The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
White House Policy for Countering Improvised Explosive Devices
The President signed the White House Policy for Countering Improvised Explosive Devices today. The policy can be found here.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
The President signed the White House Policy for Countering Improvised Explosive Devices today. The policy can be found here.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Aboard Air Force One
En Route Newport News, Virginia
11:39 A.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Hello. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being aboard Air Force One with us today as we make our way to Newport News, Virginia. As you know, the President will be visiting Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, where he will discuss the impacts on the defense industry and the Virginia economy if congressional Republicans fail to compromise to avert the sequester.
As I think you know, in the information that we provided you it makes clear that HII, in this case, the company that runs Newport News Shipbuilding, engages with suppliers, small businesses across the country that would be adversely affected by sequester. The President feels very strongly that for the sake of the people of Virginia and people who would be affected across the country, Republicans in Congress need to do what the American public overwhelmingly wants them to do, which is agree to a balanced approach to further reducing deficit. And you’ll hear about that subject from the President in his remarks today.
Questions.
Q Military officials in Afghanistan are correcting an incorrect report that the Taliban attacks dropped last year. Does that undercut the President’s message that there are improvements happening in Afghanistan?
MR. CARNEY: The President has made clear repeatedly that as we draw down our forces and train up Afghan forces, we will turn over security lead to the Afghans progressively as we move towards the transition points that he has discussed and that NATO has committed to.
It has always been the case, and will remain the case, that this is hard work and it is not work that comes without occasional setbacks. I haven’t seen the report that you’ve mentioned, but ultimately, thanks to the sacrifice of American men and women in uniform, as well as our diplomats, Afghanistan is increasingly capable of taking care of its own security and ultimately will be responsible for its own security. The President is committed to winding down that war and will keep to the timetable that he’s announced with his NATO allies.
Q Jay, is the President resigned to the sequestration cuts going into effect on Friday?
MR. CARNEY: I think you heard him say the other day that he remains hopeful, even though he understands that the clock is ticking and thus far, Republican leaders have refused to budge on the basic principle that we need to address this, our deficit challenges, in a balanced way.
We have on board, as you know, Congressman Rigell, who has said that he would like to see the sequester averted and that closing loopholes is a fair way to, in part, go about doing that. I think you saw Senator Lindsey Graham yesterday, late yesterday, on CNN talk about how he believes the damage of the sequester would be severe, especially to our defense interests, and that he would be open to a package of balanced deficit reduction that would include up to $600 billion in revenue from tax reform.
What's notable about that figure is that it’s roughly what the President has put forward in his offer to Speaker Boehner and it's actually considerably less, $200 billion less, than the Speaker himself, as late as December of last year, just two months ago, said was his plan for contributing revenue to deficit reduction.
Q Do those two folks that you mentioned give you folks hope that that’s an actual breakthrough, or is that just -- are those just outliers in an otherwise intractable situation?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we'll have to see what the Republican leadership does. Unfortunately, on the other side of the ledger, we've seen comments, as we did from Congressman Pompeo, a Republican Congressman, that suggests a different course of action. He said it would be a home run politically for Republicans to see sequester implemented. I wonder if he would say that to the 90,000 Defense Department workers in Virginia who would see their pay cut because of furloughs, or the thousands of Virginians who would lose their jobs because of sequester if it were allowed to be implemented. We certainly don't think that's a home run for ordinary Americans, even if that Congressman thinks it would be for him politically.
Q Jay, Senators Graham and McCain, our understanding is, are invited to the White House later today. Is that about immigration? Or is that about sequestration and defense?
MR. CARNEY: The meeting arose out of the President's telephone calls with Senator McCain -- I believe the telephone call with Senator McCain when he was calling members of the so-called Gang of Eight on immigration. Senator Graham also is a member of that. And I'm sure immigration will be a topic of conversation today. But I also expect, given the leading role that those Senators play in their party in the Senate that other topics will be addressed, including sequester. I think Senator Graham said yesterday in public in an interview that he hopes that sequester will be on the table as a topic of discussion. And I know that the President will want to discuss that as well.
Q Why not Flake and Rubio, too?
MR. CARNEY: My understanding is this arose from a conversation with Senator McCain -- the meeting did. The President spoke with Senator Rubio, he spoke with other members of the Gang of Eight, including Democratic members, and looks forward to working with them on immigration reform. As I think Margaret points out, I think we expect more than one topic of conversation in this meeting.
Q Are you hoping that there can be some real advancement or breakthrough on the sequestration front, given those two and the roles they play? And also, does the President plan on calling Boehner and McConnell back to the White House either before March 1st or at least by week’s end?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't want to set any expectations with regards to a sequester. On this particular meeting I'm sure it will be a subject. Senator Graham has said he would like it to be. I know the President is interested in that subject. Immigration and other issues will be on the table, I’m sure.
The President has been engaged and will continue to be engaged with congressional leaders of both parties on the issue of the sequester. I don't have any meetings or phone calls to preview for you, but you can expect that he will continue to engage with them.
He will also, as he is today, go out and speak to the American people about these important issues. It's rather stunning to me that Republicans criticize the President for talking to the American people about the consequences of sequester, because the American people are the ones who will feel those consequences. Perhaps --
Q They called it a roadshow.
MR. CARNEY: Well, they did, and I guess that maybe they are opposed to the President talking to the American people about sequester because the American people overwhelmingly support the President's position on how to reduce our deficit, and reject overwhelmingly the Republican position, which is placing the entire burden on senior citizens and middle-class families and the like.
The numbers could not be more stark, and setting aside public opinion, the policies could not be more different when it comes to balance and fairness.
Q When you talked about Senator Graham speaking about being open to tax revenues yesterday, he also said, where's the President when it comes to overhaul of entitlement. And would that be a topic? Would there be a give-and-take? Do you think there would be an opening to negotiation on that today?
MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, I'm not going to preview a meeting that hasn't taken place. And I'm simply reflecting what Senator Graham said he would like to be one of the topics of conversation, and representing for the President that he, of course, would be interested in talking about that. It's not a negotiation over sequester.
But when it comes to entitlement reform, I would remind you, as we made clear again last week and have repeatedly since December, the President's offer to the Speaker of the House remains on the table. That includes roughly $580 billion in revenue through tax reform -- again, short of what John Boehner said was possible, significantly short of what John Boehner said he supported back just a few short months ago. And it includes savings from entitlement reforms -- tough choices by Democrats as part of a broad, comprehensive deficit reduction package that would include tax reform that generated revenue.
The President has shown his commitment to entitlement reform, including the so-called superlative CPI change, as well as means-testing of Medicare benefits. These are -- these represent choices that are reflective of his willingness to compromise and Democrats’ willingness and interest in compromise. What we haven't seen, unfortunately, from Republican leaders is anything like that commensurate level of -- anything commensurate with that level of compromise. We have not seen proposals from -- at least comprehensive proposals from Republicans that include revenue in the way that the President's proposals include savings from both discretionary spending and entitlements.
Back in December, the Speaker talked about that he could create -- he could produce $800 billion in revenue over 10 years from tax reform -- $800 billion from, to quote him, “the rich." He never put that on paper, but he said it again and again publicly. He said it was the right policy. And what we don’t understand is why it was the right policy two months ago and now it's unacceptable policy for Speaker Boehner today.
Q Jay, on that point, the White House keeps on saying that Boehner proposed this set of policies, but that would -- he was talking before the fiscal cliff deal, which already raised taxes. Wasn’t he talking about -- you're talking about increasing the net tax burden -- he didn’t want to do that, though. He wanted to reduce rates to get the $800 billion.
MR. CARNEY: No, no, no. He talked about a tax reform package that would contribute revenue to deficit reduction. I understand that they want to now do tax reform that is revenue-neutral. That is quite different from what we were talking about late last year.
And the fact of the matter is that including the fiscal cliff deal -- which included raising rates to Clinton-era levels for the wealthiest Americans -- income tax rates -- we have still seen deficit reduction that is made up of more than $2 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenues. That reflects balance. It reflects balance in favor of spending cuts signed into law by this President. What it doesn’t reflect is the absolutist approach that Republicans have taken when we talk about the sequester or the need for further deficit reduction.
Q One more question on the sequester. If it goes into effect and the Republicans don't compromise with you, that will mean the ratio of spending cuts to taxes will be three and a half or four to one in the end. Isn't that a defeat for the President if sequester stays?
MR. CARNEY: Sequester, if it’s imposed, will be imposed because of a choice by the Republican leadership to reject balance in our deficit reduction efforts, to reject the overwhelming sentiment of the American people in favor of balance, and the consequences of sequester will be the result of that Republican choice.
There’s no question that the President believes, as the Republicans once did, that the sequester is bad policy that should never be law, should never be implemented. That was the whole point of the sequester. And I can point you to numerous statements by Republican leaders about how sequester should be avoided at all costs.
Now we have a Republican congressmen saying sequester will be a home run for them politically -- although the political universe that he inhabits seems different from the general American public, the general American universe. And we see the Speaker of the House himself saying just a few weeks ago to the Wall Street Journal that he has sequester in his back pocket, and the Speaker in that interview also bragged about the fact that he had convinced fellow House Republicans to support implementation of the sequester.
Again, that kind of attitude ignores the impact that imposition of the sequester would have on the lives of average Americans here in Virginia and across the country.
I think we should all thank the pilot for that impressive landing. (Laughter.)
Q Jay, is this Favreau and Tommy’s last flight?
MR. CARNEY: It is. It’s a sad day.
Q Are they here because they --
MR. CARNEY: They are. There are and will be tears and gnashing of teeth.
END
11:52 A.M. EST
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:21 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for being here. As you can see, I have a guest with me today for the daily briefing. Secretary Janet Napolitano is here to speak with you about the effects of sequester -- sequestration -- if it is allowed to take place, what those effects would be on her department.
As you heard from Secretary LaHood last week from this podium and Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, over the weekend, the impacts of sequester will be felt if sequester takes place, in a variety of ways -- in education and defense spending and transportation, air traffic control and the like, and certainly with regards to our homeland security.
So as we did with Secretary LaHood, I’d ask that you allow Secretary Napolitano to give a topper, some remarks at the top, then she’ll take questions from you specific to her. If you could hold questions that you expect I’ll be more appropriate to answer until we can allow the Secretary to leave and then I’ll take those questions.
And with that, I turn it over to Secretary Napolitano.
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Jay. And I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impacts of sequestration on the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. As a primer, DHS has a very broad mission and we touch almost every aspect of the economy. We secure the aviation sector. We screen two million domestic air travelers a day. We protect our borders, our ports of entry. We facilitate legitimate travel and trade. Last year, our CBP officers processed more than 350 million people and processed over $2.3 trillion in trade. We enforce the immigration laws. We partner with the private sector to protect critical infrastructure. We work with states and local communities to prepare for and respond to disasters of all types, like Hurricane Sandy, while supporting recovery and rebuilding.
Put simply, the automatic budget reduction mandated by sequestration would be disruptive and destructive to our nation’s security and economy. It would negatively affect the mission readiness and capabilities of the men and women on our frontlines. It would undermine the significant progress we’ve made over the past 10 years to build the nation’s preparedness and resiliency.
Perhaps most critically, it would have serious consequences to the flow of trade and travel at our nation’s ports of entry. We will have to begin to furlough customs and border protection officers who staff those ports. At the major international airports, we will be limited in accepting new international flights, and average wait times to clear customs will increase by as much as 50 percent. And at our busiest airports like Newark and JFK, LAX and O’Hare, peak wait times, which can reach over two hours, could easily grow to four hours or more. Such delays will cause thousands of missed-passenger connections daily, with economic consequences at both the local and the national levels.
Reductions in overtime and hiring freezes at our Transportation Security officers will increase domestic passenger wait times at our busiest airports.
On the Southwest border, our biggest land ports could face waits of up to five hours, functionally closing these ports during core hours.
At our seaports, delays in container examinations would increase to up to five days, resulting in increased cost to the trade community and reduced availability of consumer goods and raw materials. Mid-sized and smaller ports would experience constrained hours of operation, affecting local cross-border communities.
At our cruise terminals, processing times could increase up to six hours causing passengers there, as well, to miss connecting flights, delayed trips, and increase their costs.
Sequestration will have serious consequences for our other missions, as well. As I said, CBP will have to furlough all of its employees, reduce overtime, and eliminate hiring to backfill positions, decreasing the number of hours our Border Patrol has to operate between the ports of entry by up to 5,000 Border Patrol agents.
The Coast Guard will reduce its presence in the Arctic by a third. We will curtail our air and surface operations by more than 25 percent, affecting management of the nation’s waterways, as well as fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction and migrant interdiction.
Under sequestration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also part of DHS, will be forced to reduce detention and removal and would not be able to maintain the 34,000 detention beds as required by Congress. It would also reduce our investigative activities in areas like human smuggling and commercial trade fraud.
In terms of our nation’s disaster preparedness response and recovery efforts, it would reduce the Disaster Relief Fund by nearly $1 billion, potentially affecting survivors recovering from Hurricane Sandy, the tornadoes in places like Tuscaloosa and Joplin, and other major disasters across the country.
And Homeland Security grant funding would be reduced to its lowest level in seven years, leading to potential layoffs of state and local emergency personnel across the country.
Let me close by saying this. Threats from terrorism and the need to respond and recover from natural disasters do not diminish because of budget cuts. Even in the current fiscal climate, we do not have the luxury of making significant reductions to our capabilities without significant impacts. We will work to continue to preserve our frontline priorities as best we can, but no amount of planning can mitigate the negative effects of sequestration.
So as we approach the 1st of March, I join with all of my other colleagues and with the governors, who we just heard outside, to ask the Congress to prevent sequestration in order to maintain the safety, security, and resiliency of the country.
Thank you.
MR. CARNEY: We’ll take some questions for the Secretary.
Q Thank you. Secretary, you were talking about reduced hours of Border Patrol and reduced personnel at the nation’s ports. Are you saying that the nation will be less secure at the border and at its ports as a result of the cuts?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: No. What we’re going to have to do in terms of -- at the actual ports of entry, we’re going to have to continue to check for contraband, for potential terrorists and the like, passengers as well as containers and other cargo. So the procedures will be the same, but we’ll have fewer people able to do them, so the lines are going to get longer.
And between the ports, we are going to see a reduction in Border Patrol resources between the ports of entry. So it’s really a very -- as I said last week at a hearing, it’s almost an out-of-body experience. Last week I was testifying in the Congress before the Judiciary Committee on the need for immigration reform, and I was being asked, what are we doing to strengthen security at the border. And the very next day -- and we have put record amounts of resources into the border and our border security. The very next day, I was in the Appropriations Committee saying, but you’re taking -- rolling it all back through sequestration. So it’s really a --
Q But doesn’t that mean the border is less secure if you’re taking away hours of --
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Between the ports of entry, if you reduce the number of Border Patrol agents, I think you can say, yes, it does affect our ability to keep out illegal migrants and others trying to enter the country.
MR. CARNEY: Yes, Matt.
Q So you painted a dire picture and you mentioned that, as you were closing, the threat of terrorism doesn’t wait for these kind of legislative roadblocks. So with all the diminished capability that you’ve described, how could the country not face a greater threat of suffering a terrorist attack under these circumstances in the months to come?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: We’re going to do -- in this fiscal environment where we go to sequestration and possible shutdown and all the rest, always lacking a budget in regular order so that we can’t effectively manage and plan, we will always put a priority on maintaining the safety of the American people. But what that is going to require, and the impacts people are going to see -- and they will build over the next several weeks; you won’t see them immediately like a shutdown, but it will accrue over the next few weeks -- is that lines, procedures, wait times are all going to get longer.
So, for example, if you’re traveling by air, you’re going to have to start getting to the airport earlier. And if you’re trying to make a connecting flight, you’re going to have to make your arrangements to give you greater time with which to do that. And if you’re trying to bring cargo over a land port of entry, you’re going to have to prepare for some very long lines.
Q But will there or will there not be a greater threat of a terrorist attack?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Well, there’s always a threat. We’re going to do everything we can to minimize that risk. But the sequester makes it awfully, awfully tough.
MR. CARNEY: Major.
Q How soon? You said we wouldn’t see these effects right away. Is this a month, two months, three months? As you look at your budgets and how to put this through in the furlough process, need 30 days notification, and begin to cycle through, when do the American public actually feel what you’re describing today?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I think -- because it’s not all about furloughs, it’s also not being able to backfill over time and the like, and that starts immediately. But I think the public will really begin to feel it in the next few weeks. So it will be accruing over the next few weeks. And if you heard Secretary LaHood on Friday talking about the effect on the FAA, between the effect on the FAA and the effect on the TSA and the CBP, you really have a perfect storm in terms of the ability to move around the country.
Q And once it starts, do you think the effects will become exponential? I mean, they’ll get worse and worse and worse?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Yes. It will be like a rolling ball. It will keep growing.
MR. CARNEY: Ed.
Q I’ve heard kind of different answers. So is the country going to be less safe after sequester, in your opinion, as somebody who’s all over this issue for the last four years?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Look, I don’t think we can maintain the same level of security at all places around the country with sequester as without sequester. We’re going to do and are doing everything we can within the limits sequester gives us. But, as I was mentioning earlier, if you have 5,000 fewer Border Patrol hours -- or agents, you have 5,000 fewer Border Patrol agents. That has a real impact.
Q So you think there will be more illegal immigrants coming in, and there’s a greater threat that terrorists could actually launch an attack?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: We’ve spent the last four years with the Congress putting record amounts of personnel down at the Southwest border. And I know that border really well. I mean, I was the U.S. Attorney in Arizona, the Attorney General, the Governor. I’m from New Mexico, originally. I’ve lived at the border and worked at the border my whole life. And that border now is as secure as it’s been in the last two decades. It doesn’t mean we don’t have more to do. There’s always more to do. But it’s really been an unprecedented historic effort.
And now, because of a budget impasse, to have to begin to look at rolling back those agents and slowing hiring, and getting rid of overtime -- which we use a lot between the ports of entry -- that will have a real impact.
Q Secretary Napolitano, just a few moments ago, Governor Jindal from Louisiana was outside and he accused the President of trying to scare people. Can you just say right here for the record that you are not here just trying to scare people? That what you’re saying has to happen is a necessity as a result of these cuts?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Yes, I’m not here to scare people. I’m here to inform, and also to let people begin to plan -- because they’re going to see these impacts in their daily lives, and they’re going to have to adjust and make their arrangements accordingly. And it won’t be like a shutdown, where it’s like turning off the light switch. But all I can say for folks is these are the effects that will accrue. Please don’t yell at the customs officer or the TSO officer because the lines are long. The lines over the next few weeks are going to start to lengthen in some dramatic ways in parts of the country.
Q Because the Governor raised the question -- why can’t you just cut 3 percent out of your budget without having these devastating impacts, whether it be on aviation over at the FAA or on security at Homeland Security. Why not?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Well, that’s not the way sequester works. Sequester works account by account by account, and you don’t just take $85 billion out of the economy over six months and not expect to see real impacts -- because there’s only certain amounts of things we can cut. And we are personnel-heavy. We secure air, land, and sea borders. We’re out in the maritime environment. We’re making sure that disaster relief is flowing when we need it. So these effects are the kinds of things people are going to see and they need to be able to plan for. So my purpose here today is just to make very clear what these impacts are likely going to be unless and until Congress resolves the sequester.
MR. CARNEY: Peter, then Ari.
Q Secretary Napolitano, just to confirm -- the total number of dollars that will be taken from your department as a result of sequester is what?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: We’ll give you the total number. It keeps changing.
Q Roughly?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: What would you say -- for all of DHS --
Q On sequester.
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: About 5 percent.
Q Okay.
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: The reason I’m fluctuating is because it was 6 percent last week and because of adjustments.
Q And then in real dollars that is roughly?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Billions.
Q Billions. Are there are other places -- aside from the way that sequester works, are there other places where you could cut back in the billions of dollars to find the cuts necessary to accomplish spending cuts that America, Republicans insist need?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Look, we began in 2009 going through our department, finding places where we could cut and avoid costs to streamline our efforts as much as we can. We actually had employees involved in this because they’re the ones that oftentimes see best places where we can save and conserve. We’ve already identified over $4 billion in those kinds of cuts. We are constantly working, looking to see how we can effectively, efficiently carry out all the different missions that are located under one umbrella, which is DHS. So yes, we have cut billions already.
Q And there are $4 billion more, are you suggesting? Or there’s --
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: We have already cut four [billion] but we’re always looking for cuts and places where, for example, we can use technology as a force multiplier; places where we can perhaps use some of the leftover DOD equipment and put it into use for some of our missions.
But we continue to have -- as I said before, there are evolving terrorist threats. They don't go away. We’re now dealing with the emerging cybersecurity threat. And when I say emerging, it really is here. But we have huge responsibilities under that now, which are somewhat new. And Mother Nature doesn't go away because of a budget cycle. So we have to deal with all of that simultaneously.
Q So, basically, we can see if there were more flexibility in a situation other than the sequester, there would be other places for you to cut, but just not under the present formula?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Under the present formula, it is just a big, broad brush that treats everything as if it’s equivalent. There’s no prioritization. There’s no planning. There’s no management associated with it. And as I said before, look, people don't want to be less safe. They don't want to be less secure. They want to think that we are securing the borders. They want to believe we’re enforcing the immigration laws. They want to make sure that if there’s a disaster, there could be a prompt and effective response. These are things people expect out of the government and for us to be able to provide.
So with those expectations and meeting them, where the sequester really hits then is, okay, how do we do that when you have a cut that says, well, you got to reduce your CBP hours; and you got to reduce overtime here; and you can't pay for this over there. That's what we’re dealing with.
MR. CARNEY: Ari.
Q You talked about undoing some of the progress that's been made over the last decade. If sequester lasts a few weeks or a few months, are there long-term consequences that will remain? Or is all of the damage you’re describing damage that can be very quickly undone if funding returns to where it’s supposed to be?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: That's hard to say. It’s hard to say because you have to actually see what is going to happen. All I can say is, look, we’re doing our very best to minimize the impacts of sequester. But there’s only so much I can do. I’m supposed to have 34,000 detention beds for immigration. How do I pay for those? We want to maintain 22,000-some odd Border Patrol agents. I got to be able to pay their salaries. We need to have overtime for our port officers because we already have a shortage of port officers.
I mean, I was Miami last week at the airport, and I heard a lot from the Mayor and others in that part of Florida about long wait times and from the cruise industry about their long wait times. And it’s very hard to work on that and try to fix that when we are probably and likely to see in the Miami area an extension of wait times. So we’ll do everything we can to minimize the impact, but there is only so much I can do.
We have to protect the safety of the American people the best we can. We’re committed to doing that, but that means a lot of inconvenience at a minimum, plus some, I think, true economic loss, plus rolling back some of our progress at the Southwest border. These are all things we’re going to see.
MR. CARNEY: Alexis.
Q Governor, I wanted to ask you, you were just mentioning that certain statute, certain law requires you to maintain certain levels -- detention beds being an example. If this particular -- the sequestration part of the law is encouraging or compels the Department to violate another law, is there anything that you can do through the courts or legally to supersede one statute for another?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Look, as the Secretary, I’m working with all of these components to do the best we can to secure the public, right? And now I’m put between the rock and the hard place, and I shouldn’t have to go to court for Congress to figure out a budget for the Department of Homeland Security and for the federal government at large. We can do this in a balanced way. We can do this in a balanced way that allows us to rein in spending, make logical cuts and cost avoidances where possible, and close tax loopholes so that we get some revenue into the system. There is a balanced approach that's available.
But in the absence of the ability to come together and resolve that, what this means is it’s going to fall very heavily -- and people will see it -- this is not -- sequester is a concept that's been floating around in the air, but it will unfortunately have real consequences people will see over time.
Q So there’s no question you have to honor this? You have no legal leeway?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Not that I’m informed of.
MR. CARNEY: April, then Zach, then Jon.
Q Secretary Napolitano, without sequester we are an open society. But with the sequester, if it happens March 1st, how vulnerable would this nation be to possibilities of terrorism?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Well, I think if you look at the combination of the effect on DHS, on the Department of Justice and on the Department of Defense, we are having real impacts on the robustness of our defensive posture. And there are things that we will not be able to do as well, like secure between the ports of entry on the land borders, as we would do without sequester.
In terms of maritime activities, protecting the coasts, as we do with the Coast Guard, we’re looking at a 25-percent reduction because we have to accomplish the cut between now and the end of the fiscal year, so we have seven months to accomplish the cut.
Q So there is a vulnerability?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Yes.
MR. CARNEY: Zach, then Jon.
Q Secretary Napolitano, you mentioned that Americans would face longer lines, longer waits. Couldn’t you say that's just part of life in an America that needs to pull in its budget, needs to be more disciplined? Isn’t that a way that Americans just have to contribute towards deficit reduction, wait a little bit longer? Is that so bad?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I think you’re minimizing what people are likely to see, and I think that question minimizes the impact on the economy, for example. When you slow down the inspection of containers by up to five days -- we work on a real-time inventory type of economy -- you slow down that global economy, the trade that comes into the country and leaves the country, that translates into lots and lots of jobs -- good-paying jobs. And those are going to be impacted.
When people can't travel and get to where they need to go for business or personal reasons, that has a real impact. Americans are all contributing. We understand that. But this is not the way to do it, and the sequester is about as illogical a process as you could possibly conceive.
Q So containers aren’t hours, they're days?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Days. In some ports, it will be days.
Q Five days.
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Up to five.
MR. CARNEY: Jon.
Q Just two very quick follow-ups. We heard from Bobby Jindal just a few minutes ago. Governor Jindal says that the administration is scaring people. He says the President is scaring people. Is that just wrong?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I think it’s wrong. I mean if people are scared, it’s because the full impact of this is finally being made evident, and so people now are saying, oh, my gosh, what do I need to do? Well, people need to be able to plan. They need to know what to expect. It won’t happen, as I said, like the flick of a light switch but it will accrue over the next weeks, and that is why it’s so important Congress come to the table, reach a balanced approach, so we can get this budget impasse behind us and get on with the work of the country.
Q Just to follow up on Peter’s question -- I know you want a balanced approach and some tax revenues, I understand that fully -- but if you had flexibility to make these cuts, the billions of dollars you mentioned, any way you wanted in your budget, could you lessen the impact?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: We could a little bit on the margins. But the plain fact of the matter is they fall at such a heavy level, because we’re so personnel-rich as a Department, that people would still experience the kinds of things that I’ve just described.
MR. CARNEY: Donovan, and then Chris.
Q Thanks. I just wanted to clear something up. Earlier you said -- someone asked if our country would be less secure and you said no, the procedures will be the same but you have fewer people to do them so the lines will be longer.
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Right.
Q But then April just asked you if our vulnerability to a terror attack will increase and you said yes. Can we just clear up --
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Yes. At the ports, where people -- where we’re governing cargo and passengers, we will do the same checks. They’re very important. It will take longer.
What I was particularly referencing, however, was the rollback in Border Patrol agent time. And it’s just common sense, if you roll that back, you make between the ports of entry less secure than the record security that has been there for the last years. And quite frankly, as we move into the discussion of immigration reform -- and that system needs comprehensive change and reform -- we all want to begin with saying, look, the border must be secure and it must be sustained in its security.
MR. CARNEY: Chris, and then we’ll take one more and let the Secretary go.
Q I have a question on a different topic. As you know, the Defense of Marriage Act is under review right now before the Supreme Court. And in anticipation of that ruling, LGBT advocates have been calling on you to place in advance marriage-based green card applications for married same-sex couples. I was wondering if this policy is under consideration right now.
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: The legal advice we have received is that we can’t put it in advance because DOMA remains the law. We’d like to see that law overturned. In practical terms, however, most of those cases fall within very, very low priority in terms of what we’ve done over the last years, which is to build priorities into immigration enforcement so we’re not seeing impracticality those deportations occur.
Q But back in in 2009, you directed USCIS to suspend adjudication of visa petitions and adjustment applications for immigrant widows of U.S. citizens. If you can do this policy for widows, why can’t you do it for foreign nationals in same-sex marriages?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Because of DOMA.
MR. CARNEY: Yes, sir, last question for the Secretary.
Q Secretary Napolitano, I just want to -- on the economy loss again, considering the $1.5 billion daily trade relationship with Canada, for instance, how will this impact the relationship -- the sequestration? And also, when you say, I want people to begin to plan, have you been in contact with your Canadian counterpart, security-wise, to discuss how they could take some part of the work?
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I haven’t been in touch with my counterpart. I don’t know whether the acting commissioner of customs has been. But as I said in my opening remarks, we do $2.3 trillion worth of trade a year through customs and border protection. And Canada is our largest trading partner. Mexico is probably our third-largest trading partner. That translates into hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States. One of the chief complaints I receive whenever I travel to either border is it takes too long to move the trucks across; it takes too long for people in passenger vehicles to get through.
And all I can tell you is that with sequestration, that situation is not going to improve, it’s going to go backwards.
MR. CARNEY: Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Appreciate it.
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: Thanks, Jay. Yes, you bet.
MR. CARNEY: And if you have any more questions, I’m here to take them.
Yes, sir.
Q If there’s a move in the Senate to pass legislation that would give the administration flexibility to deal with these cuts in a way that is not so destructive to national security issues, to air travelers being inconvenienced and so forth, would the President be receptive to that kind of legislation?
MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, I think the move in the Senate that we’re likely to see is a vote on a bill that would delay the deadline for sequestration through a buy-down that includes both spending cuts and revenues -- the kind of balance that the American people overwhelmingly support and the kind of balance that the President hopes Congress will adopt when it tackles the further deficit reduction that is necessary for us to achieve that $4 trillion-plus goal.
I think Secretary Napolitano said it very well, which is you can imagine ways that flexibility might help you on the margins, but the size of the cuts and the fact that they all have to be done in such a short period of time, the fact that they’re limited where they are in portions of defense and nondefense discretionary, means that the impacts cannot be avoided.
These are real effects on real people’s lives, on the border, on FAA. I mean, when you asked your question -- if the Senate could pass a bill that would basically prevent all the bad things from happening but somehow allow cuts to come in places that nobody will notice, you’re imagining something that isn’t possible.
So there is no question that we need to reduce our deficit further. The President has put forward plans again and again that achieve that goal. And his plans have routinely always consistently included balance. So far, he has signed into law $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. More than two-thirds of that deficit reduction has come through spending cuts.
He has put forward a plan, which we talked about last week, an offer to the Speaker that includes more deficit reduction beyond the $4 trillion goal, that includes spending cuts and savings from entitlement reforms. But it also includes closing tax code loopholes, capping deductions, eliminating special interest tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals that would, together with those cuts, help achieve the deficit reduction we need in a balanced way.
It was only two months ago that we all were in this room and talked about the proposal that the Speaker of the House said was absolutely the right way to go, which is to increase revenue -- up to $800 billion of revenue -- through closing loopholes and eliminating tax breaks and capping deductions for wealthy individuals and corporations. He said that was the right policy then.
Today, he says it’s not. Today, he says, unfortunately, that we should reduce hours for border security agents. We should close air control towers. We should cut back on the number of teachers in state after state after estate -- state, rather than -- do that rather than ask for these loopholes to be closed or these deductions to be capped. That’s just bad policy and it’s wholly inconsistent with what the American people want to happen in this case.
Q And just a follow-up. Is the White House anticipating that the Senate will move on some sort of legislation that would delay this deadline and buy it down, as you said just a few moments ago? And are administration officials working with staff on the Hill to put that sort of thing together? And how would all of that impact the CR that is coming up at the end of the month? Because it seems as if the cans that are being kicked down the road are starting to run into each other.
MR. CARNEY: Well, you make a good point. On the first question about activity in the Senate, I certainly would refer you to the Senate Majority Leader’s office. But, as you know, Senate Democrats have put forward a bill that would buy down the sequester until the end of the year through a balanced package of spending cuts and revenue increases. And the President supports that. The House Democrats have done the same, and we hope that the Senate votes on that.
And what I am confident of, and what the President is confident of is that there is majority support in the Senate for that. The question that Republicans will have to ask themselves is if they will block that -- because of the filibuster rule, where a minority can block what is so clearly supported by the majority -- and therefore prevent it from passing the Senate and potentially being taken up in the House; where, given what we have seen from some Republicans and the indication from some rank-and-file Republicans in the House, the concern that they have about the impact of sequestration and their interest in avoiding sequester through balance, including revenues, we think it’s possible that that bill, if it were to be allowed to pass the Senate, could also pass the House if the Speaker would let it come up.
After all, we know from a poll just last week in USA Today that when it comes to further reducing our deficit, this isn’t even a close call in terms of where the American public stands. Seventy-six percent of the American people said in that poll that they prefer a balanced approach that includes revenues as well as spending cuts. Only 19 percent -- less than 1 in 5 Americans -- say that they support the Republican approach. So this isn’t even --
Q So the delay in buy-down would have to include revenues of some sort?
MR. CARNEY: Certainly, yes, as the President has said, that we have to do this in a balanced way. That’s been the approach that he’s always taken.
Julie.
Q Jay, are there still no active negotiations underway between the White House and Congress?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as you know, the President spoke with congressional leaders last week and we will continue to engage with Congress this week. But I think it’s fair to say --
Q Are you meeting with them? Are you having -- any active negotiations?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any readings or calls to read out or preview -- meetings or calls to read out or preview -- but I can tell you that we will continue to engage with Congress.
The simple fact is that what Republican leaders are saying in public reflects the position, as we understand it, that they have -- which is an absolute refusal to allow for a single loophole to be closed, special interest loophole to be closed, in order to avoid implementation of the sequester.
So that means all of the impacts you heard Secretary Napolitano talk about, all of the effects you heard Secretary LaHood speak about, everything that Secretary Duncan spoke about over the weekend will take place if Republicans choose that path. And they are saying now that they prefer that than asking any special interest -- asking that any special interest tax break be eliminated, or any advantage that just a handful of Americans get when dealing with their taxes that regular folks don’t get, that that be ended or capped. They would rather have these job losses take effect and the effect on the economy take place than make those calls.
Q If I could just ask one thing on a non-sequester topic. Syria’s foreign minister said today that the Assad government is ready to hold talks with the rebels. Does the U.S. view that as a credible offer from Assad?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we are working with the Syrian opposition and with our allies toward a future for Syria that allows the Syrian people to decide what their government looks like and provides a brighter and more democratic future for the people of Syria. That future cannot include Bashar al-Assad, who has long since forsaken any opportunity he might have had to participate in Syria’s future. He has so much blood on his hands. He has been engaging in a prolonged assault on his own people that has cost tens of thousands of lives, of innocent civilian lives.
I would leave it at this point for the State Department to assess those statements. But we have been clear, I think the Syrian opposition has been clear: The future for Syria cannot include Assad. We are working with the Syrian opposition. There will be a meeting later this week of the Syrian opposition with the international community; that will be very important. And we continue to provide and lead the way in providing humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people in this effort to help bring about a better future for Syria -- one that does not include President Assad.
Q Jay?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, Michael.
Q So back to the flexibility question. So you guys have bragged a lot -- I think you did it a few minutes ago -- about all of these -- more than a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts that you’ve already done. We haven’t heard any -- you either haven’t been -- there haven’t been Cabinet Secretaries standing up warning about the damage to the economy or to the nation’s security or whatever from those cuts. What is so different between those cuts that were already made and the cuts that could be made if you were given flexibility?
MR. CARNEY: First of all, the cuts that have already been signed into law include the $1.1 trillion that was originally passed as part of the Budget Control Act. By doing that and including them with the cuts the President had already signed into law, we have brought nondefense discretionary spending down to a level as a share of our economy that we have not seen since Dwight Eisenhower occupied the Oval Office. That is a fact.
And it is a fact that, in looking forward towards additional deficit reduction, we need to make sure that we don’t ask the most vulnerable Americans, don’t ask ordinary, middle-class Americans, don’t ask seniors to bear the burden solely because we have been so assiduous in making sure that we reduce spending where possible in our nondefense discretionary budget.
We need to do this in a balanced way. And, I mean, your question answers itself in a way. We have, up to now, the President signed into law $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. More than two-thirds of that has come in spending cuts. And that reflects the fact that he has approached this with the spirit of compromise; that as a Democrat who leads a party that is not enthusiastic necessarily about cutting domestic spending programs or cutting into the entitlements that provide support to our seniors and others -- he has lead his fellow Democrats toward compromise. So he has not just pushed revenues, he has pushed spending cuts and entitlement reforms. And there are entitlement reforms that produce savings in the offer that remains on the table for Speaker Boehner.
On the other hand, Republicans have yet -- at least from the leadership -- in any concrete way put forward any kind of proposal for further deficit reduction that reflects that same spirit of compromise where, if you concede here, as I think everyone would that Republicans are more averse to raising revenues and would rather cut spending and reduce entitlements and benefits -- the tough decision for them is revenues.
We haven’t seen that from Republican leaders and it is about time that we see that because that’s what the American people are asking for. Because it is not fair to say seniors should bear all the burden or middle-class families, or parents who have kids with mental health challenges or disabilities of other kinds. Why would we ask them to foot the bill alone but not -- when we’re talking about broader deficit reduction -- say to the hedge fund manager in New York, who pulled down a cool $2 billion last year and paid 14 percent or 15 percent because he benefitted from or she benefitted from the carried interest rule, why not say that’s not fair? Why not say that we should ask them to pay a little bit more, and those who benefit from the corporate jet loophole, and the oil and gas companies that benefit from a taxpayer subsidy that has been in place for a century? Anybody fill up their gas tank this weekend? Think the oil and gas companies can maybe afford to give up their taxpayer -- special interest break? I think most Americans would say yet.
Q But you’re not arguing -- the administration, as I understand it, isn’t arguing that there are no more cuts to be made, right? Just that you want to do it in a balanced way and you want to do it with some planning and some flexibility and some ability to say this gets cut, that doesn’t get cut. So if the Congress says, at least on the flexibility part, you can have not only as much flexibility as you’ve had in the past, but the ultimate flexibility -- the administration can just literally say we can -- we’ll cut where we want to cut to achieve that amount -- I mean, doesn’t that give you part of -- I mean, you acknowledge there are going to be some cuts, right?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I do. And if you look at the President’s proposal to the Speaker, because of the cuts in nondefense discretionary spending that we have made and the President has signed into law and that have brought that portion of our budget to historic lows, the additional job of deficit reduction will come principally from tax reform that produces revenues and entitlement reform that produces savings. And if you look at the proposal the President made to the Speaker, you will see that laid out in hard numbers.
And that’s why the President felt that it was possible, and he was hopeful at the time that the Speaker would take up this offer because it so clearly represents balance, so clearly represents compromise, so clearly addresses some of the issues that Republicans have said Democrats will not address, which is making some sensible changes in our entitlement programs that aren’t easy for Democrats necessarily to do. But the President is willing to do them as part of a broader effort, including tax reform that produces revenues, to get our deficit further reduced and our fiscal house in order.
Unfortunately, from Republicans, they say, well, forget about the hedge fund managers, forget about the oil and gas companies, forget about the corporate jet owners, let’s just ask the middle class and seniors to pay the price. And if we don't get that -- if we don't get our way with that approach, then we’ll have those effects on the border that Secretary Napolitano talked about. We’ll have those effects with our air traffic that Secretary LaHood spoke about, and all the effects that Secretary Duncan spoke about.
That's just nonsensical when it comes about going about the business of governing in a responsible way.
Alexis, and then Zach.
Q Jay, the President is going to travel tomorrow to Newport News. Can you tell us how the event away from Washington is going to help resolve the impasse and what the President is going to maybe encourage Americans to do in response to this, this week?
MR. CARNEY: Certainly. That region, as everyone knows, will be particularly hard hit if the sequestration is allowed to take effect. And the President, as he has in the past, hopes with this event to highlight the impact of sequester; and by doing so, hopes that attention will be brought to bear on that problem and the need for Congress to act responsibly to avoid it.
We’ve spoken a lot in recent weeks and months about the approach the President takes with these issues, and he believes it’s important and continues to do it to work with and sit down with and talk with members of Congress in the hope of reaching a compromise on issues like this. But he also believes that it is essential, and it is part of his responsibility, as President elected by the whole nation, to take these issues out into the country, to present his agenda and his priorities to regular folks out there in states across the country -- tomorrow in Virginia. He’s been a number of places in recent weeks, and he’ll continue to do that.
You shouldn’t -- it’s not a binary choice here. It’s not one or the other, you do both. And it’s certainly the responsible thing to do for members of Congress, both House members and senators, to go to their districts and states -- and they were, some of them anyway, back home this past week, others were traveling abroad. But to have this discussion with their constituents and to be straightforward with them about what the effect of sequester would be if it’s allowed to take effect.
Jon.
Q Jay, I just have two follow-ups from last week. You were going to check on what was being done to the White House staff in reductions? And then there was that hundred-city tour.
MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, on the second one, I think that has been very clearly explained to you that this is not a tour. This is local officials -- federal officials in those states and cities working with governors and local officials to highlight important actions that the administration and the government is taking. Occasionally, White House officials will participate. But this is not a tour as described for public relations reasons by critics.
Secondly, I think as OMB has made clear, they are working through agency by agency, with those agencies, what the effects of sequester will be. The Executive Office of the President, the EOP, is affected, and there will be impacts. And as I understand it, OMB is working on those. I know that there will be reductions in pay and there will be furloughs. But I don't have a breakdown of those numbers for you. OMB is working on those now.
Yes, Matt. I’m sorry, Zach. I owe Zach and then Matt and then Major.
Q Jay, you mentioned that the President isn’t very interested in tinkering at the margins with the sequester. But if Congress passes, let’s call it a “less bad” bill that preserves the magnitude of cuts but gives the President the flexibility to manage them, would he refuse to sign that bill?
MR. CARNEY: That's like a compound or triple piece of speculation there. What the Senate will address, we hope, is a bill that would buy down sequester in a balanced way, in accordance with the President’s principles, in accordance with the buy-down that Congress passed with bipartisan majorities or a bipartisan vote two months ago, and in accordance with the general spirit that the public hopes its leaders in Washington will approach deficit reduction moving forward.
Again, you can't -- as Secretary Napolitano said, you can't change the fact that the impacts will be negative. In an agency like hers that is so personnel-heavy, those impacts will result in reduced man-hours, will result in layoffs or furloughs, will result in the kinds of effects that she talked about. There’s no way around it.
I mean, when the question came previously, it was as if -- if you could imagine a bill that introduced enough flexibility to do away with all the bad things, would you agree to it? Well, that bill doesn't exist. It can't be written -- not with the size of these cuts, and the fact that they needed to be implemented in such a short period of time in this fiscal year.
Q But you’re not writing off any other proposals aside from the Senate --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not going to speculate about what the Congress may or may not do. What it should do is take up deficit reduction in a balanced way, both in postponing the sequester deadline; and then having done that, in the pursuit through regular order and the budget process of further balanced deficit reduction.
Major.
Q Jay, you mentioned carried interest, corporate tax benefits for jets and oil and gas subsidies. To my knowledge, not one of those items is in the Senate Democratic alternative to deal with this matter. What accounts for that disconnect?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m talking about the big job, and that would include a 28-percent cap for wealthy individuals on their deductions, which would raise a significant amount of --
Q So when you speak of those, you’re not talking about those in the context of resolving this particular sequester crisis?
MR. CARNEY: Well, if the Congress were to take up the big task of further reducing our deficit by at least $1.5 trillion, absolutely those should be part of it because you need a certain portion of revenue to --
Q But they don’t need to be in the alternative before the Senate currently?
MR. CARNEY: There are a number of things you could choose from. The principle that the President has put forward when you're talking about a smaller, short-term buy-down of the sequester, and you're talking about, generally, you're trying to put together a package that is easier on each side for both sides to swallow -- then not necessarily.
I mean, the Senate has put forward a package -- Senate Democrats have put forward a proposal that does not ask much in terms of hard choices of Senate Republicans, but it does represent balance. And it would only buy down the sequester for a number of months until the end of the year.
But, obviously, for the bigger task of completing the $4 trillion-plus target of deficit reduction over 10 years, yes, we would include all of those, including the 28-percent cap that I spoke about.
Q Now, I understand the administration prefers a buy-down, but would you be open to just buying some time, maybe flexibility for two or three weeks, if you believe that would give you an opening to negotiate something to prevent sequester from happening, have the flexibility that with over the course of two or three weeks --
MR. CARNEY: I'm not sure what that means, “the course of two or” --
Q Flexiblity to carry out for an agreed upon period of time, maybe two or three weeks, whatever the sequester calls for, but give you all the wide flexibility --
MR. CARNEY: Well, unless you're working with congressional offices to write legislation, I haven't --
Q I'm just saying, would you be able to do that?
MR. CARNEY: I wouldn’t speculate about what Congress may or may not do. What is absolutely the case is that there's no -- to go back to my answer before, there is no amount of flexibility you could introduce here, given the size of the cut --
Q Even for two or three weeks to buy you time for more negotiations?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the thing to do for two to three weeks, or two to three months, or until the end of the fiscal year is to postpone the sequester to realistically give Congress the time it needs to do what both sides in both Houses have said they want to do, which is return to regular order, engage in a budget process that results in, hopefully, a budget that keeps with the principles the American public so overwhelmingly supports, which is a balanced deficit reduction budget that includes both cuts and revenues and investments in key areas of our economy so that we can continue to grow and continue to strengthen and expand the middle class.
Q The Governor said this is not happening in a vacuum; that with gas prices going up and the payroll tax going back up to where it was before, their consumers are being squeezed, and instability caused by a threat of sequester creates a greater economic dynamic. And some came right to the edge of saying sequester is sort of the dividing line between recession and non-recession. Are you that --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would leave it to economists to make those judgments and predictions. What we know is that the CBO, outside economic analysts like Moody's and Macroeconomics Advisers have analyzed what would be the effects of sequester and have reached a rough consensus that it would shrink growth by .5 or .6 percent in 2013, and that it would cost up to 750,000 jobs. Now, what that means in terms of the broad picture, I'll let economists predict. But it certainly means a sharp hit to our economy and a sharp hit to job creation. And there are no higher priorities for this President, and I believe that there are no higher priorities for most members of Congress.
Q Jay, to follow on Major's question about carried interest and the tax changes -- you obviously had a chance over the weekend in social media to respond about Woodward. But his op-ed or column over the weekend was suggesting that that's what you're doing, that you're sort of moving the goal post on sequester to bringing in tax changes, even though when it was negotiated with the Republicans, this was all about spending cuts.
MR. CARNEY: Well, that's -- let's just be clear about --
Q Well, that's what he's saying, so I want your reaction.
MR. CARNEY: Well, look, we're focused on the real choices that Congress needs to make and the American people expects Congress needs to make. It is simply, as journalist after journalist has pointed out, as people -- the clips going back to the period of these negotiations show clearly, that first of all, the White House and the Democrats were insisting on revenues as part of the trigger mechanism. Republicans refused. Therefore, sequester was the avenue that was chosen.
But everyone from the President -- on the day it passed -- to Republicans, who talked about introducing proposals to eliminate sequester that included revenues, said at the time and has said ever since, no one believes that the fact that the sequester included spending cuts only and meant that the replacement for the sequester would include spending cuts only. That's nonsensical. If that were the case, there would be no need for the sequester because there would be no disagreement.
The fact of the matter is Republicans as well as Democrats have talked about from the beginning the need to replace the sequester with a package of deficit reduction measures that include increasing revenues. So it's just not the case that it was anything different at the time.
Q One on a quick subject that has not come up yet. The New York Times reported on Saturday that there's -- it's already been reported Organizing for Action is this outside group connected with some of the President's former campaign aides. They want to push gun control and other issues on his agenda. The report over the weekend that was new was suggesting that donors are going to be able to, if they put up $500,000 -- which is obviously a lot of money -- they're going to get special access to the President. They're going to have quarterly meetings here at the White House. Is that -- that suggests that access to the President is being sold?
MR. CARNEY: No. OFA, which you are asking about, is an independent organization that, as reported in the press, will engage in advocacy and grassroots mobilization activities around public policy issues. It will not be engaged in political campaign-related activities. It has been organized to rally support for the President's policy agenda, but is a separate organization. Administration officials routinely interact with outside advocacy organizations -- and this has been true in prior administrations and it is true in this one.
Q Right, but to promise access to the President of the United States, that's different.
MR. CARNEY: On the broader issue of money and politics generally, the President has been very clear that we should be doing more to reduce the role of money in politics -- the President and Democrats on Capitol Hill -- and back to the DISCLOSE Act, that would close loopholes and bring more transparency to the political system. But it was blocked by Republicans.
President Obama has also outlined additional concrete steps Congress should take to eliminate the corrosive influence of money in Washington like holding Congress to the same conflict of interest standards as the executive branch, and prohibiting lobbyists from bundling and bundlers from lobbying.
The fact is there are a variety of rules governing interaction between administration officials and outside groups, and administration officials follow those rules. White House and administration officials will not be raising money for Organizing for Action. And while they may appear at appropriate OFA events in their official capacities, they will not be raising money.
Q But you're not denying the point that was reported by the New York Times that even though he is for all those reforms, that if you give $500,000 or more to this group you get access to the President -- you get meetings? Is that true or false?
MR. CARNEY: The President is engaged in an effort to pass items on his agenda. And outside organizations that support that agenda, like organizations that are environmental in nature and support aspects of the President's environmental agenda, or organizations that support his manufacturing agenda -- administration officials can meet with them, including the President. But the fact of the matter is this is an independent organization that is supporting an agenda.
Q Is that the price tag to see the President?
MR. CARNEY: No.
Q It's not?
MR. CARNEY: Of course not.
Q So $500,000 -- does that guarantee you access to the President?
MR. CARNEY: This is an independent organization. I would point you to that organization for how it raises its money. It has said quite clearly, distinguishing it from other organizations, that it will disclose its donors. But I would direct your questions to them about how they --
Q Donating that amount does not guarantee you meeting with the President?
MR. CARNEY: Correct. And I would point you to that organization.
Q So is the New York Times going to correct that part?
Q When the President ran in 2007, he used this exact language. He said, "The cynics, [and] the lobbyists and the special interests who have turned government into a game only they can play, they write the checks and you get stuck with the bills. They get the access while you get to write a letter." Doesn't this in many ways, though, create a situation that does blur that line of exactly what he was campaigning against in 2007, that he couldn't communicate with those people, even though independent, to say to them, this isn't the way my administration wants to work?
MR. CARNEY: The President has been very clear what his agenda is. This is an independent organization that supports the policy initiatives that the President puts forward, not unlike a variety of so-called 501(c)(4) organizations. The fact of the matter is the President has continually pressed for greater transparency in our political system. He very famously made clear his feelings about a Supreme Court decision that introduced and injected huge sums of money into our political campaigns. And he calls on Republicans to support the DISCLOSE Act, which he and Democrats support, which would at the very least allow for the public to know who is funding these organizations.
Again, this is not an organization -- and I would refer you to them -- but this is not an organization, based on what they've said, that is involved in political campaigns, that is involved in issue advocacy. Thanks, all.
Q You said no quarterly meetings, but some meetings with the President? Would you get a meeting with the President if you donated $500,000?
MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the organization.
END
2:18 P.M. EST
February 25, 2013 | 14:04 | Public Domain
President Obama speaks to governors about the need to strengthen the economy and the middle class.
State Dining Room
11:18 A.M. EST
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. I tell you what, I didn't know Jack was as good as he is until I heard that rhyme last night. (Laughter.) Jack, if you had done that, I’d be introducing you here. (Laughter.)
Thank you all very, very much. I’m sorry -- you guys are much more disciplined than the place I lived for 36 years, up on the Hill, and you’re running ahead of schedule. And so the President is with me, and I want to thank you all for being here.
We have a lot to work on. There’s a lot from fixing a broken immigration system to rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, and this new word everybody in America is learning about -- “sequester.”
This town, unlike many of your capitals, is I hope temporarily frozen in -- not indifference but in sort of an intense partisanship, the likes of which in my career I’ve only see the last couple years. But you know the American people have moved to a different place. By the way, thanks for being so nice to my wife last night. I like you a hell of better. (Laughter.) We disagreed on some things.
But all kidding aside, I think the American people have moved -- Democrats, Republicans, independents. They know that the possibilities for this country are immense. They're no longer traumatized by what was a traumatizing event, the great collapse in 2008. They're no longer worried, I think, about our economy being overwhelmed either by Europe writ large, the EU, or China somehow swallowing up every bit of innovation that exists in the world. They're no longer, I think, worried about our economy being overwhelmed beyond our shores.
And I don't think they're any more -- there’s no -- there’s very little doubt in any circles out there about America’s ability to be in position to lead the world in the 21st century, not only in terms of our foreign policy, our incredible defense establishment, but economically. I think the American people are ready to get up. As a civil rights leader, when I was coming up as a kid, said, they're just -- the American people are tired of being tired. I think they're ready to get up and move. And you guys know that because it’s happening in your states. You probably feel it in your fingertips more than most of us do here in Washington.
And as I said, I think they know we’re better positioned than any nation in the world to lead the world. And that's why I think they're so frustrated by what they see and don't see happening here in Washington. And I think their frustration is turning into a little bit of anger.
I found an interesting dynamic -- without ruining any of your reputations and picking out any one of you -- but whether it was a Democrat or Republican governor I had been talking to last night and over this past weekend, I heard from several of you, both parties, how do you deal with this going on up here? How do you deal with the Congress? No distinction, Democrat or Republican, depending who I was talking to, no distinction about who you’re dealing with -- but how do you deal with this? Because you guys deal and women deal with legislatures that are split. Some of you represent a minority party as a governor, yet you get on very well with -- you accomplish things in your home state. And as I said, I’ve been here long enough -- that's the way it used to work, and I think we can make it work that way again.
But there’s a number of things we have to do immediately, and we may disagree on how to address them, but I don't think anybody disagrees on the need for them to be addressed -- from implementing the Affordable Care Act. It’s the law. You all are grappling with that. Each of you are making different decisions, but you’re grappling with it. You’re moving and you’re making your own judgments.
We also have to -- I don't think there’s much disagreement there’s a need for immigration reform. I’ve not met a governor from the time of implementing the Recovery Act to now who doesn't think that we have do something about our crumbling infrastructure in order to impact on our productivity here in this country -- continue to attract, keep and bring back American business from abroad.
And there’s very little disagreement on the need to build an education system that has such immense possibilities for our people.
But on most of these issues we’re united by more than what divides us. All these issues intersect at a place -- the ones I just mentioned and others -- they intersect at a place where both the state and federal governments engage. So we’re going to have to work together. They overlap in many cases.
We’ll have our differences, but we all should agree that the United States has to once again have the highest percentage of college graduates of any nation in the world. I don't think there’s any disagreement. Everybody agrees and some of you governors have led the way on early education and the consequences for the prospects of success for our children not only of graduating, but avoiding the criminal justice system. You’ve all led in knowing that we have to have reform of our high school system so that we -- and not only finding a pathway for people who are going to four-year college and community college but go into the trades.
So there’s so much agreement that I think we ought to be able to get a fair amount done. And we should all agree that to grow our economy we have to invest in manufacturing, clean energy, infrastructure, education. The question is who invests and how much and how -- we’re going to debate that. But there’s not much disagreement about the need to invest.
And I think we’re all -- I’ve never met a Democrat or Republican who’s been a governor who doesn't think that the American people should have the sense that hard work is going to be rewarded, that there’s a chance that if you work hard, you got an opportunity. I don't know of any group of men or women who are a better living example of that than all of you sitting in front of me in your own experiences.
So the question is -- we all use the phrase “move forward in a balanced way” -- when one man’s balance is another man’s imbalance, but that's what we got to talk about. That's what’s at stake. But the one thing that I don't think any of you lack is a vision about how great this country can be now that we’re coming back, that we ought to be able to reassert ourselves in a way that we own the 21st century. And I know the guy I’m about to introduce believes that as strongly as all of you do.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the President -- who’s back with the pastry chef and I’m wondering what he’s doing back there. (Laughter.) The President of the United States, my friend, Barack Obama. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you, guys. Please have a seat. Well, welcome, everybody. Thanks for being here.
We all have a lot on our plate, everything from our immigration system to our education system. As Joe talked about, our goal is to make sure that we can be an effective partner with you.
I want to thank the members of my Cabinet who are here, and members of the administration. I want to thank Jack and Mary for their leadership of the NGA. And everybody else, I just want to say thanks to you for being on your best behavior last night. (Laughter.) I’m told nothing was broken. No silverware is missing. (Laughter.) I didn’t get any calls from the neighbors about the noise -- although I can’t speak for Joe’s after-party at the Observatory. I hear that was wild. (Laughter.)
Now, I always enjoy this weekend when I have a chance to see the governors. As leaders, we share responsibility to do whatever we can to help grow our economy and create good middle-class jobs, and open up new doors of opportunity for all of our people. That’s our true north, our highest priority. And it’s got to guide every decision that we make at every level.
As I’ve said, we should be asking ourselves three questions every single day: How do we make America a magnet for good jobs? How do we equip our people with the skills and the training to get those jobs? And how do we make sure if they get those jobs that their hard work actually pays off?
As governors, you’re the ones who are on the ground, seeing firsthand every single day what works, what doesn’t work, and that's what makes you so indispensable. Whatever your party, you ran for office to do everything that you could to make our folks’ lives better. And one thing I know unites all of us, and all of you -- Democrats and Republicans -- and that is the last thing you want to see is Washington get in the way of progress.
Unfortunately, in just four days, Congress is poised to allow a series of arbitrary, automatic budget cuts to kick in that will slow our economy, eliminate good jobs, and leave a lot of folks who are already pretty thinly stretched scrambling to figure out what to do.
This morning, you received a report outlining exactly how these cuts will harm middle-class families in your states. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to deal with finding child care for their children. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings. Tomorrow, for example, I’ll be in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where workers will sit idle when they should be repairing ships, and a carrier sits idle when it should be deploying to the Persian Gulf.
Now, these impacts will not all be felt on day one. But rest assured the uncertainty is already having an effect. Companies are preparing layoff notices. Families are preparing to cut back on expenses. And the longer these cuts are in place, the bigger the impact will become.
So while you are in town, I hope that you speak with your congressional delegation and remind them in no uncertain terms exactly what is at stake and exactly who is at risk. Because here’s the thing -- these cuts do not have to happen. Congress can turn them off any time with just a little bit of compromise. To do so, Democrats like me need to acknowledge that we’re going to have to make modest reforms in Medicare if we want the program there for future generations and if we hope to maintain our ability to invest in critical things like education, research and infrastructure.
I’ve made that commitment. It’s reflected in proposals I made last year and the year before that, and will be reflected in my budget, and I stand by those commitments to make the reforms for smart spending cuts.
But we also need Republicans to adopt the same approach to tax reform that Speaker Boehner championed just two months ago. Under our concept of tax reform, nobody’s rates would go up, but we’d be able to reduce the deficit by making some tough, smart spending cuts and getting rid of wasteful tax loopholes that benefit the well-off and the well-connected.
I know that sometimes folks in Congress think that compromise is a bad word. They figure they’ll pay a higher price at the polls for working with the other side than they will for standing pat or engaging in obstructionism. But, as governors, some of you with legislators controlled by the other party, you know that compromise is essential to getting things done. And so is prioritizing, making smart choices.
That’s how Governor O’Malley in Maryland put his state on track to all but eliminate his deficit while keeping tuition down and making Maryland’s public schools among the best in America five years running. That’s how Governor Haslam balanced his budget last year in Tennessee while still investing in key areas like education for Tennessee’s kids. Like the rest of us, they know we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. Cutting alone is not an economic policy. We’ve got to make the tough, smart choices to cut what we don’t need so that we can invest in the things that we do need.
Let me highlight two examples of what we do need. The first is infrastructure. This didn’t used to be a partisan issue. I don’t know when exactly that happened. It should be a no-brainer. Businesses are not going to set up shop in places where roads and bridges and ports and schools are falling apart. They’re going to open their doors wherever they can connect the best transportation and communications networks to their businesses and to their customers.
And that’s why I proposed what we’re calling “fix-it-first” -- I talked about this in my State of the Union address -- to put people to work right now on urgent repairs like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country. And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the entire burden, I also proposed a partnership to rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most -- modern ports to move our goods, modern pipelines to withstand a storm, modern schools that are worthy of our children.
I know that some people in Congress reflexively oppose any idea that I put forward, even if it’s an idea that they once supported, but rebuilding infrastructure is not my idea. It’s everybody’s idea. It’s what built this country. Governor Kitzhaber, a Democrat in Oregon, has made clean-energy infrastructure a top priority. Governor Brownback of Kansas, a Republican, has been fighting to upgrade water infrastructure there.
And folks who think spending really is our biggest problem should be more concerned than anybody about improving our infrastructure right now. We're talking about deferred maintenance here. We know we're going to have to spend the money. And the longer we wait, the more it’s going to cost. That is a fact. I think Matt Mead, a Republican, put it pretty well in Wyoming’s state address. He said failing to maintain our roads “is not a plan for being fiscally conservative.” Well, what's true in Wyoming is true all across the United States.
And we could be putting folks back to work right now. We know contractors are begging for work. They’ll come in on time, under budget, which never happens. And we could make a whole lot of progress right now on things that we know we're going to have to do at some point. This is like fixing the roof or repairing a boiler that's broken. It will save us money in the long term.
I know that one of the biggest hurdles that you face when it comes to fixing infrastructure is red tape. And oftentimes, that comes out of Washington with regulations. In my first term, we started to take some steps to address that. And we’ve shaved months -- in some cases, even years -- off the timeline of infrastructure projects across America.
So today, I’m accelerating that effort. We’re setting up regional teams that will focus on some of the unique needs each of you have in various parts of the country. We’re going to help the Pacific Northwest move faster on renewable energy projects. We’re going to help the Northeast Corridor move faster on high-speed rail service. We’re going to help the Midwest and other states, like Colorado, move faster on projects that help farmers deal with worsening drought. We’re going to help states like North Dakota and South Dakota and Montana move faster on oil and gas production. All of these projects will get more Americans back to work faster. And we can do even more if we can get Congress to act.
The second priority that I want to talk about is education -- and in particular, education that starts at the earliest age. I want to partner with each of you to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America.
Now, this is an area where we've already seen great bipartisan work at the state level. I was just in Governor Deal’s state to highlight this issue because Georgia has made it a priority to educate our youngest kids. And in the school district where I visited in Decatur, Georgia, you're already seeing closing of the achievement gap. Kids who are poor are leveling up. And everybody is seeing real improvement, because it's high-quality, early childhood education.
Study after study shows that the sooner children begin to learn in these high-quality settings, the better he or she does down the road, and we all end up saving money. Unfortunately, today fewer than three in 10 four-year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week in additional income for these kinds of preschool programs. And poor kids, who need it most, lack access. And that lack of access can shadow them for the rest of their lives. We all pay a price for that.
Every dollar we invest in early childhood education can save more than seven dollars later on -- boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing incidents of violent crime.
And again, I'm not the first person to focus on this. Governor Bentley has made this a priority in Alabama. Governor Snyder is making it a priority in Michigan. Governor Tomblin has made this a priority in West Virginia. Even in a time of tight budgets, Republicans and Democrats are focused on high-quality early childhood education. We want to make sure that we can be an effective partner in that process.
We should be able to do that for every child, everywhere -- Democrat, Republican, blue state, red state -- it shouldn't matter. All of us want our kids to grow up more likely to read and write and do math at grade level, to graduate high school, hold a job, and form more stable families of their own. That will be better for every state. That will be better for this country. That's what high-quality early childhood education can deliver. And I hope that you're willing to partner with us to make that happen.
Let me just close with this. There are always going to be areas where we have some genuine disagreement, here in Washington and in your respective states. But there are more areas where we can do a lot more cooperating than I think we've seen over the last several years. To do that, though, this town has to get past its obsession with focusing on the next election instead of the next generation.
All of us are elected officials. All of us are concerned about our politics, both in our own party’s as well as the other party’s. But at some point, we've got to do some governing. And certainly what we can't do is keep careening from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. As I said in the State of the Union, the American people have worked hard and long to dig themselves out of one crisis; they don't need us creating another one. And unfortunately, that's what we've been seeing too much out there.
The American people are out there every single day, meeting their responsibilities, giving it their all to provide for their families and their communities. A lot of you are doing the same things in your respective states. Well, we need that same kind of attitude here in Washington. At the very least, the American people have a right to expect that from their representatives.
And so I look forward to working with all of you not just to strengthen our economy for the short term, but also to reignite what has always been the central premise of America’s economic engine, and that is that we build a strong, growing, thriving middle class where if you work hard in this country, no matter who you are, what you look like, you can make it; you can succeed. That's our goal, and I know that's the goal of all of you as well.
So I look forward to our partnering. And with that, what I want to do is clear out the press so we can take some questions. (Applause.)
END
11:40 A.M. EST
In a meeting with the National Governors Association today at the White House, President Obama stressed the need for bipartisan cooperation, and pressed the leaders in attendance to work together with their partners in Washington to put the focus back on the next generation, rather than the next election.
All of us are elected officials. All of us are concerned about our politics, both in our own party’s as well as the other party’s. But at some point, we've got to do some governing. And certainly what we can't do is keep careening from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. As I said in the State of the Union, the American people have worked hard and long to dig themselves out of one crisis; they don't need us creating another one. And unfortunately, that's what we've been seeing too much out there.
The American people are out there every single day, meeting their responsibilities, giving it their all to provide for their families and their communities. A lot of you are doing the same things in your respective states. Well, we need that same kind of attitude here in Washington. At the very least, the American people have a right to expect that from their representatives.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
State Dining Room
11:18 A.M. EST
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. I tell you what, I didn't know Jack was as good as he is until I heard that rhyme last night. (Laughter.) Jack, if you had done that, I’d be introducing you here. (Laughter.)
Thank you all very, very much. I’m sorry -- you guys are much more disciplined than the place I lived for 36 years, up on the Hill, and you’re running ahead of schedule. And so the President is with me, and I want to thank you all for being here.
We have a lot to work on. There’s a lot from fixing a broken immigration system to rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, and this new word everybody in America is learning about -- “sequester.”
This town, unlike many of your capitals, is I hope temporarily frozen in -- not indifference but in sort of an intense partisanship, the likes of which in my career I’ve only see the last couple years. But you know the American people have moved to a different place. By the way, thanks for being so nice to my wife last night. I like you a hell of better. (Laughter.) We disagreed on some things.
But all kidding aside, I think the American people have moved -- Democrats, Republicans, independents. They know that the possibilities for this country are immense. They're no longer traumatized by what was a traumatizing event, the great collapse in 2008. They're no longer worried, I think, about our economy being overwhelmed either by Europe writ large, the EU, or China somehow swallowing up every bit of innovation that exists in the world. They're no longer, I think, worried about our economy being overwhelmed beyond our shores.
And I don't think they're any more -- there’s no -- there’s very little doubt in any circles out there about America’s ability to be in position to lead the world in the 21st century, not only in terms of our foreign policy, our incredible defense establishment, but economically. I think the American people are ready to get up. As a civil rights leader, when I was coming up as a kid, said, they're just -- the American people are tired of being tired. I think they're ready to get up and move. And you guys know that because it’s happening in your states. You probably feel it in your fingertips more than most of us do here in Washington.
And as I said, I think they know we’re better positioned than any nation in the world to lead the world. And that's why I think they're so frustrated by what they see and don't see happening here in Washington. And I think their frustration is turning into a little bit of anger.
I found an interesting dynamic -- without ruining any of your reputations and picking out any one of you -- but whether it was a Democrat or Republican governor I had been talking to last night and over this past weekend, I heard from several of you, both parties, how do you deal with this going on up here? How do you deal with the Congress? No distinction, Democrat or Republican, depending who I was talking to, no distinction about who you’re dealing with -- but how do you deal with this? Because you guys deal and women deal with legislatures that are split. Some of you represent a minority party as a governor, yet you get on very well with -- you accomplish things in your home state. And as I said, I’ve been here long enough -- that's the way it used to work, and I think we can make it work that way again.
But there’s a number of things we have to do immediately, and we may disagree on how to address them, but I don't think anybody disagrees on the need for them to be addressed -- from implementing the Affordable Care Act. It’s the law. You all are grappling with that. Each of you are making different decisions, but you’re grappling with it. You’re moving and you’re making your own judgments.
We also have to -- I don't think there’s much disagreement there’s a need for immigration reform. I’ve not met a governor from the time of implementing the Recovery Act to now who doesn't think that we have do something about our crumbling infrastructure in order to impact on our productivity here in this country -- continue to attract, keep and bring back American business from abroad.
And there’s very little disagreement on the need to build an education system that has such immense possibilities for our people.
But on most of these issues we’re united by more than what divides us. All these issues intersect at a place -- the ones I just mentioned and others -- they intersect at a place where both the state and federal governments engage. So we’re going to have to work together. They overlap in many cases.
We’ll have our differences, but we all should agree that the United States has to once again have the highest percentage of college graduates of any nation in the world. I don't think there’s any disagreement. Everybody agrees and some of you governors have led the way on early education and the consequences for the prospects of success for our children not only of graduating, but avoiding the criminal justice system. You’ve all led in knowing that we have to have reform of our high school system so that we -- and not only finding a pathway for people who are going to four-year college and community college but go into the trades.
So there’s so much agreement that I think we ought to be able to get a fair amount done. And we should all agree that to grow our economy we have to invest in manufacturing, clean energy, infrastructure, education. The question is who invests and how much and how -- we’re going to debate that. But there’s not much disagreement about the need to invest.
And I think we’re all -- I’ve never met a Democrat or Republican who’s been a governor who doesn't think that the American people should have the sense that hard work is going to be rewarded, that there’s a chance that if you work hard, you got an opportunity. I don't know of any group of men or women who are a better living example of that than all of you sitting in front of me in your own experiences.
So the question is -- we all use the phrase “move forward in a balanced way” -- when one man’s balance is another man’s imbalance, but that's what we got to talk about. That's what’s at stake. But the one thing that I don't think any of you lack is a vision about how great this country can be now that we’re coming back, that we ought to be able to reassert ourselves in a way that we own the 21st century. And I know the guy I’m about to introduce believes that as strongly as all of you do.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the President -- who’s back with the pastry chef and I’m wondering what he’s doing back there. (Laughter.) The President of the United States, my friend, Barack Obama. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you, guys. Please have a seat. Well, welcome, everybody. Thanks for being here.
We all have a lot on our plate, everything from our immigration system to our education system. As Joe talked about, our goal is to make sure that we can be an effective partner with you.
I want to thank the members of my Cabinet who are here, and members of the administration. I want to thank Jack and Mary for their leadership of the NGA. And everybody else, I just want to say thanks to you for being on your best behavior last night. (Laughter.) I’m told nothing was broken. No silverware is missing. (Laughter.) I didn’t get any calls from the neighbors about the noise -- although I can’t speak for Joe’s after-party at the Observatory. I hear that was wild. (Laughter.)
Now, I always enjoy this weekend when I have a chance to see the governors. As leaders, we share responsibility to do whatever we can to help grow our economy and create good middle-class jobs, and open up new doors of opportunity for all of our people. That’s our true north, our highest priority. And it’s got to guide every decision that we make at every level.
As I’ve said, we should be asking ourselves three questions every single day: How do we make America a magnet for good jobs? How do we equip our people with the skills and the training to get those jobs? And how do we make sure if they get those jobs that their hard work actually pays off?
As governors, you’re the ones who are on the ground, seeing firsthand every single day what works, what doesn’t work, and that's what makes you so indispensable. Whatever your party, you ran for office to do everything that you could to make our folks’ lives better. And one thing I know unites all of us, and all of you -- Democrats and Republicans -- and that is the last thing you want to see is Washington get in the way of progress.
Unfortunately, in just four days, Congress is poised to allow a series of arbitrary, automatic budget cuts to kick in that will slow our economy, eliminate good jobs, and leave a lot of folks who are already pretty thinly stretched scrambling to figure out what to do.
This morning, you received a report outlining exactly how these cuts will harm middle-class families in your states. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to deal with finding child care for their children. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings. Tomorrow, for example, I’ll be in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where workers will sit idle when they should be repairing ships, and a carrier sits idle when it should be deploying to the Persian Gulf.
Now, these impacts will not all be felt on day one. But rest assured the uncertainty is already having an effect. Companies are preparing layoff notices. Families are preparing to cut back on expenses. And the longer these cuts are in place, the bigger the impact will become.
So while you are in town, I hope that you speak with your congressional delegation and remind them in no uncertain terms exactly what is at stake and exactly who is at risk. Because here’s the thing -- these cuts do not have to happen. Congress can turn them off any time with just a little bit of compromise. To do so, Democrats like me need to acknowledge that we’re going to have to make modest reforms in Medicare if we want the program there for future generations and if we hope to maintain our ability to invest in critical things like education, research and infrastructure.
I’ve made that commitment. It’s reflected in proposals I made last year and the year before that, and will be reflected in my budget, and I stand by those commitments to make the reforms for smart spending cuts.
But we also need Republicans to adopt the same approach to tax reform that Speaker Boehner championed just two months ago. Under our concept of tax reform, nobody’s rates would go up, but we’d be able to reduce the deficit by making some tough, smart spending cuts and getting rid of wasteful tax loopholes that benefit the well-off and the well-connected.
I know that sometimes folks in Congress think that compromise is a bad word. They figure they’ll pay a higher price at the polls for working with the other side than they will for standing pat or engaging in obstructionism. But, as governors, some of you with legislators controlled by the other party, you know that compromise is essential to getting things done. And so is prioritizing, making smart choices.
That’s how Governor O’Malley in Maryland put his state on track to all but eliminate his deficit while keeping tuition down and making Maryland’s public schools among the best in America five years running. That’s how Governor Haslam balanced his budget last year in Tennessee while still investing in key areas like education for Tennessee’s kids. Like the rest of us, they know we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. Cutting alone is not an economic policy. We’ve got to make the tough, smart choices to cut what we don’t need so that we can invest in the things that we do need.
Let me highlight two examples of what we do need. The first is infrastructure. This didn’t used to be a partisan issue. I don’t know when exactly that happened. It should be a no-brainer. Businesses are not going to set up shop in places where roads and bridges and ports and schools are falling apart. They’re going to open their doors wherever they can connect the best transportation and communications networks to their businesses and to their customers.
And that’s why I proposed what we’re calling “fix-it-first” -- I talked about this in my State of the Union address -- to put people to work right now on urgent repairs like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country. And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the entire burden, I also proposed a partnership to rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most -- modern ports to move our goods, modern pipelines to withstand a storm, modern schools that are worthy of our children.
I know that some people in Congress reflexively oppose any idea that I put forward, even if it’s an idea that they once supported, but rebuilding infrastructure is not my idea. It’s everybody’s idea. It’s what built this country. Governor Kitzhaber, a Democrat in Oregon, has made clean-energy infrastructure a top priority. Governor Brownback of Kansas, a Republican, has been fighting to upgrade water infrastructure there.
And folks who think spending really is our biggest problem should be more concerned than anybody about improving our infrastructure right now. We're talking about deferred maintenance here. We know we're going to have to spend the money. And the longer we wait, the more it’s going to cost. That is a fact. I think Matt Mead, a Republican, put it pretty well in Wyoming’s state address. He said failing to maintain our roads “is not a plan for being fiscally conservative.” Well, what's true in Wyoming is true all across the United States.
And we could be putting folks back to work right now. We know contractors are begging for work. They’ll come in on time, under budget, which never happens. And we could make a whole lot of progress right now on things that we know we're going to have to do at some point. This is like fixing the roof or repairing a boiler that's broken. It will save us money in the long term.
I know that one of the biggest hurdles that you face when it comes to fixing infrastructure is red tape. And oftentimes, that comes out of Washington with regulations. In my first term, we started to take some steps to address that. And we’ve shaved months -- in some cases, even years -- off the timeline of infrastructure projects across America.
So today, I’m accelerating that effort. We’re setting up regional teams that will focus on some of the unique needs each of you have in various parts of the country. We’re going to help the Pacific Northwest move faster on renewable energy projects. We’re going to help the Northeast Corridor move faster on high-speed rail service. We’re going to help the Midwest and other states, like Colorado, move faster on projects that help farmers deal with worsening drought. We’re going to help states like North Dakota and South Dakota and Montana move faster on oil and gas production. All of these projects will get more Americans back to work faster. And we can do even more if we can get Congress to act.
The second priority that I want to talk about is education -- and in particular, education that starts at the earliest age. I want to partner with each of you to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America.
Now, this is an area where we've already seen great bipartisan work at the state level. I was just in Governor Deal’s state to highlight this issue because Georgia has made it a priority to educate our youngest kids. And in the school district where I visited in Decatur, Georgia, you're already seeing closing of the achievement gap. Kids who are poor are leveling up. And everybody is seeing real improvement, because it's high-quality, early childhood education.
Study after study shows that the sooner children begin to learn in these high-quality settings, the better he or she does down the road, and we all end up saving money. Unfortunately, today fewer than three in 10 four-year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week in additional income for these kinds of preschool programs. And poor kids, who need it most, lack access. And that lack of access can shadow them for the rest of their lives. We all pay a price for that.
Every dollar we invest in early childhood education can save more than seven dollars later on -- boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing incidents of violent crime.
And again, I'm not the first person to focus on this. Governor Bentley has made this a priority in Alabama. Governor Snyder is making it a priority in Michigan. Governor Tomblin has made this a priority in West Virginia. Even in a time of tight budgets, Republicans and Democrats are focused on high-quality early childhood education. We want to make sure that we can be an effective partner in that process.
We should be able to do that for every child, everywhere -- Democrat, Republican, blue state, red state -- it shouldn't matter. All of us want our kids to grow up more likely to read and write and do math at grade level, to graduate high school, hold a job, and form more stable families of their own. That will be better for every state. That will be better for this country. That's what high-quality early childhood education can deliver. And I hope that you're willing to partner with us to make that happen.
Let me just close with this. There are always going to be areas where we have some genuine disagreement, here in Washington and in your respective states. But there are more areas where we can do a lot more cooperating than I think we've seen over the last several years. To do that, though, this town has to get past its obsession with focusing on the next election instead of the next generation.
All of us are elected officials. All of us are concerned about our politics, both in our own party’s as well as the other party’s. But at some point, we've got to do some governing. And certainly what we can't do is keep careening from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. As I said in the State of the Union, the American people have worked hard and long to dig themselves out of one crisis; they don't need us creating another one. And unfortunately, that's what we've been seeing too much out there.
The American people are out there every single day, meeting their responsibilities, giving it their all to provide for their families and their communities. A lot of you are doing the same things in your respective states. Well, we need that same kind of attitude here in Washington. At the very least, the American people have a right to expect that from their representatives.
And so I look forward to working with all of you not just to strengthen our economy for the short term, but also to reignite what has always been the central premise of America’s economic engine, and that is that we build a strong, growing, thriving middle class where if you work hard in this country, no matter who you are, what you look like, you can make it; you can succeed. That's our goal, and I know that's the goal of all of you as well.
So I look forward to our partnering. And with that, what I want to do is clear out the press so we can take some questions. (Applause.)
END
11:40 A.M. EST
February 24, 2013 | 6:35 | Public Domain
President Obama delivers remarks at a dinner for the National Governors Association.
State Dining Room
THE PRESIDENT: Welcome, everybody. It is wonderful for us to have you here at the White House. Michelle and I are so happy to host you, and I want to start by acknowledging your outstanding chair, Jack Markell -- (applause) -- and your vice chair, Mary Fallin. (Applause.) But more importantly, I want to recognize the First Lady of Delaware and the First Gentleman of Oklahoma because we know that the spouses put up with an awful lot. (Laughter and applause.) And we hope that you all get a chance to celebrate a little bit tonight.
Last year, I got to see firsthand some of the great work that our governors are helping to accomplish all across the country. Now, it’s true that I had the chance to see some accomplishments in some states more than others -- Ohio -- (laughter) -- Iowa --(laughter) -- Colorado -- (laughter) -- Virginia. But I hope to see more of you this year, the rest of you.
But all of you have helped to steer your states through some of the nation’s toughest times. You’ve had to make hard choices. You’ve had to make wise investments and mobilize the constituencies to do what needs to be done to grow your state. And that work is paying off. Companies are bringing jobs back to our shores. New homes are popping up in our neighborhoods. Small businesses are revitalizing our communities.
And many of you also had to deal with some incredible natural disasters. And, obviously, it’s always painful to see the loss and the hardship that our families have suffered, but it’s always wonderful to see the way in which governors in particular are able to lead and mobilize their states and their communities, rallying around neighbors, friends in communities.
So we know we’ve got more work to do -- more jobs to create and more children to educate, and more roads to repair. The task before us is to find smart, common-sense solutions to each of these challenges that we can move forward on. And I’m looking for good partners. Because while nobody in this room sees eye to eye on everything, we know that when we work together –- Democrats and Republicans, North, South, East and West -- we can accomplish so much more than we can on our own. Whether it’s helping our citizens rebuild from a horrific hurricane or a turbulent economic storm, we’re stronger when we work together as a team.
One of my predecessors, a former governor himself, put it well -- America is nothing if it consists merely of each us -- if it consists merely of each of us, Woodrow Wilson said. “It’s something only if it consists of all of us.”
And nearly one hundred years later, I expect that those words continue to be true, and they should be guiding all of our efforts.
So I want to wish everybody a toast. To the good that we’ve accomplished together, for the good that’s yet to be done. I look forward to a year of progress working with all of you. I am grateful for your service. To those who were recently elected, congratulations. We look forward to seeing you again over the next several years. Cheers.
And with that -- Jack Markell. (Applause.)
GOVERNOR MARKELL: On behalf of my fellow governors, to the President and Mrs. Obama, I offer you this toast, I hope with humor and little drama (Laughter.) To the two of you and the Bidens, who hail from my home state, we appreciate your hospitality, we all look forward to this date. On this one night it’s a relief -- politics doesn’t drive the conversation. We don¹t speak of partisan issues or presidential aspirations; instead, we gather to reflect on the blessings we¹ve received -- to serve our states and country the best that's ever been conceived. You’ve tackled the big issues, there are many to address and dealing with them all at once is much like 3D chess. One thing for sure is certain -- you don’t let issues fester. You get to deal with education and health care, and even the sequester. (Laughter and applause.)
You’re probably jealous of the First Lady, she’s Jimmy Fallon’s trainer -- (laughter) -- while you, on the other hand, deal with Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner. (Laughter.) Tonight, we leave out the specifics of the issues of the day, except one on which we all agree, and on which I’d like to convey our thanks for the efforts of the First Lady, Dr. Biden, and many other groups who work so hard on behalf of families of our military troops. Our soldiers and our sailors, our airmen and marines, so often leave their families because they know what freedom means. In return, we take care of the objects of their affection, and for all of us it’s more important than party or reelection.
Mr. President, we’re grateful for your service, for your leadership and grit, for your belief in the American dream and I expect that all of us commit to work together and to strive to leave our nation stronger. Our time in office is rather limited so I won’t go on much longer. (Laughter.)
To the President and First Lady, and to the Bidens, here’s our toast. We may come from the mountain states or from the South or plains or coast, we’re one country and one people, in important ways we are united, and for the chance to offer you our greatest thanks, I really am delighted. (Applause.)
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
State Dining Room
THE PRESIDENT: Welcome, everybody. It is wonderful for us to have you here at the White House. Michelle and I are so happy to host you, and I want to start by acknowledging your outstanding chair, Jack Markell -- (applause) -- and your vice chair, Mary Fallin. (Applause.) But more importantly, I want to recognize the First Lady of Delaware and the First Gentleman of Oklahoma because we know that the spouses put up with an awful lot. (Laughter and applause.) And we hope that you all get a chance to celebrate a little bit tonight.
Last year, I got to see firsthand some of the great work that our governors are helping to accomplish all across the country. Now, it’s true that I had the chance to see some accomplishments in some states more than others -- Ohio -- (laughter) -- Iowa --(laughter) -- Colorado -- (laughter) -- Virginia. But I hope to see more of you this year, the rest of you.
But all of you have helped to steer your states through some of the nation’s toughest times. You’ve had to make hard choices. You’ve had to make wise investments and mobilize the constituencies to do what needs to be done to grow your state. And that work is paying off. Companies are bringing jobs back to our shores. New homes are popping up in our neighborhoods. Small businesses are revitalizing our communities.
And many of you also had to deal with some incredible natural disasters. And, obviously, it’s always painful to see the loss and the hardship that our families have suffered, but it’s always wonderful to see the way in which governors in particular are able to lead and mobilize their states and their communities, rallying around neighbors, friends in communities.
So we know we’ve got more work to do -- more jobs to create and more children to educate, and more roads to repair. The task before us is to find smart, common-sense solutions to each of these challenges that we can move forward on. And I’m looking for good partners. Because while nobody in this room sees eye to eye on everything, we know that when we work together –- Democrats and Republicans, North, South, East and West -- we can accomplish so much more than we can on our own. Whether it’s helping our citizens rebuild from a horrific hurricane or a turbulent economic storm, we’re stronger when we work together as a team.
One of my predecessors, a former governor himself, put it well -- America is nothing if it consists merely of each us -- if it consists merely of each of us, Woodrow Wilson said. “It’s something only if it consists of all of us.”
And nearly one hundred years later, I expect that those words continue to be true, and they should be guiding all of our efforts.
So I want to wish everybody a toast. To the good that we’ve accomplished together, for the good that’s yet to be done. I look forward to a year of progress working with all of you. I am grateful for your service. To those who were recently elected, congratulations. We look forward to seeing you again over the next several years. Cheers.
And with that -- Jack Markell. (Applause.)
GOVERNOR MARKELL: On behalf of my fellow governors, to the President and Mrs. Obama, I offer you this toast, I hope with humor and little drama (Laughter.) To the two of you and the Bidens, who hail from my home state, we appreciate your hospitality, we all look forward to this date. On this one night it’s a relief -- politics doesn’t drive the conversation. We don¹t speak of partisan issues or presidential aspirations; instead, we gather to reflect on the blessings we¹ve received -- to serve our states and country the best that's ever been conceived. You’ve tackled the big issues, there are many to address and dealing with them all at once is much like 3D chess. One thing for sure is certain -- you don’t let issues fester. You get to deal with education and health care, and even the sequester. (Laughter and applause.)
You’re probably jealous of the First Lady, she’s Jimmy Fallon’s trainer -- (laughter) -- while you, on the other hand, deal with Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner. (Laughter.) Tonight, we leave out the specifics of the issues of the day, except one on which we all agree, and on which I’d like to convey our thanks for the efforts of the First Lady, Dr. Biden, and many other groups who work so hard on behalf of families of our military troops. Our soldiers and our sailors, our airmen and marines, so often leave their families because they know what freedom means. In return, we take care of the objects of their affection, and for all of us it’s more important than party or reelection.
Mr. President, we’re grateful for your service, for your leadership and grit, for your belief in the American dream and I expect that all of us commit to work together and to strive to leave our nation stronger. Our time in office is rather limited so I won’t go on much longer. (Laughter.)
To the President and First Lady, and to the Bidens, here’s our toast. We may come from the mountain states or from the South or plains or coast, we’re one country and one people, in important ways we are united, and for the chance to offer you our greatest thanks, I really am delighted. (Applause.)
President Obama urges Congress to stop the sequester -- the harmful automatic cuts that threaten thousands of jobs and affect our national security from taking effect on March 1.
Transcript | Download mp4 | Download mp3
Learn more:
February 23, 2013 | 4:01 | Public Domain
President Obama urges Congress to stop the sequester -- the harmful automatic cuts that threaten thousands of jobs and affect our national security from taking effect on March 1.
WASHINGTON, DC—President Obama used this week’s address to urge Congress to stop the harmful automatic cuts that threaten thousands of jobs and affect our national security—called the sequester—from taking effect on March 1st. The President and Congressional Democrats have already put forward solutions to avoid these cuts and reduce the deficit in a balanced way, and now it’s time for Congressional Republicans to compromise by closing some loopholes that protect the wealthiest Americans so that we can reduce the deficit in a balanced way and create jobs for the middle class.
The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 a.m. ET, Saturday, February 23, 2013.
Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
The White House
February 23, 2013
Hi, everybody. Our top priority as a country right now should be doing everything we can to grow our economy and create good, middle class jobs.
And yet, less than one week from now, Congress is poised to allow a series of arbitrary, automatic budget cuts that will do the exact opposite. They will slow our economy. They will eliminate good jobs. They will leave many families who are already stretched to the limit scrambling to figure out what to do.
But here’s the thing: these cuts don’t have to happen. Congress can turn them off anytime with just a little compromise. They can pass a balanced plan for deficit reduction. They can cut spending in a smart way, and close wasteful tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected.
Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans in Congress have decided that instead of compromising – instead of asking anything of the wealthiest Americans – they would rather let these cuts fall squarely on the middle class.
Here’s what that choice means. Once these cuts take effect, thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off, and tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, causing delays across the country. Even President Bush’s director of the National Institutes of Health says these cuts will set back medical science for a generation.
Already, the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay the deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf – affecting our ability to respond to threats in an unstable part of the world. And just this week, the Pentagon announced that if these cuts go through, almost 800,000 defense employees – the equivalent of every person in Miami and Cleveland combined – will be forced to take unpaid leave.
That’s what this choice means. Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Are they really willing to slash military health care and the border patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies? Are they seriously prepared to inflict more pain on the middle class because they refuse to ask anything more of those at the very top?
These are the questions Republicans in Congress need to ask themselves. And I’m hopeful they’ll change their minds. Because the American people have worked too hard for too long to see everything they’ve built undone by partisan recklessness in Washington.
I believe we should work together to build on the more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction we’ve already achieved. But I believe we should do it in a balanced way – with smart spending cuts, entitlement reform, and tax reform. That’s my plan. It's got tough cuts, tough reforms, and asks more of the wealthiest Americans. It's on the White House website for everyone to see. And it requires Democrats and Republicans to meet half way to resolve the problem. That’s what the American people expect. And that’s what you deserve.
We just need Republicans in Washington to come around. Because we need their help to finish the job of reducing our deficit in a smart way that doesn’t hurt our economy or our people. After all, as we learned in the 1990s, nothing shrinks the deficit faster than a growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs. That has to be our driving focus. That has to be our North Star. Making America a magnet for good jobs. Equipping our people with the skills required to fill those jobs. Making sure your hard work leads to a decent living. That’s what this city should be focused on like a laser. And I’m going to keep pushing folks here to remember that.
Thanks.