<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>Saturday</p>\n<p>Washington, DC</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Tharon Johnson</p>\n<p>President & CEO Paramount, Consulting Group, LLC</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>(ROUGH LOG)</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>TO DISCUSS FORMER SOUTH REGIONAL ARE DIRECTOR FOR OBAMA 2012. WE HAVE NOT BEEN TOGETHER IN A VERY LONG TIME. AND I AM HAPPY TO HAVE BOTH OF YOU GENTLEMEN ON. LET ME START WITH YOU. WE'RE A WEEK OUT FROM A POTENTIAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. CHUCK SCHUMER, THE MAJOR ITY LEADER SENATE SAYS THAT MAYBE THE SENATE SHOULD START IF THE HOUSE CAN'T GET IT TOGETHER. DO YOU SEE A PATH THAT AVOIDS A SHUTDOWN, CONSIDERING WHAT McCARTHY IS JUGGLING NOW? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>ROBINSON IT CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE GETTING HARD ER WITH EVERY PASSING MINUTE. JUST BECAUSE WHAT THE HARDLINERS IN THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS ARE CALLING FOR IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TIME TO GET DONE BEFORE THIS DEADLINE. NOW THAT SAID, THERE'S GOING TO BE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PRESSURE ON KEVIN McCARTHY TO GET SOMETHING DONE. WE KNOW ON THE POLITICAL SIDE, WE ARE A FEW LINES AWAY FROM AN IMPORTANT ELECTION YEAR. GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNSEN DON'T PLAY WELL WITH THE ELECTORATE. AND WE CAN OFTEN HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, BOTH SIDES CAN BE INTRAN GENT, BUT IT'S A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT IS TELLING EVERYBODY YOU'RE THE REASON THERE'S GOING TO BE A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. LUCKILY, THERE'S SOME SANER HEADS PREVAILING IN THE SENATE. IF THEY CAN GET THE PROCESS MOVING, IT'S GOT TO BEGIN IN THE HOUSE. AND SO NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL KEVIN McCARTHY IS ABLE TO ROUND UP THOSE FOUR OR FIVE MEMBERS WHO ARE STOPPING EVERYTHING. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>KEVIN McCARTHY COULD WORK ON A DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS. DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP SAID THAT CALL HAS NOT COME. SHOULD DEMOCRATS WORK WITH THE SPEAKER TO COME TO SOME DEAL OR SHOULD THEY LET HIM RISE? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>JOHNSON THIS IS A POLITICAL DISASTER FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RIGHT NOW. THINK ABOUT WHAT WAS JUST DISPLAYED. LET'S NOT FORGET THIS IS A NEW SPEAKER WHO HAD A DOZEN ROUNDS OF VOTING, AND HE HAD PROBLEMS WITH HIS OWN CAUGCUS AT THAT MOMENT. HE WAS LOSING SUPPORT FROM THE FREEDOM CAUCUS. SO WHILE I'M UP HERE IN D.C., TALKED TO A LOT OF DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS YESTERDAY AND THEY WERE OUT AND ABOUT. AND DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW WE ARE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE LACK OF LEADERSHIP FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, PARTICULARLY WITH SPEAKER McCARTHY AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, WHO BASICALLY COLT TOGETHER AND DO THEIR JOB. A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYONE. SO WILL DEMOCRATS MAKE A DEAL WITH REPUBLICANS? TO THAT CALL COMES, DO DEMOCRATS HAVE TO KEEP IT DRY? I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE WORRIED THAT THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW NEEDS THE GOVERNMENT WORKING. AT A TIME WHERE WE SEE THAT BIDEN IS LEADING IN THE POLLS, THE ECONOMY IS GETTING KMBETTER WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE GOING THEIR PART BECAUSE THEY ARE THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE. BUT THERE ARE SOME WHEELING AND DEALING THAT CAN GO ON, BUT RIGHT NOW, THIS IS LEFT UP TO THE REPUBLICANS. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>SO LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT THE POTENTIAL COST FOR THAT NEGOTIATION FOR THAT COOPERATION WILL BE. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE WHIP NUMBER TWO OF THE PARTY KATHERINE CLARK ON WHAT THE FRAMEWORK OF A DEAL COULD BE, IF McCARTHY COMES TO THE DEMOCRATS. LISTEN. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE THE SOUND. WHAT SHE SAYS IN THE SOUND BYTE IS THAT THEY WILL -- WHAT DEMOCRATS WANT IS THE DISASTER FUNDING PASSED. DEMOCRATS ALSO WANT THE ENDING OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IS THAT A PRICE THAT REPUBLICANS SHOULD PAY, THAT THE SPEAKER SHOULD PAY, IF NECESSARY? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>ROBINSON AT THIS JUNCTURE, THERE'S REALLY MORE FOR THE FREEDOM CAUCUS TO DECIDE THAN IT IS FOR KEVIN McCARTHY TO DECIDE. THEY HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION TO MAKE SHEER. DO THEY WANT REPUBLICANS TO MAKE THESE FUNDING DECISIONS WITHIN THE CAUCUS THAT ARE REPUBLICAN-LED DECISIONS, OR ARE THEY GOING TO FORCE A SITUATION WHERE McCARTHY HAS TO LOOK FOR THOSE ELSEWHERE. NOW BOTH SIDES HAVE SOME TOOLS AND SOME WEAPONS IN THEIR BELT. OBVIOUSLY, THE FREEDOM CAUCUS CAN GO STRAIGHT AT KEVIN McCARTHY AND THREATEN TO END HIS SPEAKERSHIP, WHICH HAS BEEN FRAGILE FROM THE MOMENT IT STARTED AFTER TAKING MULTIPLE ROUNDS, TORQUE LEVEL OF VOTING TO GETTING IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. HE WAS NEVER IN FIRM FOOTING. WE KNEW IN JANUARY THAT THIS IS WHERE WE WOULD BE IN THE LAST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER. THIS WAS AS PREDICTABLE AS THE SUNRISE AT THIS POINT. BUT THE FREEDOM CAUCUS HAS A DECISION TO MAKE. DO THEY WANT DEMOCRATS TO HAVE A BIGGER SAY IN THE BUDGET, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. EVENTUALLY, WE ARE GOING TO GET A BUDGET PASSED BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL REVOLT. IT WILL BE BAD FOR REPUBLICANS IF IT DOESN'T GET DONE.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>DO YOU THINK IT'S WORTH ENDING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY FOR SPEAKER McCARTHY TO SAY WE'LL PUT THIS ASIDE IF YOU CAN WORK WITH DEMOCRATS, GET THE FUNDING PASSED FOR DISASTER RELIEF, WHAT ELSE DID SHE SAY? CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AS WELL. IS THAT WORTH IT? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>JOHNSON IF THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME, I WOULD SAY THIS. THAT'S THE CATCH 22 THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT'S SO KEY HERE. THE IMPEACHMENT OF JOE BIDEN, WHICH IS BASELESS AND A POLITICAL REACTION BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, NEEDS TO BE DROPPED. YOU TALK ABOUT UKRAINE. THAT'S FUNDING THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS BASICALLY MADE A DECISION WE HAVE TO BE PARTNERS FOR UKRAINE. WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING IS, HEY, THIS IS A CLEAR DISPLAY OF THE REPUBLICANS' INSAABILITY TO GOMPB. THIS IS ABOUT LEADERSHIP. SO UNTIL THE CALL IS MADE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU PRESENT THESE DEMANDS, BUT YOU HAVE TO GET IN THE NEGOTIATION ROOM. ULTIMATELY, SPEAKER McCARTHY HAS TO GET HIS OWN PARTY TOGETHER FIRST. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>AON TUESDAY IS BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCED THAT HE'S GOING ON WEDNESDAY. UAW THUS FAR HAS WITHHELD ITS ENDORSEMENT. DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE PRESIDENT, THE WHITE HOUSE'S RESPONSE TO THIS. IS MILLER RIGHT BIDEN IS GOING BECAUSE TRUMP IS GOING? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>JOHNSNON LISTEN, YOU KNOW THIS. PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS BEEN A SUPPORTER OF THE WOMEN AND MEN MOVEMENT FOR DECADES. EVEN WHEN HE WAS A U.S. SENATOR AND AS A VICE PRESIDENT. AND NOW AS A PRESIDENT, HE HAS TALKED ABOUT HOW HE HAS SUPPORTED THESE WUM AND MEN WHO HAVE BEEN ON THE FRONT LINES, WHO ARE HARD WORKING AMERICANS AIN THE LABOR MOVEMENT. YOU LOOK AT WHAT HE'S DONE WITH HIS POLICIES. YOU SEE $86 MILLION IN PENSION RELIEF FOR UNION WORKERS. SO HIM DECIDING TO SHOW UP IN THE PICKET LINE IS UNPRESS DEPENDENTED. BUT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. NOW THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN VERY CAREFUL NOT TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO TAKING SIDES IN THE NEGOTIATION. THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE NEUTRAL MEDIATORS.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>HOW ARE YOU NEUTRAL IF YOU SHOW UP ON THE PICKET LINE WITH UAW WORKERS? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>: JOHNSON YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ORIGIN OF THIS. THEY REQUESTED HIM TO COME. THAPS THE PART OF THE NARRATIVE WE HAVE TO PUT IN THERE. THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SPECIFIC ABOUT SUPPORT FOR LABOR. HE'S BEEN SPECIFIC THAT THEY NEED HIGHER WAGES AND BETTER JOBS. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP THESE JOBS IN THE U.S. SO HE WAS REQUESTING AND HE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p> ROBINSON BIDEN IS ALIGNING HIMSELF DIRECTLY WITH THE DEMANDS BEING MADE BY THE UNION BY GOING ON THAT PICKET LINE. AND NO, YOU CAN'T BE A MODERATOR. YOU CAN'T BE THE PERSON BRINGING EVERYONE TOGETHER AND FINDING CONSENSUS ON A PICKET LINE. WE HAVEN'T HAD A PRESIDENT PRESIDENT DO THIS IN 100 YEARS AND THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR THAT. IT DOESN'T LOOK PARTICULARLY PRESIDENTIAL. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT AMERICANS ARE LOOKING FOR FROM THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN IT COMES TO LEADERSHIP. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>LET ME ALSO READ THIS STATEMENT AND THEN WE HAVE TO WRAP. EVERY FIBER OF OUR UNION IS BEING POURED INTO FIGHT ING THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS AND AN ECONOMY THAT ENRICHES PEOPLE LIKE DONALD TRUMP AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKERS. SO AS TRUMP HEADS TO MICHIGAN, THAT'S THE VIEW FROM THE UNION ON TRUMP'S VISIT. THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH. GOOD TO SEE YOU</p>\n<p></p>

Diverse group of people walking together in the street during a protest. Crowd of people holding signs in solidarity as they march together at a rally

1. Senators Schumer, Feingold, Wyden, Bayh Unveil 'Citizens United' Legislation; Will Announce Plans To Pass Bill By July 4. Senators Chuck Schumer, Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold, and Ron Wyden Press Conference outside the Supreme Court unveiling 'Citizens United' Legislation 03:52:05 group walks to mics SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. Everyone ready? Good morning, everybody. And I am so proud to be joined by my colleagues Senator Feingold, who has been a true inspiration and leader on the issue of campaign- finance reform; Senator Wyden, who contributed parts of this bill and has been working on this area for a long time; Senator Bayh, who has been a beacon in terms of reform and cares very much about this. Senator Franken couldn't join us today, but he too worked on this bill, particularly the parts on foreign control. And it's a beautiful day, and I think that's one of the most beautiful sights, and I was going to say that 03:52:33 the beauty of this building can't even be defaced by the ugliness of the recent ruling in Citizens United. SEN. : (Laughs.) SEN. SCHUMER: Anyway, I also want to thank Chris Van Hollen, who's been my partner in this effort. And he along with several of his colleagues will be unveiling their bill later today. And our bills are very, very, very similar. 03:52:53 Now the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United threatens to allow special interests, including even foreign-controlled corporations, to flood our democracy with unlimited dollars and overtake our elections. The ruling will be remembered as a low moment for the court for a very long time into the future. At a time when the public's fears about the influence of special interests were already high, this decision stacks the deck against the average American even more. 03:53:29 This court decision and the effort that begins today to blunt its impact will certainly factor into President Obama's next choice for the Supreme Court. While there shouldn't be any litmus test, the next nominee must be someone who will understand how the court's decisions affect people in the real world, because in the Citizens United case, the current court didn't understand that. The court's decision allows corporations and other special interests to spend more money and operate more secretly than ever before. Money can be transferred and spent in the shadows, and advertisements can be run without revealing who is behind them. We must stop this. So today my colleagues and I are introducing the DISCLOSE Act, because democracy is strengthened by casting light on spending in elections. Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections, DISCLOSE. Get it? (Laughter.) SEN./MR. : Very good. (Off mike.) SEN. SCHUMER: I would like to particularly thank Jason Abel for thinking that up. (Laughter.) 03:54:38 Decades ago, his -- decades ago, Judge Louis Brandeis boldly said, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." That's exactly what our bill will do: shine a light on the flood of spending unleashed by the Citizens United decision. Our legislation will drill down and give the public information they have a right to know. No longer will groups be able to live and spend in the shadows. While the court's ruling was an activist overreach, our proposed remedy is not. The court spoke. And while we disagree with its ruling, it did give us room to maneuver. So our approach does not circumvent the court by reimposing a backdoor ban on corporate spending. Instead it closes certain loopholes and relies on enhanced disclosure, in an idea endorsed by the court itself, so we know our bill meets the test of constitutionality. 03:55:41 This should not be a partisan issue. In fact, outrage over the court's decision is decidedly bipartisan. According to the Washington ABC News poll, eight of 10 Americans oppose the ruling, including seven of 10 registered Republicans. And the bill assiduously does not pick political winners and losers among either Democrats or Republicans. It simply levels the playing field, so that special interests do not drown out the voice of the average voter. The legislation merely applies -- to corporations, labor unions and advocacy organizations -- the same rules that candidates already have to abide by. 03:56:23 And it applies these rules equally across the board. It covers corporations and labor unions alike as well as 527s, social welfare organizations and trade organizations. There are some organizations on the right and on the left, who oppose this legislation because they say they are special, they don't have to disclose. Everyone, if you're going to run these ads, you should have to disclose, no matter who you are. 03:56:54 Here's what the DISCLOSE Act will do. And then I'm going to turn it over to my colleagues. First, we require new disclaimers on all television advertisements funded by special interests. And we drill down so to really uncover who's behind the ad. You will not be able to just be "Citizens for Good Government" and have some paid lobbyist get up there who no one knows. If the corporation or the interest group has paid the money, we find out who actually paid the money, and they have to stand up and say who it is. So for instance, if a corporation is running the ad, the CEO will have to appear at the end of the ad and say that he or she approved the message, just like any candidate must do. If an advocacy organization is running the ad, both the head of the organization running the ad and the top outside funder of the ad will have to appear on camera. And additionally, a list of the five top funders to that organization or corporation will have to be displayed on the screen. This ensures the legislation will stop the funneling of big money through shadow groups in order to fund ads that are virtually anonymous. We will, for the first time, follow the money -- follow the money back to its origin and make its sourcing public. Second, we mandate an unprecedented level of disclosure not only of an organization's spending but of its donors. In disclosing their donors, organizations will have a choice. They can disclose all of their donors that have given in excess of a thousand (dollars), or they can disclose only those donors who contribute to the group's campaign-related activities account if they solely use that account for their spending. So if an organization doesn't want to do these ads, or wants to only have one or two people fund these ads, we're respecting that. But we're saying who paid for the ad is made public. All spending intended to influence an election -- be it radio, TV, print, mailers, robocalls, billboards -- would flow through the account. Every donor who contributes more than a thousand dollars would have to be disclosed. Organizations must not only disclose these donors to the FEC, but also to the public on their websites and to their shareholders and members through their annual and quarterly reports. 03:59:21 This is sunshine at its brightest. Next, we'll fill three loopholes created by the court decision. First, we'll prevent foreign-controlled entities from spending unlimited sums in our elections through their U.S.-based subsidiaries. This was a loophole especially mentioned by Justice Stevens in his dissent. Fixing it's a no-brainer. We don't want people like Hugo Chavez, who have no American interests in mind -- the ability to influence our elections. And we believe that colleagues from both sides of the aisle will want to stand up for this fact. I'd like to -- specifically, again to thank Senator Franken, whose own legislation on this issue served as a guidepost here. And Senators Menendez and Brown also introduced legislation on this issue. To fill a second loophole, we banned companies with government contracts in excess of $50,000 from making unlimited expenditures. No pay to play, in terms of these ads. Third -- sorry. Third, we ban expenditures by companies that receive government assistance, such as TARP. Taxpayer money should not be used to help corporations influence elections. And lastly, in an attempt to allow all candidates and parties to respond to ads funded by special interests, we expand on current law granting lowest unit rate to candidates, by giving those same rights to the parties on a limited geographic basis. Our goal is to enact this measure in time to limit fallout from the court's decisions on the 2001 elections. Leader Reid has pledged that this legislation will be on the floor before July 4th. It is written so that the FEC does not have to promulgate regulations. It is self-implementing and will be implemented 30 days after enactment. 04:01:15 If we don't quickly confront this ruling, we will have to let the Supreme Court predetermine the outcome of the next -- of November's next elections. It won't be Republicans or Democrats who are determining who is elected, it will be corporate America and other special interests. We must prevent this. We must pass the DISCLOSE Act. And again, I'd now like to turn to one of the fathers of campaign finance reform, a great leader here, and I'm proud to have him join us in this effort, Senator Russ Feingold. 04:01:49 SEN. FEINGOLD: Thank you, Chuck. I am extremely proud to be here with these three great reformers in the United States Senate. Chuck Schumer responded to this outrageous ruling not only quickly but also thoughtfully, and put a ton of work into it. He has so many other responsibilities. But his dedication to this shows his deep understanding of what a threat the Citizens United decision is to our democracy. Evan Bayh is one of the great advocates for fiscal responsibility and reform of the Senate institution that I've ever worked with, and I'm so pleased he's part of this effort. And Ron Wyden and I have worked on issues of reform and civil liberties day after day for many years, and he's the reason that we have in American culture the stand- by-your-ad requirement, the ones that says, "I approve this message," because it was his amendment to the McCain Feingold bill that this body has not had the nerve to strike down. That was a very good provision. So I'm pleased to be part of this and supporting the DISCLOSE Act. I just want to say a word about the context. As I've done my town meetings around the state of Wisconsin, as I always do, people say to me, Russ, they struck down McCain-Feingold. I said, actually it's just the opposite. There are people out here, some of them with pens and so on, who seem to have misunderstood at the beginning that it was just the opposite. All that is basically left is McCain-Feingold, which is the direct prohibition on money coming from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals -- to political parties directly -- or more seriously members of Congress being able to raise that. They have not yet upended that decision. But what they did do was basically knock out all the other campaign finance laws for the last 100 years, including Teddy Roosevelt's Tillman Act, the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act that relate to labor unions, and all the court decisions to this date. 04:03:38 And it's very timely to realize that the person who led the dissent was Justice Stevens, who has now decided to retire, a 90-year- old man who wrote an 87-page dissent and made them listen to every word of it. That tells you how significant this decision was and how threatening it is to our democracy. And so as he indicated in the dissent, people don't want corporations to have the same powers as all of us. The underlying rationale for the court's decision, the corporations must have First Amendment rights in the political process like those of citizens, makes no sense. Corporations can't run for office. They don't have feelings or thoughts. They don't speak or make decisions, except through individuals, their corporate officers, their board of directors and their lobbyists. What they do have though is the ability to make huge amounts of money, thanks in part to laws passed by the people representatives. Now they can spend that money, without any restrictions, to buy elections. And I think this decision is going to have far greater consequences for the Supreme Court itself than just campaign finance. 04:04:48 This is going to be a central part of some of the discussions in the upcoming confirmation hearings, because it calls into question exactly what attitude these justices have about precedent, after having promised us under oath that they would respect precedent. This is an absurd approach to well-settled law. But we as senators have a responsibility in the immediate future to limit or mitigate the damage that this decision makes. And that's what this is all about. This is about doing what we can. This is about disclosure. We always hear our friends who oppose fundamental campaign finance reform say, well, what we really need is disclosure. Well, this bill is about real disclosure. It's about doing what we can within the context of the ruling to make sure that foreign money does not infect or destroy our political process. It's also about making sure that we have whatever rights that are permitted under the decision for those who question the receipt of government money for government contracts and still running ads like this. 04:05:48 Finally, just as a side note, Senator Schumer did include legislation that we've been working on for years that's being blocked by a secret hold to at least make members of the Senate file with the FEC electronically, just as everybody else has to do. And that is included in the legislation as well. So I'm excited about the prospects of this as being the platform for what I hope will be another series of reforms over the years, both legislatively and hopefully ultimately overturning this decision, which is, no question in my mind, one of the worst decisions in the history of this distinguished body. SEN. SCHUMER: Senator Wyden. Good job, Russ. 04:06:29 SEN. WYDEN: With its ruling, the Supreme Court has ripped open the floodgates of our democracy, letting in a sea of special-interest cash. We are here today to make sure that the typical citizen voice is not drowned out. Now, Senator Schumer and Senator Feingold and Senator Bayh, in my view, have put together an opportunity for us to go to the country and say, "Let us come together, Democrats and Republicans and independents, Americans across the political spectrum. And let's make sure that for the 2010 election, all our voices are going to have an opportunity to be heard." They have outlined a number of very important provisions. And I just want to take a quick moment to talk about a provision that Susan Collins and I wrote together in 2001 that I believe ought to be applied as part this legislation to all of the special interests in our country. My view is that when we enact this particular provision, it will arguably be the most visible part of reform in 2010. We called it then, on a bipartisan basis, "stand by your ad." It was enacted in March of 2001. And it was built around a very simple proposition: Candidates for federal office ought to take personal responsibility for the content of their advertisements. And it has brought a new measure of accountability to American elections. You probably could also call it "say it to my face" politics, because instead of all those grainy advertisements where the music makes you take your children out of the room, a candidate has to think about the consequences of what they're doing. And Chuck Schumer and Russ Feingold and Evan Bayh all gave me the opportunity to join with them, after all of their hard work, to say that this principle that has worked well since 2001 ought to apply to corporate CEOs, labor leaders, political consultants -- everybody in America who wants to influence a federal election. Like political candidates, these powerful voices, these powerful leaders, would also have to stand by their ads, too. This is a measure that is overdue. I believe the American people, on a bipartisan basis, will support it. They saw what Susan Collins and I and others sought to do in 2001. And because of the leadership of these three outstanding Democratic Party leaders, we are kicking off this campaign. And I particularly want to thank my colleagues for making me a part of it. SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you made yourself a part of it. Senator Bayh. 04:09:51 SEN. BAYH: Thank you. I'd like to express my appreciation to my colleagues this morning. All three of them are real reformers. And our effort here is to take this democracy back for the people of our country. So, Chuck, for your leadership, and Russ, for your long-time devotion to this, and Ron, for your friendship and your leadership, particularly in the interest of disclosure, I'm very, very grateful. They've pretty much said it all, so let me just summarize very briefly. 04:10:11 We face major challenges in this nation that will define our democracy for a generation; and yet too many of these issues are going unaddressed by the majoritarian branches of government. As a result, the reputation of the Congress and of our political process has sunk to near an all-time low in the minds of our fellow citizens. If this decision is allowed to stand, we have a real risk, shockingly enough, of the process becoming even worse. And we cannot allow that to happen. The prospect of secret, unlimited, possibly foreign piles of campaign cash flooding into our democracy is something that should alarm every American. This has to be a priority this year, because if this money is allowed to flood into the political process this November, we run the risk of this becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. 04:10:59 Members who are beholden to the special interests will be elected to defend the special interests. We've had too much of that already. There are many reasons for the dysfunction in our political process. But among them is the importance of campaign cash. It wraps itself around the tentacle -- its tentacles wrap themselves around the spinal columns of too many members and influence their thoughts to too great a degree. So we've gathered here today to literally begin the process of taking our democracy back, for the people of this country, and in so doing take up the business of the people of this nation once again, so that our country can be a greater place and a more noble place. It is yet not too late. SEN. SCHUMER: Thanks, Evan. Great job. We're ready for your questions, any of us, to any of us. Q Senator Schumer, if this bill is going to succeed this year, then why are there no Republican senators here to support it? SEN. SCHUMER: Well, we've talked to a number of Republicans. 04:11:57 None of them in the Senate are willing to co-sponsor. But a good number have told us that they are very favorably disposed to the legislation. And we believe when we put it on the floor, we will have Republican votes. And we expect -- Q How many do you expect? SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I wouldn't go into numbers now. But I believe we will have them. And in the House -- in a more bipartisan show, I guess, than the Senate -- when Congressman Van Hollen introduces, he will be standing with a bipartisan group. Q Senator, Justice Kennedy's opinion said that one of the problems with the prior legislation they struck down was that you couldn't distinguish between news media organizations and other corporations. Does this legislation make any distinction between news media corporations and/or interest in other organizations? Or are they treated exactly the same? SEN. SCHUMER: Well, in this legislation, it's -- whoever puts up the ad and pays for the ad is affected. Q Well, I guess it's how you define an ad. I mean, that's what he was getting at. If you publish a book or an article or an editorial statement, is that considered an ad? Or -- SEN. SCHUMER: We have in our definition what a political ad is. And we think it covers political ads without covering anything else. Q Senator, this includes -- SEN. SCHUMER: You guys -- any of you guys want to chime in, go ahead. SEN. : (Off mike.) (Laughter.) Q Does this include, besides the express advocacy both for a vote, again, will this include, as with Wisconsin Right to Life, those ads that are clearly political ads, even if they don't have the magic words? SEN. SCHUMER: Yes. Q Do you expect opposition from union -- from labor and from some of the Democratic groups that have been your allies on -- SEN. SCHUMER: No. Look, we have -- we have -- some of our allies are not happy with this legislation. The -- we've told our friends in the unions that they should be treated the same as corporations, no more, no less. I think most of them are going along with that idea. There are some of the advocacy groups on both the right and the left who say they should be exempt. If you're doing these ads, you shouldn't be exempt, no matter who you are. We don't have a test as to who's a good guy and who's a bad guy. There should be disclosure, and let the public decide. Q Senator, is part of the idea that, by disclosure -- the CEOs and the fundraisers and all -- that the result will be fewer ads? I mean, is that -- 04:14:14 SEN. SCHUMER: Yes. My view is that many CEOs of major organizations will do this if they don't have to disclose. But once they have to come up front and disclose, they will not do it. So, yes, I think it will -- anyone who wants to hide will not do an ad after this legislation passes. And I think there are a lot of people who like to hide. Maybe Russ would like to say something, with his long history in this. 04:14:44 SEN. FEINGOLD: Yeah, I just -- you know, as I talk to people about it, basically what this decision means is, you're -- buy some toothpaste and the money can go directly into an ad. So if a group -- if a tooth -- a toothpaste company can hide behind the ad, that's good for them, but otherwise people are going to start buying Republican or Democrat toothpaste because there's money that's going to be used against their own views. So disclosure is critical to -- to require there be some economic reality for their decision to try to distort the political process using consumers' money. 04:15:16 SEN. WYDEN: Charlie, what we found in the "stand by your ad" debate is that people couldn't even figure out who to hold personally accountable. What you would do is you'd see these ads, somebody would be getting ripped, but there were no consequences for the person who ran the ad, because you couldn't actually hold a specific individual accountable. And I share the view of Senator Schumer that once in corporate boardrooms or in the offices of any other special interest group people have to think about how they are going to have to explain what they've done, you get a whole different attitude with respect to running ads. And we saw that in "stand by your ad." (Cross talk.) SEN. SCHUMER: And just one other thing I want -- wait, wait -- one other thing that I wanted to mention, just to make it clear, because Evan mentioned that I ought to bring this up: You will not have - 04:16:05 it will not be the Chamber of Commerce getting up and saying they paid for this ad. If a large drug company, for instance, had paid the chamber to put on an ad, it'll be the head of that large drug company. Wherever the money started, whoever gave the most has to do the disclosure, and the next four have to be on the ad. So there will be no hiding. There will be no hiding. And as both Ron and Russ said, I think that lots of these ads -- the people who put them forward are happy to do it if they can do it in the dark of night. But once sunlight occurs, they shrivel up and don't do them. So I think there will be many fewer of them. Go ahead, Paul. Q You served as the DSCC chair for four years. Would you apply that standard to them? Would you want -- SEN. SCHUMER: We do already. Q -- your face, saying, "I, Chuck Schumer, chairman" -- SEN. SCHUMER: Oh, I mean for the Senate Campaign Committee and things like that? You know, that's not in the bill. But -- SEN. : Schumer would like that. (Laughter.) SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, probably true. (Laughter.) No, but it's something -- it's something we'd think about. Q On another issue that you're front and center on -- SEN. SCHUMER: Well, let's just finish this issue first. Q Senator, y'all are talking about the urgency of doing this in time for this cycle. Court challenges. Why isn't it going to -- (off mike)-- the court? 04:17:28 SEN. SCHUMER: Well, we would hope that if there's a court challenge, they would let the law go through and debate it as it goes through. You know, it will be up to the court whether they would stay the law, should it become law, or let it go forward. We believe, again, we've designed it so they will let it go forward. We have designed this proposal so it can take effect by 2010, in every way. Q (Off mike) -- the chamber of commerce, and certainly they've come out very strongly against this legislation. Do you think that there would be corporations, companies that would increase their giving to the chamber or just give exclusively to the chamber for the purpose of having them run ads -- SEN. SCHUMER: But again, no, I think this -- again, this will -- Q Without this legislation. SEN. SCHUMER: Oh, without this legislation? Well, that's what they do now. They want to hide, so they give the money to the chamber of commerce. They want to hide, so they set up a group called Citizens for Good Government, and it has some talking head who has nothing to do with who's paying for the ad in it. We're going to stop all of that. 04:18:24 And we think, based on Ron Wyden's original idea, that we're increasing sunlight in the right way, motivated by this decision, but it will go beyond the penumbra of this decision. Q Would a chamber and other similar trade groups raise more money for ads without this legislation? Do you think we'd see more money to those types of groups? 04:18:46 SEN. SCHUMER: I couldn't answer that. There's plenty right now. And it's been going up, whether this passes or not. SEN. BAYH: You can -- you can count on huge sums of nontransparent money flooding into the political process if this legislation didn't pass. And the bottom line that we're seeking to accomplish here is that the special interests can still run the ads, but they can no longer hide. 04:19:08 And we trust the public to make the best decisions, if fully informed. Listen to the ads. See if there's truth to them. But also know if there's an agenda behind the people who are running the ad that may affect your evaluation of the facts and the truth. Sunshine democracy: That's what this is all about. But to get to your question directly: You can count on it. If they can hide who they are, you bet there will be huge sums of money flooding into these kinds of third-party ads. And that's not right for democracy. Q Senator Schumer, the steps of the Court here is a pretty unique spot to have a press conference. Is this part of an overall attempt to demonize the people on the right in the Court? Are you opening yourself up to the same kind of criticisms that President Obama -- 04:19:42 SEN. SCHUMER: (Jack ?), look, bottom line is, we are here because we think this decision was a terrible decision. We're not casting personal aspersions. We are saying that this was a terrible decision, one of the worst decisions that has come along in the Supreme Court, I think in its history. And the people who -- the five people who signed that decision, obviously they should be accountable for it. There's nothing you can do, because it's a lifetime appointment, in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. 04:20:10 But, you know, is your idea, "If you disagree with it, you should be quiet?" SEN. FEINGOLD: (Off mike.) Yeah, as a matter of fact, after the oral argument in McCain-Feingold, I stood in this spot with Senator McCain, and we talked. And then after the oral arguments, Citizens United, we did the same thing. 04:20:26 And so this is an entirely appropriate place to talk about what we can do to minimize the negative impacts of a very bad decision. This is the right spot. Q Senator Feingold, you said that that would play into the forthcoming confirmation hearings for the -- for Justice Steven's successor. How do you intend to raise it? Because the nominee probably will not say he or she disagrees with whatever the court -- SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, it has to do with the much broader issue of, when a person comes before you, puts his hand up, and swears under oath that he's going to follow precedent, then does the complete opposite, what does that mean? How are we supposed to understand their understanding of precedent and following previous decisions of the Supreme Court? I think that will be very central. And it's a very difficult thing to do, if people are willing to say one thing under oath and then do the complete opposite, as I believe was done in this case. Q Senator Feingold, what does it say about the current political climate that Senator McCain isn't here? And you know -- you know -- SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, Senator McCain is obviously very busy with a situation in his state, a state that is in incredible turmoil. But Senator McCain has always been a strong advocate of disclosure. And I am confident, after he's had the chance to review this and think about it -- I can't speak for him, but I believe these are just the kinds of things that he and I have always fought for together. And I suspect he'll be an ally. SEN. WYDEN: Let me add a point on that, because bipartisanship at this point in American government is just about the most heavy lifting you can possibly do. And I probably spend more of my time on that than anything else in my duties as a senator. I want first of all people to know how hard Senator Schumer has worked to reach out, to try to make this possible. And we are going to work every single day to prosecute this cause, making sure that everybody can be heard as a bipartisan cause. That's why I mentioned Susan Collins several time, because Stand by Your Ad, which has made a difference in American elections, could not have come about without the support of Susan Collins. So we're not there yet. We understand that. But we are going to make sure that the American people see this as a cause we want to make bipartisan. 04:22:48 This is not going to be about demonizing the Supreme Court. At this point, given the blizzard of campaign rules and regulations, people aren't completely sure even what the effects of the ruling are. So now we've got a chance to explain the ruling, talk about why what we're doing is in the public interest. And we are going to work every single day on the heavy lifting that's needed to bring this country together and make this cause bipartisan. SEN. SCHUMER: And we've looked at -- we'll take one final question -- but on the -- on this aspect that both Ron and Russ addressed, we've looked at what our Republican colleagues have said they agree with and disagree with in terms of campaign finance. And in this legislation are only things they agree with. We've also been assiduous to balance it, so it's -- this treats corporations and labor unions the same; groups on the right, groups on the left the same -- to have it go right down the middle, in an effort to win Republican support. Q Senator Schumer, President Obama said yesterday that there may not be an appetite in Congress for immigration reform. He also said he doesn't want to push it just for the sale of politics. You're taking the lead on this. Can you give us an update on where things stand? 04:23:59 SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. I believe that we can and should do down- the-middle immigration reform. The bottom line is that the system is broken. Thousands and thousands of illegals come across the border. We reject people who should legally be here because they're needed. And we need to fix this system. And I am meeting -- I'm meeting with Republicans right now to try and still come up with a bipartisan bill that can pass. Thank you, everybody. 04:24:37 END 2. SENATOR JOHN BOEHNER WEEKLY PRESS AVAILABILITY House Minority Leader John Boehner Weekly Press Conference BOEHNER: Good morning, everyone. 04:25:11 The world is growing more dangerous, not less so. That's why Republicans have consistently supported our troops in harm's way, advocated better solutions to deal with the national security threats that America faces and reaffirmed our commitment to our allies. 04:25:27 When the president has made responsible decisions, like he did with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans have stood with him and supported his efforts. However, when he has advocated policies that make America less safe, such as importing terrorists into the United States, alienating our closest allies and undermining missile defense, we have listened the American people, taken principled stands, and offered better solutions. 04:25:55 Peter King is uniquely qualified to chair this new National Security Solutions (ph) group. And I'm pleased that he'll be working with Kevin McCarthy in the weeks and months ahead to engage the 04:26:15 The American people don't believe that Washington is listening to them or that even cares what they think. That's why Washington Democrats face a continuing credibility gap. It's also why the agenda project that Kevin is heading is going to be very different. It's a process that's driven by listening and 04:26:37 giving the American people a voice in the development of our agenda. 04:26:42 Also, as you know, when I handed Speaker Pelosi the gavel at the beginning of this Congress, I said that, if we have to oppose our colleagues across the aisle, or our new president, it was also our obligation to be the party of better solutions. We've offered better solutions on the stimulus bill, better solutions on the budget, better solutions on cap-and-trade, and clearly, I think, better solutions on health care and a number of other issues. 04:27:09 And we're -- we'll continue to offer better solutions. And I think this National Security Solutions (ph) will be an important step in the development of solutions that we will advocate in this coming election. We're going to continue to build on the hard work of our members in the development of this agenda, but it's important for us, as we do this, to show the American people that not only are we listening but that they have an opportunity to participate in this project as well. And with that, let me turn it over to Pete. 04:27:46 REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING: Thank you very much, Leader Boehner. And let me thank you for appointing me to this position. I look forward to working with you and the members of the Republican conference as we forge a Republican policy which will be an American policy on national security, homeland security. And I particularly look forward to working with Kevin McCarthy as we go forward over the next several months. Because our country does face tremendous issues and challenges on national security, homeland security, which really are one and the same. 04:28:14 And as Leader Boehner said, on issues where the president has clearly been wrong, we believe -- such as bringing the 9/11 terrorists to trial in New York City, such as needlessly confronting and creating crises with the Israeli government in the Middle East, turning his back on allies throughout the world in an attempt to reach out to those who are just rejecting our hand of friendship, putting aside proven allies, we will be speaking with one voice. We are going to work together on this. Again, though, when we believe the president is right -- and we support his policies thus far in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will not be afraid to say that. 04:28:48 This should be an American issue, not a partisan issue, but on the issues that we are particularly concerned about, we believe the president and the administration have gone the wrong way and we will do all that we can to ensure that our country is righted and put on the right track because, literally, our very survival is at stake. And as ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee and bring a member of the Intelligence Committee, I certainly will use whatever knowledge and information that I get, which I believe has to be used to forge a policy which is going to protect our people and protect our nation. And so, again, John Boehner, I thank you. And, Kevin McCarthy, I certainly look forward to working with you in the months ahead. Thank you. 04:29:29 REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY: Well, I'd like to thank both. I'd like to thank the leader, from early on, setting the tone that this Republican conference will have solutions to problems. And Congressman King -- his knowledge, his skill set to put together this project to make America stronger and safer at the same time. There's very few challenges that are greater than making sure of the national safety of America, not only when you look to North Korea, when you look to Iran but you look to the terrorist throughout, that we make sure America's safe and strong. Our Project of the Agenda (ph) is going to go forward, where we're finding solutions to the biggest challenges that America faces. This is going to be an integral part of that, and I imagine this -- this project, when we go forward, is going to be much different than people have seen from a Washington controlled by Democrats. First and foremost, we will listen. When you go across this country, you find, time and time again, that no one realizes anybody in Washington is listening. We will not only engage the best and brightest minds throughout this country; we will come to an agreement where we find the policy based not for political benefits but for America's benefit. 04:30:41 Most importantly, we want America to do well, and that's what this project is all about. Thank you. BOEHNER: Questions? QUESTION: Mr. Leader, what is listening to the public on national security mean? Isn't national security about command-and-control and the commander-in-chief? And hasn't President Obama largely continued a lot of the national security policies of the previous administration? BOEHNER: Are you referring to things like missile defense? QUESTION: No. BOEHNER: Are you referring to things like our relationship with Israel? Are you referring to things like reaching out to our enemies who vowed to kill us? 04:31:15 Come on. There's -- there's a big difference. And the American people feel strongly about many of these issues. And we want to invite them to participate in this process. QUESTION: Mr. Leader, the House and Senate are going to be introducing legislation to try to deal with the Citizens United case in the Supreme Court. Do you think the Supreme Court made the right decision in that? Will there be bipartisan support for such a bill? And do you think it can get done by the July 4th recess? BOEHNER: I find it interesting that -- that Democrats here in Congress have chosen the 04:31:46 heads of their two campaign committee to drive this process to stifle speech in America, while carving out labor bosses in their bill. This is not serious attempt. QUESTION: Leader Boehner, earlier this week, you said that the Arizona law had -- immigration law had 70 percent support and that the people of Arizona should be able to pass whatever laws they support. What do you think of the policy of requiring people who look like they're from foreign countries to show... 04:32:16 BOEHNER: I think the people of Arizona have a right to pass their laws under the 10th amendment. I think it's clearly a result of the federal government's failure to secure our border and to enforce our laws. QUESTION: Would you support such a law... 04:32:31 BOEHNER: And I think that it's important that, as we look at this issue of immigration reform, that we take the steps that we know we have to take first, and that's security the border and enforcing the law. QUESTION: But at the same time... QUESTION: The Arizona law deals with illegal immigrants already in this country. They've already passed -- they've already crossed the border. What at the national level can you do to address that issue in the way Arizona... 04:32:54 BOEHNER: Well, I think that we ought to have an immigration reform plan move through Congress. But you can't do immigration reform in the middle of a boiling political pot here in Washington, D.C. And secondly, you can't do it without serious, bipartisan conversations and bipartisan discussions. 04:33:16 But let me tell you, the American people are asking me, where are the jobs? When you look at survey after survey, more than half the American people want to get the economy moving again and they want to get back to work. And these other issues that -- that people want to pop up and turn them into some issue -- it's not where the American people are. QUESTION: But I still don't -- I still don't understand what the -- the House Republican proposal would be to deal with illegal immigrants already in this country. 04:33:51 BOEHNER: As I said, I think what we need to do is to have a bipartisan conversation in a -- in an orderly way that produces a -- a fair result for all Americans. QUESTION: On the issue of bipartisan negotiation about immigration, Senator Schumer said this morning he's doing that; he's reaching out to Republicans. And he does think that, this year, there could be a down-the-middle immigration bill. Are you saying... BOEHNER: There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress. Even the president, last night, admitted that this wasn't going to happen. I've been around here for a little while and know that, in the middle of an election year, after we've had bills like health care shoved down our throats and the process twisted, tortured, pressured, bribed, you cannot do a serious piece of legislation of this size, with this difficulty, in this environment. And it's nothing more than a cynical ploy to try to engage voters, some segment of voters, to show up in this November's elections. QUESTION: Well, how do you know... (CROSSTALK) BOEHNER: Thank you. QUESTION: ... if you don't have a bill?

MISC. 1950'S NEWSREELS #74

<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>Saturday</p>\n<p>Atlanta, GA</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Brian Robinson</p>\n<p>Republican Strategist</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>(ROUGH LOG)</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>TO DISCUSS FORMER SOUTH REGIONAL ARE DIRECTOR FOR OBAMA 2012. WE HAVE NOT BEEN TOGETHER IN A VERY LONG TIME. AND I AM HAPPY TO HAVE BOTH OF YOU GENTLEMEN ON. LET ME START WITH YOU. WE'RE A WEEK OUT FROM A POTENTIAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. CHUCK SCHUMER, THE MAJOR ITY LEADER SENATE SAYS THAT MAYBE THE SENATE SHOULD START IF THE HOUSE CAN'T GET IT TOGETHER. DO YOU SEE A PATH THAT AVOIDS A SHUTDOWN, CONSIDERING WHAT McCARTHY IS JUGGLING NOW? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>ROBINSON IT CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE GETTING HARD ER WITH EVERY PASSING MINUTE. JUST BECAUSE WHAT THE HARDLINERS IN THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS ARE CALLING FOR IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TIME TO GET DONE BEFORE THIS DEADLINE. NOW THAT SAID, THERE'S GOING TO BE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PRESSURE ON KEVIN McCARTHY TO GET SOMETHING DONE. WE KNOW ON THE POLITICAL SIDE, WE ARE A FEW LINES AWAY FROM AN IMPORTANT ELECTION YEAR. GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNSEN DON'T PLAY WELL WITH THE ELECTORATE. AND WE CAN OFTEN HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, BOTH SIDES CAN BE INTRAN GENT, BUT IT'S A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT IS TELLING EVERYBODY YOU'RE THE REASON THERE'S GOING TO BE A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. LUCKILY, THERE'S SOME SANER HEADS PREVAILING IN THE SENATE. IF THEY CAN GET THE PROCESS MOVING, IT'S GOT TO BEGIN IN THE HOUSE. AND SO NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL KEVIN McCARTHY IS ABLE TO ROUND UP THOSE FOUR OR FIVE MEMBERS WHO ARE STOPPING EVERYTHING. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>KEVIN McCARTHY COULD WORK ON A DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS. DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP SAID THAT CALL HAS NOT COME. SHOULD DEMOCRATS WORK WITH THE SPEAKER TO COME TO SOME DEAL OR SHOULD THEY LET HIM RISE? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>JOHNSON THIS IS A POLITICAL DISASTER FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RIGHT NOW. THINK ABOUT WHAT WAS JUST DISPLAYED. LET'S NOT FORGET THIS IS A NEW SPEAKER WHO HAD A DOZEN ROUNDS OF VOTING, AND HE HAD PROBLEMS WITH HIS OWN CAUGCUS AT THAT MOMENT. HE WAS LOSING SUPPORT FROM THE FREEDOM CAUCUS. SO WHILE I'M UP HERE IN D.C., TALKED TO A LOT OF DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS YESTERDAY AND THEY WERE OUT AND ABOUT. AND DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW WE ARE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE LACK OF LEADERSHIP FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, PARTICULARLY WITH SPEAKER McCARTHY AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, WHO BASICALLY COLT TOGETHER AND DO THEIR JOB. A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYONE. SO WILL DEMOCRATS MAKE A DEAL WITH REPUBLICANS? TO THAT CALL COMES, DO DEMOCRATS HAVE TO KEEP IT DRY? I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE WORRIED THAT THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW NEEDS THE GOVERNMENT WORKING. AT A TIME WHERE WE SEE THAT BIDEN IS LEADING IN THE POLLS, THE ECONOMY IS GETTING KMBETTER WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE GOING THEIR PART BECAUSE THEY ARE THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE. BUT THERE ARE SOME WHEELING AND DEALING THAT CAN GO ON, BUT RIGHT NOW, THIS IS LEFT UP TO THE REPUBLICANS. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>SO LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT THE POTENTIAL COST FOR THAT NEGOTIATION FOR THAT COOPERATION WILL BE. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE WHIP NUMBER TWO OF THE PARTY KATHERINE CLARK ON WHAT THE FRAMEWORK OF A DEAL COULD BE, IF McCARTHY COMES TO THE DEMOCRATS. LISTEN. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE THE SOUND. WHAT SHE SAYS IN THE SOUND BYTE IS THAT THEY WILL -- WHAT DEMOCRATS WANT IS THE DISASTER FUNDING PASSED. DEMOCRATS ALSO WANT THE ENDING OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IS THAT A PRICE THAT REPUBLICANS SHOULD PAY, THAT THE SPEAKER SHOULD PAY, IF NECESSARY? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>ROBINSON AT THIS JUNCTURE, THERE'S REALLY MORE FOR THE FREEDOM CAUCUS TO DECIDE THAN IT IS FOR KEVIN McCARTHY TO DECIDE. THEY HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION TO MAKE SHEER. DO THEY WANT REPUBLICANS TO MAKE THESE FUNDING DECISIONS WITHIN THE CAUCUS THAT ARE REPUBLICAN-LED DECISIONS, OR ARE THEY GOING TO FORCE A SITUATION WHERE McCARTHY HAS TO LOOK FOR THOSE ELSEWHERE. NOW BOTH SIDES HAVE SOME TOOLS AND SOME WEAPONS IN THEIR BELT. OBVIOUSLY, THE FREEDOM CAUCUS CAN GO STRAIGHT AT KEVIN McCARTHY AND THREATEN TO END HIS SPEAKERSHIP, WHICH HAS BEEN FRAGILE FROM THE MOMENT IT STARTED AFTER TAKING MULTIPLE ROUNDS, TORQUE LEVEL OF VOTING TO GETTING IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. HE WAS NEVER IN FIRM FOOTING. WE KNEW IN JANUARY THAT THIS IS WHERE WE WOULD BE IN THE LAST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER. THIS WAS AS PREDICTABLE AS THE SUNRISE AT THIS POINT. BUT THE FREEDOM CAUCUS HAS A DECISION TO MAKE. DO THEY WANT DEMOCRATS TO HAVE A BIGGER SAY IN THE BUDGET, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. EVENTUALLY, WE ARE GOING TO GET A BUDGET PASSED BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL REVOLT. IT WILL BE BAD FOR REPUBLICANS IF IT DOESN'T GET DONE.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>DO YOU THINK IT'S WORTH ENDING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY FOR SPEAKER McCARTHY TO SAY WE'LL PUT THIS ASIDE IF YOU CAN WORK WITH DEMOCRATS, GET THE FUNDING PASSED FOR DISASTER RELIEF, WHAT ELSE DID SHE SAY? CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AS WELL. IS THAT WORTH IT? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>JOHNSON IF THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME, I WOULD SAY THIS. THAT'S THE CATCH 22 THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT'S SO KEY HERE. THE IMPEACHMENT OF JOE BIDEN, WHICH IS BASELESS AND A POLITICAL REACTION BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, NEEDS TO BE DROPPED. YOU TALK ABOUT UKRAINE. THAT'S FUNDING THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS BASICALLY MADE A DECISION WE HAVE TO BE PARTNERS FOR UKRAINE. WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING IS, HEY, THIS IS A CLEAR DISPLAY OF THE REPUBLICANS' INSAABILITY TO GOMPB. THIS IS ABOUT LEADERSHIP. SO UNTIL THE CALL IS MADE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU PRESENT THESE DEMANDS, BUT YOU HAVE TO GET IN THE NEGOTIATION ROOM. ULTIMATELY, SPEAKER McCARTHY HAS TO GET HIS OWN PARTY TOGETHER FIRST. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>AON TUESDAY IS BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCED THAT HE'S GOING ON WEDNESDAY. UAW THUS FAR HAS WITHHELD ITS ENDORSEMENT. DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE PRESIDENT, THE WHITE HOUSE'S RESPONSE TO THIS. IS MILLER RIGHT BIDEN IS GOING BECAUSE TRUMP IS GOING? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>JOHNSNON LISTEN, YOU KNOW THIS. PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS BEEN A SUPPORTER OF THE WOMEN AND MEN MOVEMENT FOR DECADES. EVEN WHEN HE WAS A U.S. SENATOR AND AS A VICE PRESIDENT. AND NOW AS A PRESIDENT, HE HAS TALKED ABOUT HOW HE HAS SUPPORTED THESE WUM AND MEN WHO HAVE BEEN ON THE FRONT LINES, WHO ARE HARD WORKING AMERICANS AIN THE LABOR MOVEMENT. YOU LOOK AT WHAT HE'S DONE WITH HIS POLICIES. YOU SEE $86 MILLION IN PENSION RELIEF FOR UNION WORKERS. SO HIM DECIDING TO SHOW UP IN THE PICKET LINE IS UNPRESS DEPENDENTED. BUT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. NOW THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN VERY CAREFUL NOT TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO TAKING SIDES IN THE NEGOTIATION. THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE NEUTRAL MEDIATORS.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>HOW ARE YOU NEUTRAL IF YOU SHOW UP ON THE PICKET LINE WITH UAW WORKERS? </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>: JOHNSON YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ORIGIN OF THIS. THEY REQUESTED HIM TO COME. THAPS THE PART OF THE NARRATIVE WE HAVE TO PUT IN THERE. THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SPECIFIC ABOUT SUPPORT FOR LABOR. HE'S BEEN SPECIFIC THAT THEY NEED HIGHER WAGES AND BETTER JOBS. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP THESE JOBS IN THE U.S. SO HE WAS REQUESTING AND HE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p> ROBINSON BIDEN IS ALIGNING HIMSELF DIRECTLY WITH THE DEMANDS BEING MADE BY THE UNION BY GOING ON THAT PICKET LINE. AND NO, YOU CAN'T BE A MODERATOR. YOU CAN'T BE THE PERSON BRINGING EVERYONE TOGETHER AND FINDING CONSENSUS ON A PICKET LINE. WE HAVEN'T HAD A PRESIDENT PRESIDENT DO THIS IN 100 YEARS AND THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR THAT. IT DOESN'T LOOK PARTICULARLY PRESIDENTIAL. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT AMERICANS ARE LOOKING FOR FROM THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN IT COMES TO LEADERSHIP. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>ANCHOR: </b>LET ME ALSO READ THIS STATEMENT AND THEN WE HAVE TO WRAP. EVERY FIBER OF OUR UNION IS BEING POURED INTO FIGHT ING THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS AND AN ECONOMY THAT ENRICHES PEOPLE LIKE DONALD TRUMP AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKERS. SO AS TRUMP HEADS TO MICHIGAN, THAT'S THE VIEW FROM THE UNION ON TRUMP'S VISIT. THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH. GOOD TO SEE YOU</p>\n<p></p>

Close up of an executive signing an agreement in a boardroom setting.

INT BROLL SENATOR HARRY REID REMARKS AT CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND EVENT Monday, July 15, 2013 Senator Harry Reid remarks at Center for American Progress Action Fund DC Slug: 1205 REID CAPAF RS15 75 AR: 16x9 Disc #429 SENATOR HARRY REID (D-NV): Thank you all very much for being here this morning. I know it's always appropriate to start your presentation by saying something funny. And I am about the most unfunny person you've ever known. But I thought I would tell you something that happened to my family not long ago. 12:08:58 As you know, I have five children. My youngest boy has five little -- oh, I'm sorry -- four little girls. And they are beautiful little children. He was a gifted athlete. He was our entertainment till he was 22 years old, played on three national championship teams and -- at University of Virginia. And he was so looking forward to coaching his boys so they'd be just like him, but he's got four girls. So he's coaching them. They are all very athletic. 12:09:28 But his lovely wife and he decided it would be a good things if their kids, those four little girls, had some responsibilities around the house. And so they sat down with all four of them and said, OK, we're going to give you this much money every week, but you're doing to have to do -- you know, outlined what they had to do: help with the dishes, pick up toys, help with the beds, make up the beds; just do a list of things that kids are always required to do. 12:09:57 And it went just fine for three or four months. But Ella, the next -- the oldest, for a while just wouldn't do anything. So her mom talked to my son, and she said, when you get home, you're going to sit down and have a little talk with her. She won't do anything. It's been that way for weeks. 12:10:18 So my son sat down and -- just the two of them alone, and started with -- he thought would be this long conversation with little Ella. And he said, your sisters are doing everything they're asked to do. You are basically not carrying your load. Why? What's the matter? She said, Dad, I don't need the money. (Laughter.) Well, at least a few laughed, anyway. (Laughter.) 12:10:46 Well, I appreciate very much for -- having the opportunity to visit with each of you on something I've worked on for some time now. John, I appreciate very much the work of having this organization for 10 years. Neera, you're doing a great job filling in for John. 12:11:04 Congress is extremely unpopular, for a couple of main reasons. Any poll you look at indicates that they're unpopular, for two reasons: one, gridlock, gridlock, gridlock; two, not getting things done. And that's really true. We -- when I came to Congress -- well, actually the first time I ran for the Senate, we were above 45 percent, approaching 50 percent, the Congress. Not that way anymore. Last Gallup number had us at 10 percent and not going up, going down. So why is that? 12:11:49 Of course, we all know we need to pass legislation that does good things for our country, especially the middle class. Flip on C-Span, as I know some of you do, and what do you see there the vast majority of the time? Nothing. Blank screen. Quorum calls. So we're wasting time hour after hour, day after day. 12:12:19 To kind of give you a picture where we're coming from, me and my caucus, Lyndon Johnson was majority leader for six years. During that period of time, he had to overcome one filibuster. I've been leader about the same time as he has. I don't know the exact number, but it's around 420 filibusters. So things change; yes, they sure have changed. Now, everyone knows that under the Constitution we have a responsibility to give advice and consent to the president on his nominations, but all we have from the Republicans is not advise and consent; we have obstruct and delay. And that's really the truth. Now, remember my conservative friends always talk about the Constitution, so let's use that as a frame for my presentation to you here today. The Constitution is very, very specific as to what requires a supermajority. Vetoes, impeachments, treaties. And that same paragraph where the founding fathers talked about supermajority, they mentioned presidential nominations; majority. Majority. 12:13:49 The founding fathers want an up-or-down vote, and that's basically what we've been crying for now for years. And I believe this whether it's one of the new Bushes to be president, maybe Jeb or maybe a new Clinton, maybe Hillary or maybe even the daughter. But whoever is -- whoever is president, they should have the ability to pick their team. There is -- I feel very strongly about that. 12:14:26 Many here follow the Washington Nationals. Great we have a team here. I've had a number of opportunities to visit with Davey Johnson. He's one of the great baseball's heroes of all time, played on three or four national champion teams, second baseman of Baltimore Orioles, won a pennant, won a World Series. He's now here. Been -- he had been selected as manager of the year many times. Let's assume that this year, Davey Johnson has his team together. And he gets a call from Major League Baseball. And they say, Davey, I know you've worked hard to put this team together. I'm glad to see that Zimmerman's back, he's had the surgery, we hope he can throw better, we know he's been a golden glover, we know he's been a silver slugger. And you can have him, but not until sometime the first part of June. And that contract you signed very recently, for LaRoche to get him for a year, first base, you can have him, but it's going to be after the all-star break. What -- how would that be for his team? Well, multiply that a hundred times, and you find out what's going on here in Washington. 12:15:46 We have a situation where Republicans have created gridlock, gridlock, gridlock. And it has consequences. It's not only bad for President Obama; it's bad for the country. The status quo won't work. 12:16:07 Now, during the time we've been a country -- during the time we've been a country, until Barack Obama became president, 20 executive nominees were filibustered. During the four years that President Obama has been president, he's already had -- I'm sorry, he's already had 16 of his nominees filibustered. Think about that. What they have done is just really unbelievable. And my Republican colleague Senator McConnell, on "Meet the Press" yesterday, they ask him the logical question. They said, what are you going to do with Napolitano's replacement? And rather than say, we'll move forward on that, have some questions, but we'll move forward on it, he refused to tell David Gregory whether or not they would -- he would allow an up- or-down vote. Think about that. (Chuckles.) 12:17:07 What they have done is really untoward. American people need to feel that we as a Senate are responsive to their challenges. They've carried this to the extreme. 12:17:22 I don't do committee work anymore, but I've sat for hours during committees. And during those committee hearings for a nominee, what we do is you ask questions. Sometimes it goes for a day or two, three days sometimes. But it's been traditional, after those questions have been asked -- there may be -- one senator say, you know, could I -- could I send you a couple questions in writing? Sure. And you'll get the answers back as soon as you can? Yes. Well, that has been carried to the extreme. Perez wants to be secretary of labor, put his way through school as a garbage man, hauling garbage. They submitted to him about 300 questions in writing. He had to respond back in writing. But the champion of this -- Gina McCarthy. Long hearing on this. She had to respond to 1,100 questions -- 1,100 questions. 12:18:30 Now, my friend the Republican leader and others come to floor and say, yeah, but everything's going great; we approved this person 97 to nothing, one person 98 to nothing, another a hundred to nothing. But that's the whole point. They don't have anything -- there's nothing wrong with these people. There's nothing wrong with their qualifications. They simply want to stall what goes on. Those people that they voted 97 to nothing -- some of them, we've waited months. The NLRB folks we talked -- Neera talked about today -- they've been waiting for more than two years. I -- the 15 that are on the calendar today -- their average waiting time has been nine months. Do they have an objection against Richard Cordray, his qualification? Of course not. Cordray was a clerk for Judge Bork. Cordray was a clerk for Justice Kennedy. He was attorney general for the state of Ohio. They have nothing wrong with his qualifications. They just don't like his job. They don't like someone whose job, based on legislation that we've passed and is signed into law, who takes a look for the consumer against the greed that happens on occasion in Wall Street. Do they have anything personally against the two NLRB nominees? No. One of them was Senator Kennedy's counsel. The other was the attorney for the Operating Engineers. These are good people. They don't challenge their qualifications, they challenge their jobs. NLRB has been in existence since the Great Depression. It works. It protects workers. Not union workers; workers. 12:20:18 Isn't it interesting the focal point has been the last few months on all these people, on the secretary of labor and two NLRB folks? Do you think there's something in that message to the American people? We're going to do everything we can to make sure business is OK, but we're not going to make sure that everything is OK with American workers. Now, there have been hues and cries that what I and my caucus are trying to do is going to really hurt the Senate. In the last 18 years -- I'm sorry, the last 36 years, we've changed the rules by a simple majority 18 times. I've done it. We always do it, simple majority, when things don't work. If you look at what those changes were, people just trying to be vexatious and create problems. We did this just a little over a year ago. What had happened is, after cloture had been evoked -- invoked on one of those rare occasions to stop filibuster, some of the Republican senators came up with this big, great idea: Cloture is over with, and they would file motions to set aside the rules. Well, it took a two-thirds majority. They knew none of them would pass. But they wanted my folks to have to vote on amendments that had nothing to do with the bill that cloture had been evoked (sic) on. Now I put up with this for a while. They had two or three of them. Finally -- I don't remember the exact number; they had 15 or so they filed -- takes huge amounts of time and was a waste of Senate's time. So we changed the rules. We said you can't do that anymore. That was done by a simple majority. And that's all we're doing here. We're -- this does not affect lifetime appointments. It doesn't affect substantive legislation. It allows the president to have his team -- this president and those in the future. And that's the way it should be. 12:22:29 My friend Senator McConnell -- and this is not -- this is not McConnell versus Reid; this is -- my caucus is concerned about where this country is headed. But Mitch has said -- said; I'm not making this up -- he is the "proud guardian of gridlock." Those are his words. So I took action last week to force Republicans to either allow these people to go through that and stop the filibuster, or we're going to have to change the rule. 12:23:07 There is -- there isn't, as I've indicated, a single objection to the qualifications of any one of these people. And we need to move forward. We need to stop blocking this president and the future presidents from having a qualified team that he thinks is what he needs. This is in the Constitution. This isn't about Democrats versus Republicans. It's about making Washington work, regardless of who's in the White House. I also think that it's clear that we should all understand that the Senate is a unique institution. It was created that way by the Founding Fathers. 12:23:47 Its traditions are important, but also, it's an evolving institution. It's always been that way. That's why the -- that's why we changed the rules 18 times for the last three decades. Among those traditions is protection for the minority, and that's the way it should be. The power of an extreme minority now threatens our integrity of this institution. As we know, Frank Lautenberg passed away very recently. He was a fine man. He loved the Senate. Gina McCarthy, after her 1,100 questions were answered, Republicans refused to have a single Republican attend. So the only way to overcome that is all Democratic senators of the committee had to be there. Frank Lautenberg was dying. I called Bonnie, I said, we have to have him here. And he literally on his deathbed came down here, unhooked the stuff that is keeping him alive, came down here from New Jersey and walked in to make a caucus out. Everybody was there for the Democrats in the EPA committee. And we shouldn't be doing stuff like that. That isn't what it's all about. You can't reward bad behavior over and over and over again. For the first time in the history of the country, they filibustered the secretary of defense, this wild-eyed liberal from Nebraska, a war hero, literally a war hero who was commended for his heroism, who among other things on the battlefield saved his brother's life. I went to his office when he was here as a senator. He has a picture there of he and his brother on an armored personnel carrier in Vietnam. And not only that, one of the senators questioned his loyalty to our country. In a public hearing, they did that. John Brennan -- filibustered the director of the CIA. 12:26:19 So my efforts are directed to save the Senate from becoming obsolete, to remain relevant and effective as an institution. And to do that, the Senate must evolve to meet the challenges of modern-day America. This is really a moment in history when circumstances dictate the need for change -- minor change, no big deal. Remember, all we want to do is what the Constitution says we should do. Filibusters are not part of the Constitution. That's something that senators developed on their own to get legislation to pass. Now it's being used not only to get legislation to stop from passing but to stop nominees. It's in a totally different place than where it should be. There's a moment in history when circumstances dictate the need for change. It's time for course correction that compels the two parties to work with each other instead of against each other. The gravity of the challenges facing our country demands that we do what's necessary to save this storied institution, the United States Senate. I love the Senate. But right now the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed. I have a vision of a Senate that works again, a Senate that's once again a responsive and effective advocate for middle-class families. 12:27:46 It really troubles me when my Republican colleagues stand and say, but we passed the farm bill; we passed an immigration bill. Keep going. Keep going. Not much else. Those are not things we should be saying, oh, we were able to do that. I mean, I am really proud of the eight Democrats and Republicans who worked together to help us find a pathway to do immigration. But that's what we used to do all the time. That's what we do. Compromise is what we're all about. Legislation is the art of compromise. That's what it's all about. So I want the Senate to work again. With your support, I'm prepared to take whatever action is necessary to make that happen. Thank you very much. (Applause.) NEERA TANDEN (president, Center for American Progress Action Fund): So I am just going to ask a few questions, and then we'll turn it over to the audience. So you referenced, Senator Reid, the issue -- the fact that what's tying a lot of these blocked nominees together, from the Consumer Financial Protection Board to the National Labor Relations Board to the Environmental Protection Agency, Labor, is that these are agencies that protect consumers, and they face great opposition. There's also the issue, which is -- which is sort of new with the Consumer Financial Protection Board, which is that, you know, over 40 senators basically said they would not confirm -- they were opposed to basically any confirmation. So do you think in some sense what we're facing is a new issue in which the Senate minority is using the power of the filibuster to basically nullify the effect of laws themselves, because with the National Labor Relations Board, Consumer Financial Protection Board, it's hard to actually get them to operate properly when they don't have nominees or they don't have commissioners or directors? 12:30:11 SEN. REID: There are a lot of things that have happened since I've been here that have been pushed forward by Republican presidents, Republican Congresses, that I didn't like. But we have not the ability -- we shouldn't have, at least -- that just because we don't like a law, we don't fill the positions to see if it will work. Dodd-Frank, Republicans, not a one of them voted for it, hated the bill. But we did it because Wall Street had ruined -- temporarily -- thank goodness we're making our way back, but not as much as I'd like -- Las Vegas, Nevada. They don't like this. Elizabeth Warren came up with the idea that we need someone to protect the consumer. That's not an outrageous idea, but they don't like it because the consumer, I believe, needs protection against Wall Street. And that's what this would do, and they don't like it and they've done everything they can to stop it. I got a letter from -- I can't remember, 44, I think, senators -- Republican senators. And it's the same -- you know, we're having the same issue with health care, with many other -- and, you know, the Cordray issue is really we solved a big problem, because it's so important we protect the consumer. It is -- we don't have to appropriate the money for that. That also drives them crazy. That happens automatically. Federal Reserve. MS. TANDEN: And so do you -- obviously, a lot of progressive groups have been pushing for filibuster reform for a long time, and broadly speaking. Why focus on nominees, and why now, essentially? 12:32:00 SEN. REID: Because that's now where the big plug is. I mean, you can look at many different pieces of legislation and look at how the 60-vote threshold, whether 60 is -- could be changed to a lower number; that's something when could deal with later. But right now the 60 protects progressive groups and conservative groups. And look at the gun thing as an example. The gun legislation I so believe in for background checks to stop people who have serious mental problems and are criminals from buying a gun, I believe in that very strongly. But I didn't believe in the fact that because they have some -- trying to be as nice as I can about this -- some crazy, absurd rule in Idaho and Utah that basically, you can carry a gun anyplace you want, I don't think that would be good to have somebody fly into Las Vegas armed to the hilt because of some law that they have in Idaho or flying into St. -- I mean, so it protect (also ?) women who are very concerned about protecting their rights with a simple majority. So I'm not anxious to change that. On judges, I'm comfortable with our doing what we're doing. We have -- we'll see what happens, but I am very comfortable with where we are now, and I'm not trying to spread this to other places. MS. TANDEN: All right. So let's -- I think that we have a few minutes for questions. I think we'll start with the press. And if you could just identify yourself and your organization, that would be great. Q: Chuck Babington, with the AP. Senator Reid, as you know, Republicans have raised the specter of possibly using a simple majority vote when they have the majority, which, as you know, could come fairly soon, to open up Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste. Is that something that you're willing to accept or -- 12:33:58 SEN. REID: How silly, but I'll answer it. I mean, how silly. They are not about to have a 50-vote majority if they're in power, anybody else is in power. That is just a -- that bothered me about as much as the color of your tie today -- (laughter) -- which doesn't bother me at all, OK? (Laughter.) So Yucca Mountain's not -- Q: To be clear, you're saying that even if they had a majority, that they could not come up with 51 votes for that issue -- SEN. REID: But that's not the issue. If they get in -- if they want to change the rules by simple majority, more power to them. I think they would be -- they would rue the day they did it. They're not -- they're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. It's all -- you know, the sky is falling. As they asked Barbara Mikulski, who is as quick-witted as anybody I've ever know -- they asked ask her last week -- they said, this is a slippery slope, and she said that's why they call them slopes. MS. TANDEN: (Inaudible) -- and then (Chris ?). 12:35:09 Q: Hi, Senator Reid. Jeff Zeleny with ABC News. In 2005 you said that changing these rules would be a black chapter in the history of the country, it would ruin our country, and that you should not be able to willy-nilly change the rules of the Senate. Isn't this being a little hypocritical by changing the rules now? 12:35:22 SEN. REID: No, what it is, is you don't understand the right question. Q: No -- SEN. REID: I wasn't talking about changing the rules for nominees. I was talking about changing the rules for judges, OK? It's a new era. I mean, we have now, since then, as I've indicated, 400 and -- approximately 420 we've been filibustered. We have a situation where we have people who have been waiting -- 15 on the calendar -- for nine months. The two nominees for the NLRB have been waiting for two years. Cordray's been waiting for two years. So it's a totally different world we live in, and I don't -- I -- of course, I wasn't the leader at that time, but anyway, that's what I said. Here's how I feel now. Different situation. MS. TANDEN: Chris. Q: Senator Reid, Chris Frates, National Journal. I wanted to ask, are you concerned at all if -- by putting these in place, that when the next president comes that you'll be able to create a situation where there's no need for any kind of bipartisan Cabinets, where the FEC could be stacked with Republicans who are -- you know, who are pro-campaign finance reform if you're a Democrat or Democrats who are anti-campaign finance reform if you're a Republican, basically making it difficult for of the government to function? 12:36:45 SEN. REID: Why don't you look at what's going on today rather than have some hypothetical in the future? The problem today is the president of the United States cannot get the people to work for him that he wants. That's what we should focus on. I mean, when it's gone so far that you -- for the first time in the history of the country, you filibuster a secretary of defense, you -- instead of submitting, as used to happen, six or seven questions, you now do 1,100 -- Jack Lew is one -- he's secretary of Treasury. We're -- we had to file cloture on him so he could be part of the International Monetary Fund. Let's talk about the problems today, not some hypothetical in the future. And if people really have concern about that, let them go change the Constitution. That's what the Constitution says, that for a presidential nominee, it should be a simple majority. It's worked for a long, long time. And that's why during the time from George Washington to Barack Obama, you only had 20 filibusters of presidential nominations. MS. TANDEN: A few more questions over here -- over here, and we'll go over there, and -- (inaudible). Q: Hi, Senator. Jonathan Weisman, from The New York Times. You're having this meeting tonight in the old Senate chamber, but it sounds like you've made your decision. So what is this meeting about tonight, and are you open to any kind of compromises that would let some of these or all of these nominees go forward with some proviso that the so-called constitutional option be taken off the table, at least for now? 12:38:18 SEN. REID: Simple solution. I mentioned it in my remarks. So easy. If the sky is falling and they think it's falling, let them stop the filibusters on the seven that I filed cloture on, and we will have up-or-down votes on these people and go on to the business for the day. That seems pretty simple to me. And it's also quite fascinating here, we're having a joint caucus. I tried to do that in the past. McConnell wouldn't let us do it. The only time we've been able to do it is when I came up with the idea to have John McCain in a closed session with (our senators ?), talk about his experiences in Vietnam, and it was stunningly interesting. But we've tried to do joint caucuses. Now, no matter what reason there is for having one, we're having one. I mean, that's good. Hope that sets a tone for the future. But I repeat for The New York Times: If they want to -- if they want to stop what's going on, don't filibuster, don't filibuster Cordray, don't filibuster Griffin, Block, Hochberg, Gina McCarthy, Perez. That's a good way to stop all this. MS. TANDEN: There was someone (over there ?). OK. Yes. Go ahead. Q: (Off mic) -- Wall Street Journal. Are you open to -- assuming that this rule change goes forward, to going further later in the year? You mentioned gun control earlier. Are you open to potentially making this change for legislation as well? 12:39:55 SEN. REID: When you come here, I'm sorry you can't hear all the answers. I answered that question. I have no intent of changing the rule -- (inaudible) -- legislation, zero, just like I told this man from the National Journal. Same answer. Same question, same answer. MS. TANDEN: (Inaudible) -- are there questions from the public? Over here? Right there. Q: Hello. James Bradbury (sp), University of Colorado. So Senator, if this nuclear option is supposed to mitigate gridlock in the Senate, what other rules would you like to see changed in order to make the Senate more effective? SEN. REID: Nothing right now. Q: Nothing right now. 12:40:30 SEN. REID: But remember, the Senate is an evolving body. We've changed the rules in recent years 18 times. I gave you one example. I went back and studied the other reasons that we changed -- same thing as this. Somebody gets the bright idea -- I don't know if it was a Democrat or Republican. I really don't know this. The other 17 times -- something just to bring the Senate to a standstill like we are now. And so the rules were changed. I'm sure it'll change in the future. MS. TANDEN: Other questions? Is that a -- (chuckles) -- the person -- (inaudible) -- and then we'll come back to Brad (sp). We only have a few more minutes. Q: Senator, I think another interesting idea that's been proposed is -- SEN. REID: Tell us where you're from and what's your -- Q: I'm sorry. I'm Alex Loman (sp) from the University of Southern California. I think an -- SEN. REID: Oh. Hope you have a better football team than last year. That was a disaster. (Laughter.) That may -- that proves you can't buy college football players. (Laughter.) Q: Senator, you're almost making me want to switch to the other team. (Laughter.) SEN. REID: I'm sorry, what's that? Q: You're almost making me want to switch to the other party. But -- (laughter) -- I'm -- one of the more interlaying ideas that I've seen proposed is to shift the burden to the minority to over -- to sustain a filibuster rather than the majority to overcome a filibuster. I'm interested in your views on that proposal. 12:41:50 SEN. REID: All right. Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall have suggested that, and that's something we can look at in the future. It's harder to implement than people think. But remember we have deep traditions here in the Senate, and maybe sometime in the distant future we could take a look at that. Merkley and Udall have spent untoward (sic) hours and hours working on this. I admire what they've done. And remember -- I want to say this, young man, to everybody here -- this is not me marching down the road on this. My caucus is supportive of me because that's where they want to go, to change this rule. MS. TANDEN: I just also want to say, as a UCLA Bruin, I appreciate your remarks. (Laughter.) We have time for two more questions. Right there. There's a mic coming to you. Q: Laura Lipthen (ph) with Bloomberg News. McConnell has made clear that the recess appointments are what he's most concerned about, and you have the votes set up to start with Cordray, with a procedural vote tomorrow. Are there any circumstances under which you would see delaying that, maybe to have additional talks? How ironclad is a vote tomorrow? 12:42:53 SEN. REID: Talks on what? Talks on what? Talks on what? If they have a proposal, bring it to me. But otherwise, we're going to have a vote in the morning. If they have a proposal, bring it to me. The easiest way to do away with this is to simply get rid of these filibusters. I mean, what -- logically, why would they hold up -- this is one of the most interesting things. They created these recess appointments, we didn't. They created them. They wouldn't allow us to have these people. What is -- what is Barack Obama supposed to do? The NLRB goes out of business August 1st. It's gone. It's over with. And they're using -- I've heard it, oh, you're doing this illegally. Well, it's only happened because of them. We -- the president wouldn't have recess-appointed these people. Now with these courts, what we've done -- they said, you cannot have a recess appointment, basically, period, is -- that's it. It's gone to the Supreme Court. We don't have time to wait and see what Justice Kennedy's going to do. Maybe we should just call him. (Laughter.) MS. TANDEN: One last question. Right here. Q: Thanks. Thank you, Senator. Todd Zwillich with Public Radio (International). Can you give us, just on Jonathan's question, a little more specificity on how this might go this week? Cordray is first. Maybe you don't get all seven. Maybe Republicans let three go or three with an agreement for four. Is there -- is there wiggle room between seven and zero where this might be averted? And secondly, are you supportive or not supportive of the possibility of a gang forming which would essentially circumvent you on this? That could easily happen with eight senators. And would you be supportive of that? 12:44:45 SEN. REID: There have been gangs forming on this issue for a while. Where we are -- my caucus supports where we are. I'm not concerned about gangs. That's gotten a little passe, frankly. Q: Is there wiggle room between seven and zero, where, if McConnell gives you three of these nominees or four, but not seven -- SEN. REID: No. Q: It's seven or nothing? 12:45:18 SEN. REID: Yeah. I mean, we'll -- there's -- they -- no one questions -- (coughs) -- excuse me -- their capabilities, their credentials, their integrity. They're doing it because they're trying to hold up things. It's obstruct and delay. That's what's going on around here. And we want to make a simple, simple change. As I said, it will apply to whoever is the next president. It'll -- Democrat or Republican. It'll apply to Barack Obama. They should be able to have a team aboard -- now does that mean they are going to approved automatically? Of course not. In the past Democrats and Republicans have worked together to stop nominees from going forward. Didn't have to be a filibuster. MS. TANDEN: All right, I think that is unfortunately all the time we have today. And thank you so much, Senator Reid, for being here, and for a great discussion this morning. SEN. REID: Thanks, everybody. (Applause.)

UNIVERSAL NEWSREELS

[PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FORMER VERMONT GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN TOWN HALL MEETING / RS 171] [ROYAL OAK, MICH USA] [Dean at Town Hall, Jack and Patti Salter Community Ctr, Royal Oak, MI] Dean at Town Hall, Jack and Patti Salter Community Ctr, 1545 E Lincoln Ave, Royal Oak, MI 11:33:02 country divided badly, middle class people have very little say in country and folks in wash serving interests 11:33:19 president signed medicare prescription benefit bill, if you are a senior it will coast you 1170 for benefit, if 1500 drugs, but if you pay 200 dollars you are cut off. people who need help don't get it. Bill cost 1/2 trillion, majority goes to HMO's, well over 100 billion to pharmaceutical companies, bans people going to Canada and bans using purchasing power to get a better deal for seniors. Nothing to do with seniors but 2004 election.... i think seniors should rise up and send bush back to Crawford where he belongs 11:34:56 2/3's of money goes to big farms, 16 billion of our money going to oil and gas, government by and for corporations and we can do better 11:35:22 i maintain not enough to change president, anyone on ticket better than bush but i don't' think it's enough to replace one Washington insider with another. One person senate for 19 years, taken more special interest, this campaign is about real change and real accomplishments. 11:36:04 three reasons i want you to vote for me, first is I'll stand up for what i believe in, first one to stand up to war in Iraq 11:36:27 everybody voted for it and president want' truthful, if he wasn't truthful now, he wasn't truthful then, how come he couldn't figure it out then. 11:36:52 we want someone with good judgement and patience. 11:36:57 i stood up for no child left behind, school systems have bigger classes, because of unfunded mandated i don't' think the president should run schools i think local school board should 11:37:23 we are night going to beat bush with bush light, only way is to stand up for what we belive in and take America back for the people who built it and that's us. 11:37:43 let me ask you to vote for me for another reason, in us senate people think that sitting on a committee for 19 years means you have some experience... here's my record everyone under 18 has health insurance 1/3 of seniors have benefits, balance budgets 12 in a row, i think we need a do-er not a talker to take on bush. 11:38:39 if we want change we are not going to get change from people who've been inside system. every industrialized country in the world (countries) have health insurance, we don't. 56 years ago trauma put health insurance on democratic platform because so many special interest have killed it for 56 years. I won't owe it to anybody because you are the one's financing our campaign. 11:39:40 we need fundamental change in country, been here before, when mckinley president when large companies got larger and squeezed people out of interests. Roosevelt, trust buster, in 1920's allowed business control lives of ordinary working people, depression didn't start in 1929, it started before that, and then Roosevelt came along and made it possible for people to control government again 11:40:35 we need someone to change America, change it in the way the constitution was written 200 years ago. 11:40:58 what i want to do is talk about specific health care and then open up to questions. 11:41:12 in 1992, we put together a health care plan that covered Vermont, failed b/c it was complicated, so we kept pushing and got it for everyone under 18, cost 60 a month to cover every kid in house. If you are under 25 years old, you get a government program, you don't have to have it but it's dirt cheap to take care of kids under 25 years old, no one under 25 doesn't think they'll get sick so vouchers don't' work, i was governor for so long i lived through both bush recession, it doesn't much to take care of young people, maybe you work, maybe you have 3 or 4 part times jobs, things like McDonalds, why not just cover them and let it be 11:42:59 next, if you make less than 33K a year you have same program, you can keep what you got, but the biggest proportion of under insured people, let them have government program if they want to. suppose you are over 65 you want a real program, medicade, now the people who are left are the people over 35 to 65, or buy same plan congress has for 7% of income. You buy the same program for 300 a month, if you make 80K you pay 600 a month. Congress plan important, it's called guaranteed issue and community rating 11:44:31 in my state you cannot be turned down no matter what you have wrong with you, if you are 58 and have hypertension, you cannot be refused insurance other than refusing to pay. And some states have that and charge you 2500 for insurance. You cannot be charged more than a healthy 27 year old. 11:45:13 point of insurance is to have insurance, we drove insurance companies out of state, she was 35 years old and turned out to have diabetes, insurance co said it's not going to renew policy, that's not insurance that's psychological well being, we don't' want them in our state we don't want them in America let them go to cayman islands. 11:46:00 so that's it, it covers everybody and it costs some money. We are spending exact amount of money today in Iraq for the same to have health insurance 11:46:32 i don't' plan to be in second place in novemeber and i don't want a second class health system in America. we can do better than that. 11:46:49 two other things, directly health related. Senior long term care. they talk i have to balance budgets, that's a tough thing to do, I'm the only one running who balanced budgets. Texas governship weakest in America, so i have to make tough choices. 11:47:32 we knew we didn't have money to guarantee, cut beds, paid them a little more, and passed pay increases onto workers, and we took that money and spent it on keeping seniors in own home. A lot of seniors in nursing homes that don't need to be there. too disabled to help them in homes but need support, but family lives (far), what we did is take that money spending on care givers and able to take care of twice as many seniors in own home, and that's the kind of thing we need to do in this country that Washington needs to do 11:49:02 one more thing, kids. when i first become governor, father couldn't' manage money better than son, prison budget went up 14%, prison's most expensive and least effective social servant. Any teacher can tell you who will most likely end up in prison, I'd like to ask why is it we aren't investing in small children rather than investing on prisons later. So we do, we visit every mom in hospital and ask if they would like a home visit, so we visit 91% of own newborns. But the ones who do need help have child care, health care, job training, in 10 years our child abuse went down 42% and those kids are going to college not prison 11:51:01 we have got to stop thinking in terms of 2 and 4 year increments. In terms of environment 100 year increments. 11:51:30 our whole health care based on illness problem. we have to change health care to wellness. prevention, education, we are not going to eliminate every illness. People talk about costs, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, insurance companies and lawyers. They left out most important one, and that is us. When I was governor last year, my son had an emergency.. instantly transformed from governor to health care and not one person who wouldn't act the same way. reason America is greatest is the same reason health care out of control. 11:52:56 American believes if every problem can be overcome if we spend or work hard enough, we have whole system fixing about what we done, but not if we drink, smoke or genetic screening. If those are taken care of early it makes an enormous difference. 11:53:41 life expectancy is significantly lower when born to moms who drank and smoked through pregnancy. WE ought to make special efforts not to drink or smoke. Burger king and McDonalds are putting up low carb... that's positive but essence of it is prevention and not too soon to start ever. need to spend money on kids 1 to 3. I so tired of republicans blaming system. It doesn't work that way, kid get hard wired by 3 years old you better stop the damage and fix what needs to be fixed. 11:55:09 and the same is true of health care, enormous amount is preset by 3 years old. WE need to fundamentally change system, Washington, and i need your help Saturday in order to be able to do that Q&A 11:56:07 i forgot i broke rules with microphone, but I'll answer question. Let me just say, one of things i started out was because democrats timid in Washington, bush got 500 lower we're going to change that. Unions are helpful force.... globilization... right of labor unions... if you do that 11:57:36 no new trade agreements until ones we got straightens out. i want to go back open up nafta and wto and say they don't' help anybody. it helps corporations, so heres' what we should do, go back and make it possible to make unfair trade complaint, if they don't allow independent trade standards and child labor laws, 11:58:46 what i want is same labor conditions and environmental rules, first i give you bad news, all products made in china from wal-mart will go up, but good news is cost of production high so our jobs stay here. Illegal immigration disappears, people leave home countries because they want to do better and now they work in factory instead of living in cardboard shack and aspire to middle class in own country. And now you have a middle class who can afford our countries, and it gets better than that, when you establish a middle class you have a stable democracy they do not go to war with each other and do not harbor groups like al Qaeda. 12:00:34 unfair trade is bad trade, trade can be good but it must be fair 12:01:08 I'm going to get rid of every dime of bush tax cuts. We got senators saying we must preserve middle class tax cut, there was no middle class tax cut. Bush is not dumb, if you make million 112K off taxes, 60% got 304, way he paid for that was cut services, college tuition gone up, cut pellgrants to give money to enron. Health care premiums up 304? cut childrens and adults, so they charge your insurance company which charges you. Property taxes, or funding cops or no child left behind, there was no middle class tax cut and so hard for me to believe that anyone would defend any part of tax cut, there was no middle class tax cut. 12:03:05 there are three trillion dollars we can get our hands on, balancing budget, god knows president doesn't want to talk about it, your standard living drops, numbers look great but no jobs because people don't invest in companies with deficit. Don't just go in front row. 12:04:10 well we have plan that will work, to make sure tom delay goes back to Texas. We are going to allow congressional leadership to identify 25 close races, close grassroots employers, last Dec tried this in Iowa, we plan to look at close marginal races to use supporters to get rid of tom delay, the senate i think we can work with, the senate has been able to work on bi-partisen, when democratic president will .... doctor in the house... 12:05:50 because I'll s stand up to him when nobody else did and if I'm willing to stand up to him and nobody else will, what guarantees they'll be able to for you. 12:06:19 democratic candidates offering free college, ... take a collection and give him trip to mars, budget deficit, anyone who tells you all these things arent' telling truth. These folks all fine people, if any of them accomplished anything don't you think you'd have health insurance. I know all about being front runner cause i was for a long time, everyone pelts you and sooner or later people will get to know and see candidate, say what they think and not owned by anybody, only people i owe is 89% of contributors who gave less than 200. Only other argument is that I'm only candidate bringing new people into party. We won't beat bush w/o bringing new and young people, 1/4 of people with money under 30. That's my argument, I'll bring new people into party and i have record no one else has and i don't promise things i can't deliver 12:08:57 nice thing about getting rid of tax cut, people would pay same taxes when Clinton president, if we had same economy. once you get rid of tax cuts, bush kept two presidents, promised to go to war in Iraq and give wealthy. I'll quadruple the americore. when i was state legislature, put people to work in forest, parks and recreational area, taught kids how to run parks, accounting, wood chopping, i belive in americore, i think it's great and much better for people to go to college after a few years because i worked for three years and i was older between what was different. 12:10:36 i think there is a lot of advantages to americore, and undo damage president has done when we undo the tax cuts he gave to enron 12:11:32 it is not constitutional holding American citizens w/o seeing a lawyer, most Americans think it's fine so long as criminals are gotten, right now, justice dept using patriot act against ordinary criminals, problem is it leads to ordinary Americans getting caught up in criminal justice system. Senator Joseph McCarthy found it expedient to call them communists, so McCarthy built career by accusing people communist and as he began to accuse more and more people we found out that they weren't communist at all, 75 people communist, they weren't, hauled into congress and asked a lot of questions and careers over. that is what happens... that's what the constitution is for, protect every one of us against Ashcroft and McCarthy who are twins. 12:15:21 i supported first gulf war because i don't believe an ally can get run over by other nation, i didn't support this war because he wasn't being truthful. Al Qaeda, Iraq buying uranium, secretary of defense about wmd, that wasn't true. I don't think you send any of us to war w/o first telling the truth. I think there is very much a connection between now and first gulf war. I don't know why we went to war, i suspect it's unfinished business, problem with that kind of thinking is the same with the patriot act. The problem is that there are a long list of people committing genocide, if that's our role than we should talk to American people about it. If bush said I'm going to get rid of him because he's a bad person, people would never support that 12:17:24 halliburton... paying dick Cheney in neighborhood of 100K, violation of federal ethics code, no bid contract and bilked government out of money, those things do happen but this administration has been far worse than any other in lifetime, and i think bush grew up in way that he didn't understand what ordinary people did to make living, whole focus is on corporation, we are not meant to be cogs in a corporate machine we need community and connectiveness. 12:19:10 actually in our state we have farthest reaching mental health, introduced it in 1983 and signed it as governor in 1997 includes substance abuse. The question about made in America good place to stop be/c where we started. i favor domestic content legislation, defense dept made anywhere but in the USA, why would we make defense components in which one day we may be in conflict with. Even our defense gets shunted to the side. ABC news smuggled uranium just to see if they could do it, they did. More focused on tax cuts than inspection. No money in budget to buy enriched uranium stocks. More interested in tax cuts than defending the us by buying uranium, we need a different president who will defend united states. 12:21:06 saying in Texas, he's all hat and no cattle. Let me close this out by what we are doing here. Biggest loss is the sense of community. When i was 21 years old, end of civil rights unit, king dead, bobby Kennedy dead, 4 little girls Birmingham, medicare passed, head start passed civil rights act, voting rights act, justice, all in it together, one person left behind not as strong or as good. when we say we want our country back, we want the country when all of us were 21 when we had hope, president appeal to best not worst, like Kennedy about passing torch. What we need is hope again, and we aren't going to do it by a president who rules by fear, yellow orange but we won't tell you why, we can do better than this, terrorist have already won if Ashcroft can imprison people w/o telling them why they're there. 12:23:33 *Dean signs* 12:23:43 on Saturday you can have a choice to make, i think any democrat will beat George bush, which one you want, real change or to shift around decks. Biggest lie... fix problems... truth is power to change this country is in your hands no mine. Lincoln, of by for people shall not perish from this earth, this Saturday you have the power to take back party and reach out to Americans who quit voting because they can't tell the difference. Take back party and stand up, no disgrace in having what every other country have, no disgrace to investing in early childhood, and supporting kids through college. you have power to take back country so flag is no longer purported of ... belongs to every one of us again. And on Saturday you have the power to take back the white house in 2004, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Thank you very much 12:25:50 (u2 - beautiful day song playing)

Large American flag waves behind the Capital Building

Coworkers celebrating with arms raised on the office

INT BROLL REPUBLICAN SENATE AND HOUSE LEADERS PRESSER ON OBAMACARE Thursday, September 19, 2013 TRANSCRIPT: Press Conference with House and Senate Republicans SLUG: 1230 SEN REP LEADERSHIP RS15 78 AR: 16X9 12:34:14 REPRESENTATIVE TOM GRAVES (R-GA): Well, let me thank you for being here today. I mean, today's a great day for the American people. Over the last several weeks we have all been in discussions, both House and Senate, as to how best to accomplish the goals that we all believe in, and that is, number one, keeping the government open and protecting our constituents from the harmful effects of "Obamacare." 12:34:48 We want to thank the House leadership, Speaker Boehner, Leader -- Kevin McCarthy, for moving forward in such a bold fashion to put this bill on the floor tomorrow, which we're in full support of. We want to thank them for listening not only to our conferences but also to the voices -- and which we represent -- from our districts, and that's our constituents. I expect that we'll have a very strong showing in the House tomorrow as we vote on this bill, and I encourage all our House Republicans to support the bill. But as we turn to the Senate, make no mistake; it turns to Harry Reid. And the question will be posed to him, and it's a choice he's going to have to make: Will he protect the American people from the harmful effects of "Obamacare" or will he coldly force this upon them? 12:35:25 The other question is -- that he's going to have answer to the American people is, why's he willing to protect big business and special interest from the dangers of this health care law and yet not protect the hardworking families of America? We have made our choice, and we're making it clear today. We are here to protect the American people. Now the question turns to Harry Reid. What will Harry do? Now I'd like to turn it over to senator from Utah. 12:35:56 SENATOR MIKE LEE (R-UT): Thanks, Tom. Yesterday was a great day. It was a day of victory for the many, many millions of Americans who have been speaking with a sustained voice over the last two months on this issue. I want to thank and congratulate Speaker Boehner for making the courageous decision to stand with my friend Representative Graves and my other House colleagues who are up here with me today and, most importantly, for standing with the American people to bring forward this legislation that will keep government funded, keep everything in government funded, while defunding "Obamacare." 12:36:29 This is an important step. It's one supported by the American people. According to one recent poll, some 56 percent of Americans believe that Congress should pass a continuing resolution that funds government while defunding "Obamacare." We look forward to the passage of this resolution, and once that happens, we look forward to that resolution coming over to the Senate, where we demand, we expect, we hope to have an up-or-down vote, so that the people's elected representatives in that body can have an opportunity to weigh in on whether or not they're willing to protect the American people both from a shutdown and from the undue risky consequences of this unwise health care legislation. Thank you. SEN./REP. : Jim. 12:37:15 REPRESENTATIVE JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Everyone knows -- everyone knows the -- this law's not ready. You don't just listen to Republicans, you listen to Democrats. Mack -- Max Baucus called it a train wreck. Howard Dean said it's going to lead to rationing of care. James Hoffa said it's fundamentally going to change the 40-hour work week, going to hurt working Americans. Everyone -- including the president -- the president knows this law;s not ready. That's why he delayed it for big business, said you don't have to comply with the employer mandate. The Chicago Tribune, the president's hometown newspaper, endorsed him twice, said in their editorial three weeks ago, delay the entire law. 12:37:47 So everyone knows this thing is not ready. Frankly, I don't think it'll ever be ready. So let's just do what the American people expect us to do. Let's fund our government and let's delay a bill, delay a law that's not ready, that's bad for the country -- simple as that. And so I just want to commend my colleague Tom Graves for the work he's done and the rest of the folks up here and frankly our leadership for understanding, look, we want to stay on the side of the American people, do what's best for this country and fund our government and make sure this law doesn't happen. 12:38:19 SENATOR TED CRUZ (R-TX): Two months ago, conventional wisdom in Washington said this day wasn't possible. And yet I want to commend House conservatives for sticking their neck out. I want to commend Tom Graves for sticking his neck out. And I want to commend Speaker Boehner for listening to the American people and for leading. For the House of Representatives to stand up and vote to defund "Obamacare" is a tremendous victory to the American people. 12:38:51 And ultimately that is where this battle will be resolved. In just a matter of weeks, over 1.4 million Americans have signed a national petition to defund "Obamacare," because it's the biggest job- killer in this country, and it is hurting Americans, millions of Americans who are losing their jobs, who are forcibly being pushed into part-time work, 29 hours a week, who are seeing skyrocketing health insurance premiums and who are losing their health insurance. "Obamacare" isn't working. 12:39:16 With the House of Representatives' historic leadership, the ball now moves to the Senate and to Harry Reid. 12:39:34 This is a moment for Republicans to unite, for every Senate Republican to stand shoulder to shoulder with the gentlemen here and the Republicans in the House who have been courageous doing the right thing. And this is a moment ultimately for Harry Reid and the Democrats to decide for whom is it they work. In my view, every elected official should listen to the American people. And the American people are united: "Obamacare" isn't working; it's killing jobs. And the people who are hurt the most by "Obamacare" are the most vulnerable among us -- young people, Hispanics, African Americans, single moms. They're the ones losing their jobs. They're the ones being pushed into 29 hours a week. 12:40:03 And so today is a day to celebrate the historic leadership of the House of Representatives, and today is a day to continue to get ready to move forward, for every elected official in Washington to listen to the American people. 12:40:20 REP. : Many of you today will be writing about what happens here in Washington, D.C., but the real story is about what is happening back on Main Street in our districts. That's the real story. Town hall after town hall, I heard real stories about jobs that were lost, health care coverage that was promised but now is not being delivered. 12:40:45 And yet what we see is, is that we focus on the fight here when the fight really is about working with the hard-working American taxpayers back home. 12:40:54 You know, the president has talked that this is a bill that just needs a little bit of tweaking, as if it were an app on an iPhone. But the problem is, is that an app on the iPhone, when it doesn't work, game over has one meaning. Game over has a totally different meaning when we're talking about health care, and it is time that we fight together. And I just want to applaud our leadership, Speaker Boehner, and challenge those in the senate to stand with the American people and make sure that we turn the tide on what shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. 12:41:33 REPRESENTATIVE MATT SALMON (R-AZ): This is the reason that I came to Congress. The reason I came to Congress, after a 12-year hiatus, was because this bill is so oppressive and so hurtful, both to small businesses, individuals and, I believe, the American economy that I decided to come back. I'm proud to be part of this fight. What's more, I'm really proud of my Republican leadership. I'm proud of the speaker for standing up and for listening to the American people. I think it's wonderful. 12:42:06 This really -- I don't know that it's Democrats against Republicans. Sometimes I think it's more Washington establishment against Main Street Americans. And I think that ultimately, Main Street America has to win. 12:42:19 One other thing I'd like to just comment on. The president knows -- he knows that this law isn't ready for prime time. That's why he has postponed 41 out of 82 of the provisions of "Obamacare." They've either postponed them, changed them or altered them. Everybody in this town knows that it's not ready for prime time. The exchanges are supposed to open on October 1st, and none of them are ready. In Arizona we're several months away. And one of our community college districts in Arizona, the Maricopa Community College district, the largest one, has already reclassified 1,300 full-time employees to part-time status. 12:42:52 This is bad stuff. And we have to do everything we can to halt it, stop it. And I hope that the president and Harry Reid care more about the American people and keeping government open, as we do, than their stubborn political pride. And that's all this is about. 12:43:13 REPRESENTATIVE JIM BRIDENSTINE: I can tell you after August it was clear where the public in my district is. They want "Obamacare" repealed. They want it defunded. They want it dismantled. They want it to go away. I talked to businesses. Just recently I talked to a business. They've got 57 employees. They're trying to get down to 49. Other businesses are moving full-time workers to part-time workers. And this is not unique to the 1st District of Oklahoma; this is happening across our country. And if you look at the jobs reports, that's what you'll see, which is why it's so important to our economy that this law be halted. 12:43:47 I'd like to double down on the thank-you to the leadership in the House of Representatives for listening not only to the people but to the members of Congress as they have come and expressed their views. 12:44:00 I would also like to thank Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ted Cruz for their leadership on this. It's been said that first you win the argument, then you win the vote. And these two gentlemen have been out in front on this winning the argument day in and day out. The American people are with them. So are many of us in the United States Congress. And I'm looking forward to tomorrow's vote. 12:44:24 REPRESENTATIVE RON DESANTIS (R-FL): I'm going to be very brief. Most of you have written stories about how important it is for Washington to compromise. I would dare say that every person who's here at this podium who has spoken to you today and who -- and who will speak to you today would want to get rid of "Obamacare" completely. But the reality is that we have realized that the president and his party are not going to get rid of "Obamacare." So we're thinking that the best thing that we can do is delay this flawed law for the American people, just like Obama, President Obama, has done for his friends and the people that have his ear. That's all we're asking for. 12:44:58 I think it's a reasonable approach. You all ask us and the American people ask us to reach a compromise. I think this is a really good compromise. We get to fund the government for an entire year. We get to fund the government at the appropriate levels by only delaying "Obamacare." We're not asking for a shutdown. Nobody here wants to shut down the government. We just want to be reasonable, and we want to give the American people what they're asking for, which is relief from "Obamacare," just like President Obama's friends received relief from "Obamacare." Thank you. 12:45:35 REPRESENTATIVE MARLIN STUTZMAN (R-IN): Good morning. Marlin Stutzman, Indiana's 3rd District. I just want to say thank you to each member up here for their work on this latest proposal. I just want to thank our leadership too because this is what the American people are asking for. As I traveled home throughout the August recess, this was the number one issue until the Syrian issue arose. And now that the Syrian issue is hopefully resolving itself, this is, again, the number one issue. 12:46:07 Americans are feeling the hurt and the pain in the decisions that they have to make regarding "Obamacare." As I talked to a mother of a son who had a (touch of ?) autism, who lost his insurance, she was asking, what do I do now. This is story that we heard over and over and over again as we traveled across the district and around the state. And, you know, and I believe that this is our time. This is when it matters. Yes, we voted to repeal "Obamacare" 30 to 40 times, but this is when it really counts. This is when it's time to put up or shut up because this is going to be a law that is we see already is hurting people, it's affecting families, and it is hurting the American economy. And I think that I appreciate our leadership being willing to put this on the floor for a vote. Let's get it over to the Senate. Let's let our Senate colleagues have this fight because if President Obama and Senator Harry Reid want to force a law that we know by the NBC- Wall Street Journal polling is so unpopular with the American people, if they want to force it on the American people, that's their choice. But as for us, we're going to stand with the American people. And I know that's why we're on the right side today because the American people are with us. Thank you very much for being here. 12:47:29 REPRESENTATIVE RAUL LABRADOR (R-ID): Well, to me, this is just about fairness. On July 3rd the president unilaterally delayed the employer mandate for big businesses. In August the president and the administration through OPM cut a special deal for members of Congress. And even though we had some news on Friday about labor unions, I would bet my bottom dollar that at some point, the administration will cut a special deal for unions. And so what you have is a situation in which the harmful effects are imposed on society. Those who have political connections to the administration or the corridors of powers in Washington relieve those burdens from themselves and leaving the rest of the American people holding the bag. 12:48:11 And so we have the power of the purse in Congress. If we can't use it for this basic principle of fairness, then I don't know what good the power of the purse is. Q: Senator Cruz, just yesterday a senior House Republican aide said it's disappointing to see that Wendy Davis has more guts than Ted Cruz. Now, he used a different word than "guts." (Laughter.) But other Republicans have called you a phony and a joke. How do you respond to that? 12:48:37 SEN. CRUZ: Well, I'm always impressed with the courage of anonymous congressional aides. (Laughter.) You know, it is very easy in Washington to make this about personalities, to make this about people. This is not about any of us. This is about the American people. This is about the people who are struggling because they can't find a job. This is about the people who are having their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week, and they can't feed their kids on 29 hours a week. And so there will always be the back-and-forth of politics, but I can tell you one of the reasons I'm proud to stand with these gentlemen up here is that they're focused on doing our job, which is fixing the problem for the American people and bringing back jobs in the economy. "Obamacare" is the biggest job killer in the entire country. And if you want to understand this issue in one sentence, it comes down to the following: President Obama has granted waivers for giant corporations and members of Congress. Why is President Obama threatening to shut down the federal government to deny those same waivers to hard-working American families? Q: Senator Cruz -- (inaudible) -- we'll give you some names though. Yesterday, Congressman Tim Griffin of Arkansas said: You know, Senate Republicans are good at getting Facebook likes and town halls. Representative Sean Duffy said: Cruz and Lee refuse to fight, raise white flag and surrender. Speaker Boehner this morning: It's time for them to pick up the mantle and get the job done. Will you filibuster this on the House floor, a la Rand Paul and drones? Is that the only choice you have right now? 12:50:16 SEN. CRUZ: I will do everything necessary and anything possible to defund "Obamacare." Q: Filibuster? SEN. CRUZ: I -- yes, and anything else -- any procedural means necessary. Listen, this is the most important fight in the country. And it's easy to focus on the political back and forth. Listen, this is going to be an iterative process. In all likelihood, it's not going to be a single shot CR and everything's resolved and done. As soon as the House passes this into law, it's going to be in Harry Reid's court. And he may well be able to hold his 54 Democrats to not listen to the American people, to threaten to shut down the federal government to deny American families the same special treatment that big corporations and members of Congress are getting. But if that happens, then it's going to go back to the House of Representatives. And what we need to do is we need to be making the case every day and every way to the American people. Not about the petty political bickering -- Americans don't care about petty political bickering in Washington -- but on the substance. And I'll tell you this, if and when we win this fight, it is going to be because House Republicans have stood up and showed the courage that they are showing right now, and that they continue to stand up. The House is the one branch of government that Republicans have a majority. Q: Senator, does that pledge include allowing a default of the Treasury? 12:51:54 SEN. CRUZ: Well, that's a very good question. And it's worth underscoring that the continuing resolution has nothing to do with interest on the debt or a default. Yesterday, the president made a reference to a default. We're not talking about the debt ceiling. Q: Well, the second bill the House is going to pass will allow the debt limit to rise. So I'm asking, is the pledge to filibuster the CR also a pledge to filibuster the second bill if it would defund "Obamacare." 12:52:17 SEN. CRUZ: What I have said from day one, what Mike Lee has said from day one what the gentlemen up here have said from day one is that we will not support a continuing resolution that funds "Obamacare." This is a fight over the continuing resolution. And you know, I thought it was unfortunate that in the president's comments yesterday he tried to distract with an issue of the debt ceiling when this is about the continuing resolution. And this is about Congress using the Constitutional power of the purse to rein in an overreaching executive and to stand up for the American people, to stand up and say: Look, even among those who thought this law might work, we now know it isn't. It's why you've got the labor unions running for the hills because we're seeing in practice that the stated good intentions of "Obamacare" aren't working and the losers are the American people. And we need to focus on the substance of this policy, on bringing back economic growth, bringing back jobs and expanding opportunity for those struggling to achieve the American dream. Q: Senator -- Q: This question is for Congressman Graves. REP. GRAVES: Let's go to Chad real quick here. Go ahead, Chad. And thanks again for this morning. Q: The question is, there was a lot of back and forth, as has been alluded to here, about what the Senate Republicans might or might not do. Can you characterize what House Republicans -- why they were nervous? Why there was this tension between the two sides? And has that been resolved to your satisfaction? 12:53:42 REP. GRAVES: I would hope that today you see unity from the House Republicans and the Senate Republicans. We are unified behind funding the government and stopping the harmful effects of "Obamacare" -- 100 percent unified behind that. Clearly, there's differences in strategies and there's a lot of different personalities, as the senator alluded to. But we are focused. We have 11 days to be laser- like focused on accomplishing this objective. And we will not be distracted. So we will continue pushing forward. Q: What was said -- what was specific -- and I guess is from Senator Cruz's statement last night. What was said in that that, you know, lit a fire under House Republicans and how was this resolved so that we're all here today and everybody's, you know, singing "Kumbayah." What happened? REP. GRAVES: What do you mean, what happened? Q: Well -- REP. GRAVES: I mean, we were unified behind those objectives, there's never been a doubt. Q: Everybody was on a different page last night. What -- REP. GRAVES: You need to ask them. You need to ask them. I thought -- I thought the senator addressed it very well. And as to those who sent out their tweets, I'd recommend that you comment, or have comments for them -- REP. JORDAN: Chad, what happened is that -- Q: Could you speak with the microphone? 12:54:53 REP. JORDAN: Yeah, what happened -- and you know what happened is there wasn't 218 votes for the other -- the other proposals brought forward. This is something that they're -- I believe that you're going to see a strong majority for, and frankly, maybe even you'll see some Democrats. We had 35 Democrats vote with us to delay the employer mandate; we had 22 vote with us to delay the individual mandate. So as I said, Democrats understand how harmful this bill is. Simple truth is, there weren't the votes for the alternative, and this is where the votes are. (Cross talk.) Q: (Off mic) -- be a little more clear, if we can, on -- REP. GRAVES: Well, let's go right here just for a second, yes. Q: Thank you. I was wondering if you could say, after ping-pong from the Senate back to the House, do you believe that Speaker Boehner should abide by the Hastert Rule in this, if this comes around a second time and only have a majority of Republican votes? Do you -- MR. : Yes. (Scattered laughter.) Q: -- (inaudible) -- a sign of hands, maybe? 12:55:34 REP. GRAVES: Well, that's -- I mean, that's clearly a question for the speaker, something that he's been very -- I think, very forthright with in how he is going to operate the House. So I mean, I heard that question asked to him earlier today, and I imagine he was standing right about right here. So I guess you weren't satisfied with his response then, huh? Q: I was wondering if you were -- if you're going to hold him accountable -- if you believe that he should abide by the Hastert Rule. You said yes? MR. : Absolutely. Q: Yes? REP. GRAVES: I mean, that's what he's clearly stated in the past. And I saw yesterday -- I saw yesterday, and I think our colleagues from the House will -- could share this as well -- a resolve in the speaker of the House that was very reminiscent of his early days of being in the House. He is totally committed to keeping the government open and protecting American families from the hardships of "Obamacare." And it was a very powerful resolve with much constitution. Q: So (you don't ?) -- worry at all -- 12:56:42 MR. : I'd like to comment on it. I've been the guy in the House that's been driving the signatures on the letter to get the Hastert Rule codified within the conference, and I will echo what Mr. Graves said. I haven't seen this kind of -- I served with Speaker Boehner before; he was the chairman of the education committee; I sat on that committee. I always thought that he was a firebrand. I saw -- and I said this in conference yesterday, I stood up and I said, I haven't seen this kind of fire in the belly with the speaker since he was part of Gang of Seven. And I do believe this is Boehner 2.0. And I believe -- I take him at face value that this is a fight that he's going to fight. He believes that by year's end, we will have defunded or postponed "Obamacare" for a year, and I think that -- I think he means it. Q: Is there any way, if the government happens to shut down -- I realize that's -- wouldn't be a goal here, you say -- but if it shuts down, do you think there's any way that Republicans can escape big- picture blame from this from the American people, or is there plenty of blame to go around? 12:57:32 MR. : If we're giving the president a bill that keeps government open and his political stubbornness is so intense that he's willing to throw it all away to preserve a bill that's not -- or a law that's not ready for prime time; even he knows that, then I would hope that the American people and the press out there would posture it as it really is. We've all said we want to keep the government open. We want to do everything we can to keep the government open. But ultimately, I would hope that they'd understand that in this kind of a situation, the president has to determine what's more important to him. Q: What happens is -- REP. GRAVES: Go ahead -- let -- (inaudible) -- comment. 12:58:14 MR. : I'd like to weigh in on that one really quickly, as well. First of all, when this -- comes over to the Senate, I do predict that Republicans are going to stand solidly behind it to fund government while defunding "Obamacare." I would hope that maybe a handful of Democrats, perhaps some of those who are up for re-election in red states, might consider joining with us as well, especially in light of recent polling, suggesting that 56 percent of Americans think that something like this is what Congress should, in fact do, and especially considering that a solid majority of Americans now believe that this law will make their family health care situation worse, rather than better. The point is that this will be a real opportunity. We need an up-or-down vote. And with that up-or-down vote, I do think we'll keep all the Republicans, and I hope that we might get some Democrats joining with us. Now, if they reject it, if Democrats in the -- in the Senate reject it, then they've got to come up with a proposal. They don't have a proposal. We haven't seen a proposal from them; we haven't even heard of an outline of a proposal. The onus is on them, at that point. So, yeah, at that point, especially once the House passes something to keep government funded, once the Republicans in the Senate have the opportunity to vote on that -- and any Democrats who might join with us -- if the Democrats in the Senate choose to reject that at that point and and thereby open this grave possibility that you describe, they've got to come up with something. Q: Senator Lee -- MR. : Last question. Q: -- is there a point when -- (off mic) -- consequences of a shutdown are too great for this particular fight? People may have fears. Three may be uncertainty. Is there a point when it's too much? SEN. LEE (?): A shutdown is too much. We don't want a shutdown. We don't need a shutdown. We should avoid a shutdown. And "Obamacare" is a law that's going to harm people, and it certainly is not a good idea to shut down the government in order to force through the implementation of "Obamacare" at a time when the president has said he's not going to follow the law, and he's made substantial changes, without statutory or constitutional authority to do so. So, yeah, look. Shutdowns are bad. Shutdowns are not worth it. This law is not worth causing a shutdown over. Q: Senator Lee -- MR. : Thank you. That's -- we have a 1:00, another press event that we need to get to. Q: (Off mic.) MR. : All right. One more question. You -- all right, all right. You were -- you've been very patient, yes. Q: (Off mic) -- you said a couple times an up-or-down vote. Just for a little more clarity on what's going to happen when it gets to you all in the Senate, most of the time we interpret up-or-down vote as a 50-vote threshold. Now, Senator Reid will probably do that -- not to get down in o the weeds -- but this -- MR. : Oh, yeah. I understand what you're saying. Q: You're going to lose that vote. SO my question is, if it's 50, and Democrats kill it, like you say, and they kill this proposal, the question is, are you all going to line up 12 or 14 deep and talk this thing till September 30? Because if it's a 50-vote threshold, of course Harry Reid could make you lose that. That's an up-or-down vote. That's all you want. MR. : Yeah, I want to be clear. In that setting -- I want to be clear. In that setting, by referring to an up-or-down vote, what I'm talking about is a vote on the merits as opposed to a motion to table -- one -- you know, an nondebatable motion to table that simply comes up and it goes straight into a vote on that 51-vote threshold, not on the merits of it but on the merits of the motion to table. So that's what I'm talking about. MR. : Great. Thank you, everyone. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)is flanked by House Repulicans while speaking about Obamacare during a news conference on Capitol Hill, September 19, 2013 in Washington, DC. Sen. Cruz spoke about Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare.

Former Senator and Independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy discusses the effect of union endorsements on the Democratic Party.

TVU 21 AMY KLOBUCHAR WATERLOO IA TOWN HALL ABC UNI 012620 2020 ?WATERLOO, Iowa - At the former Black's Department store building, Amy Klobuchar spoke to around 250 people this morning (# according to her campaign.) Notably, there were maybe two people of color were in attendance. Why is this important in a state that is 90% white people? Because in Waterloo, African Americans account for 16% of the population and Latinos make up nearly 7%. According to Pew Research, <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2Ffact-tank%2F2016%2F02%2F29%2Fhow-religious-is-your-state%2F%3Fstate%3Diowa&data=02%7C01%7CJenna.X.Levine.-ND%40abc.com%7C67dfcfa826ad42176fbd08d7a28f5453%7C56b731a8a2ac4c32bf6b616810e913c6%7C1%7C0%7C637156608911108035&sdata=tymwMUyw%2Fw7H5xQT5DQsxojW9qHY4Y4Dx7TDUVEMCzw%3D&reserved=0> Iowa is the 19th most religious state in the country- 55% of the adult population are "highly religious" and 36% attending weekly worship services. So, with that said, this event was on a Sunday during prime church-going time and the oldest AME church in Waterloo has service from 9AM - noon, so that could *possibly*be a reason for the lack of diversity, but who really knows. The crowd loudly laughed at every single joke the senator told and it's unclear if they haven't ever heard her stump speech before or if they just think she's really funny, but this level of engagement and excitement is something I haven't seen at a Klobuchar event in Iowa. Anyways, she stuck to her stump speech, but the best impeachment SOTS are below and as always *please check all quotes to tape* TVU 21 AMY KLOBUCHAR WATERLOO IA TOWN HALL ABC UNI 012620 2020 IMPEACHMENT SOTS FOUR WITNESSES Amy Klobuchar: And so, they have to make a decision. Just put aside how they're going to vote on impeachment right now. Put that aside. All we're asking for, here, is a fair trial. (TVU 21 @ 12;21;36) Amy Klobuchar: What are they so afraid of? Are they that afraid of the truth? They can vote how they want to vote but, in America, a trial means witnesses and a trial means evidence." (TVU 21 @ 12;20;20) DID YOU READ THE CONSTITUTION? Amy Klobuchar: And it's also what's at stake with our Constitution. So, I look over at my colleagues and I think, you know, why did you run for this office if you don't read the constitution? We actually have it for this impeachment hearing. It sits on our desk. They gave us a copy of it. (TVU 21 @ 12;21;01) WHY ARE YOU EVEN A SENATOR? Amy Klobuchar: Why do you run for this office? Is it because you just want to like have a title you can use in the future, because you want to have a desk -- by the way, you can buy your desk at the end, you know, and keep it? Is that -- is that why? (TVU 21 @ 12;22;47) Amy Klobuchar: Are they doing it because they want a trophy on the shelf? They have to do their constitutional duty. (TVU 21 @ 12;23;08) HIGHLIGHTS Impeachment Starts the stump on impeachment and has been talking about since like 12;19 121748 I think you know that right now I have to make the best of my time but I'm a mom and I can do two things at once. At 6am tomorrow I will be on the flight out of Des Moines -- it's kind of like you turn into a pumpkin, and then you go back. But I also think that you understand how serious this is right now, this moment in our country and now I have this constitutional duty. 121815 And I say as having been there now and watched this and heard all of the evidence and the stories and wanting to hear more, including the actual testimony of in the words of the Hamilton musical, the people that were in the room where it happened. We would like to hear from them. And just thinking as you hear about this the treatment of Ambassador Yovanovich, who is a personal friend. Impeachment Cont. 122036 And the words said this: it's the last thing he did for me and they said: there is nothing in life more liberating than fighting for a cause larger than yourself. That to me -- That to me, that to me is what is at stake right now, in that jury room, that Senate chamber in Washington DC. 122101 And it's also what's at stake with our Constitution. So I look over at my colleagues and I think, you know, why did you run for this office if you don't read the constitution? We actually have it for this impeachment hearing. It sits on our desk. They gave us a copy of it. And I note that all of our founding documents, they do not say we the ruling party. They say we, the people. And it was not the President that sent them to Washington, they do not serve at the pleasure of the President. They serve for the people that sent them there. 122136 And so, they have to make a decision. Just put aside how they're going to vote on impeachment right now. Put that aside. All we're asking for, here, is a fair trial. And as we go through the week and you see the president's lawyers make their case, I was actually on one of the Sunday shows -- well, I was on two today -- and I heard one--- 122155 [to audience member] You are, you -- you saw both of them? Okay, I gotta find this woman, put her on there. Well, one of the things that one of my colleagues -- a Senate, Senator from Indiana -- had said, he said "well, you know, they just -- the House managers, they had circumstantial evidence." And I'm like "seriously, okay. If you believe that, then why won't you have the evidence that we want," which is at least ask the witnesses we want -- four witnesses. 122220 That is it. Four witnesses: one that was in the room with Trump, Bolton, who wants to testify, who could tell us what happened. We want Mulvaney who's the one that made the decision to hold up the aid and his aide Duffy, and then one other guy named Blair. That is all we're asking for. What are they so afraid of? Are they that afraid of the truth? They can vote how they want to vote but, in America, a trial means witnesses and a trial means evidence. 12;22;47 And the fact that they are hiding [applause] I just think like, why -- why do you run for this office? Is it because you just want to like have a title you can use in the future, because you want to have a desk -- by the way, you can buy your desk at the end, you know, and keep it? Is that -- is that why? 12;23;08 Buy your chair and you can buy your chair and they want to have that chair in their office. Are they doing it because they want a trophy on the shelf? They have to do their constitutional duty. So that's what at stake and it actually bleeds into what you are a jury on. And that is this election, and it is really a concept that is very similar, because what is at stake in this election is our very democracy. 122335 And while we have a lot of debates on that stage about economics and about the best way to reduce health care costs, which I'll get to in a minute and the best way to make it easier for kids to go to college, all of that we're having a very thoughtful debate about all that. TRINT [12:16:04] Wow. Thank you so much. This is an amazing group, came through a little snow because of course I'm here, so it has to snow. [12:16:15] But I wanted to thank, first of all, Vicki for that beautiful introduction and your great leadership here in Blackhawk County. Thank you for that. [12:16:25] And also, I want to thank Nate, the vise chair of the Blackhawk Kony Democrats. Where are you, Nate? [12:16:34] I will say whenever I come here, these guys are around, man. [12:16:38] They show great leadership, though. [12:16:40] Thank you for that. Also, we have with us a former Congressman Nagle and his wife, Debbie. Where are you? [12:16:48] Somewhere. Thank you. Thank you. I also his wife has. [12:16:57] I mean, he's cool, but his wife has a big Twitter feed. So, you know, you got to keep that social media presence. And then also, Bill Wit is with us, the former state representative. [12:17:09] Thank you, Bill. [12:17:12] And then I want to mention our great organizers, Nicole and Matthew. Where are you? All right, over here. They're doing tremendous work. We're just meeting with our precinct captains. You can be one, too. And then I went and mentioned Jamie, our political director here in Iowa. [12:17:33] Doing great work. [12:17:36] And I think Lauren is here somewhere. Our state director. So we are very, very excited. I am excited to be back in Iowa. It is I think you know that right now I have to make the best of my time, but I'm a mom and I can do two things at once. [12:17:57] I 6:00 a.m. tomorrow, I will be on the flight out of Des Moines. It's kind of like you turn into a pumpkin and then you go back. But I also think that you understand how serious this is. Right now, this moment in our country and I have this constitutional duty and I say as having been there now and watched this and heard all of the evidence and the stories and wanting to hear more, including the actual testimony of, in the words of the Hamilton musical, the people that were in the room where it happened, we would like to hear from them. And just thinking, as you hear about this, the treatment of Ambassador Yvonne Jovanovic, who is a personal friend. [12:18:43] I spent days with her in Ukraine when Senator McCain invited me, along with Senator Graham, to go to see the leaders of Ukraine right after Donald Trump got elected, as was Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia. And we were there on New Year's Eve on the frontline with the Ukrainian soldiers. And they brought us in there in the dark of night. And of course, there was a blizzard. And it is one of my most amazing memories, one of John McCain, because he knew what was coming. He knew what we had just been through with that election. And he knew what was coming. And he wanted to make very clear to our allies that America stood with Ukraine against Russia aggression. [12:19:27] That was leadership that was not messing around for his own private interests and, you know, holding up meetings. [12:19:37] No, he did the opposite. He went in the middle of winter. And I remember they were so proud of the American support that the former president came out with this Ukrainian made machine gun and handed it to John McCain, and then he handed Lindsey a pistol. And then he was coming at me and I thought, what is this? It's this flat box. And I'm the third one. And I open it up and it's two Ukrainian made daggers. And I'm like, OK. But they actually then gave me a pistol because they decided it was sexist. And so anyway, that happened. And then the Navy confiscated all the weapons. [12:20:15] And then when McCain got sick the very last time I saw him, which I'll never forget at his ranch in Arizona, he was still joking around about that. And he still like, where did the Navy put that machine gun? But the other thing he did that day when we visited him was that he showed me some words from his book because at the end of the meeting, he couldn't talk anymore. And the words said, this is the last thing he did for me. And they said, there is nothing in life more liberating than fighting for a cause larger than yourself. [12:20:46] That to me. [12:20:50] That to me, that to me is what is at stake right now in that jury room, that Senate chamber in Washington, D.C., and it's also what's at stake with our Constitution. So I look over at my colleagues and I think, you know, why did you run for this office? If you don't read the Constitution, we actually have it for this impeachment hearing. It sits on our desk. They gave us a copy of it. And I note that all of our founding documents and they do not say we the ruling party. They say we the people. And it was not the president that sent them to Washington. They do not serve at the pleasure of the president. [12:21:32] They serve for the people that sent them there. And so they have to make a decision. [12:21:38] Just put aside how they're going to vote on impeachment right now. Put that aside. All we're asking for here is a fair trial. And as we go through the week and you see the president's lawyers make their case. I was actually on one of the Sunday shows where I was on to today and I heard one. You are you. [12:21:55] You saw both of them. Oh, OK. I got to find this woman. Put her on there. [12:22:01] Well, one of the things that one of my colleagues, a Senate senator from Indiana, had said. He said, well, you know, they just the House managers, they had circumspect, essential evidence. [12:22:11] And I'm seriously OK. If you believe that, then why won't you have the evidence that we want, which is at least ask the witnesses. We want four witnesses. That is it. Four witnesses. One that was in the room with Trump. Bolton, who wants to testify? Who could tell us what happened? We went Mulvaney, who's the one that made the decision to hold up the aide and his aide, Duffy, and then one other guy named Blair. That is all we're asking for. What are they so afraid of? Are they that afraid of the truth? They can vote how they want to vote. But in America, a trial means witnesses and a trial means evidence. [12:22:46] And the fact that they are hiding. [12:22:50] I just think, like, why why do you run for this office? Is it because you just want to like have a title you can use in the future because you want to have a desk, by the way, you can buy your desk at the end, you know, and keep it. Is that why you are by your chair and you can buy your chair and they want to have that chair in their office? Are they doing it because they want a trophy on the shelf? [12:23:15] They have to do their constitutional duty. So that's what's at stake. And it actually bleeds into what you are a jury on. And that is this election. [12:23:25] And it is really a concept that is very similar because what is at stake in this election is our very democracy. And while we have a lot of debates on that stage about economics and about the best way to reduce health care costs, which I'll get to in a minute, and the best way to make it easier for kids to go to college. All of that. We're having a very thoughtful debate about all that. [12:23:51] But I often think to myself, one, what unites us is bigger than what divides us. And you know that very well. But the second thing is, when there is people watching out there that are maybe from those 31 counties in Iowa that voted for Barack Obama and then turned around and voted for Donald Trump. [12:24:09] Some of those people are watching these debates. Some of the people that stayed home in 2016 because they just felt left out there watching these debates. And so when we get all worked up about different positions of our candidates, we have to remember there's a lot of people that don't agree with every single thing that someone says on the debate stage. [12:24:30] I don't agree with every single thing that people say on the debate stage, but they do agree on one thing. [12:24:36] And that is that the heart of America is bigger than the heart of this guy in the White House. [12:24:43] They agree on that. They know that. They agree. They know they know that this election. [12:24:52] Yes. [12:24:53] It's an economic check because you haven't done anything. I'm looking at our access to insulin shirt in front of me, hasn't done anything like he promised on pharmaceuticals, that the prices keep going up and he hasn't done one thing or that he hasn't done the infrastructure investment that we want to see our housing issue in this community and so many others across Iowa are child care. He hasn't done these things to make this true shared prosperity. We know that that's going to be a major issue in the election. But there is something else going on here. There is something else going on here. We wouldn't have won the governorship in Louisiana, got our guy reelected. [12:25:35] We would not have won in Kentucky, where Mitch McConnell now has a Democratic governor. [12:25:43] You know what those two states have in common the night before those elections, someone went down there and campaigned for their opponents. You know who that was? Donald Trump. So the question is, where can we send him next? So we know, as we know, that those voters and the people in Virginia where with this incredibly diverse group of candidates across that state. We painted the state house and the state Senate blue, the exact same thing we want to do here in the state of Iowa. [12:26:15] We know, as we know, that something else is going on and that's something. [12:26:22] Is this. Yeah, it's an economic check, but it is also a dignity check. It is a decency check. It is a patriotism check. It is a values check. It is a president that stood next to a ruthless dictator, Vladimir Putin, at the G 20. [12:26:40] And when a reporter asked him about Russian interference in our election, he made a joke to Vladimir Putin. The whole world was watching. He was on the world stage. That's what he did. Well, you think about it. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives defending democracy. Democracy here, democracy around the world, do you think of the Sullivan brothers right at this town? [12:27:06] That's what their sacrifice was about. You think about those four little girls at the height of the civil rights movement and that church in Birmingham, Alabama, who lost their lives innocence because they were trying to hold on to our democracy, because people were trying to expand it to them and other people were trying to push it away. The very best moment in our country's history and the worst moments have been about democracy and our constitution. And this president, he makes a joke about it. [12:27:39] So for so many Americans out there who maybe don't agree with everything we say, for them this election is that it is the rancher in the middle of my state. And this was my first understanding of this when I was during his cattle ranch on an ATV and we were dodging in and out of these huge cows. [12:27:59] And I thought, this is not how I want to die. [12:28:01] And when it ended when it ended, he had me go into his house and everyone had left. And he said to me, you know, we voted. We voted for Trump. And I said, do you mean the ranch? What do the ranchers, your family? He said, no, I don't like to talk about myself. I meant I voted, but I say we. And I said, OK. He said, well, we voted for Trump because we were mad about health care. [12:28:25] And he said, but then we saw him standing in front of that wall. And I said, well, the wall really hasn't been built. That's that's it. [12:28:32] He said, no, no, no. The day after the inauguration, the CIA wall and this guy remembered when Trump gave this incredibly partisan speech about the size of his inaugural crowd in front of this sacred wall, which is covered in the stars of the deceased CIA agents who lost their lives in the line of duty. [12:28:51] And that's the place that Donald Trump decided to give a political speech. [12:28:56] And this guy, this rancher, he remembered that and he did not like that. And then he said, then we go and fast forward to the Boy Scout rally. And it might not been the first thing you thought of, but for him, that's what he thinks of, because he used to be a Boy Scout. And I talked him about back because my husband was a Boy Scout. My husband actually grew up in Mankato. He has five brothers and. Well, they had four boys living in a trailer home. [12:29:23] And his parents wanted a girl. She got pregnant. He had his mom and they had identical twin boys. [12:29:29] So they had six boys in triple bunk beds in the trailer home. And they. And then then they were scout leaders. And five of the six became Eagle Scouts. And I never want to say which one didn't make it because I don't want to embarrass my husband, but that was them. So I told this guy that and he said, yeah, you know, for me as a scout, when I saw that, when I saw my president standing in front of that huge group, that jamboree of all of those young men giving this really partisan political speech, he said that was it for me. [12:30:03] That was the moment I knew what I'd done. [12:30:05] He said for me, it wasn't patriotic. It was wrong. [12:30:11] Then you go to New Hampshire, the long line of people, and they are all with these little happy stickers on. I'm in Conway, New Hampshire. It's kind of northern part of that state. And they've got these happy stickers that say, I'm a reproductive rights voter, I'm a Supreme Court voter, I'm a climate change voter. And then there is this guy in this brown leather jacket who has no sticker. And I said, sir, where's your sticker? And he leans over. [12:30:36] He said, I don't have a sticker. Hi. I was a Trump voter. [12:30:42] We don't have a sticker, and these guys, my neighbors, they don't know. So don't don't say anything about it right now. And he said, but I am not doing it again. [12:30:54] So I don't want us to forget. [12:30:58] I do not want us to forget in a state like this, that there are those people out there that they see this as something bigger than themselves. [12:31:10] As John McCain would say, that's how they see it. [12:31:14] The probably the best example of that is actually in Iowa, one that I used on that last debate stage. I really like the debates. By the way, when I'm out in the New Hampshire one coming up. [12:31:26] And thank you the and the the there was a guy from a town called Prim Ga, Iowa. [12:31:38] Many of you may have been there. I went there looking for this guy's house. I couldn't find it on Google Maps, but I found a street named after him. His name was Joseph Welch. He grew up there, son of immigrants, big family, humble, humble background. He goes on to become the highest lawyer for the U.S. Army. [12:31:56] He became the Army counsel and he was the one during those McCarthy hearings when Joe McCarthy was going after people because of their political beliefs, because of their supposed political political beliefs, even if they didn't have them getting them blacklisted so that they couldn't work. And then he took it even to a bigger, bigger, bigger stage and had those public hearings. And so many people were afraid to stand up to him. They were afraid that they would lose their jobs or their family members would lose their jobs. [12:32:24] But there was one guy that stood up to him. This guy, Joseph Welch from Prim, Ga, Iowa. And he's the one that looked at him and said, sir, have you no sense of decency at long last? Have you no sense of decency? That's this moment for our country. It's a call. It's a call to stand up and say same those same words. That's what this is about. And I think that's how you bring people in instead of shutting them out. [12:32:54] The other way you bring people in is by talking about things in a commonsense way. I know we think about Donald Trump as a bully and he is. And he goes after people, goes after immigrants, horrible things, people of color. He knows no limits. It's horrible. But there's also people out there that they they know that. But one of the things when you talk about it in a different way, when you talk about the fact that he's a whiner, that they have to work hard every day and just that they got something go wrong in their life. [12:33:22] They just got to take another job or get a loan or their spouse has to take another job. And then they see him have the best job in the world sitting in that nice house and still walking by that helicopter and whining and complaining about everything. I thought about this when I went on this blue wall tour in the middle of our country to the states that he had won, that he shouldn't have won. States like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin and Iowa and Ohio and even Minnesota that Hillary won. But just by a bare minimum, she got the lowest percentage of any state that she won in the country, in my state. So my first plan is to build a beautiful blue wall around those states and. [12:34:12] And make and make Donald Trump pay for it. [12:34:16] OK. That is our plan. [12:34:18] The other part of that. [12:34:21] The other part of it, when you talk to carpenters in Pennsylvania. Dock workers in Michigan, dairy farmers in Wisconsin. [12:34:30] They think about how he whines as they work harder and then he messes up a farm policy or he does something or how he handles dealing with the rest of the world. So we lose manufacturing jobs like some of the issues that we've had with John Deere in parts around this state. I know near and dear to your hearts here in Waterloo. And this guy, they know he doesn't really care about him them. Right. They know what I was thinking. This story of FDR, when FDR died, he was put as body was put on a train. [12:35:03] And it goes through the country. And there's a reporter was standing next to a man who would had his head off and he was standing, waiting for the body by the train tracks. And the reporter says to him, because the guy's crying and reporter says, did you know the president's or did you know the president? Because you're so shook up. Did you know him? [12:35:21] And the guy goes, no, I didn't know the president, but he knew me. He knew me. That's the empathy that's missing with this president. [12:35:33] This president was given four hundred thirteen million dollars over the course of his career from his dad. I can't wait to say this on the debate stage to him because my story, my grandpa were 15 hundred feet underground in the mines up in Ely, Minnesota. He couldn't even graduate from high school. He went to be in the Navy, but he had nine brothers and sisters. He was the oldest boy. His parents were dying. [12:35:57] They died very, very young. And he worked his whole life in those underground mines, went down in a cage with a with the lunch that my grandma would pack for him every day. The sirens would go off. Everyone would run because that means someone had died. And they never knew if it was gonna be their brother or their dad or their husband. And it was the unions that made those mines safe. [12:36:18] It was the unions that made those safe. They used to have my dad. [12:36:25] My dad would tell the story of the caskets that would line line the entry way of their Catholic church. He still remembers that when he was growing up. And that changed because of the unions. And so he saved money. My grandma and grandpa saved money in a coffee can. In their basement to send my dad to a two year community college. You cannot fit four hundred thirteen million dollars in a coffee can in the basement. [12:36:52] That is my family trust. That is my family trust. My mom, she grew up in Wisconsin. [12:37:00] She wanted to be a teacher. So she moved to Minnesota because they had a strong teachers union and she taught second grade until she was 70 years old. [12:37:09] So I started. [12:37:13] I stand before you today as the granddaughter of an iron ore miner, of as a daughter of a teacher and a union newspaper man, as the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of Minnesota and a candidate for president of the United States. That is why. [12:37:58] That is what shared dreams are about, and I figure when you are given that kind of opportunity from someone and you've all had it in your life, it may be a parent or grandparent and maybe a neighbor, maybe a coworker and maybe a teacher when you are given that opportunity. [12:38:17] You don't go into the world with a sense of entitlement. You go into the world with a sense of obligation, obligations to lift people up instead of pushing them down, an obligation to lift people up instead of hoarding it for yourself. And when this guy when things go wrong for him, what does he do? He either blames other people. [12:38:41] By the way, there's a series of things that are unbelievable. He what does he do? He he blames these are some of my favorites. [12:38:47] He blames Barack Obama. That's one of his favorites. He just did it in the last month. He blames the head of the Federal Reserve. He put him in that job. [12:38:58] He's just that guy is just trying to do his job. He blames the city of Baltimore. [12:39:03] Think about the kids waking up that morning in that city to find out that the president of the United States calls your city rat infested. That happen. He blames my favorite one, the country of Denmark. [12:39:15] Who does that? [12:39:17] That's what he does. He he goes to the NATO conference and he is caught the foreign leaders are caught on tape making fun of him some. And honestly, I have heard other senators make more fun of other senators in the Senate, even people they like. [12:39:32] But what does this guy do when this happens? Instead of just laughing it off, he leaves the conference before it is done. He is so thin skin, he quits. America doesn't quit. So when we think about how we. [12:39:53] When we think about how we talk about Donald Trump, we have to think of those workers out there that thought he was going to build all this stuff and they thought that he was going to bring down those costs of pharmaceuticals and it just hasn't happened. [12:40:06] The next thing we need to do is have our own optimistic economic agenda for this country, because you can't just spend all your time talking about him. [12:40:16] You have to have that hope for people, because we may have lost an election in 2016, but we didn't lose hope. [12:40:26] So what does this mean? It means taking on people's everyday challenges, health care. [12:40:31] So let me just be a little practical here. As we look at what's the choices for healthcare, the way I look at it is this way. [12:40:38] The Affordable Care Act is now nearly 10 points more popular than the president of the United States. [12:40:45] OK. So. [12:40:49] That's why I do not think it's a sensible option to blow it up. [12:40:53] When we come to water and you know, I have a lot of water in Minnesota, we build a bridge to get over it. We don't blow one up. So to me, that means building on the Affordable Care Act by bringing premiums down. And the way that Barack Obama from the beginning wanted to bring premiums down is with a non profit public option, a nonprofit public option that has been shown by one study, 12 million people immediately can have health insurance available to them that they wouldn't have before for 13 million people. It could bring the cost of their health care, their premiums down. Other thing I would do, take on pharmaceuticals in a big, big way. [12:41:37] And I come to this not just I come to this not just with the talking points, but with the receipts. [12:41:45] I have been leading the bills to take on pharma since my first years in the Senate. I lead the bill to unleash the power of 43 million seniors who are currently banned because pharma had so much clout that they got before I got there. They got a provision written into the law, into the law that says that Medicare cannot negotiate for less expensive drugs for farmer prices. [12:42:10] And that affects not just seniors, it affects everyone. It is written into law. Medicaid can negotiate. The V.A. can negotiate, but Medicare can't negotiate. I have 34 co-sponsors and as president, I will get this done. And a race. Those words from the law. [12:42:26] We can get this done. [12:42:32] Less expensive drugs from other countries. [12:42:36] In Minnesota, we can see Canada from our porch for the person out there from PolitiFact. That was a metaphor for. OK. Like, I can't really see it from my porch. I just like I mean, it was a joke about the. OK, thank you. I want a fact check. OK. What? No, I saw they signed in. [12:42:56] I have to be very careful with my thing. So. So. Yeah. So I. You can see the prices in Canada. So one way we do this is by bringing in less expensive drugs from other countries. And that is a bill actually that I have with Senator Grassley. I used to have it with Senator McCain, who I miss very much. So we know there's bipartisan support. We really know it because Bernie and I did an amendment in the middle of the night one time. [12:43:22] That was this bill close to our standards. And we got 14 Republican senators to vote for it. They may have been too tired, but they they voted for it. So I know there are votes to do that and better than that. I know I can do it myself without Congress. Why? It's one of the things we discovered that you can apply for a waiver to allow for less expensive drugs to come in from other countries that would create that kind of Kim competition, that would bring down prices. And in fact, if you want to check out maybe you've seen our ad. One hundred thirty seven things the president can do without Congress in the first 100 days that are legal. [12:43:59] And I have I have found these things. [12:44:01] And I think it is the reason that I do that is because I think it's going to be so important to build trust, to put out there exactly what you want to do and to build the trust, of course, introduce the big bills on immigration reform and climate change and the work that we need to done. [12:44:19] But you also have to do the first steps and you have to get that trust back, because right now people have lost trust in their government and they have lost faith. All right. [12:44:28] Other things I mentioned on the debate for that, my colleagues sometimes, even though they say they have the big ideas, I actually don't think they're thinking big enough. Because if you're thinking big enough, when you look at health care, you would be talking about mental health care and addiction all the time, which is what I do, because we have not done anything. [12:44:48] We have not done what we should do to deal with this. [12:44:50] It's personal for me. My dad had three DWI by the time my husband, I got married. [12:44:56] That was when the judge looked at him and they said, look, you know, he said, you've got a choice, treatment or jail. And my dad chose treatment and it changed his life. In his words, he was pursued by grace because of the treatment, because of his family and his friends and his faith. He got through that. And he is now 91 and he has been sober ever since. He's in assisted living. His aid group visits him there. And then it's his words about over a year ago. It's hard to get a drink around here anyway. [12:45:25] So he had his life changed because of that. [12:45:29] And I think everyone should have that same. Right, whether it's opioid addiction, whether it is mental health, where in the state of Iowa, you only have 64 public mental health beds in the state of Iowa that we have to put money into. My proposal you can look at online is to use that opioid settlement money. [12:45:45] And it's going to be big money because they have serious, serious evidence against them and use that money as a lawyer president. I think you could get some really good results here to make sure it goes back to where it should go and also to make sure it also covers other forms of addiction as well as things and mental health. And we can get this done. Last thing I'd mentioned is long term care. [12:46:08] The elephant that doesn't even fit in this room and that is that we are seeing an aging of our population, which is a great thing, but we haven't done one thing to really get at long term care. What does it mean strengthening Social Security, which is actually there is an elegant solution there. It means making sure that Medicare and Medicaid is strong and then creating incentives for people to be able to buy long term care insurance by reducing premiums. You guys are like the perfect students in front. [12:46:38] You are the first person that I ever got excited about that policy point. [12:46:42] But it is that is actually that is a fact. But you can you can do that. [12:46:50] And I found a way to pay for it from a wealthy guy in Boston who told me, you know, wealthy, wealthy people take out trust funds for their kids. I'm not talking about charitable ones. And you can look at ones that are over five hundred thousand dollars. That's a lot of money for a trust fund for your kids. Like for you. [12:47:05] That would be a lot of money. Yeah. She would she would really like. Yeah. OK. So you look at the ones that are over five hundred thousand, you start taxing just the appreciation, which means the gain each year and you would literally bring in over one hundred billion dollars. That to me is a very straightforward, elegant solution. You use that money to help people buy long term care insurance and then also while they're in long term care if they're at home. Help them to defray the expenses because we actually want people to stay at home as long as they can. My story, by the way, this isn't just about seniors. [12:47:40] Everyone knows a sandwich generation, people that have aging parents, people taking care of their own kids. My story, I was just dealing with my dad's care in the middle of the impeachment hearing. I was out there e-mailing about something with it and then I had a run back in. And so but the truth is that he is that long term care insurance, which was really amazing. I didn't know he got that until he went into assisted living. So that's lasting him for just a little bit more. For about a year and a half more. And then after that, we go into his savings. He doesn't have as much as he should. He got married three times, which is a whole nother story. [12:48:21] But he has some savings. [12:48:22] But then after that, he's on Medicaid and the place he lives now doesn't take Medicaid. And so I talked to Catholic elder care and they're going to take him in at that point. But our story is actually so much better than so many others. Family stories that don't have a long term care insurance or don't have savings. And that's what people are dealing with. So that is thinking big. Taking on that big, big issue when it comes to health care, other challenges, making sure our education system is meshed up with our economy. And again, I say to my friends, if you don't look at it that way, you're not thinking big enough because the fastest growing jobs in our country right now, we're gonna have over a million openings for home health care workers because of the aging that I just talked about. [12:49:07] We are going to have we don't know how we're going to fill them in our country right now. We're gonna have over a hundred thousand openings for nursing assistance. We are gonna have over seventy thousand openings for electricians. We are going to have openings for trades workers. We are not we are not going to have a shortage of sports marketing degrees even though people have it. Thank you. We are going to have a shortage of plumbers in this country. So as we look at how we should be meshing our education system with our economy. That to me means investing in K through 12 in a big way. It means making. Making apprenticeships and we have some incredible union apprenticeships programs, making those apprenticeships free. Making one and two year degrees free at our community college. [12:50:00] And then, of course, a lot of these jobs are gonna be four year degrees and above. But I would get at that by doubling the Pell Grant from six thousand to twelve thousand a year. That would make a big difference. Doubling the income levels where you can get them from 50000 to 100000 a year. Pay for it by taking that capital gains rate and putting it closer to the personal income tax rate. That's what we can do. And making it easier to pay back loans. Looking at that loan payback program, I guess the first thing I do in the first 100 days because I could do it in 100 seconds actually is fire. Betsy de Vos. [12:50:46] I do that you expand that program. [12:50:49] You make it work for public service job, but you actually expand it to some of these jobs I'm talking about where you want kids to go into them with whatever degree it would make it so much better. I'm just I'm looking at it bigger. I'm looking at our economy and how you hook that into our education system. And part of this is, of course, child care and retirement and understanding that a third of the workers are in the gig economy and using some of this money or a lot of this money that Donald Trump gave to the top. You know, when he went down to Mara Lago, you've heard this story and he says to his friends after he signed the bill, he says, you just got a lot richer. [12:51:24] That is a documented fact. [12:51:27] Where is anyone in this room there? I just because I didn't want to embarrass you if you were in this room, know no one from Waterloo was in that room. All right. No one was there because he did that for his friend. And we can take a bunch of that money, put it into infrastructure, a promise that he has not kept. Which will mean jobs right here at home. Put it into doing something. Actually, you can put some aside for deficit reduction. No one much talked about that. But he's treating you like poker. Thank you. One person. [12:51:57] My shirt. I you. [12:51:59] He's treating you like poker chips and one of his bankrupt casinos and putting it into money that's going to help people. The they can take the jobs that we want him to take. That's the way I look at this climate change. Another major, major, major challenge for climate change. [12:52:13] As for climate change, that is all about what is happening right now right here in Iowa. Yeah, it's about the Greenland ice sheet and the rising sea levels and the horrible fires in California. But it's also about what's happening right here in Iowa with the unprecedented floods and what we've seen in eastern and western Iowa. [12:52:34] My plan one, get us back into the international climate change agreement to bring back the clean power rules and the gas mileage standards that have been worked out. Actually, a compromise. When Barack Obama was president and then three, putting a price on carbon, but then making sure when we do that, making sure when we do that, that's with legislation. There's about three different ways you can do it. Making sure that that money that we're gonna get in, it's gonna be a lot of money that goes right back to people. [12:53:03] And it's airtight. So the people who are going to see changes to heating bills or things like that get the money back. You've got to do that or you're not going to get the votes. And then it will be bad public policy if you don't do that. But the other piece of it is investing the money in incentives for manufacturing and the like. So I'm actually really excited about this because I know we can develop the technology that's going to get us to the better place, but only if we keep people home. [12:53:27] And for me, this is from my heart, because when I was growing up, my grandpa, those mines would close. They'd open again. You know exactly what I'm talking about in this area. And they got so bad that they took out a billboard outside of Duluth that said the last one to leave, turn off the lights. [12:53:45] Because so much it closed down. No, we came roaring back actually in Duluth. We came roaring back because of investment in infrastructure, because of tourism, because of new businesses that were incentives were put in place to bring them in. [12:53:59] And we did something. The last 10 years about steel dumping from China finally. [12:54:04] And that actually created that incentive using not a meat cleaver or tweak cleaver, but a very focused approach to trade enforcement. And we were able to actually get those mines open again. So those are my stories. So when I look at climate change, I look at it not just from my head, but my heart. I'm making this work for everyone. [12:54:23] I remember the great technology out there. It has not been developed yet. Norman Borlaug. We need a new Norman Borlaug. Right. [12:54:31] We need someone that's going to get that technology and it's gonna figure that out. [12:54:36] Last thing that I will say is just that we want to win. [12:54:46] My profound advice to you is we better not screw this up and we better put someone at the top of the ticket and this is my piece for me. [12:54:57] Someone at the top of the ticket that has the record of bringing people with her and winning big. You have heard my story and you can call anyone in Minnesota. I have five million job references. Many of them voted for me. Some of them didn't. But even those people will most likely tell you that I work hard, that I'm honest with people, that I have people's back. That I get things done. That I go not just where it's comfortable, but where it's uncomfortable that I have one in the reddest of districts. Flipping forty two of the counties that Donald Trump won, I have one in. I have one in the congressional district that borders Iowa. [12:55:40] Many, many times, in fact, every single time I that's a district that will soon be JD district, that district. I have one that cross across the border. I have one in the district. Over and over every single time that border south in North Dakota, I've been one in northern Minnesota where the steelworkers are, which is now represented by a Republican. But I've won it by a sizable margin every single time. And yes, every single time I have one. Michele Bachmann's district. [12:56:14] So I bring those receipts and I also bring a passion for understanding that this is not just a personal victory for me, that this will be a national victory, because if we just win and eke by victory in the presidency at 4:00 in the morning, that'll be great. But if we just do that, we won't have won big and that state won't be Iowa. [12:56:36] I want to win big because if we want to move on infrastructure, we talked about the health care changes, education, gun safety, climate change, all these issues. We actually have to win big and send Mitch McConnell packing. That's the only way we're going to do that. [12:56:58] To do that, we have to bring people with us. [12:57:01] And so I suggest we're very, very happy that we're doing better and better in this state. [12:57:06] I know I don't have the name I.D. of some of my opponents. I know that. I know that I don't have the bank account of some of my opponents. OK, just for the polite effect, people, I will not be running an ad during the Super Bowl. [12:57:19] I just I want to make that very clear in case there was any confusion about what I do have is people in a big way. [12:57:28] And we just had a poll this morning, an NBC poll out of New Hampshire that showed me at 10 percent in double digits. This is we are literally dead. [12:57:37] Two numbers there where we are literally four points away from a few of the other people that maybe you hear about more. I got the endorsement of the Quad City Times, which I'm excited about, a long endorsement along with Elizabeth. We shared the endorsement of The New York Times. I am. [12:57:59] As I point out that The New York Times has one city, but the Quad City Times has four well, really five, as you know. So. And then just last night, I got the endorsement of the biggest newspaper in New Hampshire, the Union Leader. [12:58:13] So there you go. So that is that is the path. [12:58:21] That is the path that we are on. [12:58:22] And I ask you to join me. I believe so much in my heart that this is the election where we want to put someone really different from the guy in the White House on the stage to debate him that we want to have someone that we're not saying, oh, are you richer than him? Well, then you get to be our candidate, that we want to have someone that can actually lead the ticket and bring people with her. And the reason I pick the color green for our campaign is that it is the color of Paul Wellstone, who was a political mentor to me. And we have this green bus. He had this amazing green bus. And his best friend in the U.S. Senate was Tom Harkin. [12:59:05] And the year that he died, right before what would have been his reelection, this tragic plane crash where he died with his daughter and his wife and their beloved campaign workers. That was the year that he gave made this courageous vote against the Iraq war. And he was going to win anyway. Because the state understood that he was the only Democrat running in a tough state that took that vote. It was a year that he was sick. He had told the state that he had M.S. And instead of running back and forth in the parades really fast like you used to do and talking really, really fast in his ads because he didn't have as much money as his opponents. [12:59:43] Instead of running, he could only stand on the back of his green bus and wave. And that year, I spent a good part of my time working with him because I didn't have an opponent. Sounds nice in my reelection for county attorney and I got to watch this amazing thing. And that was this. As he stood on the back of that bus and prays and waved. [13:00:03] You didn't even notice he wasn't running because there were all these people in these green shirts that ran around that bus that he had energized to be part of his campaign that you didn't even notice he wasn't running himself. So that's what I'm asking you to do for me. [13:00:21] I had never envisioned when I started in the middle of that blizzard in the Mississippi River that I wouldn't be able to be here the last two weeks before the caucuses. [13:00:30] That was not my plan. But things happen. And you have duties and you have obligations. So I'm going to ask you to run for me to do what you can to sign those commit to caucus cards. Mike, there's Jamie and all of our crew over there. [13:00:48] We'd love to get those cards we got. My favorite story along these lines of Iowans waiting to make decisions with the former mayor of Cedar Rapids, Kay, who told me after a long breakfast. [13:00:59] Well, she said, I got great news for you. And I said, what's that? She said, I'm 78 percent with you. [13:01:06] So I am asking you, she got to 100 percent. And so can you. [13:01:12] So I am asking you to help me in this critical 10 days. [13:01:18] We have this amazing organization. We always defy expectations. No one thought I was going to beat all these people and be one of five people in the lead in Iowa a year ago. [13:01:30] Let me tell you, they did not think that. But I am and we are in this to the end. [13:01:35] So join our team, sign up and help me. Thank you. Thank you, water. Thank you. In the shop, there's a Chinatown in the. [13:01:55] Linda Chavez, a example. Then she gets into this fight. Welcome and good questions. [13:02:03] I know we wanted a little musical break. That was that was really good when I do some questions here fast so we can do some photos. [13:02:10] Jane from Cedar Falls. Jane, where are you? You somewhere you some are right back there. You want to ask your question or. [13:02:20] Guns. Thank you. OK. So I go way back with this issue because when I was county attorney, I dealt with it all the time. Street violence, domestic homicides. [13:02:31] And back then I actually supported the assault weapon ban and the reauthorization of that bill. [13:02:37] I ran I did a lot on actually enforcing the laws, which is also important for felons in possession of guns and things like that. And then I got to the Senate. I thought, OK, well, we need to do some sensible things here, like universal background checks. And I was stunned at what was going on. [13:02:56] And I look at this in a different way because I'm from a hunting state, a different way than some people on the debate stage. Actually, I'm from a hunting state like Iowa. So I look at these proposals and I say, do they hurt my Uncle Dick in the deer stand? They do not hurt my Uncle Dick in the deer stand. And so then I start stepping back and say, how did we get to this place? And so much of it is the NRA, but a lot of it is Donald Trump and a lot of it is Mitch McConnell, because right now the public is with that's the majority. [13:03:28] If you look back a few months ago, I don't know where it is now, but the majority of Trump voters wanted universal background checks. The majority of hunters few months ago wanted universal background checks. And when Sandy Hook happened and those kids were killed in that school. Those parents came to Washington to try to get universal background checks, even though when a kill wouldn't have saved their babies, they knew it was the best thing to do because it reduces suicides, it reduces domestic homicides. [13:04:00] And they were in my office the day of the vote. And I just talked to Senator Manchin, who is an a rated NRA senator, but he decided it was important to do something on it with center. To me, the two of them had joined forces and I had to tell those families that we didn't have the votes, that they had the courage to come to Washington. But we didn't have the votes in the U.S. Senate. And I remember this mom telling me the story about how her child was autistic and she kissed him goodbye that day. [13:04:28] And he pointed to the picture of his school aide that he loved on the refrigerator. And as she a few hours was waiting in that fire station and all the kids that come in. And pretty soon the parents sitting there knew that they were never gonna see their babies again. She said she's sobbing and she has this momentary thought of that school late because she knew that she would never leave his side. And when they found them both shot through. [13:04:53] That woman had her arms around that little boy. That's courage. And we didn't have the courage to get it done. So since that time, there has been change. Moms Demand Action has done an incredible job of taking this on to every corner of the country. [13:05:10] The kids, after Parkland became icons, people all over the country, kids started watching them and thinking and asking their dads actually in their grandpas, wait a minute, why can't before that? What happens next is there's an election in 2018 in Congress and a bunch of people win who are for things like magazine limitations and background checks and doing something about the Charleston loophole. And my bill, which is sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk because it passed the House to close the boyfriend loophole, to say that domestic abusers, convicted domestic abusers can't get AK 47. [13:05:47] Those bills are sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk. So if we want to get this done, and I sat across from Donald Trump at the White House because of my leadership on these issues, I was invited there and I sat across from him with a bunch of like 15 lawmakers. And it's a video worth looking at because I counted and I had a little piece of paper and I asked about the universal background checks and the boyfriend loophole. Bill and I watched nine times, nine times he said he wanted to get universal background checks done. [13:06:16] And I wrote it down on a piece of paper, a little hash marks that I still had. Next day meets with the NRA and he fold as your president, I will not fold and we'll get the. [13:06:37] Is this maybe you, Janelle? Is that you at the insulin shirt? [13:06:41] Can you believe it that I picked your question out? It wasn't like great or anything. [13:06:47] Let's see. I know you spoke about the insulin crisis and I've worked with Nicole Smith Holt. That's right. In Minnesota. And you're from. Where are you from? Bernard, Iowa. Can you share your ideas on lowering insulin prices? [13:07:02] So actually, Nicole is this incredible woman. Her son was a restaurant owner. A restaurant? No, a restaurant manager, a young guy in the Twin Cities in Bloomington. And he was on his parents health insurance and then he aged off. And then he had health insurance. But he wasn't able to pay the price of insulin because it's gone up so much. He was a diabetic and he needed that insulin. So like so many people that I've seen, this incredibly ridiculous increase in insulin prices, a drug that has saved lives and been around. For how long? For. Almost hundred years I maybe should have her answer this honestly. She's ready to go. And so Nicole son started rationing his insulin and within literally a few weeks of him starting doing it. [13:07:52] He died. He had a job. He was a love or just the best kid. And she lost him. [13:08:00] So she has devoted her life to taking on this issue and the general issue of prescription drugs. And I actually brought her to the State of the Union. So she you know, this story, she looked down at Donald Trump. She's sitting right up there. And again, he's mentioned this. He was on Fox News once and he said he would bring prescription drug prices down so low that it would make your head spin. Yeah. Well, it's made people's heads spin because they go up. So I outlined my plan on that with the. And I'd add one more thing of the plan on prescription drugs in general. [13:08:31] All of this will help the Medicare negotiation less expensive drugs. I'd add to it a cap on prices tied to the international level, which would be very helpful with insulin. [13:08:42] And that would that bill that's been introduced in the House of Representatives would save ready for this 350 billion dollars for taxpayers. [13:08:51] That's not even counting consumers in 10 years by just tying it to the international numbers when it comes to drugs. [13:09:00] And then there are some specific insulin proposals as well that states are adapting that we could also bring out on the national level. So thank you for your advocacy. Thank you. [13:09:17] And by the way, the last thing we want to do is repeal the Affordable Care Act because then people with preexisting conditions. Which is exactly what Donald Trump is trying to do. People with win that lawsuit in Texas, people with preexisting conditions would be kicked off their health insurance. [13:09:33] Let's see. This is from Terry Wright from Cedar Falls. [13:09:40] What policies will you implement as president to return good paying manufacturing jobs to the US? I think a lot of that. I first of all, as you can tell from my heart. Given my grandpa and given my family, my sister, who actually didn't graduate from high school and Iowa saved her. She moved down here and worked in manufacturing. And then after a while, she got enough courage to get her GTD. And from there, she went to a two year community college in the state of Iowa. And from there, she got her degree in accounting and has been gainfully employed ever since. [13:10:16] And that was a story. [13:10:20] Having a job for her at that moment, but it is also a story for so many people about their careers and the way I look at this, when you hold something that's made in America in your hand, you're holding a quality product. You're holding quality. You're holding a quality for workers and you are holding the hopes and dreams of the people of this country. So that means incentives for manufacturing to be in America, which is what we want. And there's incredible stories of manufacturing in America. It means a trade policy that makes sense. And you look at what he has done taking on China. [13:10:55] Yeah. I just told you the story about steel dumping and what we did. I bought Obama's chief of staff up to the Iron Range to make the point so he could see directly why we had to enforce the trade laws. So that is about trade enforcement and actually the people putting the people in place. When we were working on that, I actually went and met in the bowels of the Commerce Department with everyone that worked on trade enforcement. They had never had a senator come to meet with them before. [13:11:20] And I went to thank them for actually all these complex cases they had brought on countercyclical tariffs and all these things. And I brought them petite. So from Iron Range that this thing my grandma used to make the Slovenian treat and they were in shock because we have to remember, it's not just the laws on the books. It's also are you going to put your resources and are you going to put your presidency behind enforcing these trade laws in a big way? Because there there's a lot of that which will keep the jobs in America. [13:11:53] The other piece of it is when you do trade agreements and we just had the recent USMC. Some people liked it. Some people didn't like it. I, on balance, decided to support it. I wouldn't have had in the beginning because it didn't have the labor inspections and some of the things that I thought were necessary in the agreement. Those got added. It was supported by Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL CIO, and Sherrod Brown, who I admire very much. But it's a model going forward. It's not enough, but it's a model going forward that we put these kind of labor standards in a trade agreement. What does that allow us to do, take on China in a bigger way? [13:12:30] Because we have a bigger trading block and then we work on those things because they have been long subsidizing industries and stealing intellectual property and the like. But my approach again is not the meat cleaver or tweet cleaver approach. When you look at what happened with John Deere, you know, this has effects the way he does his trade policy with China. He announces he's going to do tariffs on three hundred billion dollars and then he changes it to having it in a week. [13:12:58] And the Chinese have a long term view of these things. And one of the things about trade policy is you keep your promises, including promises here and you keep your threat. And he has done either of them. So I think that is a lot to do with how we handled this with manufacturing. Then the other piece of it is just everything we can do to keep strong labor laws in place to make it easier for people to organize. We have to remember when you look at the numbers, unions make our economy stronger, they make more people make more money and be a part of this economy. And it makes our manufacturing stronger. [13:13:35] And all this stuff I'm talking about with those one and two year degrees and going into manufacturing, a lot of it has to do with union training and safety and what we need. So I'm actually really excited to work on this manufacturing issue just because I see that we we're just at the tip of the iceberg for what we could be doing to encourage more manufacturing jobs in the US. [13:14:04] Yeah, I think, yeah, this will be the last one, I think I answered. Carol from Hudson and its position on health care. I think we did that and private insurance. And yes, I would. One of the things that we've had these big debates about Medicare for all. [13:14:23] And I actually think that debate is worthy of having. But at some point we have to look at that bill. And on page eight of that bill, it says that one hundred forty nine million Americans would be kicked off their current health insurance. [13:14:39] And I do not think that's the right way to go. [13:14:42] I think we are much better off doing the nonprofit public option, which you could do with Medicare or Medicaid. That that would create that kind of competition that would be consistent with a lot of the policies that we have in place for many of our our workers. And that we also make sure that we have a strong V.A. system, which we haven't really talked about, and that we have the workers to work in the health care field, which, by the way, includes immigration reform, because immigrants don't immigrants. [13:15:16] Immigrants don't diminish America. [13:15:18] They are America. So I think what we're going to do now after you sign those commit to caucus cards. [13:15:24] Just kidding. We're gonna do some photos up here and we will go from there. We have some of our policy staff here. If you write Noah. No one can answer any question in the world. Is that correct? Okay. And Rosa Rose is here somewhere. Where is she? Right over here, the head of our policy team. So you can also talk to them about any questions you have. Thank you, everybody. [13:15:47] We need your help. Let's on with this. Thank you.

FTG OF DAILY WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY IN THE WH BRIEFING ROOM Friday, July 12, 2013 TRANSCRIPT: White House Briefing with Press Secretary Jay Carney SLUG: 1245 WH BREIF STIX RS37 73 AR: 16X9 DISC#: 933 NYRS: 5114 13:07:28 JAY CARNEY: The Associated Press, you start us off. I have no announcements. Welcome. Q: Thank you, Jay. Edward Snowden has said he would like to have a trial in Russia, that he's willing to agree to their demand that he not continue to release information to them. What is your message today to Russia about what the implications of granting that to him would be for their relations with the United States? 13:07:58 MR. CARNEY: Our position on Mr. Snowden and his -- the felony charges against him and our belief that he ought to be returned to the United States to face those felony charges is as it was. And we have communicated it to a variety of countries, including Russia. And so it's no different than it was. And I would simply say that providing a propaganda platform for Mr. Snowden runs counter to the Russian government's previous declarations of Russia's neutrality and that they have -- and that they have no control over his presence in the airport. It's also incompatible with Russian assurances that they do not want Mr. Snowden to further damage U.S. interests. But having said that, you know, our position also remains that we don't believe this should and we don't want it to do harm to our important relationship with Russia, and we continue to discuss with Russia our strongly-held view that there is an absolute legal justification for him to be expelled, for him to be returned to the United States to face the charges that have been brought against him for the unauthorized leaking of classified information. Q: Can you tell us a little bit about the president's discussion today with the attorney general? And has he accepted Eric Holder's report on media relations and investigations? 13:09:22 MR. CARNEY: The president did meet with the attorney general today in the Oval, and the attorney general did discuss with him and present to him that report. I believe the Department of Justice will be releasing that report this afternoon, but I'd refer you to them. Q: So if they're releasing it this afternoon, that indicates that the president did accept it as it was presented? 13:09:40 MR. CARNEY: Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment to make. We won't have any statement or comment on it before it's released, but I believe the Department of Justice is releasing it today. Q: And on Secretary Napolitano's departure -- do you have any information for us on who her replacements might be or any timeline for that decision? 13:09:58 MR. CARNEY: I have no names to float, if you will. I would say that the president greatly appreciates Secretary Napolitano's, you know, four-plus years of service. And if you think about it, those, you know, 4 1/2 years account for almost half the existence of the Department of Homeland Security. And she's done a remarkable job, and on her watch, there have been, you know, just numerous issues that have required her expert attention, from the H1N1 virus to the recent bombings in Boston to Hurricane Sandy to the devastating tornadoes in Joplin and Tuscaloosa and elsewhere, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, floods that we've seen in this country. And her department, with her leadership, has functioned at a very high level. And it's also the case that with Secretary Napolitano at the helm, we have greatly enhanced our border security, including the doubling of Border Patrol agents. And that is in due -- due in some measure to her leadership. And the president appreciates that and wishes her well. On the timeline for her replacement, I believe it's been put out that she's -- remains in her position until early September. And the president will be very deliberate about looking at potential successors for that very important position, but I have no announcements to make on it. Q: Jay, are you saying there'd be no repercussions to U.S.- Russian relations if he's granted asylum there? 13:11:39 MR. CARNEY: I think that I'm not going to speculate about something that hasn't happened. What I would say is that we don't believe this issue should do harm to the relations between Russia and the United States, and we are working with the Russians and have made clear to the Russians our views about the fact that Mr. Snowden has been charged with very serious crimes and that he should be returned to the United States, where he will be granted full due process and every right available to him as a United States citizen facing our justice system under the Constitution. And you know, we'll continue to have those conversations, and we've made very clear our views. Q: Has -- have the Russians communicated anything to you recently about him? 13:12:27 MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't have any specific conversations to read out, except that obviously, we are in conversation with Russian officials, as we are with other officials from other nations when we've talked about issues of where -- what nations might be transit points or potentials destinations for Mr. Snowden, were he to leave the transit lounge of the Sheremetyevo Airport. But the -- you know, the conversation and the -- the conversations that have been held reflect everything that I'm telling you now, in terms of our views on this matter. Q: And Snowden wrote in an open letter that the U.S. government is engaged in an unlawful campaign to deny him his right to seek asylum. Is that how you see it? 13:13:12 Mr. CARNEY: (Chuckles.) No, it is not. He has been charged under the law with three felonies, very serious crimes, and every aspect of the United States system of justice is available to him upon his return to the U.S. to face those charges. And that's how our system works. We have communicated with nations around the world our view that Mr. Snowden should be returned to the United States, because of the charges filed against him and because -- which is normal practice when you've been charged with felonies and the revocation of his passport, because he did not have travel papers or a valid passport, that he ought to be returned to the United States and where he will face justice in a -- in a system that affords defendants all the rights that every American citizen enjoys. Yes, Jim. Q: How does the next homeland security secretary nominee not get tangled up in the politics over immigration reform and this debate that's happening up on the Hill? And for that matter, this whole mess that started yesterday with the nuclear option between Senate Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell? This seems like it could be a complicated mess. 13:14:50 MR. CARNEY: I see as a -- as a potential nominee -- well, let me -- let me address the first question related to immigration. As I noted earlier, Secretary Napolitano has done a remarkably effective job in fulfilling one of the major responsibilities that that position requires when it comes to overseeing the border security function of our federal government -- the CBP and overall enforcement. And we've seen -- again, as I've talked all week about -- we've seen all the metrics by which you can measure effective enforcement. And changes in enforcement demonstrate that there have -- there have been great improvements. And that is one -- another measure of that is the fact that the number of border security agents has increased so dramatically in the last five years. I don't expect that the transition that will take place at the department will -- when it comes to enforcing immigration laws will be entangled in the politics over legislation that has broad bipartisan support and support from law enforcement communities when it comes to enforcement issues and from faith communities when it comes to the morality of immigration reform and business communities when it comes to the economy and business benefits of immigration reform, so we don't expect that to be an issue. On the other matter, look, we have made clear that the president is frustrated with the obstructionism that we've seen from Republicans when it comes to the confirmation process. He -- not only has he made it clear, he included that -- sections about it in two State of the Union addresses, including in 2012. So -- and so we share the frustration that Senator Reid has talked about. And you know, we have highly qualified executive branch nominees up on the Hill -- their nominations up on the Hill today, who continue to be obstructed, who have been held up for over a hundred days. And you know, that's not how the system should work. So when it comes to next steps, I -- we defer to Senator Reid. We are very appreciative for all he has done, all he is doing and will do to ensure that the president's qualified nominees are confirmed. Q: Does the president believe that the majority leader should go through with the nuclear option? Because when Senator -- when Senator Obama was over there in the Senate, he once said, when roles were reversed and the majority was threatening to use that option at one time, he said, "I fear that the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything, and that is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind." So given his previous statement in this, that he would agree with Senator McConnell, if that's right. 13:17:36 MR. CARNEY: I think he would agree with this statement from Senator McConnell, quote: "I think the president is entitled to an up-or-down, that is, simple majority vote on nominations, both to his Cabinet and to the executive branch and also to the judiciary." That's Senator McConnell in the spring, 2005. The fact is, citing then-Senator Obama's comments, is that the situation has gotten exponentially worse since Republicans gained -- I mean, since -- in the last several years, under Senator McConnell's leadership of the Republican minority, the obstructionism has doubled. The number of days that nominees have to wait, the -- you know, the kinds of obstacles and gridlock created by this refusal to take up and consider and confirm highly-qualified nominees. I (mean ?), look at Gina McCarthy -- there is no question about her qualifications. She is, by any measure, enormously qualified for the position to which she has been nominated. In fact, it's a position very similar to the one she held in the state of Massachusetts for then-governor Mitt Romney -- more than 100 days her nomination has been pending for a floor vote. Richard Cordray -- here's somebody with support from Republicans and Democrats -- someone who has Republican state attorneys-general who support him, someone who -- about whom not a single Republican senator has had a bad thing to say when it comes to his qualifications for the job to run this very important agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And he's done an amazing job as he's held that position and waited for actual confirmation by the Senate. It's been two years. But why has it been blocked? Because Republicans in the Senate simply don't like the fact that the CFBP's existence is the law of the land. They lost that battle. The president insisted that the CFBP be created and that it had strong powers to protect consumers when it come to their rights -- using credit cards, student loans and mortgages, and, you know, there are just enormous -- there's an enormous number of examples that demonstrate how effective, already, that bureau has been in protecting consumer rights. Republicans don't like that -- Q: (Off mic) -- urging the senator, Senator Reid, to be cautious here? Because, I mean, exercising that option would potentially fundamentally change the nature of the Senate. MR. CARNEY: We believe -- look - Q: It would -- people say it would become essentially like the House. I mean, this is sort of playing with fire, is it not? 13:20:20 MR. CARNEY: The president said in 2012 in the State of the Union address -- "Some of what's broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything, even routine business, passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a" -- simple -- "rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple 'up or down' vote within 90 days." Unfortunately that recommendation has not been taken up by Republican leadership in the Senate. And contained within that -- those remarks that the president made in the well of the House at a State of the Union address was an acknowledgement that this is a problem that has existed when -- and has been exacerbated in some ways by both parties, but there is no question that it has gotten -- the world today is quite different than it was in 2005 when it comes to this issue in the Senate and the way that it's been run and the obstructionism that we've seen from Republican leaders in the Senate and Republican members in the Senate. It is not the same, and it is a real problem. When it comes to Senator Reid, you know, we defer to him on Senate procedure, but we appreciate the support he's given and will give to the confirmation of the president's qualified nominees. Susan, welcome. 13:21:41 Q: Thank you. Thank you. Back to Snowden just for a moment. You said that the administration is working with the Russians. What does that mean? What does that look like? Is the president directly involved in these conversations? Is the vice president? 13:21:52 MR. CARNEY: We've had conversations with Russian officials at a variety of high levels. And the president actually does have a call scheduled with President Putin for later today. That is a call that has been on the books for several days. So he will have that conversation. Q: Will you read it out? MR. CARNEY: I'm sure we'll have something for you on it. The - Q: You could put it on the mult, so save you a lot of readout time. (Laughter.) MR. CARNEY: You think that's a good idea? Q: I do. MR. CARNEY: Yeah. (Laughter.) I expect you do. But, Susan, the point is that we've made clear, both in public and in our conversations at a variety of levels, including through law enforcement channels, which is the normal mechanism through which something like this would be resolved, that, you know, Mr. Snowden is wanted on three felony charges. We have a history of effective law enforcement cooperation with Russia, with the Russian government, including as -- very recently with -- in the wake of the bombings in Boston at the Boston Marathon. And that through those channels and through the normal procedures we believe Mr. Snowden ought to be expelled from Russia and to make his way home to the United States where, as a U.S. citizen, he's afforded all the considerable rights that defendants are afforded when they are charged with crimes. And he has been charged with three felonies and with very serious crimes in the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive, classified information. Q: There's an important summit later this summer. What impact would this have -- their decision -- on whether the president goes to that summit? 13:23:38 MR. CARNEY: Well, the president has and plans to -- has said and plans to has said and plans to travel to Russia for the G-20 summit in September. And I certainly don't have any updates on his travel schedule beyond what we've said already. Wendell. Q: Does the president accept the entire report from Secretary Holder? Did he ask any changes? Did he - 13:24:02 MR. CARNEY: We'll have a statement or some comment on it. The report hasn't been released, so I'm not going to comment on it at this time. I shouldn't be -- (inaudible). The report hasn't been released. So when it is released, we'll have something to say about it. Q: You cannot say whether MR. CARNEY: The president - Q: -- Mr. Obama objected to any parts of it all at all? 13:24:14 MR. CARNEY: No. The president accepted the report, but I think we'll have something to say about it later, once it's been released. I don't want to have a discussion about a report that none of you have seen. I want to be helpful and wait to have that discussion after you've seen it. (Cross talk.) Q: (Inaudible) -- reservations? I mean, you know - MR. CARNEY: No. Q: Oh, OK. MR. CARNEY: Yes, he accepted the report. That's all you got for me? Bill. Q: About it. MR. CARNEY: Excellent. Q: It's Friday. (Laughter.) MR. CARNEY: I like that. Madame Welker. Q: I want to ask you about Afghanistan. Earlier this week you said that a decision about post-2014 troop levels was not imminent. Can you be more specific? Does the president want to make a decision by a specific time, or is there a timeline? 13:25:05 MR. CARNEY: I really can't be more specific, because it's just not imminent. I think that we're talking about troop levels beyond the end of 2014, which is 18 months from now. So -- and we are in the process of further drawing down the troops that are -- that are in Afghanistan, roughly 60,000, currently, and we will be continually drawing those down as we hand over more and more responsibility for security to Afghan forces. The president will be discussing with his national security team the issue of a potential residual force post-2014, but as I said earlier in the week, that -- you know, the range of options depends on a number of things, and the range is full, from -- I mean, goes to zero, as we've discussed, as a possible option, because the issue isn't number; it's the fulfillment of our policy objectives. And the two policy objectives we have when it comes to a post-2014 security relationship have to do with continuing to counter the remnants of al-Qaida and to continue to train and equip -- train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces. And we will -- the president will, with his team, examine our options in how we fulfill those policy objectives, working, of course, with the Afghan government in those discussions. And we have, you know, discussions going with the Afghans about a bilateral security agreement, we have a very important strategic partnership agreement that we continue to implement with them that has to do with our -- what will be, regardless, a very substantial commitment to Afghanistan and Afghanistan's future, including a strong civilian component. Q: Jay, on Thursday, a number of lawmakers, including Robert Menendez, made the argument that the president should make a decision soon to reassure Afghans that the United States would continue to support them. Does that add to the urgency? Is there a sense of urgency? And does he agree with that assessment? 13:27:13 MR. CARNEY: There is not -- there is -- the president is going to be very deliberate about this, as he has been, when it comes to assessing our options and our policy posture, with regards to Afghanistan. We have, when it comes to assurances, 60,000, approximately, men and women in uniform in Afghanistan today fighting for and bleeding for the fulfillment of a policy that is aimed at ridding that region of al-Qaida and preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for al-Qaida or al-Qaida-like extremist organizations in the future. Q: But I think the argument that lawmakers are making is that the uncertainty - MR. CARNEY: It's 18 months from now. I think that it is entirely proper, and I think the American people would expect that we would be very deliberate about these decisions as we continue to draw down troops in keeping with the president's promise and his policy objectives, and when the president has an announcement to make, he'll make it, but it is not imminent. Q: Has President Karzai given any indication that he's getting closer to resuming peace negotiations? 13:28:16 MR. CARNEY: I don't speak for the Afghan government, but I, yeah, I haven't -- I haven't heard any updates on that. Q: And has President Obama been working actively to try to resume those negotiations? 13:28:28 MR. CARNEY: We have an excellent team that works on these issues and continues to work on them. Q: But is the president working on it, specifically? 13:28:35 MR. CARNEY: I'm not sure what that means. As you know, you know, we've talked about this issue several times this week. The president has always focused on and concerned about our troops in harm's way in Afghanistan and the fulfillment of his policy in the region. But, you know, that's a -- something he thinks about and deals with every day. When it comes to our negotiations with Afghanistan, we have -- and the Afghan government, we have very able personnel in Kabul, we have very able personnel in the Pentagon and at the Department of State who engage in those discussions regularly. Mark. Q: Jay, can you elaborate beyond what was in the read-out yesterday about what President Obama told Chinese officials about the failure of Hong Kong to extradite Ed Snowden? 13:29:21 MR. CARNEY: I can tell you that we've been very clear about our disappointment with the way that that situation was handled. I think Deputy Secretary Burns raised this and discussed this during the SE&D, I think, yesterday or earlier today. I think he said yesterday, quote -- this is a paraphrase, rather: We were very disappointed with how the authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong handled the Snowden case, which undermined our effort to build the trust needed to manage difficult issues. At the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue this week we made clear that China's handling of this case was not consistent with the spirit of Sunnylands or with the type of relationship, the new model, that we both seek to build. The president also expressed his disappointment and concern with China's handling of the Snowden case in this meeting yesterday with the S&ED co-chairs. Q: Did China respond in any way? 13:30:25 MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to the Chinese for that. I think it's very -- we've been very clear and candid about our views on this. We've also been very clear and candid, as I think the SE&D -- S&ED reflects, that we have a broad and important relationship with China and we have had -- that these conversations, this dialogue was very useful and productive on many fronts. But that fact does not take -- or does not diminish our concern about the way the Snowden circumstance was handled. Yes, in the back. Q: Thank you. Going back to the Afghanistan question, on the new option, why is this being considered -- (inaudible)? And isn't this opposing or contradictive to what the president has been saying of committing to Afghanistan people that they have -- U.S. would have an enduring commitment to Afghanistan? 13:31:16 MR. CARNEY: We do have an enduring commitment to Afghanistan. And whether we have a residual force there or not, that commitment will continue. And the commitment will continue through our Strategic Partnership Agreement, it will continue through a security relationship which will involve our efforts to continue to go after the remnants of al-Qaida in the region and to help train and equip the Afghan security forces. The question of whether or not there's a residual U.S. troop presence is something we have to negotiate with the Afghan government. We're not going to make a promise about a residual force if we haven't negotiated the circumstances of that with Afghanistan. So it has to be the case, as we've said as long back as -- as far back as January, that one option is no troops. I'm not saying that's the preferred option; I'm just saying to suggest otherwise would be to make assumptions about negotiations that have not reached a conclusion. Q: Is it the last option that the U.S. would have for Afghanistan? MR. CARNEY: I'm sorry; what is that? Q: Is the (zero ?) option the last option, the last - 13:32:20 MR. CARNEY: I'm not going to express preference because the purpose here is not to check a box and fulfill a quota in terms of the numbers, and these are -- these are U.S. men and women in uniform who would be in a difficult assignment in harm's way, as they are today. And the choices we make about that have -- are made very carefully and have to do with very specific policy objectives. And when it comes to a residual force in a -- in a country like Afghanistan, that is something that would have to be negotiated with the Afghan government; it is not something that we would presuppose until it's decided. April. And then Bill. Q: (Off mic) -- I want to go to the Trayvon Martin case. The jury will be read the instructions after lunch today. Is there any concern from the White House about what could happen after the jury makes its decision, particularly as there was a lot of news right after the -- (inaudible) -- was racially charged -- is there any concern from the White House about reaction to a verdict? 13:33:34 MR. CARNEY: Well, April, I would simply say that this is an ongoing trial. You just mentioned, and I'm not aware of the timeline exactly, but you just said that the jury's going to be read instructions, and, you know, to suggest our views on -- or anyone's views here, whether it's the president's or anyone else's views here on an ongoing trial that's about to go to jury I think would be a mistake, and potential outcomes and what might happen in a outcome. This is, you know, a jury in Florida in the United States that's fulfilling its function -- (inaudible) -- a trial and a jury, and we'll obviously, you know, be made aware of the results of that when they happen. But I wouldn't want to characterize our views about it or the president's views about it because it's an ongoing trial. Q: (Off mic) -- such a - MR. CARNEY: I, no, I understand that it was a -- obviously it got a lot of attention at the time and there were a number of issues around it and the president commented on it. But we're in a trial phase and, apparently soon, a jury phase. And at this time, I just don't have any further comment. Q: And, lastly, I'm going to go back to what I asked you yesterday on the Justice Department. They were investigating - 13:34:50 MR. CARNEY: I just don't -- again, what -- whether the Justice Department is investigating other matters is something that the Justice Department would answer. I just -- I don't have an answer to that. Q: Well, let me ask you this. Would the -- would the attorney general ever at any point -- even at the time when the president even commented on it -- would the attorney general have made the president aware of what their plans are in this or is that something that they can do by themselves? 13:35:12 MR. CARNEY: Well, it's certainly something they can do by themselves, but I'm commenting on something I just don't -- I don't know about, so I would refer you to Justice. Bill, and then (Lisa ?). Q: Jay, I have a couple things. First, on food stamps. Yesterday, as you know, the House of Representatives passed a bill which zeroed out the SNAP, or food stamp program. Would the president sign a farm bill without some funding -- continued funding in there for food stamps which has been there since 1973? 13:35:41 MR. CARNEY: We put out a statement of administration policy on this specific bill. Deeply, deeply flawed bill. And that said: "The administration strongly opposes H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013." And it is -- just reading further: "It's apparent that the bill does not contain sufficient commodity and crop insurance reforms and does not invest in renewable energy." There's a -- I mean, I can -- the bill also fails to reauthorize nutrition programs, which goes to what your question is about, which benefit millions of Americans in rural, suburban and urban areas alike. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a cornerstone of our nation's food assistance safety net and should not be left behind as the rest of the farm bill advances. If the president were presented with this bill, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. That's a standard form of -- statement of administration policy. For decades Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to pass real comprehensive farm bills. The Senate continued that tradition this year. And unfortunately, House Republicans decided instead to pursue an exercise in partisanship. They passed a bill that lacks real commodity and crop insurance reforms, does not invest in job creation in rural America and fails to reauthorize, as I said, nutrition programs which benefit millions of Americans. And for that reason, we oppose it. And I mean, I think there's been some pretty interesting comment on the House action, including by conservatives, and pretty damning comment. It is, I think, fairly remarkable. I mean, you know, I know that these are two different issues, but the Congress has before it, and the House in particular, a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would reduce the deficit, according to the CBO, by $850 billion, would help our economy grow, would help our labor force become more productive, would introduce into our business stream, you know, new entrepreneurs with job- creating ideas, would further secure our border significantly -- huge upside, an upside with a lot of conservative goals achieved within -- you know, within this comprehensive immigration bill, including deficit reduction. And then at the same time, they pass a farm bill that cuts out this nutrition assistance program to millions of Americans in the name of deficit reduction, far less significant deficit reduction. It smacks a little bit of hypocrisy to me, but not just me. Q: And secondly, quickly, the other side of the Snowden issue is that there have been more and more comments this week from the members of Congress that the intelligence community, starting with Director Clapper, either lied to Congress or misrepresented what the NSA program is all about. Is there any attempt on -- will there be on the part of the administration to explain, OK, exactly here's what we're doing, and here's why we need to do this? 13:38:42 MR. CARNEY: First of all, Director Clapper has addressed this specific instance, and I refer you to this comments. Director Clapper is doing - Q: (Off mic.) MR. CARNEY: Well, here are the facts. Congress has been briefed in numerous venues on these programs, including public testimony, paper briefings and classified sessions. I have seen reports of 22 briefings on the 702 program -- 22 briefings -- and nearly as many on the 215 program. But if you don't believe me, hear what Leader Reid and Senator Chambliss and Senator Feinstein and Congressman Rogers and Congressman King have said about this. They have all said that members were fully briefed on these programs. And there's not that many things that those particular members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, agree on, but this is one of them. They have been briefed on these programs. And I think a lot of -- you know, you -- Representative Mike Rogers: "The committee has been extensively briefed on these efforts over a regular basis as a part of our ongoing oversight responsibility over the 16 elements of the intelligence community and the national intelligence program. The collection efforts under the business record provision in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are legal, court-approved and subject to an extensive oversight regime." That's a Republican chairman in the House. So we are very much interested in -- and the president is very interested in, as he has said -- in a dialogue about these issues and a debate about these issues and in providing as much information as we can about these programs, mindful of the very sensitive nature, by definition, of intelligence programs that are designed to, as their main goal, thwart potential terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies. But it is simply not the case that Congress and the relevant committees and individual members have not been informed about these programs. Q: Jay, you know, there are senators -- Senator Murkley, Senator Udall, Senator Whitehouse -- others -- (inaudible) - 13:40:37 MR. CARNEY: I know that there are some members who missed briefings - Q: -- members of Congress who said that -- (inaudible) - MR. CARNEY: -- I know that there are some members who missed briefings in order to - Q: (Off mic) -- asked specific questions, and they were told misinformation -- (inaudible) -- these programs. 13:40:46 MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I think -- again, the fact is they've known about these programs, they've approved these programs, they've provided oversight of these programs. I know that some members don't show up to these briefings, I know that some members choose appearances on cable television over these briefings, but the briefings exist and have happened. Anna (sp). I'm sorry, and then Lisa, go ahead. Q: Thanks very much, Jay. Does the president think that groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are being used by Edward Snowden when they show up at a meeting with him in the secure part of the airport? Does the president have any message for groups that stand up for what they describe as human rights? 13:41:23 MR. CARNEY: I would say a couple of things about that, one, that those groups do important work, but Mr. Snowden is not a human rights activist or a dissident, he is accused of leaking classified information, has been charged with three felony counts and should be returned to the United States, where he will be accorded full due process. And on the issue of human rights organizations in Russia meeting with Mr. Snowden, I think we would urge the Russian government to afford human rights organizations the ability to do their work in Russia throughout Russia, not just at the Moscow transit lounge. Q: And on the meeting with the attorney general today. Do you know whether the attorney general brought to the president any information about whether communities in Florida have asked for Justice Department help or support? 13:42:12 MR. CARNEY: The meeting today was about the report that the Department of Justice is going to issue. I wasn't in the meeting, but I don't have any further information about it beyond that specific subject; not that I'm aware of, but I wasn't in the meeting. Again, it was about this particular subject that we discussed and the deadline for the release of this report. Q: This community asked for help with the Justice Department - 13:42:31 MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the Justice Department, as I said before. Yes, Lisa, sorry. Q: When did the president find out that Secretary Napolitano was going to be leaving? And did he make the case that she should stay through the remainder of the - 13:42:42 MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't have a specific -- I mean, obviously the secretary advised the president of her intentions, but I don't have a date for that. I can tell you the president believes Secretary Napolitano has done an excellent job and is enormously appreciative of her service. She's been doing it for four-plus years, and while all of the senior positions in a White House or administration are very demanding, hers is particularly so. And, you know, so those four and a half years represent a lot of hard work and a lot of -- the dealing with a lot of very stressful issues, no question. And Secretary Napolitano has met every challenge. So, I think he's very understanding when someone who has devoted so much of her time and focus and energy to the fulfillment of her responsibilities in that job wants to move on. And he is very appreciative of the fact that she has left a legacy as a secretary of a department for nearly half of its existence that her successor will be able to build on in a positive way; and in fact will be able to build on even more if comprehensive immigration reform is passed; if the Senate bill that we have seen emerge from the Senate is -- becomes law. Because that bill provides substantial new resources for border enforcement and substantial and important changes to our legal immigration laws that allow for, you know, enhanced legal immigration in a way that will bring enormous benefits to our economy. So the president's very appreciative for her service -- of her service. Q: And is he concerned about how having this -- having confirmation hearings for this post while the immigration debate is going on could influence the debate or anything - 13:44:33 MR. CARNEY: The president will nominate a very qualified person to fill that job and, as we've discussed in general, the president believes that qualified nominees for executive branch positions ought to be considered and confirmed expeditiously. Q: And finally, Senator Schumer recommended Ray Kelly for the job. Is he under consideration? 13:44:54 MR. CARNEY: I think it is far too premature, on the day that Secretary Napolitano announced that she's leaving in a month and a half, to speculate about successors. We will be -- the president will be very deliberate in examining his options. Chris. Q: Thanks, Jay. I have a question about Russia, actually. There remains concern among the international LGBT community about anti-gay legislation and anti-gay violence in that country. There was some calls to boycott the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi. At the end of last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill that banned the promotion of -- well, banned the promotion of homosexuality to minors. Is the president aware of these calls for a boycott? Is he open to the idea of withdrawing U.S. participation from the Winter Olympics? 13:45:37 MR. CARNEY: I'm not aware of the calls. I can tell you that the president and this administration makes clear to our allies and partners in the nations around the world our belief that LGBT rights need to be respected everywhere. But I don't have a specific -- I haven't discussed this with him. The State Department may have more information, but I don't have a specific response from him or from the White House on that particular issue. But broadly speaking,we make our concerns about these issues known to countries around the -- around the world. And I think this came up in the president's trip to Africa, and he made that clear. Q: Can you tell me if it came up in the bilateral talks between President Obama and President Putin? 13:46:15 MR. CARNEY: Not that I'm aware of, but again, we made our concerns about issues like this known to countries, where appropriate. Q: And one other topic too. I know you've answered a lot of questions about that LGBT workplace nondiscrimination executive order, but there's one more thing I wanted you to address. In an email that was leaked to me in June, last month, the treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, Andrew Tobias, told LGBT donors that he'd spoken with people in the administration about it, and everyone's for it, and it will get done, but the holdup is a process that is broader than this -- just this one very important and long-delayed agenda item. You dispute that a process is holding up this executive order? 13:46:51 MR. CARNEY: I've been very clear, in answer to your questions and questions the other day, that our firm belief is that we think that an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would enshrine into law strong, lasting and comprehensive protections against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessary. And the president and his administration will continue to work to build support for it. And we saw an important step taken this week when ENDA passed out of committee in the Senate with some Republican support. We're not there, and I'm -- will not argue with you if you say that there are obstacles that ENDA faces to becoming law. But the fact is, this was a good week in progress towards passing ENDA, and the president strongly supports the efforts undertaken by Senate Democrats and some Senate Republicans to encourage the passage of this legislation and will continue to work with the Congress to see it done. And the rest of that -- I think our position has been well-known about ENDA as the best means to pursue lasting and comprehensive protections against employment discrimination of LGBT individuals. Q: I understand that, but why do you think the DNC treasurer would say that a - 13:48:08 MR. CARNEY: I'm not familiar with an email that you said was leaked to you. I can tell you what I know here in the West Wing of the White House. Q: One last question on this. There are three Senate Democrats and -- who don't -- (inaudible) -- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor and Joe Manchin. I think it's closer to a floor vote in the Senate. On that note, you've said the president will reach out to them and try to get them onboard for -- (inaudible). 13:48:27 MR. CARNEY: I expect that we will try to encourage every member of the Senate to do the right thing and support that legislation. Voice of America. Q: A Syria question, if I may. In the discussions you're having with the committees on the Hill, Jay, what are you saying about the confidence, as we heard from Ben Rhodes last month -- confidence in the relationships with the opposition council, the military council, and the channels for aid in terms of those all being, you know, stronger. Is there stronger confidence now than there was when we all heard from Ben Rhodes where he outlined the broad parameters of the (lethal aid ?) -- (off mic)? 13:49:07 MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, as we said at the time we announced the expansion of our assistance to the supreme military council, we cannot detail every type of support that we are providing nor can we provide details about the timeline or logistics of delivery for every type of assistance. Our assistance covers a range of different purposes, and the goal of our assistance is to strengthen both the cohesion of the opposition and the effectiveness of the supreme military council in its efforts to defend the Syrian people against a repressive regime that has shown no boundaries in its willingness to kill civilians. We have, with our allies and partners, worked to strengthen the elements of the Syrian opposition that have, in our view, the best interests of the Syrian people in mind, and of the future of Syria in mind, and we continue to work with those elements. And we, as I said the other day, believe that the enhanced assistance that the president announced is very important, given the assault that Assad has been waging of late with the assistance of Hezbollah and Iran. And that's why the president believes it's necessary to move forward with that assistance. Q: (Off mic) -- made in terms of conversations up on the Hill about speeding up the process? 13:50:30 MR. CARNEY: I can simply tell you that we continue to consult closely with members of Congress. Mike. Q: Thank you, Jay. Two quick issues, the first one I want to approach the DOJ report from a slightly different angle. Setting aside whatever's in it, can you tell us about the president's commitment to make changes in this area on the executive side? I know you've talked about supporting the SHIELD law. And should we see this as the last run on the subject or part of a continuing conversation? 13:50:55 MR. CARNEY: I think the president made pretty clear his views about this issue and this matter on several occasions earlier when it was a focus of a lot of attention here in the briefing room and broadly with the press in Washington. I don't want to characterize next steps until everyone has had a chance to see the report, but the president's views about this remain what they were and I think he expressed them publicly. So I can't improve on them. Yeah. Q: And then the part about the -- would it be the end of the conversation, or just part of the conversation? 13:51:30 MR. CARNEY: I don't think the conversation ends, I think the conversation on this issue and other issues are -- I mean, I would expect them to continue. I'm not sure what you mean by the conversation to end. We're not -- you know, this is not a -- this is an effort to examine an issue in a way that reflects the president's belief about the importance of the job that reporters do and, you know, I'll let the Justice Department speak to its report and then we'll have some comment or statement afterwards. Q: On another issue, I don't want to jump to the week ahead here, but can you say a little bit about the visit of Bush 41 on Monday? 13:52:09 MR. CARNEY: I can tell you that the president and first lady will host former President George H.W. Bush and former First Lady Barbara Bush and members of the Bush family for an event to honor the winner of the 5,000th daily Point of Light Award. Points of Light, as those of you might remember from the George H.W. Bush administration, is the world's largest organization dedicated to volunteer service. It mobilizes millions of people to take action that is changing the world and recognizes individuals who are making a difference through service and volunteerism. The president very much looks forward to this event. He has very high regard for President George H.W. Bush and former First Lady Barbara Bush and the Bush family. So I know he and the first lady are looking forward to this event and always looking forward to an opportunity to be with the former president and the former first lady. Q: Thanks. Victoria. Q: On Guantanamo, on forced feeding, they just ruled that she couldn't stop it but the president could. It's Ramadan. And as you know, one of the principles of Ramadan is that it's a time of reflection and not a time for conflict. These detainees are being strapped down and having tubes inserted into them against their will. So they are being forced into a conflict situation. So -- (inaudible) - 13:53:34 MR. CARNEY: No, I appreciate -- I don't have anything new for you on our position. The president obviously does not want these individuals to die. He is understanding of the circumstances around this issue. He believes very strongly and is working to make happen that we need to close Guantanamo Bay. And as you know, he talked about this not that long ago and is taking steps to double our -- redouble our efforts to bring that about, mindful of the fact that we faced obstacles from Congress. On the specific handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, I'd refer you to the Defense Department. Q: So, if we come at it from a different way if you don't want to address the relevant issue -- the president believes in a woman's right to choose and a woman's right to policy. Does he also accept a man's right to privacy and a man's right to choose control over his own body? In other words, that if a man chooses that he doesn't wish to eat, that he has that right? 13:54:39 MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I understand the complexity of these issues, Victoria, but I don't have anything more to say beyond what I said earlier in the week, which is the president is obviously concerned about this but is also concerned that he does not want to see individual detainees die. And for more details about the handling of detainees, I would refer you to the Defense Department. Q: (Off mic) -- they have the right to choose - MR. CARNEY: Again, Victoria, I just -- I just don't have anything more for you on that. Yeah, Simon. Q: Back to Syria for a second. Can you detail any assistance that is in the hands of the rebels at this point, in the last month, and what it is beyond rhetorical - 13:55:14 MR. CARNEY: Well, I think I just said we're not going to detail all types of assistance that we provide, and that's the case. If you're asking has new assistance arrived, I would refer you to the Defense Department about the assistance programs that they oversee or the State Department about the assistance programs that they oversee. The fact is that we're working with Congress on the issue of the president's announcement of enhanced military assistance, but I don't have anything about specific shipments to provide to you. Q: Can you say yes or no -- assistances -- any kind of assistances in Syria? 13:55:46 MR. CARNEY: Well, we've been providing assistance to Syria, including the Syrian military Council, for some time now, so the answer is yes, there is and has been. Q: Thanks, Jay. MR. CARNEY: All right, last one. Yeah. Q: On July the 19th, the FISA court order that enables the collection of Verizon data expires. Does the administration plan to renew or amend that order? 13:56:06 MR. CARNEY: That's a question, I think, that's addressed to the Department of Justice, I don't have anything for you on it. But thank you. Q: (Off mic)? Q: Yes. Q: Jay, one last one? MR. CARNEY: One day -- yes, Steve, the breaking news from your - Q: The phone call -- no, no, the phone call with the -- President Putin, is it specifically about Snowden, or is it a myriad of topics? 13:56:24 MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't think that's the only topic that will be discussed. I'm sure that will be discussed. I just want to make clear that it was something that we put on the books a couple of days ago for today, and I'm sure we'll have some sort of readout about it for you. Q: And he'll ask to return Snowden? MR. CARNEY: I don't want -- I don't want to predict or put into the president's mouth words that haven't been spoken. I'm sure President Putin is aware of our views about Mr. Snowden, and I know that issue has been discussed at a variety of levels between our two governments. If I may, I will read the week ahead. As I just mentioned, on Monday, the president and the first lady will host former President George H. W. Bush, former First Lady Barbara Bush and members of the Bush family for an event to honor the winner of the 5,000th Daily Point of Light Award. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the president will attend meetings here at the White House. On Thursday, the president will participate in an ambassador credentialing ceremony here at the White House. On Friday, the president and the first lady will host the diplomatic corps reception for the foreign diplomatic corps at the White House. And that's your week ahead. Have a great weekend, everybody. Thank you. (C) 2013 Federal News Service END

Animation of LAbor Day. HD 4096x2160

Happy Labor Day poster. 4k animation

the regular white house briefing with spokesman, Robert Gibbs. Stix SLUGGED: 1330 WH BRIEF STIX RS37 85 AR: 16X9 DISC# 065 **FED TO NY ON 5114** Q: Over yesterday? 13:44:14 MR. GIBBS: What's that? Q: Over yesterday? MR. GIBBS: Over yesterday how? Q: The -- (off mic). (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I don't -- I don't -- I don't think there were any translation errors. Q: (Off mic.) MR. GIBBS: What do you mean? I mean, I think there were -- well. I'm -- if you guys have questions, I'm happy to answer them. (Laughter.) I'm sorry, I don't -- I don't -- what are you -- I didn't -- I don't -- Q: (Off mic.) Q: The translators (said ?) the same thing. MR. GIBBS: I don't -- no, no, I -- we had always planned on doing, as we said yesterday, consecutive translation for the answers. It does slow things down and makes it a little bit more cumbersome. Q: (Off mic.) Q: Yeah, but why did -- MR. GIBBS: Yeah, he -- (laughs). Well, he did give a fairly long first answer to the consecutive translations. Yes, Mr. Fowler (sp). Q: (Off mic) -- translation problem, or he avoided the human rights question? MR. GIBBS: A better question for the Chinese, Goyal. I would say this. I think the answer that he gave, be it Ben's question or to Hans asking Ben's question -- (laughter) -- Q: (Off mic.) 13:45:27 MR. GIBBS: No, no, I mean, in all seriousness, I think -- I think you would all have to strain your recent memory to find a leader from China traveling outside of his country, or in, after meeting with the president on a number of occasions on this trip, making such a frank admission of the improvement that needed to happen in the area of human rights in the country of China. The process of translation was not -- was not the news yesterday. The news was just that, that President Hu realizes that -- and told the world that China has to do better. 1stadd We will certainly -- while we appreciate those words, the United States -- the United States will watch the actions of -- we'll watch the actions of the Chinese government to make sure that they meet the words that were spoken in the White House yesterday. Q: Robert? MR. GIBBS: Dan. Q: Robert, I have a few questions and then maybe on -- a follow- up. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: (Laughs.) You've been waiting to use that for a good part of the -- (laughter) -- that's the -- Q: On the -- MR. GIBBS: If I ignore it, Hans will just come right in behind, so. Q: On the staff changes related to the reelection campaign. MR. GIBBS: Yeah. Q: A couple points on that. Can we say now or can you say from the podium that the president is officially running for reelection? 13:47:02 MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that will -- I think it is likely that that's going to happen, obviously. I will say this. I think, as the article says, the president's likely to file papers in the future that would -- that would officially make him a candidate. But I think it's safe to say, Ben, that the president -- we've started and we've made some progress on getting our economy back -- back in order, and I think the president wants to continue to do that. Q: Will it be, at the -- (inaudible) -- filing, some sort of event, do you anticipate? MR. GIBBS: I don't know that the campaign is that far down the road in the planning on that. Q: Patrick Gaspart going to DNC, so who will be the main political voice here? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think as the article -- again, as the article says, that the political office closes here. I think that's a matter of duplication and efficiency that makes a lot of sense, to house that operation over at the -- at the Democratic National Committee. Bottom of Form Q: I also wanted to ask, as the State of the Union comes up pretty quickly here, if you could give us some sense of where that speech is. But maybe more importantly, assuming you have some sense of the broad themes of where he's heading, can you tell us about that? 13:48:16 MR. GIBBS: Well, I think broadly what I would say about the State of the Union is obviously this is a speech that will center around, and the great majority of the speech will be, on the steps that the president believes our country has to take to continue that economic recovery -- steps that we need to take in the short term that relate to jobs, and steps that we need to take in the medium and the long term to put our fiscal house in order, and to increase our competitiveness and our innovation that allows us to create the jobs of tomorrow. I think you've heard the president -- I think you've heard the president talk about certainly the notions of competitiveness and innovation a lot recently. He's -- he on a number of occasions has spoken about it in speeches. One that comes to mind is in December in North Carolina. I think many of those -- many of the themes that you heard him -- in that and other speeches on the economy you'll hear again next Tuesday. Bottom of Form Q: Thanks. MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Q: Robert, first off, on foreign policy, any reaction to the news that South Korea has agreed to -- (off mic) -- North Koreans -- (off mic)? 13:49:50 MR. GIBBS: Look, obviously, I think that is -- that is an important step forward. I think -- I think some of that comes as a result of yesterday's meeting here, that for the first time there was an acknowledgement by the Chinese about the North Koreans' enrichment program. I think following that, the Republic of Korea agreeing to enter talks with the North Koreans -- clearly, conditions were created yesterday that showed the Republic of Korea that China and the United States were aligned in dealing with the aggressions of the North Koreans. So I think it's -- I think it is clearly a positive step. Q: And on the State of the Union -- I mean, (won't the ?) president raise the issue of the recommendations of his deficit commission? MR. GIBBS: Without getting into a lot of detail, I think, again, spending and what we have to do to get our fiscal house in order is certainly going to be a topic that you'll hear the president discuss on Tuesday. Q: (Will he bring that up? ?) MR. GIBBS: I -- Mark, I'm not wont to get ahead of the president on his speech. Jake. 13:51:14 Q: (Off mic.) What about -- where does President Obama think the state of his presidency is? Obviously -- (off mic) -- there have been changes, we have a new chief of staff, you're leaving -- (off mic) -- you have a Republican Congress. Tell us about -- something about what he -- how he sees this -- not the state of the union, but the state of his leadership -- (off mic). MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, I don't know that he spends a lot of time separating the state of the country and where he is in his presidency, because his task is -- the task that he has before him and the task that he'll bring to the next two years is helping our economy continue to recover after the massive job loss and downturn of what happened as a result of the financial calamities that peaked in September of 2008. Bottom of Form I don't -- I don't -- I don't think the president -- obviously there are aides inside of here and outside of here that spend time worrying about the president's political standing. I don't think the president spends a whole lot of time thinking through and worrying about sort of where he is in his presidency. Obviously there's a lot on his plate and a lot that has to be done to continue that recovery -- to put the pieces in place to see us be able to compete with the rest of the world, to attract the type of jobs that we know are necessary to continue our important economic growth. I think that's what the president's focused on each and every day. 13:53:03 Q: Your polling numbers have improved slightly, but the standing of the president among that key group of independent voters is still not where you want it to be. What is President Obama presumably -- I don't mean it to sound purely like a political question, but obviously for him to get support for his policies, for him to get reelected to continue to pursue what you think is -- thinks is the best path for this country, he needs to get reelected and he needs to win those independents back. What is he going to do to win those independents back? MR. GIBBS: Look, I will say this, Dick. I think if you -- if you look at any series of public polling that we've all churned through in the last week or so, I think it's -- I think the message that we saw come through and what you heard us say a lot during the lame duck I think is manifested itself in some of these recent numbers. And that is that the American people would like to see Democrats and Republicans sit down at a table, be it here, be it there, and work through important solutions to the problems that face the American people. That's -- I think that's what we did in large measure during the lame duck. I think with strong bipartisan votes we were -- we were able to see an agreement that didn't raise taxes on middle-class families, that protected our country from deployed nuclear weapons, a whole host of things that were tremendously important. And I think that's -- I think that's what the president wants to continue to do. And, look, I think what -- it's that old adage that I think -- you know, if the president -- the president is not going to be worried about his political standing. That will certainly -- a lot of that stuff takes care of itself if you make good decisions on behalf of the American people. And I think that's what he's done for the last two years. Q: And if I could just follow up on your comments about President Hu's remarks on human rights. Those are words. And while it's a shift, they are still just words. Is there any indication from President Hu that he will be taking any actions regarding the Falun Gong, regarding Tibet, regarding the jail of a Nobel Peace Prize winner? 13:55:05 MR. GIBBS: That's -- well, Dick, look, that's -- you -- that's why you heard me say at the beginning of this that while that admission is an important one, the president will continue to in meetings with President Hu and our administration will continue in meetings with Chinese officials, press the case for tangible action and resolve on human rights. The president, I think, was pretty forward-leaning when it came to Liu Xiaobo and the awarding of the Nobel prize, and what happened when China would not release him in order to go get that Nobel prize. Q: That's the first I've heard that name in three days. I mean -- MR. GIBBS: Well, the president -- the president talked directly to President Hu about that. So that's -- Q: Can you tell us -- Q: What did he say? Q: -- what he said to him exactly, and what -- MR. GIBBS: I was not in the meeting. I can't quote anything. I know, obviously, that the topic was brought up. Q: Was that at the dinner, Robert? MR. GIBBS: I believe that was -- I'll double-check. I believe it was in some of the private meetings yesterday. Q: Would you say that those comments made by President Hu about human rights were the biggest breakthrough from the meeting? MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think if you want to put -- I would put -- I think we had issues that we discussed in walking you guys through the important aspects of what we hoped to get out of this visit: security, economics and human rights. 13:56:43 I think we saw progress in each of those three areas, right? So in the security realm, again, the Chinese acknowledgment in the statements that -- of the North Korean uranium enrichment program, setting forth a series of conditions that made the Republic of Korea confident enough to go into talks with the North Koreans is certain -- I would say, one in the security basket. In the economic basket, you had a series of important commercial agreements to the tune of about $45 billion, which directly support several hundred thousand American jobs right here. Progress on intellectual property rights -- obviously, more has to be done on the economic basket, but again, the progress on indigenous innovation and intellectual property rights, I think, were important steps to move us forward. And lastly, the admission on human rights was obviously another set of issues that you heard the president discuss yesterday, that he had spent a lot of time with the Chinese president discussing over the course of the last couple of days. So I think -- I think we see some tangible progress on all three of those fronts that is important. There's clearly more work that has to be done. We've seen a currency because of some actions that the Chinese have taken, as well as inflation rise the -- increase the value of the RMB, but there -- there's still progress that has to be made on that in order to, as you heard the president say yesterday, rebalance that currency. Q: And on those comments, was that a complete surprise to the administration that he was candid in public? MR. GIBBS: I think that was, as I said, I don't -- I'm not a Chinese historian, but I think if you go back in recent memory, it's hard to -- it's hard to see where a leader of China has said that recently on a trip outside of his country. Q: And then on another issue, what kind of reaction has the president given to comments about him being a one-term president? We've heard that from Cheney and others. How does he react to those comments? MR. GIBBS: I haven't talked to him about it. I don't think he spends a lot of time thinking about political prognostications. Chip? Q: Thanks, Robert. Following up on -- (inaudible) -- question. I think it was a serious question, that you had the president standing there looking embarrassed and awkward for a moment because nobody had told him that the translation was not going to be simultaneous on something as important as a press conference with the Chinese and American leaders, to have the president standing there looking like a deer in the headlights for a moment there. 13:59:45 Isn't that a pretty big faux pas by staff to leave the president hanging out there like that? (Cross-talk.) Q: He looked angry. Q: (Inaudible) -- was angry. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: No. I don't -- I don't -- (chuckles) -- I don't necessarily agree with many of the phrases that you used in your question. Again, I -- we can get lost in the -- we can get lost at picking out a series of trees. I think, again, the forest that I would -- I think most people around the world are focused on was the answer. That's kind of why I thought you guys would ask those questions of the leaders. Q: So you don't think that's important for the president not to be caught flat-footed out there like that by (staff ?) -- MR. GIBBS: (Laughs.) I don't -- I think the president -- Q: He wasn't upset. MR. GIBBS: He wasn't upset. Again, I think the points that he made and I think the -- I think the progress that we made -- look, you know, we can spend time worrying about process, or we can spend time worrying about results. I think the president spends most of his time worried about -- worried about results. Q: It was last week you were -- I just wanted to see if you still feel the same way. You were a bit noncommittal on the question of whether the president would deliver a big speech on health care reform at some point to explain that there's a new CBS News or New York Times poll showing that only 10 percent of people still believe the bill's been explained very well to them. Fifty-six percent believe it's not been explained well to them. Do you think he has -- there's a need for him to get out there, and explain that again, if people are that confused? MR. GIBBS: No, I don't think the -- I don't think the president has any plans to give a big speech on health care. Q: No plans to do that? MR. GIBBS: No. Q: Okay. And on the -- MR. GIBBS: I mean, look, Chip, I -- you know, I think -- do I think that a lot of the coverage last year was on process and politics? Yeah. I don't -- you know, I -- do I think, at the same time, 3.3 million seniors have gotten checks to cover the doughnut hole expenses in their prescription drugs. I do. I think that's why in a series of the public polling that you've seen, people don't support repeal, because they understand -- they do understand that they're seeing -- whether it's their children that might have pre- existing conditions not have to fight with insurance companies to ensure that they can get proper coverage. I think they understand that insurance companies are not in charge of making all the decisions anymore. And I think that's a good thing for our medical system. Q: On the State -- sorry -- Q: (Inaudible) -- will he defend it in the State of the Union address? Q: Thank you. MR. GIBBS: I think the -- I don't know what degree that that is in the State of the Union. Q: In the State of the Union -- was it Peter's piece that he wants ideas that get him excited? MR. GIBBS: (Off mic) -- read that. Q: Well, yeah. Has the president read Peter Baker's piece that said he -- MR. GIBBS: Which I have not fully read. Q: -- that the president was quoted as having said that he wants ideas that get him excited, ideas for creating jobs that get him excited. Do you know if he's found any? MR. GIBBS: Well, tune in -- tune in around nine-ish on Tuesday. Q: Well, we like a little preview. You don't have to give us details. Do you know if he's found any new ideas that -- MR. GIBBS: Can't give a translation. I'm looking. I'm -- believe -- Bill, I can't understand this. Q: (Off mic.) MR. GIBBS: Wendell, do you have a question? (Laughter.) Q: I have a few. What is the reaction to the House vote on health care repeal? MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, I think I've gotten this question several times before. I mean, I think it's -- Q: Not since the House actually voted, however. MR. GIBBS: No, I don't think my -- I don't think my answer changes. I mean, it was -- I don't think it was a serious legislative effort, and I don't think anybody -- I don't think people in the House thought it was a serious legislative effort. I think the message, though, that those people that voted for repeal were sending were (sic) to put health insurance companies back in charge of medical decisions that have the ability to drop, deny, limit or cap health insurance coverage. You know, I think it -- I think you had a pretty good example of who you think should be in charge of health care. Should it be patients and doctors? Should it be insurance companies? I think that was -- I think that's what we've seen. I think -- again, we -- I mentioned 3.3 million seniors that have gotten -- have gotten help with their prescription drug costs as a result of this, out-of- pocket costs that are going to go up if something like this were to become law. But I don't -- I think, thankfully, it's not going to. Q: Does the president share most Democrats' concerns that the debate over spending cuts in the Congress now among Republicans goes too far, especially in the House? 14:04:43 MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think, Wendell, that we're going to have a lot of time to work through how we get our fiscal house back in order and the steps that we take to do so. And we've got to make sure that we don't find ourselves crippling our ability to innovate and provide the types of incentives that we need to create the jobs of tomorrow. Q: Is that a yes? MR. GIBBS: I don't -- it was whatever answer I just gave. Q: Finally, the attorney general -- MR. GIBBS: I know -- I didn't know we were playing multiple choice with that question. Q: Well, just true-false. MR. GIBBS: (Off mic.) Q: The attorney general has announced now the military commissions for the Cole bombing suspects will go forward. It was 14 months ago that he said that they would go to military commission. Why so long in setting a trial? What -- MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I read the story in the paper today. I don't -- I think the individuals that are mentioned in the story were talked about in terms of going through military commissions, as you said, quite some time ago. I don't -- I don't have any sense of timing or any sense of when final decisions on that type of thing will be made. You heard the president outline -- Q: So the final decision has been made? MR. GIBBS: No -- the -- I think if you look at -- in terms of timing, I don't -- I -- you've heard the president, back at the Archives speech, talk about the fact that we were going to -- we had different groups of those at Guantanamo that were going to have to be dealt with in different ways, which is why we sought, and the president and the administration work through, a restructuring of the military commission's law. Yeah. Q: You have lauded President Hugh's -- Hu's admission that there's work to be done on Chinese human rights. What is your reaction to the fact that 1.3 billion Chinese did not hear those comments, they were blacked out? Nor did they hear anything about Liu Xiaobo. MR. GIBBS: Well, look, again, I -- which is why -- which is why one of the conditions to coming here was an opportunity to take questions from you guys. 14:07:13 Look, we can't -- obviously there's very little that we can structurally do to deal with that in terms of -- in terms of how they cover this visit. Obviously they've got a very different governmental system than we do and a very different system on how leaders in their country are covered. But when the president was in Shanghai more than a year ago, he talked about needing an open society, having an open Internet so that people in China can read about the news all over the world. The world heard the leader of China make that important admission, and the world will watch to see the steps that they take over the course of the next many months to fulfill -- or I should say to make the improvements that he says need to be made. Q: And on the political changes and the rearranging and the establishment of the Chicago headquarters, it's not early? I mean, you speak of the fact that the economy is getting back on its feet; there are so many things in flux, both politically and economically in this country. Is it a little early to get started on 2012? MR. GIBBS: No. Look, I think this is very much in line with the calendar that you've seen aligned with similar efforts that were made in -- ahead of the 2004 election and ahead of the 1996 election by Presidents Bush and Clinton. I think -- I think that's just the way it works. Q: You need to begin fundraising for a formal declaration? MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, again, there's -- there are a whole series of things that have to happen in a campaign, and again, I think they're happening very much in accordance with the type of timelines you've seen in the past. Q: Robert, could I follow on that? MR. GIBBS: I'll come around. Q: Did you say that he is likely or definitely running? (Off mic.) MR. GIBBS: I think, obviously, the setting up of a campaign makes it far likely -- (chuckles) -- but again, I think the official rendering of that decision would come, as the story notes, in the filing of that paperwork with the FEC. Q: Just a follow-on. What do you expect -- I know Obama's going to -- the president, excuse me, is going to Schenectady tomorrow. What do you hope to get or what does he hope to get -- (off mic)? MR. GIBBS: Well, look, tomorrow, as you mentioned, the president will go and visit the birthplace of General Electric, talk about the economy. It's the -- it's home to GE's largest energy division. It will be the future home of their advanced battery manufacturing. This is a company that has brought jobs from overseas back into the United States; obviously, that's important. And a company that as a result of some of the work that the president did on commercial diplomacy before -- and while in India saw an expansion of the business that they do all over the world -- it supports jobs here in America. So I think that's a bit of the backdrop of the events tomorrow in Schenectady. Q: (Off mic) -- expect a major announcement or economic -- (off mic)? MR. GIBBS: There are likely to be some, but we'll talk about those tomorrow. Q: How do you all feel about this term "Obamacare"? MR. GIBBS: I don't know that I've spent a ton of time, Peter, thinking about it. Q: Do you find it pejorative? MR. GIBBS: Again, I don't -- I don't know that I've spent a lot of time thinking about what somebody may or may not call it. I'd -- and again, I don't know what -- I don't know what a senior who's getting help from prescription drugs calls it. I don't know a senior that gets a free preventative visit calls it -- I don't know what a child that no longer has to fight with an insurance company to get coverage because of a pre-existing conditions calls it. My sense is that all those people call it a number of different things, but in the -- in their mind it means that they're finally getting a little bit of help with the problems that they have. 14:11:34 And you know, we live in a country where, if you get sick, you ought not go bankrupt trying to get the type of care and help that you need. And that's what animated the president's decision to pass the bill. Q: Totally unrelated, Robert, I'm wondering if the president's had any contact with Congresswoman Giffords' family or any of the other victims since he was in Tucson, any other communication from any of those folks. MR. GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of. I'll double-check and see if there have been. I have not seen any calls that I know of since Tucson. Obviously, I think we're all heartened by the almost daily progress reports that we hear from Congresswoman Giffords' family. I think it's nothing short of extraordinary the amount of progress that has been made in such a very short period of time. 14:12:55 And you know, Peter, having been backstage before that and talking to -- talking to some of those who were there that day who had come from the hospital who still had -- still had wounds, bullet wounds from that horrific day, their stories continue to give us strength and encourage us and inspire us each day. I told that to several of them that day, and I think it's -- I think it will be true for a really long time. Q: What's his -- well, what's his message to the mayor -- the mayors this afternoon? MR. GIBBS: Obviously, the mayors are in town, and I think they'll talk about a whole host of things that mayors generally talk to the federal government and the president about. Q: In the past when the mayors were here, they talked a lot about the importance of the stimulus, what it did to plug gaps in their budgets. Is there going to be any warning that they need to do fiscal consolidation just like the federal government might need to do fiscal consolidation? MR. GIBBS: Well, I doubt that anybody here needs to warn them of, quote-unquote, "fiscal consolidation." Many of them are dealing with and have dealt with for quite some time the impact on their budget of a dramatic downturn in our economy. Many of them are dealing with them -- dealing with those problems far before coming here. Q: Robert, you mentioned on Tuesday that the president's going to go over some of the material he talked about in North Carolina, but will there be big new proposals on Tuesday as well? MR. GIBBS: I can't imagine, if we went all through this today, what we could possibly talk about on Wednesday or Thursday. So I'm not going to get -- I'm not going to dip my toe deeply into the State of the Union preview pool. Q: Okay. You made a distinction between the short-term focus on jobs and the (medium-term ?) focus on getting the fiscal house in order? MR. GIBBS: But I said both the medium and long term dealing with our fiscal budget situation, but also let's understand the steps that we have to continue to take in the medium and the long term to prepare our children for competing in an economy against the Chinese and the Indians and a whole host of different countries. Q: Does the president still see something of a tension between that short-term focus on jobs and a need to keep government spending -- MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say we took some -- we obviously had to take, in the course of two years, some extraordinary steps to ensure that an economic downturn did not become the next Great Depression. And we did that, and some that of that stuff obviously, Hans just mentioned, is -- a lot of that stuff is -- has run its course through the recovery act. So, look, I think that the president will -- wants to and will outline what he thinks is the best course forward to ensuring that we're dealing with a whole host of problems, including how do we grow our economy, how do we -- how do we help and work with the private sector to create jobs, and how we get our fiscal house in order all at the same time. Q: So at the same time, it's not a question of sort of one thing now and then down the road -- 14:16:16 MR. GIBBS: No, again, I think even in -- even if you look at last year's budget, even at a time where the second half of the recovery act is still doing what it needed to do, the president presented a budget that froze nonsecurity discretionary spending, because we had to begin to take steps even then. (Name inaudible.) Q: In 2007, the labor union forum, the president raised concerns about -- or the candidate at the time raised concerns about Wal-Mart. And he said, I would not shop at those -- he would not shop there back then. I wondered in light of today's announcement from the first lady if that is still true, if he would. I know he spends a lot of time shopping, but if he were -- MR. GIBBS: (Laughs.) Yeah, I was going to say -- look -- Q: -- if here to buy goods, would he feel comfortable buying goods at Wal-Mart and more broadly just about Wal-Mart's changes as a -- as a -- in terms of how it treats its workers and unionization. 14:17:27 MR. GIBBS: I mean, obviously I think we're in a -- I think we're all in a different time with, clearly, steps that have been taken. I think the first lady was proud to stand with the country's largest retailer. They've taken some dramatic steps in how they're dealing with food and how they're marketing food and packaging and things like that that will make a genuine and big difference for people that shop there. And I -- the first lady is proud to and happy to stand with any company that will make similar pledges to make a difference on behalf of the -- of the American people. Q: In terms of those practices, does he condemn them still, in terms of how they treat workers, how they pay workers? He was very explicit about this -- (inaudible). MR. GIBBS: Yeah, again, I -- look, again, I think -- I guess the short answer is -- it's just -- it's -- lots has happened since 2007. Yes, ma'am. Q: Robert, you said earlier that with respect to President Hu, one of the conditions for coming here was an opportunity to take questions from you guys. Are you saying that the White House set the condition for President Hu's visit that he would have to take questions from American reporters? MR. GIBBS: Well -- I was very clear in the planning of this that we would have a press conference and the press conference would include questions from you guys. But we were clear to make sure that that's what they understood was going to take place if they came. Q: And was there any resistance to that? MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of. I mean, I, obviously, did not -- I did not deal directly with them on that. But in the pre-planning for this, this was something that we talked about and not doing it wasn't an option. Q: If you can remind me, because I wasn't on the president's trip to China. Was there a press conference on that -- on that trip? MR. GIBBS: There -- (inaudible). Q: Okay, a joint press conference with President Hu? Q: (Off mic) -- questions. MR. GIBBS: Right. They didn't take -- they did not take questions. Right. Q: So was this in some way a reaction to that or saying you're on our turf now? MR. GIBBS: No, we weren't in China. Q: Well, but they didn't take questions in China -- MR. GIBBS: Right. Q: I guess what I'm saying is, were you saying, okay, now you're on our turf -- (inaudible)? 14:19:17 MR. GIBBS: Yeah. We were -- this is -- this is the United States of America. (Mark ?). Q: Robert, global warming. Any reaction to the fact that the U.N. weather -- meteorological agency has determined that last year was tied for the warmest year on record? And talk about the State of the Union, again -- will the fact -- will the president's suggestion that he's got other ways to skin the cat other than cap and trade be feature in that? MR. GIBBS: I honestly don't know the answer to the second one. Obviously, I think there are continual reminders that we have to transition to a clean energy economy without getting into whether or not that's in the speech. Obviously, there are a number of different policy ways to do such a thing, whether it is setting renewable energy standards that create the type of market conditions where you see that transition. Again, there are obviously a number of different ways to do that. Q: Does the president consider it a big issue still? MR. GIBBS: Look, I think energy independence and the security of our planet are and will continue to be issues that we're going to have to deal with. And again, we -- more and more and more of our oil comes from -- or our energy comes from places that are not here. That puts us at a -- at a disadvantage. We've clearly taken some steps to change corporate average fuel economy, fuel-economy standards, that lessen some of that usage of foreign oil. But I think there's no doubt that we have a lot more to do. The recovery act invested in wind and solar; the plant that we'll visit tomorrow will soon be home to GE's advanced battery manufacturing, as you see car companies both foreign and domestic having success marketing cars that don't run on gas but run on electricity. And we've -- we're going to have to meet many of those challenges. Yes, sir. Q: Thank you, Robert. Two questions. First is, both President Obama and President Hu mentioned about the historic meeting 30 years ago by Deng Xiaoping. And how the White House evaluate this statement? MR. GIBBS: Well, look. I think -- as I said earlier, I think we saw some progress on a host of important fronts that we wanted to see progress on: security, the economy and human rights. But at the same time, again, I think that whether it's our trip to India and South Korea, Japan, her trip to China last year, China's trip here, I think they are better evaluated over the course of the long term to see, have we set ourselves on the path to making real and substantial progress? And so I think we will -- while we're pleased with the outcome of the visit from yesterday, obviously on each of those baskets that I discussed -- security, the economy and human rights -- there are still -- the two leaders talked about progress that certainly, we acknowledge, needs to be made and hasn't been. And we'll continue to try to be a leader in seeing that happen. Q: And also on the currency issue. You mentioned there is still a lot of work to be done. MR. GIBBS: There is. Q: What's the next step? MR. GIBBS: Well, the next step is with the Chinese in taking -- continuing to take actions at a faster pace to deal with the valuation of their currency. Again, obviously -- and there's been a decent amount of coverage on this. There's actions that you take to change the valuation -- and certainly inflation gives you some real impacts, too -- that indicate there's been some changes, but again, as the president said I think on a couple of occasionally yesterday, not quickly enough. Yes, sir. Q: Robert, one of President Obama's campaign promises back in 2008 was passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would provide workplace protections to gay and transgender Americans. Is this something that the president expects to be passed over the course of the 112th Congress, at least in the Senate where Democrats still have control? MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think there's a whole host of things that the president -- that the president has made part of his campaign. We talked about DOMA a few days ago and other things that are important to build off the progress of repealing "don't ask, don't tell." I think those continue to be priorities of the president's, and we will certainly work to make progress on those fronts in obviously a much more challenging Congress over the course of the next two years. Q: But in the Senate, where Democrats still have control, are they expecting passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? MR. GIBBS: Again, I think you'll see the president continue to push -- continue to push on a whole host of those issues. Q: Just a similar question. Does the administration see value in passing in one chamber of Congress -- (inaudible) -- to build momentum for a complete passage at a later time? MR. GIBBS: Well, yeah, I mean, look, I think there's no doubt that -- you know, look, whenever you get something done in one, you're closer to certainly seeing it come to fruition. So yes, obviously. Q: And does the -- will the president address in any context during the State of the Union address a ramped-up jobs bill? MR. GIBBS: I'm -- I am -- I'm not going to get into previewing State of the Union today. Yes, ma'am. Q: I just have a quick question about -- the president's going to be talking with congressional Democrats this weekend at their convention. Does he have a message for them? Is he going to be sort of talking a little bit about what his State of the Union might -- MR. GIBBS: Well, I think they'll -- he travels up there tomorrow after our return from Schenectady. I think he'll have an opportunity to talk about -- talk to them about the challenges that lay ahead and what we have to do and many of the themes that he'll outline in the State of the Union. Q: You mentioned that Democrats are going to have to respond to Republicans who are not only trying to repeal the law but also they're making statements about -- (inaudible) -- to replace the health care law. Is he going to -- MR. GIBBS: (Inaudible.) They -- I did notice they passed an almost 1-1/2 page bill. Yes, I -- yes. Q: The -- MR. GIBBS: Many of which I find -- it's interesting. Many of the goals that they espouse in that bill are the current law of the land, like ensuring that people aren't discriminated because of a pre- existing condition. That actually exists, it's called the Affordable Care Act. Q: So you're not at all, you know, concerned about this effort to actually propose an alternative as a consequence -- MR. GIBBS: I'm happy that several years later they've gotten around to what they might do. I think all of you must be anxious to know what they're going to do. I think they have set forth some exceedingly lofty goals, again, some of which -- most of which are currently embodied in the law of the land. But, yeah, I'm happy for them to take a spin and tell us how they'll do -- how they'll do what they passed, what they passed today. I would suggest, too, that as they talk about making some progress in the deficit, they deal with the Congressional Budget Office's indication that the action that they took just yesterday adds a couple of hundred billion dollars to the deficit. Now, keep in mind, this was the CBO that while we were going through the process of health care reform was the be-all and end-all of the scorekeeping. Then when that same CBO, headed by the very same person, discussed the very same topic of the impact of the deficit on health care reform, all of a sudden, well, that can't possibly be right. That's not true. 14:27:22 So I think -- I do think that it is important to underscore that the first legislative action that Congress took was to repeal a law that helps seniors and helps families and added a couple hundred billion dollars to the deficit. Not entirely sure that in the run-up to the 2010 campaign they spent a lot of time talking to seniors about raising their out of pocket costs on medical care and prescription drugs or talking about adding a couple hundred billion dollars to the deficit. April? Q: Robert, on issues of gun control, former Vice President Dick Cheney said that he could see some sort of more restrictions on semi- automatic weapons, semi-automatic handguns. Is this administration going to navigate through really tough waters on gun control in the wake of what happened in Arizona? MR. GIBBS: April, I don't have a lot to add to what I've said I think on a couple of occasions in here on that. And that is, I have no doubt that there will be proposals offered as a result of different circumstances that have happened in Tucson, and the administration will evaluate those proposals. Q: Do you agree with what the former vice president had to say on semi-automatics? MR. GIBBS: Again, I think we're looking through some of those proposals. Q: And also, back on China but on a whole 'nother issue, on issues of unions, this -- MR. GIBBS: The issue of what? I'm sorry. Q: Unions. MR. GIBBS: Okay. I'm sorry. Q: Unions. They have unions in China. MR. GIBBS: I just -- sometimes I can't -- Q: (Lach ?) can translate. MR. GIBBS: Believe it or not, sometimes I can't hear. (Laughs.) Q: They have unions in China. Did they discuss that issue there? And particularly the first union in China was Wal-Mart. 14:29:09 MR. GIBBS: Let me ask some of our guys whether that's a topic that came up. I honestly don't know the answer to that. Q: On a completely different subject, what are the president's viewing plans for the NFC championship game? MR. GIBBS: I think he's going to do like he did last week. Well, last week, obviously, he went to play basketball with the girls and came back a little after kickoff. They had some -- some staff and the president watched most of the game over in the theater. I think the president plans to do that again. And I think we've given this to a few papers in Chicago and Wisconsin, the president's prediction that the Bears will win the game 20 to 17. Q: Has he made any bets? MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of. No. Q: And will he still go to Wisconsin, should the unthinkable happen? (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Again, that -- yes, he -- we're still planning a trip to Wisconsin. I might have already -- I might have just complicate -- complicated the questions you asked, starting with Ben, on the political effort by predicting the team in Wisconsin not doing as well against the team in Illinois. So I don't -- it's not a hypothetical. Go ahead. Q: If they lose he won't go? MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no. (Laughter.) Of course he's going to Wisconsin. Of course he's going to Wisconsin. Q: What about February 6th in Dallas? MR. GIBBS: I think the president hopes to have his team playing there. Q: (Off mic) -- plan to go? MR. GIBBS: Let -- I will say this. I'm a very -- no, no -- this is superstition. I'm a -- I'm a -- I will answer this question on behalf of him based on superstition. I think all of that is -- (knocks on wood) -- way, way, way getting ahead of yourself. Q: (Off mic.) MR. GIBBS: Not nearly as much as I am. Yes, sir. Q: Robert, I'll take a stab at this. In his State of the Union address, the president no doubt will remind Americans that we have troops on the ground in two war zones. Will he, though, at the same time try to get the American people and the Republicans behind the idea of maybe pulling back on defense spending, considering everything else he may mention in terms of reducing spending yet? MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think it is safe to say that we are going to see or are going to have to see a tightening of the belt around everything that government's doing in order to make progress on our -- on getting our fiscal house in order. You know, the secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, has made some -- has taken some steps on procurement reform and taken some steps to cancel weapons systems and programs that for quite some time the military itself hasn't wanted despite the fact that Congress might continue to fund it. I think -- I think those type of efforts have to happen because we can't see taxpayer dollars wasted on anything. Q: But the American people may not know about, like, the strike joint fighter debate over an engine -- MR. GIBBS: Right. Q: -- kind of thing. Should the president maybe point that out in the State of the Union address? MR. GIBBS: Well, I -- without getting into what may or may not be in there, again, I think -- I think whether it's in the speech or not, it's something that the president and the secretary will continue to work on. Steven (sp)? Q: Do you think it's possible that President Hu's remarks on human rights are being over-read at all, given the fact that several occasions yesterday he stated that China didn't share western definitions of human rights? MR. GIBBS: Look, I guess I don't want to translate the translation. But I will say this. As I started out by saying, I think that regardless of what he said yesterday, the true test is not in the words that someone speaks, but in the actions that a country takes. And that's what -- that's what animated the president to bring up the issue of human rights again. And I think that's -- the actions that that country takes is how we will evaluate the progress that they may or may not make over the course of coming months and weeks. Q: So you don't think there was any sense in which you could see this as the scripted answer -- it was obviously a scripted answer -- that he -- that he had as a way to alleviate pressure while stating that China would continue on its current -- MR. GIBBS: (No ?) -- well, because, again, look, I think -- look, I think you could read it -- you -- maybe you can read it several different ways. I think it was an admission that we haven't heard before. And again, I think -- I know the way we read it, and that is acknowledging that is -- acknowledging that you have improvements to make is part of it, but it's a very small part compared to what has to be done to make progress, and that's what we'll watch. Q: Was something like that said privately, though? MR. GIBBS: I -- again, I was not in some of the private meetings, but -- go ahead. Yes. Q: Thank you. On Guantanamo, Robert, with the reports that the administration is likely to start military trials in Guantanamo, what does this mean for the administration's efforts of moving some detainees back to either their home countries or host countries, and does that have any effect on the administration's talks with these other countries? MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think that -- look, there are -- there are -- let me at the beginning of my answer acknowledge obviously there are some prohibitions -- legal prohibitions now on some -- on some transfers that I think you've seen our commenting on in the past. We will continue the process of going through who is there. Clearly the courts continue that process of going through who is there and deciding whether or not their continued -- whether them being continually held there is in accordance with the laws, as is -- as you've seen courts do in the past. It does -- but none of these decisions change our fundamental desire and goal to see, because of our security, the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed once and for all. Q: Does it cause a delay in any of these -- I mean, are there any deadlines set up in the -- MR. GIBBS: No, I don't -- again, I -- again I'd point you to the fact that the individuals that were named in today's story were the same three individuals that were talked about to be tried as -- in military commissions quite some time ago. Q: Thanks, Robert. MR. GIBBS: David? Q: Let me follow up on April's question for a second. Representative McCarthy and Senator Lautenberg have proposed bills that would ban high magazine, (higher ammo ?) in guns. Have there been any discussions between those offices and the White House whether that is a proposal worth pursuing in this Congress? MR. GIBBS: I don't know the answer to that. I don't know what specific conversations have we had. 14:36:41 Q: Given the president's previous positions on banning assault weapons and in favor of some gun control measures, is this something that you think he'd likely support? MR. GIBBS: Again, I think we're looking through different proposals, the proposals that you mentioned and others, and we'll evaluate them based on those events. Q: And is there any possibility of being proactive and propose something of your own? MR. GIBBS: I have not heard anything particular in here. Q: Robert, the president's poll numbers have been moving up fairly steadily, I think you said 50 percent on the average for the first time in a year. To what does the White House attribute that? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think that -- I think I said earlier -- I think -- I think what the American people said in the election was they wanted two political parties to be able to work together and make progress on the issues that were important to them, particularly economic issues. I think that's what they saw. I think that's what they saw during the lame duck session. I think that's -- I think that was a productive time, people saw Republicans and Democrats working together to make sure their tax rates didn't go up. So I think there's some obvious benefit to doing it. Q: Thanks, Robert. MR. GIBBS: (Off mic) -- Sam, and then we'll go to -- Q: Thanks. I -- just back on the reelection real quickly, I'm curious, you know, the president said right after the midterms, there'll be plenty of time for the next election, in 2012. I'm guessing -- I'd bet my paycheck he's going to, in the State of the Union, call for rising above politics and doing the work of the -- of the country. Why announce the reelection -- MR. GIBBS: How much is your paycheck? Q: (Laughs.) It's not worth -- MR. GIBBS: Because I may -- I may get him to change a few lines just to -- Q: It's not worth it. MR. GIBBS: (Laughs.) Sorry. I hadn't -- Q: You did -- you did better off the Auburn -- MR. GIBBS: (Laughs.) Q: But, I mean, I'm curious, why announce this now? Doesn't it complicate the State of the Union? Why not wait a week? MR. GIBBS: No, no, because, Sam, I think it's important to understand, you know, just because the president sets up the machinery of ultimately running for reelection does not mean that you're going to see the president doing a ton of political reelection events. That's just -- the nature of the way these things work is, you got to have an -- you've got to set up a legal mechanism by which to begin to fund something like this. You have to -- you have to get people in place. You saw the quotes in the story that this will be located in Chicago and focus on a -- the type of grassroots effort that we saw in 2008. That doesn't mean that the president is going to spend a whole lot of time worrying about that. The campaign's going to be run by a group of people in Chicago whose jobs would be to worry about that, not the president's. Q: Whereas -- Q: Also, the vice president sent out an e-mail to supporters today in which he says that this White House has accomplished more in the first two years than any president since Roosevelt; I'm guessing FDR. Is that what the administration believes? MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to contradict the vice president, that's for sure. Bill. Q: Robert -- MR. GIBBS: But I would say it's a good deed. Go ahead. Yeah. Q: Robert, what kind of -- what type of -- MR. GIBBS: Kind of a slow group today. Come on, guys. It's -- I know we got, like -- Q: (Inaudible.) MR. GIBBS: I know we got the -- I know we got the post-China blues. But come on, a little help here. Q: (Off mic.) MR. GIBBS: (Chuckles.) Yeah, I was going to say, well, that would certainly liven things up. Q: We'll insert the adjective. Robert, I don't have to remind you that Senator Lieberman endorsed John McCain, campaigned for him, and said that Barack Obama wasn't prepared to be president. Is the president relieved to see Joe Lieberman out of the Senate? MR. GIBBS: No, I -- look, I -- obviously, we had a little disagreement on the 2008 presidential campaign. But I think Senator Lieberman is -- look, take the most recent -- the progress that we were talking about that was made in the lame duck. I think obviously Senator Lieberman is somebody who, while having disagreements with this White House and with Senator Obama when he was in the United States Senate, clearly played an important and instrumental role in rolling back something that he and the president shared, their -- a belief in the injustice of "don't ask, don't tell." 14:41:05 So I think that obviously Senator Lieberman made a decision, as he said, to go and do something different in his life. And while we haven't agreed with him on every issue, I think clearly there are a whole host of issues, energy independence, "don't ask, don't tell," a whole lot of issues that the president was happy to see Senator Lieberman's leadership and support on. Q: Did they ever have a get-together where they just said, okay, let bygones be bygones, and move forward together, after the election? MR. GIBBS: You know, I don't -- I don't -- look, I think there are obviously opportunities. Look, I don't think the president needed to have some air-clearing moment. People are free to make decisions. Senator Lieberman was about who to support for -- to run for president. But I don't -- I don't think that -- I don't think anybody here spent a lot of time thinking about that. In fact, you know, there were -- there were some who thought, maybe because of that, Senator Lieberman wouldn't be the chairman of the committee. And that was -- that was not a view that we held. Yes, sir. Q: Robert, I was wondering if the president has been briefed on what appears to be impending global food shortages as a result of aberrant weather in Australia, Asia, South America and South Africa. MR. GIBBS: I'm not aware of whether he has been or not, but let me see if that has either come up in NSC meeting or in any of his economic daily briefings. Let me go to two back here -- Yes, ma'am. Q: Hi. There was an arrest in Canada last night, some guy apparently plotting to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And this is the latest of several terror-related arrests with a Canadian connection. I'm just wondering, is the White House growing concerned about Canada as a possible terrorist haven? Are there any -- MR. GIBBS: Well, let me ask NSC. I don't have any guidance on that. But let me -- I'll get something from NSC on it. Yes, ma'am. Q: With the emphasis on regulation this week, there was a bill reintroduced today backed by Speaker Boehner that would require a vote on regulations, executive regulations, before they could go through. Do you have any comment on that or views on that? MR. GIBBS: Let me get -- let me get some guidance on that bill. I'm not familiar with it. But let me see if there's some guidance from Legislative Affairs. Thank you, guys.

FS23 WH PSAKI PRESS BRIEF HEAD ON POOL 3 1215 NBC POOL White House briefing with Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, and National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy 123147 PSAKI>> Hi, everyone! I have to give you a fancy introduction. [laughter] Good afternoon. President Biden is continuing to follow through on his key promise to take swift and bold action that addresses the climate crisis, building on his Day 1 actions of rejoining the Paris Agreement, and strengthening our clean air and water protections and to -- and holding polluters accountable. 123218 Today, he will take executive action to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad while creating good paying, union jobs, building sustainable infrastructure and delivering environmental justice. I'm thrilled today, as a part of our effort to bring policy experts into the briefing room, we're joined by two very special guests who are going to take you -- talk to you all about today's executive orders and take a few questions as well. And I will always -- as always play the role of bad cop when they have to go. 123248 National climate adviser Gina McCarthy and special presidential envoy for climate and my former boss, former secretary of state John Kerry. And a big day for Boston in the briefing room, so. [laughter] With that, go ahead. GINA MCCARTHY 123300 MCCARTHY>> Thank you. It's a big day for Boston every day. Thank you, everybody. Today, president Biden will build on the actions he took on day one, and he'll take more steps to fulfill commitments he made to tackle the climate crisis while creating good paying, union jobs and achieving environmental justice. 123324 In his campaign, he and vice president Harris put forward the most ambitious climate vision that any presidential ticket had ever embraced. And he spent more time campaigning on climate than we have ever seen. The president also has consistently identified the climate crisis as one of four interrelated existential crises that are gripping our nation all at once. And he's demanding answers that can address all four. And he's not waiting to take action, getting us started on his first day in office because science is telling us that we don't have a moment to lose to fight against all four of these crises in a way that recognizes their intersectionality. 123412 He's always committed the U.S to renter. -- I'm sorry, he's already committed the US to re-enter the Paris climate agreement. And he committed us, as well, to start undoing the assault on our environment that has occurred over the past four years. And he is now taking additional action to really target the challenge of climate change. So, today, for me is a very good day. Just one week into his administration, president Biden is continuing to move us forward, at the breadth and the pace that climate science demands. 123449 Today's executive order starts by saying, "it is the policy of this administration that climate considerations shall be an essential element of US foreign policy and national security." That's where the big guy comes in. It gives my colleague John Kerry, the first ever international climate envoy, the authority to really drive forward a process that will restore American leadership on climate throughout the world, and you will see and hear more about that from Secretary Kerry. 123523 But here at home, we have to do our part or we will not be able to make the kind of worldwide change that climate change demands. So this executive order establishes a White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy, and it directs everyone who works for the President to use every tool available at our disposal to solve the climate crisis. 123548 Because we're going to take a whole of government approach. We're going to power our economy with clean energy. We're going to do that in a way that will produce millions of American jobs that are going to be good paying, that are going to be jobs that have the opportunity for workers to join a union because, as President Biden has often told us, when he thinks of climate change, his first thought is about jobs. 123618 And it should be. Because people in this country need a job, and this is about making that happen in the most creative and significant way that the federal government can move forward. And we're going to make sure that nobody is left behind. And I'm not just talking about communities in terms of environmental justice, but workers as well. 123639 This order takes historic strides to address environmental injustice. It creates both a White House Interagency Task Force to address environmental justice, as well as an Advisory Council. It directs the Department of Health and Human Services to create an office of Climate Change and Health Equity because, after all, climate change is the most significant public health challenge of our time. 123706 And it tasks the department of justice with establishing an office of Climate Justice. Because we know that communities who are being hurt, and we know we have to start enforcing the standards today and ensuring that they are part of the solution, and in places that we can invest. In fact, it commits 40% of our investment in clean energy towards disadvantaged communities so they can benefit from the new jobs that are available, and see that better future. 123737 President Biden's order establishes a working group on coal and power plant communities because we have to make sure that, in this transition, every agency in government is using every tool at their disposal to drive resources to those communities. And it fulfills long-standing commitments to leverage our vast resources to contribute to our clean energy future. It places a pause and review on new oil and gas leases on federal public lands and waters, consistent with the promise president Biden has repeatedly made and has been very clear in the face of efforts to distort his promise. 123822 And it sets a goal of doubling offshore wind production by 2030. In addition, he plans to sign a presidential memorandum that aims to restore scientific integrity across the federal government and earn back the public's trust, making a commitment to base solutions on the best available science and data. So, today is a very big day for science and for our efforts to power our economy with good paying union jobs. Thank you very much. JOHN KERRY 123903 KERRY>>> Good afternoon, everybody. It's great to be here. Let me say, first of all, what a pleasure it is to be here with Gina. I'm a big fan of Gina's. Gina and I worked very, very closely together during the campaign, when we sat down to -- to bring the Bernie Sanders folks together around the Biden climate plan. 123927 And she is the perfect person to be tackling the domestic side of this equation, which is complicated. And nobody knows the details better than she does, and nobody is going to be more effective at corralling everybody to move in the same direction. It's also an enormous pleasure for me to be here with Jen Psaki. 123950 She mentioned that -- nobody was her boss, but I had the privilege of working with her. And she, seven years ago, we gathered in the State Department briefing room -- she's traded up, obviously. But she has not given away any of her fundamental principles in commitment to telling you all the truth, telling the American people the truth and doing so with great candor and transparency. 124020 And I'm very happy to be here with her. The stakes -- the stakes on climate change just simply couldn't be any higher than they are right now. It is existential. We use that word too easily and we throw it away, but we have a big agenda in front of us on a global basis. 124041 And President Biden is deeply committed, totally seized by this issue as you can tell by this executive order and, and by the other -- the initiative of getting back into Paris immediately. That's why he rejoined the Paris agreement so quickly because he knows it is urgent. He also knows that Paris alone is not enough, not when almost 90% of all of the planet's emissions, global emissions, come from outside of US borders. 124110 We could go to zero tomorrow, and the problem isn't solved. So that's why today, one week into the job, President Biden will sign this additional executive set of orders to help move us down the road, ensuring that ambitious climate action is global in scope and scale, as well as national -- here at home. 124136 Today, in the order that he will sign that Gina has described to you, he makes climate central to foreign policy planning, to diplomacy, and to national security preparedness. It creates new platforms to coordinate climate action across the federal agencies and departments, sorely needed. And most importantly, it commissions a National Intelligence estimate on the security implications of climate change to give all of us an even deeper understanding of the challenge. 124211 This is the first time a President has ever done that. And our 17 intelligence agencies are going to come together and assess exactly what the danger and damage and potential risks are. The order directs the State department to prepare a transmittal package, seeking Senate advice and consent, on the Kigali Amendment on the Montreal protocol, an amendment that by itself, if ratified and fully enforced globally, could hold the Earth's temperature by .5 of an entire degree, not insignificant. 124247 And it sets forth a process for us to develop a new ambitious Paris target, as well as a U.S. Climate Finance plan, both of which are essential to our being able to bring countries of the world together, to raise ambition, and meet this moment when we go to Glasgow for the follow-on agreement to Paris. 124309 So that's the only way for the world to succeed together, my friends. It's -- again, this is an issue where failure literally is not an option. 124318 As he committed to doing on the campaign trail, the President is announcing that he will host a leaders' summit on climate change less than three months from now on April 22nd, Earth Day, which will include a leader-level reconvening of the major economies forum. We'll have specifics to lay out over time, but the convening of this -- of this summit, is essential to ensuring that the -- that 2021 is going to be the year that really makes up for the lost time of the last four years. 124355 And that the U.N. Climate conference COP26, as it's called, which the UK is hosting in November to make sure that it's an unqualified success. The road to Glasgow will be marked not just by promises, but by progress at a pace that we can all be proud of. And Gina is going to be putting her efforts into making concern that that is true. The world will measure us by what we can do here at home. So with these executive actions today, we believe we're steps further down that journey. Thank you. Q&A 124433 PSAKI>> All right. Let's start with Nancy. Q>> Thank you so much. Secretary Kerry, a question for you and then for administrator McCarthy. You talked about the fact that it won't really matter what we do very much if the rest of the world doesn't do the same thing. But the US Has had a fairly rocky relationship with China recently. How do you plan to try to bring both China and India to the table on this issue? 124457 KERRY>> Wel, before I -- before I answer that, let me just say that the issue of making a difference -- i.e, what we do at home -- what I'm saying is: you can't solve the problem alone, but our doing things makes an enormous difference. What Gina succeeds in pulling together is essential to our ability to have credibility in the world. Now -- 124524 With respect to China, obviously, we have serious differences with China on some very, very important issues. And I am as mindful of that as anybody, having served as Secretary of State and in the Senate. The issues of theft of intellectual property and access to market, South China Sea -- I mean, you run the list. We all know them. 124528 Those issues will never be treated for anything that has to do with climate. That's not going to happen, but climate is a critical stand alone issue that we have to deal on, in the sense that China is 30% of the emissions in the world. We're about 15% of the emissions in the world. 124609 You add the EU to that, and you've got three entities that are more than -- than 55% or so. So it's urgent that we find a way to compartmentalize, to move forward, and we'll wait and see. But President Biden is very, very clear about the need to address the other issues with China. And I know some people have been concerned. Nothing is going to be siphoned off into one area from another. 124638 Q>> And then, a question for either of you on coal. Your executive order talks about oil and gas on federal lands, but it doesn't really say much about coal. What is this administration's policy when it comes to coal? 124650 MCCARTHY>> Well, in terms of the oil and gas decision, it was -- is to make sure that we take a little pause, and review the entire strategy of how we're looking at public lands. So it will include looking at what new leases ought to be approved and sold. It's looking at our ability, also, to look at coal in that mix. So the program review is going to look at how we manage public lands, consistent with climate. 124715 But also consistent with the marriage between climate and, really, growing jobs of the future. So, it will be in the mix to be looked at, but it is -- it is not at this point included. It was not part of the commitments on the campaign, but we're going to take a close look at all of it. And can I just add on your comment about China, which I'm not going to speak to the international dynamic, but I am going to say that: part of the challenge that we face here is a challenge that president Biden has already started to address with his Buy America pledge. 124748 We have to start not just shifting to clean energy, but it has to be manufactured in the United States of America. You know, not in other countries, and there is going to be a large discussion about how we make sure that a lot of the investment is -- is about building up our manufacturing base again. That's great jobs. That's often, hopefully, union jobs. But it is also a wonderful opportunity for us to recoup the benefits of that manufacturing, and lower the cost of clean energy. 124820 Part of the way we're going to get there is by making sure the federal government buys American, and that the federal government looks at its procurement across every agency, so that the breadth of what we spend is spent designed to advance job growth in the United States, to advance health benefits for environmental justice communities, and to begin to tackle the very challenged -- the existential challenge of climate change. PSAKI>> Jeff Mason. 124849 Q>> Thank you. Jeff Mason with Reuters. Question for both of you. Can you give us a sense of when you expect to have the so-called NDC or the US Target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as part of the Paris accord? And can you also give us a sense of how ambitious you plan to make that number? Will it be 40%, 50%, higher than that? 124914 MCCARTHY>> Well -- KERRY>> We're united in this, so. MCCARTHY>> Yeah, I'm -- I'm the dude who's supposed to deliver this in a timely way, and he sets the timing. So that basically -- 124923 We want to make sure that the NDC is something that can be announced before the summit on Earth Day. And so we're going to be, out of the gate, working with the agencies to see what kind of reductions and mitigation opportunities there are. 124938 And also, again, to look at our public lands to make sure that we can continue to store carbon in our soil, to work with agriculture and others, to look at how we better manage our forests so we're not seeing the devastating forest fires that we've been having before. So all across the federal government, every agency, and you'll see many of them specifically tasked in this executive order, will participate in the task force that we're going to have to actually develop the most aggressive NDC that we can to deliver the kind of boost that Secretary Kerry is looking for, to be able to ensure that our international efforts are robust and -- and sufficient to address the challenge internationally. 125025 Q>> Just follow-up for that, for Secretary Kerry, how do you assert to our international partners that the US will stick to whatever you propose after having seen the Trump administration take the U.S. out of the Paris accord? KERRY>> Well, that's precisely why we're going to stick by it. And I think our word is strong. 125045 I've been on the phone for the last few days, talking to our allies in Europe, elsewhere around the world, and they are welcoming us back. They know that this administration already had a significant part of what has brought us to -- will bring us to Glasgow, which was the Paris Agreement. The Obama-Biden administration had great credibility on this issue, and having President Biden be the person now who is driving this forward is enormously meaningful to -- to the folks there. 125117 And they also know that I was deeply involved in the negotiations in Paris. And am now asked by the President, by President Biden, to make certain that we do the same at Glasgow, if not more. So, I have had no one question our credibility at this point in time. Someone probably will. And the answer will be that I think we can achieve things in the course of the next four years that will move the marketplace, the private sector, global finance, innovation and research, that, in fact, no -- no one, no political person in the future will be able to undo what the planet is going to be organizing over the next months and years. 125203 This is the start of something new. I don't know if you read Larry Fink's letter of BlackRock the other day, yesterday. But there's a new awareness among major asset managers, commercial banks and others about the need to be putting resources into this endeavor, because it is -- it is major in investment demand. So, I think the proof will be in what we do. Neither Gina nor I are going to start, you know, throwing around a lot of big promises. 125237 But you heard what she just said, and we will work very closely. Because we're going to try to bring to the table to help inform her and the folks she's working with what we're picking up abroad, and what people are doing abroad and the steps they're taking and how we now have to measure ourselves against them, and they will measure themselves against us. We are well aware of that. 125257 MCCARTHY>> Can I just add something? I just want to call attention to the fact that cities and states have really picked up the initiative to move forward on clean energy because the solutions are cheap. The solutions compete effectively against fossil fuels. 125316 We are talking about solutions that we're not asking anybody to sacrifice but are to their advantage, and if you look at the record over the past four years, while the prior administration might have wanted energy -- clean energy to head in a different direction, it's gone faster and farther than anyone ever expected. 125335 And the idea that we could, with this new work that we're doing together, send signals to the marketplace through our purchasing at the federal level and our re-looking at different ways of having on-the-ground change, we can build that demand. We actually grow significantly millions of clean energy jobs. And all of a sudden, the question won't be whether the private sector is going to buy into it. The private sector is going to drive it. 125405 And so, this is going to be a signal setter, the way the federal government ought to set, on what our values are, what we think the future needs to be and that's -- it's -- this is a value-lading -- laden effort that President Biden has undertaken with full knowledge that it's going to benefit jobs, it's going to benefit our health, and is going to lead to that future we want to hand to our children. PSAKI>> Let's do these two in the front. Then, they will come back. I promise. So go ahead. 125434 VEGA Q>> Thank you. Mr. Secretary, if you would, there certainly are oil and gas industry workers who are watching you both right now who will hear the message, that's -- the takeaway to them is that they're seeing an end to their livelihoods. What do you say to them, particularly those people who President Trump struck a chord with on the campaign trail when he promised to save their jobs? What is your message to them right now? And also, to the oil industry executives who are listening, are you putting them on notice today? 125507 KERRY>> Well, we didn't come here to put anybody on notice except to the seriousness of President Biden's intent to do what needs to be done to deal with this crisis, and it is a crisis. With respect to those workers, no -- no two people are more, in this room, more concerned about it. 125528 And the President of the United States has expressed in every comment he's made about climate the need to grow the new jobs that pay better, that are cleaner, that -- I mean, you know, you look at the consequences of black lung for a miner, for instance, and measure that against the fastest growing job in the United States before Covid was solar-powered technician. 125551 The same people can do those jobs, but the choice of doing the solar-power one now is a better choice. And similarly, you have the second fastest growing job pre-Covid was wind turbine technician. This is happening. 75%, 70% of all the electricity that's come online in the United States in the last few years came from renewables, not -- you know, coal plants have been closing over the last 20 years. 125620 So what President Biden wants to do is make sure those folks have better choices, that they have alternatives, that they can be the people who go to work to make the solar panels. That we're (?) making them here at home, that is going to be a particular focus of the Build Back Better agenda. And I think that, unfortunately, workers have been fed a false narrative -- no surprise, right? -- for the last few years. 125650 They've been fed the notion that, somehow, dealing with climate is coming at their expense. No, it's not. What's happening to them is happening because other market forces are already taking place. 125703 And what the -- what the fiananceres, the big banks, the asset managers, private investors, ventures capital are all discovering is there's a lot of money to be made in the creation of these news jobs in these sectors. So whether it's green hydrogen that is going to come, whether it's geothermal heat, or whether it -- whatever it's going to be, those are jobs. The same worker who works in South Carolina today, putting together a BMW which happens to be made there, and -- and is currently an internal combustion can put together a car, but it's electric. 125743 So this is not a choice between having jobs, having good jobs, having the quality of life. Quality of life will be better when Gina has put her team together that produces choices for us that are healthier -- less cancer, cleaner air. The greatest -- the greatest cost to America, the greatest cause of children being hospitalized every summer in the United states, we spend $55 million a year on it, is environmental induced asthma. 125813 That will change as we begin to rein in what we used to call "pollution" in this country, because it is pollution. And I think that workers are going to see that, with the efforts of the Biden administration, they're going to have a much better set of choices and, frankly, it will create more jobs than stuck where we were. 125833 MCCARTHY>> Can I just add, by pointing out a couple of things in the executive order that I want you to just call to your attention? We talked about the civilian conservation corp. That is an opportunity to put younger people into work in vitally important efforts. But if you look at this, it also has set up a task force that is looking at these coal communities, communities that are really reliant on their local energy and utility, and it talks about how do we revitalize those economies? 125907 And it talks about how we can put people to work using the skills they currently have where they are to start looking at those old abandoned oil and gas wells that are spewing out methane, or all of the coal that is -- mines that haven't been properly closed that are doing the same. That has great impact on climate, but also will keep an opportunity for those -- for those individual workers to have work in their own communities. We're not going to ask people to go from the middle of Ohio, or Pennsylvania and ship out to the coast to have solar jobs. You know, solar jobs will be everywhere. But -- 125950 We need to put people to work in their own communities. That's where their home is. That's where their vision is. So we're creatively looking at those opportunities for investment, so that we can get people understanding that we are not trying to take away jobs. Remember, when -- when we say "climate change," eventually, people are going to think "jobs" just like President Biden when he hears the words "climate change." 130016 And so, we'll do everything we can to recognize that revitalization is necessary in these communities to find creative ways to put them to work. And then, we're going to do, as secretary Kerry says, and start investing in new technologies and new manufacturing. And that includes the large manufacturing like cement and steel. That's work that we should be doing here. That's work that inevitably is going to be necessary to rebuild our infrastructure which is also one of the biggest opportunities we have for job growth moving forward. 130052 Q>> Two quick questions? PSAKI>> Peter. Q>> Sure. Administrator, one to you and one to the secretary, if I may. What you may hear from some corners of the criticism is why are we doing this now when we're already in an economic crisis? You look at the state of New Mexico where one-third of the state's budget is funded by oil and gas. So, why not let the country get back on its feet before we do this? 130115 MCCARTHY>> Well, the issue in New Mexico is that somebody reported a bit incorrectly -- well, maybe not as precisely enough -- that this wasn't about impacting existing permits and fracking. This was about new leases on federal lands. So I think that the opportunity for the states to continue to accrue the royalties from -- from, from both coal and oil and natural gas that is properly done on federal lands is going to continue. And there's even an opportunity in the review of that program to look at the royalty issues, look at the job growth opportunities, look at a variety of things to make sure that public lands are being properly managed. 130158 Now, in terms of the job issue, we're explicitly doing this because our economy is right now stagnant. We have people -- millions of people out of work, out of jobs, millions of people that are afraid they can't feed their families. If you're faced with that, what do you do? You boost the economy and you grow jobs. 130219 But why, at the same time, aren't we thinking about the weaknesses of our current economy in terms of the number of environmental injustice communities that have been left behind? 130230 The number of people breathing dirty air and their kids are getting asthma. So instead, let's think about it all of it at the same time. I know it's a crazy idea in a bureaucracy. You're only supposed to do one thing, but we're going to do and think about all of it. Because people need to have jobs. This is all about building the jobs of the future we want, not continuing needle (?) at an economy that is no longer going to be where our future lies. 130259 Q>> Mr. Secretary, to you, right now, over the course of this first week, there are a lot of big priorities here. There's Covid, the economy, immigration, racial justice, aow climate change. As a veteran of Congress, of the Senate, what is the priority? And how quickly do you need legislation to make this permanent? 130317 KERRY>> Well, the -- Peter, the priority is precisely what the president has set out. All of them, all six of the major crises that he faces. And he's addressing every single one of them, and he knows that the United States, all of us, have the ability to be able to do that. And the reason that has to be done is every single one of them are life and death. Every single one of them represent a challenge to the very fiber of our society. 130347 And the other reason, obviously, everything -- I agree with everything Gina said. But I'd simply add that the other reason for doing it now is the science tells us we have to. And that's one of the things the president is restoring today, in the executive order, is respect for science and the science office. So, I mean -- Q>> 2 trillion price tag. $2 trillion for Covid. $2 trillion for this. It's a lot of money to a lot of Americans. 130414 KERRY>> It is real money. And yes, it's a lot of money. But you know what? It costs a lot more if you don't do the things we need to do. It costs a lot more. There are countless economic analyses now that show that it is now cheaper to deal with the crisis of climate than it is to ignore it. We spent $265 billion, two years ago on three -- three storms, Irma, Harvey and Maria. Maria destroyed Puerto Rico. Harvey dropped more water on Houston in five days than goes over Niagara Falls in a year. 130448 And Irma had the first recorded winds of 185 miles an hour for 24 sustained hours. That -- last year, we had one storm, $55 billion. So we're spending the money, folks. We're just not doing it smart. We're not doing it in the way that would actually sustain us for the long term. So this is critical. We're -- the goal of the Paris Agreement was to hold the Earth's temperature increase to 2 degrees centigrade. Even if you did everything that was in Paris, we're going up 3.7 or 4. That's catastrophic. 130524 What president Biden is trying to do is listen to science, listen to facts, and make tough decisions about what we need to do to take the world to a better place. And particularly, our own country. And that is what he is committed to doing. So, yes, there are a lot of challenges right now which, sadly, all of them were exacerbated by the last four years. Now, we have to try to make up for that. And that is a hard pull, but this president is capable of doing it. And he's putting together a great team that I think can help him that. Q>> Thank you, sir. PSAKI>> Thank you. MCCARTHY>> Thank you. JEN PSAKI 130601 PSAKI>> Thank you, Gina McCarthy. Thank you Secretary Kerry for joining us. You're free to go-- MCCARTHY>> Thank you. PSAKI>> -- to go see the President. So you can all see, they're both experienced and passionate and tenacious, having worked with -- with both of them in the past. So, the crisis is in good hands. I know we have a short period of time here. But I just wanted to provide an update on a question that you all have been asking a bit about which is what some of the outreach our teams are doing, as it relates to the covid package. 130632 That is a top priority for President Biden. As we have talked about almost everyday in here, probably every day, our team continues to build support for the American Rescue Plan as more and more across the country recognize the urgent need to get American families the help they need. We've obviously seen a broad coalition of support emerge from the chamber of commerce to Senator Sanders and organized labor to hundreds of mayors and local public health officials. 130702 The President and Vice President are engaged directly with members, and have had a number productive conversations. That will continue during the course of the week and will only pick up in the days ahead. Senior White House officials are also engaging with not just Congressional leaders, but also state and local officials, key constituency groups and others, to gather feedback on the proposal and move the package forward. So let me give you a couple of examples from just yesterday. 130728 Chief of Staff Ron Klain engaged with members directly throughout the day, as did Senior Adviser Anita Dunn which they will both continue to do moving forward. Counselor to the President Steve Fraschetti and office of Legislative Affairs Director Louisa Terrell are quarterbacking the teams' broader legislative outreach, and have had dozens of conversations with individual members to understand their priorities and receive their feedback. 130751 In addition to ongoing conversations with leadership on both sides of the aisle, already this week, members of the national economic council and domestic policy council and staff from treasury have met with the relevant committees, including Senate Banking committee, senate finance committee, House ways and mean, House financial services, House education and labor, and the bicameral small business committee. NEC Director Brian Deese is doing one-on-one briefings with members of the Congress and meetings with caucuses including yesterday's meeting, which I believe has been reported, with the problem-solvers caucus to discuss the proposal. 130824 Hill engagement will continue with Jeff Zients and Brian Deese meeting with the new Dem coalition, along with several other briefings that are scheduled. Also, our outreach isn't limited to Congress which is vitally important. This isn't just about speaking to elected officials. This is also about speaking to the country and building support, and educating and engaging with leaders across the country. So yesterday, Jeff Zients and his team spoke with bipartisan governors, as you all know. They talked about the Covid package by the national governors association -- organized by then. 130856 And administration officials briefed tribal leaders and a number of mayors yesterday as well. And the office of Public Engagement led by Cedric Richmond briefed civil rights groups yesterday including the NAACP, the National Action Network, Justice Action Network, Urban league coalition of Black Civic Participation, and Black women's roundtable. Today, they have meetings with labor leaders, advocates for young people as well as organizations dedicated to building wealth in the Black community. 130921 On Friday, OP will also -- the Office of Public Engagement, I should say. I hate acronyms -- will convene 100 presidents of historically Black colleges and universities also to discuss this proposal. And the only other thing I wanted to mention before we get to your questions is that, as you all know, treasury secretary Janet Yellen was just confirmed. 130940 The President will be meeting with his economic team on Friday including secretary Yellen for a briefing on impact of delay, and moving forward with the additional economic relief. With that, let's get to your questions. Alex, your first day in the white house briefing room. And Alex's first days. Two Alexes first days. Q>> It's good to be here. PSAKI>> There's an initiation afterwards that the press corp will conduct. PSAKI Q&A Q>> [inaud] PSAKI>> Yes, go ahead. Q>> I'll make it quick because you have a pretty hard out in a few minutes. PSAKI>> I think you all have a hard out, too but yes-- 131009 Q>> I wanted to ask about one of your favorite topics: impeachment. Nearly every Republican senator last night voted to throw out the impeachment trial of president Trump. Does president Biden have a reaction to that? Does he trust congress to hold president Trump accountable for the insurrection against the Capitol? And does see censure against former president trump as a viable alternative to convictions, since it looks unlikely at this point? 131034 PSAKI>> Well, the President certainly respects the role that Congress has. Senators, of course, the Senate, as they're overseeing the trial moving forward, in determining the pace and the path forward for holding the former president accountable. That continues to be his belief. In all of his conversations that he's been having with members about the recovery plan, he has -- they have said they expect from him that his focus will be on Covid relief. That's how he will use the bully pulpit. 131104 That's how he will speak to the American people. And they are eager to work with him on that so that's where his focus remains, and what steps they take to hold the former president accountable, he'll leave it to them. Q>> Why the resistance on weighing in on the issue? 131117 PSAKI>> We've weighed in many times. The president has been asked about the issue. We put out a statement when the House put out a vote -- voted on impeachment, I should say. But his focus is on doing -- delivering on what the American people elected him to do, which to get relief to the -- to the American people, to get the pandemic under control, to ensure working families can put food on the table. And that's where he feels his efforts should be -- should remain. Okay. Go ahead. 131144 VEGA Q>> Thanks, Jen. Does the White House have a comment on the social media profile that has emerged of Representative Marjorie Taylor Green. And is there a response to whether any disciplinary action should be taken against her, given everything that's come out? 131158 PSAKI>> We don't, and I'm not going to speak further about her, I think, in this briefing room. VEGA>> Okay, and -- PSAKI>> Oh, go ahead. VEGA>> Okay. One more, if you don't mind, it's just kind of a little bit of a house keeping -- PSAKI>> Sure. 131207 VEGA Q>> The last administration has suggested that -- on the origins on the Covid-19 virus -- that it may have originated in a lab in China. It was never definitive. Do you have an update on that, on the origin, where we are in that investigation? 131222 PSAKI>> Well, first, obviously, the -- the misinformation, of course, that has -- we've seen also come out of -- of some sources in China is of great concern to us. It's imperative that we get to the bottom of the early days of the pandemic in China. And we've been supportive of an international investigation that we feel should be robust and clear. 131248 We -- our view is that we must prepare to draw on information collected and analyzed by our intelligence community, which is something that is ongoing, and to work -- and also to continue to work with our allies to evaluate the report's credibility on the investigation, once it's done. 131304 In addition, as you all know, secretary of state was just -- Tony Blinken was just sworn in yesterday, and one of his priorities, of course, is ensuring that our staffing on the ground in Beijing, which is something that fell back in the last administration, is returned to what it was prio, which means we want to have science experts, policy experts on the ground, in the roles that they should be serving in to ensure that, you know, we're also there representing, you know, our interests from the United States on the ground in China. Go ahead. 131334 Q>> Couple quick ones that I still don't think I fully understand. I know the executive order was signed, but has this white house invoked the DPA? And how soon will we actually see companies be compelled to produce supplies or vaccines or whatever else impacts Americans? PSAKI>> We -- It was invoked, the day it was signed, within 24 hours of it being signed. Q>> I know that jump-started the process. So I guess that meant it was invoked? PSAKI>> Yes, and I confirmed that when it was -- the next day, the following day in the briefing room which I realize everybody can't be here every day because of Covid. 131402 But it was invoked and it means that our work is ongoing with companies to ensure that we are expediting the manufacturing of materials to ensure that we can get 100 million shots in the arms of Americans. And I know there's been some confusion about this, and what exactly it is. What does the DPA mean? 131422 There are a few examples that our team has cited including vaccine -- on vaccine supply, low-dead space syringes which means it allows for the ability to get an extra dose into the Pfizer vial which is important to getting more doses out there, help -- additional N-95, the production of additional N-95 masks, isolation gowns, gloves, pipette tips and high absorbancy foam swabs. So we're really talking about very specific materials that can be used by vaccinators to get these shots in the arms of Americans. 131454 Q>> Thanks for clarifying. There was some confusion on the earlier call which is why I repeated here. Let me ask one other question. Yesterday, you deflected this to the USOC (?) but my question is a little bit different today. We're now hearing from the organizers of this year's summer games in Japan. The head of Japan's olympic committee is seeking public reassurances from President Biden himself given that the U.S., of course, Is the largest contingent of athletes, that the games should be able to go on. As the world's -- as the world is dealing with this pandemic right now, based on where we are right now with the vaccine, does president Biden believe the games in Japan can safely go on? 131529 PSAKI>> Well, the president -- and I'm not sure if this readout had gone out yet, but he had spoken with the prime minister of Japan earlier this morning. And a readout was going out as we were coming out to the briefing. I'm not sure if they spoke about the Olympics. I'm happy to check with our national security team on that, to follow up with, but I don't have any more assessment of the olympics at this point in time. Q>> So it hasn't been discussed whether he has a position on whether it will safely be able to go ahead? 131555 PSAKI>> I don't have anything more than -- I haven't had much on it. But I don't have anything more than I've had on other days on it. Q>> -- so, we asked. So we'll follow up. PSAKI>> Understood. And they just had a call this morning. but I haven't had a chance to talk to him specifically about it. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you, Jen. Q>> Thanks, Jen. Two vaccine questions. First of all, this came up on the Covid call earlier but how seriously is the White House considering using the defense protection act to compel other pharmaceutical companies to produce the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to resupply? 131624 PSAKI>> Well, I didn't hear the entirety of the call because we were doing some preparation for the event this afternoon. But from listening to our team talk about it, there are obviously manufacturing facilities that have the capacity and ability to get these vaccine doses out. And we don't want to get our -- behind the pace, and start from scratch, I should say, in ensuring that they're ready to do that. I don't think our concern at this point is whether or not we're going to have the vaccine doses. 131653 Obviously, the president announced yesterday the intention to purchase dosed -- additional doses, the -- our confidence in the manufacturers to have those doses available, the concerns we have are, one, contingency planning and all of the different things that can happen because this is a herculean task that has never been done before, but also ensuring we have vaccinators, vaccine sites, et cetera, available. So I have not heard from our team of plans to seek other manufacturers at this point in time. And I'm happy to follow up with them and see if there's anything additional. 131728 Q>> On the 200 million doses, the president said he's ordering them. What is the status of that order? Have Pfizer and Moderna agreed to produce 100 million doses each? And how quickly do they say they can do it? PSAKI>> Well, we expect to get the doses by mid-to-late summer. The majority of doses by mid-to late-summer, some earlier than that so we are confident that we'll be able to get those from the manufacturers, yes. Go ahead, Karen. 131757 TRAVERS Q>> Jen, a couple questions on schools. Does the administration plan to develop metrics or standards for what a safe reopening of schools will look like? 131804 PSAKI>> We do. And -- and our CDC director, and I'm not sure, again, if she was asked about this important question, I know as a fellow mother. But we will have specifics that we'll defer to the CDC on, on the safe reopening of schools. As you know, the President talked about -- has talked about his commitment and his goal of reopening most K through 8 schools within 100 days. There are obviously a number of steps that will need to be taken in order for that to be possible. 131834 But he's directed the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services to provide guidance on safe reopening and operating for schools, child care providers and institutions of higher education. But as our Covid team has outlined, that's going to require testing materials, support for contact tracing, vaccinations for teachers, and ensuring they're equitably provided. But our, the -- our CDC director and team will be looking into putting together some specific guidelines so there can be clarity on that front -- TRAVERS>> And to follow up on that -- PSAKI>> -- which I know a lot of districts are looking for. Go ahead 131905 TRAVERS Q>> Those things you mentioned all cost a lot of money, and a big part of the Covid relief package is a lot of money to go to school reopening. If Congress doesn't approve the money you want, and schools don't have what they need to pay for things to open safely, would the President support teachers staying at home and support virtual learning continuing through this entire school year? 131923 PSAKI>> Well, I think the President recognizes, as we all do, the value of having children in schools and doing that in a safe way, which is one of the reasons he's set this ambitious goal of reopening most K through 8 schools within 100 days, but one of the reasons that this -- the funding for safe reopening for getting schools the equipment, the testing, the ventilation in some cases that they need is because nobody wants to be having a conversation in May or June about why schools are not reopened. 131954 So, this goes back to the argument that our team has been making, and all of these calls and engagements and meetings that I outlined about the importance and vital nature of each component of the package. So, we won't get into a hypothetical. We are confident that Congress will move forward with a package. 132010 Let me just go-- we gotta wrap up soon. Okay. I'm sorry. We'll do more questions tomorrow. But we had two such great guests. Jen, go ahead. Q>> Thank you...one on the climate actions today, they leave out treasury's financial stability and oversight council, which the experts say could play an influential role in addressing climate risks. Does the administration have plans to take action on climate finance, and should FSOC direct agencies and regulators to address climate change? 132037 PSAKI>> Well, I'm going to use a reference that my friend and colleague Ambassador Susan Rice used yesterday which is "there are 1,453 days left in this administration." And addressing climate and the crisis of climate is an issue that the President has conveyed to members of his cabinet, members of his senior team is an absolute priority. So Secretary Yellen has been in her role for one day, but certainly, I'd send you to them for any more specifics. But this is the beginning, not the end of our work on climate. Nadia? Oh, go ahead. 132108 Q>> Is the white house concerned about the stock market activity we're seeing around Gamestop, now with some other stocks as well including the...company that was Blockbuster? And have there been any conversations with the FCC on how to proceed? 132127 PSAKI>> Well, I'm also happy to repeat that we have the first female treasury secretary and a team that's surrounding her, and often questions about market we'll send to them. But our team is, of course, our economic team including secretary Yellen and others are monitoring the situation. It's a good reminder, though, that the stock market isn't the only measure of the health of our econom-- of our economy. It doesn't reflect how working and middle class families are doing. As you all know, from covering this, we're in the midst of a K-shaped recovery. America's are struggling to make ends meet, which is why the President has introduced this urgent package to get immediate relief to families. Alright I'm going to go Nadia, and then, we'll be totally done 'cause everybody has to go. Okay. Go ahead. 132205 Q>> [inaud] I have two questions. PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> One about covid and one about China. Regarding Covid, the president promised to increase supplies to states by 10 million doses, yet statistically 47% of Americans are hesitant to take the vaccine, despite that the President and vice president took it publicly. What is the administration doing to convince Americans to take it, to reach the herd immunity by say 70% by the fall? 132235 PSAKI>> You're absolutely right, Nadia, that this is one of the biggest challenges we face. And for anyone who tuned into the briefing that our health team led this morning, it was one of the first issues that CDC director Dr. Walensky raised. And one of the things we're doing is prioritizing providing correct information about it -- the vaccine -- and -- so I'll take the opportunity, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are safe and effective. That's one of the things she said today. 132301 They were tested in large clinical trials to make sure they meet safety standards. About 30% of US participants in those trials were Hispanic, African American, Asian or Native american. About half were adults. And so, we want to provide clear data as I just did, but also we want to meet people where they are, communicate directly with communities of color, people who have concerns, and use medical and health professionals to do exactly that. Okay, you had a China question, and then you really have to go. But go ahead. 132328 Q>> And second, many welcomed your rejoining of the WHO, yet some want to push for a transparent investigation into the relationship between China and WHO. And also yesterday in the hearing in the senate, governor Raimondo declined to black list Huawei technology in the US. Is this some kind of caving in to China or is it a nuanced way to deal with China? 132354 PSAKI>> So, I think your -- the second reference I think was to Huawei, right? And then, come -- yes. Q>> [inaud] PSAKI>> So let me just convey clearly our position on this. Let us be clear: telecommunications equipment made by untrusted vendors including Huawei is a threat to the security of the US and our allies. 132413 We'll ensure that the American telecommunications network do not use equipment from untrusted venues, and will work with allies to secure their telecommunications networks. And make investments to expand the production of telecommunications equipment by trusted US and allied companies. Again, we'll take many more questions tomorrow. Thank you all. Have a great rest of your day. ##

American Flag Politics Money and Religious Christianity Cross

FS24 WH PSAKI PRESS BRIEF CUTS POOL 4 1215 CBS POOL White House briefing with Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, and National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy 123147 PSAKI>> Hi, everyone! I have to give you a fancy introduction. [laughter] Good afternoon. President Biden is continuing to follow through on his key promise to take swift and bold action that addresses the climate crisis, building on his Day 1 actions of rejoining the Paris Agreement, and strengthening our clean air and water protections and to -- and holding polluters accountable. 123218 Today, he will take executive action to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad while creating good paying, union jobs, building sustainable infrastructure and delivering environmental justice. I'm thrilled today, as a part of our effort to bring policy experts into the briefing room, we're joined by two very special guests who are going to take you -- talk to you all about today's executive orders and take a few questions as well. And I will always -- as always play the role of bad cop when they have to go. 123248 National climate adviser Gina McCarthy and special presidential envoy for climate and my former boss, former secretary of state John Kerry. And a big day for Boston in the briefing room, so. [laughter] With that, go ahead. GINA MCCARTHY 123300 MCCARTHY>> Thank you. It's a big day for Boston every day. Thank you, everybody. Today, president Biden will build on the actions he took on day one, and he'll take more steps to fulfill commitments he made to tackle the climate crisis while creating good paying, union jobs and achieving environmental justice. 123324 In his campaign, he and vice president Harris put forward the most ambitious climate vision that any presidential ticket had ever embraced. And he spent more time campaigning on climate than we have ever seen. The president also has consistently identified the climate crisis as one of four interrelated existential crises that are gripping our nation all at once. And he's demanding answers that can address all four. And he's not waiting to take action, getting us started on his first day in office because science is telling us that we don't have a moment to lose to fight against all four of these crises in a way that recognizes their intersectionality. 123412 He's always committed the U.S to renter. -- I'm sorry, he's already committed the US to re-enter the Paris climate agreement. And he committed us, as well, to start undoing the assault on our environment that has occurred over the past four years. And he is now taking additional action to really target the challenge of climate change. So, today, for me is a very good day. Just one week into his administration, president Biden is continuing to move us forward, at the breadth and the pace that climate science demands. 123449 Today's executive order starts by saying, "it is the policy of this administration that climate considerations shall be an essential element of US foreign policy and national security." That's where the big guy comes in. It gives my colleague John Kerry, the first ever international climate envoy, the authority to really drive forward a process that will restore American leadership on climate throughout the world, and you will see and hear more about that from Secretary Kerry. 123523 But here at home, we have to do our part or we will not be able to make the kind of worldwide change that climate change demands. So this executive order establishes a White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy, and it directs everyone who works for the President to use every tool available at our disposal to solve the climate crisis. 123548 Because we're going to take a whole of government approach. We're going to power our economy with clean energy. We're going to do that in a way that will produce millions of American jobs that are going to be good paying, that are going to be jobs that have the opportunity for workers to join a union because, as President Biden has often told us, when he thinks of climate change, his first thought is about jobs. 123618 And it should be. Because people in this country need a job, and this is about making that happen in the most creative and significant way that the federal government can move forward. And we're going to make sure that nobody is left behind. And I'm not just talking about communities in terms of environmental justice, but workers as well. 123639 This order takes historic strides to address environmental injustice. It creates both a White House Interagency Task Force to address environmental justice, as well as an Advisory Council. It directs the Department of Health and Human Services to create an office of Climate Change and Health Equity because, after all, climate change is the most significant public health challenge of our time. 123706 And it tasks the department of justice with establishing an office of Climate Justice. Because we know that communities who are being hurt, and we know we have to start enforcing the standards today and ensuring that they are part of the solution, and in places that we can invest. In fact, it commits 40% of our investment in clean energy towards disadvantaged communities so they can benefit from the new jobs that are available, and see that better future. 123737 President Biden's order establishes a working group on coal and power plant communities because we have to make sure that, in this transition, every agency in government is using every tool at their disposal to drive resources to those communities. And it fulfills long-standing commitments to leverage our vast resources to contribute to our clean energy future. It places a pause and review on new oil and gas leases on federal public lands and waters, consistent with the promise president Biden has repeatedly made and has been very clear in the face of efforts to distort his promise. 123822 And it sets a goal of doubling offshore wind production by 2030. In addition, he plans to sign a presidential memorandum that aims to restore scientific integrity across the federal government and earn back the public's trust, making a commitment to base solutions on the best available science and data. So, today is a very big day for science and for our efforts to power our economy with good paying union jobs. Thank you very much. JOHN KERRY 123903 KERRY>>> Good afternoon, everybody. It's great to be here. Let me say, first of all, what a pleasure it is to be here with Gina. I'm a big fan of Gina's. Gina and I worked very, very closely together during the campaign, when we sat down to -- to bring the Bernie Sanders folks together around the Biden climate plan. 123927 And she is the perfect person to be tackling the domestic side of this equation, which is complicated. And nobody knows the details better than she does, and nobody is going to be more effective at corralling everybody to move in the same direction. It's also an enormous pleasure for me to be here with Jen Psaki. 123950 She mentioned that -- nobody was her boss, but I had the privilege of working with her. And she, seven years ago, we gathered in the State Department briefing room -- she's traded up, obviously. But she has not given away any of her fundamental principles in commitment to telling you all the truth, telling the American people the truth and doing so with great candor and transparency. 124020 And I'm very happy to be here with her. The stakes -- the stakes on climate change just simply couldn't be any higher than they are right now. It is existential. We use that word too easily and we throw it away, but we have a big agenda in front of us on a global basis. 124041 And President Biden is deeply committed, totally seized by this issue as you can tell by this executive order and, and by the other -- the initiative of getting back into Paris immediately. That's why he rejoined the Paris agreement so quickly because he knows it is urgent. He also knows that Paris alone is not enough, not when almost 90% of all of the planet's emissions, global emissions, come from outside of US borders. 124110 We could go to zero tomorrow, and the problem isn't solved. So that's why today, one week into the job, President Biden will sign this additional executive set of orders to help move us down the road, ensuring that ambitious climate action is global in scope and scale, as well as national -- here at home. 124136 Today, in the order that he will sign that Gina has described to you, he makes climate central to foreign policy planning, to diplomacy, and to national security preparedness. It creates new platforms to coordinate climate action across the federal agencies and departments, sorely needed. And most importantly, it commissions a National Intelligence estimate on the security implications of climate change to give all of us an even deeper understanding of the challenge. 124211 This is the first time a President has ever done that. And our 17 intelligence agencies are going to come together and assess exactly what the danger and damage and potential risks are. The order directs the State department to prepare a transmittal package, seeking Senate advice and consent, on the Kigali Amendment on the Montreal protocol, an amendment that by itself, if ratified and fully enforced globally, could hold the Earth's temperature by .5 of an entire degree, not insignificant. 124247 And it sets forth a process for us to develop a new ambitious Paris target, as well as a U.S. Climate Finance plan, both of which are essential to our being able to bring countries of the world together, to raise ambition, and meet this moment when we go to Glasgow for the follow-on agreement to Paris. 124309 So that's the only way for the world to succeed together, my friends. It's -- again, this is an issue where failure literally is not an option. 124318 As he committed to doing on the campaign trail, the President is announcing that he will host a leaders' summit on climate change less than three months from now on April 22nd, Earth Day, which will include a leader-level reconvening of the major economies forum. We'll have specifics to lay out over time, but the convening of this -- of this summit, is essential to ensuring that the -- that 2021 is going to be the year that really makes up for the lost time of the last four years. 124355 And that the U.N. Climate conference COP26, as it's called, which the UK is hosting in November to make sure that it's an unqualified success. The road to Glasgow will be marked not just by promises, but by progress at a pace that we can all be proud of. And Gina is going to be putting her efforts into making concern that that is true. The world will measure us by what we can do here at home. So with these executive actions today, we believe we're steps further down that journey. Thank you. Q&A 124433 PSAKI>> All right. Let's start with Nancy. Q>> Thank you so much. Secretary Kerry, a question for you and then for administrator McCarthy. You talked about the fact that it won't really matter what we do very much if the rest of the world doesn't do the same thing. But the US Has had a fairly rocky relationship with China recently. How do you plan to try to bring both China and India to the table on this issue? 124457 KERRY>> Wel, before I -- before I answer that, let me just say that the issue of making a difference -- i.e, what we do at home -- what I'm saying is: you can't solve the problem alone, but our doing things makes an enormous difference. What Gina succeeds in pulling together is essential to our ability to have credibility in the world. Now -- 124524 With respect to China, obviously, we have serious differences with China on some very, very important issues. And I am as mindful of that as anybody, having served as Secretary of State and in the Senate. The issues of theft of intellectual property and access to market, South China Sea -- I mean, you run the list. We all know them. 124528 Those issues will never be treated for anything that has to do with climate. That's not going to happen, but climate is a critical stand alone issue that we have to deal on, in the sense that China is 30% of the emissions in the world. We're about 15% of the emissions in the world. 124609 You add the EU to that, and you've got three entities that are more than -- than 55% or so. So it's urgent that we find a way to compartmentalize, to move forward, and we'll wait and see. But President Biden is very, very clear about the need to address the other issues with China. And I know some people have been concerned. Nothing is going to be siphoned off into one area from another. 124638 Q>> And then, a question for either of you on coal. Your executive order talks about oil and gas on federal lands, but it doesn't really say much about coal. What is this administration's policy when it comes to coal? 124650 MCCARTHY>> Well, in terms of the oil and gas decision, it was -- is to make sure that we take a little pause, and review the entire strategy of how we're looking at public lands. So it will include looking at what new leases ought to be approved and sold. It's looking at our ability, also, to look at coal in that mix. So the program review is going to look at how we manage public lands, consistent with climate. 124715 But also consistent with the marriage between climate and, really, growing jobs of the future. So, it will be in the mix to be looked at, but it is -- it is not at this point included. It was not part of the commitments on the campaign, but we're going to take a close look at all of it. And can I just add on your comment about China, which I'm not going to speak to the international dynamic, but I am going to say that: part of the challenge that we face here is a challenge that president Biden has already started to address with his Buy America pledge. 124748 We have to start not just shifting to clean energy, but it has to be manufactured in the United States of America. You know, not in other countries, and there is going to be a large discussion about how we make sure that a lot of the investment is -- is about building up our manufacturing base again. That's great jobs. That's often, hopefully, union jobs. But it is also a wonderful opportunity for us to recoup the benefits of that manufacturing, and lower the cost of clean energy. 124820 Part of the way we're going to get there is by making sure the federal government buys American, and that the federal government looks at its procurement across every agency, so that the breadth of what we spend is spent designed to advance job growth in the United States, to advance health benefits for environmental justice communities, and to begin to tackle the very challenged -- the existential challenge of climate change. PSAKI>> Jeff Mason. 124849 Q>> Thank you. Jeff Mason with Reuters. Question for both of you. Can you give us a sense of when you expect to have the so-called NDC or the US Target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as part of the Paris accord? And can you also give us a sense of how ambitious you plan to make that number? Will it be 40%, 50%, higher than that? 124914 MCCARTHY>> Well -- KERRY>> We're united in this, so. MCCARTHY>> Yeah, I'm -- I'm the dude who's supposed to deliver this in a timely way, and he sets the timing. So that basically -- 124923 We want to make sure that the NDC is something that can be announced before the summit on Earth Day. And so we're going to be, out of the gate, working with the agencies to see what kind of reductions and mitigation opportunities there are. 124938 And also, again, to look at our public lands to make sure that we can continue to store carbon in our soil, to work with agriculture and others, to look at how we better manage our forests so we're not seeing the devastating forest fires that we've been having before. So all across the federal government, every agency, and you'll see many of them specifically tasked in this executive order, will participate in the task force that we're going to have to actually develop the most aggressive NDC that we can to deliver the kind of boost that Secretary Kerry is looking for, to be able to ensure that our international efforts are robust and -- and sufficient to address the challenge internationally. 125025 Q>> Just follow-up for that, for Secretary Kerry, how do you assert to our international partners that the US will stick to whatever you propose after having seen the Trump administration take the U.S. out of the Paris accord? KERRY>> Well, that's precisely why we're going to stick by it. And I think our word is strong. 125045 I've been on the phone for the last few days, talking to our allies in Europe, elsewhere around the world, and they are welcoming us back. They know that this administration already had a significant part of what has brought us to -- will bring us to Glasgow, which was the Paris Agreement. The Obama-Biden administration had great credibility on this issue, and having President Biden be the person now who is driving this forward is enormously meaningful to -- to the folks there. 125117 And they also know that I was deeply involved in the negotiations in Paris. And am now asked by the President, by President Biden, to make certain that we do the same at Glasgow, if not more. So, I have had no one question our credibility at this point in time. Someone probably will. And the answer will be that I think we can achieve things in the course of the next four years that will move the marketplace, the private sector, global finance, innovation and research, that, in fact, no -- no one, no political person in the future will be able to undo what the planet is going to be organizing over the next months and years. 125203 This is the start of something new. I don't know if you read Larry Fink's letter of BlackRock the other day, yesterday. But there's a new awareness among major asset managers, commercial banks and others about the need to be putting resources into this endeavor, because it is -- it is major in investment demand. So, I think the proof will be in what we do. Neither Gina nor I are going to start, you know, throwing around a lot of big promises. 125237 But you heard what she just said, and we will work very closely. Because we're going to try to bring to the table to help inform her and the folks she's working with what we're picking up abroad, and what people are doing abroad and the steps they're taking and how we now have to measure ourselves against them, and they will measure themselves against us. We are well aware of that. 125257 MCCARTHY>> Can I just add something? I just want to call attention to the fact that cities and states have really picked up the initiative to move forward on clean energy because the solutions are cheap. The solutions compete effectively against fossil fuels. 125316 We are talking about solutions that we're not asking anybody to sacrifice but are to their advantage, and if you look at the record over the past four years, while the prior administration might have wanted energy -- clean energy to head in a different direction, it's gone faster and farther than anyone ever expected. 125335 And the idea that we could, with this new work that we're doing together, send signals to the marketplace through our purchasing at the federal level and our re-looking at different ways of having on-the-ground change, we can build that demand. We actually grow significantly millions of clean energy jobs. And all of a sudden, the question won't be whether the private sector is going to buy into it. The private sector is going to drive it. 125405 And so, this is going to be a signal setter, the way the federal government ought to set, on what our values are, what we think the future needs to be and that's -- it's -- this is a value-lading -- laden effort that President Biden has undertaken with full knowledge that it's going to benefit jobs, it's going to benefit our health, and is going to lead to that future we want to hand to our children. PSAKI>> Let's do these two in the front. Then, they will come back. I promise. So go ahead. 125434 VEGA Q>> Thank you. Mr. Secretary, if you would, there certainly are oil and gas industry workers who are watching you both right now who will hear the message, that's -- the takeaway to them is that they're seeing an end to their livelihoods. What do you say to them, particularly those people who President Trump struck a chord with on the campaign trail when he promised to save their jobs? What is your message to them right now? And also, to the oil industry executives who are listening, are you putting them on notice today? 125507 KERRY>> Well, we didn't come here to put anybody on notice except to the seriousness of President Biden's intent to do what needs to be done to deal with this crisis, and it is a crisis. With respect to those workers, no -- no two people are more, in this room, more concerned about it. 125528 And the President of the United States has expressed in every comment he's made about climate the need to grow the new jobs that pay better, that are cleaner, that -- I mean, you know, you look at the consequences of black lung for a miner, for instance, and measure that against the fastest growing job in the United States before Covid was solar-powered technician. 125551 The same people can do those jobs, but the choice of doing the solar-power one now is a better choice. And similarly, you have the second fastest growing job pre-Covid was wind turbine technician. This is happening. 75%, 70% of all the electricity that's come online in the United States in the last few years came from renewables, not -- you know, coal plants have been closing over the last 20 years. 125620 So what President Biden wants to do is make sure those folks have better choices, that they have alternatives, that they can be the people who go to work to make the solar panels. That we're (?) making them here at home, that is going to be a particular focus of the Build Back Better agenda. And I think that, unfortunately, workers have been fed a false narrative -- no surprise, right? -- for the last few years. 125650 They've been fed the notion that, somehow, dealing with climate is coming at their expense. No, it's not. What's happening to them is happening because other market forces are already taking place. 125703 And what the -- what the fiananceres, the big banks, the asset managers, private investors, ventures capital are all discovering is there's a lot of money to be made in the creation of these news jobs in these sectors. So whether it's green hydrogen that is going to come, whether it's geothermal heat, or whether it -- whatever it's going to be, those are jobs. The same worker who works in South Carolina today, putting together a BMW which happens to be made there, and -- and is currently an internal combustion can put together a car, but it's electric. 125743 So this is not a choice between having jobs, having good jobs, having the quality of life. Quality of life will be better when Gina has put her team together that produces choices for us that are healthier -- less cancer, cleaner air. The greatest -- the greatest cost to America, the greatest cause of children being hospitalized every summer in the United states, we spend $55 million a year on it, is environmental induced asthma. 125813 That will change as we begin to rein in what we used to call "pollution" in this country, because it is pollution. And I think that workers are going to see that, with the efforts of the Biden administration, they're going to have a much better set of choices and, frankly, it will create more jobs than stuck where we were. 125833 MCCARTHY>> Can I just add, by pointing out a couple of things in the executive order that I want you to just call to your attention? We talked about the civilian conservation corp. That is an opportunity to put younger people into work in vitally important efforts. But if you look at this, it also has set up a task force that is looking at these coal communities, communities that are really reliant on their local energy and utility, and it talks about how do we revitalize those economies? 125907 And it talks about how we can put people to work using the skills they currently have where they are to start looking at those old abandoned oil and gas wells that are spewing out methane, or all of the coal that is -- mines that haven't been properly closed that are doing the same. That has great impact on climate, but also will keep an opportunity for those -- for those individual workers to have work in their own communities. We're not going to ask people to go from the middle of Ohio, or Pennsylvania and ship out to the coast to have solar jobs. You know, solar jobs will be everywhere. But -- 125950 We need to put people to work in their own communities. That's where their home is. That's where their vision is. So we're creatively looking at those opportunities for investment, so that we can get people understanding that we are not trying to take away jobs. Remember, when -- when we say "climate change," eventually, people are going to think "jobs" just like President Biden when he hears the words "climate change." 130016 And so, we'll do everything we can to recognize that revitalization is necessary in these communities to find creative ways to put them to work. And then, we're going to do, as secretary Kerry says, and start investing in new technologies and new manufacturing. And that includes the large manufacturing like cement and steel. That's work that we should be doing here. That's work that inevitably is going to be necessary to rebuild our infrastructure which is also one of the biggest opportunities we have for job growth moving forward. 130052 Q>> Two quick questions? PSAKI>> Peter. Q>> Sure. Administrator, one to you and one to the secretary, if I may. What you may hear from some corners of the criticism is why are we doing this now when we're already in an economic crisis? You look at the state of New Mexico where one-third of the state's budget is funded by oil and gas. So, why not let the country get back on its feet before we do this? 130115 MCCARTHY>> Well, the issue in New Mexico is that somebody reported a bit incorrectly -- well, maybe not as precisely enough -- that this wasn't about impacting existing permits and fracking. This was about new leases on federal lands. So I think that the opportunity for the states to continue to accrue the royalties from -- from, from both coal and oil and natural gas that is properly done on federal lands is going to continue. And there's even an opportunity in the review of that program to look at the royalty issues, look at the job growth opportunities, look at a variety of things to make sure that public lands are being properly managed. 130158 Now, in terms of the job issue, we're explicitly doing this because our economy is right now stagnant. We have people -- millions of people out of work, out of jobs, millions of people that are afraid they can't feed their families. If you're faced with that, what do you do? You boost the economy and you grow jobs. 130219 But why, at the same time, aren't we thinking about the weaknesses of our current economy in terms of the number of environmental injustice communities that have been left behind? 130230 The number of people breathing dirty air and their kids are getting asthma. So instead, let's think about it all of it at the same time. I know it's a crazy idea in a bureaucracy. You're only supposed to do one thing, but we're going to do and think about all of it. Because people need to have jobs. This is all about building the jobs of the future we want, not continuing needle (?) at an economy that is no longer going to be where our future lies. 130259 Q>> Mr. Secretary, to you, right now, over the course of this first week, there are a lot of big priorities here. There's Covid, the economy, immigration, racial justice, aow climate change. As a veteran of Congress, of the Senate, what is the priority? And how quickly do you need legislation to make this permanent? 130317 KERRY>> Well, the -- Peter, the priority is precisely what the president has set out. All of them, all six of the major crises that he faces. And he's addressing every single one of them, and he knows that the United States, all of us, have the ability to be able to do that. And the reason that has to be done is every single one of them are life and death. Every single one of them represent a challenge to the very fiber of our society. 130347 And the other reason, obviously, everything -- I agree with everything Gina said. But I'd simply add that the other reason for doing it now is the science tells us we have to. And that's one of the things the president is restoring today, in the executive order, is respect for science and the science office. So, I mean -- Q>> 2 trillion price tag. $2 trillion for Covid. $2 trillion for this. It's a lot of money to a lot of Americans. 130414 KERRY>> It is real money. And yes, it's a lot of money. But you know what? It costs a lot more if you don't do the things we need to do. It costs a lot more. There are countless economic analyses now that show that it is now cheaper to deal with the crisis of climate than it is to ignore it. We spent $265 billion, two years ago on three -- three storms, Irma, Harvey and Maria. Maria destroyed Puerto Rico. Harvey dropped more water on Houston in five days than goes over Niagara Falls in a year. 130448 And Irma had the first recorded winds of 185 miles an hour for 24 sustained hours. That -- last year, we had one storm, $55 billion. So we're spending the money, folks. We're just not doing it smart. We're not doing it in the way that would actually sustain us for the long term. So this is critical. We're -- the goal of the Paris Agreement was to hold the Earth's temperature increase to 2 degrees centigrade. Even if you did everything that was in Paris, we're going up 3.7 or 4. That's catastrophic. 130524 What president Biden is trying to do is listen to science, listen to facts, and make tough decisions about what we need to do to take the world to a better place. And particularly, our own country. And that is what he is committed to doing. So, yes, there are a lot of challenges right now which, sadly, all of them were exacerbated by the last four years. Now, we have to try to make up for that. And that is a hard pull, but this president is capable of doing it. And he's putting together a great team that I think can help him that. Q>> Thank you, sir. PSAKI>> Thank you. MCCARTHY>> Thank you. JEN PSAKI 130601 PSAKI>> Thank you, Gina McCarthy. Thank you Secretary Kerry for joining us. You're free to go-- MCCARTHY>> Thank you. PSAKI>> -- to go see the President. So you can all see, they're both experienced and passionate and tenacious, having worked with -- with both of them in the past. So, the crisis is in good hands. I know we have a short period of time here. But I just wanted to provide an update on a question that you all have been asking a bit about which is what some of the outreach our teams are doing, as it relates to the covid package. 130632 That is a top priority for President Biden. As we have talked about almost everyday in here, probably every day, our team continues to build support for the American Rescue Plan as more and more across the country recognize the urgent need to get American families the help they need. We've obviously seen a broad coalition of support emerge from the chamber of commerce to Senator Sanders and organized labor to hundreds of mayors and local public health officials. 130702 The President and Vice President are engaged directly with members, and have had a number productive conversations. That will continue during the course of the week and will only pick up in the days ahead. Senior White House officials are also engaging with not just Congressional leaders, but also state and local officials, key constituency groups and others, to gather feedback on the proposal and move the package forward. So let me give you a couple of examples from just yesterday. 130728 Chief of Staff Ron Klain engaged with members directly throughout the day, as did Senior Adviser Anita Dunn which they will both continue to do moving forward. Counselor to the President Steve Fraschetti and office of Legislative Affairs Director Louisa Terrell are quarterbacking the teams' broader legislative outreach, and have had dozens of conversations with individual members to understand their priorities and receive their feedback. 130751 In addition to ongoing conversations with leadership on both sides of the aisle, already this week, members of the national economic council and domestic policy council and staff from treasury have met with the relevant committees, including Senate Banking committee, senate finance committee, House ways and mean, House financial services, House education and labor, and the bicameral small business committee. NEC Director Brian Deese is doing one-on-one briefings with members of the Congress and meetings with caucuses including yesterday's meeting, which I believe has been reported, with the problem-solvers caucus to discuss the proposal. 130824 Hill engagement will continue with Jeff Zients and Brian Deese meeting with the new Dem coalition, along with several other briefings that are scheduled. Also, our outreach isn't limited to Congress which is vitally important. This isn't just about speaking to elected officials. This is also about speaking to the country and building support, and educating and engaging with leaders across the country. So yesterday, Jeff Zients and his team spoke with bipartisan governors, as you all know. They talked about the Covid package by the national governors association -- organized by then. 130856 And administration officials briefed tribal leaders and a number of mayors yesterday as well. And the office of Public Engagement led by Cedric Richmond briefed civil rights groups yesterday including the NAACP, the National Action Network, Justice Action Network, Urban league coalition of Black Civic Participation, and Black women's roundtable. Today, they have meetings with labor leaders, advocates for young people as well as organizations dedicated to building wealth in the Black community. 130921 On Friday, OP will also -- the Office of Public Engagement, I should say. I hate acronyms -- will convene 100 presidents of historically Black colleges and universities also to discuss this proposal. And the only other thing I wanted to mention before we get to your questions is that, as you all know, treasury secretary Janet Yellen was just confirmed. 130940 The President will be meeting with his economic team on Friday including secretary Yellen for a briefing on impact of delay, and moving forward with the additional economic relief. With that, let's get to your questions. Alex, your first day in the white house briefing room. And Alex's first days. Two Alexes first days. Q>> It's good to be here. PSAKI>> There's an initiation afterwards that the press corp will conduct. PSAKI Q&A Q>> [inaud] PSAKI>> Yes, go ahead. Q>> I'll make it quick because you have a pretty hard out in a few minutes. PSAKI>> I think you all have a hard out, too but yes-- 131009 Q>> I wanted to ask about one of your favorite topics: impeachment. Nearly every Republican senator last night voted to throw out the impeachment trial of president Trump. Does president Biden have a reaction to that? Does he trust congress to hold president Trump accountable for the insurrection against the Capitol? And does see censure against former president trump as a viable alternative to convictions, since it looks unlikely at this point? 131034 PSAKI>> Well, the President certainly respects the role that Congress has. Senators, of course, the Senate, as they're overseeing the trial moving forward, in determining the pace and the path forward for holding the former president accountable. That continues to be his belief. In all of his conversations that he's been having with members about the recovery plan, he has -- they have said they expect from him that his focus will be on Covid relief. That's how he will use the bully pulpit. 131104 That's how he will speak to the American people. And they are eager to work with him on that so that's where his focus remains, and what steps they take to hold the former president accountable, he'll leave it to them. Q>> Why the resistance on weighing in on the issue? 131117 PSAKI>> We've weighed in many times. The president has been asked about the issue. We put out a statement when the House put out a vote -- voted on impeachment, I should say. But his focus is on doing -- delivering on what the American people elected him to do, which to get relief to the -- to the American people, to get the pandemic under control, to ensure working families can put food on the table. And that's where he feels his efforts should be -- should remain. Okay. Go ahead. 131144 VEGA Q>> Thanks, Jen. Does the White House have a comment on the social media profile that has emerged of Representative Marjorie Taylor Green. And is there a response to whether any disciplinary action should be taken against her, given everything that's come out? 131158 PSAKI>> We don't, and I'm not going to speak further about her, I think, in this briefing room. VEGA>> Okay, and -- PSAKI>> Oh, go ahead. VEGA>> Okay. One more, if you don't mind, it's just kind of a little bit of a house keeping -- PSAKI>> Sure. 131207 VEGA Q>> The last administration has suggested that -- on the origins on the Covid-19 virus -- that it may have originated in a lab in China. It was never definitive. Do you have an update on that, on the origin, where we are in that investigation? 131222 PSAKI>> Well, first, obviously, the -- the misinformation, of course, that has -- we've seen also come out of -- of some sources in China is of great concern to us. It's imperative that we get to the bottom of the early days of the pandemic in China. And we've been supportive of an international investigation that we feel should be robust and clear. 131248 We -- our view is that we must prepare to draw on information collected and analyzed by our intelligence community, which is something that is ongoing, and to work -- and also to continue to work with our allies to evaluate the report's credibility on the investigation, once it's done. 131304 In addition, as you all know, secretary of state was just -- Tony Blinken was just sworn in yesterday, and one of his priorities, of course, is ensuring that our staffing on the ground in Beijing, which is something that fell back in the last administration, is returned to what it was prio, which means we want to have science experts, policy experts on the ground, in the roles that they should be serving in to ensure that, you know, we're also there representing, you know, our interests from the United States on the ground in China. Go ahead. 131334 Q>> Couple quick ones that I still don't think I fully understand. I know the executive order was signed, but has this white house invoked the DPA? And how soon will we actually see companies be compelled to produce supplies or vaccines or whatever else impacts Americans? PSAKI>> We -- It was invoked, the day it was signed, within 24 hours of it being signed. Q>> I know that jump-started the process. So I guess that meant it was invoked? PSAKI>> Yes, and I confirmed that when it was -- the next day, the following day in the briefing room which I realize everybody can't be here every day because of Covid. 131402 But it was invoked and it means that our work is ongoing with companies to ensure that we are expediting the manufacturing of materials to ensure that we can get 100 million shots in the arms of Americans. And I know there's been some confusion about this, and what exactly it is. What does the DPA mean? 131422 There are a few examples that our team has cited including vaccine -- on vaccine supply, low-dead space syringes which means it allows for the ability to get an extra dose into the Pfizer vial which is important to getting more doses out there, help -- additional N-95, the production of additional N-95 masks, isolation gowns, gloves, pipette tips and high absorbancy foam swabs. So we're really talking about very specific materials that can be used by vaccinators to get these shots in the arms of Americans. 131454 Q>> Thanks for clarifying. There was some confusion on the earlier call which is why I repeated here. Let me ask one other question. Yesterday, you deflected this to the USOC (?) but my question is a little bit different today. We're now hearing from the organizers of this year's summer games in Japan. The head of Japan's olympic committee is seeking public reassurances from President Biden himself given that the U.S., of course, Is the largest contingent of athletes, that the games should be able to go on. As the world's -- as the world is dealing with this pandemic right now, based on where we are right now with the vaccine, does president Biden believe the games in Japan can safely go on? 131529 PSAKI>> Well, the president -- and I'm not sure if this readout had gone out yet, but he had spoken with the prime minister of Japan earlier this morning. And a readout was going out as we were coming out to the briefing. I'm not sure if they spoke about the Olympics. I'm happy to check with our national security team on that, to follow up with, but I don't have any more assessment of the olympics at this point in time. Q>> So it hasn't been discussed whether he has a position on whether it will safely be able to go ahead? 131555 PSAKI>> I don't have anything more than -- I haven't had much on it. But I don't have anything more than I've had on other days on it. Q>> -- so, we asked. So we'll follow up. PSAKI>> Understood. And they just had a call this morning. but I haven't had a chance to talk to him specifically about it. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you, Jen. Q>> Thanks, Jen. Two vaccine questions. First of all, this came up on the Covid call earlier but how seriously is the White House considering using the defense protection act to compel other pharmaceutical companies to produce the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to resupply? 131624 PSAKI>> Well, I didn't hear the entirety of the call because we were doing some preparation for the event this afternoon. But from listening to our team talk about it, there are obviously manufacturing facilities that have the capacity and ability to get these vaccine doses out. And we don't want to get our -- behind the pace, and start from scratch, I should say, in ensuring that they're ready to do that. I don't think our concern at this point is whether or not we're going to have the vaccine doses. 131653 Obviously, the president announced yesterday the intention to purchase dosed -- additional doses, the -- our confidence in the manufacturers to have those doses available, the concerns we have are, one, contingency planning and all of the different things that can happen because this is a herculean task that has never been done before, but also ensuring we have vaccinators, vaccine sites, et cetera, available. So I have not heard from our team of plans to seek other manufacturers at this point in time. And I'm happy to follow up with them and see if there's anything additional. 131728 Q>> On the 200 million doses, the president said he's ordering them. What is the status of that order? Have Pfizer and Moderna agreed to produce 100 million doses each? And how quickly do they say they can do it? PSAKI>> Well, we expect to get the doses by mid-to-late summer. The majority of doses by mid-to late-summer, some earlier than that so we are confident that we'll be able to get those from the manufacturers, yes. Go ahead, Karen. 131757 TRAVERS Q>> Jen, a couple questions on schools. Does the administration plan to develop metrics or standards for what a safe reopening of schools will look like? 131804 PSAKI>> We do. And -- and our CDC director, and I'm not sure, again, if she was asked about this important question, I know as a fellow mother. But we will have specifics that we'll defer to the CDC on, on the safe reopening of schools. As you know, the President talked about -- has talked about his commitment and his goal of reopening most K through 8 schools within 100 days. There are obviously a number of steps that will need to be taken in order for that to be possible. 131834 But he's directed the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services to provide guidance on safe reopening and operating for schools, child care providers and institutions of higher education. But as our Covid team has outlined, that's going to require testing materials, support for contact tracing, vaccinations for teachers, and ensuring they're equitably provided. But our, the -- our CDC director and team will be looking into putting together some specific guidelines so there can be clarity on that front -- TRAVERS>> And to follow up on that -- PSAKI>> -- which I know a lot of districts are looking for. Go ahead 131905 TRAVERS Q>> Those things you mentioned all cost a lot of money, and a big part of the Covid relief package is a lot of money to go to school reopening. If Congress doesn't approve the money you want, and schools don't have what they need to pay for things to open safely, would the President support teachers staying at home and support virtual learning continuing through this entire school year? 131923 PSAKI>> Well, I think the President recognizes, as we all do, the value of having children in schools and doing that in a safe way, which is one of the reasons he's set this ambitious goal of reopening most K through 8 schools within 100 days, but one of the reasons that this -- the funding for safe reopening for getting schools the equipment, the testing, the ventilation in some cases that they need is because nobody wants to be having a conversation in May or June about why schools are not reopened. 131954 So, this goes back to the argument that our team has been making, and all of these calls and engagements and meetings that I outlined about the importance and vital nature of each component of the package. So, we won't get into a hypothetical. We are confident that Congress will move forward with a package. 132010 Let me just go-- we gotta wrap up soon. Okay. I'm sorry. We'll do more questions tomorrow. But we had two such great guests. Jen, go ahead. Q>> Thank you...one on the climate actions today, they leave out treasury's financial stability and oversight council, which the experts say could play an influential role in addressing climate risks. Does the administration have plans to take action on climate finance, and should FSOC direct agencies and regulators to address climate change? 132037 PSAKI>> Well, I'm going to use a reference that my friend and colleague Ambassador Susan Rice used yesterday which is "there are 1,453 days left in this administration." And addressing climate and the crisis of climate is an issue that the President has conveyed to members of his cabinet, members of his senior team is an absolute priority. So Secretary Yellen has been in her role for one day, but certainly, I'd send you to them for any more specifics. But this is the beginning, not the end of our work on climate. Nadia? Oh, go ahead. 132108 Q>> Is the white house concerned about the stock market activity we're seeing around Gamestop, now with some other stocks as well including the...company that was Blockbuster? And have there been any conversations with the FCC on how to proceed? 132127 PSAKI>> Well, I'm also happy to repeat that we have the first female treasury secretary and a team that's surrounding her, and often questions about market we'll send to them. But our team is, of course, our economic team including secretary Yellen and others are monitoring the situation. It's a good reminder, though, that the stock market isn't the only measure of the health of our econom-- of our economy. It doesn't reflect how working and middle class families are doing. As you all know, from covering this, we're in the midst of a K-shaped recovery. America's are struggling to make ends meet, which is why the President has introduced this urgent package to get immediate relief to families. Alright I'm going to go Nadia, and then, we'll be totally done 'cause everybody has to go. Okay. Go ahead. 132205 Q>> [inaud] I have two questions. PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> One about covid and one about China. Regarding Covid, the president promised to increase supplies to states by 10 million doses, yet statistically 47% of Americans are hesitant to take the vaccine, despite that the President and vice president took it publicly. What is the administration doing to convince Americans to take it, to reach the herd immunity by say 70% by the fall? 132235 PSAKI>> You're absolutely right, Nadia, that this is one of the biggest challenges we face. And for anyone who tuned into the briefing that our health team led this morning, it was one of the first issues that CDC director Dr. Walensky raised. And one of the things we're doing is prioritizing providing correct information about it -- the vaccine -- and -- so I'll take the opportunity, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are safe and effective. That's one of the things she said today. 132301 They were tested in large clinical trials to make sure they meet safety standards. About 30% of US participants in those trials were Hispanic, African American, Asian or Native american. About half were adults. And so, we want to provide clear data as I just did, but also we want to meet people where they are, communicate directly with communities of color, people who have concerns, and use medical and health professionals to do exactly that. Okay, you had a China question, and then you really have to go. But go ahead. 132328 Q>> And second, many welcomed your rejoining of the WHO, yet some want to push for a transparent investigation into the relationship between China and WHO. And also yesterday in the hearing in the senate, governor Raimondo declined to black list Huawei technology in the US. Is this some kind of caving in to China or is it a nuanced way to deal with China? 132354 PSAKI>> So, I think your -- the second reference I think was to Huawei, right? And then, come -- yes. Q>> [inaud] PSAKI>> So let me just convey clearly our position on this. Let us be clear: telecommunications equipment made by untrusted vendors including Huawei is a threat to the security of the US and our allies. 132413 We'll ensure that the American telecommunications network do not use equipment from untrusted venues, and will work with allies to secure their telecommunications networks. And make investments to expand the production of telecommunications equipment by trusted US and allied companies. Again, we'll take many more questions tomorrow. Thank you all. Have a great rest of your day. ##

Lots of american and russian flag gears spinning and covering the whole frame while zooming out for cooperation concept

FS36 WH PSAKI PRESS BRIEF ROBO HEAD ON 1215 White House briefing with Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, and National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy 123147 PSAKI>> Hi, everyone! I have to give you a fancy introduction. [laughter] Good afternoon. President Biden is continuing to follow through on his key promise to take swift and bold action that addresses the climate crisis, building on his Day 1 actions of rejoining the Paris Agreement, and strengthening our clean air and water protections and to -- and holding polluters accountable. 123218 Today, he will take executive action to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad while creating good paying, union jobs, building sustainable infrastructure and delivering environmental justice. I'm thrilled today, as a part of our effort to bring policy experts into the briefing room, we're joined by two very special guests who are going to take you -- talk to you all about today's executive orders and take a few questions as well. And I will always -- as always play the role of bad cop when they have to go. 123248 National climate adviser Gina McCarthy and special presidential envoy for climate and my former boss, former secretary of state John Kerry. And a big day for Boston in the briefing room, so. [laughter] With that, go ahead. GINA MCCARTHY 123300 MCCARTHY>> Thank you. It's a big day for Boston every day. Thank you, everybody. Today, president Biden will build on the actions he took on day one, and he'll take more steps to fulfill commitments he made to tackle the climate crisis while creating good paying, union jobs and achieving environmental justice. 123324 In his campaign, he and vice president Harris put forward the most ambitious climate vision that any presidential ticket had ever embraced. And he spent more time campaigning on climate than we have ever seen. The president also has consistently identified the climate crisis as one of four interrelated existential crises that are gripping our nation all at once. And he's demanding answers that can address all four. And he's not waiting to take action, getting us started on his first day in office because science is telling us that we don't have a moment to lose to fight against all four of these crises in a way that recognizes their intersectionality. 123412 He's always committed the U.S to renter. -- I'm sorry, he's already committed the US to re-enter the Paris climate agreement. And he committed us, as well, to start undoing the assault on our environment that has occurred over the past four years. And he is now taking additional action to really target the challenge of climate change. So, today, for me is a very good day. Just one week into his administration, president Biden is continuing to move us forward, at the breadth and the pace that climate science demands. 123449 Today's executive order starts by saying, "it is the policy of this administration that climate considerations shall be an essential element of US foreign policy and national security." That's where the big guy comes in. It gives my colleague John Kerry, the first ever international climate envoy, the authority to really drive forward a process that will restore American leadership on climate throughout the world, and you will see and hear more about that from Secretary Kerry. 123523 But here at home, we have to do our part or we will not be able to make the kind of worldwide change that climate change demands. So this executive order establishes a White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy, and it directs everyone who works for the President to use every tool available at our disposal to solve the climate crisis. 123548 Because we're going to take a whole of government approach. We're going to power our economy with clean energy. We're going to do that in a way that will produce millions of American jobs that are going to be good paying, that are going to be jobs that have the opportunity for workers to join a union because, as President Biden has often told us, when he thinks of climate change, his first thought is about jobs. 123618 And it should be. Because people in this country need a job, and this is about making that happen in the most creative and significant way that the federal government can move forward. And we're going to make sure that nobody is left behind. And I'm not just talking about communities in terms of environmental justice, but workers as well. 123639 This order takes historic strides to address environmental injustice. It creates both a White House Interagency Task Force to address environmental justice, as well as an Advisory Council. It directs the Department of Health and Human Services to create an office of Climate Change and Health Equity because, after all, climate change is the most significant public health challenge of our time. 123706 And it tasks the department of justice with establishing an office of Climate Justice. Because we know that communities who are being hurt, and we know we have to start enforcing the standards today and ensuring that they are part of the solution, and in places that we can invest. In fact, it commits 40% of our investment in clean energy towards disadvantaged communities so they can benefit from the new jobs that are available, and see that better future. 123737 President Biden's order establishes a working group on coal and power plant communities because we have to make sure that, in this transition, every agency in government is using every tool at their disposal to drive resources to those communities. And it fulfills long-standing commitments to leverage our vast resources to contribute to our clean energy future. It places a pause and review on new oil and gas leases on federal public lands and waters, consistent with the promise president Biden has repeatedly made and has been very clear in the face of efforts to distort his promise. 123822 And it sets a goal of doubling offshore wind production by 2030. In addition, he plans to sign a presidential memorandum that aims to restore scientific integrity across the federal government and earn back the public's trust, making a commitment to base solutions on the best available science and data. So, today is a very big day for science and for our efforts to power our economy with good paying union jobs. Thank you very much. JOHN KERRY 123903 KERRY>>> Good afternoon, everybody. It's great to be here. Let me say, first of all, what a pleasure it is to be here with Gina. I'm a big fan of Gina's. Gina and I worked very, very closely together during the campaign, when we sat down to -- to bring the Bernie Sanders folks together around the Biden climate plan. 123927 And she is the perfect person to be tackling the domestic side of this equation, which is complicated. And nobody knows the details better than she does, and nobody is going to be more effective at corralling everybody to move in the same direction. It's also an enormous pleasure for me to be here with Jen Psaki. 123950 She mentioned that -- nobody was her boss, but I had the privilege of working with her. And she, seven years ago, we gathered in the State Department briefing room -- she's traded up, obviously. But she has not given away any of her fundamental principles in commitment to telling you all the truth, telling the American people the truth and doing so with great candor and transparency. 124020 And I'm very happy to be here with her. The stakes -- the stakes on climate change just simply couldn't be any higher than they are right now. It is existential. We use that word too easily and we throw it away, but we have a big agenda in front of us on a global basis. 124041 And President Biden is deeply committed, totally seized by this issue as you can tell by this executive order and, and by the other -- the initiative of getting back into Paris immediately. That's why he rejoined the Paris agreement so quickly because he knows it is urgent. He also knows that Paris alone is not enough, not when almost 90% of all of the planet's emissions, global emissions, come from outside of US borders. 124110 We could go to zero tomorrow, and the problem isn't solved. So that's why today, one week into the job, President Biden will sign this additional executive set of orders to help move us down the road, ensuring that ambitious climate action is global in scope and scale, as well as national -- here at home. 124136 Today, in the order that he will sign that Gina has described to you, he makes climate central to foreign policy planning, to diplomacy, and to national security preparedness. It creates new platforms to coordinate climate action across the federal agencies and departments, sorely needed. And most importantly, it commissions a National Intelligence estimate on the security implications of climate change to give all of us an even deeper understanding of the challenge. 124211 This is the first time a President has ever done that. And our 17 intelligence agencies are going to come together and assess exactly what the danger and damage and potential risks are. The order directs the State department to prepare a transmittal package, seeking Senate advice and consent, on the Kigali Amendment on the Montreal protocol, an amendment that by itself, if ratified and fully enforced globally, could hold the Earth's temperature by .5 of an entire degree, not insignificant. 124247 And it sets forth a process for us to develop a new ambitious Paris target, as well as a U.S. Climate Finance plan, both of which are essential to our being able to bring countries of the world together, to raise ambition, and meet this moment when we go to Glasgow for the follow-on agreement to Paris. 124309 So that's the only way for the world to succeed together, my friends. It's -- again, this is an issue where failure literally is not an option. 124318 As he committed to doing on the campaign trail, the President is announcing that he will host a leaders' summit on climate change less than three months from now on April 22nd, Earth Day, which will include a leader-level reconvening of the major economies forum. We'll have specifics to lay out over time, but the convening of this -- of this summit, is essential to ensuring that the -- that 2021 is going to be the year that really makes up for the lost time of the last four years. 124355 And that the U.N. Climate conference COP26, as it's called, which the UK is hosting in November to make sure that it's an unqualified success. The road to Glasgow will be marked not just by promises, but by progress at a pace that we can all be proud of. And Gina is going to be putting her efforts into making concern that that is true. The world will measure us by what we can do here at home. So with these executive actions today, we believe we're steps further down that journey. Thank you. Q&A 124433 PSAKI>> All right. Let's start with Nancy. Q>> Thank you so much. Secretary Kerry, a question for you and then for administrator McCarthy. You talked about the fact that it won't really matter what we do very much if the rest of the world doesn't do the same thing. But the US Has had a fairly rocky relationship with China recently. How do you plan to try to bring both China and India to the table on this issue? 124457 KERRY>> Wel, before I -- before I answer that, let me just say that the issue of making a difference -- i.e, what we do at home -- what I'm saying is: you can't solve the problem alone, but our doing things makes an enormous difference. What Gina succeeds in pulling together is essential to our ability to have credibility in the world. Now -- 124524 With respect to China, obviously, we have serious differences with China on some very, very important issues. And I am as mindful of that as anybody, having served as Secretary of State and in the Senate. The issues of theft of intellectual property and access to market, South China Sea -- I mean, you run the list. We all know them. 124528 Those issues will never be treated for anything that has to do with climate. That's not going to happen, but climate is a critical stand alone issue that we have to deal on, in the sense that China is 30% of the emissions in the world. We're about 15% of the emissions in the world. 124609 You add the EU to that, and you've got three entities that are more than -- than 55% or so. So it's urgent that we find a way to compartmentalize, to move forward, and we'll wait and see. But President Biden is very, very clear about the need to address the other issues with China. And I know some people have been concerned. Nothing is going to be siphoned off into one area from another. 124638 Q>> And then, a question for either of you on coal. Your executive order talks about oil and gas on federal lands, but it doesn't really say much about coal. What is this administration's policy when it comes to coal? 124650 MCCARTHY>> Well, in terms of the oil and gas decision, it was -- is to make sure that we take a little pause, and review the entire strategy of how we're looking at public lands. So it will include looking at what new leases ought to be approved and sold. It's looking at our ability, also, to look at coal in that mix. So the program review is going to look at how we manage public lands, consistent with climate. 124715 But also consistent with the marriage between climate and, really, growing jobs of the future. So, it will be in the mix to be looked at, but it is -- it is not at this point included. It was not part of the commitments on the campaign, but we're going to take a close look at all of it. And can I just add on your comment about China, which I'm not going to speak to the international dynamic, but I am going to say that: part of the challenge that we face here is a challenge that president Biden has already started to address with his Buy America pledge. 124748 We have to start not just shifting to clean energy, but it has to be manufactured in the United States of America. You know, not in other countries, and there is going to be a large discussion about how we make sure that a lot of the investment is -- is about building up our manufacturing base again. That's great jobs. That's often, hopefully, union jobs. But it is also a wonderful opportunity for us to recoup the benefits of that manufacturing, and lower the cost of clean energy. 124820 Part of the way we're going to get there is by making sure the federal government buys American, and that the federal government looks at its procurement across every agency, so that the breadth of what we spend is spent designed to advance job growth in the United States, to advance health benefits for environmental justice communities, and to begin to tackle the very challenged -- the existential challenge of climate change. PSAKI>> Jeff Mason. 124849 Q>> Thank you. Jeff Mason with Reuters. Question for both of you. Can you give us a sense of when you expect to have the so-called NDC or the US Target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as part of the Paris accord? And can you also give us a sense of how ambitious you plan to make that number? Will it be 40%, 50%, higher than that? 124914 MCCARTHY>> Well -- KERRY>> We're united in this, so. MCCARTHY>> Yeah, I'm -- I'm the dude who's supposed to deliver this in a timely way, and he sets the timing. So that basically -- 124923 We want to make sure that the NDC is something that can be announced before the summit on Earth Day. And so we're going to be, out of the gate, working with the agencies to see what kind of reductions and mitigation opportunities there are. 124938 And also, again, to look at our public lands to make sure that we can continue to store carbon in our soil, to work with agriculture and others, to look at how we better manage our forests so we're not seeing the devastating forest fires that we've been having before. So all across the federal government, every agency, and you'll see many of them specifically tasked in this executive order, will participate in the task force that we're going to have to actually develop the most aggressive NDC that we can to deliver the kind of boost that Secretary Kerry is looking for, to be able to ensure that our international efforts are robust and -- and sufficient to address the challenge internationally. 125025 Q>> Just follow-up for that, for Secretary Kerry, how do you assert to our international partners that the US will stick to whatever you propose after having seen the Trump administration take the U.S. out of the Paris accord? KERRY>> Well, that's precisely why we're going to stick by it. And I think our word is strong. 125045 I've been on the phone for the last few days, talking to our allies in Europe, elsewhere around the world, and they are welcoming us back. They know that this administration already had a significant part of what has brought us to -- will bring us to Glasgow, which was the Paris Agreement. The Obama-Biden administration had great credibility on this issue, and having President Biden be the person now who is driving this forward is enormously meaningful to -- to the folks there. 125117 And they also know that I was deeply involved in the negotiations in Paris. And am now asked by the President, by President Biden, to make certain that we do the same at Glasgow, if not more. So, I have had no one question our credibility at this point in time. Someone probably will. And the answer will be that I think we can achieve things in the course of the next four years that will move the marketplace, the private sector, global finance, innovation and research, that, in fact, no -- no one, no political person in the future will be able to undo what the planet is going to be organizing over the next months and years. 125203 This is the start of something new. I don't know if you read Larry Fink's letter of BlackRock the other day, yesterday. But there's a new awareness among major asset managers, commercial banks and others about the need to be putting resources into this endeavor, because it is -- it is major in investment demand. So, I think the proof will be in what we do. Neither Gina nor I are going to start, you know, throwing around a lot of big promises. 125237 But you heard what she just said, and we will work very closely. Because we're going to try to bring to the table to help inform her and the folks she's working with what we're picking up abroad, and what people are doing abroad and the steps they're taking and how we now have to measure ourselves against them, and they will measure themselves against us. We are well aware of that. 125257 MCCARTHY>> Can I just add something? I just want to call attention to the fact that cities and states have really picked up the initiative to move forward on clean energy because the solutions are cheap. The solutions compete effectively against fossil fuels. 125316 We are talking about solutions that we're not asking anybody to sacrifice but are to their advantage, and if you look at the record over the past four years, while the prior administration might have wanted energy -- clean energy to head in a different direction, it's gone faster and farther than anyone ever expected. 125335 And the idea that we could, with this new work that we're doing together, send signals to the marketplace through our purchasing at the federal level and our re-looking at different ways of having on-the-ground change, we can build that demand. We actually grow significantly millions of clean energy jobs. And all of a sudden, the question won't be whether the private sector is going to buy into it. The private sector is going to drive it. 125405 And so, this is going to be a signal setter, the way the federal government ought to set, on what our values are, what we think the future needs to be and that's -- it's -- this is a value-lading -- laden effort that President Biden has undertaken with full knowledge that it's going to benefit jobs, it's going to benefit our health, and is going to lead to that future we want to hand to our children. PSAKI>> Let's do these two in the front. Then, they will come back. I promise. So go ahead. 125434 VEGA Q>> Thank you. Mr. Secretary, if you would, there certainly are oil and gas industry workers who are watching you both right now who will hear the message, that's -- the takeaway to them is that they're seeing an end to their livelihoods. What do you say to them, particularly those people who President Trump struck a chord with on the campaign trail when he promised to save their jobs? What is your message to them right now? And also, to the oil industry executives who are listening, are you putting them on notice today? 125507 KERRY>> Well, we didn't come here to put anybody on notice except to the seriousness of President Biden's intent to do what needs to be done to deal with this crisis, and it is a crisis. With respect to those workers, no -- no two people are more, in this room, more concerned about it. 125528 And the President of the United States has expressed in every comment he's made about climate the need to grow the new jobs that pay better, that are cleaner, that -- I mean, you know, you look at the consequences of black lung for a miner, for instance, and measure that against the fastest growing job in the United States before Covid was solar-powered technician. 125551 The same people can do those jobs, but the choice of doing the solar-power one now is a better choice. And similarly, you have the second fastest growing job pre-Covid was wind turbine technician. This is happening. 75%, 70% of all the electricity that's come online in the United States in the last few years came from renewables, not -- you know, coal plants have been closing over the last 20 years. 125620 So what President Biden wants to do is make sure those folks have better choices, that they have alternatives, that they can be the people who go to work to make the solar panels. That we're (?) making them here at home, that is going to be a particular focus of the Build Back Better agenda. And I think that, unfortunately, workers have been fed a false narrative -- no surprise, right? -- for the last few years. 125650 They've been fed the notion that, somehow, dealing with climate is coming at their expense. No, it's not. What's happening to them is happening because other market forces are already taking place. 125703 And what the -- what the fiananceres, the big banks, the asset managers, private investors, ventures capital are all discovering is there's a lot of money to be made in the creation of these news jobs in these sectors. So whether it's green hydrogen that is going to come, whether it's geothermal heat, or whether it -- whatever it's going to be, those are jobs. The same worker who works in South Carolina today, putting together a BMW which happens to be made there, and -- and is currently an internal combustion can put together a car, but it's electric. 125743 So this is not a choice between having jobs, having good jobs, having the quality of life. Quality of life will be better when Gina has put her team together that produces choices for us that are healthier -- less cancer, cleaner air. The greatest -- the greatest cost to America, the greatest cause of children being hospitalized every summer in the United states, we spend $55 million a year on it, is environmental induced asthma. 125813 That will change as we begin to rein in what we used to call "pollution" in this country, because it is pollution. And I think that workers are going to see that, with the efforts of the Biden administration, they're going to have a much better set of choices and, frankly, it will create more jobs than stuck where we were. 125833 MCCARTHY>> Can I just add, by pointing out a couple of things in the executive order that I want you to just call to your attention? We talked about the civilian conservation corp. That is an opportunity to put younger people into work in vitally important efforts. But if you look at this, it also has set up a task force that is looking at these coal communities, communities that are really reliant on their local energy and utility, and it talks about how do we revitalize those economies? 125907 And it talks about how we can put people to work using the skills they currently have where they are to start looking at those old abandoned oil and gas wells that are spewing out methane, or all of the coal that is -- mines that haven't been properly closed that are doing the same. That has great impact on climate, but also will keep an opportunity for those -- for those individual workers to have work in their own communities. We're not going to ask people to go from the middle of Ohio, or Pennsylvania and ship out to the coast to have solar jobs. You know, solar jobs will be everywhere. But -- 125950 We need to put people to work in their own communities. That's where their home is. That's where their vision is. So we're creatively looking at those opportunities for investment, so that we can get people understanding that we are not trying to take away jobs. Remember, when -- when we say "climate change," eventually, people are going to think "jobs" just like President Biden when he hears the words "climate change." 130016 And so, we'll do everything we can to recognize that revitalization is necessary in these communities to find creative ways to put them to work. And then, we're going to do, as secretary Kerry says, and start investing in new technologies and new manufacturing. And that includes the large manufacturing like cement and steel. That's work that we should be doing here. That's work that inevitably is going to be necessary to rebuild our infrastructure which is also one of the biggest opportunities we have for job growth moving forward. 130052 Q>> Two quick questions? PSAKI>> Peter. Q>> Sure. Administrator, one to you and one to the secretary, if I may. What you may hear from some corners of the criticism is why are we doing this now when we're already in an economic crisis? You look at the state of New Mexico where one-third of the state's budget is funded by oil and gas. So, why not let the country get back on its feet before we do this? 130115 MCCARTHY>> Well, the issue in New Mexico is that somebody reported a bit incorrectly -- well, maybe not as precisely enough -- that this wasn't about impacting existing permits and fracking. This was about new leases on federal lands. So I think that the opportunity for the states to continue to accrue the royalties from -- from, from both coal and oil and natural gas that is properly done on federal lands is going to continue. And there's even an opportunity in the review of that program to look at the royalty issues, look at the job growth opportunities, look at a variety of things to make sure that public lands are being properly managed. 130158 Now, in terms of the job issue, we're explicitly doing this because our economy is right now stagnant. We have people -- millions of people out of work, out of jobs, millions of people that are afraid they can't feed their families. If you're faced with that, what do you do? You boost the economy and you grow jobs. 130219 But why, at the same time, aren't we thinking about the weaknesses of our current economy in terms of the number of environmental injustice communities that have been left behind? 130230 The number of people breathing dirty air and their kids are getting asthma. So instead, let's think about it all of it at the same time. I know it's a crazy idea in a bureaucracy. You're only supposed to do one thing, but we're going to do and think about all of it. Because people need to have jobs. This is all about building the jobs of the future we want, not continuing needle (?) at an economy that is no longer going to be where our future lies. 130259 Q>> Mr. Secretary, to you, right now, over the course of this first week, there are a lot of big priorities here. There's Covid, the economy, immigration, racial justice, aow climate change. As a veteran of Congress, of the Senate, what is the priority? And how quickly do you need legislation to make this permanent? 130317 KERRY>> Well, the -- Peter, the priority is precisely what the president has set out. All of them, all six of the major crises that he faces. And he's addressing every single one of them, and he knows that the United States, all of us, have the ability to be able to do that. And the reason that has to be done is every single one of them are life and death. Every single one of them represent a challenge to the very fiber of our society. 130347 And the other reason, obviously, everything -- I agree with everything Gina said. But I'd simply add that the other reason for doing it now is the science tells us we have to. And that's one of the things the president is restoring today, in the executive order, is respect for science and the science office. So, I mean -- Q>> 2 trillion price tag. $2 trillion for Covid. $2 trillion for this. It's a lot of money to a lot of Americans. 130414 KERRY>> It is real money. And yes, it's a lot of money. But you know what? It costs a lot more if you don't do the things we need to do. It costs a lot more. There are countless economic analyses now that show that it is now cheaper to deal with the crisis of climate than it is to ignore it. We spent $265 billion, two years ago on three -- three storms, Irma, Harvey and Maria. Maria destroyed Puerto Rico. Harvey dropped more water on Houston in five days than goes over Niagara Falls in a year. 130448 And Irma had the first recorded winds of 185 miles an hour for 24 sustained hours. That -- last year, we had one storm, $55 billion. So we're spending the money, folks. We're just not doing it smart. We're not doing it in the way that would actually sustain us for the long term. So this is critical. We're -- the goal of the Paris Agreement was to hold the Earth's temperature increase to 2 degrees centigrade. Even if you did everything that was in Paris, we're going up 3.7 or 4. That's catastrophic. 130524 What president Biden is trying to do is listen to science, listen to facts, and make tough decisions about what we need to do to take the world to a better place. And particularly, our own country. And that is what he is committed to doing. So, yes, there are a lot of challenges right now which, sadly, all of them were exacerbated by the last four years. Now, we have to try to make up for that. And that is a hard pull, but this president is capable of doing it. And he's putting together a great team that I think can help him that. Q>> Thank you, sir. PSAKI>> Thank you. MCCARTHY>> Thank you. JEN PSAKI 130601 PSAKI>> Thank you, Gina McCarthy. Thank you Secretary Kerry for joining us. You're free to go-- MCCARTHY>> Thank you. PSAKI>> -- to go see the President. So you can all see, they're both experienced and passionate and tenacious, having worked with -- with both of them in the past. So, the crisis is in good hands. I know we have a short period of time here. But I just wanted to provide an update on a question that you all have been asking a bit about which is what some of the outreach our teams are doing, as it relates to the covid package. 130632 That is a top priority for President Biden. As we have talked about almost everyday in here, probably every day, our team continues to build support for the American Rescue Plan as more and more across the country recognize the urgent need to get American families the help they need. We've obviously seen a broad coalition of support emerge from the chamber of commerce to Senator Sanders and organized labor to hundreds of mayors and local public health officials. 130702 The President and Vice President are engaged directly with members, and have had a number productive conversations. That will continue during the course of the week and will only pick up in the days ahead. Senior White House officials are also engaging with not just Congressional leaders, but also state and local officials, key constituency groups and others, to gather feedback on the proposal and move the package forward. So let me give you a couple of examples from just yesterday. 130728 Chief of Staff Ron Klain engaged with members directly throughout the day, as did Senior Adviser Anita Dunn which they will both continue to do moving forward. Counselor to the President Steve Fraschetti and office of Legislative Affairs Director Louisa Terrell are quarterbacking the teams' broader legislative outreach, and have had dozens of conversations with individual members to understand their priorities and receive their feedback. 130751 In addition to ongoing conversations with leadership on both sides of the aisle, already this week, members of the national economic council and domestic policy council and staff from treasury have met with the relevant committees, including Senate Banking committee, senate finance committee, House ways and mean, House financial services, House education and labor, and the bicameral small business committee. NEC Director Brian Deese is doing one-on-one briefings with members of the Congress and meetings with caucuses including yesterday's meeting, which I believe has been reported, with the problem-solvers caucus to discuss the proposal. 130824 Hill engagement will continue with Jeff Zients and Brian Deese meeting with the new Dem coalition, along with several other briefings that are scheduled. Also, our outreach isn't limited to Congress which is vitally important. This isn't just about speaking to elected officials. This is also about speaking to the country and building support, and educating and engaging with leaders across the country. So yesterday, Jeff Zients and his team spoke with bipartisan governors, as you all know. They talked about the Covid package by the national governors association -- organized by then. 130856 And administration officials briefed tribal leaders and a number of mayors yesterday as well. And the office of Public Engagement led by Cedric Richmond briefed civil rights groups yesterday including the NAACP, the National Action Network, Justice Action Network, Urban league coalition of Black Civic Participation, and Black women's roundtable. Today, they have meetings with labor leaders, advocates for young people as well as organizations dedicated to building wealth in the Black community. 130921 On Friday, OP will also -- the Office of Public Engagement, I should say. I hate acronyms -- will convene 100 presidents of historically Black colleges and universities also to discuss this proposal. And the only other thing I wanted to mention before we get to your questions is that, as you all know, treasury secretary Janet Yellen was just confirmed. 130940 The President will be meeting with his economic team on Friday including secretary Yellen for a briefing on impact of delay, and moving forward with the additional economic relief. With that, let's get to your questions. Alex, your first day in the white house briefing room. And Alex's first days. Two Alexes first days. Q>> It's good to be here. PSAKI>> There's an initiation afterwards that the press corp will conduct. PSAKI Q&A Q>> [inaud] PSAKI>> Yes, go ahead. Q>> I'll make it quick because you have a pretty hard out in a few minutes. PSAKI>> I think you all have a hard out, too but yes-- 131009 Q>> I wanted to ask about one of your favorite topics: impeachment. Nearly every Republican senator last night voted to throw out the impeachment trial of president Trump. Does president Biden have a reaction to that? Does he trust congress to hold president Trump accountable for the insurrection against the Capitol? And does see censure against former president trump as a viable alternative to convictions, since it looks unlikely at this point? 131034 PSAKI>> Well, the President certainly respects the role that Congress has. Senators, of course, the Senate, as they're overseeing the trial moving forward, in determining the pace and the path forward for holding the former president accountable. That continues to be his belief. In all of his conversations that he's been having with members about the recovery plan, he has -- they have said they expect from him that his focus will be on Covid relief. That's how he will use the bully pulpit. 131104 That's how he will speak to the American people. And they are eager to work with him on that so that's where his focus remains, and what steps they take to hold the former president accountable, he'll leave it to them. Q>> Why the resistance on weighing in on the issue? 131117 PSAKI>> We've weighed in many times. The president has been asked about the issue. We put out a statement when the House put out a vote -- voted on impeachment, I should say. But his focus is on doing -- delivering on what the American people elected him to do, which to get relief to the -- to the American people, to get the pandemic under control, to ensure working families can put food on the table. And that's where he feels his efforts should be -- should remain. Okay. Go ahead. 131144 VEGA Q>> Thanks, Jen. Does the White House have a comment on the social media profile that has emerged of Representative Marjorie Taylor Green. And is there a response to whether any disciplinary action should be taken against her, given everything that's come out? 131158 PSAKI>> We don't, and I'm not going to speak further about her, I think, in this briefing room. VEGA>> Okay, and -- PSAKI>> Oh, go ahead. VEGA>> Okay. One more, if you don't mind, it's just kind of a little bit of a house keeping -- PSAKI>> Sure. 131207 VEGA Q>> The last administration has suggested that -- on the origins on the Covid-19 virus -- that it may have originated in a lab in China. It was never definitive. Do you have an update on that, on the origin, where we are in that investigation? 131222 PSAKI>> Well, first, obviously, the -- the misinformation, of course, that has -- we've seen also come out of -- of some sources in China is of great concern to us. It's imperative that we get to the bottom of the early days of the pandemic in China. And we've been supportive of an international investigation that we feel should be robust and clear. 131248 We -- our view is that we must prepare to draw on information collected and analyzed by our intelligence community, which is something that is ongoing, and to work -- and also to continue to work with our allies to evaluate the report's credibility on the investigation, once it's done. 131304 In addition, as you all know, secretary of state was just -- Tony Blinken was just sworn in yesterday, and one of his priorities, of course, is ensuring that our staffing on the ground in Beijing, which is something that fell back in the last administration, is returned to what it was prio, which means we want to have science experts, policy experts on the ground, in the roles that they should be serving in to ensure that, you know, we're also there representing, you know, our interests from the United States on the ground in China. Go ahead. 131334 Q>> Couple quick ones that I still don't think I fully understand. I know the executive order was signed, but has this white house invoked the DPA? And how soon will we actually see companies be compelled to produce supplies or vaccines or whatever else impacts Americans? PSAKI>> We -- It was invoked, the day it was signed, within 24 hours of it being signed. Q>> I know that jump-started the process. So I guess that meant it was invoked? PSAKI>> Yes, and I confirmed that when it was -- the next day, the following day in the briefing room which I realize everybody can't be here every day because of Covid. 131402 But it was invoked and it means that our work is ongoing with companies to ensure that we are expediting the manufacturing of materials to ensure that we can get 100 million shots in the arms of Americans. And I know there's been some confusion about this, and what exactly it is. What does the DPA mean? 131422 There are a few examples that our team has cited including vaccine -- on vaccine supply, low-dead space syringes which means it allows for the ability to get an extra dose into the Pfizer vial which is important to getting more doses out there, help -- additional N-95, the production of additional N-95 masks, isolation gowns, gloves, pipette tips and high absorbancy foam swabs. So we're really talking about very specific materials that can be used by vaccinators to get these shots in the arms of Americans. 131454 Q>> Thanks for clarifying. There was some confusion on the earlier call which is why I repeated here. Let me ask one other question. Yesterday, you deflected this to the USOC (?) but my question is a little bit different today. We're now hearing from the organizers of this year's summer games in Japan. The head of Japan's olympic committee is seeking public reassurances from President Biden himself given that the U.S., of course, Is the largest contingent of athletes, that the games should be able to go on. As the world's -- as the world is dealing with this pandemic right now, based on where we are right now with the vaccine, does president Biden believe the games in Japan can safely go on? 131529 PSAKI>> Well, the president -- and I'm not sure if this readout had gone out yet, but he had spoken with the prime minister of Japan earlier this morning. And a readout was going out as we were coming out to the briefing. I'm not sure if they spoke about the Olympics. I'm happy to check with our national security team on that, to follow up with, but I don't have any more assessment of the olympics at this point in time. Q>> So it hasn't been discussed whether he has a position on whether it will safely be able to go ahead? 131555 PSAKI>> I don't have anything more than -- I haven't had much on it. But I don't have anything more than I've had on other days on it. Q>> -- so, we asked. So we'll follow up. PSAKI>> Understood. And they just had a call this morning. but I haven't had a chance to talk to him specifically about it. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you, Jen. Q>> Thanks, Jen. Two vaccine questions. First of all, this came up on the Covid call earlier but how seriously is the White House considering using the defense protection act to compel other pharmaceutical companies to produce the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to resupply? 131624 PSAKI>> Well, I didn't hear the entirety of the call because we were doing some preparation for the event this afternoon. But from listening to our team talk about it, there are obviously manufacturing facilities that have the capacity and ability to get these vaccine doses out. And we don't want to get our -- behind the pace, and start from scratch, I should say, in ensuring that they're ready to do that. I don't think our concern at this point is whether or not we're going to have the vaccine doses. 131653 Obviously, the president announced yesterday the intention to purchase dosed -- additional doses, the -- our confidence in the manufacturers to have those doses available, the concerns we have are, one, contingency planning and all of the different things that can happen because this is a herculean task that has never been done before, but also ensuring we have vaccinators, vaccine sites, et cetera, available. So I have not heard from our team of plans to seek other manufacturers at this point in time. And I'm happy to follow up with them and see if there's anything additional. 131728 Q>> On the 200 million doses, the president said he's ordering them. What is the status of that order? Have Pfizer and Moderna agreed to produce 100 million doses each? And how quickly do they say they can do it? PSAKI>> Well, we expect to get the doses by mid-to-late summer. The majority of doses by mid-to late-summer, some earlier than that so we are confident that we'll be able to get those from the manufacturers, yes. Go ahead, Karen. 131757 TRAVERS Q>> Jen, a couple questions on schools. Does the administration plan to develop metrics or standards for what a safe reopening of schools will look like? 131804 PSAKI>> We do. And -- and our CDC director, and I'm not sure, again, if she was asked about this important question, I know as a fellow mother. But we will have specifics that we'll defer to the CDC on, on the safe reopening of schools. As you know, the President talked about -- has talked about his commitment and his goal of reopening most K through 8 schools within 100 days. There are obviously a number of steps that will need to be taken in order for that to be possible. 131834 But he's directed the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services to provide guidance on safe reopening and operating for schools, child care providers and institutions of higher education. But as our Covid team has outlined, that's going to require testing materials, support for contact tracing, vaccinations for teachers, and ensuring they're equitably provided. But our, the -- our CDC director and team will be looking into putting together some specific guidelines so there can be clarity on that front -- TRAVERS>> And to follow up on that -- PSAKI>> -- which I know a lot of districts are looking for. Go ahead 131905 TRAVERS Q>> Those things you mentioned all cost a lot of money, and a big part of the Covid relief package is a lot of money to go to school reopening. If Congress doesn't approve the money you want, and schools don't have what they need to pay for things to open safely, would the President support teachers staying at home and support virtual learning continuing through this entire school year? 131923 PSAKI>> Well, I think the President recognizes, as we all do, the value of having children in schools and doing that in a safe way, which is one of the reasons he's set this ambitious goal of reopening most K through 8 schools within 100 days, but one of the reasons that this -- the funding for safe reopening for getting schools the equipment, the testing, the ventilation in some cases that they need is because nobody wants to be having a conversation in May or June about why schools are not reopened. 131954 So, this goes back to the argument that our team has been making, and all of these calls and engagements and meetings that I outlined about the importance and vital nature of each component of the package. So, we won't get into a hypothetical. We are confident that Congress will move forward with a package. 132010 Let me just go-- we gotta wrap up soon. Okay. I'm sorry. We'll do more questions tomorrow. But we had two such great guests. Jen, go ahead. Q>> Thank you...one on the climate actions today, they leave out treasury's financial stability and oversight council, which the experts say could play an influential role in addressing climate risks. Does the administration have plans to take action on climate finance, and should FSOC direct agencies and regulators to address climate change? 132037 PSAKI>> Well, I'm going to use a reference that my friend and colleague Ambassador Susan Rice used yesterday which is "there are 1,453 days left in this administration." And addressing climate and the crisis of climate is an issue that the President has conveyed to members of his cabinet, members of his senior team is an absolute priority. So Secretary Yellen has been in her role for one day, but certainly, I'd send you to them for any more specifics. But this is the beginning, not the end of our work on climate. Nadia? Oh, go ahead. 132108 Q>> Is the white house concerned about the stock market activity we're seeing around Gamestop, now with some other stocks as well including the...company that was Blockbuster? And have there been any conversations with the FCC on how to proceed? 132127 PSAKI>> Well, I'm also happy to repeat that we have the first female treasury secretary and a team that's surrounding her, and often questions about market we'll send to them. But our team is, of course, our economic team including secretary Yellen and others are monitoring the situation. It's a good reminder, though, that the stock market isn't the only measure of the health of our econom-- of our economy. It doesn't reflect how working and middle class families are doing. As you all know, from covering this, we're in the midst of a K-shaped recovery. America's are struggling to make ends meet, which is why the President has introduced this urgent package to get immediate relief to families. Alright I'm going to go Nadia, and then, we'll be totally done 'cause everybody has to go. Okay. Go ahead. 132205 Q>> [inaud] I have two questions. PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> One about covid and one about China. Regarding Covid, the president promised to increase supplies to states by 10 million doses, yet statistically 47% of Americans are hesitant to take the vaccine, despite that the President and vice president took it publicly. What is the administration doing to convince Americans to take it, to reach the herd immunity by say 70% by the fall? 132235 PSAKI>> You're absolutely right, Nadia, that this is one of the biggest challenges we face. And for anyone who tuned into the briefing that our health team led this morning, it was one of the first issues that CDC director Dr. Walensky raised. And one of the things we're doing is prioritizing providing correct information about it -- the vaccine -- and -- so I'll take the opportunity, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are safe and effective. That's one of the things she said today. 132301 They were tested in large clinical trials to make sure they meet safety standards. About 30% of US participants in those trials were Hispanic, African American, Asian or Native american. About half were adults. And so, we want to provide clear data as I just did, but also we want to meet people where they are, communicate directly with communities of color, people who have concerns, and use medical and health professionals to do exactly that. Okay, you had a China question, and then you really have to go. But go ahead. 132328 Q>> And second, many welcomed your rejoining of the WHO, yet some want to push for a transparent investigation into the relationship between China and WHO. And also yesterday in the hearing in the senate, governor Raimondo declined to black list Huawei technology in the US. Is this some kind of caving in to China or is it a nuanced way to deal with China? 132354 PSAKI>> So, I think your -- the second reference I think was to Huawei, right? And then, come -- yes. Q>> [inaud] PSAKI>> So let me just convey clearly our position on this. Let us be clear: telecommunications equipment made by untrusted vendors including Huawei is a threat to the security of the US and our allies. 132413 We'll ensure that the American telecommunications network do not use equipment from untrusted venues, and will work with allies to secure their telecommunications networks. And make investments to expand the production of telecommunications equipment by trusted US and allied companies. Again, we'll take many more questions tomorrow. Thank you all. Have a great rest of your day. ##

The Capitol in Washington DC - zoom in.