The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 5/29/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:37 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for your patience -- I apologize for the delay.  Before I take your questions, I wanted to mention that today the House

Appropriations Committee has moved forward with a provision that replaces the judgment of doctors and nutritionists with the opinions of politicians regarding what is healthy for our kids.  The House Republican proposal would undercut school nutrition standards that have already been successfully implemented in over 90 percent of schools.  These are the same people who just last year declared pizza as a vegetable and who now think that decisions about kids’ health should be made by politicians instead of pediatricians.

As the First Lady said on Tuesday, the last thing that we can afford to do right now is play politics with our kids’ health -- especially when we’re finally starting to see some progress on this issue.  Now is not the time to roll back everything that we have worked for.  Our kids deserve much better than that.

And now to your questions.  Julie.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  The IG report on the trouble at the Veterans Affairs Department that came out yesterday was quite scathing.  And since it came out, there are several Democrats who have called for Secretary Shinseki to step down.  And I’m wondering if the President continues to have confidence in the Secretary’s ability to lead that department.

MR. CARNEY:  I think you saw the statement that I put out yesterday reflecting that the President was extremely troubled by that preliminary report.  When it comes to the overall issue, as you know from what the President has said and others have said, we are focused on getting to the root of the problem and determining the full scope of the problem so we can get, most importantly, veterans the care that they deserve and that they need, and that they’ve earned. 

As the President said last week -- and this is very important -- the VA should not and must not wait for current investigations of VA operations to conclude before taking steps to improve care.  You have seen a reaction to that insistence in the actions the VA has taken this week when it comes to moving more quickly to reach out to those veterans who have been identified as having been on waiting lists for far too long, and in allowing for greater ease when it comes to -- if there is the need to having veterans receive care from private or non-profit hospitals.

Earlier this week -- this is repeating what I just said -- but they’re redoubling their efforts on this issue to take steps at national and local levels to ensure timely access to care.  And this is very important.  It’s not enough, but it is a step in the right direction.

When it comes to accountability, I think the best way to describe the President’s view is to recall what he said when he stood in this room and spoke to you last week.  He believes that Secretary Shinseki has served his country as a soldier.  He believes that he is committed to his fellow veterans and is passionate about serving them.

As the President said, Ric Shinseki has performed overall well as Secretary on issues like homelessness, on the GI Bill -- the 9/11 GI Bill, and on working with us to reduce the backlog.  “And he’s put his heart and soul into this thing, and he’s taken it very seriously.”  That’s quoting the President. 

When it comes to the current situation, the inquiries and the investigations and some of the allegations, the President wants to see the results of these reports.  And he, as you know, made clear that he believes there ought to be accountability once we establish all the facts.

Q    But does that leave open the question of whether Secretary Shinseki can continue to lead this department?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that the President identified last week that he expected a preliminary report from Secretary Shinseki’s internal audit very soon.  And when he receives that, he’ll be able to evaluate those findings, along with what we’ve seen from the interim report from the inspector general, and then assess where we are at that time.

Q    So is it fair to say that the White House has moved from the point where you from this podium had said that the President has confidence in Secretary Shinseki to the point where you are evaluating whether he actually is staying in this job?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President himself, a week ago -- more than a week ago made clear his views on that specific matter and on how he will assess the issue of accountability when it comes to the accusations of mismanagement and misconduct at the VA.  He ordered up the internal audit that Secretary Shinseki has undertaken, I think an audit that will involve -- is involving more than 200 people.  And he expects to receive a preliminary report very soon, as he mentioned last week from the podium, and will be very interested in the results.

Q    And is it your understanding that the President will wait until that review and whatever Rob Nabors is working on, until those reviews are complete, before making a decision on leadership at the VA?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m just not going to speculate more about personnel.  I almost never do.  Because what matters most to the President is making sure that we’re not waiting even for preliminary or interim reports from these inquiries to take action to ensure that our veterans are getting better and better service more quickly.  That’s why you’ve seen the steps already undertaken by the VA, and he expects further action to be taken so that the most important mission we have here, which is providing benefits and health care to our veterans, is being performed more effectively.

Q    What is the status of that report from the VA, from Secretary Shinseki?  Has the President set any deadline for it?  And how will you make it public? 

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have anything new from what the President said last week.  I think he said that he expected a preliminary report from the Secretary by the end of this week.

Q    And following the IG report yesterday that the President described as troubling, you mentioned that these are health care issues and there’s some urgency to it.  Has the President specifically instructed to accelerate it, push to get that report done, or to get more care delivered to veterans?

MR. CARNEY:  The President made clear last week that even as these separate inquiries were being conducted -- both the independent IG’s investigation and the internal audit that he asked Secretary Shinseki to conduct, as well as the broader review that his advisor, Rob Nabors, is conducting -- there ought to be action taken immediately to improve care and services to veterans based on the information we do have. 

So the answer is, yes, when it comes to acting now, based on what we do know in terms of improving care and benefits to veterans, while we await for the results from the inquiries.

Q    And just to follow up on one of Julie’s questions -- does the fact that so many members of Congress have now called for the Secretary’s resignation, including a number of members of the President’s own party, suggest that the Secretary has lost the public’s confidence in a way that makes it impossible for him to do his job properly?

MR. CARNEY:  The President is focused, first and foremost, on the need to address the problems that have impeded the quality and speed of care and benefits that our veterans have been receiving.  He is also committed to making sure that people are held accountable if it is established that there was misconduct or mismanagement.  But we can take action on the former while we await assessments on the latter.

He is extremely troubled, as we said yesterday, about the preliminary results reported by the IG, and he looks forward to a full investigation by the independent inspector general and the full results of that investigation.  He also anticipates receiving the preliminary results of Secretary Shinseki’s review, internal review, very soon, and the full completion of that review.  And there’s a third track -- the broader review of operations that Rob Nabors is overseeing on assignment from the White House to the VA.

All of these investigations are important, reviews are important, but they should not preclude taking action now where we know we can, and the VA can, to speed up service to our veterans in those areas where it’s been identified that waits have been too long.  And that is what he expects to take place.

Q    And just to jump to one other topic, and that’s the regulations expected next week on emissions from coal plants.  As you know, it’s highly controversial.  How does the White House plan to present this plan to the public?  A number of members of the President’s own party have expressed concerns about it in states like Kentucky and West Virginia.

MR. CARNEY:  I would say a couple of things.  First of all, we have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that’s not polluted or damaged.  We have, as a country, already set limits on arsenic, mercury and lead, but we let power plants release as much carbon pollution as they want. 

The effects of climate change are already being felt across the nation.  And in the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled, and climate change is putting those Americans at greater risk of landing in the hospital.  Also, droughts, which can drive up food prices, are becoming more frequent and more severe in the West; we’ve seen that this year.  And extreme weather events from heat waves to hurricanes are hitting communities across the country.  Which is why now is the time to act.

We’ve already made progress by moving to cleaner sources of energy and improving the energy efficiency of our cars, trucks and buildings.  Now, EPA is setting carbon standards for power plants to protect public health and welfare.  States will have flexibility to meet them using the energy sources that work best for each state.  This is part of continuing our progress in cutting carbon pollution, sparking homegrown clean energy innovation to create jobs, and lower energy waste to save families money. 

Now, to go to your point on politics, we know that special interests and their allies in Congress will make doomsday claims about harm to jobs and harm to the economy.  They’ve made those claims every time America has set clear rules and better standards for our air and our water and our children’s health.  Every time, they’ve been wrong. 

So the President believes strongly that this is the right thing to do.  And I’m not going to preview the action that EPA will take, but that is the context within which we believe it ought to be viewed.

April.

Q    Jay, when you talk about accountability, how far back does accountability stretch when it comes to this current case?  Is it just the current case there’s accountability for?  What if there’s something that comes up from back in the day that might need some kind of action on?  How far does accountability go?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that’s not a very specific question in terms of the hypothetical.  I think that the investigations and inquiries have different parameters, and when the results of those inquiries are known, the President will expect that any misconduct or mismanagement that they reveal ought to be assessed and that folks ought to be held accountable.  I can’t judge, having not seen final results of these inquiries, how far back they’ll go or how broad they will be.  Each one is a little different with Rob Nabors’s assessment of operations in general being the broadest.

Q    The reason why I ask -- some former VA secretaries have been seen walking along around this area, and I wanted to know about those inquiries of those former VA secretaries, particularly to the last.

MR. CARNEY:  Look, I think this, as a general principle, applies to the President’s view on these matters, which is first and foremost we need to find out what exactly has happened here when it comes to the allegations of misconduct around delays in care and misreported durations on the time that people have stayed on waiting lists waiting for care, and then taking action to make sure that those veterans are better served and they get the health care that they deserve as soon as possible.

That’s the primary focus.  That’s the mission of the VA.  That’s the sacred trust that we as a nation have with our veterans, and that’s what the President is first and foremost focused on.

When it comes to the also important need to hold folks accountable, he wants to make sure he has a broad enough set of facts to make some assessments.  And obviously there will be different judgments made in different areas.  The IG has an independent investigation going on; the Secretary has his inquiry; and then the broader review of operations, which is a little different and much broader that Rob is conducting.

Q    So will you affirm that some former VA secretaries are being questioned in these inquiries -- particularly the Rob Nabors inquiry?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not involved in conducting those reviews, so I would have to refer you to the IG’s office or the VA. 

Yes, sir.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  On Ukraine -- so there was a Ukrainian military chopper that was brought down by a ground-air or an anti-aircraft missile.  The Ukrainians are sure that this is the type of Russian military equipment on the ground.  Does the White House feel that it’s time to -- considering very little movement from Russia, it’s time to bring the third wave of sanctions?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, first, let me say that we are disturbed by the ongoing violence in eastern Ukraine, including reports that separatists have shot down a Ukrainian military helicopter, killing 14 people.  Now, we cannot yet verify the details of these reports, but we are concerned that this indicates separatists continue to have access to advanced weaponry and other assistance from the outside.  We are also concerned about the fact that a group of OSCE monitors is being held by separatists in Slovyansk. 

It is unacceptable for observers to be detained, and they should be released immediately.  We urge Russia to use its influence with these groups to get them to release the observers, disarm, and participate in a political process -- a process that the vast majority of Ukrainians actively participated in during the elections the other day.  And that process needs to continue both at the ballot box, obviously, but also in dialogue so that the country can move forward and begin to stabilize its economy and produce a better future for the people of Ukraine.

Now, the United States will continue to work with the people of Ukraine and the President-elect to support their efforts to determine their own future.  The U.S. respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  We condemn and reject Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea.  And we remain committed to working with Ukraine and other partners to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

On the second part of your question, I think that we and our international partners watched very closely the conduct of the election on May 25th.  And I think it has been judged broadly, although with some areas of exception, to have come off very well, and that the vast majority of Ukrainians were able to vote in a free and fair election.  And that is a very positive development. 

The President, as you know, spoke with President-elect Poroshenko, and he looks forward to working with President Poroshenko when he’s sworn into office as the United States supports Ukraine’s desire and the desire of the Ukrainian people to create a future of their own making, and not a future that’s dictated to them by any neighbors.

So that is a positive development.

Q    From one week to the other, Jay, you say that these sanctions, the first and the second wave, have had an impact on the Russian economy. 

MR. CARNEY:  I think that has been independently verified repeatedly in reports probably in your publication as well as others represented here.

Q    Indeed, you’re right.  But still, it hasn’t changed the access to weapons for Ukraine --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, this is -- you’re right.  And this is a matter of concern that I just mentioned in answer to your question.  I think it’s also true that we and our partners, we’re very focused on making sure that Ukraine was able to conduct a presidential election, and that the vast majority of Ukrainians would be able to freely vote in that election.  We were very concerned that separatists, with the support of Russia, either direct or indirect, would -- indirect support would disrupt those elections.  And it is certainly a positive development that those elections were able to proceed successfully.

Chuck.

Q    Can you tell me if the President had any reaction to Edward Snowden from last night?

MR. CARNEY:  Chuck, I don’t have a reaction from the President.  I and others here have seen parts of the interview.  And I’m not going to, on his behalf or anyone else’s behalf, react to all of what he said.

What I can say is there’s been no change in our position.  Mr. Snowden is accused of leaking classified information, and he faces felony charges here in the United States.  He should return to the U.S. as soon as possible where he will be accorded full due process and protections. 

So based on some of what I heard about the interview, he expressed a desire to return to the United States, and I can confidently say that he is welcome here to face the charges that have been brought against him.

Q    Is the administration open to a plea deal?  I know that you’ve -- clemency has been totally ruled out.  But there did seem to be some gap in the very statements that Justice and other people have said to us about being open to a plea deal.

MR. CARNEY:  Look, let’s be clear, clemency is not on the table.

Q    I understand that.

MR. CARNEY:  And when it comes to -- I mean, there’s a fundamental position that we hold, which is he ought to return to the United States to face the charges against him.  When it comes to discussions, I would refer you to the Department of Justice.  But we are of the firm belief that the transgressions that he’s been charged with are very serious, that they’ve created negative consequences for our national security and our capacity to protect the United States and the American people and our allies, and that those are very serious offenses.

Q    But you’re not closing off the idea of a plea deal.

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not in a position to --

Q    Well, you did say clemency is off the table, so that’s why -- I mean, and then you referred to Justice.  So is that an opening?

MR. CARNEY:  It’s not.  I would simply refer you to Justice.  And I think we can say quite clearly that clemency is not being considered, but beyond that, this is a matter for the Department of Justice.

Q    And one of the things he said last night is that he did -- one of the things that the administration has accused him of is not going through the proper channels to raise concerns, and he says he did.  The best we could come up -- he says there’s a paper trail.  The best we could come up with -- the administration told us of at least one communication.  How about releasing that communication?  We’ve filed a FOYA request for it.  Why not make that communication public?

MR. CARNEY:  It’s my understanding that the email in question will be released later today to broadly respond to that, as I think NSA has.  They explained that they have found one email inquiry by Edward Snowden to the Office of General Counsel asking for an explanation of some material that was in a training course he had just completed.  The email did not raise allegations or concerns about wrongdoing or abuse, but posed a legal question that the Office of General Counsel addressed.  There was not additional follow-up noted.

As I mentioned, the email will be released today.  I can say that there were numerous -- there were and there are numerous avenues that Mr. Snowden could have used to raise other concerns or whistleblower allegations.  The appropriate authorities have searched for additional indications of outreach from Mr. Snowden in those areas, and to date have not found any engagements related to his claims.

Q    Do you acknowledge that the whistleblower protections in the intelligence community are essentially much weaker than in any other part of government?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not the right person to make that assessment.  What I can tell you is that there are avenues available to somebody like Mr. Snowden to raise those kinds of concerns and whistleblower allegations.  And I would just refer you to the NSA and also, obviously, to the email that will be released later today.

Q    And does the President agree with Secretary Kerry in that he’s a traitor and a coward?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that it is fair to say that it is the view of the U.S. government that what Mr. Snowden did was a violation of the law, that it was a serious offense; that as many senior people in the national security apparatus have attested to, damaging to our national security, made it easier for -- or gave insight to our enemies, to terrorists that makes it harder for the United States and our allies to go after them.

Q    You guys haven’t been able to provide proof that any of these disclosures have put anybody in harm’s way.

MR. CARNEY:  Unauthorized disclosures of classified information harm U.S. and allied efforts to identify, track and disrupt the activities of our adversaries, including terrorists.  Many of these efforts are born of years of carefully managed intelligence efforts.  As a result of these disclosures, our adversaries, including terrorists and their support networks, now have a better understanding of our collection methods and are taking counter measures.

Everybody has a better understanding of our collection methods because this information was publicly released, and that includes our adversaries.  And they are taking counter measures.  These adversaries are located not only in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia, but some groups and networks also have footprints across Europe, Africa, Asia, and here in the Western Hemisphere.

Specifically, we have seen, in response to the Snowden leaks, al Qaeda and affiliated groups seeking to change their tactics, looking to see what they can learn from what’s in the press, and seeking to change how they communicate to avoid detection and avoid our surveillance.  So that’s broadly the assessment that’s been made and the information that has been gathered. 

But on sort of the other assessment that I think Secretary Kerry made, I think it’s also fair to say that is a general view held here that somebody like Mr. Snowden, who feels he’s a patriot, ought to come here and face the charges against him in a judicial system that affords unique rights and protections to defendants.

Q    But this is a different situation.  It would be under much -- with the Espionage Act, it’s very difficult -- and he talked about this a little bit -- and others have confirmed it’s very difficult to feel as if you can get a fair public trial because some stuff gets classified.  So what do you do in this situation?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, we have a judicial system that offers unique and broad benefits and rights to defendants, and it is certainly our view that Mr. Snowden ought to --

Q    So you believe he would get a -- you do believe that he would get a fair trial?

MR. CARNEY:  I do. 

Olivier.

Q    Jay, I’ve got a couple of questions about today’s event on concussions.

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.

Q    Does the President think that the NCAA should guarantee or offer health care beyond the college years to college athletes?

MR. CARNEY:  Olivier, I think the purpose of today’s event was to highlight an issue that is of concern to parents across the country who have kids who want, for all the right reasons, to participate in sports like football and soccer and others, lacrosse and hockey, where there is a risk of injury and especially of injuries caused by concussions. 

We’ve learned a lot in recent months and years about the effect of concussions on younger sports players.  And the President and a lot of parents have been involved in, if you will, kitchen table conversations about concerns that we have, because the President, like a lot of parents, like me, believes there are enormous benefits for our kids when it comes to playing team sports and want them to be able to play, but want them to be able to play in a situation that is as safe as possible.

So the opportunity that the President availed himself today of was to use essentially his convening power, the capacity to place a spotlight on an issue that being President and occupying the White House provides, to elevate this issue and to bring together a lot of stakeholders so that we could have a constructive discussion around these issues, and also to secure commitments, as you have heard were announced from a variety of organizations, to further research and further efforts involved in enhancing safety and security for our kids.

The focus was primarily today on younger kids and their engagement in sports, and making sure that it’s as safe as possible.

Q    The reason I ask is you mention those commitments, and I’m wondering whether he thinks that the NCAA owes those athletes that additional step.

MR. CARNEY:  I just haven’t had that discussion with him on that particular issue.

Q    And then -- this is related, and I expect roughly the same answer, but --

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll try to mix it up.  (Laughter.)

Q    How does he feel about efforts by some NCAA athletes to unionize?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I just haven’t had that discussion in a reportable way with him.  (Laughter.)

Q    Wait, wait, hold on.  Hold on a second.

Q    Can we be the judge of that?  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  No.  (Laughter.)  No, I actually don’t -- I’m not really in a position to characterize his view on that.

Alexis.

Q    Jay, a couple of quick follow-ups on the VA.  Rob Nabors was seen coming back to the White House today, and the President I thought also was looking forward to --

MR. CARNEY:  I’m sorry, say that again, the first part.

Q    Rob Nabors was seen coming in today.  Obviously, he  works here --

MR. CARNEY:  -- was he?

Q    I don’t know, but “spotted” is the word.  And also, I thought --

MR. CARNEY:  He still has an office here you know.

Q    Yes.  And the President I thought was also looking forward to getting a preliminary update from Secretary Shinseki this week.  Can you update us on whether Rob Nabors was meeting with the President to give him a preliminary update, and whether the President had a conversation post-IG report with Secretary Shinseki?  That’s number one.

MR. CARNEY:  Okay, on that, the answer is I’m not sure about meetings that Mr. Nabors might have had here.  I’m not aware of any with the President.  But again, I’m not sure about that. 

What I can tell you is that what the President said last week in terms of his expectation that he would receive a preliminary report from Secretary Shinseki by the end of this week stands today.  So he would expect that I think by the end of this week.  He has not received it as of yet.

Q    And then, on accountability -- because a number of lawmakers have publicly stated their interest in seeing that the Justice Department follow up on any IG referral of suspected criminal activity, can you say post-IG report whether the President is relying on Justice to wait for referrals from the IG, or whether Justice has a role, in the President’s view, in also either pursuing or investigating or getting involved in potential criminal activity after reading the IG report?

MR. CARNEY:   Well, I think it is, in general, the case that independent inspectors general, when they conduct an investigation, have as an option -- if they believe it is necessary based on the information they’ve discovered -- to refer that information to the Department of Justice.  That would be the case here.  And the President, as a general matter, is supportive of that process.  So I think that’s how it would work.

The IG will obviously make determinations regarding that kind of thing, but it’s certainly appropriate for that process to be carried out in a way that it was meant to be carried out.  So I would refer you on any intention along those lines to the IG.

Mr. Acosta.

Q    Jay, you declined to say the President has confidence in Secretary Shinseki.  Should the Secretary take that as a signal that he should step down?

MR. CARNEY:  The President addressed this at length when he stood before you last week, and his position is what it was then -- and I can repeat it, because he said it very well.  But I will paraphrase to say that he believes Secretary Shinseki served his nation extraordinarily capably as a soldier, rising to four-star general; that he cares deeply, as a disabled veteran himself, about his fellow veterans; and that in his job as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs he has with passion and integrity gone after some of the challenges that the VA has faced over these past several years, including veterans homelessness, which has been reduced over these five-plus years; including increasing educational opportunities and benefits to our veterans, the 9/11 generation of veterans through the 9/11 GI Bill; and including by attacking very aggressively a problem of the disability claims backlog, a problem that was exacerbated substantially by the decision to expand a presumption of benefits to those who were either exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam conflict or to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who have experienced PTSD. 

Those are the right decisions for our veterans.  I think veterans service organizations would say so, and therefore it was also the right thing to do to attack that backlog.  So --

Q    But how does he run the department if he doesn’t have the full confidence of the President?  How does he conduct this investigation if he doesn’t have the full confidence of the President?

MR. CARNEY:  The President looks forward to the preliminary review that he asked the Secretary to provide to him.  And when it comes to general matters of accountability, I think the President said that he told this to Secretary Shinseki, including that day when he met with him, that he wants to see what the results of that review are, as well as obviously now we have the preliminary results of the inspector general’s investigation.  So his position remains what it was.

Q    And I’m sure you’ve heard this notion expressed by various pundits and --

MR. CARNEY:  Reporters.

Q    -- the chattering class, the reporters, that the President just doesn’t like to fire people.  What do you make of that?  Is that fair?

MR. CARNEY:  I thought you were going to start using metaphors like thin ice and probation, so you caught me off guard. 

Q    Or singles and doubles.

MR. CARNEY:  But I think the President’s view, as a general matter --

Q    Well, is he on -- I mean, you mentioned -- is he on thin ice?  Is he on probation?  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  Rather than resort to metaphors --

Q    I didn’t introduce the --

MR. CARNEY:  No, it’s fair.  Rather than resort to metaphors, I’d refer you to what the President said, using no metaphors, about his view on this matter and accountability and his desire to see the preliminary results from the internal audit that Secretary Shinseki is conducting, as well as --

Q    But he’s not going to wait as long as the Nabors review, which would be a month?  He’s not going to wait as long as the Nabors review would take to make that kind of decision, Cabinet-level decision. 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m just not going to speculate about personnel matters.  He’s not waiting a day when it comes -- and has not -- when it comes to what he said last week, which is that the VA absolute must take steps right away to address the wait list issues that have been identified.  And the VA has announced steps that it’s taking in regard to that.

When it comes to the issue of accountability, I would just, again, point you to what the President said.  I don’t have any new information to provide.

Q    This notion that he doesn’t like to fire people, you’ve heard that.

MR. CARNEY:  Look, I think the President was clear that he believes accountability is important.  He also believes that the first and foremost challenge we face is providing service and benefits to our veterans, and that we ought to make sure -- even as there is a focus on issues of personnel and accountability -- that we’re not losing sight of what this is all about, which is making sure that our veterans get better service and get it quickly.

Q    And just very quickly, this is your first chance on camera to talk about what happened with the exposure of the CIA station chief’s identity.  Do you have an update on that as to what is going to be done from an accountability standpoint here at the White House?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the Chief of Staff, as you know, has asked the White House counsel, Neil Eggleston, to look into what happened and to report back to him with recommendations on how the administration can improve processes and make sure that something like that does not happen again.  So I don’t have any other updates beyond what I said off camera.

Q    But was that just a screw-up?  I mean, what is your sense as to -- I mean, the fact -- reporters have a sense as to how pool reports work, but the general public may not as much.  But it just seems as though this was like a clerical copying-and-pasting type of mistake.  Do you have a general sense as to what happened?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think I’d rather have the counsel make those assessments and focus, as I think he will, on processes that can be put in place and recommendation that he can make so that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again.

Jon-Christopher.

Q    A veterans question of another era.  June 6th, this year -- the 70th anniversary.  Will the President be extending an invitation to any of those heroes, those individuals who were there on D-Day, 1944 while he is there in Normandy?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a preview of the day and the meetings that he’ll have or the conversations he’ll have.  I know he looks forward to this day.  He’s had the great fortune, this President, to have already visited Normandy and to commemorate that invasion and the heroic sacrifice that so many Americans and others demonstrated in turning the tide in Europe in World War II.  He did that five years ago, and he looks forward to doing it again this year.

He’s also had the opportunity to meet with World War II veterans here at the White House on a number of occasions, and it is a poignant fact that there are fewer and fewer of them still with us.  There is something especially powerful and poignant about this anniversary for that reason.  So I think the President is, of course, fully aware of that, and that fact will be with him as he meets with those veterans who are able to be there.

Jon Karl.

Q    Jay, a very simple yes-or-no question:  Does the President have confidence in Secretary Shinseki?  Yes or no?

MR. CARNEY:  Jon, the President addressed this question --

Q    No, no, actually he didn’t.  He wasn’t asked directly does he have confident in Secretary Shinseki.

MR. CARNEY:  The President believes that -- and is confident that Secretary Shinseki has served his nation admirably, heroically as a soldier, as a general, and that he has accomplished some very important things as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.  And I listed them, but they include extending education benefits, reducing veterans homelessness, and reducing the size of the backlog for disability claims, while expanding vastly the number of veterans who can make a claim.

Q    But does the President right now have confidence in Secretary Shinseki -- yes or no?  It’s a very simple yes-or-no question.  You told us last week he did have confidence.  Does he have confidence now?

MR. CARNEY:  What I would point you to is what the President said when asked about his view on Secretary Shinseki.

Q    But he wasn’t asked that question directly.

MR. CARNEY:  And I don’t have -- I’m not going to improve upon his words on this regard.  He talked about --

Q    But he wasn’t asked directly if he had confidence in him.

MR. CARNEY:  I understand the wordplay here, but I think that what is more important --

Q    It’s not wordplay, it’s a central question.  Does he have confidence in a member of his Cabinet?

MR. CARNEY:  On the issue that you’re referring to, when it comes to the revelations that have come to light about Phoenix and other veterans health centers, the President was deeply troubled by what we saw in the interim report from the inspector general, and he awaits the preliminary report from Secretary Shinseki, from the internal audit that the Secretary is conducting with the assistance of roughly 200 individuals. 

And he made clear to Secretary Shinseki last week, and he made clear as a general principle to everyone who serves this administration, serves the country, that he believes in accountability, but he also believes, first and foremost, on the issue and the importance of making sure that we keep our eye on the ball, which is making sure that our veterans are getting taken care of and that the focus is on them.  And when there’s been a failure to do that in a timely manner, we need to take action to fix that problem and focus principally on that.

The accountability track, if you will, can proceed apace.  That’s why there are inquiries, investigations ongoing.  But as the President said from this podium last week, he didn’t want any delay in the VA taking action to address the identified problems and the need to get benefits and care to our veterans.

Q    On the metaphor front -- (laughter) -- I have seen White House officials quoted in different news organizations saying that Shinseki -- quoting White House officials -- saying Shinseki is “on probation.”  What does it mean for a Cabinet Secretary to be “on probation?”

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would urge you, rather than go with what an unnamed official reportedly said, to go instead with what a named official, Barack Obama -- what Barack Obama said.

Q    So he’s not on probation.

MR. CARNEY:  And he said it again without -- let me just double check this as a factual matter without resorting to metaphor -- when he said, “I have said to Ric, and I said it to him today, I want to see what the results of these reports are, and there is going to be accountability.  And I’m going to expect, even before the reports are done, that we are seeing significant improvement in terms of how the admissions process takes place in all of our VA health care facilities.  I know he cares about it deeply, and he has been a great public servant and a great warrior on behalf of the United States of America.  We are going to work with him to solve the problem, but I am going to make sure that there is accountability throughout the system after I get the full report.”

So that is --

Q    So does that mean he’s going to wait for the full report?  I mean, you just read his words, “full report.”  Does that mean he has to wait until the IG is done?  Because now this IG report is going on and it’s investigating 42 centers -- facilities around the country.  So does he have to wait until all that is done before he decides whether or not there is accountability?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to preview or predict or hypothesize about the future here.  What I will tell you is that he has not received yet the preliminary report from the VA, from the Secretary.  He has seen the interim report from the inspector general, and I think we conveyed pretty clearly what his reaction was to that.  And I think I’ll leave it at that.

I think that his focus, first and foremost, is on the veterans.  It’s not on these issues, which are also important when it comes to personnel and accountability, but he believes that in matters like this it’s important to assemble a decent accumulation of facts before making a judgment.

Q    Okay, just one more on this -- on the Democrats who have called on Shinseki to resign.  If you look at the list, it includes Grimes, Udall, Braley, Nunn, Shaheen, Hagan -- a large number of Democrats who are in potentially tough election fights this year in Senate races.  Why do you think so many of these Democrats that are in these tough races just happen to be the ones that have come out first to call for Shinseki to resign?

MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you to all the individual lawmakers who have expressed concerns about these matters, as well as concerns about issues of personnel.  I think many of them felt disturbed and troubled by the initial allegations, and then, more significantly, by the preliminary report that the IG released yesterday.

But in terms of why each -- there are obviously Republicans, including prominent ones, who have reserved judgment on that issue.  And I’m not going to try to explain their views any more than I would Democratic lawmakers except that I think that we are all, or we all should be -- and I think many are, of both parties -- concerned about the benefits being provided -- necessarily provided to our veterans and making sure that they’re getting the health care that they deserve in a timely fashion.

Q    Why would the outrage be most notable from those that are in tough elections?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I think that there’s been outrage or concern, deep concern, from many quarters.  And that reflects a general principle that, as a rule, we as a nation put party aside when it comes to the concern we have and the trust that is put in us to make sure that our benefits -- messed up those things -- but the concern we have for our veterans and the sacred trust that we hold -- that we feel we ought to exercise when it comes to protecting our veterans.

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, Bloomberg.

Q    Jay, the interim report suggested there was potential criminal issues going on with senior leaders in the hospital there.  I think as of this morning only three had been put on administrative leave.  Has the Secretary given the President a rationale for why they’re on administrative leave and haven’t been terminated, and why there’s only three so far?

MR. CARNEY:  These are issues that I would have to urge you to raise with the VA or with the IG.  On the issue of potential referrals -- I think I addressed that -- as a general matter, we think that that’s wholly appropriate as a general principle when it comes to independent inspector general investigations, and that that’s how a process like this should work.  But we’re not in a position independently to make judgments about potential matters of criminality.

Q    And then also, on the speech from yesterday -- a central tenet was the $5 billion Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund.  There was some grumbling on the Hill after the speech and a little bit this morning that they didn’t feel like they were looped in on that.  You need the Hill to move that forward.  Do you feel like they were given enough advance warning?  And I guess, what do you do going forward to ensure that they’re on board with this fund?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we look forward to working closely with Congress on this once the request is submitted; it has not yet been submitted.  We did consult with, on the broader content of the President’s speech and some of the announcements within it, the appropriate members of Congress.  But we’re, as an administration, still finalizing the fiscal year 2015 OCO request, and additional details about the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund will be available when the OCO request is submitted to Congress.

Major.

Q    Setting aside just for a moment the confidence question --

MR. CARNEY:  Just for a moment.

Q    Just for a moment -- (laughter) -- I just want to bring up a couple of other things that were in the IG report.  It said that, in Phoenix, the leadership understated the time new patients waited for their primary care appointments, listed in their fiscal year 2013 performance appraisal accomplishments, which is one of the factors considered for awards and salary increases.  The report also says, “Inappropriate scheduling practices are a systemic problem nationwide.”  Since I raised the issue of bonuses with the President last week, one person in Phoenix had a bonus last year taken away.  It seems within the VA’s power, within the current Secretary’s power, confidence or no confidence, to deal with this performance and bonus issue in any place where these wait times were manipulated or there was any scheme to create a linkage between waiting lists and getting a performance appraisal that was positive or a bonus or a salary boost. 

Wouldn’t the President prefer something be done immediately about these issues across the board, not with just one person in Phoenix?  And would he not want the Secretary to take that action immediately?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the President, as a general matter, believes that there ought to be action taken with regards to specific individuals when there are the specific facts surrounding allegations about the conduct of specific individuals.  And that would apply.

The President was extremely troubled by the preliminary report issued by the IG yesterday.  So he certainly believes, as was the case with the one individual that you mentioned and which -- who was acted on with regards to a bonus last week, that that kind of situations need --

Q    And that was carried out pretty quickly.  Shouldn’t that be done nationwide?  You don’t need an IG report to make that move.

MR. CARNEY:  I think we needed to know -- we need to know the facts of what actually happened -- not just allegations, but facts.  And that’s what the IG is establishing.  Again, the report -- the preliminary report was released yesterday.  That is what the internal audit that the Secretary is overseeing is after, and that preliminary report will be produced by the end of this week, as we understand it.  And then there is the broader review being conducted by Rob Nabors.

So they’re all three important.  And the primary objective that the President has with each of them is to ensure that we’re doing everything we can to right whatever wrongs have occurred when it comes to providing timely service and benefits to our veterans.

Q    Back to the confidence question -- again, from the report -- “We are finding that inappropriate scheduling practices are a systemic problem nationwide.”  Sentence one.  Sentence two:  “Many of these schemes are detailed in then Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management April 2010 memorandum on Inappropriate Scheduling Practices.  The purpose of this memorandum was to call for immediate action to identify and eliminate VA’s use of inappropriate scheduling practices.” 

Is it proper for this President to have confidence in a Secretary that had that memorandum, I would assume, on his desk in April 2010 to have a report come out four years later saying that those inappropriate scheduling practices are rampant nationwide?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Major, I appreciate reading the report that we all read about yesterday, and I would say that that piece of it and many other pieces of it were very troubling -- extremely troubling to the President.

Q    I guess I’m wondering how he can have confidence in somebody with this record.

MR. CARNEY:  And what I would say to you in response to that question is what I have said to others who asked the same question, which is that the President’s view on accountability on this matter was expressed by him last week.  He awaits the preliminary report from the Secretary on the Secretary’s internal audit.  And he will have from that -- he expects from that preliminary report, as well as the -- or interim report, as well as the -- one is interim, one is preliminary -- the report we saw from the IG -- a whole lot more facts than we had when he addressed this question.

But right now he’s waiting, as he said from the podium last week, waiting to receive the preliminary report from the Secretary.

Yes, NPR.

Q    Regarding the preliminary report, when you say “this week,” do you mean business week? 

MR. CARNEY:  Isn’t that a publication run by the guy to your left?  (Laughter.)  I would just leave it at that, and refer you to the VA.

Q    Okay.  And regarding unemployment insurance, there was a five-month extension passed by the Senate.  That five months would be up in a couple of days, and there’s been no action in the House.  Has the President given up on an unemployment benefits extension?  And what should the long-term unemployed be thinking at this point?

MR. CARNEY:  That they don’t have a lot of friends among the House Republican leadership, first of all.  It’s certainly a shame that they have refused to bring this up and to pass it.  They were ready and willing to do it when the previous President asked for it to be done in circumstances less severe than the long-term unemployed find themselves in now.  So that’s a shame.

But the President has not given up.  He believes that Congress ought to act, and he hopes they do. 

Q    Jay, would the President --

MR. CARNEY:  Did I just call on you?  No. 

Q    No.

MR. CARNEY:  I’m having a flashback to a previous exchange.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Let me try to help you on that.  Let me go back to what the President promised --

MR. CARNEY:  Just the bright color of your -- yes. 

Q    You have purple, too.

MR. CARNEY:  Mine is a little more muted.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Thanks.  (Laughter.)  Last week, the President at that podium promised, “Once we know the facts, I assure you, if there is misconduct it will be punished.”  We now know the facts from this IG report.  You’ve heard them.  Who has been punished?  Who’s been punished?

MR. CARNEY:  We have a set of facts in a preliminary report -- thank you, Ed -- we got a report yesterday, and the President found the report extremely troubling.  He tasked the Secretary with conducting an internal audit, an internal review, and asked for a preliminary report from the Secretary by the end of this week.  And he awaits that preliminary report.

Q    But he also said, “If these allegations prove to be true, it is dishonorable, disgraceful.  I will not tolerate it.  Period.”  These allegations have proven to be true.  Veterans are waiting 115 days. 

MR. CARNEY:  Very troubling --

Q    So why is he still tolerating it?  Where is the punishment?  Where?

MR. CARNEY:  Ed, I don’t know how else to disappoint you, but I’ll give you the same answer that I gave to Major.

Q    It’s not me being disappointed.  There’s veterans waiting 115 days.  How about them?

MR. CARNEY:  Right, and that’s why -- and I appreciate your concern over that, as opposed to whether people are going to get fired.  The issue, first and foremost in the President’s mind, is making sure that the VA acts immediately to address the issues with inappropriate wait times for veterans seeking health care benefits.  And he has ordered that that take place, and you saw action on that this week.

He is also appropriately interested in accountability.  And he is troubled by the report that the IG put out yesterday, and he awaits the complementary, if you will, internal audit and its preliminary findings, which he expects to receive later this week. 

Q    On the issue of accountability, I want to go back to the CIA question you got before about this official being outed.  Doesn’t the public have a right to know who in the military put that person’s name on a list and exposed he and his family to potentially being killed?

MR. CARNEY:  Ed, what I would say about that is simply that the Chief of Staff asked the White House Counsel, Neil Eggleston, to look into this and to make recommendations so that processes are put in place so that something like this doesn’t happen again.

Q    Right, I understand the processes moving forward.  Who has been punished on that one?  Has anyone been fired, anyone been disciplined in the military or at the White House?

MR. CARNEY:  Ed, I would just point you to what I’ve said before about the fact that the counsel is looking into it. 

Q    So nobody has been disciplined?

MR. CARNEY:  I would just point you to the fact that the counsel has been looking into it. 

Q    But a person’s life was put in jeopardy. 

MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you on matters like that to the CIA and the agencies that would be involved in that.

Q    Thanks, Jay. 

MR. CARNEY:  Politico, and then Connie.  And then, I’m out of here.

Q    So, Jay, two questions.  First, can you say with any specificity what the President is expecting or looking for in the Shinseki report that wasn’t in the IG report?  And also, if the President isn’t sure at this point whether Secretary Shinseki can handle the problems, is he sure that Secretary Shinseki can handle the internal report and getting that done?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President made clear last week that he wanted a preliminary report from the VA, from the Secretary this week, by the end of this week.  When it comes to the troubling preliminary report that was issued by the IG, that’s something that the IG does independently and, as I noted yesterday, he found that information to be very concerning. 

He continues to look forward to receiving what he asked for, which is the initial findings from the internal audit that the Secretary is conducting.  And I think that assessments beyond that are going to be made once we have -- or he has that internal audit. 

Q    But was there something that was not in the IG report that he’s looking for specifically in the Shinseki report?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to characterize -- I think he’s looking for facts and he’s looking for what the internal audit is able to produce in the timeframe allotted.  And he will make assessments about the report and about the IG’s report accordingly.

Q    And does he think Secretary Shinseki can perform this internal audit as needs to be, given the other problems?

MR. CARNEY:  He believes the Secretary understands clearly the instructions that the President gave him to conduct this internal audit, and looks forward to the first or the preliminary product. 

Connie.

Q    Thank you.  On crimes committed against women or about to be committed, there have been horrible crimes lately in India, Pakistan, Sudan.  Has the President communicated with any of these countries?  Do you have any condemnation?

MR. CARNEY:  Connie, I don’t have any presidential communications to read out to you.  And I think the State Department, as a general matter, has addressed some of the crimes that you reference.  Obviously, this is an issue that the President believes is very important.  He believes that providing equal rights to women, providing access to education to women, providing economic opportunity to women is the key around the world to a better society in countries around the world and to stronger economic growth in nations around the world and to more democratic governments around the world.

So the kinds of things you reference are, of course, very concerning to him.  Thank you all very much. 

END

2:37 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President at the Healthy Kids and Safe Sports Concussion Summit

East Room

11:19 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  As a dad, when you -- Tori’s parents are here.  And I have to imagine they are awfully proud of this remarkable young lady, and we really appreciate you taking the time to introduce me.

I want to welcome everybody here to the White House.  I want to thank members of Congress, who are here.  We’ve got leaders from America’s sports and medical communities, especially young people here like Tori, who did such a great job sharing her story today.  

All across the country, there are millions of young athletes just like Tori who spend their weekends and summers on baseball diamonds and soccer pitches.  And they put in extra practice so they can make the varsity or maybe even earn a college scholarship.  Most of them are not as good as Tori was at her sport.  I certainly wasn’t -- although, I had the same enthusiasm.  And for so many of our kids, sports aren’t just something they do; they’re part of their identity.  They may be budding scientists or entrepreneurs or writers, but they’re also strikers and linebackers and point guards.  And that’s a good thing.

First of all, the First Lady thinks everybody needs to move.  (Laughter.)  And obviously there’s a huge public health interest in making sure that people are participating in sports.  But sports is also just fundamental to who we are as Americans and our culture.  We’re competitive.  We’re driven.  And sports teach us about teamwork and hard work and what it takes to succeed not just on the field but in life. 

And I was a basketball player -- as I said, not as good as Tori was at soccer.  But I learned so many lessons playing sports that I carry on to this day, even to the presidency.  And still, when I need to relax and clear my head, I turn to sports -- whether it’s a pick-up basketball game -- and I’m much slower than I was just last week -- (laughter) -- or more sedate pastimes like golf, or watching SportsCenter.  

And more than that, as a parent, Michelle and I have always encouraged our girls to play sports.  One of the greatest transformations I think in our society has been how young women have been finally given the opportunity because of Title IX, and now you see just unbelievable women athletes who are getting the same exposure and experience and outlets for sports all across the country.  And Malia and Sasha are part of that generation.  They took for granted -- of course, we’re playing sports.  And they played everything from soccer to basketball and tennis and track.  So sports are important to our life as a family, just like they are for families all across the country. 

The reason we’re here today, though, is all across the country parents are also having a more troubling conversation, and that’s about the risks of concussions.  There’s a lot of concern, but there’s a lot of uncertainty.  And as Tori’s story suggests, concussions are not just a football issue.  They don’t just affect grown men who choose to accept some risk to play a game that they love and that they excel at.  Every season, you’ve got boys and girls who are getting concussions in lacrosse and soccer and wrestling and ice hockey, as well as football.  And, in fact, the Center for Disease Control reports that in the most recent data that’s available to us, young people made nearly 250,000 emergency room visits with brain injuries from sports and recreation -- 250,000.  That number obviously doesn’t include kids who see their family doctor or, as is typical, don’t seek any medical help.

Before the awareness was out there, when I was young and played football briefly, there were a couple of times where I’m sure that that ringing sensation in my head and the need to sit down for a while might have been a mild concussion, and at the time you didn’t think anything of it.  The awareness is improved today, but not by much.  So the total number of young people who are impacted by this early on is probably bigger than we know.

Now, I say this not to scare people.  We want our kids participating in sports.  I’d be much more troubled if young people were shying away from sports.  As parents, though, we want to keep them safe, and that means we have to have better information.  We have to know what these issues are.  And the fact is, we don’t have solid numbers, and that tells me that at every level we’re all still trying to fully grasp what’s going on with this issue.

Last fall, a comprehensive report found that there are too many gaps in the understanding of the effects and treatment for concussions.  Researchers are still learning about the causes and consequences of these injuries.  Communities are wondering how young it is to start tackle football, for example.  Parents are wondering whether their kids are learning the right techniques, or wearing the best safety equipment, or whether they should sign up for -- to have their kids participate in any full-contact sports at all. 

We’ve got some outstanding scientists here today like Francis Collins, the head of the NIH.  There may be tests that at some point we can do to see if there is a particular susceptibility to concussions.  Some people’s brains may be more vulnerable to trauma than others are.  We don’t know that yet, but there may be some evidence that is worth exploring.

So with all of these questions swirling around, as a parent and as a fan, and in discussions with a lot of other parents and fans who happen to be in this White House, we decided why not use our convening power to help find some more answers.  And today we’ve brought together the President of the NCAA, the MLS commissioner, senior leadership from the NHL, and US Soccer, and the NFL, and the NFL Players Association.  We’ve also got some of the nation’s foremost brain experts.  We’ve got doctors who work with kids every day from all over the country.  We’ve got leaders in Pop Warner, and Little League, and Under Armour, and ESPN participating.  And we’ve got members of Congress like Joyce Beatty, and Tim Bishop, and Bill Pascrell, all who have taken a great interest in this.

And because we’re all here and are looking for information, even if we may not agree on everything, the one thing we can agree on is, is that sports are vital to this country and it’s a responsibility for us to make sure that young, talented kids like Tori are able to participate as safely as possible and that we are doing our job, both as parents and school administrators, coaches, to look after them the way they need to be looked after.  That’s job number one.

The good news is, across the country people eagerly signed up to participate here.  They recognize this is an issue that is worth paying attention to.  We’ve seen all 50 states pass laws requiring concussed athletes to get a medical clearance before they return to play.  Folks from USA Hockey banned checking before 12 years old.  In March, the NFL donated $45 million to USA Football for their Heads Up Football program, which emphasizes coach training and player safety. 

On our part, this administration -- the CDC has spearheaded a public awareness campaign for parents, and athletes, and coaches, and school staff called “Heads Up.”  And you can check it out at CDC.gov/concussion.  That’s where we’ve compiled a lot of the best information available for parents.  And while the number of concussions reported among young athletes has risen over the past decade, one reason is likely because players, coaches, and parents better understand symptoms of these injuries. 

Still, there’s more work to do.  We’ve got to have better research, better data, better safety equipment, better protocols.  We’ve got to have every parent and coach and teacher recognize the signs of concussions.  And we need more athletes to understand how important it is to do what we can to prevent injuries and to admit them when they do happen.  We have to change a culture that says you suck it up.  Identifying a concussion and being able to self-diagnose that this is something that I need to take care of doesn’t make you weak -- it means you’re strong.

At the same time, I want to point out that this is not just a matter for athletes.  You’ll notice this big guy here, Ray Odierno, who is not only the leader of our Army, but also is somebody who plays football -- I don’t know if he still plays, although he could.  (Laughter.)  But as a leader of our Armed Forces, he sees the effects that injuries have had on brave men and women who serve in uniform, and all of us who careNF about them.  That’s why Ray is here today. 

And I’ve seen in my visits to wounded warriors, traumatic brain injury is one of the signature issues of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The thing is, the vast majority of mild traumatic brain injury cases in the military occur outside deployment.  So even though our wars are ending, addressing this issue will continue to be important to our Armed Forces.  And as part of a new national action plan we announced last year, we’re directing more than $100 million in new research to find more effective ways to help prevent, diagnose and treat mental health conditions and traumatic brain injury -- because the more we can learn about the effects of brain injuries, the more we can do to help our courageous troops and veterans recover.  And that obviously gives us more information about our kids, as well. 

Today, by the way, I’m proud to announce a number of new commitments and partnerships from the folks in this room that are going to help us move the ball forward on this issue.  The NCAA and the Department of Defense are teaming up to commit $30 million for concussion education and a study involving up to 37,000 college athletes, which will be the most comprehensive concussion study ever.  And our service academies -- Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard -- are all signed up to support this study in any way that they can. 

The NFL is committing $25 million of new funding over the next three years to test strategies like creating health and safety forums for parents, and they’re building on the program piloted by my own Chicago Bears to get more trainers at high school games.  And the NIH is announcing the next step in this partnership with the NFL.  They’re dedicating $16 million of the NFL’s previous donation toward studies and clinical trials to examine the chronic effects of repetitive concussions. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology will invest $5 million over the next five years to explore the development of lighter and smarter and more responsive materials for protective equipment.  And I want to single out the New York Giants chairman, Steve Tisch, who is here and is donating $10 million of his own money to expand the BrainSPORT Program at UCLA to prevent, study, and treat concussions and traumatic brain injury in youth.  So all these new commitments are terrific, and we want to thank everybody here for participating.  (Applause.)  

So just to wrap up, so you can hear from people who actually know what they’re talking about, these efforts are going to make a lot of difference for a lot of people -- from soldiers on the battlefield to students out on the football field.  Take the Levine family from Rockville, Maryland, who are here today.  Where did the go?  There they are right there.  Cheryl and Jason Levine have three boys, who when you look at them you know right away they’re brothers -- Isaac, Sidney, and Rueben.  They have loved ice hockey since they were really young. 

But when he was seven years old, Sidney suffered a pair of moderate concussions on the ice.  A few years later, when Isaac was an eighth grader, he suffered a more severe concussion in a game.  After the injury, both boys had headaches.  They started struggling in class.  They started acting out.  Isaac’s concussion even kept him out of school for a while.  And, as you might imagine, Cheryl was horrified; as she put it, “you only have one brain.”  That’s a good point.  And you want to make sure that you’re treating it right. 

Fortunately, with the help of their doctors, both boys’ health and behavior improved.  And Sidney was back on the ice 10 weeks after his concussion.  He’s hoping to play varsity next year as a freshman.  And last winter, Isaac played forward as his high school team won the state championship. 

Now, Cheryl and Jason could have pulled their boys out -- it was such a scare -- and had their doctors recommended it, that’s what they would have done.  But they knew that just like millions of kids across the country, kids love their sports.  So Cheryl and Jason educated themselves on the issue, and with their doctor’s blessing and the support of the coaches and teachers, they’re encouraging their boys to lace up those skates and get out on the ice.  And as Cheryl said, “My kids aren’t going to go on and play in the NHL.”  I hope they know that, by the way.  (Laughter.)  “But what I’m worried about is getting through their teens while having fun and building confidence and doing the things they want to do, obviously within certain limits.”  That’s some good parenting by Cheryl. 

That’s what today is about -- is to give parents the information they need to help their kids compete safely.  Let’s keep encouraging our kids to get out there and play sports that they love, and doing it the right way.  That’s not a job just for parents, but it’s a job for all of us.  And that’s why the public-private partnerships like these are important.  In a few minutes, I know that many of you are going to take this discussion a step further with this panel of experts moderated by Pam Oliver, which we’re very grateful for.  

But I want to thank all of you for coming here today, for your contributions to our kids’ future.  And, most of all, I want to thank the young people who are here, particularly Tori, for highlighting why this issue is so important.  We’re really excited.  And, by the way, Tori although is not going to be playing soccer when she goes to college -- she’s graduating -- she does intend to stay involved in the sport, and I understand is going to be doing some coaching of some four- and five-year-olds this summer.  And she is going to pass on some of the knowledge, hard-earned knowledge that she’s learned.  And that’s why we know she’s going to be a terrific success in whatever she chooses to do.

Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)

END
11:33 A.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

White House Releases Report on the Administration’s All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy as a Path to Sustainable Economic Growth

Today, the White House released a report, An All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy as a Path to Sustainable Economic Growth,” detailing the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy and the profound transformation in the domestic energy sector since the President took office.  Thanks to this dramatic transformation and the President’s bold, aggressive plan, the United States has seen significant economic and national security benefits, and we are tackling the challenges posed by climate change.

The President has set out an aggressive All-of-the-Above energy strategy recognizing that no single energy source alone can accomplish all that is required to face our challenges and meet our goals. Instead, the President continues to push on multiple fronts to strike the right balance of energy sources that will power our economy forward. The President’s plan is three-pronged: to support economic growth and job creation, to enhance energy security, and to lay the foundation for—and take critical steps towards—a low-carbon energy future.

Historic Transformation

  • Decades-long trends in energy use are being reversed. Natural gas consumption has risen 18 percent since 2005. In addition, total energy obtained from wind, solar, and geothermal energy have more than doubled since 2009.
  • Many of these changes are largely unforeseen. Only eight years ago, baseline projections showed steadily increasing petroleum consumption well into the future. But the Energy Information Administration (EIA) now projects petroleum consumption to decline starting after 2019. In fact, since its peak in 2007, U.S. gasoline consumption has fallen by 5.5 percent, or half a million barrels per day.

Economic Growth

  • The energy sector has provided key support to the recovery from the Great Recession: Rising domestic energy production has made an appreciable contribution to GDP growth and job creation. The oil and natural gas sector alone contributed more than 0.2 percentage point to real GDP growth in both 2012 and 2013, and employment in these sectors increased by 133,000 between 2010 and 2013. Tens of thousands more jobs have been created in the solar and wind industries.
  • Excluding the crisis-affected year of 2009, the U.S. trade deficit as a percent of GDP is the lowest in more than a decade and more than a fifth of the narrowing of the trade deficit as a percent of GDP since its 2006 peak can be directly attributed to a shrinking trade deficit in petroleum products, as rising domestic production and declining domestic consumption have combined to cut oil imports.

Energy Security

  • The resilience of the economy to international supply shocks – macroeconomic energy security – is enhanced by reducing spending on net petroleum imports and by reducing oil dependence. The factors that have reduced net oil imports – decreased domestic petroleum demand, increased domestic oil production, more efficient vehicles, and increased use of biofuels – reduce the vulnerability of the U.S. economy to sudden rises in oil prices. Although international oil supply shocks and oil price volatility will always present risks, empirical evidence presented in this report suggests that further reductions in net petroleum imports will reduce those risks.
  • The United States has emerged as the world’s leading producer of petroleum and natural as. In 2013, combined production of petroleum, natural gas, and other liquid fuels in the United States exceeded that of Saudi Arabia and Russia. The United States leads in natural gas and is predicted by the International Energy Agency to lead in oil as well in a few years.

A Low-Carbon Future

  • The United States has reduced its total carbon pollution since 2005 more than any other nation on Earth. However, much work remains. Recent projections suggest that emissions could begin to increase again, and more work remains to address this critical imperative.
  • While the President’s strategy embraces natural gas as a transition fuel and includes steps to ensure natural gas development is done responsibly, the plan also supports and is making progress on renewables, nuclear, and other zero-carbon energy sources through research and development, and invests in energy efficiency.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

FACT SHEET: President Obama Applauds Commitments to Address Sports-Related Concussions in Young People

 

Sports are one of the best ways to keep our kids active and healthy, but young people make nearly  250,000  emergency room visits each year with sport or recreation-related brain injuries. As a sports fan and a parent with two young daughters, President Obama believes we need to do more to protect the health and safety of our kids. Today, the President will host the first-ever White House Healthy Kids & Safe Sports Concussion Summit to advance research on sports-related youth concussions and raise awareness of steps to prevent, identify and respond to concussions in young people.

The truth is we still do not know enough about the consequences of traumatic brain injuries, where it’s a hard knock on the playing field or head injury sustained by one of our troops serving abroad. Every mother and father, friend and family deserves to know everything we can about the best way to care for our young athletes and veterans and that’s the core focus of today’s White House Summit.

Staying Active and Playing Safe

Each day, hundreds of thousands of young athletes head out to fields, ice rinks and gymnasiums to practice and compete in a wide variety of sports. There is no doubt that sports are a great way for kids and teens to stay healthy, as well as to learn important leadership and team-building skills. At the same time, parents are increasingly concerned about the role of concussions in sports.  Concussions can have a serious effect on young, developing brains, and can cause short- and long-term problems affecting how a child thinks, acts, learns, and feels. While most kids and teens with a concussion recover quickly and fully, some will have symptoms that last for days, or even weeks, and a more serious concussion can last longer. 

Last fall, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council published a report that found that there are gaps in our concussions research knowledge and that there is a startling lack of data on concussions, especially in youth sports.  The report also found that there is still a “culture of resistance” among athletes related to the self-reporting of concussions and the adherence to treatment plans once they experience a concussion. 

Advancing the Ball

The President believes that we can and must do better.  Raising awareness of and better protecting children and student athletes from concussions, and better identifying and treating them when they do occur, requires a team approach and we must work with the professional sports community, youth sports programs, parents, school administrators, researches, athletes, coaches, trainers, military service members and other stakeholders to make this effort successful. We all have a role to play in helping to prevent, identify and respond to concussions so that young people can remain active and healthy.  And, we can all work together to ensure that when kids do experience concussion, they are covered thanks to the Affordable Care Act, which bans insurance companies from denying health coverage to kids and adults with pre-existing conditions, allows young adults to stay on their parents plans until their 26th birthday, and offers new, affordable health coverage options.

That is why the White House Healthy Kids & Safe Sports Concussion Summit is bringing together key stakeholders to highlight new commitments, including new public-private partnerships, to increase research that will expand our knowledge of concussions and to provide parents, coaches, clinicians, and young athletes tools to better prevent, identify and respond to concussions.

These commitments, many of which directly address some of the key recommendations of the IOM report, include:

Expanding Research and Improving Data Collection

  • The NCAA and the Department of Defense are jointly launching a $30 million effort to fund the most comprehensive clinical study of concussion and head impact exposure ever conducted and to issue an Educational Grand Challenge aimed at improving concussion safety behaviors in college sports and the military. This initiative aims to produce research on concussion risks, treatment and management through a multi-site longitudinal clinical study and advanced research projects.  Through an Educational Grand Challenge, the initiative aims to create novel and impactful evidence-based concussion education materials and solicit research proposals to identify key factors for affecting change in the culture and behavior of college student-athlete and other young adult populations with regard to concussions.
  • The NFL is committing $25 million over the next three years to support projects and partnerships aimed at promoting youth sports safety, including support for new pilot programs to expand access to athletic trainers in schools, in conjunction with the National Athletic Trainers Association, and to support a Back to Sports program -- a collaboration with the National PTA and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association -- to hold information sessions across the country to educate parents about sports safety and the value of sports participation and an active lifestyle.
  • The National Institutes of Health is announcing the launch of a new longitudinal research effort to detect, characterize, and measure the chronic effects of repetitive concussions to inform clinical trials aimed at preventing or slowing disease progression in the future.  NIH is being supported by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, starting with an initial investment of $16 million from its first Sports Health Program partner, the National Football League. This funding, together with grants announced at the end of last year, fulfill the $30 million commitment the NFL made to the NIH in 2012.   This fall, the NIH will convene public and private funders of concussion and TBI research, including NIH, the NFL, DoD, and NCAA, with the goal of supporting enhanced coordination among research efforts and better leveraging of public and private investments to accelerate research outcomes.
  • The UCLA Steve Tisch BrainSPORT Program, with a $10 million investment from Steve Tisch, UCLA’s Departments of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics will launch the UCLA Steve Tisch BrainSPORT Program to target sports concussion prevention, outreach, research and treatment for athletes of all ages, especially youth.  The program will focus on strategies such as community education events, including a planned Southern California youth concussion day for players, coaches, parents and trainers; a new fellowship program training the next generation of pediatric sports neurologists; longitudinal research studies to advance understanding of and treatment of concussion; and expanded treatment capacity through new multidisciplinary concussion clinics.  In addition, this commitment will support a planning initiative to inform the development of a national system to accurately determine the incidence of youth sports-related concussions.
  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology will invest $5 million over five years as part of the Materials Genome Initiative, to work on tools to accelerate the development of advanced materials that can provide better protection against concussions for the athlete, the warfighter and others.  These efforts aim to advance the development of new materials including light-weight, structural composite, and active or smart materials for protective gear. 
  • Pop Warner Little Scholars will participate this season in a research project modeled on the High School RIO reporting system, which tracks concussions and concussion trends in high school sports, to improve tracking of concussions among young athletes.  100 Pop Warner teams will participate in the RIO pilot.  Pop Warner provides youth football and cheer and dance programs to approximately 425,000 young people ranging in age from 5 to 16 years old.  The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia will launch a comprehensive pediatric and adolescent concussion registry to enable CHOP researchers to assess data for thousands of children with concussions to improve understanding of concussions and their impact on child health.

Education and Awareness for Parents, Coaches and Athletes

  • Safe Kids Worldwide, in partnership with Johnson & Johnson, will host more than 200 sports safety clinics for parents, coaches and young athletes across the country, including education on concussions, and will release a research report this summer providing updated insights into the culture of youth sports today.  The Brain Injury Association of America in collaboration with SAP will build an online application to help students, parents and educators better understand when to return to class after a concussion through a software platform that allows students, parents, educators, coaches and medical treatment providers to communicate.
  • USA Cheer will roll-out a new Head Injury Protocol to over 300,000 cheerleaders and their coaches this summer at clinics around the country to teach coaches and cheerleaders how to prevent, identify and seek treatment for any suspected head injuries.  USA Cheer and its partners, the American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators, the U.S. All-Star Federation and the National Federation of State High School Associations will release new, updated cheerleading safety guidelines to reduce head injuries in cheerleading.
  • U.S. Soccer is establishing a Chief Medical Officer position to interface with the medical community and experts in the field of concussion management and prevention.   U.S. Soccer and Major League Soccer will jointly organize a first-of-its-kind Medical Summit to, among other topics, lead a coordinated effort on concussion management and prevention initiatives. They also will use their platforms to communicate PSAs and other concussion-related messages including through U.S. Men’s and Women’s National Team games, MLS games and special events, and other venues.
  • The National Federation of State High School Associations will host a concussion summit this year focused on promoting best practices to minimize injury risks in high school athletes.  NFHS writes playing rules for high school level sports, reaching more than 19,000 high schools and more than 7.7. million participants in high school sports.  The National High School Athletic Coaches Association will use its summer  convention to provide education sessions on concussion for high school coaches and expand the concussion information on its Web site.  
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will promote the use of its new Heads Up to Parents app to help parents learn how to spot concussion symptoms and what to do if they think their child or teen has a concussion.  In response to the Institute of Medicine's recommendation to evaluate education efforts, CDC will evaluate its Heads Up concussion education program to help ensure that its messages are best reaching parents, coaches and young athletes.  It also will support the evaluation of 'return to play' laws. 

Educating Health Care Providers

  • The American Academy of Neurology will host its first multidisciplinary Sports Concussion Conference this summer and continue to support a national public education campaign to increase awareness of its clinical guidelines on sports concussions.   The American Psychological Association will produce a Web-based Concussions Toolkit as a resource for psychologists on concussions research and clinical information.  The American Academy of Pediatrics anticipates releasing an updated policy statement on sports-related concussion in children and adolescents in the  fall of 2015.   The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will, by spring 2015, release the clinical guidelines it is developing for the appropriate diagnosis and management of children and teens with mild traumatic brain injury, including concussions, for use in doctor's offices and emergency departments.  CDC has convened a Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Guideline Workgroup composed of leading clinical experts to support the development of these guidelines.  

 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route West Point, NY, 5/28/2014

Aboard Air Force One
En Route West Point, New York

8:47 A.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good morning.  I know it’s an early start.  Thank you for being here as we make our way to West Point where the President will deliver the commencement address.  Why don’t we just go straight to questions.  I’m sure you have a few.

Q    What’s he going to say about helping Syrian rebels?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Steve, as we’ve said from the beginning of the conflict in Syria, the Assad regime’s brutality against its own people creates a conflict that feeds extremism.  We look at the Syria conflict as a part of a broader counterterrorism challenge, and that is why we’re going to continue increasing our support to the moderate opposition who offer the best alternative to both the murderous Assad dictatorship and the extremists who have exploited the crisis in Syria for their own malign purposes.  We will also continue to increase our support for Syria’s neighbors as they continue to host refugees and confront the terrorist threat emanating from Syria.

We have a range of options that we will continue discussing within the administration and with Congress. 

Q    But, Jay, is this more about confronting al Qaeda and other terrorist elements within the opposition in Syria rather than going after Assad?

MR. CARNEY:  No, Jim, it’s really both.  What we’ve always said and what has come to pass is that the conflict launched by Assad has fed extremism, and that is why it’s so important to provide support to the moderate opposition and to continue to enhance that support in order to create that alternative, the best alternative to both the Assad regime and the extremists who have found fertile ground in the chaos created by the Assad regime.

Q    Did you confirm that the President is going to announce a new military training program for the Syrian opposition?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have details.  I’m going to the let the President discuss.  What I did say is that we are always looking -- we have obviously provided support to the moderate opposition, and we will continue to increase that support appropriately, but I’m not going to get into details ahead of the President.

Q    Jay, on the $5 billion Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, what kind of groundwork have you guys laid on the Hill for that -- that you’re going to need Congress to actually move that through?  Is it your sense that it will be received well?

MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate the question, because the President’s speech today comes at a moment, following yesterday’s update on the disposition of our forces in Afghanistan and the winding down of that combat mission, to provide a view of the way forward after a dozen years of war.  And it’s the President’s belief and his approach and policy that we should be moving away from heavy concentrations of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda elements in the way that we have to address the conflicts and the threats that exist today through separate extremist groups, some closely and some lightly and some not at all affiliated with al Qaeda. 

And the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund would allow us to provide the kind of support for our partners, whether it’s in Mali and assisting with what the French have done there, or in Somalia or Yemen, to counter the threat posed by extremists in different parts of the world, from South Asia to North Africa to the Middle East.

Q    And where does that money come from -- the $5 billion?

MR. CARNEY:  We’re going to work with Congress on it.  And it’s up to $5 billion.  And we believe there is an absolutely compelling case to be made for this approach to counter the threat posed by disparate groups of extremists around the world, including in those three -- especially in those three areas I identified.

Q    Will the President talk about the savings in the budget from the drawdown in Afghanistan, and what else he proposes to do with that money in addition to the counterterrorism fund?

MR. CARNEY:  The President is going to focus on the path forward and the policy proposals that he believes are correct to advance our national security interests and protect our country and our allies.  It is certainly the case that when you have a situation where just in Afghanistan alone we once had 100,000 troops, and by the beginning of next year we’ll have 9,800, that we will be spending less for those kinds of operations.

And I think that goes also to the point of the question earlier about the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund and the utility of taking an approach that the President will talk about today.

Q    The President has had a lot of criticism of his foreign policy, Jay.  What do you hope these critics will take away from this speech?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t think the President is going to be focused on critics.  He’ll be focused on his vision and his policies for how to continue to demonstrate American leadership around the globe -- we are the only indispensable nation; he firmly believes that -- and the steps we need to take to counter the threats that exist in this world in the wake of all of the heroic efforts that our military have conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

And the President’s belief is that we need to adapt to the threats that are there.  The fact is, in Afghanistan, as the President talked about yesterday, we’ve made enormous progress in going after the core al Qaeda leadership, and in standing up Afghan National Security Forces so that they can provide the security necessary in that country so that it does not and cannot once again become a haven for al Qaeda or other extremist groups that would threaten the United States or our allies.

Q    Jay, who’s the speech for?  Who’s the audience that he’s trying to reach?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, he’s going to give a significant foreign policy address, so it’s for the American --

Q    So is it targeted towards the American public?  Is it targeted towards our U.S. allies overseas?  Is it targeted towards foreign policy elites, members of Congress?  Like, who is he -- what is the intent and the goal and the audience that he hopes to reach?

MR. CARNEY:  The answer to all those questions is, yes.  He’s trying to reach every one of those audiences, because every one of those audiences has an interest and a stake in how we move forward after a dozen years of war.  So it’s an appropriate venue for that, as graduates of West Point will -- the current class of West Point graduates will be the first in a long time who are not likely to be deployed into a war zone -- at least not Iraq and Afghanistan.  And I think that reflects the kind of transition we’re making out of that footing that we’ve had for a dozen years as we tackle the challenges that we face today.

Q    Jay, on another subject -- school lunches.  CNN had a headline on the screen a few minutes ago that said, “First Lady In Food Fight With House GOP.”  Did the President -- what was the President’s reaction or view of the First Lady’s event yesterday?

MR. CARNEY:  The President and First Lady both feel very strongly about the need to continue moving forward when it comes to school nutrition and not allowing politics to pull us backward.  And I think the First Lady’s words speak for themselves. 

This is an important issue.  We’ve made an enormous amount of progress.  The fact is 90 percent of school districts are implementing the guidelines effectively.  It’s contributing to improved health for our kids.  And it is absolutely inappropriate to let politics and pressure from the food industry rescind this progress.  And that's why the President and First Lady have taken the stand that they’re taking.

Q    Any reaction to those elections in Europe where isolationist parties seem to have made big gains?  Do you think it would impact in any way the T-TIP negotiations?

MR. CARNEY:  I think we're still assessing the outcome of those elections.  We obviously believe very strongly that the advantages of T-TIP for Europe and the United States are clear, and we’ll continue to work with our European partners on those negotiations.

Q    Jay, Ed Snowden gave an interview to NBC, wide-ranging interview.  Any reaction from the President to the remarks from Snowden?  One of them is that he felt stranded in Russia by the State Department in revoking his passport.

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have a reaction from the President.  I haven’t discussed it with him.  Obviously, Mr. Snowden faces felony charges here in the United States and he ought to return as soon as possible to the United States to face those charges and enjoy the rights and protections that defendants in this country enjoy. 

On the other matter, Mr. Snowden has been charged with felonies and he ought to return to the United States.  He certainly has that option available to him.

Q    Jay, what is the President’s reaction to the outing of the CIA officer in Afghanistan over the weekend?

MR. CARNEY:  I think you’ve seen that the Chief of Staff has asked the White House Counsel to look into that and to make sure that we're taking steps so that something like that never happens again.

Q    Did the President have a specific reaction to it?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have anything more on that.

Q    Jay, on the immigration review, was there something specific that happened to -- not sure if it's the right word -- delay, whatever, to hold off on that for the summer?  Was there something specific, or just a compilation of things?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President believes that there’s an opportunity in the next several months to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform in Congress.  And he had been hearing from various supporters of that effort, including, a few weeks ago, from evangelicals, but more broadly that there was concern that the review undertaken by Secretary Johnson could be misused, if you will, in order to make -- create an excuse for not taking action, and we certainly wouldn’t want that to happen.  And that broad coalition of supporters of comprehensive immigration reform share the President’s hope that we might see some action in the House.  And we wouldn't want to create a reason not to act, or an excuse not to act.

So we're going to continue to press forward in Congress and hope that the House follows the Senate’s lead, hears the voices of, again, a broad coalition of support out there among labor and business, law enforcement and faith communities who all believe that we need to take action that would better secure our border, make sure everybody plays by the same rules, all our businesses are held accountable to that, and that would create a permanent solution for the millions of people living in the shadows in the United States.

Q    Jay, is the main take-away from that that if it doesn’t occur by the end of July, if immigration reform isn't taken up by the House by then, that there’s no chance of it for the remainder of the President’s presidency?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to speculate that far into the future.  I think a lot of people believe that now is the time.  The fact is the Senate passed a bill in this Congress and the House has the opportunity to act.  There is no question, and I doubt there’s a single question in this crowd or the broader White House press corps about the fact that if the Senate bill were put on the floor of the House it would pass with votes from Democrats and Republicans. 

We’re not asking for the Senate bill, we’re asking for the House to take action in its own way that reflects the need to pass comprehensive immigration reform.  I mean, we’d be happy if the House took up the Senate bill, but we understand that it may proceed differently.  The end result needs to be comprehensive immigration reform. 

Q    The speech time is at, like, half hour, hour?  What do you think?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President looks forward to the opportunity to give a broad view of how he sees the United States moving forward in the wake of a dozen years, a decade or more of war.  So I’m not going to put an endpoint on the speech, but I think it will be pretty comprehensive. 

Q    Jay, on the Nigerian abductions -- the government in Nigeria says it knows where these girls are located.  Does the U.S. government have any information to prove that that’s, in fact, true?

MR. CARNEY:  We cannot confirm that report.  We’re obviously working closely and advising and assisting the Nigerian government as it seeks to find and rescue the abducted girls.  We have made clear that the first step in that process is locating them, but I don’t have confirmation of that comment. 

All right.  Thank you.

END
9:03 A.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Background Conference Call on the President's Commencement Address at West Point

11:15 A.M. EDT

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll just say a few things and then take your questions.  So in the President’s speech today he was focused on defining, as we come out of a period dominated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what the next phase of our foreign policy is, both as it relates to our counterterrorism mission and also our broader role in the world.  You heard him speak at length about that.  I’ll only comment on a number of things.

First of all, as we laid out yesterday, we have a commitment now and a decision about how to wind down the war in Afghanistan that involves keeping a force of 9,800 U.S. servicemembers at the beginning of 2015, and then stepping down to a security presence in our embassy in Kabul, as we did in Iraq, by the end of 2016. 

Having made that decision and that announcement yesterday, today the President wanted to discuss the counterterrorism strategy that comes next, what replaces the approach that was focused on the large-scale deployments that we had in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And he made very clear that that approach needs to match our resources to the threat, which has changed as al Qaeda core has been severely degraded, but other al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged in different parts of the region from South Asia to the Sahel. 

The President was very clear that the focus of our efforts must be capacity building.  We need to build essentially a network of partners across this region so that we can deal with the terrorist threat.  And we will support that series of partnerships in different ways.  In some instances, we will provide training and equipping.  In some instances, we will facilitate actions like we were doing in Mali for the French.  We have resources that range from intelligence to special operations to trainers.  And, of course, we will take direct action against a terrorist when it is necessary for our own security.

In order to provide funding and resources for this capacity building, the President announced that he will be working with Congress to establish a Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion.  And the purpose of this fund is to make sure that we have the resources available, and the flexibility available, to support all these different missions. 

We highlight the challenge of Syria as both a huge humanitarian crisis and a growing counterterrorism issue.  And the President indicated that this additional funding will support, for instance, Syria’s neighbors who are dealing with a terrorist threat that crosses borders.  He also made very clear that we will continue to find ways to support the Syrian opposition.  And we have, as we’ve told you, provided different types of support, including military support, to the Syrian opposition and we are doing more to increase that support.  And that’s something that we’re going to continue to do going forward.  And we will work with Congress, as he indicated, to find ways to increase that support for the Syrian opposition.

Beyond counterterrorism, he laid out his vision for U.S. leadership in the world, one that is rooted in the United States strengthening existing international institutions and norms, but also working to establish clear rules of the road for emerging challenges from cybersecurity to maritime issues to climate change.  And you heard him highlight two of our key priorities, Iran and Ukraine, where we have worked through collective action with the international community to achieve our objectives.

And, of course, you heard the President speak about our ongoing commitment to promote our values around the world, both through support for democratic transitions in countries like Burma and in the Middle East and North Africa, but also through an increased focus on broadening our relationships and networks with peoples around the world.

With that, I’m happy to move to questions about any elements of the speech or any of the policies that the President touched on. 

Q    On Syria, could you give some more details on what the President means when he says he will work with Congress to find ways to ramp up support for the opposition?  Is the administration considering an open effort by the U.S. military to train and arm in some way the opposition?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, it’s a good question.  So, first of all, we have an ongoing effort to ramp up our support for the moderate opposition, and that is an effort that we coordinate very closely with our Arab partners and our European allies.  And we believe that the trajectory of that assistance has been upward and can make a real difference in strengthening the moderate opposition.

We also, as I indicated, are going to commit additional resources to the neighbors -- Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq -- who are dealing with both refugee and counterterrorism challenges.  But as we look for additional ways to strengthen the opposition, we want to review a variety of different options.  We believe, again, that strengthening the opposition is both the best counterweight to Assad and also the best counterweight to the extremist elements within Syria.  And we do want to work to review the possibility of the United States military participating in that effort.

I would draw your attention, for instance, to a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, which indicates support for and authorities for the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition.  I think that indicates an emerging view in Congress that is supportive of providing that type of authority for the United States military to participate in support for the opposition.

So this is a conversation that we want to have with Congress as they develop their approaches, as we develop ideas for how to increase resources that can flow to the Syrian opposition.  So this is something, again, we’ll be discussing with Congress in the coming weeks and months.  I think the basic principle is, what are the best ways for us to provide support to the Syrian opposition; what are the different means of doing so; how can we increase resources, as the President spoke about; and how do we explore areas like authorities that are within that provision that I think was an initiative of Carl Levin, but also then drew broad support in the Armed Services Committee -- I believe it passed 26 to 1 23-3.

So this will be an ongoing focus for us as we head into the summer.

Q    After listening to your answer just now it’s still not entirely clear to me whether the U.S. will train an armed Syrian opposition.  Are you able to give a yes or no answer to that?  And secondly, the President talked about giving more support to Syria’s neighbors.  Is there a monetary figure on that support?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We have been very clear that we do provide military assistance to the Syrian opposition, the armed Syrian opposition.  We don’t detail the specifics of that support. 

What we’re saying today, in addition to that, is not only do we want to continue to increase the assistance that we provide to the Syrian opposition, but we do want to have this discussion with Congress about the potential for there to be a role for the U.S. military in that effort.  We would need authorities to do that, obviously, and that is what, for instance, is in the Levin provision that I mentioned.

So this is something that we have to work with Congress on going forward.  But again, we are, as we said, providing military assistance to the Syrian opposition, and it’s something that will continue to be a focus given both the need to counter Assad but also to deal with the counterterrorism challenge within Syria.

In terms of the neighbors, this would be a part of this fund, again, that is up to $5 billion to deal with different contingencies across the region.  So I don’t want to break down the specific dollar amounts for individual countries; that’s something that we’ll be reviewing within the administration and the Congress as well. 

But the fact is, we want a fund like this precisely so we have flexibility, so that if we need to surge particular resources to a particular counterterrorism partner we can do that, even as we have steady support in places like Yemen or Somalia for security forces and peacekeeping forces.

So it will be a part of that Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund that the President discussed today. 

Q    Just a little more on that counterterrorism fund.  You all are asking for that money.  What’s sort of the plan if Congress doesn’t go along and actually fund that counterterrorism fund?  Do you have a second idea how you want to approach that?  And would you call the section of the speech where the President talked about our role in the world being less effective if perception takes hold, that we are conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens, the Edward Snowden effect?  And how much did the Edward Snowden leaks play into how the speech was developed?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  So on your first question, obviously, we need the support of Congress for any type of additional funding above and beyond what’s already established.  I think that, generally, we’ve had broad bipartisan support for counterterrorism missions in Congress, so we’re optimistic that this is the type of approach that can sustain that support as we discuss our overseas contingency funding with Congress in the coming weeks. 

Again, we also I think would say that this is substantially less funding than was required for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So for instance, recently, at the height of the Afghan war, we were spending $10 to $15 billion a month in Afghanistan.  Part of what we’re able to do, even with the type of presence that we’re going to have in Afghanistan next year, is have a substantial drawdown in resources and funding dedicated to Afghanistan.  We want to take some of those resources and apply it to this type of fund for counterterrorism partnerships. 

That’s part of reallocating our resources across the region to match the threat.  The threat is not overwhelmingly in Afghanistan and Pakistan anymore; in fact, it’s much more dispersed.  This is an effort to reallocate resources to match the threat so that we’re spending less in Afghanistan and we’re able to dedicate more resources to the partnerships that the President talked about in the Middle East and North Africa.

On your second question, this is not a focus of the speech.  Obviously, the speech that the President gave at the Justice Department earlier this year dealt broadly with not just the disclosures by Mr. Snowden, but our approach to bulk collection and other intelligence activities.

What the President was making a point of today is we must hold ourselves to high standards as a part of maintaining American leadership; that the legitimacy that the United States has to lead the world flows from the fact that we don’t act outside of the international standards that we’ve helped to establish, and that the confidence of other nations and people that work with us is rooted in their belief that the United States has a commitment, for instance, to the rule of law and to human rights.

And again, as a part of that, we do believe that we need to give greater confidence to not just the American people, but to foreign publics as well, that the United States is not engaged in bulk collection for the purpose of conducting surveillance on ordinary people; they were focused on threats.  And so we’re taking a number of steps that the President outlined earlier this year to give those additional protections to citizens in other countries to provide assurances about what our intelligence is focused on and what it’s not focused on.

So this is going to be a significant focus for us in the next two and a half years.  And it’s a part of how we lead not just through our extraordinary capabilities in areas like intelligence, but in our commitment to use those capabilities in a way that people have confidence is not violating their privacy unnecessarily. 

Q    It’s a two-parter.  On climate change, since it’s a mention in the national security context, I’m wondering whether the administration is considering or committed to both framing the rollout of coal stuff and other climate change stuff in a national security framework, and also using that as sort of executive power authorization to do climate change policy. 

And then, I’m sorry to beat the dead horse -- I’m just a little slow -- on the Syria consideration of U.S. military to do some of the rebel training, can you review real quickly what you think Hagel can do now and what you think it is that he needs congressional authority to do?  And would the training be in Syria or in neighboring countries? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  On the climate change issue, I think, broadly, climate change is a challenge that cuts across many different areas.  One of those is national security, because, as the President said, this is going to pose increasing national security dangers to the United States, and we’re going to be called upon to respond to conflicts or situations that have connections to climate change.  You can’t draw a red line, but clearly there has been an uptick in extreme weather events. 

When there’s a typhoon in Southeast Asia, when there’s a tsunami, the U.S. military is often called in for disaster response.  As the President referenced today, when there are refugees or conflicts over basic resources like food and water, that ultimately can have a bearing on national security.  So there’s a very clear intersection, we believe, between a changing climate and our national security interests. 

I think what’s important to note here is that our efforts domestically do intersect with our leadership internationally.  Next year, we are aiming to conclude a global climate framework agreement that has been a process of negotiation since Copenhagen in 2009.  Any successful international climate agreement is going to depend on many nations, including the United States, making commitments to reduce their emissions.  So in other words, actions that nations take domestically are going to have to be a part of how we build an international response, because everybody has to step up to the plate.  Of course, one of the things we said is we’re willing to take steps to reduce our emissions, but we need countries like China and India that are emerging emitters to take steps as well.

So the Climate Action Plan that we’ve developed over the course of the last year or so informed America’s commitment that we can then make as we pursue this type of global climate agreement.  These are steps that are important to take in their own right for the sake of the American people, and they’re also steps that will allow us to meet the types of commitments that we made in Copenhagen, whether you’re talking about fuel efficiency standards or coal-fired power plants. 

I won’t get into the specifics of those development elements beyond saying that they do intersect with the way in which we’re going to lead, as the President said, in pursuing this global climate framework agreement next year.  And that’s a big piece of business for us, and it’s going to demand U.S. leadership -- because, frankly, this is not the type of agreement that’s going to work if it’s only a handful of nations.  We really need the entire international community to make their commitments, to stand by those commitments in a transparent manner.  And that’s what we’ll be pursuing.

On Syria, I think if you look at the different options for providing assistance, the U.S. military would need certain additional authorities and resources to be able to step up with assistance to the Syrian opposition.  And you see in the language of the Levin provision that just moved through committee the types of authorities to the Secretary of Defense that would enable him to provide assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition. 

So that is something where there needs to be coordination and a dialogue between the administration and Congress.  That’s a discussion that’s ongoing that we’ll continue to have.  And again, that is one option available for looking at ways to increase support to the Syrian opposition.  We’re working across many lines of effort.  We provide many types of assistance, from humanitarian to nonlethal, to the types of military support we’ve indicated, to the Syrian opposition.  That’s one area where we want to explore whether we can come to some understanding with Congress about the best way to maximize our resources and to get additional support to the Syrian people.

Q    To continue on this same subject of the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, first, do you envision that as being both a Title 10 and Title 50 available fund -- in other words, able to do both types of CT missions? 

Second, you’ve talked a lot about the role that the military might play in Syria, and you seem to be focusing on a training role.  But can you envision emerging from these discussions with Congress something broader in which the military would assist in some ways in providing greater security in the zones that the opposition now holds in the north and south? 

And finally, you’ve said again and again we’re going to have discussions with Congress, we have to talk about this with Congress.  Has the administration itself made up its mind what it wants to propose yet?  It sounds to me as if you haven’t. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So on your first question, this is military funding title, so this would not get at the intelligence community; this would be for security support for a range of different purposes.  The President said a couple of examples today where we’ve dedicated some resources.  We dedicate resources to Mali to facilitate French actions with intelligence, with logistical support that is essential for their operations.  We train Yemeni security services.  We provide support to AMISOM in Somalia.  We equip Iraqi security forces. 

So these are all different missions that have a common thread of building capacity for partners, and the assistance would take place in that context.  The intelligence community has a separate budgeting process.

On Syria -- and your question overlaps with part of Margaret’s -- look, no, this is not -- we’re talking specifically about assistance to the opposition; we’re not talking about activities within Syria by the United States military.  That is not something that we’re contemplating. 

So I think the way to characterize the last part of your question is that we have decided that we need to continue to find ways to increase support to the opposition.  We have different ways to do that, both through our own actions, to the manner in which we collaborate with allies and partners in Europe and the Gulf, and we also want to consider whether an approach that involves the U.S. military could add to that capability.

So I think we’re looking across many different means that we have to provide this assistance.  And this is an additional option that we want to pursue with Congress and make a determination then about whether it’s the best way to increase that support.

But I think irrespective of that, clearly our trajectory is more support to the neighbors, more support to the opposition, more coordination with, for instance, the countries in the London 11, and then consideration of this additional alternative means of providing support to the opposition. 

Q    Yes, let me try this one more time, because I don’t think we’re getting a straight answer here.  Is it safe to say the White House has not decided whether to endorse the Senate language here?  Because that’s really the only thing on the table in Congress, and they’re quite clear that they have the Pentagon train and support and provide assistance to the rebels.  Have you not decided that yet?  Is that where we are? 

And if that’s the case, what do you say to critics who say, listen, you should have trained and armed the rebels two years ago when the entire national security establishment said, do so.  So what do you say to them that this whole notion of coordinating and dialogue is just delaying?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, first of all, we have been providing assistance to the opposition for some time now.  So we’re not at a standing start here when it comes to support for the armed opposition in Syria. 

With respect to the Levin provision, clearly we think that it puts forward a good concept, which is why we made a point today of indicating the fact that we want to pursue these discussions with Congress.  The fact of the matter is this is not something we can do alone as an administration; this is something that we have to do in partnership with Congress.  So I think that’s why we want to see this discussion move forward between the executive branch and the legislative branch. 

And we also want to make sure that wherever we land in terms of those discussions, that it fits appropriately into our broader strategy as it relates to how we’re working with the partners in the Arab World, how we’re working with our allies.  All these pieces need to fit together.

So this would be an additional piece, and we’re looking carefully at it.  We do think that language in the Levin provision is positive and puts forward a good concept, but we want to take the time necessary to ensure that we get this right and that we fold this into a broader strategy that supports our objectives inside of Syria. 

Q    On Syria, again -- what’s the White House’s sense of timing on this, with increasing evidence that the opposition is losing militarily after the fall of Aleppo?  What’s the timeframe for making a decision and actually beefing up military assistance if that’s indeed what the White House wants to do?  Is there a sense of urgency here? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are two questions here.  We are beefing up our assistance.  That is an ongoing process.  So resources are reaching the opposition, resources are reaching the armed opposition.  Coordination has improved with our partners in the Arab World, particularly in the Gulf. 

So there is that upward trajectory already.  That’s not in question at all.  And additional funding that can support that effort and support the neighbors is a focal point of how we look at building partnerships across the region, which is what the President said today. 

Then there’s the separate question of simply what additional authorities might be necessary for the U.S. military to participate in our efforts.  And that’s the question that we’ll be pursuing in the coming weeks.  But again, that doesn’t foreclose the fact that we are working this already, we are increasing our support already, we are coordinating better with partners already.  That’s going to continue to be the case no matter what. 

Q    I wanted to just turn to China and ask you, what is the message to China here?  I mean, we heard the President talk about the use of military action to defend the security of U.S. allies, which of course includes Japan and the Philippines.  But he also called out the U.S. Senate for not ratifying UNCLOS.  So what’s the message to China?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The message is that the United States is going to support basic international rules of the road that should apply to everyone.  And we’ve said many times our Asia rebalance strategy is not aimed at China.  It’s focused on strengthening U.S. engagement in the region, but also strengthening the rules of the road across the region -- whether it’s on trade through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, whether it’s on maritime security where we would like to see disputes resolved consistent with international law.

So the bottom line is that the United States would like to see China act consistent with those rules of the road.  And we believe that they have an opportunity to do so, for instance, through negotiation of a code of conduct with the ASEAN countries or through taking the different claims that are at stake in the South China Sea to international law and dispute resolution.  At the same time, though, we are going to be very clear that we object to bigger nations bullying smaller ones; that the United States is going to support those nations that abide by rules of the road and work to isolate those nations that don’t. 

So for China we would like to see them as a part of an Asia Pacific community that is adhering to high standards of trade, that is resolving disputes peacefully, consistent with international law, that is respecting basic rules and norms.  But if China acts outside of those norms, as they’ve done, for instance, on cyber issues, we’re going to call them out.

With respect to the Law of the Sea, the President made very clear that part of how the United States shows our own commitment to those rules and norms is by upholding them ourselves.  And we act consistent with the Convention on the Law of the Sea, but it would send an important message for the Senate to ratify it, because that is the means by which we want to see disputes resolved. 

So, again, we lead on behalf of an international order that can uphold peace and security both by what we do in regions like the Asia Pacific and on issues like trade and cyber and maritime, but we also have to lead on behalf of that international order through our own example.  And that’s why we believe the Senate has long passed the time when they should have ratified the Law of the Sea.

Q    Just one subject that the President didn’t bring up and I was hoping you might be able to lend some clarity to would be the status of -- about a year ago, the President called for a review and even repeal of the AUMF.  I’m wondering whether the administration is planning to send Congress specific language in terms of fixing it, any timetable in terms of when they want to work with Congress in terms of getting that repealed.  And if you could provide a little bit of maybe a window into the administration’s thinking in terms of how to approach this subject.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, I’d say a couple of things.  The point the President made at NDU is that we shouldn’t just have open-ended authorities for the use of military force that continue indefinitely; that we shouldn’t be in a permanent war here; that the AUMF in 2001 was written for a specific purpose and time.  And I think in terms of the timeframe, we look at the end of 2014 as a very important milestone as our combat mission comes to a close in Afghanistan and as our mission shifts there.  And so we look at a whole host of issues as intersecting with the end of 2014. 

The AUMF, which was written in the context of us going to Afghanistan -- we’ll want to talk to Congress about the AUMF as we approach the end of the year.  That’s a good time to have that discussion because we will be pivoting from where our combat mission is today and the type of role we’ll be playing in Afghanistan after 2014.  

GTMO is another issue that is relevant here.  GTMO was opened, after all, when we went into Afghanistan.  And the initial detainee population was heavily weighted with people who were taken off the battlefield in Afghanistan.  So we believe, again, as we bring our combat mission to an end in Afghanistan, that this is an appropriate year to make a redoubled effort to close GTMO.  So this is the context for how we’re approaching the AUMF as well.  I think this is a discussion we’ll have as we get closer to the end of the year.

I think in terms of what we’re looking for, we’re not looking for simply layering on more and more and more authorities within the existing AUMF.  The point here is to not just keep expanding some universal AUMF that applies to every challenge.  As the President said at NDU, what we want to do is narrow and refine authorities so that they’re focused on specific groups that do pose a direct threat to the United States.  And so that’s the approach that we would take into this discussion, which is how do we make sure that we have authorities that are focused on those groups who pose a direct threat to the United States and not simply stacking on additional authorities in the existing AUMFs. 

So this will be a part of how we wind down the war in Afghanistan and pivot to a more sustainable and focused counterterrorism effort across the region. 

Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call.  We can stay in touch on these issues.  And the only thing I’d say in closing is we said to you, I think, in the run-up to this that we weren’t solely focused on one speech here.  The President will obviously be going to Europe next year -- or next week.  In Poland, he’ll be able to talk about our commitment to European security, our commitment to NATO and our NATO allies.  He’ll have a G7.  He’ll speak at Normandy.  Other members of the administration will talk about different elements of our foreign policy priorities.  The President laid out I think a pretty clear roadmap of the types of issues he wants to get done in the next two and a half years. 

And I think you’ll hear different administration figures speak to different pieces of that agenda in the coming weeks as well.  So we’ll look forward to staying in touch.

MS. HAYDEN:  Thanks, everyone, for joining us.  Again, a reminder this call is on background to senior administration official.  And, as he noted, feel free to be in touch with us with other questions you have.  But everyone have a great day.  Thanks.

END
11:55 A.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Designates the First 12 Manufacturing Communities through the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership to Spur Investment and Create Jobs

America’s middle class was built on the strength of our manufacturing sector.  Today, five years after we pulled our economy back from the brink of collapse, manufacturers have created 647,000 jobs.  But there’s more work to do to create more of these good jobs making things the rest of the world buys, and President Obama has focused on boosting U.S. manufacturing by rewarding companies that create jobs here, rescuing the U.S. auto industry and expanding exports. 

To build on this momentum in manufacturing, the Obama Administration launched the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) last September– an initiative to spur communities to develop integrated, long-term economic development strategies that strengthen their competitive edge in attracting global manufacturers and their supply chains to our local communities—increasing investment and creating jobs. IMCP specifically brings together the resources of multiple federal departments and agencies to support strong local economic development plans.

Today, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker is announcing the first 12 communities that will be designated Manufacturing Communities as part of the second phase of the IMCP.  Selected out of more than 70 communities that applied, these 12 communities developed strong economic development plans and have deep partnerships in place across the public and private sectors to carry out their plans.

The first 12 Manufacturing Communities designated by the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership are:

  • Southwest Alabama led by the University of South Alabama
  • Southern California led by the University of Southern California Center for Economic Development
  • Northwest Georgia led by the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission
  • The Chicago metro region led by the Cook County Bureau of Economic Development
  • South Kansas led by Wichita State University
  • Greater Portland region in Maine led by the Greater Portland Council of Governments
  • Southeastern Michigan led by the Wayne County Economic Development Growth Engine
  • The New York Finger Lakes region led by the City of Rochester
  • Southwestern Ohio Aerospace Region led by the City of Cincinnati
  • The Tennessee Valley led by the University of Tennessee
  • The Washington Puget Sound region led by the Puget Sound Regional Council
  • The Milwaukee 7 Region led by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee

Eleven federal agencies with $1.3 billion in economic development funds will be able to use the designees' plans to make targeted investments in demonstrably strong public-private partnerships to strengthen regional manufacturing. In addition, each designated community will also receive a federal liaison and branding and promotion as a designated Manufacturing Community to help attract additional private investment and partnerships.

Later this year, the Administration will launch a second Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership competition to designate the next round of communities. In the meantime, the Administration and federal agencies will work with all the applicant communities to help them strengthen their plans and to identify opportunities for communities to work with the federal government on their local economic development priorities.

And later this year, the White House will convene the more than seventy communities that applied for the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership to share best practices in economic development planning and attracting new jobs and investment in manufacturing.

IMCP Manufacturing Communities:

Southwest Alabama
Home to 14 major shipbuilders and many more small manufacturers making everything from U.S. Navy vessels to commercial tug boats, Mobile, Alabama and the surrounding Southwest Alabama area, including Baldwin, Choctaw, Clarke, Conecuh, Escambia, Mobile, Monroe, and Washington counties, led by the University of South Alabama, are strengthening and expanding their workforce partnerships to compete for shipbuilding and aerospace manufacturing.

Southern California
At the vanguard of innovation in aerospace manufacturing and home to innovative companies like SpaceX, AeroVironment, and Sapphire Energy, the Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Ventura counties, led by the University of Southern California Center for Economic Development, are investing in infrastructure to reduce shipping costs, higher today due to congestion by 50-250%, and developing a regional workforce training consortium in manufacturing.

Northwest Georgia
Called the “Carpet Capital of the World” for producing over 70% of the nation’s carpet, the Dalton County and Northwest Georgia region led by the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission is transferring innovations from its universities into its local supply chain and out into the skills of its workforce to spur a more sustainable floor covering industry.

The Chicago Metro Region
Home to 3,700 metals and machining companies, the Chicago metro region including Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties, led by the Cook County Bureau of Economic Development, has formed an integrated strategy to strengthen its lead in metals and machining leveraging local strengths like its strong transportation access – including six Class 1 railroads, seven interstates, and the nation’s second busiest cargo airport.

South Kansas
The 27-county region around Wichita, Kansas is the most manufacturing-specialized metro area in the country with 32% of employment in manufacturing, half of which is in the aerospace supply chain. Led by Wichita State University, South Kansas is leveraging shared research and innovation facilities to compete on the frontier of advanced materials used in planes, cutting-edge machinery, and refineries.

Greater Portland Region in Maine
With arguably more breweries per capita than anywhere else in the country and over 60 food processers and hundreds of home microbusinesses, Cumberland County, home to Portland, Maine, is a food processing powerhouse. Led by the Greater Portland Council of Governments, the community is upgrading its port and improving the transportation and distribution efficiency of its supply chains to grow its lead in sustainable food production.

Southeastern Michigan
Thirteen counties in Southeastern Michigan, including the cities of Detroit, Flint, Lansing, Ann Arbor, and Pontiac, produce 22% of all vehicles made in America and at $14 billion a year, account for over 70% of total U.S. auto research investment. Led by the Wayne County Economic Development Growth Engine, Southeastern Michigan is building on its strengths in connected-vehicle technologies, including technologies that allow cars to communicate with each other and with the road to carry their passengers more safely and efficiently to their destinations.

The New York Finger Lakes Region
With over 120 photonics manufacturers and more than 500 photonics patents last year alone, the Greater Rochester region, led by the City of Rochester, is bringing new life to manufacturing business parks and expanding its workforce development efforts to maintain its historic lead in precision machining and optics, photonics, and imaging.

Southwestern Ohio Aerospace Region
The birthplace of modern aviation, with over 116,000 manufacturing workers across all stages of the aerospace supply chain, the 27 counties along the I-75 Corridor, led by the City of Cincinnati, are expanding industry-led curriculum and training and launching efforts to certify more small manufacturers for aerospace manufacturing.

The Tennessee Valley
In the past two years alone, more than 150 auto and auto parts manufacturers have announced expansions or new facilities in the Tennessee Valley automotive region, which spans 69 counties in Tennessee and portions of southern Kentucky, north Alabama, and north Georgia. Led by the University of Tennessee, the region is better connecting its nationally renowned research institutions with manufacturers to move up the value chain in automotive manufacturing.

The Washington Puget Sound Region
The counties along the I-90 and I-5 Aerospace Corridors in Washington State host the largest aerospace cluster in the world, with over 132,000 aerospace-related employees and more than 1,350 aerospace firms. Led by the Puget Sound Regional Council, the region is working with local employers to identify training needs and to develop new manufacturing capabilities to strength its aerospace supply chains.

The Milwaukee 7 Region
Known as the “Machine Shop of the World”, the seven-county Milwaukee region in Southeast Wisconsin employs than 15% of its workforce in manufacturing. Led by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee, the region is building on its historic strengths in precision machining to attract new jobs and investment in energy and power, water technologies, and food and beverage manufacturing.

Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership to Spur Investment and Create Jobs

  • Appalachian Regional Commission
  • Delta Regional Authority
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • National Science Foundation
  • Small Business Administration
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • U.S. Department of Commerce
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
  • U.S. Department of Labor
  • U.S. Department of Transportation

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by the President on the Passing of Maya Angelou

When her friend Nelson Mandela passed away last year, Maya Angelou wrote that “No sun outlasts its sunset, but will rise again, and bring the dawn.” 

Today, Michelle and I join millions around the world in remembering one of the brightest lights of our time – a brilliant writer, a fierce friend, and a truly phenomenal woman.  Over the course of her remarkable life, Maya was many things – an author, poet, civil rights activist, playwright, actress, director, composer, singer and dancer.  But above all, she was a storyteller – and her greatest stories were true.  A childhood of suffering and abuse actually drove her to stop speaking – but the voice she found helped generations of Americans find their rainbow amidst the clouds, and inspired the rest of us to be our best selves.  In fact, she inspired my own mother to name my sister Maya. 

Like so many others, Michelle and I will always cherish the time we were privileged to spend with Maya.  With a kind word and a strong embrace, she had the ability to remind us that we are all God’s children; that we all have something to offer.  And while Maya’s day may be done, we take comfort in knowing that her song will continue, “flung up to heaven” – and we celebrate the dawn that Maya Angelou helped bring.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony

U.S. Military Academy-West Point
West Point, New York

10:22 A.M. EDT
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  And thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction.  To General Trainor, General Clarke, the faculty and staff at West Point -- you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution and outstanding mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army.  I’d like to acknowledge the Army’s leadership -- General McHugh -- Secretary McHugh, General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed, who is here, and a proud graduate of West Point himself. 
 
To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking your place on the Long Gray Line.  Among you is the first all-female command team -- Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff.  In Calla Glavin, you have a Rhodes Scholar.  And Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy extends beyond the three-point line.  To the entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at West Point:  As Commander-in-Chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses.  (Laughter and applause.)  Let me just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in school.  (Laughter.) 
 
I know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families.  Joe DeMoss, whose son James is graduating, spoke for a whole lot of parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you’ve made.  “Deep inside,” he wrote, “we want to explode with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country.”  Like several graduates, James is a combat veteran.  And I would ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute -- not only to the veterans among us, but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as their families.  (Applause.)
 
This is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who have sacrificed so much for our freedom, a few days after Memorial Day.  You are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.  (Applause.)  When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq.  We were preparing to surge in Afghanistan.  Our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al Qaeda’s core leadership -- those who had carried out the 9/11 attacks.  And our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
 
Four and a half years later, as you graduate, the landscape has changed.  We have removed our troops from Iraq.  We are winding down our war in Afghanistan.  Al Qaeda’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more.  (Applause.)  And through it all, we’ve refocused our investments in what has always been a key source of American strength:  a growing economy that can provide opportunity for everybody who’s willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home.
 
In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world.  Those who argue otherwise -- who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away -- are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.  Think about it.  Our military has no peer.  The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War.
Meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth; our businesses the most innovative.  Each year, we grow more energy independent.  From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations.  America continues to attract striving immigrants.  The values of our founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares around the globe.  And when a typhoon hits the Philippines, or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine, it is America that the world looks to for help.  (Applause.)  So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.  That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.
 
But the world is changing with accelerating speed.  This presents opportunity, but also new dangers.  We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm.  Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors.  From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.  And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.
 
It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world.  The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead -- not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.
 
Now, this question isn’t new.  At least since George Washington served as Commander-in-Chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing.  Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve.  And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.
 
A different view from interventionists from the left and right says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.
 
And each side can point to history to support its claims. But I believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment.  It is absolutely true that in the 21st century American isolationism is not an option.  We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders.  If nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to American cities.  As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases.  Regional aggression that goes unchecked -- whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world -- will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military.  We can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries.
 
And beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake, an abiding self-interest, in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped and where individuals are not slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief.  I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative, it also helps to keep us safe.
 
But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution.  Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences -- without building international support and legitimacy for our action; without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices required.  Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans.  As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947:  “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.”
 
Like Eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the wages of war, and that includes those of you here at West Point.  Four of the servicemembers who stood in the audience when I announced the surge of our forces in Afghanistan gave their lives in that effort.  A lot more were wounded.  I believe America’s security demanded those deployments.  But I am haunted by those deaths.  I am haunted by those wounds.  And I would betray my duty to you and to the country we love if I ever sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.  
 
Here’s my bottom line:  America must always lead on the world stage.  If we don’t, no one else will.  The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership.  But U.S. military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.  And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader -- and especially your Commander-in-Chief -- to be clear about how that awesome power should be used.
 
So let me spend the rest of my time describing my vision for how the United States of America and our military should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that leadership.  
 
First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency:  The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it -- when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger.  In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions are proportional and effective and just.  International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life.  (Applause.)  
 
On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake -- when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us -- then the threshold for military action must be higher.  In such circumstances, we should not go it alone.  Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action.  We have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to international law; and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action.  In such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, less likely to lead to costly mistakes.
 
This leads to my second point:  For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism.  But a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable.  I believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy -- drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan -- to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.
 
And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralized al Qaeda leadership.  Instead, it comes from decentralized al Qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in countries where they operate.  And this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of U.S. personnel overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi.  It heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping mall in Nairobi. 
 
So we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat -- one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin, or stir up local resentments.  We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us.  And empowering partners is a large part of what we have done and what we are currently doing in Afghanistan. 
 
Together with our allies, America struck huge blows against al Qaeda core and pushed back against an insurgency that threatened to overrun the country.  But sustaining this progress depends on the ability of Afghans to do the job.  And that’s why we trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan soldiers and police.  Earlier this spring, those forces, those Afghan forces, secured an election in which Afghans voted for the first democratic transfer of power in their history.  And at the end of this year, a new Afghan President will be in office and America’s combat mission will be over.  (Applause.)
 
Now, that was an enormous achievement made because of America’s armed forces.  But as we move to a train-and-advise mission in Afghanistan, our reduced presence allows us to more effectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa.  So, earlier this year, I asked my national security team to develop a plan for a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel.  Today, as part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity, and facilitate partner countries on the front lines.  And these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in Yemen who have gone on the offensive against al Qaeda; supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia; working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya; and facilitating French operations in Mali.
 
A critical focus of this effort will be the ongoing crisis in Syria.  As frustrating as it is, there are no easy answers, no military solution that can eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon.  As President, I made a decision that we should not put American troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian war, and I believe that is the right decision.  But that does not mean we shouldn’t help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who bombs and starves his own people.  And in helping those who fight for the right of all Syrians to choose their own future, we are also pushing back against the growing number of extremists who find safe haven in the chaos.  
 
So with the additional resources I’m announcing today, we will step up our efforts to support Syria’s neighbors -- Jordan and Lebanon; Turkey and Iraq -- as they contend with refugees and confront terrorists working across Syria’s borders.  I will work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators.  And we will continue to coordinate with our friends and allies in Europe and the Arab World to push for a political resolution of this crisis, and to make sure that those countries and not just the United States are contributing their fair share to support the Syrian people.
 
Let me make one final point about our efforts against terrorism.  The partnerships I’ve described do not eliminate the need to take direct action when necessary to protect ourselves. When we have actionable intelligence, that’s what we do -- through capture operations like the one that brought a terrorist involved in the plot to bomb our embassies in 1998 to face justice; or drone strikes like those we’ve carried out in Yemen and Somalia.  There are times when those actions are necessary, and we cannot hesitate to protect our people. 
 
But as I said last year, in taking direct action we must uphold standards that reflect our values.  That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing, imminent threat, and only where there is no certainty -- there is near certainty of no civilian casualties.  For our actions should meet a simple test:  We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.
 
I also believe we must be more transparent about both the basis of our counterterrorism actions and the manner in which they are carried out.  We have to be able to explain them publicly, whether it is drone strikes or training partners.  I will increasingly turn to our military to take the lead and provide information to the public about our efforts.  Our intelligence community has done outstanding work, and we have to continue to protect sources and methods.  But when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist propaganda and international suspicion, we erode legitimacy with our partners and our people, and we reduce accountability in our own government.
 
And this issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of American leadership, and that is our effort to strengthen and enforce international order. 
 
After World War II, America had the wisdom to shape institutions to keep the peace and support human progress -- from NATO and the United Nations, to the World Bank and IMF.  These institutions are not perfect, but they have been a force multiplier.  They reduce the need for unilateral American action and increase restraint among other nations. 
 
Now, just as the world has changed, this architecture must change as well.  At the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy spoke about the need for a peace based upon, “a gradual evolution in human institutions.”  And evolving these international institutions to meet the demands of today must be a critical part of American leadership. 
 
Now, there are a lot of folks, a lot of skeptics, who often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action.  For them, working through international institutions like the U.N. or respecting international law is a sign of weakness.  I think they’re wrong.  Let me offer just two examples why.
 
In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe.   But this isn’t the Cold War.  Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away.  Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy; OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.  And this mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.
 
This weekend, Ukrainians voted by the millions.  Yesterday, I spoke to their next President.  We don’t know how the situation will play out and there will remain grave challenges ahead, but standing with our allies on behalf of international order working with international institutions, has given a chance for the Ukrainian people to choose their future without us firing a shot. 
 
Similarly, despite frequent warnings from the United States and Israel and others, the Iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years.  But at the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian government.  And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully. 
 
The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement -- one that is more effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force.  And throughout these negotiations, it has been our willingness to work through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side.
 
The point is this is American leadership.  This is American strength.  In each case, we built coalitions to respond to a specific challenge.  Now we need to do more to strengthen the institutions that can anticipate and prevent problems from spreading.  For example, NATO is the strongest alliance the world has ever known.  But we’re now working with NATO allies to meet new missions, both within Europe where our Eastern allies must be reassured, but also beyond Europe’s borders where our NATO allies must pull their weight to counterterrorism and respond to failed states and train a network of partners.
 
Likewise, the U.N. provides a platform to keep the peace in states torn apart by conflict.  Now we need to make sure that those nations who provide peacekeepers have the training and equipment to actually keep the peace, so that we can prevent the type of killing we’ve seen in Congo and Sudan.  We are going to deepen our investment in countries that support these peacekeeping missions, because having other nations maintain order in their own neighborhoods lessens the need for us to put our own troops in harm’s way.  It’s a smart investment.  It’s the right way to lead.  (Applause.) 
 
Keep in mind, not all international norms relate directly to armed conflict.  We have a serious problem with cyber-attacks, which is why we’re working to shape and enforce rules of the road to secure our networks and our citizens.  In the Asia Pacific, we’re supporting Southeast Asian nations as they negotiate a code of conduct with China on maritime disputes in the South China Sea.  And we’re working to resolve these disputes through international law.  That spirit of cooperation needs to energize the global effort to combat climate change -- a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform, as we are called on to respond to refugee flows and natural disasters and conflicts over water and food, which is why next year I intend to make sure America is out front in putting together a global framework to preserve our planet. 
 
You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example.  We can’t exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody else.  We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it’s taking place.  We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by our United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security.  That’s not leadership; that’s retreat.  That’s not strength; that’s weakness.  It would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy.
 
I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.  But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.  (Applause.)  And that’s why I will continue to push to close Gitmo -- because American values and legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders.  (Applause.)  That’s why we’re putting in place new restrictions on how America collects and uses intelligence -- because we will have fewer partners and be less effective if a perception takes hold that we’re conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens.  (Applause.)  America does not simply stand for stability or the absence of conflict, no matter what the cost.  We stand for the more lasting peace that can only come through opportunity and freedom for people everywhere. 
 
Which brings me to the fourth and final element of American leadership:  Our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity.  America’s support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism -- it is a matter of national security.  Democracies are our closest friends and are far less likely to go to war.  Economies based on free and open markets perform better and become markets for our goods.  Respect for human rights is an antidote to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and terror.
 
A new century has brought no end to tyranny.  In capitals around the globe -- including, unfortunately, some of America’s partners -- there has been a crackdown on civil society.  The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies, and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares.  And watching these trends, or the violent upheavals in parts of the Arab World, it’s easy to be cynical.
 
But remember that because of America’s efforts, because of American diplomacy and foreign assistance as well as the sacrifices of our military, more people live under elected governments today than at any time in human history.  Technology is empowering civil society in ways that no iron fist can control.  New breakthroughs are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.  And even the upheaval of the Arab World reflects the rejection of an authoritarian order that was anything but stable, and now offers the long-term prospect of more responsive and effective governance. 
 
In countries like Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests -- from peace treaties with Israel, to shared efforts against violent extremism.  So we have not cut off cooperation with the new government, but we can and will persistently press for reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded.
 
And meanwhile, look at a country like Burma, which only a few years ago was an intractable dictatorship and hostile to the United States -- 40 million people.  Thanks to the enormous courage of the people in that country, and because we took the diplomatic initiative, American leadership, we have seen political reforms opening a once closed society; a movement by Burmese leadership away from partnership with North Korea in favor of engagement with America and our allies.  We’re now supporting reform and badly needed national reconciliation through assistance and investment, through coaxing and, at times, public criticism.  And progress there could be reversed, but if Burma succeeds we will have gained a new partner without having fired a shot.  American leadership.
 
In each of these cases, we should not expect change to happen overnight.  That’s why we form alliances not just with governments, but also with ordinary people.  For unlike other nations, America is not afraid of individual empowerment, we are strengthened by it.  We’re strengthened by civil society.  We’re strengthened by a free press.  We’re strengthened by striving entrepreneurs and small businesses.  We’re strengthened by educational exchange and opportunity for all people, and women and girls.  That’s who we are.  That’s what we represent.  (Applause.)  
 
I saw that through a trip to Africa last year, where American assistance has made possible the prospect of an AIDS-free generation, while helping Africans care themselves for their sick.  We’re helping farmers get their products to market, to feed populations once endangered by famine.  We aim to double access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa so people are connected to the promise of the global economy.  And all this creates new partners and shrinks the space for terrorism and conflict. 
 
Now, tragically, no American security operation can eradicate the threat posed by an extremist group like Boko Haram, the group that kidnapped those girls.  And that’s why we have to focus not just on rescuing those girls right away, but also on supporting Nigerian efforts to educate its youth.  This should be one of the hard-earned lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, where our military became the strongest advocate for diplomacy and development.  They understood that foreign assistance is not an afterthought, something nice to do apart from our national defense, apart from our national security.  It is part of what makes us strong.
 
Ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty.  We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency.  But American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be -- a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really matters; where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in a direction of justice.  And we cannot do that without you.
 
Class of 2014, you have taken this time to prepare on the quiet banks of the Hudson.  You leave this place to carry forward a legacy that no other military in human history can claim.  You do so as part of a team that extends beyond your units or even our Armed Forces, for in the course of your service you will work as a team with diplomats and development experts.  You’ll get to know allies and train partners.  And you will embody what it means for America to lead the world.
 
Next week, I will go to Normandy to honor the men who stormed the beaches there.  And while it’s hard for many Americans to comprehend the courage and sense of duty that guided those who boarded small ships, it’s familiar to you.  At West Point, you define what it means to be a patriot.
 
Three years ago, Gavin White graduated from this academy. He then served in Afghanistan.  Like the soldiers who came before him, Gavin was in a foreign land, helping people he’d never met, putting himself in harm’s way for the sake of his community and his family, of the folks back home.  Gavin lost one of his legs in an attack.  I met him last year at Walter Reed.  He was wounded, but just as determined as the day that he arrived here at West Point -- and he developed a simple goal.  Today, his sister Morgan will graduate.  And true to his promise, Gavin will be there to stand and exchange salutes with her.  (Applause.) 
 
We have been through a long season of war.  We have faced trials that were not foreseen, and we’ve seen divisions about how to move forward.  But there is something in Gavin’s character, there is something in the American character that will always triumph.  Leaving here, you carry with you the respect of your fellow citizens.  You will represent a nation with history and hope on our side.  Your charge, now, is not only to protect our country, but to do what is right and just.   As your Commander-in-Chief, I know you will.
 
May God bless you.  May God bless our men and women in uniform.  And may God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)
 
END
11:08 A.M. EDT
 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

FACT SHEET: Harnessing the Power of Data for a Clean, Secure, and Reliable Energy Future

“We are blessed when it comes to energy, but we’re much more blessed when it comes to the innovation and the dynamism and the creativity of our economy.”
– President Barack Obama, May 9, 2014

President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy recognizes that we need to deploy American assets, innovation, and technology in order to safely and responsibly develop more energy here at home and be a leader in the global energy economy. This means tapping into every ounce of America’s creativity and ingenuity to catalyze innovations that provide consumers with choices to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the environment.

This approach calls for all hands on deck—including private-sector entrepreneurs, technologists, and innovators who are critical to building the tools, services, and infrastructure needed to support a clean energy economy. Both the public and private sectors have an important role to play in continuing our progress to develop and deploy renewable energy sources, strengthen the electric grid, drive more advanced and fuel-efficient vehicles, and cut energy waste in homes and businesses. 

Since its earliest days, the Obama Administration has recognized that freely available data from the U.S. Government is an important national asset, serving as fuel for entrepreneurship, innovation, scientific discovery, and economic growth. That is why the Federal Government has taken unprecedented steps to make open data more available to citizens, companies, and innovators—including by launching both an Energy Data Initiative and a Climate Data Initiative

The Administration has also long recognized the value of providing homes and businesses with secure access to their own energy usage data to spur innovation and enable informed choices. In 2012, the Administration launched a Green Button Initiative in partnership with the electric utility industry to provide families and business with easy and secure access to their own energy usage information. Today, over 100 million Americans have access to their own “Green Button” data — and the opportunity to use new private sector tools and services to manage or upgrade their own household or building energy performance.

To continue this momentum, today the White House, the Department of Energy, and the General Services Administration are hosting an “Energy Datapalooza” to announce new steps forward in support of clean energy innovation, and to highlight private-sector innovators who are harnessing the power of data to advance the clean energy economy.

Key Administration steps include:

  • Anonymized building performance data for energy retrofits, financing, and policy design: The Department of Energy announced today that its Buildings Performance Database has exceeded a milestone of 750,000 building records, making it the world’s largest public database of real buildings’ energy performance information. The Buildings Performance Database lets users mine anonymous statistical data from real buildings that match a specific building characteristic profile, enabling real estate professionals, contractors, policymakers and lenders to incorporate real-world performance data into their decision making.
  • Reducing energy costs in Federal buildings with Green Button: The President’s Climate Action Plan and a subsequent Presidential Memorandum issued in December 2013 call for leveraging the Green Button standard (an industry-developed consensus-driven method for accessing and transmitting energy-consumption information) in Federal buildings to save energy and money.  Responding to the President’s vision, the General Services Administration (GSA), with the support of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Energy, and working with private-sector partners Schneider Electric, Pepco Holdings and FirstFuel Software, announced today the conclusion of a successful pilot using the Green Button standard, demonstrating the opportunity for building managers to use innovative tools to manage energy usage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As directed by the President, the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) will use the results of this pilot to develop government-wide guidance, and the EPA is working to integrate the Green Button standard into its EnergyStar benchmarking tool.  
  • Making solar energy more affordable with software innovation: To further reduce the “soft costs” of solar deployment, the Energy Department recently launched the SunShot Catalyst prize challenge. Catalyst will solicit “problem statements” from industry that highlight barriers and costs associated with solar deployment. Other teams will then propose solutions to these problems. The Department of Energy will help teams with the best proposal to build a prototype in 90 days. The most promising of these prototypes will be awarded a prize of up to $100,000 to launch the initial version of their solution or product.
  • Open geothermal data for scientists and industry: In response to industry demand, the Energy Department supported in the Recovery Act the creation of a National Geothermal Data System. Today, the Department of Energy is launching this resource that contains enough raw geoscience data to pinpoint elusive sweet spots of geothermal energy deep in the earth, enabling researchers and commercial developers to find the most promising areas for geothermal energy. Access to this data will reduce costs and risks of geothermal electricity production and, in turn, accelerate its deployment.
  • Open data on hydropower potential and other important attributes of rivers and streams across the United States: The Department of Energy recently released a study which identified 65-85 gigawatts of untapped hydropower potential in the United States. Accompanying the release of this report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory has released detailed data resulting from this study. This information can be used by stakeholders to help evaluate appropriate sites for hydropower development and to conduct analyses requiring information about the environmental or social characteristics of U.S. river systems.
  • American Energy Data Challenge spurs innovative uses of energy data: Today, Secretary Moniz will announce the winners of the Department of Energy’s “Apps for Energy” contest, the second part of its year-long American Energy Data Challenge to harness energy data into a more powerful force for a cleaner and more efficient economy. The Department will also announce the details of the third part of the challenge: “Open Data by Design.” Beginning June 4, this contest will invite competitors to use information design and graphic design to inspire, inform, and amplify the value of our public data resources.
  • New EPA tool helps state and local planners analyze impacts of energy policies: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed the AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT), a free software tool designed to help state and local air quality planners evaluate county-level emissions displaced at electric power plants by efficiency and renewable energy policies and programs. Analysts are able to improve their understanding of the emission benefits of statewide or multi-state energy efficiency and renewables policies and programs. Regulatory planners are able to assess emission benefits incorporated into Clean Air Act plan to meet clean air goals. Energy officials are able to estimate and promote the air benefits of their energy efficiency or renewable energy policies.

Private-sector and other commitments include:

  • Continued momentum on the Green Button Initiative:  In December 2013, the Administration announced that 48 utilities and electricity suppliers serving more than 59 million homes and businesses have committed to enable their customers with “Green Button” access to help them save energy and shrink their bills. Of these, over 42 million household and business customers (reaching well over 100 million Americans) already have access to their Green Button energy data. Additional developments include:
    • Today, new utilities and state-wide energy efficiency programs are committing to make energy data available to their customers via the Green Button standard, including: Seattle City Light, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Green Mountain Power,  Wake Electric, Hawaiian Electric Company, Maui Electric Company, Hawai'i Electric Light Company, and Hawaii Energy.
    • To ensure interoperability of the broad range of Green Button deployments across the nation, a public-private partnership of UCAIug, Underwriters Laboratory, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy announced today they have initiated Green Button Certification efforts.
    • Technology company Pivotal Labs has collaborated with NIST and EnergyOS to provide OpenESPI, an open source implementation of the Green Button standard.
    • In support of the President's goal to cut energy waste in buildings, the District of Columbia’s Department of General Services and New City Energy have implemented a solution to use the Green Button standard to benchmark the energy usage of over 400 municipal buildings in the District.
    • A new coalition of technology companies, Mission:Data, announced the formation of an effort to advance consumers’ secure and easy access to their own energy data, including via Green Button.
  • New industry-led effort to provide consumers and first-responders with information about power outages:  Today, a number of electric utilities and technology companies agreed to the development and use of a voluntary open standard for the publishing of power outage and restoration information.  The commitment of utilities to publish their already public outage information as a structured data in an easy-to-use and common format, in a consistent location, will make it easier for a wide set of interested parties—including first responders, public health officials, utility operations and mutual assistance efforts, and the public at large—to make use of and act upon this important information, especially during times of natural disaster or crisis.
    • Utilities announcing their intent to develop and use this standard and publish their outage and restoration information include: Duke Energy, BGE, ComEd, PECO, SDG&E, Southern California Edison, and National Grid.
    • Utility vendor iFactor Consulting announced its intent to support the standard in its software.
    • Google announces its intent to use the open outage data in its Crisis Maps and other Crisis response products.
  • Cities publishing open building energy performance data in a standard format to aid benchmarking and promote efficiency: Today, the cities of Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington D.C. are announcing that they will use the Department of Energy’s open source Standard Energy Efficiency Data (SEED) platform to publish the data collected through their benchmarking disclosure programs. SEED is a free, user-friendly, web-enabled software application that helps organizations easily aggregate, clean, track, and share data on the energy performance of large groups of buildings.

###