s chemical weapons in coordination with friends and allies who share our concerns.  We believe that Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile remains under Syrian government control.

I can't provide any additional details on those efforts because, of course, I won't speak to intelligence.  But we are engaged with other countries to underscore the common concern about the security of these weapons and the Syrian government’s obligation to secure them and not to use them or transfer them to others, including non-state actors.  We coordinate closely with our partners, including the French, British, and the Israelis.

Q    But in saying that you believe that the Syrian government still has control of the chemical weapons, that doesn’t rule out the idea that they have used them, correct?

MR. CARNEY:  We are in support of a United Nations unified investigation into the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria. The Assad regime has blocked that and I think that demonstrates the lack of good faith on the Assad regime’s part.  And the Assad regime could prove that its request for an investigation was not just a diversionary tactic by supporting that investigation.  

Now, we have other means and we are engaging in other methods of monitoring the possible use or transmission of chemical weapons in Syria, but I can't get into great detail on those intelligence-related matters.  But you can be sure we're monitoring this and that we are looking for conclusive evidence, if it exists, if there was use of chemical weapons.

Q    Just to be clear, you don't disagree necessarily with what the Israelis, the Brits, and the French have said; you just haven't come to that conclusion yet on your own?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm saying that we support an investigation.  We are monitoring this, and we have not come to the conclusion that there has been that use.  But it is something that is of great concern to us, to our partners, and obviously unacceptable, as the President made clear.

Q    And then just quickly, is there anything you can tell us about U.S. involvement in the investigation that led to the arrests in Canada yesterday?

MR. CARNEY:  I can talk to you about that.  We, first of all, welcome yesterday's announcements by Canada that they have disrupted a terrorist plot working in coordination with U.S. law enforcement.  The FBI worked with Canadian law enforcement, and I refer you to the FBI and Canadian government officials for more details on that.

But this successful cooperation illustrates the close relationship we have with Canada on so many important issues, including foreign affairs, trade, emergency preparedness, and security.  So this was obviously a welcome announcement by the Canadian government.

Q    The President -- going back to Syria and chemical weapons -- the President has said chemical weapons use is a red line that would trigger unspecified U.S. action if it was determined to have been used.  Now, was the administration, first of all, made aware by Israel in advance that they would be laying out these accusations today? And was it prudent for them to go public with them?  And, again, if this actually turns out to be true, what would the consequences be?  Could that include military action?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not going to speculate about consequences.  What I will say is that the President made clear that the use of or transmission of chemical weapons, including the transmission of chemical weapons to non-state actors, would be unacceptable in the President's view, unacceptable to the United States. 

We have made clear that we're concerned about reports of potential chemical weapons used by -- in Syria.  It's also important to note that the use of chemical weapons is difficult to confirm, especially in a circumstance and environment like you find in Syria at this point.  But we are utilizing a variety of methods to assess those reports and claims of use.  And we are, of course, in support of a unified United Nations investigation into this matter -- an investigation that the Assad regime called for but is now blocking.

Q    Would the red line be on any use whatsoever of chemical weapons, including nerve gas, an isolated incident, or are we talking about something more widespread, a more widespread use or deployment of nuclear -- of chemical weapons?

MR. CARNEY:  The President spoke very clearly about this from this podium and his views on the unacceptability of the use of chemical weapons.  I'm not going to speculate about how they would be used.  The use of chemical weapons would be unacceptable, as would the transmission or transference of chemical weapons to others outside of Syria or non-state actors.

Q    On the Boston bombing, more questions are being raised about whether the FBI acted thoroughly enough after Russia raised concerns about the older brother’s -- in 2011, and then why there was no follow-up after he visited Russia in 2012.  So what, if anything, is the White House itself doing to get to the bottom of this?

MR. CARNEY:  There is an active and complete and full investigation underway into what happened in Boston, the bombings at the Marathon.  We have obviously apprehended and have in custody and have now charged a suspect -- Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  Another suspect, his brother, died on Friday night.  But this process is just beginning.

What is clear is what the FBI has said about the actions it took in response to information received from Russia -- actions that included interviewing Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members, and the conclusions that they reached at that time regarding the fact that there was no evidence of terrorist activity domestic or foreign.  I would refer you to the FBI for more details about their actions and response to the information they received from the Russians.

We have an active and cooperative relationship with the Russians on security matters, counterterrorism matters.  That is true broadly, and it is true specifically in this case.

Jessica.

Q    This morning, Secretary Napolitano said in a hearing on Capitol Hill that the system pinged when Tamerlan Tsarnaev went overseas to Russia but not when he came back.  Is the President concerned that there’s a flaw in the system?  And if so, is he looking to have a review of that and have it possibly changed?

MR. CARNEY:  What the President said when he stood here before you late Friday evening -- or night -- was that there are many questions that need to be answered, and that's what a thorough investigation will produce, is answers to all the questions we have about these two individuals, their activities, their travel, their associations, what motivated them, everything that went into the decision that they took to engage in a terrorist act against people of the United States and Boston.

And that will -- all of these questions would be part of this investigation.  It is part of the case that will be built against the suspect who is in custody, and part of the overall investigation into what happened.

Q    Shouldn’t he have been on a no-fly list?  Should people who are spending that much time overseas in Russia be on no-fly lists?  Should we be concerned about people who have been interviewed by the FBI and are just simply spending time overseas?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, specifics of this investigation should be reviewed by investigators, and as they develop more information and it's appropriate to make it public, that will happen. 

In general, as I said earlier when the FBI put out information with regards to the actions it took after being informed or warned about Tamerlan Tsarnaev by the Russians, they found no derogatory information, no terrorist activity -- domestic or foreign.  And having said that, this investigation will continue.  And there is active cooperation with the Russians with regards to the trip that the elder Tsarnaev made to Russia. There is a thorough investigation underway into all of the actions and sources of motivation and inspiration that were involved here that led to these actions, as it should be.  And this is in an early stage right now.  The arrest was made only on Friday night.

Q    Is this the President's new nightmare scenario, where a homegrown terror cell -- if you call two guys together a terror cell, if that's all it turns out to be -- who knows at this point -- operates on their own without any forewarnings and there's really no advance notice where the President or law enforcement can track it down in advance?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, it's a great question.  And let's set aside this specific case, because we don't have all the answers yet.  But you have heard the President discuss, and John Brennan, as his Counterterrorism Advisor -- he is now obviously the Director of the CIA -- discuss, the Attorney General discuss, and others, the evolving threat posed by terrorists.  The fact that we have made progress in decimating al Qaeda Central, including obviously the elimination of Osama bin Laden, has not meant that the threat itself has gone away.  And we've been very clear about that.  There are threats from a variety of al Qaeda offshoots around the world. 

And as the President has said -- and others have said -- there is always the potential threat from lone actors, those who are self-radicalized and who are not associated with outside groups or terrorist organizations, but take action on their own. And this is something that Mr. Brennan has discussed and others have discussed.  And it's part of the threat that is assessed every day by the professionals who work every day to protect our country.

Jon.

Q    Jay, back to Syria.  You now have three separate American allies who say that they have evidence that Syria used chemical weapons in multiple incidences going back to December and as recently as March.  When the President talked about this, he didn't just say it was unacceptable; he said it was a game changer.  So my question to you is what does that mean?  What does it mean?

MR. CARNEY:  It means that we are assessing the reports of chemical weapons used.  And it is very important to do whatever we can to monitor, investigate and verify any credible allegations, given the enormous consequences for the Syrian people and given, as you said, the President's clear statement about the fact that chemical weapons use is unacceptable.  It is precisely because of the seriousness of the use of chemical weapons and the seriousness with which the President made clear that that use would be unacceptable, that it is incumbent upon us and our partners to investigate thoroughly and validate or verify allegations of chemical weapons use.  And we are obviously doing that.

Q    But the President didn't just say unacceptable; he said chemical weapons use would be game changer.  So my question is what does that mean?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not going to speculate about actions that may or may not --

Q    This isn't speculation.

MR. CARNEY:  Sure it is.

Q    The President said it would be a game changer. 

MR. CARNEY:  He means that it's a red line and the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and it would not be acceptable to the President, to the United States -- all the more reason why we have to monitor very closely and take action to verify and validate credible claims of chemical weapons use. 

What I won't do is jump to the next step and say, if claims are verified, what action will we take?  That's speculating and I won't do that.  But you can be sure, based on what the President told you from this podium, that this is a very serious matter, which is why we are investigating it the way that we are.

Q    Can we be sure he’s going to take action?  If you won't tell me what the action is, is he going to do something about this?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, you're saying “do something about this.”  We have to make sure that we monitor --

Q    This isn't crazy speculation.

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not saying it is.

Q    You have two allies who say they have physical evidence.  You have the Israelis who have made a strong case about what happened --

MR. CARNEY:  And we are, as we absolutely must, working with our partners to investigate these allegations.  It is absolutely the case in an environment like the one you have in Syria that proving chemical weapons use can be difficult.  But we are engaged in a process of trying to investigate and verify these allegations.

Q    What are we doing in that area?  We know that the Brits actually went and took soil samples.  What are we doing to --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not going to get into the methods that we use to gather information or intelligence.  But you can be sure that we are utilizing the tools that we have available to us to investigate these very serious allegations.

Q    Are these three countries jumping the gun reaching this determination?

MR. CARNEY:  This is a very serious issue.  The fact that there were allegations about chemical weapons use led to the calls for an investigation by the United Nations.  We support that effort and believe that the Assad regime’s blocking of that effort demonstrates -- or seems to demonstrate a lack of seriousness about their intent when it comes to their original calls for an investigation.

It is why we are working with our allies and partners, as well as using the tools that we have available to us, to further investigate these allegations.  But it is the seriousness of this --

Q    Did they reach a conclusion --

MR. CARNEY:  Here’s what I'll tell you, Major.  I speak for the President; he views these issues as very serious, as he made clear to you, and he is ensuring that we carefully investigate allegations like these and attempt to verify them because of the fact that they, if it were to be the case that chemical weapons had been used in Syria, that would be unacceptable, as the President made clear.

Q    Implicit in your answer that it’s difficult to verify these things because of the facts on the ground and that we have yet to reach this conclusion -- implicit in that is that these other three countries have reached a conclusion prematurely. 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, no.  We're working with our allies.  We consult with these countries and others and share information all the time on these matters.  And I would simply say that we are working to investigate and verify these allegations.  It is precisely because the use of chemical weapons is such a serious issue and the seriousness that the use of weapons would -- those weapons would be viewed by this government that we need to be extremely deliberate in the process of evaluating and attempting to verify these reports.

Q    In other words, we find nothing objectionable about the evidence they've cited or the methods to try to verify it on their own?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, we work with our partners.  We share a great deal of information.  We have means and methods that we employ to monitor chemical weapons in Syria.  We support an investigation led by the United Nations into the allegations of chemical weapons use.  And through all of these methods, we are attempting to get to the bottom of these allegations to find out whether or not they're accurate.

Q    Based on what the President knows about the 2011 questioning of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, does he believe proper procedures were followed?

MR. CARNEY:  All of these matters are under investigation.  It is clear from what the FBI has said that when they received information from a foreign government about this particular individual, they investigated appropriately.  And they detailed the actions they took, so I would refer you to their statements about those details.  Their conclusion was that they did not have any derogatory information or information that showed terrorist activity, foreign or domestic. 

Beyond that, we are in the process of investigating a terrorist attack on the United States.

Q    As the President no doubt knows, these procedures went through substantial review in the latter part of the Bush administration, were re-reviewed in the Obama administration and the Justice Department, and then propounded right around 2010 in their most recent form, and have been sort of tweaked a little bit since then.  This has not been an issue which has not received a tremendous amount of attention I'm sure at this White House and at the Justice Department.  And there were civil libertarian concerns raised about this entire process.  Based on what the President knows and what he has received so far, does he believe that this was done according to the procedures and no ball was dropped and nothing was done in an inaccurate or non-procedural way?  Can you make that determination?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, you're asking for a judgment on a matter that is under investigation.  What I can point you to --

Q    Well, what's under investigation is what happened since that original --

MR. CARNEY:  Look, everything that involved these two individuals you can be sure is under investigation right now, as is appropriate.  Actions taken in response to information that we received, everything that went into the lives of these two individuals that led to their decision to take the action that they're alleged to have taken last Monday, a week ago Monday -- all of that is under investigation.  So it is obviously premature for me or anyone else here to make judgments on these matters that are under investigation.

What I can point you to is the fairly detailed information that the FBI has released about the actions they took.  I can point you to the fact that the FBI last week oversaw from the federal level an extraordinary effort to, in response to the Boston Marathon bombings, track down who was responsible and by Friday had done that in I think enormously successful coordination and cooperation with state and local officials.

But this is the beginning of a process that involves further investigation, as well as moving forward on this prosecution of a case for which initial charges were just brought yesterday.

Q    One last question:  The ball might have been dropped, is that what you’re saying?  You don't know?

MR. CARNEY:  No, no, you're -- I appreciate the opportunity to have answers to questions that are under investigation.  I just -- I don't have judgments to make about matters --

Q    I mean, the file was open, there was no derogatory information, and the file was closed.  According to the procedures I’ve read, that's exactly what’s supposed to happen.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that's your judgment, and I would point you to the --

Q    I'm just asking if the President believes what he’s been briefed about this was -- were the procedures followed?

MR. CARNEY:  The President has been thoroughly briefed on all the matters related to this investigation and will continue to be briefed.

The FBI is both the lead investigative authority in this at the federal level, as well as the agency involved in the past activity that you talk about with regards to suspect number one or Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  So I would simply note that this investigation is still in its early stages, and we are looking at everything in the past regarding these two individuals because we want to find out, as the President said, how this happened, why this happened, what the motivations were, what, if any, associations they had.  And once that investigation is complete, we’ll have many more answers both for the court of law where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is going to be prosecuted and for the American people.

Yes, Wendell.

Q    Yesterday’s FAA furloughs produced the predicted flight delays.  Senator McConnell said today, “As a result of the administration’s poor planning and political motives people were stuck on tarmacs.”  What’s your response to that?

MR. CARNEY:  I find it fascinating that Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate, is decrying the sequester that he decried in the past and then supported.  This is a result of the sequester being implemented.  We made it clear that there would be these kinds of negative effects if Congress failed to take reasonable action to avert the sequester -- policy that everyone who was involved in writing it knew at the time and has made clear ever since was never designed to be implemented.  It was designed to be bad policy and, therefore, to be avoided.

The fact is Congress had an opportunity, but Republicans made a choice.  And this is a result of a choice they made to embrace the sequester as -- and I'm quoting Republicans -- “a victory for the tea party” and “a homerun.”  I'm not sure if leaders in the Republican Party and that Congress agree with those assessments now, because they've obviously changed their position on the sequester a variety of times over the last several months.

The sequester never should have become policy.  The President has put forward a comprehensive, balanced approach to deficit reduction that would eliminate the sequester.  But this is Congress's responsibility.  It needs to take action.

Q    There are a couple of groups, bipartisan groups of senators making proposals.  Senators Moran and Blumenthal saying the administration has the opportunity to prioritize spending.  Senator Blumenthal is suggesting that furloughs ought to be postponed to give Congress another chance to revisit sequestration.  A couple of other senators -- a Republican and a Democrat -- asking the Transportation Secretary, the head of the FAA, if they might be able to move money around.  What's your response to that?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me say a couple of things.  One, I think the fact that various lawmakers are suggesting remedies confirms what I've said, which is only Congress can take action to stop these delays.  These delays are a result of the sequester that Republicans insisted take place. 

But let's be clear about the actions the FAA has taken and the actions that it cannot take.  Because of the way the budgets are structured and the way that the law imposing a sequester is written, the Department of Transportation is required by the law to cut about $1 billion between now and the end of the September. That's $637 million from the FAA.

The FAA has initiated a series of cost-saving measures, both personnel and non-personnel related, including a hiring freeze, restrictions on travel, termination of certain temporary employees, and reductions to contracts, among other savings.  But the fact is 70 percent of the FAA's operations budget is personnel.  So there is simply no way to avoid furloughs. 

And remember, Secretary LaHood came to this briefing room and laid this out as what would be an inevitable consequence if sequester were to become law, were to be implemented, and over time all of these other measures were implemented and the final action had to be furloughs.  That's just a fact.

Now, the President has put forward a balanced plan that would replace sequester and reduce our deficit while making the investments that are necessary to have our economy grow and create jobs, protect the middle class and protect seniors.  And the President is engaged in a process with lawmakers where he is trying to find common ground -- to see if common ground exists with Republicans around the basic principle that we need to reduce our deficit in a balanced way.  And he has put forward a plan that would do that and would eliminate the sequester in the process. 

When it comes to these delays, though, Congress has to act in order to avert these delays.

Q    Senator Moran says the fact that you're not asking for the ability to prioritize spending under the FAA suggests that you want the sequester to inflict maximum pain.

MR. CARNEY:  Since we did everything we could to avert the sequester and, unfortunately, Republicans decided as a political matter that it was a home run for them to inflict this upon the American people, I think that suggestion just doesn't hold water. 
Secondly, the FAA did take action -- all the action that it could under the law -- to produce savings and avoid furloughs up until this point, where because of the nature of their budget and the personnel-heavy nature of their operations, furloughs are the only option available to the FAA at this time.  Now, if Congress wants to address this matter, then they should act.  But this is something that only by law Congress can do.

Q    Can you give us an answer for us then on what the administration is doing right now in terms of dealing with the significant delays -- several hundred yesterday and many others being reported again today?  Aside from the pressure put on Congress, what can you do at this point to try to reconcile the situation in some form for travelers?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think you're asking separate questions. As a matter of how we resolve our budget disagreements that have led to the imposition of the sequester, the decision by Republicans to embrace the sequester -- 

Q    I understand that part.

MR. CARNEY:  -- and to spend a lot of time insisting that there were no consequences to the sequester, and then, suddenly, when there are consequences that they don't like, to start pointing fingers when, in fact, they had the opportunity to avert this and avoid it.  Our interest is in eliminating the sequester entirely.  It never should have become law.  The President has put forward a proposal that would eliminate the sequester.

When it comes to specific actions that the FAA has undertaken to deal with the delays caused by this, I would refer you to the FAA.  Those are matters of traffic control and safety -- and to the Department of Transportation in general.

Q    Let me ask you a couple of other questions.  Today it was announced by Senator Max Baucus of Montana that he is going to retire or is not going to seek reelection a year from now. I'm just curious for the White House's impression on that, especially given the fact that this -- what should have been an ally of yours voted against the background check bill just a matter of days ago.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President will have a statement, as we tend to do on a retirement like this or a decision not to seek reelection.  So I would look for that this afternoon. 

Q    But just on that issue in particular, there were a variety of Democrats, including Max Baucus, who voted against this.  And now, one of them doesn't even have to seek reelection. So the argument that the White House has made that they're making political calculations at home -- for him, this wasn't even a political calculation.  What does that say?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, obviously any senator who voted no would have to explain for himself or herself what motivated that vote. 
We firmly believe that the proper vote was to agree with the 90 percent of the American people who made clear in poll after poll after poll that they supported expansion of the background check system, a very common-sense measure to reduce gun violence in America.  And those numbers are true not just in New York and California or Massachusetts; they're true across the country.  The support for expanding background checks was overwhelmingly in every state where this question was raised. 

So every no vote was disappointing.  Every no vote reflected a decision that was at odds with the views of a majority of the constituents of the senator’s state -- whichever senator you wanted to put forward when it comes to voting no on this matter. 
But the President is committed, as he said, to moving forward on this.  And he believes that when you have a situation where the American people so strongly support moving forward in one direction and there is resistance because the Senate, in this case, is behind the curve here catching up to the American people, eventually they'll get it right and what is a common-sense measure to reduce gun violence while protecting Second Amendment rights will become law. 

Q    Can you give us a better sense of what to expect during the President's visit to the Bush Library?  And we, you said yesterday, would learn from you more about what his role will be at the ceremony to take place and memorial service in Waco, Texas on Thursday.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t have any more details for you at this time.  The President looks forward to the event with former President George W. Bush and the other Presidents who will be in attendance. 

Q    Does he make remarks? 

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not sure what we put out.  I think it's -- you might expect that the President will say a few words.  But we'll give you details when we're ready to announce them.

When it comes to the memorial service, as the President noted I think appropriately on Friday night as we were discussing the dramatic events outside of Boston, the people of West, Texas suffered enormously last week and continue to suffer from this tragic explosion that has taken lives and property and caused enormous harm.  The President wants to make clear, as does the First Lady, that our thoughts and prayers are with them.  And we will be with them moving forward as they rebuild their town and recover from this tragic event.

Q    Will he be speaking?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I'll provide you details as we formulate them. 

Yes, Margaret.

Q    I had a couple.  There’s a report out of Oxford, Mississippi that Paul Kevin Curtis has been released from jail. And I’m just wondering, has the White House, has the President been briefed?  Do you know why, what the conditions are?  And what are your reactions to it?

MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you to the FBI.  I don't have a great deal of information on that, so they're the lead investigating authority in that matter, so they might have more details on that.  I saw the news reports, but I don't know whether the President has been briefed on it.

Q    Okay.  If I can go back to the sequester briefly.  So the furloughs that are set to kick in May the 1st, do you have any hard numbers now at this point on how many White House staff would be affected and how you would handle in particular pay cuts for officers?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have specific numbers.  The sequester affects everyone in the White House office.  There will be furloughs effective with the first pay period in May, as I understand it.  And I think we’ve provided that information.  I don't have the specific numbers, but you can deduce from the numbers that are here the impact.

Others who are, I guess, commissioned officers or that don't have leave -- I forget the way that it’s described -- will have a pay reduction.  And I believe that takes effect also with the first pay period in May -- the point being only that everyone is affected by this, as a result of a decision to embrace policy that was designed never to become law.

Q    You’ve said that the President is confident that at some point the background checks will become law.  When does he want it brought up again?

MR. CARNEY:  We are going to work with the Senate.  We are going to work with outside stakeholders.  You will hear the President speak about this issue, just as he has in the past.  I think Senator Manchin has said that he is looking for ways to increase the bipartisan support that his amendment had, and we will obviously be supportive of those efforts.

It is also the case -- and this is broadly true of the way the President believes change happens in general in this country -- and that is that change happens on difficult and important issues like this when the American people insist that their voices are heard.  And the American people made clear where they stand on this issue.  And now that a vote has been taken, and the will of the American people has been thwarted by a minority in the Senate, those who are disappointed in that, those who are angry about it need to raise their voices.

And that’s how change happens -- when the public is engaged, and when the public that sent elected officials to Washington makes clear to those elected officials what their evaluations are of how they're doing their jobs.  And in this case, whatever the state is, there is a majority in that state that is disappointed in the vote taken if the vote was no by a United States senator.

So we, as the President did, call on frustrated constituents to make their frustration known.

Q    Well, generally the way they do that is in an election.  So are you waiting until after the next election?

MR. CARNEY:  No, I don’t think that it requires an election necessarily to bring about that change.  I think that there is an opportunity for Americans who are frustrated by the failure of the Senate to act in a common-sense way, in a way that is supported by the vast majority of the American people, to make their unhappiness and their frustration known sooner than the next election.  And there is a variety of means available to the citizens of this country to communicate with their lawmakers and make their views known.

Q    So is the focus now on Manchin-Toomey, on background checks alone?

MR. CARNEY:  I think it's -- no.  The President is committed to all of the elements of the package that he put forward.  He is disappointed by the failure of the Senate to take action on things that had broad bipartisan support across the country, majority support across the country.  And he will continue to push the entire package.

He is also continuing to ensure that we implement all of the 23 executive actions that were part of this package.  There was action taken on a mental health executive action on Friday to ensure that records are more available to those conducting background checks.  There is action today at the CDC looking at matters of gun violence that is part of the package of executive actions that the President put forward.  And he is going to insist that all of these actions be implemented, even as he pushes for and works with Congress to take up legislation.

Alexis.

Q    Jay, back on the FAA and sequester.  You've said two things today -- that the President thinks it's dumb policy; he has great sympathy for the people at DOT and FAA, for the travelers who have been inconvenienced, and it's up to Congress to act.  So my question is, if Congress decides to act immediately by enacting some sort of change that addresses just FAA and that $637 million, separate and apart from whatever they might want to do with the President on the budget, would the President sign such legislation?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me say, first of all, that the best way for Congress to fix this problem is to replace sequestration with a smarter approach to deficit reduction.  That’s how it was designed.  It was this onerous law that was put before Congress to run away from and force them to take responsible action to reduce the deficit.

Unfortunately, a decision was made -- and I'm quoting Republicans here -- "to embrace sequester as a home run and a political victory," a victory for the tea party.  But Congress can still act.

Now, if Congress has another idea about how to alleviate the challenges that sequester has caused for the FAA and for American travelers, we are open to looking at that and we're happy to look at it.  But let's be clear:  If they were to take that action -- and we would be open to looking at it -- any short-term or targeted fix to this problem is just a Band-Aid, because the fact is, there are a variety of -- a broad variety of negative effects of sequester and this is one of them. 

It's the families whose kids aren't in Head Start or won't be in Head Start.  It's the seniors who won't get Meals on Wheels.  It's the furloughed Defense employees or those in defense industries, private sector, who are suffering and will suffer because of it. 

The fact is, there are a number of negative consequences and a Band-Aid fix to this problem, while we will certainly be open to looking at it, does not solve the overall problem.  The overall problem can and should be solved by embracing the basic principle supported by the American people that we should reduce our deficit in a balanced way.

Q    And one quick follow-up on the FBI.  Do you happen to know how often in this administration another government has asked the United States through the FBI to pursue intelligence on someone living here?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a number to attach to it.  We have cooperative relationships when it comes to counterterrorism with a number of governments across the country -- allies and partners and other governments.  So that cooperation is broad and deep, and extends to this kind of information.

Q    Would you say it's common?

MR. CARNEY:  I wouldn’t hazard to characterize it in any way because a lot of these matters are matters of intelligence.  But we do have broad and deep cooperation with a number of countries and their intelligence agencies in our efforts to combat terrorism around the world. 

Q    Congressman Duncan of Tennessee has introduced a bill that says those organizations that collect money for presidential libraries should disclose the donors, those over $200.  And I’m wondering what the President’s thoughts are on that.

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not aware of the legislation.

Chris.

Q    Would he -- would he support this proposal?

MR. CARNEY:  I would have to just say that I’m not even aware of the legislation. 

Peter.  I did say Chris -- then Peter.

Q    On that point, where is he at in thinking about his own library?  Has he begun thinking about a site?  There’s talk about Chicago or Hawaii.

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t had a discussion with the President about that, and I talk to him almost every day.  He’s focused on the work that he’s doing now in office to try to advance the priorities that he laid out in the campaign last year and laid out in the State of the Union address and in his inaugural address. 

He wants action taken to grow the economy and create jobs.  He wants action taken to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that he can sign into law.  He wants action to reduce gun violence -- common-sense action to reduce gun violence.  He wants more action taken to enhance our energy security and our environment.  He has a broad agenda that he’s working on.  He’s not focused on his life after the presidency.

Q    Does anybody focus on it, though, on his behalf?

MR. CARNEY:  Not that I’m aware of.

Q    Jay?

MR. CARNEY:  Chris, sorry.  Yes.

Q    A question on the employment nondiscrimination act, which is going to be introduced in both the House and the Senate on Thursday.  It’s been more than a year since you announced that in lieu of the LGBT nondiscrimination executive order, you would work to build support to pass legislation.  In fact, it was on April 12th of last year that you said, “We plan to pursue a number of strategies to obtain that goal.”  Can you name one thing the President has done over the course of the past year to build support for LGBT nondiscrimination in the workplace protections?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President’s record on LGBT issues and his commitment to rights for LGBT Americans is I think clear and demonstrated by his views and the actions that he has taken and the actions that his administration has taken at his direction.

The fact is, as you noted, we have long supported -- the President has long supported an inclusive employment nondiscrimination act, and now it’s being introduced, and that is a good thing.  The administration will continue to work to build support for this important legislation because we believe that this is the right way, the right approach to take because it is inclusive.  And that's why we supported it then; that's why we’re glad to see it being introduced.

Q    Well, you keep saying you’re going to work to build support.  Can you give me one thing, any initiative, any action the President has undertaken to build support for this legislation?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, Chris, I think the President’s record on these issues has been pretty well documented.  And it’s clear his commitment to the rights of LGBT Americans is very clear.  His support for this specific legislation I think is reflected in the fact that it’s being introduced, as you said, in the House and the Senate. 

And he will work with like-minded lawmakers who support movement on this legislation to see it passed and hopefully signed into law.  That's how this process works.  This is the approach the President thought was the right one to take and he is encouraged by the progress being made.

Q    Can you name any initiative the President has undertaken?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I think I’ve answered the question.

George.

Q    Yes, how much does the President view the four former Presidents as a resource for advice?  We know he relies on President Clinton at times, but does he talk to the other former Presidents ever?

MR. CARNEY:  What I will say and I’ve said this before that I’m not going to divulge conversations that the President has had, private conversations with his living predecessors.  I will simply say that he believes that they share a very unique experience -- that's a redundancy -- it’s just unique -- not just very unique -- a unique experience of holding this office, and that, regardless of the times when they served and their political and policy differences, there is a commonality of experience that the President believes binds them together.  The responsibilities of the office are the same.  The weight of the decisions that a President has to make is always enormous and substantial.  And he believes that every person who has held this office has approached it with a commitment to doing the things that he believes -- he, in the case of the past -- he and/or she in the future -- are the right things to do to make the country better and to help the American people, and to make it safer.

And that commonality regardless of the differences that may exist between them is I think a very powerful thing.  And the President looks -- and for that reason, the President looks forward to seeing all of his predecessors in Dallas next week -- or this week.

Q    Tomorrow.

MR. CARNEY:  Tomorrow.

Q    Without getting into any specific conversations, does he stay in touch, though, with the others?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, he is -- broadly speaking, he has had conversations with his predecessors, but I don't want to get into specifics about those conversations.

Thanks, you all.

END   
2:03 P.M. EDT