Weekly Address: Averting the Sequester and Finding a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction

February 09, 2013 | 4:18 | Public Domain

President Obama urges Congress to act to avoid a series of harmful and automatic cuts—called a sequester—from going into effect that would hurt our economy and the middle class and threaten thousands of American jobs.

Download mp4 (344MB) | mp3 (74MB)

Read the Transcript

Weekly Address: Averting the Sequester and Finding a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction

Hi, everybody. Over the last few years, Democrats and Republicans have come together and cut our deficit by more than $2.5 trillion through a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. That’s more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties say we need to stabilize our debt. 

I believe we can finish the job the same way we’ve started it – with a balanced mix of more spending cuts and more tax reform. And the overwhelming majority of the American people agree – both Democrats and Republicans.

Now, my preference – and the preference of many Members of Congress – is to do that in a balanced, comprehensive way, by making sensible changes to entitlement programs and reforming our tax code. As we speak, both the House and Senate are working towards budget proposals that I hope will lay out this kind of balanced path going forward. 

But the budget process takes time. And right now, if Congress doesn’t act by March 1, a series of harmful, automatic cuts to job-creating investments and defense spending – also known as the sequester – are scheduled to take effect. And the result could be a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole.

If the sequester is allowed to go forward, thousands of Americans who work in fields like national security, education or clean energy are likely to be laid off. Firefighters and food inspectors could also find themselves out of work – leaving our communities vulnerable. Programs like Head Start would be cut, and lifesaving research into diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s could be scaled back. Small businesses could be prevented from getting the resources and support they need to keep their doors open. People with disabilities who are waiting for their benefits could be forced to wait even longer. All our economic progress could be put at risk.

And then there’s the impact on our military readiness. Already, the threat of deep cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf. As our military leaders have made clear, changes like this affect our ability to respond to threats in an unstable part of the world. And we will be forced to make even more tough decisions in the weeks ahead if Congress fails to act.

The good news is, there’s another option. Two months ago, we faced a similar deadline, and instead of making deep, indiscriminate cuts that would have cost us jobs and slowed down our recovery, Democrats and Republicans came together and made responsible cuts and manageable changes to our tax code that will bring down our deficit. This time, Congress should pass a similar set of balanced cuts and close more tax loopholes until they can find a way to replace the sequester with a smarter, longer-term solution. 

Right now, most Members of Congress – including many Republicans – don’t think it’s a good idea to put thousands of jobs at risk and do unnecessary damage to our economy. And yet the current Republican plan puts the burden of avoiding those cuts mainly on seniors and middle-class families. They would rather ask more from the vast majority of Americans and put our recovery at risk than close even a single tax loophole that benefits the wealthy.

Over the last few years, we’ve made good progress towards reducing our deficit in a balanced way. There’s no reason we can’t keep chipping away at this problem. And there’s certainly no reason that middle-class families and small businesses should suffer just because Washington couldn’t come together and eliminate a few special interest tax loopholes, or government programs that just don’t work. At a time when economists and business leaders from across the spectrum have said that our economy is poised for progress, we shouldn’t allow self-inflicted wounds to put that progress in jeopardy.

So my message to Congress is this: let’s keep working together to solve this problem. And let’s give our workers and our businesses the support they need to grow and thrive. Thanks, and have a great weekend.

Close Transcript

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Averting the Sequester and Finding a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction

WASHINGTON, DC—In this week’s address, President Obama urged Congress to act to avoid a series of harmful and automatic cuts—called a sequester—from going into effect that would hurt our economy and the middle class and threaten thousands of American jobs.  The President urged Congress to find a balanced approach to deficit reduction that makes investments in areas that help us grow and cuts what we don’t need.

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 9, 2013.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
The White House
February 9, 2013

Hi, everybody.  Over the last few years, Democrats and Republicans have come together and cut our deficit by more than $2.5 trillion through a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.  That’s more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties say we need to stabilize our debt. 

I believe we can finish the job the same way we’ve started it – with a balanced mix of more spending cuts and more tax reform.  And the overwhelming majority of the American people agree – both Democrats and Republicans.  

Now, my preference – and the preference of many Members of Congress – is to do that in a balanced, comprehensive way, by making sensible changes to entitlement programs and reforming our tax code.  As we speak, both the House and Senate are working towards budget proposals that I hope will lay out this kind of balanced path going forward. 

But the budget process takes time.  And right now, if Congress doesn’t act by March 1st, a series of harmful, automatic cuts to job-creating investments and defense spending – also known as the sequester – are scheduled to take effect.  And the result could be a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole.

If the sequester is allowed to go forward, thousands of Americans who work in fields like national security, education or clean energy are likely to be laid off.  Firefighters and food inspectors could also find themselves out of work – leaving our communities vulnerable.  Programs like Head Start would be cut, and lifesaving research into diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s could be scaled back.  Small businesses could be prevented from getting the resources and support they need to keep their doors open.  People with disabilities who are waiting for their benefits could be forced to wait even longer.  All our economic progress could be put at risk.

And then there’s the impact on our military readiness.  Already, the threat of deep cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf.  As our military leaders have made clear, changes like this affect our ability to respond to threats in an unstable part of the world.  And we will be forced to make even more tough decisions in the weeks ahead if Congress fails to act.

The good news is, there’s another option.  Two months ago, we faced a similar deadline, and instead of making deep, indiscriminate cuts that would have cost us jobs and slowed down our recovery, Democrats and Republicans came together and made responsible cuts and manageable changes to our tax code that will bring down our deficit.  This time, Congress should pass a similar set of balanced cuts and close more tax loopholes until they can find a way to replace the sequester with a smarter, longer-term solution. 

Right now, most Members of Congress – including many Republicans – don’t think it’s a good idea to put thousands of jobs at risk and do unnecessary damage to our economy.  And yet the current Republican plan puts the burden of avoiding those cuts mainly on seniors and middle-class families.  They would rather ask more from the vast majority of Americans and put our recovery at risk than close even a single tax loophole that benefits the wealthy.

Over the last few years, we’ve made good progress towards reducing our deficit in a balanced way.  There’s no reason we can’t keep chipping away at this problem.  And there’s certainly no reason that middle-class families and small businesses should suffer just because Washington couldn’t come together and eliminate a few special interest tax loopholes, or government programs that just don’t work.  At a time when economists and business leaders from across the spectrum have said that our economy is poised for progress, we shouldn’t allow self-inflicted wounds to put that progress in jeopardy.

So my message to Congress is this: let’s keep working together to solve this problem.  And let’s give our workers and our businesses the support they need to grow and thrive.  Thanks, and have a great weekend.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta

Fort Myer, Virginia

4:18 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  In the years between the world wars, a young married couple in Italy packed up what few belongings that they had and boarded a boat for a new world.  They passed under the Statue of Liberty and went through the lines of Ellis Island. 

Carmelo and Carmelina Panetta had no money and spoke little English.  But they had a dream of a better life.  They worked hard.  They went West, to California.  They started a family and taught their sons that if they studied and worked, if they gave back to this country, that they, too, could share in America’s promise.

Today we pay tribute to their son -- Leon Panetta -- a man who hasn’t simply lived up to the American Dream but has helped to protect it for all of us. 

Leon, our presence here today -- members of Congress, Deputy Secretary Carter, General Dempsey and the members of the Joint Chiefs, service secretaries, and the men and women of the greatest military that the world has ever known -- all this is a reflection of our personal appreciation to you and the gratitude of a nation that you have helped to keep strong and to keep free. 
By the time I came to office, Leon Panetta was already regarded as one of our nation’s finest public servants, with an extraordinary career across more than four decades.  He and Sylvia had settled into the good life -- their beautiful Monterey; their beloved walnut farm.  Now, Leon will deny it, but I hear he was growing restless; he wanted less time on the tractor and enjoying good weather and more time in the office; less time in California, more time in Washington, interacting with the West Wing and members of Congress.  Who wouldn’t?  (Laughter.)   And so we gave him his wish. 

Leon, I’ll always be grateful that you agreed to return to public service.  And, Sylvia, I am so grateful that you put up with him.  Your leadership of the CIA will forever be remembered for the blows that we struck against al Qaeda and perhaps the greatest intelligence success in American history -- delivering justice to Osama bin Laden.  (Applause.)  

By then, Leon had every right to expect that he could return home.  And I’ll admit that when we first asked him to stay on and lead the Pentagon, his answer was simple:  No.  (Laughter.)  But I kept asking.  I am persistent -- that's how Michelle married me.  I just kept at it.  And it is a testament to Leon’s patriotism, to his sense of duty that he agreed to serve on this one last tour. 

And perhaps it was the memory, during World War II, of his parents opening up their homes to GIs headed for the Pacific.  Perhaps it was because Leon served himself, as a young lieutenant in the Army.  Perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deploy to Afghanistan.  What we do know is this:  As our nation’s 23rd Secretary of Defense, every action Leon Panetta has taken, every decision that he has made, has been with one goal in mind:  Taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform, and keeping America safe. 

And just think of the progress under his watch.  Because we ended the war in Iraq, and are winding down the war in Afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in Afghanistan will come to an end.  We’ve put the core of al Qaeda on the path to defeat, and we've been relentless against its affiliates.  Because we have a sacred obligation to our troops -- to take care of them like they’ve taken care of us -- we’re improving treatment for our wounded warriors, stepping up support for our military families, and doing more than ever to help our newest veterans transition to civilian life -- and that includes the jobs our veterans need as we do some nation-building here at home.

Because we believe in opportunity for all Americans, the tenure of Secretary Leon Panetta, this son of immigrants, this first-generation American, will be remembered for historic progress in welcoming more of our fellow citizens to military service; for the formal and final repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"; for opening combat roles to our incredible women in uniform.  In short, for making our military -- and our nation --that much stronger. 

Because we forged a new defense strategy, we’ll be better prepared for the future, better prepared to meet the threats that we face without larger military footprints; better prepared against cyber-attacks; better prepared to advance our interests in the Asia Pacific region; and after more than a decade of war, better prepared for the broadest range of contingencies. 

Keeping us prepared will be the mission of my nominee to be the next Secretary of Defense -- a combat veteran with the experience, judgment and vision that our troops deserve, Chuck Hagel.

And since we are now just weeks away from deep, automatic cuts to federal spending, including defense, let me say this.  There is no reason -- no reason -- for that to happen.  Putting our fiscal house in order calls for a balanced approach, not massive, indiscriminate cuts that could have a severe impact on our military preparedness. 

So here today, for the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of all these men and women in uniform, and all their brothers and sisters in uniform that they represent, now is the time to act -- for Democrats and Republicans to come together in the same spirit that Leon Panetta always brought to public service -- solving problems, not trying to score points.  Doing right for the country, not for any particular political agenda.  Sustaining our economic recovery, balancing budgets -- Leon knows something about it -- but also maintaining the finest military in history.

Leon, this, too, will be part of your legacy, for no one has raised their voice as firmly or as forcefully on behalf of our troops as you have.  You've served with integrity and decency and grace.  You're a reminder of what public service ought to be.  You’ve led with heart and you've led with humor.  Indeed, they say that you’ve never seen our Wounded Warriors smile as wide or heard them laugh as loud as when they get a visit from their Secretary of Defense.  And whatever the challenge, Leon, you always give it to us straight -- sometimes in words that can’t be repeated here in public.  (Laughter.)  

Today we want to make sure to thank Sylvia and the entire Panetta family for sharing their husband, their father, and their grandfather with the rest of us; for sharing Bravo, the First Dog of the Pentagon.  Sylvia, Leon’s service has also been your sacrifice.  And we promise, this time he really is coming home.
Leon, from your first day in uniform until today, your dedicated service to America has spanned nearly 50 remarkable years.  And as you review these fine troops one last time, as you return home and walk your farm, know that the grand arc of your life speaks to our larger American story.  For you can say with confidence and with pride that you’ve fulfilled the hopes that brought Carmelo and Carmelina Panetta to these shores all those years ago.  You've made them proud.  You’ve helped to keep alive the American Dream for not only your children and grandchildren, but for all of our children and grandchildren.  And for that, we will be eternally grateful.

So, Leon, as your parents would say, grazie.  God bless you, and God bless these United States of America. 

Ladies and gentlemen, our Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta.  (Applause.)

SECRETARY PANETTA:  Thank you very much.  Mr. President, I’m deeply touched by your moving words about me, about my family, more importantly, about the men and women who serve in the Department of Defense.  All of us are truly honored by your presence, and I thank you.

Let me also take this moment to thank Michelle and Jill Biden for the work -- outstanding work that they’ve done in leading the Joining Forces initiative, which has provided great support for military families who have done so much for us.

Marty Dempsey, I appreciate your kind remarks.  Marty and I have testified before Congress -- this is the 11th time yesterday that we’ve done that -- and we’ve also done 10 press conferences together.  We are developing a very convincing case for collecting hazard pay in these jobs.  (Laughter.) 

As we used to say when I was in the Army, there isn’t anyone I’d rather be in the foxhole with than Marty Dempsey.  I cannot tell you what a privilege it has been to work with you and to work with all of the service chiefs.  We’ve dealt with some very tough issues, and there is no way -- no way -- that I could have done this job without your support, without your loyalty and without your dedication.

Members of Congress, leaders of the administration, leaders of the Department of Defense, distinguished guests, many dear friends who we’ve known over the years, Sylvia and I are very thankful to all of you for coming here today.  This is without question the fanciest send-off I’ve ever gotten in Washington.  (Laughter.) 

Let me remember the words of President Harry Truman who once said, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”  And that's just what I did.  (Laughter.)  And I am grateful that Bravo is here today.  Bravo was in all of the meetings when we planned the bin Laden operation, and he also sat in on many of the sensitive meetings and discussions that I had at the Pentagon.  And I want you to know that he has never told a soul what he heard.  (Laughter.)  He is definitely not a leaker.  (Laughter.)  At least according to that definition of the word.  (Laughter.) 

You’ve heard of the movie, Zero Dark Thirty.  The producer is seriously considering a new movie about Bravo, entitled, Zero Bark Thirty.  (Laughter.)

It’s been 50 years of public service, and I have always, and will always, cherish the deep and lasting friendships that I’ve made here in Washington.  And I’m extremely grateful that so many of those friends could be here this afternoon.

I have spent a long time in this town.  As the son of immigrants, as the President pointed out, I have truly lived the American Dream.  Being an Italian American in Congress, at senior levels in the executive branch has been, for me, a very unique experience.  I have never lost my awe by the sight of the Capitol and the White House at night.  It still is a very special experience.

I can also remember when I was first elected to the House of Representatives, there was a member that I think the President may recall by the name of Frank Annunzio, from Chicago, who came up to me and said, “Panetta -- that’s Italian.”  I said, “Yes, it is.”  He said, “Good.  I want you to join the Italian caucus.”  Of course, I was not going to say no to an Italian from Chicago. (Laughter.)  He said, great.  He said, “We don’t do much on issues, but we eat good.”  (Laughter.)  And that was true. 

Many years later, when I came to Langley as President Obama’s Director of Central Intelligence, I got a mug from my family with a big “C-I-A,” standing for California Italian American.  (Laughter.)   

In all seriousness, Mr. President, I want to express my deepest thanks to you for the opportunity to serve this country again as a member of your administration.  It had been a tremendous honor and a tremendous privilege these past four years, and especially now as the 23rd Secretary of Defense.  I hope that in some small way I have helped to fulfill the dream of my parents -- the dream that they wanted, and the dream that all of us want, of giving our children a better life. 

It’s been for me a hell of a ride.  I will never forget the pride and exhilaration when I walked out of the White House after the President announced the success of the bin Laden operation and I could hear the chants of those people who were gathered around the White House and in Lafayette Park yelling, “U.S.A!  U.S.A!” 

Thank you, Mr. President, for your strong support in what was a very tough decision.  The memory of that operation and the team that helped put it together -- both the intelligence team and the military team -- will be with me forever. 

I’ll remember traveling to combat theaters and bases around the world, looking into the eyes of brave men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day for this country.  I’ll remember the moments when we’ve honored veterans of past wars, and when we’ve been inspired by servicemembers and wounded warriors returning from today’s wars. 

And I’ll always remember the moments of grief, when this nation has rendered final honors to our fallen heroes, and when we’ve had to comfort their families.  Writing notes of condolences to those families who have lost loved ones has been, for me, one of my toughest jobs. 

These moments of selflessness, these moments of sacrifice, of courage, of heroism, give me a renewed sense of pride in our country, and it gives me an optimism for the future.  I’ve witnessed a new generation of Americans ask themselves what they could do for their country.  And I have seen the profound difference that talented men and women with a sense of duty and sacrifice can make in the life of this nation and in the life of our world. 

For more than a decade of war, our democracy has depended on the men and women of the United States military to bear the awesome burden and to preserve our freedom.  They have done everything the nation asked them to do, and more.  And I will have no greater honor in my life than to have been able to lead them as Secretary of Defense.

I learned a long time ago that there’s not much you can accomplish in Washington on your own.  You need a team behind you.  And at the Department of Defense I’ve been blessed with an exceptional team -- from senior civilian and military leaders all the way the chain of command.  And together, I’m proud of the important achievements that we’ve been able to accomplish for the nation. 

We developed and we have begun implementing a new defense strategy for the 21st century that protects the strongest military power in the world and meets our responsibility to fiscal discipline.  We're bringing, as the President said, more than a decade of war to a responsible end -- ending the war in Iraq, giving the Iraqi people a chance to secure and govern themselves.  And in Afghanistan, our campaign is well on track to completing that mission.  We're committed to an enduring relationship with the Afghan people so that they, too, can govern and secure themselves in the future. 

We've kept pressure on al Qaeda, and we're going after extremists wherever you may hide.  And we have shown the world -- we have shown the world -- that nobody attacks the United States of America and gets away with it.  (Applause.) 

We are keeping faith -- keeping faith with and caring for our returning veterans and wounded warriors.  I am particularly proud that we've expanded opportunities for everyone to serve in our military in a democracy.  In a democracy, everybody should be given a chance to meet the qualifications needed to serve this country.  This is a basic value that we fight to protect.

Despite the progress we've made together, there’s no question that there remains some very significant challenges -- the dangers and instability abroad, budget constraints, political gridlock here at home.  But one thing I have learned is that you cannot -- you cannot -- be involved in public service and not be optimistic about the future. 

I am confident that under the leadership of the President and the leaders in the Congress that we can, and we must, stay on the right path to build the military force we need for the 21st century. 

Winston Churchill once wrote, "The future is unknowable, but the past should give us hope."  This is a time of uncertainty.  But my career in public service gives me hope that the leaders of this nation will come together to resolve the challenges facing this country, and to seize the opportunities of the 21st century. 
We've overcome wars.  We've overcome disasters.  We've overcome economic depressions and recessions.  We've overcome crises of every kind throughout the history of our country.  And throughout our history, the fighting spirit of our fellow Americans has made clear that we never, never, never give up.  Our forefathers, pioneers, the immigrant families that came here all fought together to give our children that better life.  We cannot fail to do the same.

None of us in public service -- none of us in public service -- could carry on that fight without the love and support of our families.  Everything I've been able to accomplish in my wife -- in my life -- wife and life together -- has been because of the support of my family.  My immigrant parents, my family, my sons, their families -- but most of all, Sylvia. 

We've been married 50 years.  She has endured extended absences and long hours and the demands that come with public service.  But she has always been there.  And I will never be able to thank her enough for her constant love and support.  Her Valentine gift is both of us going home together.  (Applause.)  

It has been the honor of my life to have served in the position as Secretary of Defense.  And wherever I go and whatever I do, I will thank God every day for the men and women in this country who are willing to put their lives on the line for all of us.  They have responded to the call of the bugle with courage and with selfless dedication to country.  My prayer as I leave is that we all have the same courage and dedication to protecting our nation -- the United States of America, the home of the free and the brave.

God bless America.  God bless you.  And God bless the men and women in the Department of Defense.  (Applause.)

END
4:45 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Memorandum -- Presidential Determination Regarding Waiver of Restriction on Providing Funds to the Palestinian Authority

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SUBJECT: Waiver of Restriction on Providing Funds to the Palestinian Authority

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7040(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Division I, Public Law 112-74) (the "Act") as carried forward by the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 112-175) (the "CR"), I hereby certify that it is important to the national security interests of the United States to waive the provisions of section 7040(a) of the Act as carried forward by the CR, in order to provide funds appropriated to carry out chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, to the Palestinian Authority.

You are directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, with a report pursuant to section 7040(d) of the Act as carried forward by the CR, and to publish this determination in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, Federal Controller of OMB Danny Werfel, and Principal Deputy Director of NEC Jason Furman on the Impact of the Sequester, 02/08/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:40 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Thank you all for being here.  As I think we advised earlier today for this gaggle, I have with me Danny Werfel, Federal Controller for the Office of Management and Budget; as well as Jason Furman, Principal Deputy Director of the National Economic Council.  They’re here to discuss with you what would be the devastating impacts of the sequester if it is allowed to take effect, if Congress fails to do the responsible thing, which is to give itself the time and space it needs to pursue a broader budget that would achieve deficit reduction in a balanced way. 

So I will turn it over first to Danny Werfel and then to Jason.

MR. WERFEL:  Thank you, Jay.  I know all of you have a paper that was provided that has information on the impacts of the sequester on the domestic side.  I want to take a moment and talk about how the across-the-board cuts under sequestration would operate and why they would be so harmful to our nation. 

I want to emphasize that the administration believes sequestration is bad policy that was never intended to be implemented.  It was intended to drive both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to compromise.  Sequester is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument that poses a serious threat to our national security, domestic priorities, and the economy.  And it does not represent a responsible way to achieve deficit reduction.

As I think you’re all aware, the fiscal cliff deal included a fully paid-for two-month delay in sequestration, pushing the scheduled implementation date back to March 1st, which is now three weeks away.  The deal did lower the amount of the sequester cut for this year to $85 billion, but this is obviously still a very substantial amount.  And we now have a shortened timeframe for achieving the cut -- seven months. 

OMB now calculates that sequestration will require an annual reduction of roughly 5 percent for nondefense programs and roughly 8 percent for defense programs.  However, given that these cuts must be achieved over only a seven-month period instead of a twelve-month period, the effective percentage reductions will be approximately 9 percent for nondefense programs and 13 percent for defense programs.  These are large and arbitrary cuts, and will have severe impacts across government.

On multiple occasions, the President has laid his plan for more than $4 trillion in balanced deficit reduction, and he has demonstrated his strong commitment and willingness to reach agreement on further balanced deficit reduction that avoids sequestration.  If we do not get an agreement to avoid the sequester, as I mentioned earlier, there would be significant and harmful consequences across the spectrum of both domestic and defense priorities.  And from the document that was provided, you can see that the cuts would cause very significant disruptions that would be felt far and wide across the country.

There has been in the public domain a lot of discussion to date about the impact that the sequester would have on the defense realm.  And let me be clear, those impacts would be severe and must not be allowed to occur.  As Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey have both said on numerous occasions, sequestration would create a serious crisis in military readiness and pose the risk of creating a hollow force by undercutting the essential services, equipment, and support our Armed Forces rely on.

But the impacts on our domestic priorities as a nation would be just as severe.  Let me go through some of the examples.  Six hundred thousand women and children would lose vital nutrition assistance.  Not only would this reduce essential benefits that these families depend on, but it could cost at least 1,600 state and local jobs due to reduced federal funding. 

Approximately 70,000 children would lose Head Start and Early Head Start services.  The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation would have to significantly cut back or delay thousands of research grants and awards, setting back progress on research into life-threatening illnesses and costing tens of thousands of jobs for scientists and students. 

The Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture would have to cut back on food inspections, leaving the country more vulnerable to public health risks due to foodborne illnesses.  The FBI would have to reduce its law enforcement capacity.  FEMA would have to eliminate funding for firefighters and other emergency personnel.  And the Justice Department would have to furlough hundreds of federal prosecutors.

As you can see, in the list that we distributed there are more impacts that I do not cover here.  The list that you have has additional ones, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.  There are many, many other impacts that are not in the document.  The document just represents some of the ones that we’re highlighting.

Across the government we’ll see assistance programs slashed; we’ll see contracts cut; we’ll see employees out of work.  And we’ll have no choice.  The blunt, irresponsible, and severe nature of sequestration means that we can’t plan our way out of these consequences or take steps to soften the blow.

To reiterate, that’s why it is so critical that Congress acts swiftly to avoid these cuts through a balanced approach to further deficit reduction.  Instead of arbitrary, across-the-board cuts, we need to be carefully reducing the deficit in a way that protects the most vulnerable, protects critical priorities, creates jobs, and strengthens the middle class.

Let me turn it over to Jason Furman who is going to talk through some additional issues from his perspective.

MR. FURMAN:  Thank you.  And after the President’s experience with the cameramen Tuesday, I told Jay I’d only come back here if they weren’t here, so thank you for that.  (Laughter.)

I just want to underscore some of Danny’s points and put a tiny bit of broader economic context around it.  Danny went through the programmatic consequences -- what this would mean for education, medical, research, public safety, and a whole range of things.  And those would all be very damaging and very severe. 

The sequester would also have broader and very negative consequences for the economy as a whole.  And private forecasters, the Congressional Budget Office, and others have estimated that if the sequester hit you would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result.  And we got a tiny bit of a preview of what that might look like in the fourth quarter GDP numbers, where GDP contracted because of a large contraction in defense spending that was, at least in part, due just to fears about the sequester before it even started to hit.

That type of contraction in the deficit, a very large and abrupt and immediate and poorly implemented one in 2013, is especially unnecessary because of the trajectory of what's happening to the deficit right now.  We've made enormous progress in bringing the deficit down over the last four years.  We are slated to make a lot of progress to bring the deficit down over the next couple of years.  The big challenge we have is over the medium and long terms.  Let me talk about that first part first, and then about the medium and long term. 

The deficit this year is projected to be about 5 percent of GDP.  It's come down by nearly 5 percentage points in the last four years.  That’s the most rapid pace of deficit reduction the United States has seen since the end of World War II.  The reason we're seeing this is in part due to the recovery of the economy, but also in part because the President has already signed into law $2.5 trillion of deficit reduction, including $1.4 trillion of spending cuts through the continuing resolutions and Budget Control Act, and another $600 billion of revenue from high-income households in the tax agreement and then the associated intrasavings.

So that $2.5 trillion gets you more than halfway to the $4 trillion that you need to stabilize your debt over the long term, and it actually has been sufficient to be bringing your deficit down quite strongly over the short run.

What we do need, though, is a lot more medium- and long-term deficit reduction.  And that’s the second reason why it would be a real shame to just take the attitude that we should just let the sequester hit rather than doing something else; take the attitude that, oh, the sequester is spending cuts, we want spending cuts, let's just do it that way.  That’s not just programmatically damaging for the reasons that Danny outlined, it's not just macroeconomically damaging in terms of costing jobs, it also misses a really huge opportunity for this country -- one that I think Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree is a better approach than this type of blunt, mindless, bad-policy approach.

And that’s an approach that, one, the President came out and reiterated -- in fact, reiterated it twice in his remarks in this briefing room on Tuesday -- and that’s the type of big deal that still remains on the table, from his perspective.  And that’s a big deal that includes health savings that, in the tenth year, would match or exceed the savings in Bowles-Simpson and would grow more quickly over time.  So you would actually have more health savings than in the sequester, more health savings over the long term than in Bowles-Simpson.  That would include tax reform that could do something like on corporate tax rates, bring our rates down a lot and make our country more competitive.  And that's an approach that would also bring us more deficit reduction, amount of deficit reduction sufficient to bring down and ultimately stabilize our debt measured as a share of the economy.

Of course, as the President said, there’s not time to do all of that in the next couple of weeks, first of all.  Second of all, there's been interest on a bipartisan basis in Congress in proceeding through budget resolutions in something more like regular order to bring this all about.  That's a process that takes time. 

So what we're trying to do now is make sure that Congress can buy the time it needs in order to do this entitlement reform, tax reform that's a much better solution to our problems than letting the sequester hit, and doing that in a balanced way with a combination of revenue and spending that would buy you some time on the sequester.  The whole goal of buying that time is not for the sake of buying time; it's for the sake of buying time to do something that's a lot bigger and a lot better than the sequester in terms of entitlement reform, tax reform, stabilizing our deficit and ultimately the goal being creating jobs and economic growth.

MR. CARNEY:  So if we could have questions for these two gentlemen.  And if we have a little time at the back, I'll be here for a few minutes after that.

Questions?  Roger. 

Q    When you just said that you'd like to buy time on the sequester, you're saying postpone March 1st, but substitute what?

MR. FURMAN:  A balanced combination of spending and revenue measures.  We have already had an example of this with the two-month delay that we did as part of the ATRA.  And we're talking about something like that.  I'm not saying another two months.  That's something Congress would need to work out the period.  Congress would need to work out --  

Q    Harry Reid said like three months or something.

MR. FURMAN:  Congress really needs to work out the amount of time.  Congress needs to work out the amount of pay-fors.  Where we're coming from is that we'd want to see -- and I don't think you could pass the Senate without seeing something that has a balance of revenue and spending.  And we had a template for that in the ATRA.  And that's the type of thing we'd like to see going forward.

I don't know the exact amount of time you'd need for a bigger budget agreement.  It doesn't appear that this Congress would be able to do that in the next three weeks, so we certainly need more time than that.

Q    Does the White House have an offer?

MR. FURMAN:  What?

Q    Does the White House have an offer?

MR. FURMAN:  Yes, we have -- the President said that his -- the offers that he made in December remain on the table.  So he has a plan on the table.

Q    The numbers here, do they come from Treasury or OMB?  And how do you know that this sort of dire portrait that you paint of life under sequester will actually happen if the sequester goes through?

MR. WERFEL:  The numbers actually come from the federal agencies that are responsible for carrying out the program.  So HHS, for example, helped analyze the situation and develop a Head Start assessment and so on.  And these are experts, programmatic experts.  They are constantly monitoring the manner in which federal dollars go into the field and how they're impacted, and they're evaluating what a very significant and sudden arbitrary cut would do.  And so we rely on the agencies to provide that expertise.

Q    Could you talk about how this thing would be implemented?  Is it a cliff?  Is it a slope?  Do 800 women lose their nutrition on March 1st?  Or how does it work?

MR. WERFEL:  So from a technical standpoint, what happens is that if we have to issue the sequester order and move into this phase on March 1st, essentially it cancels $85 billion in budgetary resources that agencies previously had available.  So they now have to get to the end of the fiscal year, across government, on a budget that now has $85 billion less than it once did. 

Now, agencies are going to have to carry out and get to the finish line in a way that's most effective to meet their mission.  And so, in some cases, I think you’ll see variation.  In some cases, you’ll see immediate impacts.  And in some cases, agencies will work out those changes to their programs and their structures over time.  So there’s no easy answer to say what the world is going to look like on March 2nd.  We just know that these impacts -- while not all of them immediate -- if we don't take action, they will take place.

Q    Has the administration started to put any contingency plans in place?  And just to go back to the time issue again, is there a minimum length of time the President would accept, a couple of months -- three to six?

MR. FURMAN:  I think on the time we said that's something we want Congress to work out.  And certainly three months [sic] isn’t enough time to come to the type of agreement we’d like to come to.

MR. EARNEST:  Three weeks.

MR. FURMAN:  Three weeks, sorry.  I’m sorry.  I meant three weeks is certainly not enough time.

MR. WERFEL:  And on the contingency plan, remember sequester was scheduled to take place initially in January.  Prior to that, as there was uncertainty around a fiscal cliff deal, OMB was working with federal agencies on their planning activities, and obviously we’ve resumed that in anticipation of March 1st.  So agencies are working through exactly how they are going to execute under this very significant cut in their budgetary resources.  Those planning activities are ongoing.

Q    Have agencies started to issue letters to employees warning of furlough and the like?  Or when will that start happening?

MR. WERFEL:  So what happened as recently as last week is agency heads sent notices out to their broad base of employees kind of updating them on where things are in terms of sequester planning, and did in that message -- many of these agencies sent this type of message -- indicated that, unfortunately, in order to meet these budget cuts, that furloughs in many cases are a likely outcome in order to do this.  Now, that was in a broad way.

Under the law, before an employee can be furloughed, they need a specific notice of their furlough with a specific amount of time.  In most cases, it’s 30 days, but it depends on a lot of different factors.  But as a general rule, a 30-day notice is typically what’s required.

I’m not aware of any specific notices that have been issued.  But if we go past this date, there’s certainly -- there’s no way to implement the sequester without significant furloughs of hundreds of thousands of federal employees.

Q    Do you have any more specific number on that?  How many employees and contract employees would be facing this?

MR. WERFEL:  At this point in time I don’t have a specific estimate.  I just know it’s high; it’s in the hundreds of thousands of employees, but I don’t have a specific estimate. 

Q    And just -- can you give me an understanding of what the sequester -- how much it ties your hands -- I mean, the individual agencies.  Because some might say, well, why do you have to cut these crucial programs; couldn’t you find some ways elsewhere?  But does it really tie your hands as to where you can make those cuts?

MR. WERFEL:  It does. 

Q    And how?

MR. WERFEL:  And if you’ll indulge me to be a little bit technical.  What happens is, OMB, we take this amount, this $85 billion that we have to cut, and we apply it to every account in government.  Every account has to be cut by a certain percentage.  It’s not like the agencies can move money amongst accounts.  But it’s even worse than that.  Even at the subaccount, there’s something called Program, Project and Activity, which exists within each account.  And the way the sequester law is written, is that even -- underneath the account, even at the Program, Project and Activity, they all need to be cut by that same percentage.

So, for example, FAA, they have to cut resources in a way that’s going to impact the air traffic controller workforce.  There’s no way to basically say, well, we’ll move -- we’ll try to take all the cuts in this area, like maintenance or custodial work.  It’s not possible to do that because the law is written with such stricture that the cuts have to be taken at such a granular level.  And that’s why when I say it’s across the board, indiscriminate --

Q    But if Congress can’t agree on substitute cuts, could they pass a provision saying that the agency would have more leeway; you would still need to cut the same percentage from each department or each agency, but you have more leeway and you don’t have to go into -- you don’t have to cut air traffic controllers for God’s sake?  You can cut something else?

MR. WERFEL:  I mean, we’ve looked at this question.  We don’t see a way in which you can cut $85 billion over a seven-month period and not have significantly harmful impacts to our priorities, both domestic and defense.

Q    Three quick questions.  Is there anything on this list you could live with cutting in a deal that would be worked out with Congress, or does everything here have to stay?  Question one.  Jason, for you -- if there is a two- or three-month continuous delay of the sequester, based on what you saw in the fourth quarter, do you believe there is an economic harm just associated with that two- or three-month process?  And lastly, looking at all this, do you regret that this White House suggested this in the first place?

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll take the last one.  (Laughter.)

MR. WERFEL:  I’m not involved in the specific negotiations and I think that’s details that Congress is going to need to be worked out.  I think what we’ve outlined here is impacts are extraordinarily troublesome.  I couldn’t pull one out and say, yes, the defense priorities, the domestic priorities, health, education -- it’s hard for me to isolate one of those and say this is something that we should tolerate.  But, again, that’s not really my decision.  There’ll be -- Congress needs to do its work and then ultimate decisions will be made.  And the President will make a decision on the best interests of the nation.

MR. FURMAN:  Right now, Major, there’s two options on the table.  One is the sequester hits, and the second is there’s a short-term delay of the sequester.  There’s no question that economically that second option, a short-term delay of the sequester, would be far superior to the former.

What would make that option even better is if American people and American businesses really appreciated that the reason you are doing that was in order to build time and space for something that was even better than either of those options, which was more medium- and long-term deficit reduction, reforming our entitlements, reforming our tax code, making ourselves more competitive, and permanently ending this fiscal cliff after fiscal cliff.  There’s no question that that’s better. 

And part of what we’ve tried to convince people is, A, the short term is much better than nothing -- much, much better than nothing; and, B, the short term will be even better if people see it as momentum and movement towards continuing to solve our problems.

MR. CARNEY:  The notion much propounded by the spin doctors on the Republican side that the sequester is somehow something that the White House or the President alone wanted or desired is a fanciful confection.  The fact of the matter is, as I think you all recall in the wake of the passage of the Budget Control Act, it was the Republicans, including the Republican Leader of the House, who celebrated it as getting 98 percent of what they wanted.

The sequester was designed as a means of creating a trigger that would get us out of what was a terrible situation that was already doing enormous harm to our economy, which we now know, and that was the threat of default.  It was designed by Republicans and Democrats to be so onerous that it would never come into place because it would force and compel Congress to do something more responsible, which is reduce the deficit -- not through spending cuts alone -- but reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion.

Finally, I would note it was certainly our preference, the White House’s preference, the administration’s preference, even in the sequester process, that it would be -- that revenues would be part of sequester -- revenues as well as defense and nondefense cuts.  Republicans adamantly refused to go along with that proposition.  Had they not, we would be in certainly a different situation today than we are now.

So I understand that it’s a convenient bit of spin but it’s also a lot of baloney.  

Q    But does he regret it anyway?  I mean, regardless of whose idea it was, does he now, looking at all of the consequences that are --

MR. CARNEY:  What he regrets is that we ever had a circumstance like this country was forced to contend with in the summer of 2011 that there was a certain amount of enthusiasm even within the Republican Party, especially within the House, for the prospect of the United States defaulting on its obligations for the first time in its history -- an enthusiasm that somehow was linked to a belief that it would help the Republican Party achieve ideological goals that the nation overwhelmingly rejected -- rejected then, rejected last year, rejected in the campaign, rejected at the end of the year when we had our fiscal cliff negotiation, and rejects today.

So that the President regrets.  He could not let the country default for the first time, and thus the sequester and the Budget Control Act and everything associated with it, including the super committee, was born.  The whole point in its design was that it would never come to pass.  If Republicans would go along with the simple proposition that the American people overwhelmingly support -- which is that we need a balanced approach to further deficit reduction -- we would have solved this already.

It has been, I think to their -- it's been their loss, in terms of public opinion, that they've refused to go along with this.  And it has been to the country's detriment, because we keep having to deal with these manufactured crises that are terrible for the economy, that hardly inspire confidence with the American people or globally in our capacity to deal with our fiscal challenges. 

We need to return to normalcy when it comes to how we debate and decide these issues.  That’s why we need to -- failing a big deal now, we need to pass an extension, a short-term buy-down, to allow Congress to do what it seems to be inclined to do, which is to return a semblance of regular order and a budget process that hopefully will result in a final product that reflects the proposition of balance that is supported by the vast majority of the American people, by Republicans and Democrats across the country.  And that’s what the President hopes.

Q    To follow up on a previous question, what’s -- you laid out the two scenarios.  What is your best estimate of the hit to GDP if the sequester takes effect or if there’s that short-term uncertainty?

MR. FURMAN:  We don't have an estimate.  Others, independent forecasters, CBO have done estimates.  And it’s important to put it in context, which is that we did solve the majority of the fiscal cliff at the end of December.  The largest item was what was going to happen on taxes, and then we also dealt with the SGR and unemployment insurance. 

But there’s no question defense spending was the difference between a positive GDP number and a negative GDP number in the fourth quarter.  I’m not saying that it would be the difference between that again in the future, but there’s no question that this would make a big difference and, as I said, hundreds of thousands of jobs and a commensurate amount of GDP would be lost as a result relative to what otherwise would have happened.

Q    Do you agree with CBO’s estimates on the impact of the sequester?

MR. FURMAN:  We don't have a specific opinion on CBO’s, but they're never very far off in terms of something like this.  So maybe they're a little high, maybe a little too low.  Maybe you could argue one way or the other, but certainly, they and other forecasters are in the right ballpark in terms of hundreds of thousands of jobs and a significant impact on the economy.

Q    Why defer to Congress?  I mean, this is almost certainly going to go down to February 28th, and the White House is going to have to engage then.  Why not now try to nip this in the bud and take the uncertainty off the table?

MR. FURMAN:  Jay is welcome to add to this too, but the President is looking for the best way forward.  What we’ve heard from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress is an interest in doing something more like the regular order, something more like the budget process.  And this would buy them time to do precisely what both parties in Congress say is the best way to deal with all of this.

I think if anyone here thought that inviting everyone up here this afternoon and locking them in a room would walk out with an agreement and solve this, of course, people would do whatever course it is.  But I’d say we’ve heard really from both parties that getting back, as I said, something more like regular order is the best way forward.  And the President is just trying to help foster that process which they’ve said is the best way to move this forward.

Q    If you buy several months here and you fail to reach the agreement in that period of time, do you then have an even shorter period of time to implement the same magnitude of cuts?

MR. WERFEL:  Yes.  It would depend on the nature of the deal.  But I would imagine that we would be at a smaller size from the $85 billion and a smaller period of time to implement.  So the notion here is to delay these very severe impacts that I've described, so that you have time to work out a deal that can delay and avoid them more permanently.

Q    But if you don't, you have then an even more serious problem?

MR. WERFEL:  I don't know that you'd know that it's more serious, depending on how the numbers go with the dollar decrease and the months.  But you'd still have a serious issue.

Q    Jason, you talked about replacing the sequester with something bigger and better.  Just to get straight the order of magnitude that you're talking about -- if $4 trillion over 10 years is the goal, $2.5 trillion have been done, does that mean you simply need to replace the $1.2 trillion in the sequester, add a couple of hundred billion more, and you're basically at the goal?

MR. FURMAN:  Yes, that's what the President has said, that ideally what the next phase would be, would be about a trillion and a half.  That includes interest associated with it.  And when you said $1.2 trillion for the sequester, that also -- that number for the sequester is the programmatic cuts plus interest.  And that is the type of magnitude he'd like to do.  But again, it's not just the magnitude.  It's also the timing of it, the balance of it, and the fact that you're accomplishing it with real reforms rather than just crude across the board.

Q    And is it your view that that trillion and a half should be 50/50 revenues and --

MR. FURMAN:  The President just said it should be balanced.  In fact, the final offer he had on the table to Speaker Boehner was one that if you just did -- was 50/50 at the time.  And we've enacted about half of the tax portion of that and almost none of the spending portion of that.  And so on a going forward basis, it would have a different ratio than when he originally proposed it.

Q    Danny, the way the law is written, if there's no deal on March 2nd, do you have to start making cuts right away?  Or can agencies sort of hope there will be a deal and just not -- and just delay making cuts?

MR. WERFEL:  Well, I wouldn't advise that they rely on hope.  (Laughter.)  They need to execute plans that protect their mission.  But as I mentioned, the legal requirement would be that when we get to September 30th, the end of the fiscal year, they will have to across government have spent $85 billion less.  And every agency is going to have to approach that differently. 

And if we have the sequester order, we will be working with agencies to making sure that they're doing prudent things to meet that legal responsibility.  Unfortunately, as outlined, those prudent things will help protect their mission as much as possible.  But ultimately, their mission will be compromised for the reasons which I outlined earlier.

Q    In your view, what sort of impact are we looking at for U.S. government civilian operations overseas, aside from the military?

MR. WERFEL:  Well, I mean, there are -- we can work with the State Department and get you more specific answers as an example.  But there are civilian personnel, both at the Defense Department, at the State Department and other agencies around government that will be impacted.  Because, as I said, unless it's exempted -- and there are certain activities, for example, VA, is explicitly exempted -- unless it's exempted, you're taking a cut in every segment of the organization.  And to the extent the organization has an international presence, then they will be taking cuts in that way, too.

And so I think probably more prudent to defer your question, in terms of more specifics, to an agency like the State Department or the Pentagon so they can give you more color to that. 

Q    To what degree would DOD be able to use transfer authority or reprogrammings to offset sequester and protect key programs and contracts?

MR. WERFEL:  So there is the -- one of the things that we've advised agencies, in terms of taking those prudent steps, is looking at ways in which they can manage through the sequester in the best possible way, again, under the guiding principle of protect mission first.  One of those tools they will have is a reprogram authority, where they can go back to Congress and potentially move money from account to account. 

But we've looked at this very closely, and Secretary Panetta is going to say it much better than I can -- with all the tools that they have, that will not get them in any way, shape or form in a place where they can tolerate the sequester safely.

Q    It won't eliminate sequester, but do you think it will make a big difference in any way?

MR. WERFEL:  No, I do not think it will make a big difference.

Q    I'm just wondering if you've been able to calculate what kind of impact, just on certainty of this, has already had on the business community.

MR. FURMAN:  We don’t have a precise quantification of that.  And I would just give the same example I gave before, which is, I think most of the observers of the first fourth-quarter GDP number thought that one thing that played a role in that was uncertainty about future defense spending levels, which led to some -- appeared to have led to some reduction in defense spending then, which adversely affected GDP.

So we don’t know the magnitude, but we do know the sign.  And the sign is unambiguously negative.

MR. CARNEY:  Last one for these guys.

Q    Should we interpret the President's statement earlier this week where he says that any short-term bill should have revenue attached as a veto threat on a two- or three-month bill that was cuts only?  Because there are a lot of Republicans who think that the White House is effectively bluffing, and if they were presented with a two- or three-month cuts-only bill, that he would sign it.

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, I would just point you to what the President said and what I have said, and that is that balance has to be part of our approach to deficit reduction.  And that applies to a short-term buy-down of the sequester, and it certainly applies to our approach to broader deficit reduction.

The President is extremely serious about this, because the consequences -- I mean, the alternative that you're suggesting and has been floated by Republican leaders is that you would ask the burden of further deficit reduction to be borne solely by seniors through significant proposed cuts in Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid; families who have children with disabilities; middle-class families who depend on other programs, and then say, but we will hold harmless wealthy individuals and corporations who enjoy substantial benefits through loopholes and other special interest aspects of our tax code.

That’s simply unacceptable to this President.  It's unacceptable, overwhelmingly, to the American people.  You would be saying that we can't ask folks who enjoy a benefit in the tax code for their corporate jets to give a little bit, but we should raise the eligibility age Medicare to 67.  That's a tough sell I think for anybody, even in some of the reddest of districts in this country.

Q    But in a two- or three-month bill you could easily --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, the President --

Q    -- put more of the President’s own cuts in a package  --

MR. CARNEY:  If you want to negotiate on behalf of the Congress on this, that would be great.  But the balance is essential.  It is essential because it’s the right way to go economically.  It’s the right way to go for the middle class, and it’s the way this President insists we move forward.

Q    But, Jay, there’s no balance in the sequester -- I mean, there’s no revenue in the sequester.

MR. CARNEY:  Let’s go back -- the mandate from Congress was to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion.  There are a lot of folks in the Republican Party, as well as their supporters on op-ed pages, who have translated that to mean spending cuts only.  That is not what the law said.  And the President -- all I’m saying is the President says, and it is his position -- it is a position he held throughout this process -- that balance is how we’re going to approach it.

And at different times -- and their positions as strategy go are ever-changing.  But at different times there have been embraces of, as a matter of general principle, Simpson-Bowles, for example.  But what Republicans never tell you is that they all opposed Simpson-Bowles.  Every Republican on the commission voted against it, including the Chairman of the Budget Committee -- Republican House member rather -- and they would never go along with either the revenues or the defense cuts that were in Simpson-Bowles. 

So the fact of the matter is balance is the absolute right way to do this.  It’s the President’s position, and that's what it’s going to be.

Thanks, guys.  I got about five more minutes.

Q    Can you tell us about the storm -- what the President is doing to debrief --

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, I can give you a little update on the storm.  We’re going to have week ahead later in the day.  I don't have it for you now.  I want to thank Danny and Jason for coming out here.

FEMA is working closely with its partners, including the National Weather Service to monitor the developing winter storm in the Northeast.  FEMA’s regional offices in Boston and New York City are in contact with state emergency management counterparts.  FEMA’s National Watch Center here in Washington continues to monitor the situation and hold regular operational briefings with regional and federal partners as the severe winter weather advances and as impacts are felt throughout -- through the overnight hours into Saturday.

The President will obviously be updated on this regularly.  FEMA liaisons are working directly with our state partners at state emergency operation centers in the Northeast states including Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York -- both in Albany and New York City -- Rhode Island and Vermont.  These liaisons are in addition to the joint state and federal field office staff who are already in place to support ongoing disaster recovery efforts in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. 

I can refer you for more information -- at least to the American people in affected areas before and after storms -- to visit www.ready.gov.  But that's our update.

Q    Has the President spoken to any of the governors or state officials in the affected areas?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have any conversations to read out to you. 

Mark.

Q    Jay, can we expect the sequester to be a large part of the State of the Union address?

MR. CARNEY:  I have no previews to give to you on the State of the Union address.

Q    Ever?  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll give you one Wednesday.

Ari.

Q    Can you talk about the decision not to send arms to Syrian rebels?

MR. CARNEY:  What question are you asking?

Q    Why the White House overrode recommendations from others in the administration to arm Syrian rebels.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I am not going to get into internal deliberations about policy decisions of that nature, but I can tell you that, as the President and his national security team have looked at these issues, we have had to be very careful.  We don’t want any weapons to fall into the wrong hands and potentially further endanger the Syrian people, our ally, Israel, or the United States.  We also need to make sure that any support we are providing actually makes a difference in pressuring Assad. 

I think it’s widely viewed that more weapons in Syria -- that a lack of weapons is not the problem in Syria right now.  Keep in mind that there is no shortage, as I just said, of weapons in Syria.  That’s why we’ve focused our efforts on helping the opposition to become stronger, more cohesive, and more organized. 

Now, as a general principle, this is not the kind of thing around which there is one discussion.  We almost constantly or continually review what we’re doing with regards to Syria and that conversation continues.  But it is, of course, of paramount interest on this matter in particular that we not create a situation where weapons provided by the United States end up in the wrong hands and we thereby accidentally, if you will, create more danger for the United States, for the Syrian people, or for Israel.

Anybody else?  Victoria.

Q    Was the White House surprised that yesterday John Brennan would not say that waterboarding was torture when --

MR. CARNEY:  I thought John Brennan did an excellent job yesterday.  I know that’s how people in this building feel.  He demonstrated the breadth and depth of his experience in the field of intelligence and counterterrorism.  He provided I think what has been called by others one of the most expansive discussions of some of the very serious matters that we have undertaken in our effort to fight al Qaeda.  And I think it was -- the public interest was greatly served by that hearing yesterday.

Q    Were you surprised that he wouldn’t say that waterboarding was torture?

MR. CARNEY:  I think John Brennan answered the questions in depth on a number of subjects, so I would just point you to the answers he gave.

Anybody else?  One more.  Dan Lothian.

Q    Why isn’t the President going to the funeral of the young girl in Chicago that the First Lady is going to?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the First Lady is going to the funeral of a girl who was killed in Chicago.  So are, I believe, a few other officials from the administration.  I think that represents the feeling that the President and the First Lady both have about what happened to her and the tragedy that it represents both in real concrete terms to her family but also symbolically because of the tragedy of gun violence that our country has to deal with all too often.

Thanks, guys.  We’ll have a week ahead for you later this afternoon.

END
1:22 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama to Honor Recipients of the 2012 Citizens Medal

Recipients from across the country will visit the White House to receive Presidential award for exemplary service to their fellow citizens

WASHINGTON, DC – On February 15, 2013, President Obama will welcome to the White House the recipients of the 2012 Presidential Citizens Medal, the nation’s second-highest civilian honor.

“It is my distinguished honor to award these individuals the 2012 Citizens Medal for their commitment to public service,” said President Obama. “Their selflessness and courage inspire us all to look for opportunities to better serve our communities and our country.”

This event will be open press and begin at 10:45AM ET.  Members of the media who wish to cover this event must send NAME, MEDIA OUTLET, PHONE AND EMAIL for each person planning to cover the event to media_affairs@who.eop.gov by Wednesday, February 13th at 5:00 PM ET.  If we are able to accommodate your request for credentials, we will send a confirmation with further instructions and logistical details after the RSVP deadline passes.

NOTE: Members of the media who do not have a White House hard pass must also submit their full name (including middle name), date of birth, Social Security number, gender, country of birth, country of citizenship and current city and state of residence. 

The Citizens Medal was established in 1969 to recognize American citizens who have performed exemplary deeds of service for their country or their fellow citizens. President Obama is recognizing Americans whose work has had a significant impact on their communities but may not have garnered national attention. The President called on members of the public to nominate people in their lives who have performed exemplary deeds of service outside of their regular jobs, including individuals:

Who have a demonstrated commitment to service in their own community or in communities farther from home. Someone who has engaged in activities that have had an impact in their local community, on a community or communities elsewhere in the United States, or on fellow citizens living or stationed around the world.

Who have helped their country or their fellow citizens through one or more extraordinary acts. Individuals who have demonstrated notable skill and grace, selflessly placed themselves in harm’s way, taken unusual risks or steps to protect others, made extraordinary efforts to further a national goal, or otherwise conducted themselves admirably when faced with unusually challenging circumstances.

Whose service relates to a long-term or persistent problem. Individuals who have made efforts to combat stubbornly persistent problems that impact entire communities; for example, those who have taken innovative steps to address hunger, homelessness, the dropout crisis, lack of access to health care, and other issues that plague too many Americans.

Whose service has had a sustained impact on others’ lives and provided inspiration for others to serve. The ideal nominee for a Citizens Medal is a person whose work has had a meaningful and lasting impact on the lives of others.

For more information on the President’s Citizens Medal and to nominate someone for the 2013 Citizens Medal, visit www.whitehouse.gov/citizensmedal.

Nearly 6,000 public nominations were submitted, and the President has selected the following awardees:

Dr. T. Berry Brazelton (Boston, Massachusetts)
Brazelton is one of the foremost authorities on pediatrics and child development as well as an author and professor. One of Brazelton’s best known achievements was the development of the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS), which is now used worldwide to recognize the physical and neurological responses of newborns, as well as emotional well-being and individual differences. In 1993, he founded the Brazelton Touchpoints Center® (BTC) at Boston Children’s Hospital where he continues to promote strengths-based, family-centered care in pediatric and early education settings around the world. 

Adam Burke (Jacksonville, Florida)
Burke is an Iraq combat veteran and recipient of the Purple Heart which he received for injuries occurred by a mortar attack while running combat operation in Iraq. In 2009 he opened "Veterans Farm," a 19 acre handicap-accessible farm that helps teach veterans of all ages how to make a living from the find healing in the land. He has been awarded numerous accolades for his work, including the 2011 Good Person of the Year award from the Good People Foundation and the Star of Honor from Work Vessels for Veterans.

Mary Jo Copeland (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Copeland founded Sharing and Caring Hands in 1985, which has served as a safety net to those in the Minneapolis area through the provision of food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical and dental assistance.  Sharing and Caring Hands assists thousands of people a month, and is staffed almost entirely by volunteers. Copeland, who currently receives no salary for her work, has served as its director since its opening and still greets every client entering the center and conducts intake interviews.

Michael Dorman (Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina)
Dorman is the founder and executive director of Military Missions in Action, a North Carolina-based non-profit that helps veterans with disabilities, both physical and mental, achieve independent living.  All veterans who have served are eligible to receive services including home modification, rehabilitation and family assistance.  Since 2008, the organization has completed more than 100 home modification projects and shipped thousands of care packages to soldiers.

Maria Gomez (Washington, DC)
Gomez founded Mary’s Center 25 years ago with the mission to build better futures through the delivery of health care, family literacy and job training. Mary’s Center is part of the working group launching First Lady Michelle Obama's “Let's Read Let's Move Campaign.” Prior to establishing Mary’s Center, Maria was a public health nurse with the D.C. Department of Health. She has also worked for the Red Cross, directing community education programming and disaster services, and with the Visiting Nurses Association. She currently serves as Regional Representative for the South East to the National Council of la Raza, and previously served two terms on the board of the Nonprofit Roundtable of Greater Washington. 

Pamela Green Jackson (Albany, Georgia)
Green Jackson is the Founder and CEO of the Youth Becoming Healthy Project (YBH), a non-profit organization committed to reducing the epidemic of childhood obesity through nutrition, fitness education and physical activity programs.  YBH was created in memory of Pamela Green Jackson's only brother, Bernard Green, who died in 2004 from obesity-related illnesses. YBH provides resources for during and after school wellness programs for elementary and middle school students as well as a summer wellness camp where the students learn about exercise, nutrition and can participate in martial arts, walking club and dance programs. 

Janice Jackson (Baltimore, Maryland)
Jackson is the creator and program director of Women Embracing Abilities Now, (W.E.A.N.) a nonprofit mentoring organization servicing women and young ladies with varying degrees of disabilities.  She is also a professor at The University of Baltimore. Jackson has actively advocated on behalf of people with disabilities and currently serves on the board of directors for The League for People with Disabilities, the Hoffberger Center for Professional Ethics at the University of Baltimore, and The Image Center of Maryland. She also serves on the Community Advisory Council at the Maryland Center for Developmental Disabilities at Kennedy Krieger Institute, and is a counselor at Kernan Rehabilitation Center. She has also founded two support groups, We Are Able People (W.R.A.P.) and Women On Wheels & Walking (W.O.W.W.).

Patience Lehrman (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
Lehrman is an immigrant from Cameroon and the National Director of Project SHINE (Students Helping in the Naturalization of Elders), an immigrant integration initiative at the Intergenerational Center of Temple University. SHINE partners with 18 institutions of higher learning, community-based organizations, and county and city governments across the country. SHINE engages college students and older adults to provide language and health education, citizenship and civic participation lessons to immigrant communities. Lehrman also mentors inner-city high school students, provides free meals to low-income children in the summer and serves as an election official.  She holds three Masters Degrees from Temple University.

Jeanne Manford  (Queens, NY)
Manford and her husband, Jules, co-founded in 1972 a support group for parents of gay children that grew into the national organization known as Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).  Manford had always supported her son Morty, but was inspired to act after the police failed to intervene while Morty was beaten and hospitalized during a Gay Activists Alliance demonstration in April 1972. In the years that followed, Manford continued to march and organize, even after losing Morty to AIDS in 1992.  Today, PFLAG focuses on creating a network of support and advancing equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.  Manford passed away in early January at the age of 92.

Billy Mills (Fair Oaks, California)
Mills co-founded and serves as the spokesman for Running Strong for American Indian Youth, an organization that supports cultural programs and provides health and housing assistance for Native American communities.  Mills gained prominence during the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, when he unexpectedly won a Gold Medal in the 10,000 meter run.  Today, he remains the only American to ever win this event. At the time Mills competed in the Olympics, he was a First Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. After the Olympics, Mills, an Oglala Lakota, was made a warrior by his tribe. In 1986, Mills and Eugene Krizek, president of Christian Relief Services, joined forces to found Running Strong.

Terry Shima (Gaithersburg, Maryland)
Shima was drafted into the US Army on October 12, 1944 as a replacement for the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. This unit was composed of Japanese Americans who volunteered for combat duty. In November 2011, the US Congress awarded the Congressional Gold Medal collectively to the 442nd RCT, the 100th Battalion and the Military Intelligence Service. Shima served as Executive Director of the Japanese American Veterans Association (JAVA), a nonprofit organization that publicizes and assists Japanese American military veterans and their families, from 2004 to 2012 and is now chair of its Outreach and Education Committee.

Harris Wofford (Washington D.C.)
Wofford served as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania from 1991 to 1995, and from then to 2001 was the chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service. From 1970 to 1978 he served as the fifth president of Bryn Mawr College. He is a noted advocate of national service and volunteering. He began his public service career as counsel to the Rev.Theodore Hesburgh on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and was an early supporter of the Civil Rights movement in the South in the late 1950s. He became a volunteer advisor and friend of Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1961, Kennedy appointed him as special assistant to the President for civil rights. He was instrumental in the formation of the Peace Corps and served as the Peace Corps' special representative to Africa and director of operations in Ethiopia. On his return to Washington in 1964, he was appointed associate director of the Peace Corps. In 1966 he became the founding president of the State University of New York's College at Old Westbury.

Rachel Davino, Dawn Hochsprung, Anne Marie Murphy, Lauren Rousseau, Mary Sherlach, and Victoria Soto (Newtown, Connecticut)
On December 14, 2012, the names of six courageous women were forever etched into the heart of our Nation as unthinkable tragedy swept through Newtown, Connecticut.  Some of these individuals had joined Sandy Hook Elementary School only weeks before; others were preparing to retire after decades of service.  All had dedicated themselves to their students and their community, working long past the school bell to give the children in their care a future worthy of their talents.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by the President on the Lunar New Year

Michelle and I send our warmest wishes to all those who will be celebrating the Lunar New Year this Sunday, February 10th.  Here in America and around the world, people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent will welcome the Year of the Snake.  In Chinese tradition, the snake represents wisdom, and a thoughtful approach to tackling the challenges before us – principles that I hope will continue to guide us as we perfect our union and create a more just and equal future for every American.  Our challenges may be great, but our diversity and the traditions that thrive here give us the strength to meet them.  To everyone celebrating the Lunar New Year, I wish you peace, prosperity and good health and fortune.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Fact Sheet: Examples of How the Sequester Would Impact Middle Class Families, Jobs and Economic Security

Unless Congress acts by March 1st, a series of automatic cuts—called a sequester—that threaten thousands of jobs and the economic security of the middle class will take effect.  There is no question that we need to cut the deficit, but the President believes it should be done in a balanced way that protects investments that the middle class relies on.  Already, the President has worked with Congress to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion, but there’s more to do.  The President believes we can not only avoid the harmful effects of a sequester but also reduce the deficit by $4 trillion total by cutting even more wasteful spending and eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthy.

Unfortunately, many Republicans in Congress refuse to ask the wealthy to pay a little more by closing tax loopholes so that we can protect investments that are helping grow our economy and keep our country safe.  Our economy is poised to take off but we cannot afford a self-inflicted wound from Washington.  We cannot simply cut our way to prosperity, and if Republicans continue to insist on an unreasonable cuts-only approach, the middle class risks paying the price.  The most damaging effects of a sequester on the middle class are:

• Cuts to education: Our ability to teach our kids the skills they’ll need for the jobs of the future would be put at risk.  70,000 young children would be kicked off Head Start, 10,000 teacher jobs would be put at risk, and funding for up to 7,200 special education teachers, aides, and staff could be cut.

• Cuts to small business: Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in America and instead of helping small businesses expand and hire, the automatic cuts triggered by a sequester would reduce loan guarantees to small businesses by up to $902 million.

• Cuts to food safety: Outbreaks of foodborne illness are a serious threat to families and public health.  If a sequester takes effect, up to 2,100 fewer food inspections could occur, putting families at risk and costing billions in lost food production.

• Cuts to research and innovation: In order to compete for the jobs of the future and to ensure that the next breakthroughs to find cures for critical diseases are developed right here in America, we need to continue to lead the world in research and innovation.  Most Americans with chronic diseases don’t have a day to lose, but under a sequester progress towards cures would be delayed and several thousand researchers could lose their jobs.  Up to 12,000 scientists and students would also be impacted.

• Cuts to mental health: If a sequester takes effect, up to 373,000 seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children could go untreated. This would likely lead to increased hospitalizations, involvement in the criminal justice system, and homelessness for these individuals.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) now calculates that sequestration will require an annual reduction of roughly 5 percent for nondefense programs and roughly 8 percent for defense programs.  However, given that these cuts must be achieved over only seven months instead of 12, the effective percentage reductions will be approximately 9 percent for nondefense programs and 13 percent for defense programs.  These large and arbitrary cuts will have severe impacts across the government.

More detailed explanations of these cuts as well as additional areas that will be impacted include:

Security and Safety

• FBI and other law enforcement – The FBI and other law enforcement entities would see a reduction in capacity equivalent to more than 1,000 Federal agents.  This loss of agents would significantly impact our ability to combat violent crime, pursue financial crimes, secure our borders, and protect national security.

• U.S. Attorneys – The Department of Justice would prosecute approximately 1,000 fewer criminal cases nationwide, and some civil litigation defending the financial interests of the United States would not be pursued, potentially costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

• Emergency responders – FEMA would need to reduce funding for State and local grants that support firefighter positions and State and local emergency management personnel, hampering our ability to respond to natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy and other emergencies.

Research and Innovation

• NIH research – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be forced to delay or halt vital scientific projects and make hundreds of fewer research awards.  Since each research award supports up to seven research positions, several thousand personnel could lose their jobs.  Many projects would be difficult to pursue at reduced levels and would need to be cancelled, putting prior year investments at risk.  These cuts would delay progress on the prevention of debilitating chronic conditions that are costly to society and delay development of more effective treatments for common and rare diseases affecting millions of Americans. 
                                                                                                
• NSF research – The National Science Foundation (NSF) would issue nearly 1,000 fewer research grants and awards, impacting an estimated 12,000 scientists and students and curtailing critical scientific research. 

• New drug approvals – The FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) would face delays in translating new science and technology into regulatory policy and decision-making, resulting in delays in new drug approvals.  The FDA would likely also need to reduce operational support for meeting review performance goals, such as the recently negotiated user fee goals on new innovative prescription drugs and medical devices.

Economic Growth

• Small business assistance – Small Business Administration (SBA) loan guarantees would be cut by up to $902 million, constraining financing needed by small businesses to maintain and expand their operations and create jobs.

• Economic development – The Economic Development Administration’s (EDA) ability to leverage private sector resources to support projects that spur local job creation would be restricted, likely resulting in more than 1,000 fewer jobs created than expected and leaving more than $47 million in private sector investment untapped.  

• International trade – The International Trade Administration (ITA) would be forced to reduce its support for America’s exporters, trimming assistance to U.S. businesses looking to increase their exports and expand operations into foreign markets.  In addition, ITA would not be able to place staff in critical international growth markets, where there is a clear business opportunity for many American businesses to increase their sales and create jobs at home. These staff would have been part of a key program working to promote and facilitate global investment in the U.S., supporting thousands of new jobs through Foreign Direct Investment.  

Government Services

• Food safety – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could conduct 2,100 fewer inspections at domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture food products while USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) may have to furlough all employees for approximately two weeks.   These reductions could increase the number and severity of safety incidents, and the public could suffer more foodborne illness, such as the recent salmonella in peanut butter outbreak and the E. coli illnesses linked to organic spinach, as well as cost the food and agriculture sector millions of dollars in lost production volume. 

• IRS customer service and tax compliance – The cuts to operating expenses and expected furloughs at the IRS would result in the inability of millions of taxpayers to get answers from IRS call centers and taxpayer assistance centers and would significantly delay IRS responses to taxpayer letters.  The IRS would be forced to complete fewer tax return reviews and would experience reduced capacity to detect and prevent fraud, resulting in an inability to collect and protect billions of dollars in revenue annually.  Cuts to the IRS would ultimately cost taxpayers and increase the deficit through lost revenue from recoveries and additional fraud and abuse.

• Native American programs - Tribes would lose almost $130 million in funding from the Department of the Interior.   Reductions would be necessary in many areas including human services, law enforcement, schools, economic development and natural resources. 

• Workplace safety – The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) could have to pull its inspectors off the job for some period of time. This would mean roughly 1,200 fewer inspections of the Nation’s most dangerous workplaces, which would leave workers unprotected and could lead to an increase in worker fatality and injury rates.  
 

Education

• Title I education funds – Title I education funds would be eliminated for more than 2,700 schools, cutting support for nearly 1.2 million disadvantaged students.  This funding reduction would put the jobs of approximately 10,000 teachers and aides at risk.  Students would lose access to individual instruction, afterschool programs, and other interventions that help close achievement gaps.

• Special education (IDEA) – Cuts to special education funding would eliminate Federal support for more than 7,200 teachers, aides, and other staff who provide essential instruction and support to preschool and school-aged students with disabilities.

• Head Start – Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 70,000 children, reducing access to critical early education.  Community and faith based organizations, small businesses, local governments, and school systems would have to lay off over 14,000 teachers, teacher assistants, and other staff.

Economic Security

• Social Security applicant and beneficiary services – The Social Security Administration (SSA) would be forced to curtail service to the public and reduce program oversight efforts designed to make sure benefits are paid accurately and to the right people.  Potential effects on SSA operations could include a reduction in service hours to the public, the closure of some offices, and a substantial growth in the backlog of Social Security disability claims.

• Senior meals – Federally-assisted programs like Meals on Wheels would be able to serve 4 million fewer meals to seniors.  These meals contribute to the overall health and well-being of participating seniors, including those with chronic illnesses that are affected by diet, such as diabetes and heart disease, and frail seniors who are homebound.  The meals can account for 50 percent or more of daily food for the majority of home delivered participants.

• Nutrition assistance for women, infants and children – Approximately 600,000 women and children would be dropped from the Department of Agriculture’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) from March through September.  At least 1,600 State and local jobs could be lost as a result.

• Rental assistance – The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher program, which provides rental assistance to very low-income families, would face a significant reduction in funding, which would place about 125,000 families at immediate risk of losing their permanent housing. 

• Emergency unemployment compensation – People receiving Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits would see their benefits cut by as much as 9.4 percent.   Affected long-term unemployed individuals would lose an average of more than $400 in benefits that they and their families count on while they search for another job. Smaller unemployment checks will also have a negative impact on the economy as a whole.  Economists have estimated that every dollar in unemployment benefits generates $2 in economic activity.

• Homelessness programs – More than 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, would be removed from their current housing and emergency shelter programs, putting them at risk of returning to the streets.

Public Health

• Mental health and substance abuse services – Cuts to the Mental Health Block Grant program would result in over 373,000 seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children not receiving needed mental health services. This cut would likely lead to increased hospitalizations, involvement in the criminal justice system, and homelessness for these individuals.  In addition, close to 8,900 homeless persons with serious mental illness would not get the vital outreach, treatment, housing, and support they need through the Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) program.

• AIDS and HIV treatment and prevention – Cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program could result in 7,400 fewer patients having access to life saving HIV medications.  And approximately 424,000 fewer HIV tests could be conducted by Centers for Disease Control (CDC) State grantees, which could result in increased future HIV transmissions, deaths from HIV, and costs in health care.  

 Tribal services – The Indian Health Service and Tribal hospitals and clinics would be forced to provide 3,000 fewer inpatient admissions and 804,000 fewer outpatient visits, undermining needed health care in Tribal communities.

West Wing Week: 02/08/13 or “What’s Up, Camera Man?”

This week, the President honored our nation's top scientists and innovators, nominated a new Secretary of the Interior, and worked toward reducing gun violence, enacting immigration reform, and reducing our deficit in a balanced way.

 

West Wing Week: 02/08/13 or "What's Up, Camera Man"

February 07, 2013 | 5:34 | Public Domain

This week, the President honored our nation's top scientists and innovators, nominated a new Secretary of the Interior, and worked toward reducing gun violence, enacting immigration reform, and reducing our deficit in a balanced way.

Download mp4 (191.5MB)