MikeLigalig.com

Glucocerebrosidase Activators for the Treatment of Gaucher Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and Other Proteinopathies

Gaucher disease is a rare lysosomal storage disease that is characterized by a loss of function of the glucocerebrosidase (GCase) enzyme, which results in a decreased ability to degrade its lipid substrate, glucocerebroside.  The intracellular build up of this lipid causes a broad range of clinical manifestations, ranging from enlarged spleen/liver and anemia to neurodegeneration.  In Gaucher disease, the loss of GCase function has been attributed to low levels of the protein in the lysosomal compartment, resulting from improper GCase folding and transport. Also, mutations in the GCase gene have been linked to some forms of Parkinson's disease, and may also be involved in other proteinopathies.

This technology describes a collection of salicylic acid-derived small molecules that act as chaperones to activate proper GCase folding and subsequent transport from the endoplasmic reticulum into the lysosome. Unlike many other small molecule chaperones, these salicylic acid derivatives do not inhibit the activity of the GCase enzyme. These small molecules have been tested for the ability to activate GCase in vitro and show chaperone activity in a patient-derived fibroblast translocation assay.

Source: Glucocerebrosidase Activators for the Treatment of Gaucher Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and Other Proteinopathies

Methods of Treating and Preventing Renal Cancer using Dimethane Sulfonate Compounds

This invention describes a series of dimethane sulfonate compounds based on NSC 281612 and compositions comprising a pharmaceutically-acceptable carrier and a compound, or a salt, that are suitable for the treatment of renal cancer.  The anti-tumor activity of NSC 281612 has been established in vivo against human renal tumor xenografts in mice.  Suitable dosing and administration schedules for treatment of renal tumors have also been determined in this study.

Currently only a few small molecule inhibitors are effective in patients with renal cell carcinoma.  Approximately 30,000 patients per year are diagnosed with this disease but many of them are untreatable because of intrinsic drug resistance, and efficient drug transport and detoxification mechanisms.

Source: Methods of Treating and Preventing Renal Cancer using Dimethane Sulfonate Compounds

Novel Dmt-Tic Analogues Specific for Delta- and Mu-Opioid Receptors

A wide variety of highly selective Dmt-Tic analogues with potential therapeutic applications.  These analogues include specific agonists and antagonists of the delta- and mu-opioid receptors and combinations thereof.

Opioid receptor modulators, used historically for pain control, have more recently been shown to possess broader therapeutic potential in areas such as opiate and alcohol abuse, neurological disease or injury, neuropeptide or neurotransmitter imbalance, and immune system dysfunction.  Furthermore, their interaction with key reward pathways presents interesting avenues for exploration in the treatment of food as an addictive substance.  Also, evidence of modulatory interactions between delta- and mu-opioid receptors has spurred interest in new opioid ligands possessing mixed and dual specificity for these receptors.  These bifunctional compounds are particularly promising for treatment of addiction and pain with the elimination of drug tolerance.

Some disclosed analogues are di- and tri-peptidic derivatives of the Dmt-Tic pharmacophore. In addition to opioid receptor specificity, two of these derivatives have been shown to inhibit the activity of human multidrug resistance glycoprotein 1 (hMDR1) and may represent a novel chemosensitizing agent for treating cancer and reducing tolerance to morphine.  Also disclosed are compounds produced through derivatization of Dmt-Tic reference compounds with lysine, resulting in an unexpected and broad range of delta- and/or mu-opioid receptor modulation.  The inventors have also prepared symmetric and asymmetric Dmt-Tic di-peptides that are potent dual delta- and mu-opioid receptor antagonists and that can pass through the gastrointestinal and blood-brain barriers.  Finally, the inventors have prepared various fluorescent Dmt-Tic analogs that are useful for study of delta- and mu-opioid receptor structure and function.

Source: Novel Dmt-Tic Analogues Specific for Delta- and Mu-Opioid Receptors

Altered miRNA Expression as Diagnostics and Therapeutics for Adrenocortical Carcinomas

This technology describes that altered human miRNA expression such as miRNA-483 and miRNA 100 can accurately predict if a patient's adrenal cortex tumor is benign or malignant.  Adrenocortical carcinomas (ACC) are rare but aggressive cancers and typically have a poor prognosis.  Currently, there are limited options for molecular diagnosis to distinguish malignant tumors from benign tumors of this type.  As a result there are few treatment strategies for ACC.

Preliminary results suggest that altering the expression of this miRNA in ACC cells can effect cancer cell growth.  Therefore, inhibiting a miRNA may serve as a therapeutic option for ACC.

Source: Altered miRNA Expression as Diagnostics and Therapeutics for Adrenocortical Carcinomas

Novel Inhibitors of Thymic Stromal Lymphopoietin (TSLP) for Cancer Therapy

Compositions and methods of using antagonists of thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) to prevent cancer progression and metastasis.

TSLP, an inflammatory cytokine that is often associated with the induction of allergic responses in the lungs, is also expressed in cancers regulating metastasis. The cancer-promoting activity of TSLP primarily requires signaling through a receptor on CD4+ T-cells, promoting immune responses and production of immunosuppressive factors such as IL-10 and IL-13. Expression of TSLP may be a useful prognostic marker and inhibitors of TSLP could have therapeutic potential. Inactivation of TSLP expression or its receptor signaling was able to effectively diminish cancer progression and metastasis in knock-out mice.

Source: Novel Inhibitors of Thymic Stromal Lymphopoietin (TSLP) for Cancer Therapy

Benign Tissue or Malignant Tumors? Using CpG Dinucleotide Methylation Patterns to Diagnose Cancer in the Adrenal Glands and Adrenal Cortex

This technology represents new methods to distinguish malignant adrenocortical tumors from benign tumors and normal tissue in the adrenal glands/cortex using the methylation patterns of cytosine-phosphate-guanine dinucleotide (CpG) sequences.  A biopsy or other noninvasive means of tissue or fluid collection to obtain patient nucleic acid can allow clinicians to test an individual's CpG methylation patterns to diagnose if the individual's sample is malignant and if a malignancy is a primary or metastatic adrenocortical tumor. Different CpG methylation patterns comparing normal/benign and malignant tissues may also serve as target sites for developing adrenocortical cancer therapies. Genes where increased CpG methylation is predictive of malignancy include KCTD12, KIRREL, SYNGR1, and NTGN2, as well as other secondary sequences.

Adrenal glands sit atop the kidneys and release stress response hormones. The CpG methylation patterns of 5-methylcytosines at CpG sites can alter gene expression, which can impact if a tumor will develop benign or malignant properties and influence its metastatic potential. Effective diagnosis of these tumors will improve adrenal cancer therapy and help avoid unnecessary surgery or chemotherapy for patients with benign tumors.

Source: Benign Tissue or Malignant Tumors? Using CpG Dinucleotide Methylation Patterns to Diagnose Cancer in the Adrenal Glands and Adrenal Cortex

Chimeric Defensin Proteins for Cancer Vaccines

Available for licensing is a fusion protein vaccine comprising a defensin peptide fused to a tumor antigen to elicit an immune response effective in treating cancer.

Humans are particularly vulnerable to cancer as a result of an ineffective immunogenic response. Tumor antigens are known to be poorly immunogenic and attempts to elicit immune responses against the antigens specific to tumor cells have been largely unsuccessful. The inventors have developed a cancer vaccine comprising a defensin peptide fused to a tumor antigen to enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor antigen. The inventors have demonstrated in an animal model that chimeric defensing proteins fused to a lymphoma antigen generate a measurable anti-tumor cellular immune response.

Source: Chimeric Defensin Proteins for Cancer Vaccines

Zuma Mutant Mice as a Tool for Investigating Mammalian Developmental Defects

In vertebrates, mutations in different ribosomal protein subunits result in a variety of phenotypes, suggesting unique and perhaps extra-ribosomal functions for these proteins. Diamond-Blackfan Anemia (DBA) is a ribosomal protein disease, in which the bone marrow fails to produce red blood cells.

NHGRI investigators recently generated a mouse line with a mutation in small ribosomal protein7 (Rps7), known to be involved in DBA. This line named Zuma (made with the use of the mutagen N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU)) carries a point mutation in exon 7 of Rps7, which is predicted to cause a substitution of a conserved amino acid (pY177S). The mutation results in the disruption of ribosomal biogenesis, as well as in abnormal skeletal, melanocyte, and central nervous system development. Thus, the Zuma line can be used as a model of DBA, as well as a tool for investigating other defects of mammalian development.

Source: Zuma Mutant Mice as a Tool for Investigating Mammalian Developmental Defects

Magnetic Resonance Arterial Wall Imaging Methods that Compensate for Patient Aperiodic Intrinsic Cardiac, Chest Wall, and Blood Flow-Induced Motions

The technology includes MRI methods, systems, and software for reliably imaging vasculature and vascular wall thickness while compensating for aperiodic intrinsic motion of a patient during respiration.  To overcome the loss of the orthogonality due to uncompensated residual motions and after a lapse of time equal to the trigger delay commenced at the cardiac cycle, the system acquires multiple consecutive time-resolved images of the arterial wall.  The cine images are processed offline and a wall thickness measurement is produced.

The method improves arterial wall imaging by increasing the success rate of obtaining good and excellent quality images and imaging slice-vessel orthogonality. The method also provides more precise wall measurements and a more distinct difference between healthy subjects and patients.

The methodology and system can be applied to any commercially available MRI scanner.

Source: Magnetic Resonance Arterial Wall Imaging Methods that Compensate for Patient Aperiodic Intrinsic Cardiac, Chest Wall, and Blood Flow-Induced Motions

Antimalarial Inhibitors that Target the Plasmodial Surface Anion Channel (PSAC) Protein and Development of the PSAC Protein as Vaccine Targets

There are two related technologies, the first being small molecule inhibitors of the malarial plasmodial surface anion channel (PSAC) and the second being the PSAC protein itself as a vaccine candidate.  The PSAC protein is produced by the malaria parasite within host erythrocytes and is crucial for mediating nutrient uptake.  In vitro data show that the PSAC inhibitors are able to inhibit growth of malaria parasites, have high specificity, and low toxicity.  Portions of the PSAC protein are found on the outer surface of infected host erythrocytes and the protein was recently shown to be encoded by the clag3 gene.  This discovery opens the possibility of developing the PSAC protein as a potential vaccine candidate against malaria.

Source: Antimalarial Inhibitors that Target the Plasmodial Surface Anion Channel (PSAC) Protein and Development of the PSAC Protein as Vaccine Targets

Fluorescent Magnesium Indicators

A non-invasive approach in which Magnesium (Mg2+) ion levels can be measured in real-time. Mg2+ is essential to many physio-chemical processes and plays a central role in the biochemistry of all cells. Many epidemiological studies have established close association between plasma magnesium levels and various diseases including cardiovascular disease and hypertension. However, methods and tools to selectively measure cellular magnesium levels in the body with accuracy and reliability are still lacking in the market today. The present invention provides novel fluorescent indicators (carboxy-quinolizones) that are selective for Mg2+ and can be easily detected using fluorescence spectroscopy.

Current approaches used to measure intracellular magnesium in the body generally involve magnetic resonance spectroscopy, which is extremely expensive and subject to very poor accuracy. Unlike these other methods, the fluorescence indicators of this invention provide a more accurate way to measure intracellular and extracellular Mg2+ levels in a wide variety of biological settings and have potential to be developed into diagnostic reagents.

Source: Fluorescent Magnesium Indicators

MUC-1 Tumor Antigen Agonist Epitopes for Enhancing T-cell Responses to Human Tumors

Scientists at NIH have identified 7 new agonist epitopes of the MUC-1 tumor associated antigen. Compared to their native epitope counterparts, peptides reflecting these agonist epitopes have enhanced ability to generate cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTL), which in turn have a greater ability to kill MUC-1 expressing human tumor cells. The agonist epitopes span both the VNTR region of MUC-1 and the C-terminus region. The epitopes encompass two major MHC alleles  reflecting the majority of the population.

Along with the method of use, the technology encompasses the use of these agonist epitopes in peptide- and protein-based vaccines, with dendritic cells or other antigen presenting cells, or encoding sequences in DNA, viral, bacterial, yeast, or other types of vectors, or to stimulate T-cells in vitro for adoptive immunotherapy protocols.

The MUC-1 tumor associated antigen has been shown to be overexpressed and/or underglycosylated in a wide range of human cancers. The C-terminus region of MUC-1 (MUC-1C) has been shown to be an oncogene and has been associated with a more aggressive phenotype in several different cancers.

Source: MUC-1 Tumor Antigen Agonist Epitopes for Enhancing T-cell Responses to Human Tumors

New Target for the Treatment of Cancer, Infectious Diseases, Cardiac Diseases, and Platelet-Associated Disorders

A novel, inhibitory platelet surface protein known as TREM (Triggering Receptors in Myeloid) like Transcript (TLT-1). TLT-1 is the first inhibitory receptor discovered to reside within the TREM gene locus. Structurally, TLT-1 also possesses inhibitory domains that indicate this regulatory function. TLT-1 is highly expressed in peripheral blood platelets and may modulate many other types of myeloid cells. Additionally, the invention describes specific, human, single chain antibodies (scFvs) that recognize TLT-1.

TREM recently were discovered to modulate innate and adaptive immunity. Specifically, TREM1 amplifies the response to sepsis in innate immunity by activating neutrophils and other leukocytes; and TREM2 potentiates dendritic cell maturation in adaptive immunity.

Source: New Target for the Treatment of Cancer, Infectious Diseases, Cardiac Diseases, and Platelet-Associated Disorders

Human sRAGE Protein for Treating Vascular Disease, Injury, or Inflammation

Methods of producing soluble receptors for advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) with enhanced expression, the resulting modified molecules, and methods of using this highly potent sRAGE for treating adverse vascular conditions. The inventors established a way to produce human sRAGE with more than 1000-fold greater potency than current methods. Production of full length human sRAGE in cultured mammalian cells enables the addition of mammalian post-translational modifications that dramatically enhance potency.

The receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) is a cell surface protein that triggers signaling pathways leading to inflammation. RAGE-stimulated inflammation can contribute to adverse vascular conditions, such as atherosclerosis and restenosis. The soluble version of RAGE (sRAGE) binds the same target molecules (advanced glycation end products), but cannot activate inflammatory signaling pathways. For this reason, sRAGE is thought to act as a decoy for RAGE. sRAGE reduces inflammation and pathogenic consequences associated with RAGE signaling.

Source: Human sRAGE Protein for Treating Vascular Disease, Injury, or Inflammation

Antagonist of A3 Adenosine Receptor Fluorescent Probes for the Study of Diseases that Involve A3 Signaling

This molecular probe may serve as a companion tool to identify and stratify patient populations based on the prevalence of the target A3 adenosine receptors.

Small molecule drugs, A3AR-selective agonists, are currently in advanced clinical trials for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, autoimmune inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and dry eye disease, and other conditions.

Source: Antagonist of A3 Adenosine Receptor Fluorescent Probes for the Study of Diseases that Involve A3 Signaling

Chimeric Antigen Receptors that Recognize Mesothelin for Cancer Immunotherapy

Chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) with high affinity for mesothelin that can be used as an immunotherapy to treat cancers that express mesothelin, such as pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, and mesothelioma. The technology includes CAR constructs with one of three different mesothelin-specific antibody portions, including either the mouse-derived SS or SS1 antibody fragments or the human HN1 antibody fragment.
 
Mesothelin is a protein cancer antigen with limited expression on normal cells that is overexpressed by cancer cells. CARs are hybrid proteins consisting of an antibody portion that recognizes a cancer antigen, such as a mesothelin-specific antibody, fused to receptor signaling domains that serve to activate the CAR-expressing cell to kill tumor cells. Cells that express CARs, most notably T cells, are highly reactive against their specific tumor antigen in an MHC-unrestricted manner to generate an immune response that promotes robust tumor cell elimination when infused into cancer patients.  Infusion of cells expressing these mesothelin-specific CARs into patients could prove to be a powerful new immunotherapeutic tool for treating various cancers that express mesothelin.

Source: Chimeric Antigen Receptors that Recognize Mesothelin for Cancer Immunotherapy

Cross-Reactive Neutralizing Human Domain Antibody Against HIV-1

The invention describes the first identified anti-HIV human domain antibody (m36), which can potentially be used alone or synergistically with other anti-HIV antibodies and antiretroviral drugs as a therapeutic and/or preventative for HIV infection.  It targets an epitope whose exposure is enhanced by binding of the HIV receptor CD4 to the HIV envelope glycoprotein (Env).  M36 was identified by sequential panning of a newly developed large human VH library against Envs from different HIV-1 isolates.  The antibody can neutralize HIV-1 primary isolates from different clades at low (nM) concentrations and due to its small size (14 kDa) is potentially able to efficiently penetrate lymphoid tissues where the virus replicates.  The antibody is fairly well characterized and the inventors are generating derivatives of this antibody to improve the half-life and increase its potency and cross-reactivity.

Source: Cross-Reactive Neutralizing Human Domain Antibody Against HIV-1

Method of Making a Vaccine

Current invention describes the methods to prepare vaccines, and to use such vaccines in the vaccination and treatment of human disease, e.g., the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections and cancer. More specifically, the present invention provides a vaccine and method for making same which is effective to elicit a desired antibody against a target antigen comprising a primary immunogen and a secondary immunogen, wherein the primary immunogen is effective to elicit B cell receptors (BCRs) that are on the maturational pathway of the desired antibody and have an intermediate degree of somatic mutational diversity, and the secondary immunogen comprises an epitope of the desired target antibody and is effective to further diversify the BCRs sufficient to form mature BCRs having the identical or substantially identical sequence as the desired antibody.

Source: Method of Making a Vaccine

Modulation of Regulatory T-Cell and B-Cell Lymphocytes for the Treatment of Autoimmune and Other Disease Indications

A method of modulating the immune response by affecting the activity of the regulatory lymphocytes through targeting of the Hepatitis A Virus receptor 1 (HAVCR1) receptor.  This methodology can be developed for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, allergies, prevention of transplant rejection, and incorporated into therapeutic strategies for cancer.

Regulatory lymphocytes, such as regulatory T-cells (Tregs) and B-cells (Bregs), play a significant role in suppressing and controlling immune responses to antigens, including allergens and self-antigens that induce  autoimmune diseases.  The Tregs and Bregs also control the immune responses to microbial pathogens thereby limiting excessive damage to tissue.  HAVCR1 is expressed on these regulatory lymphocytes and functions as a master regulator of these cells.

Source: Modulation of Regulatory T-Cell and B-Cell Lymphocytes for the Treatment of Autoimmune and Other Disease Indications

A Method to Expand a Population of Regulatory T Cells Optimal for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases

The transfusion of regulatory T cells (Tregs) has been used in the clinic to successfully prevent graft vs. host disease and is currently being evaluated in the treatment of other autoimmune diseases, such as organ graft rejection, type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Prior to transfusion, adoptive regulatory T cell transfer requires the expansion of regulatory T cells in culture; this results in a mixed population of regulatory T cells that limits the effectiveness of the transferred cells.

Scientists at the NIH have developed a method that promotes the expansion of regulatory T cells that are longer lived, more stable, and more suppressive of the autoimmune response. By supplementing T cell cultures with DNA oligonucleotides, the inventors were able to enrich the regulatory T cell population that enhanced the suppression of the autoimmune response. This method has the potential to more effectively generate regulatory T cells for the treatment of autoimmune diseases.

Source: A Method to Expand a Population of Regulatory T Cells Optimal for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases

President Obama to Award Medal of Honor

On February 11, 2013, President Barack Obama will award Clinton Romesha, a former active duty Army Staff Sergeant, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry. 
Staff Sergeant Romesha will receive the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions while serving as a Section Leader with Bravo Troop, 3d Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division during combat operations against an armed enemy at Combat Outpost Keating, Kamdesh District, Nuristan Province, Afghanistan on October 3, 2009.
He will be the fourth living recipient to be awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq or Afghanistan.  He and his family will join the President at the White House to commemorate his example of selfless service.
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Staff Sergeant Romesha separated from the Army on April 4, 2011.  He and his family currently live in Minot, North Dakota.   He is married to Tamara (Tami) Romesha and they have three children; Dessi, Gwen, and Colin. 
Staff Sergeant Romesha enlisted in the Army in September 1999 as an M1 Armor Crewman.  After completion of training at Ft Knox, he was assigned as a Tank Gunner with B Company,    1-63rd  Armor, Camp Vilseck, Germany which included an Operational Deployment to Kosovo.  After Germany, he was assigned as a Gunner/Assistant Tank Commander with A Company,       2-72nd Armor, Camp Casey, Korea.  Following Korea, which included a Combat Tour to Iraq, he was assigned as a Section Leader with 3-61st  Cav, Ft Carson, CO.  There he completed the Long Range Reconnaissance Course, Advanced Leader Course, and Air Assault Training.
At the time of the October 3, 2009 combat engagement, Staff Sergeant Romesha was a Section Leader assigned to B Troop, 3-61 Cav, 4th BCT, 4th ID.   His actions were performed at COP Keating, Kamdesh District, Afghanistan. 
His military decorations include: the Afghanistan Campaign Medal w/ Campaign Star, Iraq Campaign Medal w/three Campaign Stars, Bronze Star Medal, three Army Commendation Medals, Purple Heart, five Army Achievement Medals, Valorous Unit Award, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Kosovo Campaign Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Non Commissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon w/ Numeral 2, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon w/ Numeral 5, NATO Medal w/ Bronze Service Star, and the Combat Action Badge. 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
THE MEDAL OF HONOR:
The Medal of Honor is awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguishes themselves conspicuously by gallantry above and beyond the call of duty while:
• engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;
   • engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or
   • serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
The meritorious conduct must involve great personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades and must have involved risk of life. There must be incontestable proof of the performance of the meritorious conduct, and each recommendation for the award must be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

Source: President Obama to Award Medal of Honor

President Obama Signs Pennsylvania Disaster Declaration

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and ordered Federal aid to supplement commonwealth and local recovery efforts in the area affected by Hurricane Sandy during the period of October 26 to November 8, 2012.
   Federal funding is available to commonwealth and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy in the counties of Bedford, Bucks, Cameron, Dauphin, Forest, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Juniata, Monroe, Northampton, Pike, Potter, Somerset, Sullivan, and Wyoming.
   Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures for the entire commonwealth.
   W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Thomas J. McCool as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area.
   FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the commonwealth and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.
   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT:  FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@DHS.GOV

Source: President Obama Signs Pennsylvania Disaster Declaration

Remarks by the President in Nomination of Secretary of the Treasury

East Room
1:40 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Please have a seat.  A little more than four years ago, I stood with Mr. Tim Geithner and announced him as my first nominee to my Cabinet.  We were barely two months into the financial crisis.  The stock market had cratered.  The housing market had cratered as well.  Bank after bank was on the verge of collapse.  And worst of all, more than 800,000 Americans would lose their jobs in just that month.  And the bottom was not yet in sight.
So I couldn’t blame Tim when he tried to tell me he wasn’t the right guy for the job.  (Laughter.)  But I knew that Tim’s extensive experience with economic policy made him eminently qualified, and I also knew that he could hit the ground running.  As Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, he had just spent several sleepless and chaotic weeks immersed in the complexities of the crisis, and had been working closely with his Republican predecessor at Treasury to save the financial system.
Then, with the wreckage of our economy still smoldering and unstable, I asked Tim to help put it back together.  And thanks in large part to his steady hand, our economy has been growing again for the past three years, our businesses have created nearly 6 million new jobs.  The money that we spent to save the financial system has largely been paid back.  We’ve put in place rules to prevent that kind of financial meltdown from ever happening again.  An auto industry was saved.  We made sure taxpayers are not on the hook if the biggest firms fail again.  We’ve taken steps to help underwater homeowners come up for air, and open new markets to sell American goods overseas.  And we’ve begun to reduce our deficit through a balanced mix of spending cuts and reforms to a tax code that at the time that we both came in was too skewed in favor of the wealthy at the expense of middle-class Americans.
So when the history books are written, Tim Geithner is going to go down as one of our finest Secretaries of the Treasury.  (Applause.)
All right, don't embarrass him.  (Laughter.) 
On a personal note, Tim has been a wonderful friend and a dependable advisor throughout these last four years.  There’s an unofficial saying over at Treasury -- “no peacocks, no jerks, no whiners.”  That would be a good saying for all of Washington -- (laughter) -- "no peacocks, no jerks, no whiners."  Few embody that ideal better than Tim Geithner.  That’s why, when Tim was thinking about leaving a couple of years ago -- (laughter) -- I had to personally get on my knees with Carole to help convince him to stay on a little bit longer.  And I could not be more grateful to Carole and the entire Geithner family for allowing him to make the sacrifices that so many of our Cabinet members ask of their families in serving the country.
The fact is, while a lot of work remains, especially to rebuild a strong middle class and offer working folks new pathways to rise into the middle class, our economy is better positioned for tomorrow than most of those other countries hit by the financial crisis.  The tough decisions Tim made and carried out deserve a lot of credit for that.  So I understand that Tim is ready for a break.  Obviously, we're sad to see him go.  But I cannot think of a better person to continue Tim's work at Treasury than Jack Lew.
This is bittersweet not only because Tim is leaving, but also because Jack has been my Chief of Staff for the last year.  He was my budget director before that.  I trust his judgment.  I value his friendship.  I know very few people with greater integrity than the man to my left.  And so I don’t want to see him go because it's working out really well for me to have him here in the White House.  But my loss will be the nation’s gain. 
Jack has the distinction of having worked -- and succeeded -- in some of the toughest jobs in Washington and the private sector.  As a congressional staffer in the 1980s, he helped negotiate the deal between President Reagan and Tip O’Neill to save Social Security.  Under President Clinton, he presided over three budget surpluses in a row.  So for all the talk out there about deficit reduction, making sure our books are balanced, this is the guy who did it -- three times.  He helped oversee one of our nation’s finest universities and one of our largest investment banks. 
In my administration, he has managed operations for the State Department and the budget for the entire executive branch.  And over the past year, I’ve sought Jack’s advice on virtually every decision that I’ve made, from economic policy to foreign policy.
One reason Jack has been so effective in this town is because he is a low-key guy who prefers to surround himself with policy experts rather than television cameras.  And over the years, he’s built a reputation as a master of policy who can work with members of both parties and forge principled compromises. 
And maybe most importantly, as the son of a Polish immigrant, a man of deep and devout faith, Jack knows that every number on a page, every dollar we budget, every decision we make has to be an expression of who we wish to be as a nation, our values.  The values that say everybody gets a fair shot at opportunity and says that we expect all of us to fulfill our individual obligations as citizens in return.  So Jack has my complete trust.  I know I'm not alone in that. 
In the words of one former senator, “Having Lew on your team is the equivalent as a coach of having the luxury of putting somebody at almost any position and knowing he will do well.”  And I could not agree more.  So I hope the Senate will confirm him as quickly as possible. 
I want to personally thank both of these men and their families, especially Carole and Ruth, for their extraordinary service to our country.
And with that, I'd like to invite them to say a few words, starting with Tim. 
SECRETARY GEITHNER:  Mr. President, it's been a privilege to serve you.  I'm honored and grateful that you asked me to do this, really I am.  And I'm very proud of what my colleagues at Treasury and your economic team was able to help you accomplish these first four years. 
When you stepped into this building as President, you were confronted with a world in crisis, the worst crisis in generations.  And you made the necessary, the hard, the politically perilous choices that saved the American people, saved American industry, saved the global economy from a failing financial system.  And your successful response to the crisis of course did not solve all the nation's challenges.  It could not have done so.  But the actions you took along with those of a forceful and creative Federal Reserve have made the country stronger and have put us in a much better position to face the many challenges still ahead of us -- and they are many.
I have the greatest respect for Jack Lew.  I know him as a man of exceptional judgment, calm under pressure, with an extraordinary record of accomplishment and experience over decades spent at the center of American economic policy.  He's committed to defending the safety net for the elderly and the poor.  He understands what it takes to create the conditions for stronger economic growth and broader economic opportunity.  And he understands that to govern responsibly is to govern with a recognition that we have limited fiscal resources. 
Now, like Jack, I've spent my professional life in this world of public policy and public service.  And as all of you know, our families carry a large share of the burdens we assume in public life.  And I feel incredibly fortunate that my wife Carole and my family have been willing to allow me to do this.  And I thank them for their support and their patience.  And I understand their occasional impatience.  (Laughter.)
I want to express my admiration and my appreciation for the women and the men of the Treasury Department.  Those who came to serve you these years of crisis and the civil servants of the Treasury with whom I first started working in 1988, they are exceptionally talented and honorable public servants.  I'm very proud of what they have helped you accomplish.  And I am confident that my successor will find them the extraordinary asset they are to the nation.
And I also hope that Americans will look at the challenges we face today and decide, as many of you in this room have, that in spite of the divisive state of our political system today that serving your country is compelling and rewarding work.  That was my experience, and I am grateful and will always be grateful to you for having given me the opportunity to serve you as the 75th Secretary of the Treasury.  (Applause.)
MR. LEW:  Mr. President, it has been my honor to serve as your Chief of Staff and before that at OMB and the State Department.  It’s really been a privilege to come to work every day as part of a team that’s dedicated to building a sound economy and a safer world.
Tim, you have been a friend and a colleague for many years -- actually, decades -- and the American people are better off for your outstanding service.  And I thought I knew you pretty well, but it was only yesterday that I discovered that we both share a common challenge with penmanship.  (Laughter.)  Tim, I join the President and everyone here in wishing you and Carole and your whole family well.
As a kid growing up in Queens, I had dreams of making a difference in the world.  These dreams were nurtured in a home where the gifts of American freedom and opportunity were cherished and never taken for granted, and the responsibility to engage in issues of public concern were part of daily life.  I will always be grateful to my parents for grounding me in the values that have remained central to my personal and professional life.
I grew up professional in the office of Speaker O’Neill, whose compass was always clear and who demanded unvarnished advice on how best to reach the desired destination.  Mr. O’Neill cared little about your age or rank, and only about whether or not you did the hard work to inform the decisions of the day.  And he took a big chance giving a lot of responsibility to a very young man, and for that I’ll always be thankful.
Serving at OMB first under President Clinton and more recently in this administration, I worked with one of the finest teams in the government to execute a responsible fiscal policy while advancing policies to promote economic growth.  I’m delighted to see so many of my friends from OMB here today. 
At the State Department, I worked closely with our great Secretary of State and my friend, Hillary Clinton, to advance our nation’s national security agenda, including our international economic policies.
And as Chief of Staff, I’ve had the pleasure of working with a tremendously talented White House team, which manages policy, politics, communications, and complex operations every day with grace, skill, and loyalty. 
If confirmed, I look forward to joining the Treasury Department, whose people are legendary for their skill and knowledge.  It’s a team that I’ve collaborated with closely over many years and have come to respect greatly.
Finally, thank you to Ruth, Shoshi, Danny, Zahava, and the kids for your endless tolerance with the demands of a schedule that tests all family patience.  And thank you, Mr. President, for your trust, your confidence, and friendship.  Serving in your administration has allowed me to live out those values my parents instilled in me, and I look forward to continuing with the challenges ahead.  (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT:  These are two outstanding public servants.  I think the only point that I want to make -- leave you with is the fact that I had never noticed Jack’s signature -- (laughter) -- and when this was highlighted yesterday in the press, I considered rescinding -- (laughter) -- my offer to appoint him.  Jack assures me that he is going to work to make at least one letter legible -- (laughter) -- in order not to debase our currency should he be confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury.
Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)
END 
   1:56 P.M. EST

Source: Remarks by the President in Nomination of Secretary of the Treasury

Statement by the Press Secretary on Bills Signed on January 10, 2013

Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 1339, H.R. 1845, H.R. 2338, H.R. 3263, H.R. 3641, H.R. 3869, H.R. 3892, H.R. 4053, H.R. 4057, H.R. 4073, H.R. 4389, H.R. 5859, H.R. 6014, H.R. 6260, H.R. 6379, H.R. 6587, H.R. 6620, H.R. 6671, S. 925, S. 3202, S. 3666 and S.J. Res. 49
 
On Thursday, January 10, 2013, the President signed into law:
H.R. 1339, which designates the City of Salem, Massachusetts, as the birthplace of the U.S. National Guard;
H.R. 1845, the "Medicare IVIG Access and Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012," which establishes a demonstration project to evaluate the benefits of allowing Medicare Part B coverage for in-home intravenous treatments for patients with primary immune deficiency disease; and amends certain rules under which Medicare is a secondary payer to specified third party payers;
H.R. 2338, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Cocoa, Florida as the Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office;
H.R. 3263, the "Lake Thunderbird Efficient Use Act of 2012," which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow the storage and conveyance of non-project water at the Norman Project in Oklahoma;
H.R. 3641, the "Pinnacles National Park Act," which redesignates the Pinnacles National Monument in California, as the Pinnacles National Park;
H.R. 3869, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Little Rock, Arkansas as the Sidney "Sid" Sanders McMath Post Office Building;
H.R. 3892, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Roseville, California as the Lance Corporal Victor A. Dew Post Office;
H.R. 4053, the "Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012," which clarifies requirements for Federal agencies to use improper payment information to determine program or award eligibility; establishes a Do Not Pay Initiative; and expands OMB responsibilities in the effort to eliminate and recover improper payments;
H.R. 4057, which requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a comprehensive policy for providing information regarding higher education and training programs to veterans and members of the Armed Forces;
H.R. 4073, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to accept a railroad right of way within and adjacent to the Pike National Forest in Colorado;
H.R. 4389, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Fowler, California as the Cecil E. Bolt Post Office;
H.R. 5859, which repeals the requirement that the Department of Transportation prescribe regulations to require automobile dealers to provide insurance cost comparison information to prospective buyers; and requires the Department to report to Congress on the most useful way to provide consumers with information on the susceptibility of automobiles to damage;
H.R. 6014, the "Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012," which authorizes the Justice Department to carry out a grant program to assist States with the first-year costs associated with the implementation of a process to collect DNA from individuals who are arrested for or charged with certain criminal offenses under State law;
H.R. 6260, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service as the Lieutenant Kenneth M. Ballard Memorial Post Office;
H.R. 6379, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Ravenel, South Carolina as the Representative Curtis B. Inabinett, Sr. Post Office;
H.R. 6587, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Simi Valley, California as the Postal Inspector Terry Asbury Post Office Building;
H.R. 6620, the "Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012," which restores lifetime Secret Service protection of former Presidents who did not serve as President prior to January 1, 1997, and their spouses; and provides for protection of all children of former Presidents until they become 16 years of age;
H.R. 6671, the "Video Privacy Protection Act Amendments Act of 2012," which allows the informed, written consent that a video tape service provider must receive from a consumer in order to be authorized to disclose personally identifiable information to a third party to also be obtained using the Internet; and specifies that the consent would have to be either given at the time the disclosure is sought or given in advance for a set period of time of up to two years or until the consumer withdraws the consent, whichever is sooner;
S. 925, the "Mt. Andrea Lawrence Designation Act of 2011," which designates "Mt. Andrea Lawrence" in the Inyo National Forest and Yosemite National Park; 
S. 3202, the "Dignified Burial and Other Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012," which amends authorities of the Department of Veterans Affairs related to: cemetery matters; health care; and miscellaneous matters;
S. 3666, which amends the Animal Welfare Act to modify the definition of "exhibitor"; and
S.J. Res. 49, which appoints Barbara Barrett as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Source: Statement by the Press Secretary on Bills Signed on January 10, 2013

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/9/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

    

    

   2:30 P.M. EST

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Welcome.  Good afternoon.  Thanks for being here.  Sorry we had to postpone the briefing.  Very busy day.  I have a very important personnel announcement to make.  Actually, I’m just kidding.  I’ll go right to the AP.  (Laughter.) 

    

   Q    Jay, on that topic -- (laughter) -- it’s been widely reported that Jack Lew is the President’s choice to be the next Treasury Secretary.  I’m wondering if you could comment on those reports.  And also, if that’s the case, what does Jack’s selection as Treasury Secretary say about his economic priorities for the second term?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Let me say two things.  First, I don’t make Cabinet-level personnel announcements; the President does.  And I will not get ahead of the President.  When he is ready to make an announcement about his next Treasury Secretary, he will make that announcement.

    

   Secondly, I would say that Jack Lew, who is the President’s Chief of Staff, has been and continues to be an extremely valuable advisor to the President.  Over the past more than quarter of a century, Jack Lew has been an integral part of some of the most important budgetary, financial, and fiscal agreements, bipartisan agreements in Washington.  He was there when Social Security was reformed under President Reagan, working for the Speaker of the House.  He was there when tax reform passed at the table in the 1980s.  He was there -- he was the Cabinet-level Director of OMB for President Clinton when our budget was balanced for the first time in a generation.  

    

   And he served also, as you know, as Deputy Secretary of State, and has again served as OMB Director, overseeing some very important agreements and playing a major role in achieving them for President Obama; and now has for the last more than a year, has been a remarkably capable Chief of Staff.

    

   I just thought I’d say that about Jack.  (Laughter.) 

    

   Q    For no apparent reason at all?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I work with him every day, and he is an exceptional, exceptional public servant.

    

   Q    Has he been working on his signature then?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Not that I’m aware of.

    

   Q    Just stepping aside from the pick, though, I mean, how does the President view the role of the Treasury Secretary in the second term?  I mean, the person will obviously have a different set of obstacles and challenges that Secretary Geithner had in 2009.  Is it more about an emphasis on fiscal policies, economic issues as opposed to the health of the financial market?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would say, again, without speaking to any announcements, the President sets policy, and his advisors and Cabinet secretaries carry it out.  The fact of the matter is Secretary Geithner has over his four years in office been at the helm of the Treasury Department through a remarkable period of challenge and change that included the financial and economic crisis, but also included negotiating a series of agreements with Congress that strengthened the middle class, aided economic growth and helped job creation.  And certainly, as you know, because the President spoke about it all the time on the campaign trail and since, economic growth and job creation continue to be the President's top domestic priorities.

    

   So all the members of his economic team will be focused on those priorities in the second term.

    

   Q    Just one on the debt ceiling.  A group of House Democrats said the President should consider using the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling.  This obviously came up last year, and when it did you said from the podium that the 14th Amendment would not give the President the power to ignore the debt ceiling.  But I'm wondering, given the President's insistence that he's not going to negotiate over the debt ceiling this time around, is the White House considering revisiting that issue, reconsidering its position on the 14th Amendment?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Our position on the 14th Amendment has not changed.  And let's be very clear -- Congress has the responsibility and the sole authority to raise the debt ceiling.  And Congress must do its job.  

    

   And I think it's very important, as we approach the deadline of the debt ceiling, that people understand what we're talking about.  Because sometimes the language we use and the phrases we use here in Washington I think make this a lot more mysterious for average folks out there than it needs to be.  Raising the debt ceiling is simply authorizing Congress to pay the bills that it's already racked up.  

    

   This is not about future spending.  This is about you going to the store, the department store, and charging some goods on your credit card; you've made those purchases, the bill comes, you pay the bill.  You don’t tear it up and decide you're not going to pay it unless you get what you want from store management.  You pay your bills.  And the United States has always paid its bills.  Congress has the responsibility and the authority to do that, and the President will not negotiate over it.  

    

   Let me go to Reuters.  Yes.

    

   Q    Jay, talking about Treasury secretaries, when Jack Lew was head of OMB, the Department of Energy restructured its loan to Solyndra.  When he was in the private sector, he worked for a group that profited from investments that conceivably were based on the declines in the housing sector.  Why wouldn’t those raise red flags for any Treasury Secretary that the --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  You're trying to, in a back-end way, get me to talk about an announcement the President has not made.  And I will leave it to the President to announce who his next Treasury Secretary will be.

    

   I will certainly say -- and would have said this at any time in my tenure as Press Secretary -- that Jack Lew's record has and continues to be stellar.  And he is that rare person in Washington who has been here for years who has done some very hard things and brokered some serious bipartisan agreements and done it in a way that has earned the admiration of almost everybody he’s worked with; so certainly, the Presidents that he has served.  But I’ll leave it at that.

    

   Q    Let me shift to gun control for a second.  The Vice President is due to meet with representatives of the National Rifle Association later this week.  That group has been very influential in politics, has been effective at preventing previous efforts to control the spread of guns in this country.  What is his message going to be to them?  And what is the White House strategy in dealing with that influence?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  The President believes that in the wake of the incident at Newtown, the tragic incident at Newtown, at Sandy Hook Elementary, that we must as a nation examine every possible action that we could plausibly take to reduce this terrible scourge of gun violence.  As you heard him say, it is in many ways our first responsibility to ensure that our children are safe.  And what Newtown brought home to us is it that we need to do a lot more to ensure that they are safe.

    

   And he wants to hear through the effort that he assigned to the Vice President from stakeholders of all kinds, and that certainly includes gun owners and organizations that represent gun owners.  And he hopes and the Vice President hopes that these organizations will bring constructive ideas to the table.  That is the purpose of the effort the Vice President is leading.  As you know, he had some important meetings today.  He has more meeting coming up, including the one you mentioned, and he is in the process of putting together a series of recommendations that the President will consider.  And once the President has decided on the path forward that he will promote, he will I’m sure make that known to you.

    

   Q    Is there any deadline for coming up with those recommendations and rolling that out?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  The President himself I believe from this podium mentioned that he had hoped to act -- or hear from the effort led by the Vice President this month.

    

   Q    Is there any particular low-hanging fruit?  The Vice President mentioned executive actions that you could take unilaterally.

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not going to get into specifics because I won’t get ahead of the President or the Vice President, but also because the process is ongoing.  Decisions have not been made.  You heard what the Vice President said earlier today and I think that represents an area where action is possible.  Legislative action is certainly part of this.  The President has already called on Congress to act on an assault weapons ban, to act on a ban of high-capacity ammunition clips, and to confirm an ATF Director, and to close the loopholes in our background checks system.  These are things that Congress can do and should do, and the President has called on Congress to do those things.

    

   But there are other things that need to be done.  I won’t get ahead of the process here, but as the President has said, he’s looking at this broadly -- not just in terms of the things that can be done legislatively and not just in terms of the things that can be done through executive action.

    

   Brianna.

    

   Q    Jay, thank you.  What are the -- on gun control, what is the area of action on executive action that the White House would consider?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, as I just said to Mark, I won’t get into specifics because I won’t get ahead of the President and the Vice President.  And I also can tell you that those decisions haven’t been made.

    

   Q    It seems like there may be some -- I mean, there’s some limitation as to what the President can do on his own.  I’m assuming -- is it background checks?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not going to get ahead of the President and the Vice President, the process being led by the Vice President.  Background checks I think are something that we have discussed in terms of legislative action.

    

   Q    The database action for background checks?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Again, I think there’s a variety of -- there are a variety of ideas that have been put forward publicly.  And obviously, the Vice President’s group is listening to a lot of these groups and hearing their ideas, but it’s up to the Vice President and the President to decide what combination of things he wants to proceed with, and I’ll let him make that announcement.

    

   Q    Mayor Bloomberg has said with the stroke of a pen the President could do certain things, but others have raised concerns that there may be lawsuits that would gum up the works.  Is that a concern for the administration?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Again, without getting into specifics, we look at all consequences of actions that could be taken, including consequences of promoting legislation in Congress and other kinds of things.  But that’s a broad assessment that I’m making and I don’t know the specifics that you’re -- or Mayor Bloomberg might be referring to or the critics who suggest, or people who have concerns about what the response might be to some kinds of actions.  I think that’s all speculative until we know what the President will put forward.

    

   Q    And anything on the Walmart reversal and their decision to send a representative in person tomorrow?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’ve seen reports, and I can simply say that we, as part of this effort led by Vice President Biden, we invited a broad array of groups and individuals to participate in these meetings and conversations, and welcome the participation of everyone who accepts those invitations.  So it’s important that we hear from these stakeholders.  And I know the Vice President and his team look forward to all the meetings that they’re going to have.  

    

   Q    Jay, the Speaker of the House has made it perfectly clear that he is willing to increase the debt ceiling, but that the principle is for every dollar the debt ceiling has increased, a dollar of spending must be cut.  Given that you’re saying that the White House will not negotiate on raising the debt ceiling, are you willing to accept that principle from the Speaker -- a dollar in cuts for every dollar increase?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I think the President has been very clear that his absolute principle is that we need to reduce our deficit in a balanced way that does not shift all the burden through cuts exclusively on senior citizens, on families who have disabled children, on families who are trying to send their kids to school.  That's just unacceptable.  

    

   One of the things we learn in the process that we just went through late last year is that when it comes to specificity, we never saw any specificity from Republicans in terms of how exactly they would achieve the kind of sweeping cuts that they say they want, and out of whose -- from whom would they demand that payment.  

    

   And what the President has been very clear about is he will not negotiate on Congress’s responsibility to pay its bills.  He will negotiate and is willing to compromise, as he has demonstrated repeatedly, when it comes to moving forward in a balanced way to reduce our deficit -- we have to deal with the sequester, we have to deal with a variety of budgetary and economic and fiscal challenges.  But he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling. 

    

   And the threat itself is a problem as we saw in the summer of 2011.  The binary choice that Republicans seem to want to present to the American public is either we got Medicare and Social Security, or we tank the global economy.  I’m not a communications director for the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority Leader, but I would think selling that would be very hard.

    

   Q    But help me understand how this works.  You say you will not negotiate on this issue.  They put out a principle, so they produce something -- and they say they will -- that cuts a dollar for every dollar increase.  And you’re saying you won’t negotiate on that?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Have you seen that?

    

   Q    This is what they say they are going to go forward with.  So either --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I mean, words are not actions, and there has been up to this date very little specificity since the Ryan plan, which itself was lacking in specifics.  And if their position is we’re going to voucherize Medicare or tank the global economy, they should say so.  That is unacceptable to the American people.  It’s certainly unacceptable to the President. 

    

   Look, here’s the thing.  Congress has the authority to authorize money, right?  Not the President.  Congress racked up these bills.  Congress has to pay these bills.  We are very interested in a discussion and negotiation about getting our fiscal house in order.  

    

   This President has already signed into law over $2 trillion in deficit reduction.  He is eager to do more in a balanced way.  But it is not appropriate to, in this President’s view, say that if I don't get what I want, I’m not going to raise the debt limit.  That is basically saying, I will abandon the history of the United States, maintaining the full faith and credit of its currency and its Treasury by refusing to pay bills because I didn’t get what I want, politically.  And that's just not acceptable to the President.  

    

   Q    I’m just trying to understand how saying you’re not going to negotiate resolves this.

    

   MR. CARNEY:  We’re not going to negotiate.  Congress has a -- if Congress wants to give the President the responsibility to raise the debt ceiling, he would take it, as we saw when in 2010 or -- I forget -- there have been so many of these confrontations -- in 2011, when the so-called McConnell plan was adopted.  

    

   But they assigned themselves this responsibility.  They need to be -- the fact that they assigned it to them is something that they have to deal with.  They assigned it to themselves.  They need to act, and they need to, without drama or delay, raise the debt ceiling.  

    

   We still have -- there's plenty of opportunity, outside of threatening the full faith and credit of the United States, to debate fundamental differences over our economic and fiscal policy proposals.  But it is not wise to do that around raising the debt ceiling; it would have been not wise to do it around the simple principle that we, the United States of America, pay our debts.

    

   Q    And if I could just ask you about Chuck Hagel, who was criticized pretty strongly today by Ben Cardin, who’s not exactly an arch-conservative here, somebody right in the mainstream of the Democratic Party in the Senate.  One of the things he raised was the comments that Hagel made about James Hormel, which had come under fire by anti-gay [sic] groups.  And I'm wondering if you can help me understand.  He made those comments 15 years ago, calling James Hormel “aggressively gay,” and didn’t apologize for them until a month ago when it was clear that he was in the running to be named Secretary of Defense.  Why that kind of a delay?  And does he have to explain why for 15 years those comments --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I think Senator Hagel was very clear about the fact that he thought those comments were not appropriate, he regretted them, and that they don't represent the totality of his views.  I would point you to the statement he made.  And he will have -- senators will have an opportunity through the confirmation process, as they do traditionally and routinely, to ask him questions about his views on issues.

    

   The Secretary of Defense -- Senator Hagel, when he is confirmed, as we hope he will be -- carries out the President’s policies.  And I think the President’s policies on LGBT issues are both commendable, supported by the LGBT community, and will continue to be the policies of this administration as long as President Obama is in office.

    

   So, again, I think you’ve seen what Senator Hagel said about this, and the President is very confident that Senator Hagel will be confirmed and that he will be an excellent Secretary of Defense and will implement all of the President’s policies with regards to the Defense Department.  

    

   Let me move around here.  Chuck.

    

   Q    Following up on debt ceiling, I know your position hasn’t changed on the 14th Amendment.  Do you guys have a position on this trillion-dollar coin business?  (Laughter.)  

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I would simply go back to what I said.  The option here is for Congress to do its job and pay its bills -- bills that have already been racked up.  We saw what happened last summer, the summer of 2011, when Congress flirted with the idea of default, didn’t even go all the way to default and yet the impact on our economy was severe, the impact on average Americans was severe.  

    

   We had the lowest job creation in the month of August of 2011 of any month during the recovery, and the reason is because of what House Republicans did that summer.

    

   Now, we can't do that again.  So let’s not even pretend that that's an okay scenario.  Let’s just ask Congress --

    

   Q    But you have gladly ruled out -- on the 14th Amendment, you finally said you do not believe you have that power via the 14th Amendment.  Do you believe you have this power to mint a trillion-dollar coin?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Look, there is no plan B.  There is no backup plan.  There is Congress’s responsibility to pay the bills of the United States.  This is not about future spending.  We will have that debate.  We will continue to have the debate about how we -- the budgets that we design and the path forward in deficit reduction.  And the President’s principles in this matter are very clear.  There is no alternative to Congress raising the debt ceiling.  It’s its responsibility.  Congress has to pay the bills of the United States.  That is an obligation they assigned to themselves.

    

   Q    It’s a little evasive in your answer.  I understand.  But I mean, are you trying to leave room?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  -- never be true. 

    

   Q    Are you trying to leave room or not leave room?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Look, there is no substitute for Congress extending the borrowing authority of the United States.  

    

   Q    But you believe this is an option?  Viable, unviable?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I think the only option here that there is no backup plan.  The only option is for Congress to do its job.

    

   Q    Will you totally rule it out?  (Laughter.) 

    

   MR. CARNEY:  You could speculate about a lot of things, but there is -- nothing needs to come to these kinds of speculative notions about how to deal with a problem that is easily resolved by Congress doing its job, very simply.  And then coming back and having the discussion and conversation and negotiation and debate about how we continue to bring down our debt in a way that's responsible, in a way that allows our economy to grow, in a way that protects the middle class, in a way that continues the 54 months of job creation that we’ve had during this recovery -- that's the conversation and the debate and the negotiation that is correct to have.  That's the conversation and negotiation and debate that the American people expect us to have.

    

   They don't expect Washington -- and in this case, Congress, and really in this case, one house of Congress -- to do enormous harm to the economy for partisan reasons.

    

   Q    I wonder if today on the front page of The New York Times, on the photo of the senior staff with the President, when The New York Times caption says, “Try to find Valerie Jarrett,” whether the President was embarrassed that here was a picture of his supposed senior staff and you could not see a visible woman.

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, as you know, and I would point you the content of the story as opposed to the headline or the photograph, the President’s senior staff here is well -- women are well represented in the President’s senior staff here.  Two of the three deputies -- Deputy Chiefs of Staff are women.  The White House Counsel is a woman.  A woman runs homeland security for this country, Secretary Napolitano.  There are -- the Cabinet Secretary in charge of the most important piece of domestic policy legislation in a generation is a woman, Kathleen Sebelius.  

    

   And, again, I would point you to the New York Times story itself that makes the point that the White House staff here is 50/50 in its analysis.  And as I said, including Valerie Jarrett, women serve in key policy roles here within the White House as they do throughout the administration and that includes, I forgot to mention, Director of Domestic Policy, Cecilia Muñoz and Chief of Staff for the First Lady, Tina Tchen; White House Personnel Director, Nancy Hogan.  And I think it’s -- again, this President is committed to diversity.  And look at the record; it is a vast improvement -- 

    

   Q    Well, let’s talk about diversity, though.  Let’s look at the “big four.”  He’s about to do --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  These stories are in reaction to -- 

    

   Q    State Department, Defense Department, Treasury, although I know you’re not --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Right, but these stories are in reaction to a couple of appointments.  I think it would be useful to wait and make judgments about this issue after the President has made the totality of appointments that he will make in the transition to a second term.

    

   Q    When you look at a Cabinet, there is the “big four” that it’s always been accepted -- I’m just asking you --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  The Secretary of State was a woman and the one -- the person we’ve nominated is a man.  That’s the issue here.  

    

   Q    Is there any sort of -- 

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of Homeland Security, a Cabinet-level position.  The U.N. Ambassador -- the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations is Susan Rice.  And, again, I could go through the list.  This President has appointed -- has made two appointments to the Supreme Court, both of them women.  And I think that his commitment to -- 

    

   Q    You think it’s an unfair charge?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that the record speaks for itself, and certainly, that photograph is not reflective of the diversity within the White House staff or within the broader administration.  And I think, again, I would urge everyone who only got to the headline of the photograph to read the story, because the story documents that the comparative here with not just President Bush and the increase in the representation of women in senior positions is dramatic; it’s consistent with or greater than President Clinton’s staff as well.

    

   And when it comes to judges, 47 percent of President Obama’s confirmed judges -- and we have an issue with confirmation here with Senate as you know -- but the 47 percent of those who have been confirmed have been women compared to 22 percent for President George W. Bush and 29 percent for President Clinton.  So I think the record here speaks for itself.

    

   Q    So when you say that totality that there is going to be some other Cabinet appointments it sounds like in the next, say, couple of months. 

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I have no personnel announcements.

    

   Q    I understand that, but is it fair to say that after all that’s done that there is -- that diversity is taken into account?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’ve answered this question a couple of times this week, and the President believes that diversity is important because it -- having diversity increases the excellence of the pool of advisors around you, the pool of the staff that you have here.  And I think that’s been demonstrated by the kinds of -- the degree of talent that he has around him now and has had around him in the first term, and I think it will be true in the second term.

    

   Yes, Major.

    

   Q    Can you tell the House Democrats who believe the President ought to use the 14th Amendment and should use it why they are wrong?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  We answered this question at the time.  I just said, again, we just don’t believe that it provides the authority that some believe it does.  

    

   But the point here is, because of a resistance to the reality that Congress has a responsibility to pay the bills that it has racked up, we should not be pursuing these kinds of options.  Congress should simply do its job.  The American people are tired of this sort of approach to governance.  I mean, I think we've seen some polls recently that demonstrate that.  It is time for Congress to get back to doing the business that the people elected them to do.

    

   Q    On that point, some in the House Republican conference suggested an incremental approach -- two months, three months, short durations to extend the debt limit.  Is that something the White House, since it is not going to negotiate, comfortable with?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Again, I'm not going to get into specifics, but the idea that we should play this game every month?  You think that’s -- this is the United States of America, right?  The idea that we would send the message around the world and around the country that we're going to have a debate about whether we should default every month or every two months, I think that would be extremely harmful to the economy, extremely harmful to the middle class in this country.  

    

   So as we said in the past, that’s -- you're trying to negotiate with me and I won't do that.  That sounds like a terrible idea to me.

    

   Q    And the President would reject it.

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, it's a hypothetical, speculative thing.  The whole principle here, Major, is that he will not negotiate.  So you're -- and I won't either over the debt ceiling.  Congress --   

    

   Q    I’m just asking about ideas that are being discussed.

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, right, but that’s a negotiating position over something that we're not going to negotiate over.  Congress needs to do its job.

    

   Q    Okay.  On gun control -- those who support what the President has already asked Congress to do consider that a rather aggressive agenda and they're not even sure that that could get through Congress -- the four things you've mentioned, okay?  That’s their sort of premise.  Is the Biden group looking at things that would be beyond those already identified gun control initiatives and goals of this administration on gun control specifically, meaning an agenda that would even be broader than one those who are experienced in the trenches of this kind of battle perceive as difficult enough as it is?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  The President has made clear that he would like to see congressional action on the four items that I mentioned.  I do not have a preview for you of other actions that the President may or may not push -- either congressional action or other kinds.  I will let him -- the Vice President first, and then the President make those decisions and announce them.

    

   Q    And because these things can be subject to all sorts of interpretation -- they already are on the Web -- when the Vice President talked about executive orders, is that in a context specifically related to gun control, or other issues that he is looking at in this context?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I don't have an elaboration for you.  I would just point to what the Vice President said.  And I think it reflects the general approach the President is taking, which is to look at every way we can, both here in Washington and beyond, to address the problem that I think we all acknowledge we have.  When six- and seven-year-olds are gunned down in their own school, there’s a problem here that we need to address.  

    

   And it’s not just a gun control problem.  It goes beyond that, as the President has said.  And that's why the effort the Vice President is leading is looking at the totality of the problem and a broad array of actions that could be taken to help address the problem.  And it is a difficult problem.  And it is difficult to -- on this issue and has been traditionally -- difficult to get things done.  And I acknowledge that part of your question.  

    

   But as the President said, we can't simply not try because it’s hard.  The problem is too important.  And so you’ll hear more from him when he’s ready to make some decisions.

    

   Mike, then John.

    

   Q    Jay, on the gun issue, are there plans for the President to drop by any of these meetings with stakeholders to perhaps go face-to-face with some of these different groups that are coming in to meet with the Vice President? 

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, he’s asked the Vice President to lead this effort.  So I can't preclude that possibility, but I wouldn’t necessarily expect it.  Nothing like that is planned.  The President, obviously in the array of conversations he has with elected officials from around the country and other people, discusses this issue and has in recent weeks.  But in terms of these specific meetings I don't necessarily anticipate that he would drop by.  I wouldn’t rule it out.

    

   Q    I was just wondering if he might personally convey a message to the movie industry or the video game folks to say, hey --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don't have any -- I don't anticipate that he will be dropping by any meetings.  Of course, that could change if he so decides.  He obviously has conversations separate from the meetings that the Vice President is leading, and talks about these issues and many others when he has those conversations.

    

   Q    Briefly on the debt ceiling, you guys say you’re not going to negotiate; the Republicans are saying got to cut.  How are we not heading for another Washington-created cliff of some sort?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, here are the facts:  We have to raise the debt ceiling.  Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner have said that in the past, that it’s inconceivable that we would default.  And that's one issue, and that is an issue that is Congress’s responsibility, and they need to fulfill their responsibility and make sure that the United States of America, as it has throughout its existence, pays its bills.

    

   Separately, we continue to have challenges embodied in one instance by the sequester that we need to resolve in concert with Congress.  And the need to do that presents an opportunity to in a balanced way achieve further significant deficit reduction.  The President, as you know, twice now has pursued a big deal with Speaker Boehner that in its totality would have achieved over $4 trillion in deficit reduction over a decade.  Because of the nature of those negotiations and the inability of the Speaker to, in the end, reach a compromise with the President, we have found ourselves needing to take sort of smaller steps in pursuit of that overall goal.  

    

   But the goal remains one that the President believes is the right one.  And he hopes that in dealing with our further budgetary and fiscal challenges that he will be able to reach an agreement with Congress to further reduce our deficit in a balanced way, and to most importantly -- because deficit reduction is not a goal -- a worthy goal unto itself; this is all about making our economy stronger and making it more productive and allowing it to create even more jobs.  I mean, that is the most important thing when it comes to economic policy as far as the President is concerned.

    

   Q    If we’re down to the last moment, have you guys researched a way of bypassing this process?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, that’s another way of asking questions about amendments and coins and articles.  And, again, there are no plan Bs here -- and I know that plan B is kind of a bad phrase these days.  But the fact of the matter is this is a simple process.  Congress assigned itself the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling, and this is about past spending, not future spending.  It is about paying our bills.  And Congress has that responsibility, Congress needs to fulfill it.

    

   I did say John.  Yes.  Yes, sir.

    

   Q    Thank you, Jay.  Happy New Year.

    

   MR. CARNEY:  And to you.

    

   Q    You talked about plans without specificity.  A number of the freshman Republicans that I talked to actually talked about dusting off the Simpson-Bowles plan and introducing it as legislation.  I believe that the freshman Congressman, Steve Stockman of Texas, said he was actually going to proceed in that course.  What’s the administration’s reaction --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  The position the President continues to have on the commission that he created was that it provided a very important framework to move forward on deficit reduction.  I don’t know -- I trust your reporting about the interest of some House Republicans in putting that forward.  I’d be interested to hear what Chairman Ryan has to say about it since he sat on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, as did I believe other House Republicans, and they all voted no.  

    

   So it is important to remember -- and I think a lot of people when they talk about the commission that the President set up, that that commission called for significantly higher revenues than the President has called for and significantly deeper defense cuts than the President called for; and, actually, in the first 10 years, fewer savings from entitlement programs than the President has called for.  So when you get into the details of it, you have to wonder whether or not support from Republicans would really be there; it certainly wasn’t there when the commission was taking its votes.

    

   Q    Thanks, Jay.  Forgive me if it’s already been asked, but it was on my mind since I saw it last night.  Has the President seen “Zero Dark Thirty” yet?  I know he’s seen “Lincoln” and he’s meeting with the “1600 Penn” folks.  Has he actually seen “Zero Dark Thirty” yet and with whom?  What’s his reaction?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I don’t know.  I haven’t asked him if he’s seen it or not.  So I don’t know his reaction.

    

   Q    So can I revisit then the not-negotiating question just to beat a dead horse?  (Laughter.)  To further beat the already dead horse.  Are you saying that -- or would you say that Rob Nabors, Gene Sperling, Jack Lew, whoever replaces Jack Lew -- none of these people will now go to the Hill to talk debt ceiling?  Are you saying that Biden will not meet with McConnell to talk debt ceiling?  Are you saying that the President will not invite leaders from both chambers of Congress to the White House to talk debt ceiling?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Yes.  We will not negotiate over raising the debt ceiling.  As the President said, he has demonstrated repeatedly that he is willing to compromise when it comes to moving forward with deficit reduction.  We obviously because of the sequester and the CR and other issues have economic, budgetary, and fiscal challenges that we need to confront, and that requires discussion and negotiation with Congress.  

    

   But he will not negotiate over the fundamental responsibility that only Congress has to raise the debt ceiling.  And if that is a responsibility that is just too onerous for them to bear, they should pass it off to the President as they did previously.  He will not negotiate over raising the debt ceiling.  This is not -- we’re not going to play a hostage-situation game where the economy of the United States and the world suffers because of an insistence on a political agenda by one party and one House of Congress -- or one party in both Houses of Congress.

    

   Q    So if none of those things happens, and then -- so it's kind of a game of chicken -- and then if Congress doesn’t blink and you're not going to do the 14th Amendment and you're probably not going to do a trillion-dollar coin -- 

    

   MR. CARNEY:  There are so many ifs here that I'm having trouble following you.  I'm probably not going to answer.  (Laughter.)  

    

   Q    Just summarizing -- so doesn’t that mean that he's betting that Congress will raise the debt ceiling?  I mean, otherwise, what are your options?  Go over the cliff --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  The President believes it's Congress's responsibility to raise the debt ceiling.  He hopes that Congress will exercise that responsibility without drama or delay.  He understands that there are further issues that we need to work with Congress on when it comes to getting our fiscal house in order, but they have to be separate from their responsibility to pay bills that Congress has already racked up.  

    

   I like to do this because I was around when it happened, but it is instructive to remember, when we're talking about who's responsible when it comes to getting our fiscal house in order and reducing our deficits -- and you can look at the graphs here about when deficits went up and when they went down, and they went up in the 80s and they went down after President Clinton took office.  They went up again from surpluses to massive deficits under President Bush.  We had an economic financial crisis the likes of which none of us in this room have ever experienced.  That obviously exacerbated our deficits.  And then, since then they've been coming down under President Obama. 

    

   He is very serious about responsible deficit reduction.  He has signed into law significant deficit reduction already.  But he insists that we do it in a balanced way because he does not believe it is fair to ask only some sectors of the population -- seniors, children who have disabled parents, kids who are just trying to go to college -- to bear the burden alone of the kinds of choices that we need to make.  And so that’s why he hopes to engage Congress -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- in a process that leads to more deficit reduction that includes the kind of balance that was enshrined in the agreement recently reached over the fiscal cliff.

    

   Q    In the past, when you've been asked what leverage he would have since he's not going to negotiate with them, you've pointed to the business community in the hopes that they would bring some pressure to bear on Republicans.  Do you see that happening?  Are you satisfied -- 

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I won't speak for the business community, but I would be surprised if they -- if anybody in the world of finance or business, in this country or anywhere, would welcome the prospect of default.

    

   Q    Well, that’s not what I'm asking.  Of course, they won’t want -- 

    

   MR. CARNEY:  So I would certainly expect that they would -- I would hope that they would make that opinion known.

    

   Q    Well, I guess what I'm asking is, other than you just standing here day after day saying the President won't negotiate and all the reasons you're giving, other than that rhetorical effort, what else are you doing, can you do to make sure that Congress lives up to the responsibility that you've outlined?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, we can't -- 

    

   Q    Since you're not negotiating. 

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Because Congress has retained for itself this responsibility and obligation, they have to act.  If they want to pass it to a more willing actor, the President of the United States, he will gladly ensure that we do not default. But the fact of the matter is Congress has that responsibility and Congress has to act.  We can't do it for them.

    

   Q    Right, you’ve said that.  I mean --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Right, but I'm not sure what you're saying.

    

   Q    Well, I'm asking since -- what else can you do, since you’ve ruled out negotiating, to bring pressure to bear on them? You do this all the time when you want something to happen.  You call on outside actors.  You try to get public opinion.  Other than just standing here over and over again saying you're not going to negotiate, what else is the White House doing to try to get them to pass the debt ceiling?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I cannot see into the future up to the point where the debt ceiling might be reached, so I can't predict everything that we will do.  But it is simple common sense that  -- we hope -- that leaders in Congress will not default and, in the end, they will do what is right, which is ensure that we do not default.

    

   In the meantime, we have other important issues to resolve with Congress, other important fiscal and economic and budgetary issues to resolve with Congress, and we can address those.  But negotiating over raising the debt ceiling is not in the cards.  

    

   Mr. Nakamura.

    

   Q    Getting back to the talks -- talking about a man everybody in Washington is thinking about right now, did the President see the highlights, by any chance, of the game that ended Robert Griffin III’s season?  Did he express an opinion that you’ve heard about whether he should have been in the game? And what’s your personal opinion as a Redskins fan?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  You're trying to get me in trouble.  I have not -- I know that the President, like so many sports fans, followed with interest the remarkable season that RGIII had.  I have not had a discussion with him since that game about its terrible outcome.  

    

   I did see in a -- yesterday somebody forwarded me a tweet from the Onion, so I can't -- I'm not sure it’s true, but it did say that -- (laughter) -- that Mike Shanahan had cleared RGIII to carry furniture down some wet steps.  

    

   Q    Were you watching the game, personally --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I did.

    

   Q    -- or did you see the highlights?  And when you did, what were your thoughts?  I know you're a Redskins fan.

    

   MR. CARNEY:  It was painful to watch and -- 

    

   Q    Yes, very painful.

    

   MR. CARNEY:  -- I'm not a football coach, but it sure seemed like, as remarkable a player as he is, he wasn’t in a position to continue playing.  Just got myself in trouble with -- (laughter.)

    

   Q    More serious -- debt ceiling again.  So last time, the White House was looking for a $1.2 trillion increase.  How much of an increase would you like to see this time?  Not negotiating, but just how much would you like Congress to increase that?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  As you know, in the process that we just went through over the so-called fiscal cliff, the President in good faith negotiated with -- or tried to -- with the Speaker of the House, and in that process, lowered his target for revenue significantly, came, as they say, halfway towards the Republicans between the $800 billion that Speaker Boehner was offering and the $1.6 trillion that the President had initially requested.  And that figure was $1.2 trillion.  

    

   Something very important occurred, which is the fiscal cliff deal, which ensured that higher-income Americans would see their income tax top rate return to the levels of the Clinton era and, through that, a significant amount of revenue has been achieved.

    

   But it is not enough now, any more than it was when we talked about the reason for achieving enough revenue -- $1.2 trillion -- in order to allow for the essential balance that would combine with spending cuts and savings from interest and the like -- would allow for that $4 trillion deficit reduction over 10 years.  

    

   So it remains our position, and the President spoke about this, that we need to, going forward in deficit reduction, achieve it through a balance of both revenues and spending cuts.

   And I don't have specific figures for you, but our position is what it was. 

    

   Q    Syria?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Yes, Syria. 

    

   Q    Thanks, Jay.  After they’ve all seen President Assad delusional speech on Sunday, and today U.N. envoy Brahimi actually for the first time he said that it’s a lost opportunity and “there is no political process after this speech.”  So it seems that after two months, things look even worse than ever before.  What’s your step forward from this point?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’ll say a few things.  The speech by Bashar al-Assad was, indeed, evidence of how delusional he is.  The proposal he made was nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to power, and it would only allow the regime to continue its oppression and killing of the Syrian people.  

    

   The momentum in Syria is with opposition forces and with the Syrian people.  It is clear that as defections continue -- and we’ve seen a number of them -- and the regime continues to lose control of territory, that Assad cannot restore his control of Syria.  

    

   The future in Syria does not and will not include Bashar al-Assad.  He has lost all legitimacy, as we have said, and he must step aside to enable a political solution that ends the bloodshed and suffering, and meets the aspirations of the Syrian people.  

    

   The United States will continue its support for the Geneva Action Group’s framework, which was endorsed by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the Arab League, and the U.N. General Assembly.  And we will continue our efforts in support of Joint Special Representative Brahimi to build international support for the Geneva Framework, and urge all parties in Syria to take steps toward its implementation, to help expedite an end to the suffering of the Syrian people and to bring about the day when Syria and the Syrian people can decide -- or the Syrian people, rather, can decide their future for themselves.

    

   Q    Basically, you summarized what you have been doing for the last two years, actually.  Many argue that something else needs to be done, such as arming the rebels.  And the fact that you talk about the rebels continuing to gain power on the ground is being done mostly led by Abushar Front or other groups that your government has been saying -- labeled as terrorist organizations. 

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think it’s a good point to make our point, which is that our position regarding lethal support has not changed.  We are not providing it.  As we have said, we continue to take a hard look at every feasible policy option to evaluate whether or not doing so would advance our goal of hastening an end to the violence and supporting political transition in Syria.  In other words, we look at all feasible options and evaluate them based on whether or not we believe that goal would be achieved.

    

   We firmly believe that a political solution led by the Syrian people and supported by the international community is the best chance for a stable and democratic Syria.  We do not believe at this point that providing arms will promote a political solution.  

    

   And I would argue to you, on your first point, about our policy.  We have, over time, ramped up our assistance to the Syrian people through humanitarian aid.  We have ramped up our non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition.  We have, as you know, recognized the Syrian Transitional Group as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.  These are steps that demonstrate movement in our policy towards further isolating Assad, further isolating the regime, assisting the opposition.  But we do not believe at this point that providing lethal assistance is the right policy.

    

   Yes, and then Donovan.

    

   Q    There are supporters of immigration reform that are worried that the administration’s efforts on gun violence are now going to push off immigration reform.  You had talked -- or the administration had talked about something post-inauguration.  I’m wondering if that timetable still stands, or what the commitment is.

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't believe I’ve given a specific time frame.  I would point you to the President’s commitment to do it early in his -- to take action on immigration reform early in his second term.  But beyond that, I won’t be specific.  But I can assure you that it is a top priority of this President, and it is something he will act on, as he has promised.

    

   Q    Can we expect to hear about that in the State of the Union or the inaugural address?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would say, broadly speaking, that State of the Union addresses tend to include at least a sample of a President’s agenda, and immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, is a very high priority of the President’s.  But I don't want to get ahead of the speech. 

    

   Q    There have been reports in recent days about cyber attacks by Iran, one report quoting a security expert as saying there's no doubt within the U.S. government that these attacks on the banking sector, including what they call denial-of-service attacks, come from Iran.  Has that come to the President’s attention, or can you talk generally --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I don't know whether that report has.  I don't have anything on it for you.  You might direct that question to the Treasury Department.

    

   Donovan. 

    

   Q    I want to follow up on the NRA.  Is there a belief the NRA will still be a hurdle to new gun legislation?  And if so, how does the President plan to go about getting around that in Congress?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I don't want to and the President doesn’t want to prejudge the actions of organizations or groups who are stakeholders in this discussion.  He hopes that in the aftermath of Newtown that we are in a place that appropriate action, both legislatively and through other means, can be taken and will be supported broadly.  

    

   You certainly have seen, when it comes to a number of the measures that the proposed legislation represent, that there is broad support publicly for those kinds of actions, and broad support among gun owners, broad support among members of the very organization that you mention.  

    

   So we’ll have to see what happens as the process moves forward.  The President will certainly push for passage of the legislation that he supports.  But obviously Congress has to act when it comes to legislation, and we all as a nation need to make sure our voices are heard when it comes to our position on the kinds of measures, sensible measures, we can take to address this problem.

    

   Q    So should we expect an outreach to the American people, a new hashtag, maybe?  

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I won’t get ahead of the process here, but the President is committed, as he has said, to taking action and he looks forward to the recommendations from the Vice President. 

    

   Yes, Laura, and then Chris.

    

   Q    Just to follow up on Syria.  Each day all over the world there are a lot of reports about Syrians killed -- between 40,000 to 60,000 Syrians are killed.  You don’t feel you have a moral obligation to stop what’s happening in Syria?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Laura, as we’ve discussed repeatedly, we find Bashar al-Assad’s attacks on his own people, the mass killing of his own people to be abhorrent.  The actions he has taken ensure his place in history as a tyrant with an enormous amount of blood on his hands, Syrian blood.  And we have, with our international partners, taken significant action to isolate Assad, to put pressure on Assad, to help the opposition against Assad unify, to provide humanitarian relief to the Syrian people, and we are working every day with our international partners, and unilaterally, to help bring about the day when Assad and his tyranny are no longer.  

    

   And I take your point that the situation in Syria is terrible, and responsibility for that situation belongs to the man who claims that he represents the people he’s killing.

    

   Chris.

    

   Q    The website “ThinkProgress” is reporting that Pastor Louie Giglio, who President Obama asked to deliver his inaugural benediction, held vehemently anti-gay views in the 1990s.  In a recording attributed to him from that time, Giglio advocated for a wildly discredited ex-gay therapy, references a biblical passage often attributed to require gay people to be executed, and impels Christians to firmly respond to the aggressive agenda and prevent the homosexual lifestyle from becoming adapted in society.  Does the White House have a problem with Obama’s inaugural pastor holding those views?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t seen that report.  I would refer you to the Inaugural Committee.  I haven’t seen the report.

    

   Q    So it’s fair to say that the administration was not aware of these --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I’m just saying that I haven’t seen the report.

    

   Q    This is breaking days after the President nominated Chuck Hagel and, as you acknowledged, he had made those 1998 anti-gay comments against Jim Hormel.  Is there some kind of statute of limitations on when someone can make anti-gay remarks and still be deemed acceptable by the administration?  And if so --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I think I’ve addressed the question about Senator Hagel.  And I would simply point you to President Obama’s record on LGBT issues as representative of his beliefs and convictions, his policies and where he believes this country is moving and where he hopes to lead it.

    

   Q    Jay, can I clarify one question?  

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I'll try.

    

   Q    I heard you unequivocally rule out using the 14th Amendment on the debt ceiling.  I heard you unequivocally rule out negotiating with Congress.  But you did not rule out this trillion-dollar coin idea.  So can I ask you just a yes or no question -- does the White House rule out the idea of minting trillion-dollar coins as a way of dealing with the debt ceiling?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you to Treasury for the specifics of this question.  I can tell you that the President does not believe that there is a backup plan or a plan B or an off ramp.  The only viable option here is Congress to fulfill its -- is that Congress fulfills its responsibility and ensures that the United States of America pay its bills, as it has always paid its bills throughout its history.

    

   Q    But why will you rule out the 14th Amendment and not rule out the trillion-dollar coin idea?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Again, I can tell you that there are no backup plans, there are no plan Bs.  I refer you to the Treasury for -- 

    

   Q    But, Jay, that’s the thing -- you are leaving this -- it may be the tiniest of openings, but why would you do that --

    

   MR. CARNEY:  I'm just saying I don’t have analysis here of every idea that’s thrown out.  I can tell you that the President -- 

    

   Q    Is somebody back there trying to figure this out?

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Again -- not that I know of.  But since Treasury, I believe, oversees printing and minting, you might ask Treasury.  

    

   The President's belief is that Congress needs to do its job.  Congress needs to pay the bills that Congress racked up.  And we can continue to negotiate and debate over the important economic budgetary and fiscal challenges that we face within the context of our budgets and our sequester and all the issues that confront us.  But it is not acceptable to this President, and therefore he will not negotiate over the prospect of default.  Congress needs to do its job.  

    

   Q    That's a long answer to a yes or no question.

    

   MR. CARNEY:  Again, I think I answered it thoroughly, at length, with great detail.  I have no coins in my pocket.  (Laughter.)  

    

    

   END

   3:26 P.M. EST

Source: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/9/2013

Statement by the President on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis

Over her long career in public service – as an advocate for environmental justice in California, state legislator, member of Congress and Secretary of Labor - Hilda Solis has been a tireless champion for working families. Over the last four years, Secretary Solis has been a critical member of my economic team as we have worked to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and strengthen the economy for the middle class. Her efforts have helped train workers for the jobs of the future, protect workers’ health and safety and put millions of Americans back to work. I am grateful to Secretary Solis for her steadfast commitment and service not only to the Administration, but on behalf of the American people. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors. 

Source: Statement by the President on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/8/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:56 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being here.  Before I start, it is amazing, in today’s era of lightning communications, how this already seems to be a moment that's passing, but it is worth pausing to remember, perhaps in my mind, the greatest political journalist ever, and that's Richard Ben Cramer. 
When I got to Washington in 1993, in the spring of that year, from Moscow, a colleague of mine handed me that book -- it has come out the year before -- as I began to cover politics, and it was the best read imaginable.  And if there’s anyone in this room who has not read “What It Takes,” you should run out and buy it now.  Do a favor to his wife and daughter and actually buy it, don't borrow it, because it is a remarkable book.
And what’s remarkable about it -- it’s funny because when I got the job to work with the Vice President, I reread the chapters on Senator Biden from his campaign in 1988, and it is a series of portraits of men, in this case, running for the highest office in the land, and they are all affectionate portraits.  They are appreciative of each individual -- their qualities and their failings -- but everything is done with great affection for the process and the individuals.  It’s a joy to read, so if you haven’t already, go get it.
With that, I'll take your questions.
Q    Thanks, Jay, and thanks for the appreciation for one of our brethren. 
Two questions.  Regarding yesterday’s nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director, Senator Lindsey Graham today issued a statement saying, “I do not believe we should confirm anyone as director of the CIA until our questions are answered, like who changed Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points and deleted a reference to al Qaeda.”  I think Major took a stab at that question back in November, and I wondered if we could revisit it. One, does that stand in the way of Brennan’s confirmation?  Two, can you answer the question that Graham has raised?
MR. CARNEY:  I'll start with number two first.  This question was answered, I believe, in briefings on the Hill.  Secondly, because the process was one of declassifying classified information and in that process the talking points that were provided to Ambassador Rice, to members of Congress, and to others including myself in the executive branch, were written in the way that was presented by Ambassador Rice.
On the first point, it would be unfortunate I think if in pursuit of this issue, which was highly politicized, the Senate would hold up the nomination of John Brennan to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  As the President said yesterday, that post as well as the positions of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, these are essential positions that need to be filled if possible without delay.  And that is why he called on the Senate to act promptly to hold the necessary confirmation hearings and to give each nominee a fair hearing and then a vote.  We certainly hope that that happens.
I think while it's not worth going into in great detail, we certainly discussed a lot last year, late in the year, the essential irrelevance of the issue of what was said on a series of Sunday shows to what actually happened in Benghazi.  And this President is committed to ensuring that those who were responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Libya be brought to justice.  There is an FBI-led investigation with that as its goal.
And there has been a process ordered by the President, overseen by the Secretary of State, an independent Accountability Review Board, led by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen, that produced an unsparing assessment of diplomatic security both in Benghazi and broadly, and that included a series of recommendations which the Secretary of State and the President of the United States accepted entirely and which are already being implemented.  And the President is focused on those issues, not what seems to be the continued political fascination with appearances on Sunday shows.
Q    Second point, I wanted to pick up where you left off yesterday on fiscal issues.  I wonder what lessons did the President take away from his discussions in December?  When does he expect to reengage with Congress to if not deal with the debt ceiling, at least negotiate over the sequester?  And do you guys expect Senator McConnell rather than Boehner -- Speaker Boehner to be your dance partner in coming negotiations?
MR. CARNEY:  The President said not too many days ago, when the agreement on the fiscal cliff was passed by both houses of Congress overwhelmingly, that he would continue to seek to compromise with Congress when it came to achieving a balanced approach for continued deficit reduction.  And he will do that. 
Congress is not here, as you know, but he looks forward to working with Congress in good faith to continue the work that's already begun, and that began with the Budget Control Act and the $1.1 trillion in spending cuts signed into law by this President; that continued with the agreement on the so-called fiscal cliff just last week that achieved significant deficit reduction through revenues, and enshrines into law the principle that we need to move forward in a balanced way as we seek further deficit reduction.
As I said yesterday, the President has said and others have said he will not negotiate with Congress when it comes to the essential responsibility of Congress to pay the bills that Congress has incurred.  It would be irresponsible to flirt with default.  We saw what happened in the summer of 2011 when Congress did flirt with default, when House Republicans in particular used that as an issue to try to achieve some political objectives and just the mere flirtation with default caused severe economic harm, which I spelled out yesterday.
Q    What's the window -- the timing window that the President sees?  I mean, the fiscal cliff deal bought you two months for the sequester; speculation that the debt ceiling could be hit by February 15th and March 1st.  So when does the President want to start those talks and when does he think they need to be completed and in place?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I would separate the debt ceiling from negotiations over eliminating the sequester.  The fact is we have two months because of the fiscal cliff agreement, and that is not a great deal of time, and the President will, and the White House will, engage with Congress on those matters in I think the relatively near term. 
But when it comes to the debt ceiling, as I said yesterday, we expect Congress to do its job.  The President expects that Congress will fulfill its essential responsibility to pay the bills that Congress has incurred.  And remember, this is a responsibility that Congress assigned to itself in order to try to get Congress to spend less and be more focused on deficit reduction.  So this is -- Congress has the power that it assigned itself to raise the debt ceiling, and it should do so, because the alternative is obviously unacceptable. 
And that’s something I think you remember from the period in 2011.  Both Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner at the time said they would not let the United States default, with all the consequences that would ensue, and we hope that Congress wouldn’t let that happen again.
Yes.
Q    Thanks, Jay.  Just a couple questions.  First one is, given the fiscal hurdles that are still looming, has the President asked or is he considering asking Treasury Secretary Geithner to stay on beyond January?  And if not, when can we expect the nomination of a successor?
MR. CARNEY:  I think Secretary Geithner has expressed his timetable for departing after his service as Treasury Secretary, which has been much appreciated by the President.  His record, I think four years on now, reflects some very gutsy decisions that were made by the President on the advice of the Secretary of the Treasury that helped prevent a far worse economic crisis than we endured.  I think if you look at the state of the American economy, the fact is while we are not growing as much as we want, we are not creating jobs as fast as we would like, we are doing far better than a number of other countries that endured the fiscal crisis and economic crisis of 2008, 2007, 2009.  And that is in part because of some of the very tough calls made by this President and this Treasury Secretary.
I don’t have a timetable for any other personnel announcements, but I have no new information or any change in information on Secretary Geithner’s departure.
Q    Okay.  Another subject -- AIG says its board will meet tomorrow to discuss whether to join a lawsuit filed against the government alleging that the massive bailout of the company was unfair.  It’s been compared to a patient suing their doctor for saving their life.  What’s the administration’s response to this?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I won’t comment on a lawsuit that’s pending.  I would refer you to the Department of Justice.  But I will step back, and this, I think, contextually fits into my answer about Secretary Geithner’s time as Treasury Secretary, and that is to note that the U.S. government acted in a bipartisan fashion to prevent the disorderly failure of AIG after concluding that such a failure would have caused catastrophic damage to the economy and financial system.  Again, the action was taken because the failure would have done such great harm to the American economy, to the American financial system, and to the American people.
Because of the successful management of taxpayer dollars by the government and the company’s restructuring efforts, the company recently fully repaid taxpayers with a profit.  The overall positive return on the Federal Reserve and Treasury’s combined $182 billion commitment to stabilize AIG during the financial crisis is now $22.7 billion.  Again, that’s $22.7 billion in profit. 
It is also worth remembering, in response to a question like this, that thanks to the action of the President, thanks to the action of the administration and Congress, an action like the kind that was taken to deal with AIG’s potential disorderly failure, however necessary during the financial crisis, should not happen again, and that’s why this President pursued Wall Street reform.  And that’s why it is essential to continue to move forward with the implementation of that reform.
Q    So would you urge AIG’s board to just drop the --
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I will not comment on a pending lawsuit.
Q    Is the President aware of the suit?
MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t discussed it with him, but I will not comment on a pending lawsuit.
Dan.
Q    Thanks.  Can you tell us what kind of progress the Biden gun group, if you will, is making?  Do they give the President frequent updates?  And also, is the NRA part of this process?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me say a few things about that.  The Vice President, at the President’s request, is overseeing a process that is engaging a variety of stakeholders -- organizations and individuals -- to look broadly at the problem of gun violence in America and to consider actions that could be taken at both the legislative level and elsewhere.  As I think has been reported, the process is ongoing.  The Vice President’s effort -- the Vice President has had several meetings and conversations so far, and he will have many more before presenting his recommendations to the President.
As for the President’s involvement, the President assigned the Vice President to this task, asked him to do it.  And as you know and saw just at the end of last month, the President and the Vice President spent a lot of time together and they will continue to spend a lot of time together, and I am sure, as they do that, that this topic will come up and the Vice President will have the opportunity to informally brief the President on the progress of this effort.  And then, when the Vice President is ready to present a series of recommendations to the President, the President will consider them and then make decisions about how to proceed.
Q    And is the NRA part of these discussions?
MR. CARNEY:  We have invited -- the Vice President’s group has invited a number of organizations and individuals to participate in meetings.  They include gun owners and -- groups that represent gun owners, groups that represent sportsmen and sportswomen.  The NRA has certainly been one of the groups -- one of the many groups invited.  I would leave it to those groups themselves to decide whether to say -- to make any comment on their attendance in those meetings.
Q    The NRA says they will be here on Thursday in that meeting.  So what is the message that Vice President Biden or this administration will say to the NRA in their first face-to-face conversation, given the only conversations the NRA has had with the public has been a public statement and then “Meet the Press”? 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think as the President said, he doesn’t want to prejudge any recommendations that any stakeholder might present.  He did in his “Meet the Press” interview respond to a question about the specific recommendation that the NRA had made by saying that he was skeptical that putting more guns in schools would solve this problem.  But again, we look forward to hearing from a variety of organizations and civic groups and others who have insights into this problem.
Q    The NRA says it’s here to hear what the White House has to say.  So if you guys are here to listen to them, and they’re here to listen to you, and you guys are --
MR. CARNEY:  Well, the process is designed to get input.  And the Vice President’s group will assess different actions, make recommendations, and the President will decide what he would like to pursue, what he believes is the right course of action, in addition to what he has already called on Congress to do, which is pass the assault weapons ban, pass legislation that would ban high-capacity magazines, pass a bill that would close loopholes in our background check system.  Those are things that Congress could move on very quickly, and the President urges them to do so.
Q    On the nomination process, I know you didn’t want to spell out anything about who would take over Treasury, but has the President settled on who he wants to fill not only Treasury but also Commerce, EPA, these high-profile roles?  Has he settled on these names, or is he still sifting through some top choices?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, Dan, as you know, I refrain from commenting on the process of the selection of nominees and don't give updates on the status of the search or short lists, long lists, speculation about individual nominees.  I would simply say that the President is obviously engaged in a process that will lead to decisions on who should fill posts that are vacant, and as was the case this week with the Defense Department and the CIA, and prior to that, the State Department, he will make announcements when he’s made a decision.
Q    I know you touched on this a little bit yesterday, but is diversity a consideration as the President goes through this process?
Q    Check your binder for that.  (Laughter.) 
MR. CARNEY:  I can say that, as I did yesterday, that the President values diversity, believes it’s important because it enhances the quality of the pool of potential nominees for positions across the administration.  He believes that by looking broadly for candidates for offices that he ups the chances that he’ll find the very best person for the job.  And I think that the diversity of his administration both at the Cabinet level and here at the White House and elsewhere reflects a process that was designed to allow him to find the very best candidates.  And he thinks that diversity enhances the process itself, the policy process, because it sort of increases the likelihood of a broader discussion potentially.
But the goal in the end is to find the very best individuals for these specific positions.  And he feels he has done that with Secretary Hagel, with John Brennan, with Senator Kerry -- I think I said “Secretary Hagel” -- getting ahead of myself -- Senator Hagel.  And that will be what guides him as he makes further decisions.
Q    Here’s one more on guns.
MR. CARNEY:  Sure.
Q    The President has talked about this with some urgency in the past, saying he’s not going to wait around.  Is this something -- the longer you get away from a tragedy, the less interest there is in gun control efforts that's happened in the past?  Is this something that the President is going to push very hard right out of the ¬--
MR. CARNEY:  I think you heard the President say that he expected and had asked the Vice President to report back to him this month.  I think that demonstrates the speed with which the President hopes to act. 
Now, even prior to the action under the work of the Vice President’s group, the President has already called on Congress and will continue to call on Congress to take action on specific pieces of legislation that either already exists or could easily come together, and which some members of Congress have expressed an interest in pursuing.
So he is mindful of the need to act.  He is also mindful of the need to have a process in place, led by the Vice President, that allows for consideration of a variety of ideas, because he’s made the point that this is not a problem that can be solved by gun legislation alone.  It is not a problem that can be solved by any specific action or single action that the government might take.  It’s a problem that encompasses issues of mental health, of education, as well as access to guns.  And that’s why he’s asked the Vice President to undertake the effort that he’s undertaking.
Ann.
Q    Thank you, Jay.  On the inauguration, presumably the President has begun work on an inaugural address.  Will he also this year give a State of the Union address?  How would the two differ?  Can you bring us up to speed on what he’s doing on the inaugural?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President, as you know, looks forward -- or as you would expect, looks forward to the privilege of delivering his second inaugural address.  I have no content to preview for you.  I would expect --
Q    Has he started --
MR. CARNEY:  Yes, he certainly has.  And I would expect that -- or you should expect that he will also deliver a State of the Union address. 
Q    But how would they differ?  Both of them looking forward?  And would any of the gun violence legislation or initiatives be ready in time to be included in either one?
MR. CARNEY:  I would rather not preview either of these speeches.  I’ll leave it to the President to do that when he delivers them.  I think that these are different occasions that have historically sort of demanded different types of addresses. But as you know, the President takes the writing of these speeches quite seriously, and I would not preview or prejudge the outcome of that process.
Q    At his first inaugural, the President signed several executive orders within, what, an hour or so of taking the oath of office.  This time there’s no need to do that since he can do it any time.  But does he plan anything of substance in addition to the inaugural address, any action that he would likely be taking on?
MR. CARNEY:  On his first day in office?  Again, I would ask you -- or ask for your patience to wait for any announcements that we might have along those lines.  I’m not suggesting that there might be because you rightly note that he’s already President, but I’m not going to preview anything that far in advance.
Q    Lately when you’ve been listing the various elements of dealing with gun violence, you have not mentioned either cultural issues or violent video games and movies.  The President did the very first time.  You did for a while.  But that sort of dropped off the radar screen.  I wonder if that’s reflective of internal conversations with the Vice President, you no longer -- the President no longer thinks that’s a part of the equation any longer and is not looking for initiatives or ideas to deal with that.
MR. CARNEY:  No, if that has been conveyed, it should not have been.  In fact, I should note that I can tell you that this week the Vice President will be meeting on Wednesday with victims groups as well as gun safety organizations; on Thursday with advocates for sportsmen and women, and then separately with gun ownership groups.  This is the meeting that we discussed.  This week he will also meet -- his group will also meet with representatives of the entertainment and video game industries. 
Also, Secretary Duncan will meet with representatives from parent, teacher, and education groups.  Secretary Sebelius will meet with mental health and disability advocates.  And senior White House staff have also held and will continue to hold meetings with a variety of stakeholders, including medical groups, community organizations, child and family advocates, business owners, faith leaders, and others. 
So to your question, one of the meetings this week will be with representatives of the entertainment and video game industries.
Q    In the “Meet the Press” interview, the President said something to the effect of the American people are going to have to make this happen, on the question specifically of gun control. And in the minds of those who are pressing the legislation, that made them feel a little bit nervous that the President was sort of handing over at least part of the responsibility for this, maybe drawing back a little bit for his personal advocacy.  Obviously, the things you’ve laid out today suggest otherwise.  I want to know if you wanted to refer back --
MR. CARNEY:  I would simply say that the President is noting a reality that I think applies not just to issues of gun control legislation, but economic or budget legislation.  It is very important for the public to be engaged in these issues, and for the public's voice to be heard in Washington.  And public opinion can help propel issues forward and compel Congress to act when it comes to legislative matters.
There is also an element here that I think transcends or is separate from legislative action that also involves raising public awareness and raising the voices of the American people who want to see change -- change that would help reduce gun violence in America, change that would help prevent the kinds of horrendous acts of violence that we saw last year in Connecticut and Colorado and elsewhere.
So I think it's just a recognition of the role that the public plays in all of these major issues.  It is not -- a participatory democracy is not -- the participation is not just limited to the vote you cast on an Election Day, but is, or can be, or should be year round.  And the President has I think demonstrated his belief that that is an effective way to get things done, and this is another case where he believes that’s the right way to go.
Q    On the sequester, during the negotiations the administration pushed for a year delay of the limitation of the sequester.  You obviously got two months.  Republicans report that that was a much higher priority for the administration to avoid it than it was for them.  First of all, do you accept that premise that the administration was much more nervous about delaying the implementation of the sequester than Republicans, where they were more comfortable with it, generally, than the administration is? 
Secondarily, if the administration is so nervous about the implementation of discretionary cuts, why not be more forceful and more descriptive and more specific about entitlements that would stave that off?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me address the first assertion, which I think, as the assertion we heard yesterday about a purported disinterest by Republicans in tax incentives for business, I think the idea that Republicans weren't interested in dealing with the sequester conflicts with recent history.
Last year, the Speaker of the House said, "I think the sequester will hurt our Department of Defense, will hurt our ability to do what Americans believe is our most basic responsibility, and that is to provide security for the American people.  I believe that Secretary Panetta believes the same thing." 
Senator Lindsey Graham, later in the year:  "I and others, including Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire, have been begging the President to sit down with us to avoid what his own Secretary of Defense said would be devastating to national security.”  And Senator McCain and others repeatedly, as your colleagues reported on last year, talked about their high concern about the impact of implementation of the sequester, specifically on our defense budget.  But as you know, the across-the-board cuts are equally divided between non-defense and defense spending and would be onerous on both sides of that coin. 
So if anything, late last year I think you heard more vocal concern about the sequester from Republicans than Democrats -- not that Democrats were less concerned about it but the volume was loudest I think on the Republican side.  So it doesn't stand to reason that they suddenly are not interested in dealing with it.
Q    And on the entitlement side?
MR. CARNEY:  Repeat your question. 
Q    Well, if you want to delay it, one of the ways to work around it would be to offer up or negotiate a more comprehensive, long-running restructuring of entitlement programs.  Republicans have put that on the table -- and that would take off some of the pressure on the discretionary side.  Simpson-Bowles, many others looking on the outside say the discretionary side has been squeezed for many years.  It was in the BCA.  It was before that. Yet entitlements tend not to be.  Why not move more of the entitlements up and take some of the pressure off the discretionary side?
MR. CARNEY:  What the President said last week and what he said repeatedly before that, and what holds true today, is that he is committed to further deficit reduction in a balanced way.  What he will not accept is deficit reduction that is borne solely by -- the burden which is borne solely by seniors, solely by families with disabled children, solely by families trying to send their kids to college or other vulnerable groups. 
One of the things that we learned through this process, through the negotiating process and the sort of concurrent communications efforts was that, in fact, specificity when it came to spending cuts could be found more on our side than on theirs.  And if the Republicans are suggesting that the answer to the sequester, to the debt ceiling, or any other thing, are simply to slash benefits for seniors, they ought to say so and they ought to provide a specified plan.  They know that the President won't accept that.
We have to have balance.  And balance means spending cuts; it means entitlement reform and it means tax reform.  Tax reform is something that Republicans and Democrats have both expressed keen interest in achieving.  Tax reform is something that, according to the Speaker of the House, could produce significant revenue.  When coupled with additional spending cuts, that revenue and that savings could further reduce our deficit significantly.  And that's certainly what the President hopes to achieve.
Mr. Emanuel, welcome back. 
Q    Thank you, Jay.  The top Senate Republican on the Budget Committee says as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling the Senate should be forced to pass a budget.  Do you have a thought on that?
MR. CARNEY:  Again, Congress -- the Senate, the House -- should act to raise the debt ceiling.  This is not a deal that the White House -- a negotiation the White House is going to have.  It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that the bills Congress racked up are paid. 
It's sometimes a useful exercise to look back when you hear the protests and the complaints about deficits and spending from Republicans, especially in the House but also in the Senate, to remember that many of these legislators were in office when the deficits exploded under the previous administration.  It's often fun to look at a charge of the deficit, the federal deficit over the years and note that it went down consistently under Democratic President Bill Clinton.  It went up again, turning surpluses into deficits, under George W. Bush.  And from a high point, because of the economic crisis, it has gone down again under President Obama.  That's a trend line. 
And the point is that Republicans certainly do not have a corner on the market when it comes to interest in reducing the deficit.  The President believes it is necessary to reduce our deficits, to get our fiscal house in order.  But he insists that we do it in a fair and balanced way.  That's the principle that he took into negotiations over the debt ceiling, his presentation to the super committee.  It is the principle that informs his budget proposals.  It is the principle that informed the proposals he put forward in his good-faith negotiations with Speaker Boehner in December.  And it's the principle he'll carry forth as we continue to deal with our challenges.
Q    With $16 trillion and counting, the election is over, some could argue a budget right now is probably more critical than ever -- no? 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, you can address -- those are questions for the Senate.  When it comes to -- the presentation of the question was, we will only raise the debt ceiling if this and that happens.  Let's just remember what danger awaits the pursuit of that path, the harm that was brought to this economy simply by the flirtation with default in the summer of 2011. 
We should and -- we can and should negotiate over how we continue to reduce our deficits in a responsible and balanced way, but we should not play chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States.
Q    One other topic, real fast -- reported drone strike today along the AFPAC border region.  As you know, Afghan and Pakistani officials have been vocal about their concerns about them possibly killing civilians as opposed to terrorists.  What can you say to address their concerns?  And can you talk a little bit about the President's thinking when it comes to drone strikes?
MR. CARNEY:  I won't talk about anything specific like that. I can tell you that, as John Brennan and others and the President have said, in the effort to battle al Qaeda and other extremist groups, we endeavor to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible.  And I think that the broader record here of success in taking the fight to al Qaeda and eliminating al Qaeda leadership and leadership of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations is one that has made the United States safer.
Q    If John Brennan is confirmed as CIA director, is it safe to assume the drone program will continue and --
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I'm just not going to -- I think that there has been some discussion of the drone program as it relates to the Department of Defense, but I'm not going to get into any further discussion of it from here. 
Yes, Peter.
Q    There are several looming battles for this White House that will be coming up over the course of the next several months -- the debt ceiling; we have gun control, as we've already addressed here; and now with the nomination of Senator Hagel, there’s the likelihood of a contentious battle, as we heard from members of the Senate, frankly, on both sides.  Does this White House have any concern that this fight right now will complicate the ability to --
MR. CARNEY:  Which fight?  You listed a bunch.
Q    I'm saying that the fight over Senator Hagel right now will complicate that for gun control and debt ceiling and other ones where you're going to need bipartisan support?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, we fully expect that -- after the fair hearing that Senator McConnell said he hoped Senator Hagel would receive -- that he will be confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense.  And we certainly hope and expect that he will be supported by Democrats and Republicans, and that he will then have the opportunity to serve as the first Vietnam veteran and first enlisted serviceman to lead that department.
Look, we have a lot of work to do.  And we have disagreements on some fundamental issues with members of Congress.  But it is incumbent upon all of us to press forward and confront those challenges and get the work done.  That applies to the economy and budget matters, to fiscal matters.  It applies to immigration reform, to actions we can take to reduce gun violence, to matters of energy and climate change.  These are all things that need to be addressed.  And we can't, either here or in Congress, simply say there is too much to be done so we're not going to press forward.  We have to press forward with all of it. 
Q    We heard within the last year that the President says he supports gay marriage.  He said at that time that that issue would be worked at the local level.  But given the fact that the Supreme Court has now said that it will hear arguments just two months from now, in March, should we expect the President will publicly advocate against Proposition 8, and would he also advocate for same-sex couples to have the right to federal benefits?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, let's be clear about a couple of things. For comment on specific Supreme Court cases, I would point you to the Department of Justice.  On the issue of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, the administration's position on this is well known and has been, and that’s that the President has determined that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, and that his administration will no longer defend equal protection challenges against it in the courts.  The DOJ has participated in the DOMA cases consistent with that position, and asked the Supreme Court to resolve the questions.  So that is the DOMA issue. 
On Prop 8, the administrative is not a party to that case, and I have nothing for you on that.
Q    Whether he would speak out at --
MR. CARNEY:  I have nothing further on that.
Q    And then to conclude, Hillary Clinton arrived at the White House a short time ago.  This will be the first opportunity for the President to see the Secretary -- outgoing -- soon-to-be-outgoing Secretary of State since her accident.  Did they have a chance to speak yet?  And how did that conversation go?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, they have spoken --
Q    Face to face, this will be the first time.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not sure, but you should know that he spoke with her not too many days ago, as well as after her accident, and was keeping tabs on her condition throughout.  So this would not be -- when they see each other today, it would not as if they hadn't been --
Q    There was no exchange of helmets or something? (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I wasn't there. 
Yes.
Q    Back to Afghanistan.  On the troop levels, reports say the White House is considering keeping between 3,000 and 9,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014.  Are those numbers accurate?
MR. CARNEY:  I have no announcements to make about the pace of the drawdown that will continue, that continues as we speak, after the initial withdrawal of the surge forces, nor do I have any decisions by the President to make regarding post-2014 security arrangements.  We've talked about the possibility of assisting -- a counterterrorism effort and assisting in the training of -- for the training of Afghan forces.  But beyond that, I have no new numbers to report to you.  As we've said in the past, the President is in the process of reviewing proposals, and when he is ready to announce a decision, he'll do that.
Q    And is the administrative encouraged by the reports that there's been some progress in the talks involving the Karzai government and the Taliban?
MR. CARNEY:  We support, as you know, reconciliation led by the Afghan government with the Taliban, and our position on that hasn't changed.  I don't have an assessment to give to you from here of progress being made.  I think the Afghan government is a good place to look for that.  But we do support it.  We believe ultimately that is an essential part of a process that would lead to a more peaceful and stable Afghanistan.
Connie.
Q    On Palestine, does the President have a position on the new Palestinian state that Abbas has proclaimed?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, we've expressed it many times, the fact that we oppose unilateral actions.  We oppose the unilateral action taken by the Palestinians at the United Nations.  We believe that when it comes to Middle East peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, it is essential for direct face-to-fact negotiations to resume, and it is essential for each side to refrain from taking unilateral actions that make it more difficult to engage in face-to-face negotiations, and to allow that process to proceed to a point where a sustainable peace is possible.  So our position was frequently stated when this was an issue at the United Nations General Assembly and prior to that last year.
Q    -- talks with Abbas about this?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I haven't personally, no.  But obviously we as an administration have conversations and made our views on this directly known to Palestinian leaders.
Q    A quick one on Egypt and Pakistan.  Does the U.S. still plan to give billions of dollars of aid to each country?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't have a breakdown specifically on aid status for either country, but we believe that it is important to continue to support progress in Egypt, and we work with the Egyptian government to ensure that progress is made.  And that would be true with Pakistan.  We’ve talked a lot in this room about the complicated relationship with Pakistan, but it is one that is in the interests of U.S. national security to pursue, and we continue to do that with Pakistan.
Laura.
Q    There’s a developing story in France involving taxes on the wealthy, with Gerard Depardieu who is leaving France because he wants to avoid to pay higher taxes.  He has been granted by Vladimir Putin the Russian nationality, and now he is going to be appointed Minister of Culture of Russia.  (Laughter.)  Is there any comment from the White House?
MR. CARNEY:  Is Andrei here?  (Laughter.)  I want my friend Andrei’s opinion about that.  I have no White House comment on that startling development.  (Laughter.)
Mike.
Q    Thanks.  On the fiscal cliff, moving into the -- to talk about the debt ceiling, it seems that the concern is not getting pushed up against that deadline in March or whenever it’s going to be, that probably the best thing to do would be to get into those issues now and see if you can’t come to some sort of accommodation between the two sides before that even becomes an issue.  Is that something that the President is looking at doing, to get those talks started as soon as possible?  Or how is the White House viewing that?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me be clear.  We will not negotiate with Congress over the fulfillment of Congress’s responsibility to raise the debt ceiling.  The President has been very clear about that.  I have, and others have.  If Congress is concerned, as it should be, about not showing any indication of allowing a default, then it would be best to act without drama or delay when Congress returns to raise the debt ceiling.  We would hope that Congress would do that. 
But we won’t negotiate over it.  We won’t ask -- the choice that would be presented in such a negotiation presumably would be to ask Americans to either -- it’s basically to pay Congress through voucherization of Medicare or slashed benefits in Social Security or other types of reductions in exchange for Congress doing its job, and that is paying the bills that it’s already incurred.  And that’s not an equation the President supports.
There is absolutely room for negotiation and discussion about how we continue to reduce our deficit in a responsible and balanced way.  The President has demonstrated, through his proposal to the super committee, through his budget proposals, through his negotiating proposals with Secretary -- I mean Speaker Boehner, that he is willing to compromise; that he has been willing, consistently, to meet Republicans at least halfway when it comes to taking action to responsibly reduce our deficit and get our fiscal house in order.  And he is absolutely willing to continue to do that when we talk about turning off the sequester, or just simply dealing with our long-term fiscal challenges.
But he does not in any way accept the premise that he should negotiate with Congress over Congress’s fundamental responsibility to pay the bills that it’s already incurred.  We are the greatest nation on Earth.  We are the wealthiest nation on Earth and the largest economy.  And one of the reasons why we are what we are is because investors around the world, people around the world understand that we pay our bills.  And we should never cast doubt on that prospect.
Q    So just to clarify, are you saying you won’t enter negotiations with them unless they verbally or in writing or somehow say that they haven’t linked the two issues?  I mean, what exactly does that mean -- that the President won’t talk to them unless they delink them or --
MR. CARNEY:  I think that -- it’s hard to be more clear:  We won’t negotiate over raising the debt ceiling.
Q    But would you be willing to start talking to them now?
MR. CARNEY:  The President has been willing, and I think demonstrated through his negotiations with the Speaker and through the process that followed, to engage with Congress on matters of deficit reduction and necessary measures to help our economy grow and create jobs at any time.  His principles remained throughout that process, which is fundamentally that we have to do it in a responsible way and a balanced way.
But again, he won’t have that negotiation over the debt ceiling because Congress has to simply pay these bills that they’ve incurred. 
Again, I could read through it but I’ll spare you -- what happened last time.  And throughout this recovery, the weakest month of job creation was in August of 2011.  And the primary reason for that was because of the insistence by House Republicans in July and June, the insistence by them to flirt with the prospect of default.  And consumer confidence plummeted, the DOW plummeted, investment dried up, and the American people paid the price.  And they were not happy by having to pay that price, justifiably.
Q    Jay, can you clarify?  It sounds like you’re sequencing that Congress has to handle the debt ceiling first before the President will discuss sequestration, or --
MR. CARNEY:  I’m separating.  I’m separating.  Congress -- we called on Congress to act without drama or delay throughout the end of the year last year.  We continue to call on them to act without drama or delay to deal with the debt ceiling, to deal with its responsibility. 
But again we are separating -- again, the process that you’re envisioning doesn’t -- well, this is the question I answered 45 minutes ago.  Congress isn’t here.  When Congress returns, I imagine that we will engage in conversations about the sequester and other economic issues.  But we will not negotiate over the basic responsibility of Congress to do its job, which is to pay the bills incurred by the United States.
All the way in the back, yes.
Q    A follow-up on Hagel with a specific regard to his experience in China -- in the ‘80s as a businessman.  Can you talk about whether his experience in China was a factor in his nomination, given the fact that the Asia pivot is a big part of his responsibility at the Pentagon?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t know specifically whether that experience -- how much that experience played into the President’s decision.  It is certainly a fact that Senator Hagel has a varied and broad resume that includes his experience as a businessman.  But I think you heard the President cite his service in Vietnam and his service in the Senate, his service on the Intelligence Advisory Board as well as his time as a CEO as part of a broad package of experiences that make him the right choice to be the next Secretary of Defense.
Thank you all.
END  
   1:46 P.M. EST

Source: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/8/2013

Statement by the Press Secretary on the visit of President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to the White House

President Obama will host President Hamid Karzai and his delegation at the White House for bilateral meetings on Friday, January 11. President Obama looks forward to welcoming the Afghan delegation to Washington, and discussing our continued transition in Afghanistan, and our shared vision of an enduring partnership between the United States and Afghanistan.

Source: Statement by the Press Secretary on the visit of President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to the White House

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/7/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:17 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY:  Thank you all for being here.  It is wonderful to see you for the first time in the New Year.  I hope everyone here had some time off and time with family.
Q    What Washington were you -- (laughter.)
MR. CARNEY:  I’m sure there were many of you, like many of us, who had too little of both, but it is what it is.  And with that I’ll take your questions.
Q    Thank you.  I noticed that in the nomination ceremony in the East Room, the President, as he was speaking about Senator Hagel, never mentioned Israel, never mentioned Iran.  Those have been two of the main criticisms of Senator Hagel.  Does the President feel like Hagel needs to address his past comments on Israel and Iran before he can be confirmed, or does he feel like those comments are irrelevant to this process?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, today the President announced his nominees for Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and he made broad comments about why the two men he nominated are the right people for the jobs.  There will be a process in each case where the Senate reviews the nominees and the President asked the Senate to move quickly because these positions are very important for our national security.  And I know Senator Hagel and John Brennan look forward to that process and to fair hearings in both cases.
It is a routine part of this exercise that nominees are asked about their views on various issues.  And on the matters you just raised, Senator Hagel has been a staunch supporter of Israel, of the Israeli-American relationship, of the United States’ support for Israel’s security throughout his career.  And he has also been, as demonstrated by his record, a supporter of the broad sanctions regime that this President has put into place against Iran -- a sanctions regime that is unprecedented and which as recently as I think last spring, Senator Hagel wrote about favorably and urged Washington as a whole to continue.  So I know -- I’m sure Senator Hagel looks forward to discussing his record in his nomination hearings.
Q    But does the President feel like it’s important that Hagel clarify some of the statements that he made?  Even after the President’s announcement today we saw statements from various lawmakers asking him to clarify what he meant.
MR. CARNEY:  I think that the process will allow for what it always does, which is a review by the Senate of presidential nominees.  I think that Senator Hagel’s record on those issues and so many others demonstrate that he is in sync with the President’s policies.  And, on the first issue, let’s be clear.  President Obama has, in his administration, overseen the closest, most substantial support for Israel’s defense of any administration in history.  And that is a judgment that is not just made by me or others in the President’s administration; it’s a judgment that has been made and expressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and by Defense Minister Ehud Barak.  And that is a policy that will continue under President Obama with all the members of his national security team.
But again, the process is what it’s supposed to be, and I’m sure that there will be the kind of proceedings that normally take place when nominees for these positions are put forward.
Q    The President also said that with national security positions in particular it’s important to not have a gap.  Over at Treasury, Secretary Geithner has said that he plans to leave by about January 20th.  Given all of the fiscal issues that are coming up and all of the deadlines that are coming up, does the President also feel that it’s important to not have a gap between when Secretary Geithner leaves and his replacement is confirmed?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I have no other announcements to make or updates to give with regards to personnel.  I am sure that when the President nominates a successor to Secretary Geithner, he will look forward to speedy consideration by the Senate.  But I don’t have a timetable for that.
Q    So we shouldn’t expect something before Geithner leaves on January --
MR. CARNEY:  I have no guidance to give you on the timing.  It’s very important for any President to have time and space to consider his or her nominees for these important positions, and when he’s ready to make an announcement, he will.
Reuters.
Q    The fiscal cliff deal, as you know, included a package of tax breaks for businesses worth about $64 billion, including the wind tax credit.  And Republicans are saying that the President insisted on these, and I’m wondering why, given all of the difficulty reaching that final deal, the President really insisted on including these business tax breaks.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, you’re assuming that what you’ve been told is correct.  I would simply say that it would strain the credulity of everyone in this room to suggest that Republicans did not support or want tax credits for business.  That would truly be turning Washington on its head, and that is not what happened.
The President did support giving certainty to American businesses and consumers by including in the fiscal deal the bipartisan extenders package that the Senate Finance Committee, this summer -- or summer of 2012 -- passed 19 to 5.  And more than 90 percent of the cost of the extenders package is associated with longstanding provisions in the tax code, with clear policy rationale for businesses or individuals, including the R&D tax credit to support domestic job-creating research investments; the production tax credit, which you mentioned, which supports clean energy jobs -- if this key support had been allowed to expire, as you know because it was discussed during the campaign, as many as 37,000 clean energy jobs could have been lost; mortgage debt relief to help homeowners, which protect homeowners from paying taxes on up to $2 million of forgiven debt.  And the list goes on -- bonus depreciation.
So again, going back to the first point, this package of tax extenders was supported on a bipartisan basis by the Senate Finance Committee.  The President supported it.  But it is, again -- you would have to suspend disbelief to accept the premise that Republicans did not.
Ann.
Q    Thanks, Jay.  Is there a moment that the President sat down with Senator Hagel and offered him the job, and had a heart-to-heart talk about what kind of shape he would like to see, or what direction he’d like to see the Pentagon move in?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President did formally offer Senator Hagel the job, I believe, by phone over the weekend.  But the fact is that Senator Hagel and President Obama have a long relationship that dates back to their service together in the United States Senate.  As the President mentioned today, they traveled together abroad.  And Senator Hagel, after he left the Senate, was co-chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.  So they have had an ongoing conversation about this nation’s national security needs and the President’s policies in the last four years, which I think is clear that Senator Hagel believes have been the right policies and that he looks forward to helping implement, if he is confirmed by the Senate.
Front row is kind of docile, but I’ll go to Chuck.  Yes.  (Laughter.)
Q    What in the President’s background -- what in Chuck Hagel’s background gave the President confidence that he could run a bureaucracy as big as the Pentagon?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, among the items on Senator Hagel’s rather unique resume is the fact that he was a CEO, and a successful one, and ran a business.  And that is one of the many attributes that he brings to the job of running, as you say, an institution as large as the Defense Department.  And that’s part of a record that, as the President noted today, is really quite remarkable. 
Here is someone who fought and bled for his country, who enlisted as a volunteer to serve and fight in Vietnam, who was awarded the Purple Heart twice, who then served in the VA and as head of USO, and then as a United States senator, and since then as an advisor to the President on intelligence matters on the Intelligence Advisory Board.  This is a remarkable career of service in which all of Senator Hagel’s many talents are reflected.  And he will bring those talents to the job.
Q    Did anything that was out there trouble the President enough where he re-interviewed Senator Hagel?  Like, when he saw a report about --
MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to go through the process of --
Q    I mean, how -- did he make Senator Hagel answer some of these questions --
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not -- I won’t go through the process that the President uses to select nominees, except that he does so in a very deliberate fashion.  He looks for the very best people for these jobs both in the national security arena and elsewhere in the administration.
When it comes to Senator Hagel, as I was just saying, he has known Senator Hagel for a fairly long time and has worked with him directly both in the Senate and as President.  So the President knows his record, he knows Senator Hagel’s commitment, and he has full confidence that Senator Hagel will be an excellent Secretary of Defense who will look out, as the President said, for those who serve in our armed forces as volunteers, as he did, who implement the policies, the decisions that are made here in Washington, often at such a far remove from the battlefield.  And he has great confidence that Senator Hagel will be an excellent Secretary of Defense.
Q    On John Brennan, what makes it different today than four years ago when John Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for the CIA over at the time was thought to be -- there was going to be -- that he wasn’t ready to answer questions about his role in devising the enhanced -- in being a part of the enhanced interrogation technique? 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’d say two things.  One, at the time, Mr. Brennan wrote a letter in which he made clear that he opposed so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.  And two, for the past four years, John Brennan has served as this President’s chief counterterrorism advisor.  And it is this President who banned torture as one of his first acts in office, and he has implemented that policy and many others with the remarkably capable assistance of John Brennan.
Q    And finally would you respond to secretary -- sorry -- Senator McConnell over the weekend said the tax issue is now done.  Does the White House share his view?
MR. CARNEY:  No, we believe that any further deficit reduction, of which there must be, in the President's view -- must be pursued with the same balanced approach that the President has insisted on up to now.
Q    -- now, though?
MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to itemize how it breaks down.  But the fact is as part of the overall $4 trillion deficit-reduction package that the President put forward, the ratio was more like $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue.
Q    Going forward now, now that this --
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, you'd have to break down the numbers and look at it.  And I'm not going to prejudge any proposals that might come forward.
But one of the things you heard the President of the United States say on New Year's Day when this fiscal cliff challenge was resolved is that the agreement enshrined the principle that we must have balance as we move forward in our deficit reduction.  In the spending cuts that were part of the fiscal cliff deal, they were paid for in a balanced way with both -- rather the buy-down of the sequester was paid for in a balanced way with both -- roughly 50 percent spending cuts and 50 percent revenue.  And that is an approach the President -- balance, anyway, is an approach the President believes is very important to continue.
And when members of Congress suggest that revenues are now somehow not part of the equation it doesn't really make a lot of sense, because as I stood here and discussed with you the various proposals going back and forth during the fiscal cliff negotiations, when the President was seeking in negotiations with Speaker Boehner a big deal, one that would address our long-term fiscal challenges through broader deficit reduction, the Speaker put on the table what he claimed was an $800 billion revenue proposal made up entirely of the closure of loopholes and the capping of deductions -- tax reform.  Now, either that was good policy that they no longer support, or Republicans also believe, as the President does, that through tax reform we can achieve an improved tax --
Q    So you think the Republicans are going to put forward $800 billion in tax increases --
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I would ask you what about that $800 billion proposal was okay then, it's not okay now.   And the President believes, as Republicans have said they believe, that we need to reform our tax code, and that there are loopholes that are crying out to be closed that no longer serve the country, if they ever did, and that there are ways of capping deductions and reforming our tax code that can produce more revenue in a fair way that, again, does not burden the middle class, but asks the wealthiest to pay more.
Q    Jay, since you talked about the conversation with Boehner, at that last stage it was $1.2 trillion of revenue the President put on the table in the last conversation with Boehner. Does that mean the President is looking for ballpark $600 billion-$700 billion more in tax reform revenue?
MR. CARNEY:  I prefer not to get into the negotiations for how we eliminate the sequester, which the President obviously is interested in doing, from this podium today.  But it is clear from the proposals the President put forward dating back to his submission to the super committee, through his budget proposals, and through the negotiations with Speaker Boehner, what his principles are, where he believes we can appropriately reform our tax code and produce more revenue, and the balance that we need to inform us as we make the kind of spending cuts that are necessary for broader deficit reduction.
But the fact is, going back to Chuck's question, is that we know that balance is the way to go here.  It is the path that the public supports, and it is inconceivable to the President -- and I would think to many of you -- that the Republicans want to, as we approach the coming months, have as a basic position that what we really need to do is -- for example, going back to some of their previous proposals like the Ryan budget -- voucherize Medicare or slash benefits for seniors without asking the wealthy to do any more.  I don't think that's a position that is plausible to take, and it's certainly not a position the President supports.
Q    Is he adamantly opposed to a revenue-neutral tax reform approach?  And would he veto a bill that was operating on that premise?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, you're getting way ahead of any process that's in place now.  He is --
Q    But Republicans have said --
MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me just on the first --
Q    -- revenue neutrality is their opening bid on tax reform.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I appreciate that it's their opening bid, but for some reason it was viable a few weeks ago to find $800 billion in revenue through closed loopholes and capped deductions that presumably aren't good for the economy.  And the President believes that tax reform can and should produce more revenue, because balance is essential as we achieve further deficit reduction -- because it is not the President's position, as he made clear from this podium just last week, that we will reduce our deficit going forward simply by asking seniors or middle-class families or parents with kids in college to bear the burden solely.
Q    How long does the President -- the tepid reaction of Senate Democrats to Senator Hagel's nomination --
MR. CARNEY:  The President believes that when the Senate considers the totality of Senator Hagel's career that they will confirm him as the next Secretary of Defense.
The Senator's record is exemplary both in uniform and in the private sector, and as a United States Senator, and as an advisor on intelligence matters to the President.  And I know that Senator Hagel looks forward to discussing that record with the Senate. 
And I won't bore you or tie up too much of your time by reading the number of endorsements that Senator Hagel's nomination has already received from a variety of quarters, but they are numerous and we expect that more will come.
Q    Is it your position that when Hagel was skeptical of sanctions on Iran in 2006, 2005, called for direct negotiations with Hezbollah -- all that stuff was that was then and this is now, it just isn't relevant to the record at all?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, those are I think descriptions of the positions that are slightly skewed by the current debate.  They're not part of -- the fact is on sanctions, for example, Senator Hagel supported an aggressive sanctions regime against Iran.  And he, as recently as last year, wrote about the need to continue to isolate and pressure Iran through sanctions. 
Q    -- in their roll-call votes in 2005-2006 --
MR. CARNEY:  Again, there is the approach that President Obama has taken -- which has been vastly more effective and which has been multilateral in nature, and therefore more effective, to Iran -- and there are individual votes that you can isolate and say represent the whole, which they do not.  The fact is Senator Hagel supports a sanctions regime against Iran.  And as Secretary of Defense, he will aggressively implement the President's policies, including his very aggressive approach to sanctioning Iran for its failure to meet its international obligations with regards to its nuclear program.
Q    What about Hezbollah?
MR. CARNEY:  Again, Senator Hagel's record is exemplary on all of these issues.  And he will, I'm sure, when he has the opportunity to have a confirmation hearing, be asked a lot of questions about what his views are on policies. 
Fundamentally, what's important to remember is that members of this President's national security team, just like members of his broader team, are hired for and do the work of implementing the President's policies.  And when it comes to Israel, to the Middle East, to Hezbollah, to Hamas, to Iran, this President's policies are very clear.  And Senator Hagel will, as Secretary of Defense, carry out those policies, just as John Brennan will as Director of the CIA, and as other members of the President's team have and will going forward, including, as you know, Secretary Gates, one of this President's Secretaries of Defense who just a few moments ago expressed his admiration for Senator Hagel and his desire that Senator Hagel be confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
Q    Jay, in light of that, what do you make of Senator Lindsey Graham's assertion that the Hagel nomination is an "in your face" nomination that suggests an in-your-face second-term President?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I'm not going to get into a rebuttal of every stray comment made by members of Congress.  The fact of the matter is Senator Hagel's record is exemplary.  He fought for his country in uniform as an enlisted member of the armed services in Vietnam.  He served his country in the United States Senate. 
And it is rather remarkable to hear some of the critics out there question Senator Hagel and whether or not he should have this position when you look back at what those very same members of the Senate said effusively in praise of Senator Hagel just a few years ago.  He is the same man today, the same patriot today, the same intellect today that he was then.  And we agree with, for example, Senator McCain who said not too many years ago that “Chuck Hagel will be an excellent Secretary of State.”  The President happens to believe that he would be an excellent Secretary of Defense.
Q    On another matter, the Vice President has been charged with what we are to understand will be a broad approach to dealing with the problem of gun violence.  Senator McConnell says he doesn’t want to talk about anything but fiscal matters for the next few years.  Does that mean we shouldn’t expect any movement, any recommendations from the Vice President over the next few months?  I’m sorry, I said years, I meant months.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, with respect to Senator McConnell, I think the President will move forward with his agenda in a timely fashion, and that includes the work that Vice President Biden is doing on the effort to examine measures that we can take to address the problem of gun violence in this country. 
I think that many Americans, if not most -- I believe most Americans would disagree with the idea that in the wake of what happened in Newtown, Connecticut, that we should put off any action on the issue of gun violence.  I think that sentiment would be met with surprise by the vast majority of the American people who don’t watch the Sunday shows, especially on the Sunday after New Year’s Day.  But it’s certainly not a sentiment the President supports.
Q    And talk to me about a broad effort as opposed to something that deals with strictly gun laws.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can cite the President on several occasions where he talked about the fact that issues that -- that approaches that address access to guns including legislation like the assault weapons ban, or legislation that would ban high-capacity gun clips, or legislation that would close the many loopholes in our background check system are only -- while very important and he supports congressional actions right away on those matters -- are only part of the problem and only address part of the problem.  And he believes that issues of mental health, issues of education, for example, are part of this problem and need to be addressed as part of the effort that Vice President Biden is undertaking.
Alexis.
Q    Jay, on the Hill, Senators had greeted -- or had criticized Susan Rice, who was not nominated for a new position, in a way that prompted the President to suggest that if in fact she was being used as a proxy, that they were actually criticizing him.  Does the President listen to the criticism of Senator Hagel in much the same way, believing that the criticism is more aimed at him than it is at Senator Hagel?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I will reject the temptation to compare one to the other.  I will simply say that the President believes very firmly as you heard him just moments ago say, that Senator Hagel will make, if confirmed, and excellent Secretary of Defense, that his record is exemplary and unique in that, as the President said, Senator Hagel would be the first Vietnam veteran to run the Defense Department, the first enlisted person to run the Defense Department, and with that he would bring a keen understanding of and appreciation for the men and women who serve throughout our armed forces.
So he looks forward to a speedy consideration by the Senate and believes that Senator Hagel’s record will convince the Senate to confirm him as the next Secretary of Defense.
Q    And a quick follow-up on Major’s question about the process towards sequestration.  For those who think that the President maybe learned from the process he just went through on the fiscal cliff that he will not be dealing with Speaker Boehner, does the President -- can you just clarify, does he fully intend to have continuing conversations directly with the Speaker, to negotiate with him directly?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President believes that as part of our system of government the executive branch engages with and negotiates with the legislative branch, and that will continue -- on a range of issues, not just economic and fiscal matters.  And the President, as he said, is very open to compromise on a range of issues when it comes to addressing our fiscal challenges and putting in place policies that help our economy grow and continue to create jobs.  He will not negotiate over Congress’s responsibility to pay the bills that Congress has incurred.
As you know as a veteran reporter here in Washington, a President cannot by himself or herself spend a single dollar.  Congress passes the laws.  Congress appropriates the funds.  Congress racks up the bills and Congress must pay the bills.  And it is simply inappropriate and extremely dangerous to suggest that in the name of a political agenda we would default, for example, on our obligations to pay our bills.  That is Congress’s responsibility and the President will not negotiate with Congress over Congress’s responsibility to pay its bills.
Q    Jay, the Speaker, prior to --
MR. CARNEY:  Glenn, how are you?  Happy New Year.
Q    Happy New Year.
MR. CARNEY:  Where’s your hat?  (Laughter.) 
Q    I'll put it on for you later.  (Laughter.) 
MR. CARNEY:  It’s a little -- the lights are bright and they reflect and -- (laughter.) 
Q    It’s polite to take your hat off -- it’s good manners.
MR. CARNEY:  It is, actually.  I remind my son of that periodically.  Thank you for that.
Q    I will respond to that later.  (Laughter.) 
MR. CARNEY:  I don't want to read that.  (Laughter.) 
Q    The Speaker apparently said explicitly to his own conference prior to his reelection as Speaker last week that he does not want to negotiate directly with the President anymore.  Do you think that's appropriate?  And what’s the President’s response?
MR. CARNEY:  This is not personal and this is about putting in place the policies that are best for the country.  That's how the President looks at it. 
There’s no question that President Obama, in the course of his four years in office, has learned a great deal about how to work with Congress and how to enlist public support on behalf of policies that are very important to the lives of everyday Americans across the country.  And as we've discussed in recent months, the President will continue to make the case to the American people for the policies that he believes are right, and even as he works with and negotiates with Congress on matters of legislative importance.
So I'm not -- I only heard about this indirectly.  I didn’t obviously have this conversation directly with the Speaker or even read the article that you're talking about.  But I did hear this.  I think it is incumbent upon the leaders in Washington to continue to work together to get the necessary work done to advance the economy, continue to create jobs, and to ensure that we're doing everything possible to make America safe.  And that includes confirming, for example, presidential nominees for a national security post.
Q    Is he committed to pressing that with Speaker Boehner?  Will he try to talk to Boehner even if Boehner --
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the distinction I’m trying to make here, in answer to Alexis’s question, is that he is, as he said from here, eager to and willing to compromise in order to achieve policies that advance our economic growth and help the economy create jobs, and bring down our deficit in a responsible and balanced way.  He will continue to do that.  And we have, as a result of the fiscal cliff, two more months to deal with the so-called sequester, and that’s something that the President will obviously be addressing.
What he will not do, as he has made clear, is negotiate with Congress over Congress’s sole responsibility to pay the bills that Congress has already incurred.  Nobody forced Congress to rack up the bills that it incurred.  And it is an abdication of responsibility to say that we’re going to let the country default and cause global economic calamity simply because we’re not getting what we want in terms of our ideological agenda.  The President is not going to participate in that. 
And I would remind you of the damage caused to our economy by the approach that House Republicans took on this matter just in the summer of 2011.  As a result of their flirtation with default, the stock market plummeted.  The DOW fell 7 percent, or almost 900 points, in late July and early August of 2011.  The United States was downgraded and the DOW fell another 10 percent, or 1100 points after the S&P downgraded the United States.  Consumer confidence plummeted to its lowest point since the financial crisis in 2008.  Uncertainty for businesses froze hiring.  Widespread uncertainty for middle-class families was created and caused.  And job figures, job growth in August of 2011 was the lowest of any month in our economic recovery. 
And that is what you get when you play games with the full faith and credit of the United States.  We don’t expect, and certainly don’t hope -- or certainly hope that the Congress does not engage in that kind of activity.
Q    Back to Senator Hagel for a second.  In his first interview today, he said that he was “hanging out there in no- man’s land,” unable to respond to charges and falsehoods and distortions against him.  I’m wondering if you could walk through what specific groups, outside groups, outside the Senate, have Jack Lew and other administration officials been reaching out to in hopes of smoothing this nomination.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I appreciate the opportunity, but I’ll pass on it.  Obviously, broadly speaking, the White House is reaching out to a number of groups and individuals with regards to this nomination and others, and will continue to do so in making the case for these individuals.
But as far as the initial part of your question, it is certainly an unfortunate reality that has become the norm here in Washington that even when names are bandied about in the press as possible nominees, that a process begins where critics jump all over them.  And that’s just part of -- well, one of the reasons why Washington has become a more fractious place.
But again, the President looks forward to Senate consideration of his nominees that he announced today.  He believes that the Senate will confirm both Senator Hagel and John Brennan to those positions.  And in each case, as the President said, these are uniquely qualified individuals for the offices that they will hold if confirmed.
Q    Is the White House enlisting other outside people, though, to help with these groups?
MR. CARNEY:  No, I think that -- well, I’ll simply say that we have conversations with individuals all the time about -- and groups -- about our policy proposals and nominees for higher office.  But I don’t have anything specific to report to you and there’s nothing unusual about that process for either this administration or its predecessors.
Brianna.
Q    Jay, the recent personnel announcements that we’ve heard have all been men.  I’m wondering how important it is to President Obama to have women in prominent roles in his new Cabinet.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I appreciate the question.  The President does believe that diversity is very important and he also believes that picking the absolute right person for each job is very important.  And the nominees he announced today represent that principle in that he believes Senator Hagel and John Brennan are the right individuals for the jobs to which they have been nominated.
I would remind you that as part of President Obama’s national security team we have Secretary Clinton, who, after four years, is leaving office.  We have Secretary Napolitano, who continues as Homeland Security Secretary.  We have Ambassador Susan Rice, who has indicated that she will be staying on in New York as the U.S. Representative to the United Nations, a Cabinet-level position.  And there are obviously other remarkably capable women in positions of high office in this administration and will continue to be.
Q    But presumably, I mean, some of them will obviously leave over time, and I’m wondering, in terms of having a replacement, for instance, with Secretary Clinton leaving, do you think that --
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that any suggestion that Secretary Clinton was chosen because of her gender would be rejected by Secretary Clinton and others.  And any suggestion that nominees not be chosen for their qualifications would be rejected by everyone whose interest is in, as the President’s is, the very -- finding the very best people for each job.  And that’s what he’s done today and that’s what he’ll continue to do.
And he, in that process, insists on diversity on the lists that he considers for the job because he believes that in casting a broader net, you increase the excellence of the pool of potential nominees for these positions.  But in the end, he’ll make the choice that he believes is best for the United States.  In this case, that would be Secretary Hagel -- or Senator Hagel for Secretary of Defense and John Brennan for Director of the CIA.
Q    And on the Biden group, when will we hear from the Biden group?
MR. CARNEY:  I think the President has indicated that he wants the effort led by Vice President Biden to report to him with dispatch, but I don’t have a timeline to give you.  The President has already urged Congress when it comes back to work to take up initiatives -- legislation to ban assault weapons, to ban high-capacity magazines, and to improve our background checks system because it does have loopholes.  The so-called gun show loophole is a problem that he thinks that Congress can and should address.  As for the other aspects of what the President will recommend, I’ll leave it to him to announce.
Q    It seems January was sort of the absolute last time that he wants for recommendations, and there have been some reports that there will be listening sessions.  I’m wondering, is there time?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, it is January 7th and it would be --
Q    Are there going to be listening sessions?
MR. CARNEY:  -- a disservice to the month of January to assume that it was over one week in.  (Laughter.)  So I would ask you to stay tuned.  I just don't have any --
Q    I just wish we had December back.  (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY:  December, yes --
Q    Will there be a chance for people to weigh in in the listening sessions?
MR. CARNEY:  I just don't have any more information for you. I know that the Vice President is leading a process that is very inclusive, that is including, as I think has been reported, conversations with many stakeholders who have a keen interest in this issue.  And that will continue to be the case.
Roger Runningen, and then Mr. Nakamura.
Q    Jay, can you tell us who the sherpas are for each of the nominees today?
MR. CARNEY:  I don't have sherpas for you.  I think a sherpa is commonly associated with Supreme Court nominees.  I don't know that there are such beings in this case.  Senator Hagel and Mr. Brennan will be assisted as they go through the process of confirmation in the Senate by a number of people, but I don't have individuals to provide to you.
Q    The Senate Chairman will of course set the dates on that, but do you have commitments for them to set an early date as soon as they return on the 22nd or so?
MR. CARNEY:  The President, as you heard him earlier today say, hopes that the Senate will take up these nominations, as well as the nomination of Senator Kerry for Secretary of State, as soon as possible because of the importance of filling these positions quickly, importance to our national security.  But I don't have a date certain for you and, obviously, we defer to the relevant committees.
Q    Jay, just to follow up on Brianna's question, you talked just a minute ago about when the President believes in diversity, insists on diversity, and that he casts a broad net when he's talking about looking for candidates to serve.  During the campaign, Mitt Romney was sort of ridiculed for saying that he wanted a binder full of women to make decisions on Cabinet members.  What do you mean by the President is insisting on diversity and casts this broad net?  Does he interview people like Michele Flournoy for defense jobs to make sure that he's really hearing from women, from other minorities in specifically this job and other jobs?  Or does he insist on other ways to find qualified candidates that --
MR. CARNEY:  He, again without addressing any specific nomination process, I would say that the answer is yes.  He speaks with numerous potential candidates for various positions and diverse candidates.  He selects, as I think the officeholders in his first administration and first Cabinet demonstrates, he selects men and women who he believes are the right individuals for the jobs to which they've been appointed.  And that continues to be his process. 
It's not uniform.  It's a broad sentiment.  And he believes that the country is served by a process that does seek out the diverse talent in this country for different positions. 
Jon Christopher.
Q    These early nominations to Senators Kerry and Hagel and Mr. Brennan -- does this prove that the President's second-term agenda will be really focused in terms of priority on national security and foreign policy? 
MR. CARNEY:  It proves that the President, as he said today, considers the security of the United States and the American people his highest priority and responsibility.  And that is why he has asked individuals of such talent and records of service as John Brennan and Senator Kerry and Senator Hagel to serve in the positions that they've been nominated for. 
Broadly speaking, as he has said repeatedly, his policy priority -- I mean, there are obviously many, but his top priority continues to be having our economy grow, having it create jobs, giving security to the middle class, and building a foundation for future economic growth in the 21st century that will allow for future generations to enjoy the opportunity and promise of America that previous generations, including the President’s own, have enjoyed.  That remains his top priority.
But there is no question that, as he said today, that his primary responsibility, as he views it, is the safety and security of the United States and its people.
Q    Can these two priorities be basically intertwined?
MR. CARNEY:  I think the answer to that is absolutely yes, because that is the responsibility of every President, and one that this President takes very seriously.
Q    I’m going back to the debt ceiling debate for a minute.  The Bipartisan Policy Center issued a report today that said the government would actually run out of money prior to what we had normally talked about, so as early as February 15.  So I was wondering if the administration was thinking about asking the IRS to postpone refunds for people.  Or also, were you all thinking about issuing an order about which creditors would be paid first?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, as you know, the Treasury Department handles questions like these and has put out information about it, including in a letter at the end of the year about both the estimates as to when the debt ceiling would be reached and to the measures that the Treasury Department has in the past and is now taking with regards to that matter.  But I would refer you for the questions that you asked to the Treasury Department.
George.
Q    You keep saying the President won’t negotiate on the debt ceiling.  At the risk of sounding naïve, how does that work practically?  If the leaders of Congress tell him they don’t have the votes to raise the ceiling, does he just say, no, I’m not going to talk about that?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President believes that members of Congress were elected to serve their constituents.  And as one of their essential responsibilities, to ensure that they do no harm in Congress to this economy and to the livelihoods of average Americans, flirting with default or, even worse, allowing default, would be a violation of those primary responsibilities. 
   And again, George, I can’t be more clear:  These are bills that Congress racked up.  If Congress felt that they should not be paying these bills or that there should be less spending and less borrowing, then they should have passed different legislation that appropriated funds.  It is not the President’s responsibility to pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling; it is Congress’s responsibility.  And he will not engage in a negotiation with Congress that as some advocates of this themselves have described as a hostage situation -- a hostage situation that would result, as it did in the summer of 2011, in great harm to this economy and great harm to American businesses and great harm to average Americans. 
So it’s just not the right thing to do.  I think that there will be a -- if we were to travel down that road for any time, a great deal of unanimity behind the idea that it’s a terrible proposition to flirt with default or to allow default.  And let me remind you that if the position of Republicans in Congress will be that your choice, America, is between default and therefore economic chaos on the one hand, or voucherizing Medicare or slashing benefits for seniors, the American people are going to say no in both instances. 
This is not the right way to do things in this country.  You have to heed to your responsibilities here, and that includes paying for the bills that you racked up.  This has nothing to do with future spending.  This has to do with spending that has already been incurred.  And it is Congress’s responsibility to pay its bills.
George, when you get a credit card bill, you pay it, and if you don’t, you get penalized.  And in the case of not paying your bills when you’re the United States of America, when you’re the United States Congress, the penalty is both real in financial terms and severe for the economy and for the American people.  The President won’t negotiate with Congress over Congress’s responsibility to pay its own bills.
Thank you, all.
Q    Jay, the President signed all of those spending bills, so why doesn’t he share responsibility?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, he did not sign all of those spending bills.  The President has been in office for four years.  And in fact, a huge portion of our current deficit problems were racked up under --
Q    All the spending bills that were enacted on his watch
   --
MR. CARNEY:  -- previous administrations.  And it is often forgotten by Republican leaders that this is the case, that some of the very Republican leaders in office now who claim as their objective deficit reduction, primary objective, presided over enormous budget-busting legislation in the previous administration.  It is also often forgotten that the only President in our times here in Washington to have balanced the budget was President Bill Clinton, and he passed to his successor surpluses.  And it was actions taken by Congress in the previous decade and the administration in office at the time that eliminated those surpluses and turned them into the largest deficits of our lifetimes, at the time.
So the President takes his responsibility very seriously, but when it comes to bills that Congress has passed and needs to pay, they ought to take their responsibilities seriously and pay those bills.
Thank you.
Q    Is the President going to watch the game tonight?  (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t asked him.
Q    Still believe that there should be playoffs in college?
MR. CARNEY:  (Laughter.)  We’re getting closer, right?  (Laughter.)
END  
   3:03 P.M. EST

Source: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/7/2013

Presidential Memorandum -- National Flood Insurance Program

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SUBJECT: National Flood Insurance Program
I have reviewed your request for approval to issue notes to the Secretary of the Treasury in excess of $20.725 billion, but not to exceed $30.425 billion, for the National Flood Insurance Program and am hereby granting approval for you to do so.
BARACK OBAMA

Source: Presidential Memorandum -- National Flood Insurance Program

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:
    
   Robert E. Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, vice Robert Harlan Henry, resigned.
    
   Caitlin Joan Halligan, of New York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, vice John G. Roberts, Jr., elevated.
    
   William J. Kayatta, Jr., of Maine, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, vice Kermit Lipez, retired.
    
   Jill A. Pryor, of Georgia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, vice Stanley F. Birch, Jr., retired.
    
   Patty Shwartz, of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, vice Maryanne Trump Barry, retired.
    
   Srikanth Srinivasan, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, vice A. Raymond Randolph, retired.
    
   Richard Gary Taranto, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, vice Paul R. Michel, retired.
    
   Elissa F. Cadish, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, vice Philip M. Pro, retired.
    
   Valerie E. Caproni, of the District of Columbia, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, vice Richard J. Holwell, resigned.
    
   Sheri Polster Chappell, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, vice Gregory A. Presnell, retired.
    
   Pamela Ki Mai Chen, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, vice Raymond J. Dearie, retired.
    
   Brian J. Davis, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, vice Richard A. Lazzara, retired.
    
   Shelly Deckert Dick, of Louisiana, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana, vice Ralph E. Tyson, deceased.
    
   Jennifer A. Dorsey, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, vice Larry R. Hicks, retired.
    
   Katherine Polk Failla, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, vice Denise Cote, retired.
    
   Kenneth John Gonzales, of New Mexico, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico, vice Bruce D. Black, retired.
    
   Andrew Patrick Gordon, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, vice Kent J. Dawson, retired.
    
   Ketanji Brown Jackson, of Maryland, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, vice Henry Harold Kennedy, retired.
    
   Rosemary Márquez, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, vice Frank R. Zapata, retired.
    
   Michael J. McShane, of Oregon, to be United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, vice Michael R. Hogan, retired.
    
   Raymond P. Moore, of Colorado, to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, vice Wiley Y. Daniel, retired.
    
   Troy L. Nunley, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California, vice Garland E. Burrell, Jr., retired.
    
   Beverly Reid O'Connell, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California, vice Valerie L. Baker, retired.
    
   William H. Orrick, III, of the District of Columbia, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, vice Charles R. Breyer, retired.
    
   Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, vice Richard Barclay Surrick, retired.
    
   Luis Felipe Restrepo, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, vice Anita B. Brody, retired.
    
   Nelson Stephen Román, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, vice Richard M. Berman, retired.
    
   Jeffrey L. Schmehl, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, vice Thomas M. Golden, deceased.
    
   William L. Thomas, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, vice Adalberto Jose Jordan, elevated.
    
   Analisa Torres, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, vice Naomi Reice Buchwald, retired.
    
   Derrick Kahala Watson, of Hawaii, to be United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, vice David A. Ezra, retired.
    
   Mark A. Barnett, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, vice Judith M. Barzilay, retired.
    
   Claire R. Kelly, of New York, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, vice Evan J. Wallach, elevated.
    

Source: Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

Remarks by the President in Nomination of Secretary of Defense and CIA Director

East Room
1:15 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Please have a seat.  As President and Commander-in-Chief, my most solemn obligation is the security of the American people.  Over the past four years, we’ve met that responsibility by ending the war in Iraq, and beginning a transition in Afghanistan; by decimating the al Qaeda core and taking out Osama bin Laden; by disrupting terrorist plots and saving countless American lives. 
Among an outstanding national security team, I am especially grateful to Leon Panetta, who has led the CIA and our military with incredible skill.  Leon, after nearly five decades of service, you have more than earned the right to return to civilian life.  I’ll have much more to say about Leon’s distinguished service in the days ahead.  Today, I simply want to convey both to you and to Sylvia the eternal gratitude of the entire nation.  Thank you so much, Leon.
I also want to thank Michael Morell, who has earned the admiration of all of us who’ve worked with him across government and here in the White House.  In moments of transition, he’s guided the CIA with a steady hand as Acting Director -- not once, but twice.  And he is a consummate professional.  As I said, everybody in the White House who works with him, everybody across agencies who works with him considers him truly to be one of our most outstanding national security team members.  And so, Michael, on behalf of all of us, thank you and Mary Beth for your continued service.  
As these leaders know, the work of protecting our nation is never done, and we’ve still got much to do:  Ending the war in Afghanistan and caring for those who have borne the battle; preparing for the full range of threats, from the unconventional to the conventional, including things like cyber security; and within our military, continuing to ensure that our men and women in uniform can serve the country they love, no matter who they love.
To help meet the challenges of our time, I’m proud to announce my choice for two key members of my national security team -- Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense and John Brennan for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Chuck Hagel is the leader that our troops deserve.  He is an American patriot.  He enlisted in the Army and volunteered for Vietnam.  As a young private, and then a sergeant, he served with honor, alongside his own brother.  When Chuck was hit by shrapnel, his brother saved him.  When his brother was injured by a mine, Chuck risked his life to pull him to safety.  To this day, Chuck bears the scars -- and the shrapnel -- from the battles he fought in our name.
Chuck Hagel’s leadership of our military would be historic.  He’d be the first person of enlisted rank to serve as Secretary of Defense, one of the few secretaries who have been wounded in war, and the first Vietnam veteran to lead the department.  As I saw during our visits together to Afghanistan and Iraq, in Chuck Hagel our troops see a decorated combat veteran of character and strength.  They see one of their own.
Chuck is a champion of our troops and our veterans and our military families.  As a leader at the VA, he fought to give our veterans the benefits they deserved.  As head of the USO, he devoted himself to caring for our troops.  Having studied under the GI Bill himself, he helped lead the fight for the Post-9/11 GI Bill so today’s returning heroes can get their education, too.  Having co-chaired my Intelligence Advisory Board, he knows that our armed forces collect, analyze, and depend on good intelligence.
And Chuck recognizes that American leadership is indispensable in a dangerous world.  I saw this in our travels together across the Middle East.  He understands that America stands strongest when we stand with allies and with friends.  As a successful businessman, he also knows that even as we make tough fiscal choices, we have to do so wisely, guided by our strategy, and keep our military the strongest fighting force the world has ever known.
Maybe most importantly, Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction.  He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that’s something we only do when it’s absolutely necessary.  “My frame of reference,” he has said, is “geared towards the guy at the bottom who’s doing the fighting and the dying.”  With Chuck, our troops will always know, just like Sergeant Hagel was there for his own brother, Secretary Hagel will be there for you.
And finally, Chuck represents the bipartisan tradition that we need more of in Washington.  For his independence and commitment to consensus, he’s earned the respect of national security and military leaders, Republicans and Democrats -- including me.  In the Senate, I came to admire his courage and his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind -- even if it wasn’t popular, even if it defied the conventional wisdom.
And that’s exactly the spirit I want on my national security team -- a recognition that when it comes to the defense of our country, we are not Democrats or Republicans; we are Americans.  Each of us has a responsibility, Chuck has said, to be guided not by the interest of our party or our President even, but by “the interests of our country.” 
So, Chuck, I thank you and Lilibet for agreeing to serve once more in the interests of our country.
Now, when I’m on the subject of patriots, let me say a few words about John Brennan.  In John Brennan, the men and women of the CIA will have the leadership of one of our nation’s most skilled and respected intelligence professionals -- not to mention that unique combination of smarts and strength that he claims comes from growing up in New Jersey.  (Laughter.)  
A 25-year veteran of the CIA, John knows what our national security demands -- intelligence that provides policymakers with the facts, strong analytic insights, and a keen understanding of a dynamic world.  Given his extensive experience and travels -- which include, by the way, traveling through the Arabian Peninsula where he camped with tribesmen in the desert -- John has an invaluable perspective on the forces -- the history, the culture, the politics, economics, the desire for human dignity driving so much of the changes in today’s world.   
Having held senior management, analytic, and operational positions at the agency, John is committed to investing in the range of intelligence capabilities we need -- technical and human.  He literally built -- and then led -- the National Counterterrorism Center.  And he knows the risks that our intelligence professionals face every day.  John has lost colleagues and friends -- heroes whose stars now grace that memorial wall at Langley. 
For the last four years, as my Advisor for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, John developed and has overseen our comprehensive counterterrorism strategy -- a collaborative effort across the government, including intelligence and defense and homeland security, and law enforcement agencies. 
And so think about the results.  More al Qaeda leaders and commanders have been removed from the battlefield than at any time since 9/11.  Their communications, recruiting, training, finances are all under enormous strain -- all of which makes it harder to plan and carry out large-scale attacks against our homeland.  And our entire team, including our exceptional Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, will remain relentless against al Qaeda and its affiliates. 
In all this work, John has been tireless.  People here in the White House work hard.  But John is legendary, even in the White House, for working hard.  (Laughter.)  He is one of the hardest-working public servants I’ve ever seen.  I’m not sure he’s slept in four years.  (Laughter.)  When I was on Martha’s Vineyard, John came and did the press briefing -- this is in summer, it’s August, he’s in full suit and tie.  And one of the reporters asked him, don’t you ever get any down time?  And John said, “I don’t do down time.”  (Laughter.)  He’s not even smiling now.  (Laughter.) 
There’s another reason I value John so much, and that is his integrity and his commitment to the values that define us as Americans.  He has worked to embed our efforts in a strong legal framework.  He understands we are a nation of laws.  In moments of debate and decision, he asks the tough question and he insists on high and rigorous standards.  Time and again, he’s spoken to the American people about our counterterrorism policies because he recognizes we have a responsibility to be [as] open and transparent as possible.
And so, John, you’ve been one of my closest advisors.  You’ve been a great friend.  I am deeply grateful for your extraordinary service.  I’m even more grateful for Kathy’s willingness to put up with you.  And I’m grateful to both of you for your willingness to take this assignment. 
Today, I can say to the men and women of the CIA:  In Director John Brennan you will have one of your own; a leader who knows you; who cares for you, deeply; and who will fight for you every single day.  And you’ll have a leader who has my complete confidence and my complete trust. 
As I said, the work of defending our nation is never done.  My number-one criteria in making these decisions was simple -- who is going to do the best job in securing America.  These two leaders have dedicated their lives to protecting our country.  I’m confident they will do an outstanding job.  I urge the Senate to confirm them as soon as possible so we can keep our nation secure and the American people safe. 
And so, Chuck and John -- congratulations.
And with that, I want to invite each of these leaders on stage to say a few words, starting with Mr. Leon Panetta.
SECRETARY PANETTA:  First of all, let me express my deepest gratitude to the President for giving me the honor and the privilege of serving in your administration these last four years as Director of the CIA and now as Secretary of Defense.  I have been extremely proud to be part of your national security team, Mr. President, and to be proud of what it has accomplished in your first term. 
Looking ahead to the second term, I want to commend President Obama on his decision to nominate Chuck Hagel as the next Secretary of the Defense.  And let me also add, as former Director of the CIA, to commend the President for his choice of John Brennan.  I have had the opportunity to work with John on counterterrorism issues these last four years.  He knows the CIA.  He will be a strong leader of that great intelligence agency. 
I've also known Chuck for a long period of time as well, and I had the opportunity to work with him closely -- particularly in his capacity as Chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.  I greatly appreciate the work he has done to strengthen our intelligence enterprise.  It has been extremely important to our ability to improve our intelligence capabilities.  And as Secretary of Defense, I also benefited from his work when he served on our Defense Policy Board. 
Chuck Hagel is a patriot, he's a decorated combat veteran, and he is a dedicated public servant.  I believe his experience, his judgment, his deep understanding of the security issues facing this country make him the right choice to be Secretary of Defense.
As for me, after close to 50 years of serving the American people -- began in 1964 when I served as a first lieutenant in the United States Army, and then in both the legislative and executive branch positions in Washington -- the time has come for me to return to my wife Sylvia, our three sons, their families, our six grandchildren, and my walnut farm -- (laughter) -- dealing with a different set of nuts.  (Laughter.) 
I want to deeply thank my family for giving me the fullest measure of love and support during my many absences from home throughout my long career in public service.  But I will leave Washington with a very deep sense of pride in what we have accomplished during these last four years being on the President's national security team. 
As both Director of the CIA and as Secretary of Defense, I have always believed that our fundamental mission is to keep America safe, to keep America secure.  And because of the outstanding dedication of our intelligence and military professionals, America is safer and more secure than it was four years ago, and we have reached a turning point after more than a decade of war.
And on that, as we’ve reached that turning point, we’ve developed a new defense strategy for the 21st century.  We have, with John’s leadership, decimated al Qaeda’s leadership and weakened their effort to attack this country.  We have brought wars in Iraq and we will bring the war in Afghanistan to an honorable conclusion.  We’ve opened up opportunities for all Americans to serve in our military.  And we continue to strongly support our forces, their families, and our wounded warriors.  These are some of the achievements that I am proud of.
Let me close by expressing my profound gratitude to the outstanding team of military and civilian staff and leaders that I’ve had the honor to serve with at the Department of Defense and at the White House.  In particular, let me deeply thank the outstanding men and women in uniform, who I’ve had the privilege to serve and to lead, those who put their lives on the line every day on distant battlefields for this country.  Their sacrifices teach us that freedom is not free; a strong democracy depends on a strong defense.  But you can also not have a strong and stable defense without a strong and stable democracy.
As we continue to confront strategic challenges and fiscal austerity, my hope for the future is that the sense of duty our servicemembers and their families exhibit every day inspires the leaders of this nation to have the courage to do what is right, to achieve the American Dream, to give our children a better life, and to build a more secure future.
SENATOR HAGEL:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I’m honored by your trust and your confidence in me, and not unmindful of the immense responsibilities that go with it.  I want to also acknowledge my wife, Lilibet; my daughter, Allyn; and our son, Ziller, who is in Chicago today, we hope, back attending his first day of classes at DePaul University.  (Laughter.)
And to my friend, Leon Panetta, thank you for your extraordinary service to our country over so many years in so many capacities.  You are one of the premier public servants of our time.  To follow you at the Department of Defense will be a most challenging task, but I will try to live up to the standards that you, Bob Gates and others have set for this job and this nation. 
Let me also express my deep appreciation and congratulations to my friend, John Brennan, and to also acknowledge the President's confidence and trust in John Brennan.  Thank you, John, for your service and what you will continue to do for our country.  To Mike Morell -- who I have gotten to know over the years not just serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee, but also, as the President has noted, the privilege of co-chairing the President's Intelligence Advisory Board with former Senator Dave Boren -- thank you, Mike, for your continued service.
Mr. President, I am grateful for this opportunity to serve our country again and especially its men and women in uniform and their families.  These are people who give so much to this nation every day with such dignity and selflessness.  This is particularly important at a time as we complete our mission in Afghanistan and support the troops and military families who have sacrificed so much over more than a decade of war. 
I'm also grateful for an opportunity to help continue to strengthen our country and strengthen our country's alliances, and advance global freedom, decency, and humanity as we help build a better world for all mankind.  I will always do my best.  I will do my best for our country, for those I represent at the Pentagon, and for all our citizens.  And, Mr. President, I will always give you my honest and most informed counsel.  Thank you very much. 
ACTING DIRECTOR MORELL:  Mr. President, thank you for your very kind remarks, and thank you for the trust that you placed in me when you asked me to be Acting Director twice. 
I have had the honor of knowing and working with John Brennan for the last 20 years.  We have worked particularly closely the last three years.  John Brennan is a intelligence professional with deep experience in our business, a public servant with extraordinary dedication, and a man of deep integrity.  With Senate confirmation, I know that he will be an outstanding Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. 
As the President noted, John started his career at CIA and spent nearly a quarter century.  So this is a homecoming for John. 
John, on behalf of the talented and dedicated men and women of CIA, it is my deep honor to say, welcome home.
MR. BRENNAN:  Mr. President, it is indeed a tremendous honor to be nominated to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  The women and men of the CIA are among the most dedicated, courageous, selfless and hardworking individuals who have ever served this country.  At great personal risk and sacrifice, they have made countless invaluable contributions to our national security and to the safety and security of all Americans.  Most times, their successes will never be known outside the hallowed halls of Langley and the Oval Office.
Leading the agency in which I served for 25 years would be the greatest privilege as well as the greatest responsibility of my professional life.  Mr. President, I want to thank you for your confidence in me, but even more for your confidence and constant support to the CIA and to those who serve in the intelligence community.  They need and deserve the support of all of their fellow Americans, especially at a time of such tremendous national security challenges.
If confirmed as Director, I will make it my mission to ensure that the CIA has the tools it needs to keep our nation safe, and that its work always reflects the liberties, the freedoms and the values that we hold so dear.
I’m especially proud to stand here today with such patriots as Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel and Michael Morell.  It was a tremendous honor to serve with Leon over the past four years, and I very much look forward to the opportunity and privilege to serve with another of America’s great patriots, Chuck Hagel.
And I am especially proud and touched to be able to stand here today with my close friend and colleague, Michael Morell, who epitomizes what it means to be an intelligence professional.  Michael’s leadership at the CIA, as well as his 32-year career, has been nothing short of exemplary.  Michael, I very much look forward to working with you in the weeks, months, and years ahead.
And I also look forward to working with Congress, as our national security rests on the ability of the executive and legislative branches of our government to work as a team.  While the intelligence profession oftentimes demands secrecy, it is critically important that there be a full and open discourse on intelligence matters with the appropriate elected representatives of the American people.  Although I consider myself neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I very much look forward to working closely with those on both sides of the aisle.
Finally, and most importantly, to my wife Kathy; to my children Kyle, Jaclyn, Kelly; to my parents in New Jersey, a shout-out -- (laughter) -- Owen, who is 92 and my mom, Dorothy, who is 91; my brother Tom and my sister Kathleen and my Jersey roots:  I could not be where I am today without their love, their patience, their understanding and their support.  And there is no way that I can ever repay that, except to say I think I’m going to need it for a little bit longer.  (Laughter.)
So again, Mr. President, I am deeply grateful for this opportunity.  It will be bittersweet to leave all of my close colleagues and friends here at the White House and at the national security staff, who I have come to work with and respect so deeply over the last four years.
But if confirmed by the Senate, I will consider it to be the honor of my life to serve as the 21st Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, these are four outstanding individuals.  We are grateful to all of them.  I want, in particular, to thank Mike Morell and Leon Panetta for their extraordinary service.  And I just want to repeat, I hope that the Senate will act on these confirmations promptly.  When it comes to national security, we don’t like to leave a lot of gaps between the time that one set of leaders transitions out and another transitions in.  So we need to get moving quickly on this.
The final point I will make:  One of the reasons that I am so confident that Chuck Hagel is going to be an outstanding Secretary of Defense and John Brennan is going to be an outstanding Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is they understand that we are only successful because of the folks up and down the line in these respective institutions -- the folks on the ground who are oftentimes putting their lives at risk for us, and are oftentimes at great remove from Washington and its politics.
To have those who have been in the field, who have been in the heat of battle, who understand the consequences of decisions that we make in this town and how it has an impact and ramifications for everybody who actually has to execute our national security strategies, that’s something invaluable.  It will provide me the kinds of insights that I need in making very difficult decisions, but it will also mean that these folks are going to be looking out for the people who work for them.  And that’s something that, I think, in these leadership positions is absolutely critical.
So I’m looking forward to working with these two gentlemen.  They are going to be outstanding.
Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)
END
   1:42 P.M. EST

Source: Remarks by the President in Nomination of Secretary of Defense and CIA Director

Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 41

On Sunday, January 6, 2013, the President signed into law:
H.R. 41, which temporarily increases the Federal Emergency Management Agency's borrowing authority for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.
###

Source: Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 41

Weekly Address: Working Together in the New Year to Grow Our Economy and Shrink Our Deficits

WASHINGTON, DC—In this week’s address, President Obama talked about the bipartisan agreement that Congress reached this week which prevented a middle-class tax hike, congratulated the newly sworn-in Members of Congress, and looked forward to working with the new Congress in the new year to continue to grow our economy and shrink our deficits in a balanced way.    
The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00AM ET, Saturday, January 5, 2013.
Remarks of President Barack Obama
   The Weekly Address
   Honolulu, Hawaii
   January 4, 2013
Hi, everybody.  Over the past year, as I traveled across the country campaigning for this office, I told you that if I was fortunate enough to be re-elected, I’d work to change a tax code that too often benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
This week, we did that.  For the first time in two decades, we raised taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans in a bipartisan way, while preventing a middle-class tax hike that could have thrown our economy back into recession. 
Under this law, more than 98% of Americans and 97% of small business will not see their income taxes go up one dime.  We also made sure that millions of families will continue to receive tax credits to help raise their children and send them to college.  Companies will continue to receive tax credits for the research they do, the investments they make, and the clean energy jobs they create.  And two million Americans who are out of work will continue to receive unemployment benefits so long as they are actively looking for a job.
But all this was just one more step in the broader effort to grow our economy and shrink our deficits.  We still need to do more to put Americans back to work while also putting this country on a path to pay down its debt.  And our economy can’t afford more protracted showdowns or manufactured crises along the way.  Because even as our businesses created 2 million new jobs last year – including 168,000 new jobs last month – the messy brinksmanship in Congress made business owners more uncertain and consumers less confident.
We know there’s a path forward.  Last year, I signed into law $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction.  This week’s action further reduces the deficit by $737 billion, making it one of the largest deficit reduction bills passed by Congress in over a decade.  And I’m willing to do more. 
I believe we can find more places to cut spending without shortchanging things like education, job training, research and technology all which are critical to our prosperity in a 21st century economy.  But spending cuts must be balanced with more reforms to our tax code.  The wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations shouldn’t be able to take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans.
And as I said earlier this week, one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up.  If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic.  The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it.  Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again. 
I congratulate the newly sworn-in Members of Congress, and I look forward to working with the new Congress in a bipartisan way.  If we focus on the interests of our country above the interests of party, I’m convinced we can cut spending and raise revenue in a manner that reduces our deficit and protects the middle class.  And we can step up to meet the important business that awaits us this year. Creating jobs and boosting incomes. Fixing our infrastructure and our immigration system.  Promoting our energy independence while protecting our planet from the harmful effects of climate change.  Educating our children and shielding them from the horrors of gun violence. 
These aren’t just things we should do – they’re things we must do.  And in this New Year, I’ll fight as hard as I know how to get them done.  Happy New Year, everybody.
###

Source: Weekly Address: Working Together in the New Year to Grow Our Economy and Shrink Our Deficits

President Obama Announces Presidential Delegation to Ghana to Attend the Inauguration of His Excellency John Dramani Mahama

President Barack Obama today announced the designation of a Presidential Delegation to Accra, Ghana to attend the Inauguration of His Excellency John Dramani Mahama, President-elect of the Republic of Ghana on January 7, 2013.
   The Honorable Daniel W. Yohannes, CEO of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, will lead the delegation.
Members of the Presidential Delegation:
The Honorable Gene Cretz, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Ghana
   The Honorable Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Department of State
   The Honorable Donald Teitelbaum, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Department of State

Source: President Obama Announces Presidential Delegation to Ghana to Attend the Inauguration of His Excellency John Dramani Mahama

President Obama Signs Ohio Disaster Declaration

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of Ohio and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the area affected by severe storms and flooding due to the Remnants of Hurricane Sandy during the period of October 29-30, 2012.
Federal funding is available to state and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe storms and flooding due to the remnants of Hurricane Sandy in Cuyahoga County.
Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.
W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Warren J. Riley as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area. 
FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

Source: President Obama Signs Ohio Disaster Declaration

President Obama Re-nominates Thirty-Three to Federal Judgeships

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, President Obama re-nominated thirty-three individuals who he previously nominated for federal judgeships in the 112th Congress.

    

“Today, I am re-nominating thirty-three highly qualified candidates for the federal bench, including many who could have and should have been confirmed before the Senate adjourned,” said President Obama.  “Several have been awaiting a vote for more than six months, even though they all enjoy bipartisan support.  I continue to be grateful for their willingness to serve and remain confident that they will apply the law with the utmost impartiality and integrity.  I urge the Senate to consider and confirm these nominees without delay, so all Americans can have equal and timely access to justice.”


CIRCUIT COURT NOMINEES



Judge Robert E. Bacharach:  Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit


Caitlin Halligan: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit


William J. Kayatta, Jr.:  Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit


Jill A. Pryor:  Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit


Judge Patty Shwartz:  Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 


Srikanth Srinivasan: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit


Richard Gary Taranto:  Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


DISTRICT COURT NOMINEES



Judge Elissa F. Cadish: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada


Valerie E. Caproni: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York


Judge Sheri Polster Chappell:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida


Pamela Ki Mai Chen:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York


Judge Brian J. Davis: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida


Shelly Deckert Dick:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana


Jennifer A. Dorsey:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada


Katherine Polk Failla:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York


Kenneth John Gonzales:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico


Andrew Patrick Gordon:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada


Ketanji Brown Jackson:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia


Rosemary Márquez:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona 


Judge Michael J. McShane:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Oregon 


Raymond P. Moore: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado 


Judge Troy L. Nunley: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California


Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Central District of California


William H. Orrick, III: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California


Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania


Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania


Judge Nelson Stephen Román:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York


Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania


Judge William L. Thomas:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida


Judge Analisa Torres:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York


Derrick Kahala Watson:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii



COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE NOMINEES



Mark A. Barnett: Nominee for the United States Court of International Trade


Claire R. Kelly: Nominee for the United States Court of International Trade

Source: President Obama Re-nominates Thirty-Three to Federal Judgeships

Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 8

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, the President signed into law:
H.R. 8, the "American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012," which makes permanent the temporary rates on taxable income at or below $400,000 for individual filers and $450,000 for married individuals filing jointly; permanently indexes the Alternative Minimum Tax exemption amount to the Consumer Price Index; extends emergency unemployment compensation benefits and Federal funding for extended benefits for unemployed workers for one year; continues current law Medicare payment rates for physicians' services furnished through December 31, 2013; extends farm bill policies and programs through September 30, 2013; and provides a postponement of the Budget Control Act's sequester for two months.

Source: Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 8

Statement by the the President on H.R. 4310

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I have signed into law H.R. 4310, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013." I have approved this annual defense authorization legislation, as I have in previous years, because it authorizes essential support for service members and their families, renews vital national security programs, and helps ensure that the United States will continue to have the strongest military in the world.
Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds of sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree with them all. Our Constitution does not afford the President the opportunity to approve or reject statutory sections one by one. I am empowered either to sign the bill, or reject it, as a whole. In this case, though I continue to oppose certain sections of the Act, the need to renew critical defense authorities and funding was too great to ignore.
In a time when all public servants recognize the need to eliminate wasteful or duplicative spending, various sections in the Act limit the Defense Department's ability to direct scarce resources towards the highest priorities for our national security. For example, restrictions on the Defense Department's ability to retire unneeded ships and aircraft will divert scarce resources needed for readiness and result in future unfunded liabilities. Additionally, the Department has endeavored to constrain manpower costs by recommending prudent cost sharing reforms in its health care programs. By failing to allow some of these cost savings measures, the Congress may force reductions in the overall size of our military forces.
Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that.
Several provisions in the bill also raise constitutional concerns. Section 1025 places limits on the military's authority to transfer third country nationals currently held at the detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan. That facility is located within the territory of a foreign sovereign in the midst of an armed conflict. Decisions regarding the disposition of detainees captured on foreign battlefields have traditionally been based upon the judgment of experienced military commanders and national security professionals without unwarranted interference by Members of Congress. Section 1025 threatens to upend that tradition, and could interfere with my ability as Commander in Chief to make time-sensitive determinations about the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of hostilities. Under certain circumstances, the section could violate constitutional separation of powers principles. If section 1025 operates in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement it to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Sections 1022, 1027 and 1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which substitutes the Congress's blanket political determination for careful and fact-based determinations, made by counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, of when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation, and in certain cases may be the only legally available process for trying detainees. Removing that tool from the executive branch undermines our national security. Moreover, this provision would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 fundamentally maintains the unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This provision hinders the Executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. The Congress designed these sections, and has here renewed them once more, in order to foreclose my ability to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I continue to believe that operating the facility weakens our national security by wasting resources, damaging our relationships with key allies, and strengthening our enemies. My Administration will interpret these provisions as consistent with existing and future determinations by the agencies of the Executive responsible for detainee transfers. And, in the event that these statutory restrictions operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.
As my Administration previously informed the Congress, certain provisions in this bill, including sections 1225, 913, 1531, and 3122, could interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States. In these instances, my Administration will interpret and implement these provisions in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy. Section 1035, which adds a new section 495(c) to title 10, is deeply problematic, as it would impede the fulfillment of future U.S. obligations agreed to in the New START Treaty, which the Senate provided its advice and consent to in 2010, and hinder the Executive's ability to determine an appropriate nuclear force structure. I am therefore pleased that the Congress has included a provision to adequately amend this provision in H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which I will be signing into law today.
Certain provisions in the Act threaten to interfere with my constitutional duty to supervise the executive branch. Specifically, sections 827, 828, and 3164 could be interpreted in a manner that would interfere with my authority to manage and direct executive branch officials. As my Administration previously informed the Congress, I will interpret those sections consistent with my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential. Additionally, section 1034 would require a subordinate to submit materials directly to the Congress without change, and thereby obstructs the traditional chain of command. I will implement this provision in a manner consistent with my authority as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the head of the executive branch.
A number of provisions in the bill -- including sections 534(b)(6), 674, 675, 735, 737, 1033(b), 1068, and 1803 -- could intrude upon my constitutional authority to recommend such measures to the Congress as I "judge necessary and expedient." My Administration will interpret and implement these provisions in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority.
BARACK OBAMA

Source: Statement by the the President on H.R. 4310

Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 4310

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, the President signed into law:
H.R. 4310, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013," which authorizes fiscal year 2013 appropriations for Department of Defense programs and military construction, Department of Energy national security programs, and Department of Transportation maritime security programs; authorizes recruitment and retention bonuses, special payments, and other authorities relating to the U.S. Armed Forces; and makes other modifications to national security, foreign affairs, and other related programs. 

Source: Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 4310

on-call man diay ni nga bar...

How Can You Keep Your Anger in Check?

? With our lifestyles getting busier, one tends to adapt to a routine which when disturbed can make our minds go out of control. When things don't go as expected, when people don't behave as expected, when situations head out of our control, we usually give in to anger because when you get angry, your mind isn't in control. When a person gets angry, he is releasing all his negative energy by either shouting at a person or causing any damage that seems apt at the moment.

Source: How Can You Keep Your Anger in Check?

Anger Management in Your Family

Relationships are easily broken by anger. A few words said out of uncontrolled annoyance create a big problem in a relationship and they hurt feelings of people. You cannot live in harmony with your family if you do not learn how to control antagonism.

Source: Anger Management in Your Family

Does Venting Anger Really Work?

This teaches us a lot about anger - our mounting anger in response to another's offence. We are better off becoming distracted than we are thinking on and acting out our anger. But even better is doing nothing in the moment.

Source: Does Venting Anger Really Work?

Combatting the Rejection-Aggression Effect

The Rejection-Aggression Effect suggests that many, indeed possibly most, people respond to rejection by varying manners of aggression. This aggression can be overt or covert, active or passive, and generally a mix of both.

Source: Combatting the Rejection-Aggression Effect

Perfection Does Not Exist Permanently

I know, we all want perfection and want so badly to think that it can somehow exist permanently. Unfortunately, as change is constant, it does not and can never exist in a permanent way.

Source: Perfection Does Not Exist Permanently

I Am Anger

I am Anger and I'm here to say, When you're aware of me, surely, I'll not ruin your day, Because options aplenty do exist beyond me, If only you'll ensure the option chosen sets you free. I am Anger and the choice, always, is yours, Your response is one that either opens or closes doors, Be aware, then, what it is you control, And don't be fooled to not know your role.

Source: I Am Anger

'Tis The Season to Be Emotional, Part II: What To Do When Things Get Tense

Part 1 of this article explains how to prepare in advance for those times when your emotions feel a little out of control. What do you do in the heat of the moment when -- despite your best preparation -- your emotions flare up and things get a little... tense?

Source: 'Tis The Season to Be Emotional, Part II: What To Do When Things Get Tense

Does the Violent Sociopath, Narcissist, and the Emotionally Immature Male Change?

I have facilitated Court mandated 52-week intervention groups for the male perpetrators of domestic violence for almost two decades and have become convinced that healing happens only in an environment of love, where each group member has something to offer all the others. The violent person needs not only to receive love but also to give love in return.  The more lethal members have much to give; they can heal other members by sharing the severity of their violence.

Source: Does the Violent Sociopath, Narcissist, and the Emotionally Immature Male Change?

Emotional Fitness - Climbing Your Emotional Ladder

Emotions exist on a scale, or a ladder as I like to think of it. Fear and depression are at the bottom, joy and love are at the top. It's difficult to jump straight from depression to love without first moving through intermediary emotions like anger. This article gives an overview of the mechanics involved and some tips to move up the emotional ladder.

Source: Emotional Fitness - Climbing Your Emotional Ladder

Karate Chopping Holiday Blues - 5 Reasons to Smile

Everyone has emotions during the holidays. Emotions can start as happy, and end with angry. Learn how to quickly snap out of the holiday blues.

Source: Karate Chopping Holiday Blues - 5 Reasons to Smile

Tips to Beat Bad Behavior Such As Anger and Being a Bully

Avoid triggers in the early stages until you've learned to react more appropriately. Walk away from arguments and situations where you were about to manipulate others to your own ends. If you are part of, or leading, a group/gang that behaves in this way you should stop associating with these old friends. In the early stages it is best to avoid places where they meet.

Source: Tips to Beat Bad Behavior Such As Anger and Being a Bully

Eight Risks of Being Angry

Do you know the risks lying behind you when you are angry?Le's see how being angry could affect your health.Eight risks are listed in this article and suggestions are offered.

Source: Eight Risks of Being Angry

I Suffer From Constant Mood Swings

I never knew what sort of mood I'd be in when I woke up. Everything could be going fine for me, but I'd be in a terrible mood. On the other hand, I could be dealing with one problem after the other, and I'd be perfectly cheerful.

Source: I Suffer From Constant Mood Swings

Is Your Temper Killing Your Success?

One of the first tests in determining a level of your own personal emotional security is your proficiency in handling stressful and pressure packed situations. To create a successful communicative working atmosphere and a harmonious home environment, you need to maintain a level of emotional self-control when challenged with difficult decisions, tasks, and personnel interactions.

Source: Is Your Temper Killing Your Success?

You Cannot Control Anger, You Must Remove The Cause

Anger is a serious problem that cannot be removed by silly things like counting to ten, or thinking nice thoughts. Anger is not something that we are born with, we aquire it by experiencing injustice that is unresolved. This causes background anger, and if, then, a relatively minor incident arises, the person experiences the combined anger which appears to be out of proportion. People then have a "sort fuze".

Source: You Cannot Control Anger, You Must Remove The Cause

Welcome to The Broadmoor!

Mistakes are going to happen, especially when there are lots of "moving parts," as in the case of a large resort property. But the way in which these missteps are handled can make the difference between a potential disaster and a raving fan.

Source: Welcome to The Broadmoor!

Taxi Please!

There are times when lapses in communication and errors in the process create situations that are neither appropriate nor acceptable from the customer's perspective. Taking decisive action to cor?rect these problems can make the difference between that customer becoming a raving fan or a vocal critic.

Source: Taxi Please!

Soothing Anger by Mindful Prayer

Managing anger is helped by conscious mindfulness, which is made possible through prayer - a constant and ongoing conversation with God. When we are in touch with the Spirit of God, and we are constantly seeking him before we proceed, our anger is neither pressed too far nor is it noticed as much by other people. When anger is pushed too far it becomes violence. But, anger is eased when we pray. As the emotions begin to boil, we simply need to pray; to connect our situation, and our feelings, with God.

Source: Soothing Anger by Mindful Prayer

What Is Anger? Here's The Secret Fear That Causes 95% Of All Your Anger!

The fear that causes 95% of all anger and difficulties between people is "Fighting for position in the pack." The actual fear is appearing weaker than the person in front of you.

Source: What Is Anger? Here's The Secret Fear That Causes 95% Of All Your Anger!

What Is Anger? Born Again Christians, Republicans, Democrats: Groups Founded On Low Self-Esteem

When people fight and argue, trying to make the others believe what they believe, this is a clear sign of anger triggered by low self-esteem. And three organizations that are founded on the need to prove other opinions and beliefs wrong are Evangelical Born Again Christians, hard core Democrats, and dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. Organizations founded on low self-esteem will attract people who have low self-esteem.

Source: What Is Anger? Born Again Christians, Republicans, Democrats: Groups Founded On Low Self-Esteem

What Is Anger? STOP Standing Up For Other People!

The Fourth Fear that triggers our need to attack is losing our pack - so we stand up for the weaker members of the pack. YOU HAVE TO STOP IT! NOW!

Source: What Is Anger? STOP Standing Up For Other People!

What Is Anger? You WILL Be Angry A Minimum 35 Minutes And Maybe ALL DAY!

Once your Safety Brain takes over and you go into attack mode, get angry, it will be a minimum of 35 minutes before your Safety Brain fully releases control and you are calmed down completely. If you don't do something to clear your system, you could be in a bad mood all day!

Source: What Is Anger? You WILL Be Angry A Minimum 35 Minutes And Maybe ALL DAY!

What Is Anger? The Third Fear Is The Secret To Make Believe Emotions Like Stress!

For the last three fears that trigger the Safety Brain to take over and answer the question "What Is Anger" we take a look at the animal kingdom and the three situations where a horse would actually fight a sabre-toothed tiger. Fear Number Three is Cornered.

Source: What Is Anger? The Third Fear Is The Secret To Make Believe Emotions Like Stress!

Anger Is Toxic to Your Mind

Anger is particularly a hard emotion for women to manage. Not only do we have to deal with the societal expectations related to anger, but we also face challenges on a biological level.

Source: Anger Is Toxic to Your Mind

What Is Anger? The Secret To The Second Fear

The Second Fear that is guaranteed to have the Safety Brain take over and put us into attack mode, or anger, is Fear of Rejection. Our primary psychological need is to be an accepted member of the pack!

Source: What Is Anger? The Secret To The Second Fear

Managing Anger at Work

It's not uncommon for anger issues to arise in workplaces, and they're typically (and thankfully) a lot more subtle than someone shooting up an office. Despite the fact that anger doesn't usually spiral to physical violence in professional settings, it can have far-reaching effects on both careers and personal lives.

Source: Managing Anger at Work

Help To Control Anger

Nobody likes getting angry. Most people feel embarrassed or worse after giving into a display of anger. Anger can be controlled and directed in a positive manner so long as you wish to do so.

Source: Help To Control Anger

What Is Anger? If You Know Someone Who Is Over 40 And Behaves Like This, There's Little Hope

There are some people who have practiced being difficult for so long, that now that they are 40 years old or older, no longer have the ability to learn new behaviours. Are you one of them?

Source: What Is Anger? If You Know Someone Who Is Over 40 And Behaves Like This, There's Little Hope

What Is Anger? Well, It's Not An Emotion! First Fear Revealed!

Anger is our primary defence of attacking others. When you are angry, you feel the need t physically and/or verbally attack someone. That someone is sometimes ourselves, but more often, we are looking for a target outside of ourselves.

Source: What Is Anger? Well, It's Not An Emotion! First Fear Revealed!

It's The Many, SMALL Violences

When large scale violence strikes very close to us, we ask "Why?!" Whereas Small Violence's surround us every day and mostly go ignored.

Source: It's The Many, SMALL Violences

How to Overcome Powerlessness and Rage - Choose One Now!

We're never completely powerless. We actually have three main choices available at any time. Not liking the choices doesn't mean we're powerless! What are these three choices? You're about to find out!

Source: How to Overcome Powerlessness and Rage - Choose One Now!

Getting Beyond Irrational Passion That Is Not In Your Control

I figured that the title would be an interesting one, and the subject a useful one. Anger management, and productively controlling your passion so that you can genuinely achieve what you want in existence and life.

Source: Getting Beyond Irrational Passion That Is Not In Your Control

What Is Anger? The Real Answer Is A Well-Kept Secret And So Practical When You Understand!

Understanding how we have taken our natural animal defenses into today's world of family and work allows us to gain a practical answer to the question "What is Anger?" realizing that anger is our way of attacking someone to get safe.

Source: What Is Anger? The Real Answer Is A Well-Kept Secret And So Practical When You Understand!

What Is Anger? What Is The Most Common Cause Of Anger? You Encounter It 50+ Times A Day!

Our Safety Brain takes over far too often in far too common situations. The most common situation, that happens multiple times a day is when a situation doesn't meet our expectations. Watch your own reaction when things don't meet your expectations. You'll clearly see what I mean. And you need to give other people engaging in difficult behaviors a break! They are reacting in the same way YOU react!

Source: What Is Anger? What Is The Most Common Cause Of Anger? You Encounter It 50+ Times A Day!

6 Ways to Diffuse Your Anger At Home

Everyone has some kind of a temper and getting angry is a natural part of it. The good news is that you can learn to control and manage your anger, so it's less likely for you to throw a tantrum or outburst in whatever situation you're been confronted at home. If your angers are for just a short while, you'll have better control and feel less stressed out. And as your stress level drops, the intensity of your anger will dwindle too. Of course, being happy, rather than angry, does more good to you as well as the people closer to you. If you find that you're feeling rather irritate, there are things you can do to keep you from getting frustrated and saying or doing something that you don't mean and regret it later. Nevertheless, it's all right to be angry under appropriate circumstances but not if it's uncalled for.

Source: 6 Ways to Diffuse Your Anger At Home

Are You Violent? A Definition of Violence and Peace

You know that violence is something bad, but you are used with the absurd mindset of the modern civilization. You theoretically condemn violence. On the other hand, you are induced to believe that the violent heroes who kill the gangsters in various movies are admirable heroes you should imitate. You applaud those who use violence against violence. You are induced to admire the violent world leaders. You are induced to believe that you need military protection in order to preserve peace in your country.

Source: Are You Violent? A Definition of Violence and Peace

What Is Anger? It Is Completely Misunderstood! Here Is A Fascinating Look At What Anger Really Is

First, I want you to take a few seconds and make a list of all the difficult people in your life. If they are close by, or might see this list, just use initials (in fact, you can make up initials - they'll never know!) Is your spouse/partner being difficult right now?

Source: What Is Anger? It Is Completely Misunderstood! Here Is A Fascinating Look At What Anger Really Is

Healing Anger Sickness - Dealing With Anxiety Through Forgiveness

When pressure builds up there is the eventual release. The release of such energy, however - the direction and power of the release - is all important. Some releases are incredibly healthy, whilst other releases are dramatically painful and even catastrophically destructive. Anger can go both ways.

Source: Healing Anger Sickness - Dealing With Anxiety Through Forgiveness

Anger Should Not Control You

The goal of anger management isn't to become a placid, 'Stefford Wife' devoid of emotion. It's to learn how to use the energy created by the emotion to create positive outcomes. Don't let yourself be led by your anger. Learn to choose your actions based on your values and put your emotions to work for you--giving you the energy to act, the drive to 'right wrongs', and the desire to pursue your dreams.

Source: Anger Should Not Control You

How to Break the Cycle of Bad Attitudes

The most common urban legend about renewed behavior is that we need to 'get' it; from where, no one knows. Many people think that they can pick up attitudes that they like without a thought, and just as easily toss out those that they do not like. Unfortunately, no one can automatically became a kind or strong person; it takes a deliberate effort, and over time I have learned that even the most far-gone people can develop positive attitudes by recycling these three simple principles...

Source: How to Break the Cycle of Bad Attitudes

Blaming - You, Blaming Me

Blaming is an act of being irresponsible, disowning your reality and losing your locus of control. Time you grab it back.

Source: Blaming - You, Blaming Me

Anger Management's Early Warning System

Anger can teach us much, but frustration and annoyances even more. It's better to pay careful attention to the activators of our anger which manifest through feelings of our frustration and annoyance.

Source: Anger Management's Early Warning System

How To Manage Anger In The Office Place

The Office, a place where we spend most of our times struggling to make ends meet. Yet unlike other places in the world, this could get stressful and could ignite a level frustration that goes beyond what we can handle. Unless you're the Steve Jobs of the company or someone important and "unfirable" like the child of the owner, there's no chance that your "hulk moment" could benefit your career.

Source: How To Manage Anger In The Office Place

Become Childlike Once Again - Turn Anger Into Fascination

Anger or Fascination are Both Choices In both situations you get through the traffic jam at the same time. One way causes you massive stress, damages your health and breaks you down, whilst the other offers you an opportunity to reflect, expand and even relax. Which do you think is the most effective and logical option to choose? Your attitude and temperament are always choices.

Source: Become Childlike Once Again - Turn Anger Into Fascination

The Dangers Of Setting Expectations Too High

For perfectionists, type A personalities and people with an independent or demanding streak, high expectations can easily lead to being labeled taskmasters. For these individuals with intensely driven personalities, anger can easily erupt when expectations are not met. This behavior might be acceptable for a short while and might even get people around you to behave in the way you are looking for, but if it continues, it will lead to health and social issues at home and in the workplace. Learning to adjust expectations to help manage anger is a useful tool to learn for those with these personality traits.

Source: The Dangers Of Setting Expectations Too High

Anger Management - Recognizing Anger Problems in Your Child

We need to understand that anger is normal and it is healthy to express it. The problem comes when it becomes violent, destructive and not expressed in an appropriate way. Recognizing anger problems in your child can be a real headache and many parents are basically clueless about emotional toll it has on their children.

Source: Anger Management - Recognizing Anger Problems in Your Child

Get Guidance And Support For Anger Management Issues

Being angry all the time is very detrimental and negative to your health for several reasons. There are a lot of clinical and scientific studies on people who spend the majority of their lives angry. Going through life with constant high levels of anger is an extremely unhealthy state for your body to handle. First and foremost, you raise your risk of stroke and heart attack. Doctors think this is because feelings of hostility activate the "fight or flight" response in which stress hormones speed up your heart rate. Your blood pressure rises at the same time, as your blood vessels constrict. People who spend most of their lives like this also increase their chances of having atherosclerosis, frequent headaches, digestive problems and insomnia.

Source: Get Guidance And Support For Anger Management Issues

Tips For Dealing With Road Rage

Summertime traffic seems to be getting worse and worse. It begins in June when all the college kids come home and we instantly notice faster and more reckless driving on our city streets. Then all the families pile on the freeways, trying to make it to their vacation destinations with loud, cranky kids in the back of the vans. It's a trying time for many seasoned business drivers as they have to have a heightened sense of awareness about them, looking out for the increased number of lost, inexperienced and erratic drivers on the roads.

Source: Tips For Dealing With Road Rage

Personality Development: Benefits Of Anger Management

Learning the skill of anger management is necessary as our life improve tremendously if we succeed in it. Although it is very difficult but after knowing its benefits we are bound to change ourselves. Here are some benefits of anger management which will change your personality.

Source: Personality Development: Benefits Of Anger Management

Meditation Of Love

If you want to attract love, you should irradiate love. Be a walking love-campaign. Enjoy it.

Source: Meditation Of Love

Traditional Affirmations Do Not Work!

In this article I will explain why traditional affirmations do not work and how they can actually make your life worse the more you recite them. There are, however ways to truly reprogram your mind without the backlash that traditional affirmations often produce.

Source: Traditional Affirmations Do Not Work!

Psychic Predictions 2013

While 2012 was a year of purging old skeletons, 2013 is the year of the now. It's a year when we'll begin to see some real changes in society. Find out more about what's to come in 2013 in this fascinating article written by a professional psychic.

Source: Psychic Predictions 2013

The Pledge Of Success

The daily pledge of success will activate your creative and productive mind; help guide your daily conduct to be one with the universe so the universe can be one with you. People will find you appealing to associate and or do business because you bring fulfillment to all. Remember, the people will provide you the opportunity to acquire riches if you are a creative, productive unassuming force; and if your daily conduct brings credit to you and those with whom you associate. Say the daily pledge every morning to set a good footing for your day and every time before making a decision that involve others.

Source: The Pledge Of Success

Really? One Sentence Can Change the World?

Language is powerful and what we tell ourselves is who we become. We embody our habits. Make a new one with this sentence: I am good & have in me the power to make more good!

Source: Really? One Sentence Can Change the World?

How the Energy Inside of You Is Built Using the Law of Attraction

Many people do not realize that the law of attraction means more than just thinking about something and going for it, but it involves the whole universe. You will be able to make a huge difference in the way that you approach life and experience life if you only give the law of attraction theory a chance. First, know that the law of attraction simply means that you can get what you want when you surround yourself with positive energy and you...

Source: How the Energy Inside of You Is Built Using the Law of Attraction

Affirmation Consistency - How Often Do You Say Affirmations?

Change takes time. We live in an automatic society where we expect change to manifest almost instantly, with almost little to no effort. In some aspects of life, we experience this every day. In others, perhaps, things take much longer than we would like for them to. Many things we pursue really are possible for us but we give up on them before they have time to come into our lives. This article offers a practical approach why giving up too soon may be costing you dearly.

Source: Affirmation Consistency - How Often Do You Say Affirmations?

Why Affirmations Work - You Trust Yourself

Self improvement experts like myself and others all agree. Affirmations work wonderfully well for those who believe in their power and are disciplined enough to do them regularly. When an affirmation has been properly written and consistently spoken, your words begin to change the situations in your life. There are many reasons why they are so effective. But perhaps the most important is because you trust yourself.

Source: Why Affirmations Work - You Trust Yourself

Writing Your Affirmations - Affirmation Length

There are several guidelines to follow when you are creating the perfect affirmation for yourself. One key thing to remember is length. Typically, affirmations are supposed to be short and sweet. Your statement shouldn't be drawn out into paragraphs. One sentence packed with power will more than suffice. I will post a couple of examples so you can see the difference.

Source: Writing Your Affirmations - Affirmation Length

Basic Overview of Affirmations - Getting Yourself To Follow Through

In your life, what has been the most difficult aspect of going from where you are to where you want to be? This is a very straight forward question that is powerful as we contemplate the answer. For some it could be lack of direction. For others, lack of support from family, etc. What would your answer be? For so many people I speak with, the number one obstacle they face is following through with the ideas and plans they have established for themselves.

Source: Basic Overview of Affirmations - Getting Yourself To Follow Through