Today, to commemorate the beginning of the Lenten Season, President Obama released the following statement:

"Today, Michelle and I honor Ash Wednesday with Christians around the country and across the world. This is at once a solemn and joyous occasion, an opportunity to remember both the depths of sacrifice and the height of redemption.  We join millions in entering the Lenten Season with truly thankful hearts, mindful of our faith and our obligations to one another."

Another day, another example of Romney and his campaign saying whatever it takes to get elected. On a conference call about Romney's latest economic proposal, an adviser said that Romney would "reconsider" closing the carried interest tax loophole. You might not have heard of this particular loophole, but you can be sure Romney knows it well: It's the one that allows him and the very wealthiest American to pay a very low tax rate. Because much of his income comes from capital gains, Romney directly benefits from the loophole in question. His tax rate is an astonishingly low 13.9 percent—much lower than many middle-class families and even lower than many millionaires. So why would he want to do away with it?

Romney himself has been clear that he doesn't want to close the loophole. He told Larry Kudlow on CNBC at the end of last month that "my view is that we don't raise taxes on anyone. I'm not looking to single out some group of people and say let's raise taxes." When Kudlow asked, "So you'd keep the carried interest?" Romney didn't hedge: "Yes."

My President and Commander and Chief, Barack Obama, has accomplished more in four years than the preceding administration did in eight years. He ended a war in Iraq, destroyed al Qaeda and help remove Gaddafi from power in Libya. President Obama has made this country safer. He has the economy going in the right direction and 32 million more American citizens now have health insurance. Those are just a few of the outstanding achievements he has accomplished.

President Obama has already made a positive impact on American history with his accomplishments.

As a 91-year-old World War II Disabled Veteran, I am tired of people complaining about my great President and the Commander-in-Chief. I know this could possibly be the last presidential election I see. I yearn for the chance and the honor to be a part of this presidential campaign and work with President Obama on his re-election. As a senior citizen and honorable veteran of America, I look forward to doing my part in this effort.

As a native of Missouri I know how important agriculture is to our society. This is why I was so glad to see U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack sit down with Judy Woodruff to talk about the great work the Obama Administration and the US Department of Agriculture are doing.

Highlighted in the article is the fact that agriculture is the second most productive sector of the US economy with farm exports helping to support 1.15 million jobs here in the US and farm unemployment dropping faster than most jobs that require specialties.

Also highlighted are the 456,000 home loans the Department of Agriculture helped arrange over the past three years with Vilsack saying “it’s our mission to do this; we’ve been working hard to improve the quality of life for people living in rural areas.”

These investments in agriculture continue with President Obama’s 2013 Budget calling for such things as a 23% increase in funding for DOA’s competitive grants program; an increase in the record number of acres of working land in conservation programs; and maintaining a strong safety net to ensure one bad crop won’t put farmers out of business. These programs help ensure the continued success of farming and the many businesses built around it that are so important to the great state of Missouri and this country.

Click here to read Judy Woodruff’s article and here to read Secretary Vilsack’s statement about President Obama’s 2013 Budget and its benefits to farmers.

Last week the Obama Administration and the Department of Interior released the draft plan for implementing the Cobell Land Consolidation Program. In the works since May 2011, in consultation with tribal leaders, the Cobell Land Consolidation Program will facilitate the voluntary buy-back of fractioned trust and restricted free land interests owned by individual American Indians.

With a fund of $1.9 billion the Plan is focused on three areas:

• Program 1: Targeted land Fractionation Program to reduce land fractionation in highly fractionated areas
• Program 2: Willing Seller Program to provide flexibility in purchasing fractionated interests from willing sellers
• Program 3: Cooperative Agreements with Tribes to recognize the Department of Interior is exploring criteria that would allow tribes to seek cooperative agreements

The comment period for the draft plan is open until March 19, 2012. For more information on the Cobell Trust Land Consolidation Program please visit: www.doi.gov/cobell . To read the entire White House press release click here.

I support President Obama because he has put forward a social, political and economic vision for the United States, which ensures that we will continue to prosper in the 21^st Century.  For too long, politicians in Washington failed to understand that our nation was crumbling, and little action was taken to find solutions to some of our most pressing issues.  Everything from our bridges, and tunnels, to classrooms and community colleges has suffered from a lack of investment.  Thankfully, President Obama has seized the moment to turn things around.

While he inherited an economy that was spiraling towards a second Great Depression, the president seized the initiative and began laying the foundation for an economy that is built to last.  Not only did he include important funding to keeping teachers in our classrooms and cops on the beat through the Recovery act; but the President is also trying to renew the American values that made the middle class – values like fairness and opportunity where everyone plays by the same rules.  And educating future generations so they can compete against countries like India and China is central to his blueprint.

The President launched “Race to the Top” to rewards schools that provide quality programs for vulnerable children across the country.  And the President has also made a deeper commitment to HBCUs, investing $850 million for these institutions over the next 10 years.  And he’s made it clear to all agencies that supporting HBCUs isn’t just a job for the Department of Education.

While we’ve come a long way over the last three years, there’s still plenty of work left to do.  Click here if you want to learn more about how the President is trying to build an America that lasts.

Tomorrow night, Arizona will host the latest Republican presidential debate. With just a week till the state's primary, voters are getting to know Mitt Romney and the cast of characters who want to be the GOP nominee. They're quickly coming to discover, as Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz put it today, that "Romney is simply wrong on every issue that is important to Arizonans."

That's because Romney wants to revert to the failed economic policies of the past that wreaked havoc on our economy and would once again stack the deck against working and middle-class families. He and fellow candidate Rick Santorum have proposed budget plans that would explode the deficit by trillions of dollars and force deep cuts to programs that matter to the middle class—programs like Medicare and Social Security.

And in a state with a large Latino population like Arizona, the choice couldn't be more fundamental on issues that matter to Hispanic Americans: In an attempt to garner favor with the Tea Party, Romney and the Republicans are campaigning on slashing funding for education, Medicare, and Social Security. They oppose the DREAM Act and a path to citizenship for immigrants.

Romney's far-right position immigration stands out to Rep. Xavier Becerra, who calls him "the most extreme presidential nominee of our time."

"There’s a saying in Spanish that sums up Romney’s problem with Latinos. It goes, 'Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres.' It means, 'Tell me with whom you walk and I will tell you who you are.' Well, the Latino community has seen who Romney’s friends are. And that’s all we need to see to know exactly who he is.

"Romney proudly announced the endorsement of Kris Kobach, the godfather of the Alabama and Arizona anti-immigrant laws. Then he flaunted the endorsement of none other than California’s Pete Wilson, whose extreme views on immigration put him well outside the mainstream of everyday Arizonans.

"That’s not how a friend of the Latino community behaves."

Mitt Romney: Disastrous for the middle class, disastrous for Latinos, and disastrous for Arizona.

Today in New Mexico, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz joined a women-to-women phone bank at OFA New Mexico's Albuquerque office. Check out this picture of the chair talking to a woman who is "in," and sign up to make calls to women in your area.

Over the course of his 2012 campaign, President Obama's been hosting the occasional dinner for a few lucky supporters, giving him a chance to share a meal and ideas with the folks who are building the campaign on the ground. Today, he sent out an email announcing that there's another Dinner with Barack coming up, and you could be one of his guests. It's easy to put your name on the list, but hurry—the first guest will be invited tomorrow.

Here's what the President had to say:

Tomorrow night, we'll pick the first of four supporters who will sit down with me for dinner. I'm hoping you'll take me up on the invitation.

Donate $3 or whatever you can today to be automatically entered for the chance to be my first dinner guest.

These meals are one simple thing that sets this campaign apart. The seats at our table don't belong to any Washington lobbyist or powerful interest. These seats are yours.

Donate $3 or more today and be automatically entered to win.

Hope to see you,

Barack

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:55 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thanks for coming to the White House for your daily briefing. 

Q    New glasses -- again? 

MR. CARNEY:  You think these are new?  (Laughter.) 

Q    Yeah.  (Laughter.) 

MR. CARNEY:  Maybe. 

Q    Did you leave them on the bumper again? 

MR. CARNEY:  Not this time.  Not this time.  These could be old; they could be new.

Before I get started I wanted, on a serious note, to say something about two journalists who were killed yesterday in Syria.  As you know, last week I, aboard Air Force One, said something about Anthony Shadid, who died last week in Syria.  These tragic deaths underscore something that I think we all -- all of us in this room, since we participate in -- I did once and you do now -- in this profession -- it's a reminder of the incredible risk that journalists take -- Marie Colvin, Anthony Shadid, and the French photojournalist who was killed yesterday as well -- in order to bring the truth about what's happening in a country like Syria to those of us at home and in countries around the world.  And our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those journalists. 

And it's a reminder, too, that the victims are many, and overwhelmingly, in this case, they are innocent Syrian civilians. The brutality of the Assad regime becomes ever more apparent each day -- as each day goes by.

So I just wanted to mention that -- and go to questions.  Julie.

Q    Thank you.  Sticking with Syria, you said yesterday that international action is needed before the situation in Syria becomes too chaotic.  But given this latest incident and the continued shelling in Syria, how much more chaotic can things get?  What exactly is the international community waiting for at this point?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the international community has acted through the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly.  Unfortunately, Russia and China vetoed a resolution that would have passed through the Security Council.  But there is overwhelming international support for the condemnation of Assad and his regime's atrocities and actions, and overwhelming support for the Syrian people. 

There's an ever-growing coalition of nations, if you will, who are part of the "Friends of Syria" that the United States is part of, and together we will continue to enhance the pressure on Assad, continue to help the opposition become more functional, continue to work to bring humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, and continue to call on the international community collectively to take greater action to pressure Assad and to force him to relinquish power so that the Syrian people can have the democratic future that they deserve.

Q    When you talk about helping the opposition, the main opposition group said today that foreign military intervention may be necessary in order for humanitarian aid to make it into Syria.  I know you said yesterday that humanitarian aid is needed.  Would the U.S. support foreign military intervention for the purpose of getting humanitarian aid into Syria?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think there's a useful comparative here to Libya.  I'm often asked this question in the -- using that comparison.  And what we had in Libya when there was outside military intervention was a unified international community, a call for intervention by the Libyan people, the prospect of an immediate assault by Qaddafi’s forces on an entire city, Benghazi, and the possibility that international military action could have -- could halt that and could limit or prevent the deaths of many, many thousands of Libyans.

Each country in the region where we have had this kind of unrest is different, and certainly Syria is different from Libya in many of those particulars that I just laid out.

We will work with the international community to provide humanitarian assistance.  We will continue to press the international community to condemn Assad and his actions, and to take action to further pressure and sanction his regime.

Right now -- and I was asked this yesterday, and I just want to make clear that we do not believe that adding to the militarization of Syria is the right approach.  We believe that the right approach is for the international community to speak with one voice to pressure Assad and get him to relinquish power and to cease the brutal assault on his own people.

Q    Does that apply also to military intervention for the purpose of --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, right now we believe that the appropriate action is a diplomatic, economic approach, the likes of which we’re taking.

Q    If I could switch briefly over to the corporate tax proposal -- when the President has rolled out other proposals from his State of the Union address, he’s been out front in doing so, but today’s proposal came from the Treasury Department and Secretary Geithner.  Why not have the President out front?  Why put this distance between he and the proposal today?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I certainly disagree that there is distance between the President and his Secretary of the Treasury. Tim Geithner has developed this proposal, working with his team and the economic team here in the White House.  The President -- you should have by now -- if not, you’ll have it momentarily -- has put out a full statement laying out why he believes this corporate tax reform that he and his administration is putting forward today is so important; why it fits into his overall blueprint for an “America Built to Last,” where everyone gets a fair shot and plays by the same rules.

So the President is very committed to corporate tax reform, as he made clear at the State of the Union address last year in 2011.  And he believes that this is an area where an opportunity exists, an opportunity to disprove the conventional wisdom that nothing can get done in an election year between a White House held by one party and a Congress largely controlled by the other. 
After all, there is a fair amount of consensus that simplifying the corporate tax code is a good idea, that broadening the base and lowering the rate is a good idea. 

The President has put forward a proposal that does that; that in doing that eliminates unnecessary and expensive subsidies and carved-out special provisions for corporations like oil and gas companies that don’t need them; that eliminates the carried interest rule that allows hedge fund managers and private equity investors to -- or managers -- to pay a far lower tax rate on their income than firefighters and teachers -- and everyone probably in this room -- and thereby creates a corporate tax code that allows American businesses to be more competitive globally, that incentivizes manufacturing in the United States, that takes away the incentive for companies to relocate overseas and reverses that and creates incentives for companies to insource again in the United States -- a trend the President believes is very important to our economic future. 

So he’s very supportive of this proposal and hopes that Congress will see in this an opportunity to prove the critics wrong, to show that we can get things done this year for the American people. 

Reuters.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  Picking up on the discussion of gas prices from yesterday, is it fair for the American voter or the American public to blame any President -- in this case, this President and his administration -- when gas prices start going up so high?

MR. CARNEY:  Look, I think this President, as I said yesterday, fully appreciates the impact of higher gas prices on average Americans trying to make ends meet.  He talked about that yesterday in the event where he discussed the extension of the payroll tax cut. 

One of the reasons in both 2011 and now this year that cutting the payroll tax for 160 million Americans is so important is because it gives the average American family an extra $40 per paycheck, close to $1,000 per year, to pay for things like gasoline, to fill up their tanks. 

So he’s very aware of the impact that it has and fully understands the anxiety it creates.  And he understood that when he was running for President back in 2008 when there was a spike in the price of oil.  There has since been, as you know, last year and again this year -- this is a recurrent problem and it’s a problem that reinforces the need that he identified back when he was a candidate for a comprehensive energy strategy, one that takes an all-of-the-above approach to the development of our energy -- sources of energy; one that insists that we can safely and responsibly expand our domestic oil and gas production, which he has. 

Every year since he's been President, we've increased our oil and gas production.  Every year since he's been President, we've decreased our reliance on foreign oil imports.  And certainly, every year since he's been President, he has made a focus of the importance of investing in alternative energy technology, because that combination is the one that will build a foundation for energy security in the future, so that we are not as vulnerable to the kinds of price shocks that we get when oil climbs, as it is now.

And as I said yesterday, we need to do the things that we can control to insulate ourselves from the things that we can't. And that includes oil prices that are going up in spite of the fact that domestic oil production is going up; oil prices that are going up globally in spite of the fact that the President has made clear -- put in place policies that will dramatically expand the amount of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, will expand the amount of exploration in Alaska, will expand the amount of natural gas production here in the United States.

And yet, these prices are going up.  And that tells you that there are other things beyond our control, like unrest in the Middle East, or other factors like the growth of emerging countries such as China and India.  So in that kind of environment, in that kind of world, we need to do everything we can here at home to insulate ourselves from these price shocks.  And that’s what the President's been doing since he took office.

Q    Does the President accept any responsibility for the fact that the prices are going up, especially -- or has any response to things --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President accepts responsibility that he identified the next President should accept back in 2008, which is the need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that protects Americans in the long run from these kinds of situations, and that makes America more secure and energy independent.  And that’s the policy he's proposed.

I think that if you're suggesting that there's responsibility for price hikes in the global -- I mean, a rise in the global price of oil, it's certainly not because of anything he hasn't done to expand domestic oil and gas production, because he has done -- taken significant action to expand American gas and oil production.  And he will continue to do that.

He will continue to do that as he takes action to, for example, as I mentioned yesterday, allow for the first nuclear reactor to be built in this country in 30 years; to increase our investments in alternative energy like biodiesel and wind and solar.  I mean he’s an all-of-the-above -- his is an all-of-the-above approach, and you’ll hear a lot about that from him in coming days and weeks.

Q    But if a candidate like Rick Santorum says the reason these things are going -- these prices are going up is because of the President’s dedication to the radical environmentalist movement --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I think it’s incumbent upon those who report on random statements by politicians seeking office to compare them to the facts, and the facts are as I’ve stated.  Oil and gas production in the United States has risen every year since the President has been in office.  Oil production is now higher than it’s been in eight years.  And this President is taking action to ensure that it continues to go up.

Not least -- and I think it’s important to mention, and I don't know where various candidates for office are on this issue, but the President last year through an agreement with major automobile manufacturers have put into effect enhanced fuel-efficiency standards that will save American families $1.7 trillion at the pump, and cut oil consumption by 12 billion -- I think yesterday I said 12 million because 12 billion sounded like so much, and it is.  And the fact is that action alone did more to enhance our long-term energy independence than almost anything any President could do.

Yes.

Q    In the briefing on the tax proposal, Secretary Geithner said that they're using this proposal today to move the process along, which, as you know, can take time.  And he said it’s designed so corporate tax reform could be done alone, but it might have to be done with individual tax reform, which will come after the presidential election.  Given that, what is your timeframe for really getting this done?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would simply agree with Secretary Geithner that there is an opportunity here to do it alone or singularly with just corporate tax reform.  The President has put forward a very specific framework of his approach -- that explains his approach to corporate reform.  There is an opportunity, as I just said, because of apparent interest by both Democrats and Republicans to reform our corporate tax code, to take action now.  There's no reason why Congress couldn’t take this up. 

It is also the case that if Congress were to feel itself particularly bullish about the possibility of bipartisan cooperation that they could take up individual tax reform.  And the President’s principles on individual tax reform are pretty clear as well.  So there is -- it’s absolutely the case that you could do this by itself or you could do it with individual tax reform.  We would welcome action by Congress, in accordance with the President’s principles, in either case.

Q    So what is the President himself doing to encourage the Congress to feel bullish about bipartisan progress? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think Secretary Geithner himself, who is obviously the President’s Treasury Secretary, has already spoken with leaders in Congress about this.

Q    But the President hasn’t?  Or has he?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t have any calls or conversations of the President to report, but I’m sure the President will be having these discussions.  And, look, if there is interest in pursuing this corporate tax reform plan by Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the President is very interested in doing that.  And that goes along -- that also applies to individual tax reform.

So I think as Secretary Geithner made clear, he’s already begun this conversation with Republicans and Democrats on the Hill with regards to corporate tax reform.  And we hope that conversation continues and that we can produce a result for the American people and for American businesses that will have -- that will create the result of a lower tax rate for American businesses that will -- and that will make them more competitive; a broader base to ensure that this reform doesn’t add a dime to the deficit; and a situation where the American manufacturing sector, and in particular, the advanced manufacturing sector, is further incentivized to grow, and where small businesses are -- where the environment is made easier for small businesses to deal with the tax code by simplifying the tax code for them, allowing them to, for example, expense up to $1 million.

And there are a variety of other measures that are part of this corporate tax reform that would make American businesses much more competitive.

Q    Have you gotten any feedback from the CEOs that the administration talks to about the plan already today that you can share with us?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have anything to share with you.  I think that we believe that the reception so far has been positive and will be positive because it does what so many people say is important to do, which is -- and this is Democrats and Republicans -- which is lower the rate, broaden the base, eliminate the underbrush of unnecessary subsidies and loopholes and special provisions that complicate the tax code and basically have the taxpayer subsidizing oil and gas companies, for example, which enjoyed record profits last year and certainly seem to be on track to enjoy significant profits this year and don’t need those kinds of subsidies.  That money can then be used to pay for an action that would lower the rates for everybody. 

Yes, Jake.

Q    The White House keeps praising these journalists who are -- who have been killed

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t know about "keeps."  I think --

Q    You’ve commented, Vice President Biden did it in a statement.  How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court?  You’re currently -- I think that you’ve evoked it the sixth time -- and before the Obama administration it had only been used three times in history.  This is the sixth time you’re suing a CIA officer for allegedly providing information in 2009 about CIA torture.  Certainly that’s something that’s in the public interest of the United States; his administration is taking this person to court.  There just seems to be a disconnect here.  You want aggressive journalism abroad -- you just don’t want it in the United States.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would hesitate to speak to any particular case for obvious reasons and I would refer you to the Department of Justice for more on that.  I think that we absolutely honor and praise the bravery of reporters who are placing themselves in extremely dangerous situations in order to bring the story of oppression and brutality to the world.  I think that is commendable and it’s certainly worth noting by us. And as somebody who knew both Anthony and Marie, I particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the American people. 

As for other cases, again, without addressing any specific case, I think that there are issues here that involve highly-sensitive, classified information, and I think that those are -- divulging that kind of information is a serious issue and always has been. 

Q    So the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that’s not at all what I’m saying, Jake, and you know it’s not.  Again I can’t specific--

Q    Well, that’s what the Justice Department is doing.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, you’re making a judgment about a broad array of cases and I can’t address those specifically.

Q    It’s a judgment that a lot of whistleblowers organizations and good government groups are making as well.

MR. CARNEY:  It’s not one that I’m going to make. 

Yes, Ed.

Q    Can we go back to gas prices because I wanted to ask about what -- the President’s case seems to be to deal with this issue now is we’ve really increased oil production.  When you go back to 2008, the President repeatedly mocked Senator McCain and this whole "drill here, drill now," "drill, baby, drill" -- all of that was mocked, that it was a dumb idea.  Now, you’re holding it up as a really great idea.  How do you square those two?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Ed, there’s a distinction here that you’re missing.  The President’s approach has been to responsibly increase domestic oil and gas production.  What he has never said, and what I attempted, I thought, to appropriately mock yesterday, was the idea that there are magic solutions, that you can put forward a proposal to cut the price at the pump in half on a piece of paper with a couple of magic beans.  It’s just not realistic.

The fact is oil and gas production in this country has been increasing, and even as it has been increasing the price of oil has been going up globally.  That tells you that there are factors that are not entirely within our control.  And putting forward to the American people that simply by drilling more you’re going to resolve this problem for the long term is not being honest with the American people. 

That's why you need a comprehensive energy strategy.  That's why you need an all-of-the-above approach.  That's why you need to invest in clean energy technologies, as well as open up millions of acres -- of new acres in the Gulf of Mexico to exploration; as well as allow for the building and permitting of the first nuclear reactor in this country in 30 years.  You need to do it all.  And that's the only approach that is responsible.

And to suggest to Americans that there is some other way, that you can wave a magic wand and cut oil prices and cut gas prices, is simply not treating the American people with the kind of respect they deserve -- because they know better.

Q    He didn’t mock John McCain in 2008 on this issue?  He didn’t repeatedly say --

MR. CARNEY:  I didn’t say that.  I said that, then and now, the President believed that there is not -- that drilling alone was the way to resolve our energy security problems.  It's not, as evidenced by the fact that domestic oil and gas production has increased every year that he's been in office, and yet oil prices -- we experience these spikes in oil prices.  And I think that tells you that the way to insulate ourselves, the way to insulate the American people from these kind of price shocks, is to increase our energy independence, to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, to increase our capacity for alternative energy production as well as traditional fossil fuel production.

And that’s the approach the President's taking.  But it's not -- drilling alone will not solve this problem.  That was true in 2008; it's true in 2012. 

Q    Last thing.  In '08 and then throughout his presidency, he's talked about a comprehensive plan, as you mentioned.  But at the end of last year, when White House officials were talking about the 2012 agenda, it was suggested that the only must-pass legislation -- you were talking about this earlier -- by a Democratic White House working with a Republican House -- the only real must-pass was the payroll tax cut extension.  So how can you now say that dealing with an energy plan now is something the President really wants to do, when in December you weren't talking about it?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that’s -- he has been talking about this consistently since he was sworn into office.  And the point about extending the payroll tax cut was the fact that Congress, which had not shown a great deal of interest -- Republicans -- in bipartisan cooperation on difficult issues, that the one issue that we felt confident was a must-do piece for them, as well as us, because of the political price they would pay for raising taxes on 160 million Americans, was extending the payroll tax cut. 

But we fully hope and expect that Congress will do more than that.  And we look forward to Congress taking action on the President’s refinance proposal which could put up to $3,000 in the pockets of average, responsible American homeowners; taking action on an infrastructure investment bill that could put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work and allow for the building of -- rebuilding of our infrastructure in this country -- roads, bridges, schools, highways, ports; and taking action to, if they felt really emboldened by this bipartisan potential, putting teachers back to work, taking action on some of the other provisions in the American Jobs Act, as well as corporate tax reform, as well as measures that would enhance our energy security.

The point is, is that the sky is the limit here if Congress is willing to work with this administration, if Democrats and Republicans are willing to work together on the Hill.

All the way in the back, yes, ma’am.  Nice to see you.  Welcome.

Q    Thank you.  I would like to know if you know of any educational initiatives the President has in place to better prepare students for success at college or university level?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President has pursued since he took office comprehensive education reform.  Race to the Top has been one of the unheralded -- by the media largely -- bipartisan successes that this President has pushed forward, working with the Secretary of Education.

He has also expanded access to Pell grants to allow for more Americans to attend college, and he will push forward with broad education initiatives.  Because if you may remember -- I know folks in this room do -- his State of the Union address last year, in 2011, he talked about the need for the United States to out-educate and out-innovate the competition globally.  We can't -- we cannot win economically in the 21st century if we don't have the best-educated workforce.  That's our competitive advantage.

Even though -- one of the reasons why we’ve seen a trend towards insourcing, American companies bringing jobs back to the United States, is when they look at all of the factors that go into deciding where to locate a factory or where to locate a business, other countries may have lower labor prices, but we have a skilled, educated workforce that can bring great value to American businesses, as well as international businesses.  We have to keep that up.  So he’s very committed to education.

Yes, Norah.

Q    Can I return to Syria?  You were talking about the "Friends of Syria" meeting that will happen later this week, and part of the goal is making the opposition more "functional" is the word you used.  What do you mean, and how would we help make the opposition more functional?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we would work with the "Friends of Syria" to help stand them up, to cement its organizational capacity, its unity, so that there is an entity in place as this inevitable transition occurs -- because, as we’ve said in the past, it’s not a question of if, but when Assad gives up the reins of power in the Syria. 

So we will do that, working with the “Friends of Syria,” working with this broad coalition of members of the international community who are committed to the Syrian people, to their right to a democratic transition, and strongly condemn and oppose the brutality of the Assad regime.

Q    So some NGOs are calling for recognizing the opposition as a transitional government.  Is that something that the U.S. supports?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t want to get ahead of the process here.  I think that helping to organize and unify the opposition is something that we are doing in cooperation with our international partners.  This is an entity that is emerging as the brutality of the Assad regime continues, and so I don’t have a timeframe on if or when something like that would happen.  But right now we’re just working with the “Friends of Syria” to help them organize, help them unify.

Q    Can I get you to clarify remarks out of both the White House and the State Department yesterday -- if pressure on Assad does not work, are we considering arming the opposition?

MR. CARNEY:  I want to be clear that our position is that it is not appropriate now to contribute to the militarization, the further militarization of Syria.  What I said and I think what was said in the State Department was simply to make clear that we don’t rule out additional measures if the international community waits too long and doesn’t act decisively.  But that is not -- I’m not hinting at imminent action or change.  Our position is that it is not appropriate to contribute to the militarization of Syria, that there is opportunity still now for this process to result in the departure from power of Assad and a democratic transition to begin to take place.

Q    There are estimated 100 civilians that were killed in the city of Homs yesterday.  Why would we intervene on behalf of the rebels in Libya and not help those in Syria?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that’s an excellent question and I attempted to answer that a little bit earlier, but you ask it more directly, so I’ll try to address it.  The comparative is useful in that it demonstrates why it is important to not have a one-size-fits-all approach, because the situations can be different even though the broader unrest in the region obviously is similar or reflects an overall trend in the region.

In Libya, as you recall, there was support at the international level, broad support of the United Nations Security Council resolution.  There was a request from the Libyan opposition and the Libyan people for direct military intervention, outside military intervention.  And, most importantly, there was the opportunity identified by the President and other leaders, and military leaders of NATO, to have the dramatic impact of preventing a massacre in Benghazi.  There was a city coming under assault by Qaddafi forces.  And the situation in Syria is different in all of those particulars that I just laid out. 

Again, we're not ruling stuff out in the future, ruling actions out in the future.  But right now, we believe that the right approach is not to contribute to the militarization, and to pursue a path of pressuring Assad, isolating Assad, and furthering along the process that will ultimately lead to him stepping down or no longer being in power.

Q    And then finally, would we support and help establish a safe haven?

MR. CARNEY:  For?

Q    Within Syria?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, we don’t believe that military action is the right course -- contributing to the militarization of Syria is the right path right now.  We are, through humanitarian assistance and pursuing the provision of humanitarian assistance, pursuing the international effort to assist the opposition in organizing itself and unifying itself.  But in terms of a military action to secure a part of the country, that is not currently a policy we're pursuing.

Yes.

Q    Jay, thanks.  On Iran, as you know, the IAEA inspectors returned, basically saying that they felt their trip was unsuccessful.  What's the White House's reaction?  And to what extent does this compound or add to the tensions that are already there with Iran?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we regret the failure of Iran to reach an agreement this week with the IAEA that would permit the agency to fully investigate the serious allegation raised -- allegations, rather, raised in its November report.

It’s important to note that the IAEA maintains regular access to both of Iran’s enrichment facilities at Qom and Natanz. The IAEA was seeking additional access -- that's what this visit was about -- in line with Iran’s safeguards obligations, to sites and facilities where Iran is suspected of conducting work related to weaponization activity.  So, unfortunately, this is another demonstration of Iran’s refusal to abide by its international obligations.

We will continue to evaluate, working with our P5-plus-1 partners, the letter in response -- that we received from the Iranians in response to Lady Ashton’s letter about the possibility of engaging in talks.  But this particular action by Iran suggests that they have not changed their behavior when it comes to abiding by their international obligations.

Q    On the tax reform plan, as you know, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is giving his own economic speech today in which he’s going to talk about his tax reform plan.  He was initially going to give that speech on Friday and he moved it up.  But was the timing of today’s announcement in any way meant to preempt the unveiling of that speech?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, no.  In fact, I think we’ve been saying for quite some time now that our corporate tax reform proposal would be put forward at the end of the month, roughly within the timeframe of the submission of the budget.  So we’ve kept to that schedule.  Perhaps others are timing their announcements around ours.  But this is something that Secretary Geithner has been working on with the White House economic team and the Treasury team for quite some time, and we identified this time period as a time to release it a number of weeks ago.

Q    And also, tonight is the 20th Republican presidential debate, potentially the last presidential debate.  Given that, will the President watch tonight?  I know you’ve said he hasn’t in the past.  Does he have any plans to watch this final --

MR. CARNEY:  So the question is why is this night so different from any other?  (Laughter.)

Q    Exactly.

MR. CARNEY:  I didn't ask him today, this morning if he planned to watch it.  I suspect, knowing him, knowing his viewing habits, that he will not watch it.  He has a family at home.  He tends to, when he watches TV at all, it’s either sports or a movie.  So I don't expect he will.  But the President obviously keeps up with what’s in the news and will, I’m sure, be aware of the general back-and-forth in the debate come tomorrow morning.

Q    Given that the President is going to face off with one of these candidates, isn’t it important for him to see the debate and not just -- I know you said he’s read about the debates.  But I mean, isn’t that a part of understanding the strategy --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think there is ample time between now and early November for him to prepare for what will be debates with his opponent once that opponent emerges from this process.  I think -- we’re not pushing up against a deadline here.  I think he’ll be prepared when that time comes.  He might look at a little tape when that time comes.  But for now, I think he’ll continue his practice of finding something better to do.

Yes.  How are you, Mara?

Q    Just to clarify what you said to Norah, you said Syria is different, and then you listed all the criteria that made Libyan opposition the correct choice.  So if there was an imminent massacre in Syria, then you’d be considering --

MR. CARNEY:  There are ways to speculate about individual things, conditions that might be in place.  What was the case in Libya is that all those conditions were in place that created an opportunity where international, outside military action to prevent the slaughter of civilians, to enforce a no-fly zone, was an option that the international community could take.

So my point in making that comparison is that it was those
-- that set of circumstances that made that option achievable, and that is the one the President pursued with many, many international partners, very importantly, including countries from the region.  So I’m just making the distinction because it’s easy to say, well, you did this in that country why don’t you do it in this?  And it’s important to recognize the different circumstances.

Q    You’re saying right now none of those things are --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, there was not a United Nations Security Council resolution passed.  There’s a different military situation on the ground, if you will, and just different circumstances in general. 

Q    And also to follow up on Jessica’s question about tax reform -- you said that the President’s principles on individual tax reform are as clear as well.  Does that mean he also wants to lower rates and broaden the base there, too?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, his principles are clear.  They are the Buffett Rule, as you know and you’ve heard him and I and others talk about.  You haven’t heard “I” talk about it, you’ve heard "me" talk about it -- that’s just correct grammar.

Q    That’s not really tax reform, though.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, certainly it is.  It’s --

Q    -- raising taxes on one individual --

MR. CARNEY:  No, no, no.  It’s ensuring that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay a lower effective tax rate than average, working Americans. 

He has made clear that his approach to tax reform would ensure that those making under $250,000 a year will not see their taxes go up.  That is a principle.  He is committed to the expiration of the high-end Bush tax cuts. 

So the set of principles that he has put in place in terms of the individual tax code could very well be translated into individual tax reform.  So he’s spoken at length about the individual tax code and he has put forward a framework for corporate tax reform.  Obviously, this is the kind of thing when people ask me about why executive actions and "We Can’t Wait," this is the kind of thing that a President can’t do on his own.  He needs congressional cooperation, and he looks forward to having it.

Q    Well, what I’m confused about -- you just listed the President’s views on certain tax policies.  When people say tax reform, they generally mean broadening the base and lowering rates.  That’s not what you’re talking about when you talk about individual tax reform the way you are with corporate tax reform.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not sure I agree with your premise that tax reform follows that formula. 

Q    -- the President is less progressive --

MR. CARNEY:  That is the formula that applies to the President’s approach, which is an approach shared by many others to corporate tax reform.  The approach that the President has taken on individual tax rates is that we should not have a tax code that’s skewed to benefit -- through the carried interest rule or other itemized deductions, other means that allow for millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower effective tax rate than average Americans.  He does not believe that folks earning up $250,000 -- families earning up to $250,000 should see their taxes go up.  He does believe that those making more than $250,000 should see their taxes go up because the unaffordable Bush tax cuts for high-income Americans need to expire at the end of the year.

Q    Right.  But even those principles, does he believe in broadening the base and lowering rates in general?  Keeping all the progressivity you just mentioned, does he believe that that is what we should do --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that progressivity is an important principle here, and that’s one that is reflected in his embrace of the Buffett Rule and his embrace of expiring -- making sure that the higher-end Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.

Q    What about broadening the base and getting rid of deductions?  Because the President has --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President has put --

Q    -- take another question.

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, let me get some others here.  I think, Mara, you know we have put forward proposals in the past -- last summer and fall -- that included limiting itemized deductions for high-income Americans.  That’s a way of a broadening the base.  Eliminating the carried interest rule is a way of broadening the base so that hedge fund managers who are simply earning income don’t pay a capital gains rate, they pay at an income tax rate. 

So I think this President has put forward both on paper and through speeches quite a bit of information about his approach to individual taxes.

Laura.

Q    On corporate tax reform, are you comfortable with the idea that while you are closing certain corporate loopholes, this -- your proposal does in its own way pick winners and losers in the sense that there are new advantages for manufacturers and clean energy makers?

MR. CARNEY:  We are comfortable with an approach that eliminates a huge amount of the complications, loopholes, special provisions, subsidies from the tax code, and focuses the tax code on growing the American manufacturing sector, growing the advanced manufacturing sector, and assisting small businesses, which are, after all, an important engine of economic growth and a hugely important engine of job growth in this country.

So, yes, we believe that we need to eliminate a lot of the existing complexities from the tax code, and then identify very clearly what our priorities are when it comes to manufacturing, advanced manufacturing and small businesses.

Q    So you kept saying, in response to the questions about gas prices, that we need to insulate ourselves against these higher prices and world events, et cetera.  Yet you’ve explained how domestic production is at a high level and it’s doing apparently very little to insulate us on the world oil market.  So my question is, are you -- if we do continue to pursue Obama’s sort of all-of-the-above policies and accomplish the things that the President is seeking, will that be enough to counter what’s happening in the world oil markets?  Will what he’s suggesting lead to lower gas prices?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, what this President is pursuing -- the policies that he's already put in place and the policies that he is pursuing will do is reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.  And by definition, that will create a situation where we have greater energy security in the future than we have had in the past.

I can't predict what oil prices will be in a year or two years or even six months.  I would be careful of anyone who says they can.  But what we can do through policy is increase our domestic production of oil and gas, increase our overall domestic sources of energy, including alternative energy, and thereby insulate ourselves from some of the shocks that come in the future.  But that doesn’t mean --

Q    That doesn’t take care --

MR. CARNEY:  -- that doesn’t -- what we know, for example, if through the car rule, the enhanced fuel efficiency standards that the President put into place, is that we will save $12 billion of oil because of that.

Q    Barrels.

MR. CARNEY:  Barrels, sorry -- 12 billion barrels of -- this is the second time I've blown it.  Thank you, Mr. Henry -- 12 billion barrels of oil.  That is a heck of a lot of oil.  And absent those fuel efficiency standards, we know that we would be paying for that oil, and we would be paying for a certain portion of that we would be paying foreign providers of that oil.

So these are important steps that we can take to insulate ourselves from energy shocks in the future.  You're shaking your head, but it's absolutely logical here.  The more -- the less we rely on foreign oil, the less dependence we have, the more energy security we have.

Q    But is that true?  Do you -- if we increase domestic oil production, doesn’t it just go onto the world market with all the rest of the oil?  It does very little to --

MR. CARNEY:  I think that we increase domestic oil and gas production, understanding that increasing domestic oil and gas production alone won't solve our energy challenges, it will mean that we can continue to reduce, hopefully, our imports of foreign oil, reduce our reliance on foreign oil.  And thereby, when you have problems in a region of the world that produces oil, you are -- the effect on your own production -- your own dependence on that -- the reduction in your dependence on that insulates you from some of that shock.

Q    Will that lead to lower gas prices?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to predict gas prices.  What I know is that it increases our energy security.

Yes.

Q    Jay, you took a question yesterday about Secretary Vilsack’s comment about getting the oil companies, in his words, “to help ensure that the recovery that we’re now seeing is not jeopardized by energy costs that get out of control.”  What did you find out about that?

MR. CARNEY:  You know what, I would refer you to the Department of Agriculture.  I think what our approach has been is to, through the policies that I’ve been describing several times now, to work with domestic oil and gas companies to ensure that more -- millions and millions of more acres are available -- millions of acres are available for exploration in the Gulf and in Alaska and other places.

We work with manufacturers in a variety of ways to ensure the smooth operation of a system here that provides oil and gas products to American consumers, but I don't think it was anything more specific than that.

Q    Do you know of any specific concern --

MR. CARNEY:  No --

Q    -- a new effort to get them to try to put a lid on prices?

MR. CARNEY:  No, no, no, no.  And I think that should not be interpreted that way.  I think this was more about the fact that we have a lot of consultation and dialogue to ensure that the overall system that produces and supplies American consumers is operating smoothly.

Q    In the Florida speech tomorrow, is he going to specifically address the current price situation?  Is there going to be any kind of reassurance for people in this speech, which apparently is going to focus on energy?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, he will talk about the need to take an all-of-the-above approach.  He will certainly talk about it broadly in terms of our energy security in the 21st century and our economic security in the 21st century as a long-term project. He’ll, I expect, make reference to the rise in oil prices that we’re experiencing right now and the anxiety that that creates and the impact that has on American families trying to make ends meet.

He has been very clear about his concern about higher gas prices and higher oil prices, and what that means for American families.  And he’s been explicit about that in arguing for the payroll tax cut and the extra money that that provides to Americans both in 2011 and this year.  So, yes, I expect you can hear him -- you’ll hear him talk about that tomorrow.

Yes.

Q    Jay, the President is going viral again by singing.  (Laughter.)  Is this by design?  Is it a reaction to polls?

MR. CARNEY:  I think it’s just -- it’s a hidden talent that we’re just getting to hear.  It’s not at all -- the circumstances both at the Apollo Theater and last night at the event here I think were pretty unique.  So I can't predict -- the next time maybe at the inauguration next year.  (Laughter.)  But what I can tell you is that among his --

Q    It’s only a matter of when.  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  It will be a celebration.  No matter -- among his many talents is the ability to carry a tune.

Yes, sir.

Q    Jay, on corporate taxes, you could find any number of polls suggesting average Americans believe that corporations don’t pay their fair share, that there are too many loopholes, too many breaks, et cetera.  So why doesn’t the President make more of a show of this?  Why doesn’t he bang the drum a little bit about this issue when it could be politically positive for him?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President has been pretty explicit about his firm belief that there are provisions within the tax code that allow some corporations to be subsidized in ways that are just not affordable and are unnecessary.  And I think oil and gas companies are a primary example and one that he’s been beating the drum on for quite some time -- and that is included within this corporate tax reform proposal.

He hasn’t often been criticized for not speaking out on this issue because he’s spoken out on it so clearly, and he will continue to do so.  And that’s how -- we’ve been clear about the carried interest rule and why that is simply bad policy and why it needs to be eliminated.  It’s simply not equitable if a hedge fund manager or a private equity executive pays tax on his or her income at a rate of 15 percent when average folks are paying much more.  That’s just not -- it doesn’t make sense and it’s not affordable.  We need to be fiscally responsible in our approach to the tax code.  That’s the approach the President has taken in this corporate tax reform, and it’s the approach that guides his vision on taxes in general.

Yes, Kate.

Q    House Democrats sent the President a letter today asking him to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  Is that something that’s on the table?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t seen this letter that you mention, but I’ll answer that as I have in the past, which is I have no specific comments to make on that possibility.  We obviously examine every issue when it comes to higher oil and gas prices.  That was the case last year and continues to be the case.  And we take no possible response off the table, but I have no specific comment to make on that.

Q    Is there a price that you’re looking at, though?

MR. CARNEY:  No, I have no comment on that.

Q    On the Buffett Rule -- back to the Buffett Rule, Governor Christie -- any response to his remarks that Warren Buffett should just “shut up and write a check” in a TV interview last night?  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  I think Mr. Buffett, who is widely regarded for his success in business as well as in philanthropy, has been quite outspoken, as is his right, on what he believes is an issue of tax fairness.  He simply believes, as one of the wealthiest men in the world, that he should not be paying an effective tax rate lower than his secretary.  I don’t know why the governor mentioned or others think that’s a bad idea, but this President believes it’s the right approach.

Q    Do you think he should go ahead and write the check until that -- it becomes law?

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, that’s a quip that tries to draw attention away from what is a very serious issue, which is the need to have a tax code that’s fair and that helps the American people as they recover from this recession, and helps us achieve the kind of balanced approach to deficit and debt reduction that this President has pursued for some time now.  So, quips aside, we think the Buffett Rule is absolutely an important principle to apply to individual tax reform.

Jared.  Last one.  Yes.

Q    Rhetorically, when you’re talking about the energy policy, the President has had this ground-up, comprehensive energy policy.  But when we’re talking about tax reform, it seems like what’s coming from the podium is that there are these piecemeal things, we can do this on corporate tax reform, there could be more -- you said earlier -- on individual reform, if the Congress is there for it.  Why is it not the same comprehensive, ground-up strategy?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think first of all, the corporate tax reform framework that was laid out today is fairly detailed, A. 
B, if we could achieve some of these important policy objectives through executive action as the President did with close to a dozen automobile manufacturers in putting in place fuel efficiency standards that will save 12 billion barrels of oil, we would. 

But the fact is that in order to achieve corporate tax reform or individual tax reform or balance deficit and debt reduction, we need to work with Congress.  And the way to do that is to put forward the kind of detailed framework that makes clear what this President’s principles are, makes clear the path that he believes we need to take in reforming our tax code, and invite, as the Secretary of the Treasury has already done, Democrats and Republicans to work together to achieve that goal of lowering the rate, expanding the base, eliminating subsidies and loopholes, and creating incentives for American manufacturing and advanced manufacturing and small businesses to grow.

Q    Earlier the President -- there was a statement from the President’s office about observation of Ash Wednesday.  Is the President doing anything in particular during Lenten season?  Is he giving anything up or is he doing anything special for it?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any information on that.  I believe we did put out a statement for Ash Wednesday today. 

Thanks very much. 

END  
1:51 P.M. EST

Vice President Joe Biden will travel to Mexico and Honduras from March 4-6.  In Mexico City, the Vice President will meet with President Calderón and will underscore the United States’ commitment to deepening our close dialogue and cooperation with Mexico on a broad range of issues.   In Tegucigalpa, the Vice President will hold a bilateral meeting with President Lobo.  In addition, he will take part in a meeting with Central American leaders, who have been invited to a joint meeting by President Lobo, the current President Pro Tempore of the Central American Integration System.  In both countries, the Vice President will also consult with our partners about the Summit of the Americas, scheduled to be held in Colombia in mid-April, which will focus on leveraging Hemispheric connections and partnerships to improve the lives of people throughout the region.  Additional details about the Vice President’s trip will be released at a later date.

In my State of the Union, I laid out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last -- where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone pays their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.  That includes a tax code that rewards companies who invest and create jobs in the United States of America. 

Our current corporate tax system is outdated, unfair, and inefficient.   It provides tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas and hits companies that choose to stay in America with one of the highest tax rates in the world.  It is unnecessarily complicated and forces America’s small businesses to spend countless hours and dollars filing their taxes. It’s not right, and it needs to change. 

That’s why my administration released a framework for reform that simplifies the tax code, eliminates dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, and promotes job creation right here at home.  It’s a framework that lowers the corporate tax rate and broadens the tax base in order to increase competitiveness for companies across the nation.  It cuts tax rates even further for manufacturers that are creating new products and manufacturing goods here in America. Finally, because no company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas, this framework includes a basic minimum tax for every multinational company.  This reform is fully paid for, and it won’t add a dime to the deficit.

As I said in the State of the Union, it is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America.

The National Mall

11:21 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you so much. Thank you so much.  Please, have a seat.  Thank you very much.  Well, good morning, everybody.

AUDIENCE:  Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT:  I want to thank France for that introduction and for her leadership at the Smithsonian.  I want to thank everybody who helped to make this day happen.  I want to thank Laura Bush; Secretary Salazar; Sam Brownback; my hero, Congressman John Lewis; Wayne Clough, and everybody who's worked so hard to make this possible. 

I am so proud of Lonnie Bunch, who came here from Chicago, I want to point out.  (Laughter and applause.)  I remember having a conversation with him about this job when he was planning to embark on this extraordinary journey.  And we could not be prouder of the work that he has done to help make this day possible.

I promise to do my part by being brief. 

As others have mentioned, this day has been a long time coming.  The idea for a museum dedicated to African Americans was first put forward by black veterans of the Civil War.  And years later, the call was picked up by members of the civil rights generation -– by men and women who knew how to fight for what was right and strive for what is just.  This is their day.  This is your day.  It’s an honor to be here to see the fruit of your labor.

It’s also fitting that this museum has found a home on the National Mall.  As has been mentioned, it was on this ground long ago that lives were once traded, where hundreds of thousands once marched for jobs and for freedom.  It was here that the pillars of our democracy were built, often by black hands.  And it is on this spot –- alongside the monuments to those who gave birth to this nation, and those who worked so hard to perfect it –- that generations will remember the sometimes difficult, often inspirational, but always central role that African Americans have played in the life of our country. 

This museum will celebrate that history.  Because just as the memories of our earliest days have been confined to dusty letters and faded pictures, the time will come when few people remember drinking from a colored water fountain, or boarding a segregated bus, or hearing in person Dr. King's voice boom down from the Lincoln Memorial.  That’s why what we build here won't just be an achievement for our time, it will be a monument for all time.  It will do more than simply keep those memories alive.

Just like the Air and Space Museum challenges us to set our sights higher, or the Natural History Museum encourages us to look closer, or the Holocaust Museum calls us to fight persecution wherever we find it, this museum should inspire us as well.  It should stand as proof that the most important things in life rarely come quickly or easily.  It should remind us that although we have yet to reach the mountaintop, we cannot stop climbing.

And that’s why, in moments like this, I think about Malia and Sasha.  I think about my daughters and I think about your children, the millions of visitors who will stand where we stand long after we're gone.  And I think about what I want them to experience.  I think about what I want them to take away.

When our children look at Harriet Tubman Shaw or Nat Turner's bible or the plane flown by Tuskegee Airmen, I don’t want them to be seen as figures somehow larger than life.  I want them to see how ordinary Americans could do extraordinary things; how men and women just like them had the courage and determination to right a wrong, to make it right. 

I want my daughters to see the shackles that bound slaves on their voyage across the ocean and the shards of glass that flew from the 16th Street Baptist church, and understand that injustice and evil exist in the world.  But I also want them to hear Louis Armstrong’s horn and learn about the Negro League and read the poems of Phyllis Wheatley.  And I want them to appreciate this museum not just as a record of tragedy, but as a celebration of life.

When future generations hear these songs of pain and progress and struggle and sacrifice, I hope they will not think of them as somehow separate from the larger American story.  I want them to see it as central -- an important part of our shared story.  A call to see ourselves in one another.  A call to remember that each of us is made in God’s image.  That’s the history we will preserve within these walls.  The history of a people who, in the words of Dr. King, “injected new meaning and dignity into the veins of civilization.” 

May we remember their stories.  May we live up to their example.  Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

END              
11:28 A.M. EST

Today, Michelle and I honor Ash Wednesday with Christians around the country and across the world. This is at once a solemn and joyous occasion, an opportunity to remember both the depths of sacrifice and the height of redemption.  We join millions in entering the Lenten Season with truly thankful hearts, mindful of our faith and our obligations to one another.

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, D.C.

1:34 P.M. EST
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Thank you all so much.  (Applause.)  Rest yourselves.  Rest yourselves.  That was a great picture.  I love that.  Class photo.  (Laughter.)  It was awesome.  I've never seen 250 people get absolutely quiet -- snap of a finger.  (Laughter.)  It's wonderful.  It is a pleasure and truly an honor to be here with all of you.
 
I'm going to start by thanking Kathy, not just for that very kind introduction but for all the work that she's done, as well as all of the other co-chairs for making this event a tremendous success.  We have to give them all a round of applause for just an amazing job.  (Applause.) 
 
And I also want to thank Senator Gillibrand, who has been just an amazing friend, supporter, Senator, fighter, worker.  And she's gorgeous, and gets the job done.  (Applause.)  Absolutely.
 
And we have my dear friend, Melody Barnes, who is here.  And she looks fabulous because she's out of the White House.  (Laughter.)  She's rested and all that -- barely recognized her.  So that's what it looks like when you get some sleep?  (Laughter.)  But let's give Melody a round of applause as well.  (Applause.)
 
And finally, I want to thank all of you -- all of you for your support and for joining us today.  And I know that there's a reason why you all are all here, and it's not just to get a picture.  It was a good picture, but it's not just about the picture.
 
You're here because you know that we stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country.  You're here because you know that in less than a year from now -- time is ticking away -- we are going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come.  And you're here because you know that that choice won't just affect all of us, but, more importantly, it's going to affect our children, it's going to affect our grandchildren, and it's going to affect the world that we leave for them long after we're gone.
 
And truly, that is why I'm here today.  That's why I'm going to be everywhere, all over this country over the next several months.  Because, as First Lady, I have had the -- what has been a privilege of traveling all across this wonderful country, meeting folks from all different backgrounds and hearing what's going on in their lives.  And every single day, I hear about how people are struggling to keep it together -- the bills they're trying to pay, the businesses they're trying to keep afloat.  I hear about how they're taking that extra shift, how they're working that extra job, how they're saving and sacrificing, never spending a dime on themselves because they desperately want something better for their kids.  That's what I hear. 
 
And make no mistake about it, these struggles are not new -- not at all.  For decades now, middle-class folks have been squeezed from all sides.  The costs for things like gas and groceries and tuition have continued to rise, but people's paychecks just haven't kept up.  So when the economic crisis hit, for far too many families the bottom just fell out.  Just fell out.
 
Now, fortunately, over the past three years, we have had a President who has worked very hard to dig ourselves out of this mess.  (Applause.)  And a lot of important progress has been made.  We have had 23 straight months of private sector job growth; the unemployment rate is now the lowest it's been in nearly three years.  (Applause.)  That's all good news. 
 
But we know that we still have a long way to go.  And we've been working hard -- this President has been working hard to rebuild our economy based on a vision that we all share -- the belief, as my husband says, that hard work should pay off; that responsibility should be rewarded; and that everyone should get a fair shot, right?  Do their fair share, and play by the same rules. 
 
See, these are basic American values.  They're the values that so many of us were raised with, including myself.  I mean, you all know my story -- my father was a blue-collar worker, city plant.  My family lived in a small apartment on the South Side of Chicago.  Neither of my parents attended college, but they worked, and they saved, and they sacrificed everything -- everything -- because they wanted something more for me and my brother.
 
And more than anything else, that is what's at stake.  That's what's at stake in this election.  The fundamental promise that no matter who you are or how you started out, if you work hard, you can build a decent life for yourself, and an even better life for your kids.
 
And on just about every issue -- from health care to education to the economy -- that is the choice that we face.  That's the choice.  For example, when you hear all the talk about tax cuts for middle-class families, or you hear about unemployment insurance for folks out of work, that's about whether people can heat their homes, right?  Or put a hot meal on their table, or put gas in their car so that they can even look for work -- that's what that's about.  It's about whether folks can afford to own a home, send their kids to college, retire with a little dignity, a little security.  It's about whether people will have more money in their pockets, which means more money in our economy, which means more jobs.  That's what's at stake.  That's the choice that we face. 
 
And think for just a minute about what this administration has done to stand up for the American consumer.  I'm talking about families getting hit with those hidden credit card fees.  I'm talking about our students drowning in debt, our seniors losing their homes and their savings because they were tricked into loans they couldn't afford.
 
And that's why my husband created a new consumer watchdog with just one simple mission, and that is to protect folks from exactly these kinds of abuses.  (Applause.)  Because when you've worked and you've saved and you've followed the rules, you shouldn't lose it all to someone just looking to make some easy money.  See, that's not fair.  It's not right.  And your President is working hard to do something about it.
 
And what about all that we've done together for our small businesses?  The companies that create two-thirds of all new jobs each year -- two-thirds.  I'm talking about the mother who opens up that drycleaner down the street to help provide for her kids.  Or the family that runs that neighborhood diner -- run it for generations.  Or the veteran who launches a startup and pursues the American Dream he fought so hard for.  See, these are the folks who work themselves to the bone during the day, then they head home and pore over the books late into the night, determined to make those numbers add up.
 
See, for these folks, the small business tax cuts that this administration has passed, this means the difference between those folks hiring new employees or handing out pink slips; it's the difference between them keeping their doors open or closing shop for good.  See, that is the choice we face.
 
And how about the very first bill my husband signed into law?  Talk about this every -- remember the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help women get equal pay for equal work?  (Applause.)  See, your President did this because he knows what it means when women aren't treated fairly in the workplace.  He watched his own grandmother -- woman with a high school education -- watched her work her way up to become a vice president at a little community bank.  And she worked hard; she was good at her job.  But like so many others, she hit that glass ceiling, and she watched men no more qualified than she was -- men she had actually trained -- be promoted up the ladder ahead of her.
 
So, believe me, for Barack this issue isn't abstract.  This isn't hypothetical.  And he signed this bill because he knows that closing that pay gap -- see, that can mean the difference between women losing $50, $100, $500 from each paycheck, or having that money for gas and groceries and school clothes for their kids.  See, he did it because he knows that when nearly two-thirds of women are breadwinners or co-breadwinners, that women's success in this economy is the key to families' success in this economy.  He knows that.  (Applause.)   
 
And he did it because, as he put it, we believe that here in America there are no second-class citizens in our workplace.
See, that's what's at stake in this election.  (Applause.) 
 
And let's talk for a minute about health care.  Yes.  See, last year, we made history together by finally passing health reform.  But now, there are some folks actually talking about repealing this reform.
 
And today, we have got to ask ourselves, are we going to stand by and let that happen? 
 
AUDIENCE:  No.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Since we passed this law, millions of seniors have saved an average of more than $600 a year on their prescription drugs.  So are we going to take those savings away from our seniors?
 
AUDIENCE:  No.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Or will we make sure that our parents and our grandparents can afford to stay healthy in their golden years?  What are we going to do?  Are we going to go back to the days when insurance companies could deny our children coverage because they have preexisting conditions like cancer or diabetes, even asthma?  Or will we stand up and say that in this country, no one -- no one -- should ever have to choose between going bankrupt or watching their child suffer because they can't afford a doctor. 
 
See, when our kids get older and graduate from school, we all know how hard it is for them to find jobs, let alone jobs that provide insurance.  That's why, as part of health reform, kids now can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 years old.  (Applause.)  And today, that is how 2.5 million of our young people are getting their coverage -- 2.5 million.  (Applause.)  So we have to ask ourselves, will we take that insurance away from those kids?  Or will we say that we don't want our sons and daughters going without health care when they're just starting out, trying to build families and careers of their own?  But that's the choice we face.
 
And think for a minute about what's been done in education. Think about all of the investments to raise standards and reform our public schools.  I mean, this is about improving the circumstances for millions of our children in this country -- these are our babies.  Kids sitting in crumbling classrooms; kids with so much promise, kids who could be anything -- anything -- they wanted, if we just gave them a chance.
 
So, you think about how this President has tripled investments for job training at community colleges.  This is about hundreds of thousands of hardworking folks -- folks who are determined to get the skills they need for a better job and better wages.  Folks who are doing it all, doing everything they can -- working full-time, raising their kids.  But they still make it to class every evening, still study late into the night.  Why?  Because they are desperately working for something better for their families.
 
     And make no mistake about it, this investment in our students and our workers will determine nothing less than the future of our economy -- nothing less.  It will determine whether we're prepared to make the discoveries and to build the industries that will let us compete with any country anywhere in the world.  That is what's at stake. 
 
And let's not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices -- (applause) -- and for the first time in history, our daughters and our sons watched three women take their seat on our nation's highest court.  (Applause.)  More importantly, let us not forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come -- on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever we choose.  That is what's at stake.  That is the choice we're facing.  (Applause.)
 
And finally, let's not forget all this administration has done to keep our country safe, and to restore our standing in the world.  Thanks to the brave men and women in uniform, we finally brought to justice the man behind the 9/11 attacks and so many other horrific acts of terror.  (Applause.)  Your President ended the war in Iraq and brought our troops home for the holidays.  (Applause.)  And we are working to give our veterans and their families the education, the employment and the benefits they have earned.  And because my husband ended "don't ask, don't tell," our troops will never again have to lie about who they are to serve the country they love. (Applause.)  Because that is what's at stake.  That's what's at stake. 
 
So make no mistake about it, whether it's health care, whether it's the economy, education, foreign policy, the choice we make will determine nothing less than who we are as a country, but, more importantly, who do we want to be?  Who do we want to be? 
 
Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to the few at the top?  Or will we be a place where if you work hard, you can get ahead, no matter who you are or how you started out?  Who are we?  Will we tell folks who've done everything right but are still struggling just to get by, are we going to tell them, tough luck, you're on your own?  Who are we?  Or will we honor that fundamental American belief that this country is strongest when we're all better off? 
 
But who are we?  Will we continue all the change we've begun, all the progress we've made?  Or will we just allow everything to just slip away?  Who are we?  See, that is the choice we face.  Those are the stakes.
 
But believe me, your President knows this all too well.  He understands these issues, because he's lived them.  He was raised by a single mother who struggled to put herself through school, pay the bills.  When she needed help, who stepped up?  His grandmother stepped up, waking up every morning before dawn to get on some bus to go to that job at the bank.  And even though she was passed over for all those promotions, she didn't complain -- sounds familiar.  She didn't complain.  She just kept on showing up, doing her best. 
 
So believe me, Barack knows what it means when a family struggles.  He knows what it means when someone doesn't have a chance to fulfill their potential.  Because those are the experiences that have made him the man and the President he is today.  We are blessed to have somebody like that in the Oval Office.  (Applause.) 
 
And that's why I'm here.  That's why I'm here.  See, that's what I hear in my husband's voice when he comes home after traveling, a long day, all over the country, and he tells me about the people he's met.  See, and in those quiet moments late at night, after the girls have gone to bed, and he's sitting there poring over briefings and the letters that people have sent him.  Every night he reads these letters -- a woman dying of cancer whose insurance company won't cover her care.  The letter from the father struggling to pay his family's bills.  The letters from far too many young people with so much promise, but so few opportunities.
 
And I hear the passion, the worry, the determination in his voice.  He's like, "you won't believe what folks are going through."  That's what he tells me.  He says, "Michelle, this ain't right.  We have got to fix this.  We have so much more to do." 
 
See, I tell this to everybody:  When it comes to the people he meets, Barack has a memory like a steel trap.  He might not remember your name, but if he's had a few minutes and a decent conversation with you, he will never forget your story.  It becomes imprinted on his heart.  See, and that's what he carries with him.  He carries, every single day -- it's our collection of struggles and hopes and dreams.
 
That is where Barack gets his passion.  That's where he gets his toughness and his fight.  And that's why, even in the hardest moments, when it seems like all is lost, Barack Obama never loses sight of the end goal, never lets himself get distracted by all that chatter, all that noise.  He just keeps moving forward.  Just keeps moving forward.  (Applause.)  Because he has a vision for this country.  He has a vision.  And it's a vision that we all share.  We all share this vision.
 
But I've said this before, and I will say it again:  He cannot do it alone.  That was never the promise.  He needs your help.  He needs you all over this.  Needs you to make those calls, needs you to register those voters.  He needs you to take those "I'm In" cards -- because hopefully you have them in here somewhere -- and sign them up; get your friends, your neighbors, your colleagues.  You've got to convince more and more people that giving just a little part of their lives -- just a little part of their lives -- each week to this campaign will make the world of difference because of what's at stake.
 
Because we all know that this isn't about one extraordinary man.  This is not about Barack Obama -- although I will admit I'm a little biased.  I think he's wonderful.  (Laughter and applause.)  But it has always been about us -- all of us.  All of us coming together for the values we believe in, and for the country we want to be.  We have to work for that
 
And I'm not going to kid you -- I never do -- this journey is going to be long.  It is going to be hard.  And there will be plenty of twists and turns along the way.  But the truth is, that is how change always happens in this country -- always.  The reality is that real change is slow, and it never happens all at once.  But one thing I do know is that if we keep showing up, and if we keep fighting the good fight, then we always get there.  We always do.  We always have.  We always get to that better place.  Maybe not in our lifetimes, but maybe in our children's lifetimes, right?  Maybe in our grandchildren's lifetimes. 
 
Because in the end, that's really what this all -- it's all about.  In the end, we're not fighting these battles for ourselves.  We're fighting them for our sons and our daughters.  We're fighting them for our grandsons and for our granddaughters.  We are fighting for the world we want to leave for them.  This is not about us.
 
And I'm in this not just as a mother who wants to leave a legacy for my girls.  I'm in this as a citizen who knows that we can do so much to change this country for the better.  Because the truth is that no matter what happens, my girls are good.  See, they're blessed.  My girls will have all the advantages and opportunities in their lives.  And that's probably true for so many of your children as well, children in this room.
 
But I think that the last few years have shown us the truth of what Barack has always said:  that if any child in this country is left behind, then that matters to all of us, even if she's not our daughter, even if he's not our son.  If any family in this country struggles, then we cannot be fully content with our own family's good fortune, right?  (Applause.)   
 
Because in the end, we cannot separate our own story from the broader American story, because we know that in this country we rise and we fall together.  (Applause.)  And we know that if we make the right choices and have the right priorities, we can ensure that everyone -- everyone in this country -- gets a fair shake, and everyone has a chance to get ahead.  That's what's at stake. 
 
So it is time for us to get moving, right?  It is time for us to get this thing going, right?
 
AUDIENCE:  Right.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  So I have one final question:  Are you in?  (Applause.)  Wait, wait, wait, I didn't hear that.  Are you in?
 
AUDIENCE:  Yes!
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Are you ready for this?  (Applause.)  You all have to be fired up about this.  This is going to be long.  This is going to take a lot of work.  It is not going to be easy.  But there is too much at stake.  There is too much at stake to miss this opportunity.  I am going to be working so hard, but we need each and every one of you to be working just as hard. 
 
I look forward to seeing you all out there.  We've got to get this done.  Thank you all, and God bless.  (Applause.)
 
END             
2:00 P.M. EST
 

East Room

7:22 P.M. EST                      

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you!  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Everybody, please have a seat.  That sounded pretty good.  (Laughter.)  I might try that instead of ruffles and flourishes.  (Laughter.) 

Well, first of all, I want to wish everybody a happy Mardi Gras.  I hear Trombone Shorty brought some beads up from New Orleans.  And I see that we've got some members of our Cabinet here.  We’ve got some members of Congress.  And we have elected officials from all across the country.

One of the things about being President -- I've talked about this before -- is that some nights when you want to go out and just take a walk, clear your head, or jump into a car just to take a drive, you can’t do it.  Secret Service won't let you.  And that’s frustrating.  But then there are other nights where B.B. King and Mick Jagger come over to your house to play for a concert.  (Applause.)  So I guess things even out a little bit.  (Laughter.)

In 1941, the folklorist Alan Lomax travelled throughout the Deep South, recording local musicians on behalf of the Library of Congress.  In Stovall, Mississippi, he met McKinley Morganfield, a guitar player who went by the nickname Muddy Waters.  And Lomax sent Muddy two pressings from their sessions together, along with a check for $20.

Later in his life, Muddy recalled what happened next.  He said, “I carried that record up to the corner and I put it on the jukebox.  Just played it and played it, and said, I can do it.  I can do it.  In many ways, that right there is the story of the blues. 

This is music with humble beginnings -- roots in slavery and segregation, a society that rarely treated black Americans with the dignity and respect that they deserved.  The blues bore witness to these hard times.  And like so many of the men and women who sang them, the blues refused to be limited by the circumstances of their birth. 

The music migrated north -- from Mississippi Delta to Memphis to my hometown in Chicago.  It helped lay the foundation for rock and roll, and R&B and hip-hop.  It inspired artists and audiences around the world.  And as tonight’s performers will demonstrate, the blues continue to draw a crowd.  Because this music speaks to something universal.  No one goes through life without both joy and pain, triumph and sorrow.  The blues gets all of that, sometimes with just one lyric or one note. 

And as we celebrate Black History Month, the blues reminds us that we’ve been through tougher times before -- that’s why I’m proud to have these artists here -- and not just as a fan, but also as the President.  Because their music teaches us that when we find ourselves at a crossroads, we don’t shy away from our problems.  We own them.  We face up to them.  We deal with them.  We sing about them.  We turn them into art.  And even as we confront the challenges of today, we imagine a brighter tomorrow, saying, I can do it, just like Muddy Waters did all those years ago. 

With that in mind, please join me in welcoming these extraordinary artists to the White House.  And now, it is my pleasure to bring out our first performer to the stage, the King of the Blues, Mr. B.B. King.  (Applause.)

END
7:26 P.M. EST

Please see below for a correction (marked with asterisks) to the transcript.

        1:03 P.M. EST

        MR. CARNEY:  So much -- so much to talk about.  Hello, everyone.  Welcome back from a holiday weekend.  I hope you had a great three days off.  Before I take your questions, let me begin with a couple of items.

        First, we are pleased to announce that the President will address this year's annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, March 4.  The President welcomes this opportunity to speak to the strength of the special bonds between Israel and the United States.  As you know and has been previously announced, the President has a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu on March 5th, the day after.

        And then also, if I could give you a readout of the President's call this morning with Chancellor Merkel of Germany. The President and German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke by phone this morning to discuss the latest developments concerning the financial situation in the eurozone.  The President thanked the Chancellor for her leadership, and welcomed last night's agreement in Europe on a new rescue program for Greece to help reduce its debt to sustainable levels.  The President and the Chancellor agreed that the planned EU fiscal pact, recent actions by the European Central Bank, and reforms by Spain and Italy have also been positive steps in addressing the eurozone crisis.  The President and the Chancellor also discussed preparations for the upcoming G8 summit, and agreed that the emphasis there should be on growth and jobs.

        Those are my top-of-the-briefing announcements.  I'd be happy to take a few questions.

        Ben.

        Q    Thanks, Jay.  Two topics please.  Can you tell us, did the President have any personal reaction to the news of the Korans being burned at the U.S. military base in Afghanistan?

        MR. CARNEY:  I have not discussed that with him.  I'm confident that he is aware of it and been briefed on it.  I know that this is an issue we're following closely.  General Allen and Secretary Panetta have both made statements this morning, and I can only echo what they say, which is that we apologize to the Afghan people and disapprove of such conduct in the strongest possible terms.  This was a deeply unfortunate incident that does not reflect the great respect our military has for the religious practices of the Afghan people.  Our military leaders have apologized, as I mentioned, for these unintentional actions, and ISAF is undertaking an investigation to understand what happened and to ensure that steps are taken so that incidents like this do not happen again.

        Q    Do you know if President Obama plans to call President Karzai on this?

        MR. CARNEY:  I don't have any calls to announce.  The President did speak with President Karzai yesterday on issues of reconciliation.

        Q    We're reporting that the Koran were removed from a library in a jail there because detainees were using them to exchange extremely secret messages.  Do you have any comment on that?

        MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you to ISAF or to the Defense Department for specifics about that matter.

        Q    And just kind of more broadly on this, from the White House perspective, is this stunning that this event, this kind of incident still happens at all?

        MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have -- I don’t know enough about it to provide that kind of context.  I would simply say that it’s regrettable.  It does not represent the views of our military, and it certainly does not represent the conduct of our men and women in uniform, or our general respect for the religious practices and beliefs of the Afghan people.

        Q    Thanks for that.  I just wanted to ask you also about something the President said today.  In the payroll tax cut extension context, he was pressing Congress to take action on other matters and said that Congress needs to make the Buffett Rule a reality.  And the way he framed it seemed to suggest that this is something before Congress right now like the small business tax cuts and so forth.  But the White House isn’t actually asking for the Buffett Rule to be put into law right now, is it?  I mean, that’s a principle for tax reform.  Are you asking them to act now?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, it is a principle for overall individual tax reform.  He is calling on Congress to make it a reality within the context of tax reform.  The overall principle should be adhered to as we look at issues of the balance we have in our tax code going forward.  We have a -- as you know, the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.  This President believes that, short of overall tax reform, that the middle-income tax cuts need to be extended, made permanent.  That’s long been his position.  

        He’s opposed to the extension again of the higher-income tax cuts, which we simply cannot afford.  And the President’ overall approach to this is informed in part by the Buffett principle, by the Buffett Rule, that millionaires and billionaires should not be paying a lower effective tax rate than hardworking, average folks out there.

        Q    But he’s not asking Congress to turn that into a law right now, is he?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think if you -- it depends on how -- what Congress’ approach is to issues of the tax code this year.  If they address income tax, individual income tax, then they ought to ensure that the Buffett Rule is made law, if you will, through that practice -- through that legislation.

        Yes.

        Q    Jay, on the Greek debt crisis, does the administration believe that the Europeans have done enough to solve that crisis and do you believe that that’s reduced the risk of spillover from the European debt crisis from hindering the recovery here?

        MR. CARNEY:  Alister, I would say that the Europeans have taken important steps to deal with the crisis.  That was reflected in the President’s telephone conversation with the German Chancellor.

        It also remains the case that additional steps should be taken, and we encourage our European friends and allies to take those steps to strengthen the firewall, to ensure that the reforms that have been taking place in countries within the eurozone are furthered and carried out in a way that helps ease the situation.  So progress still needs to be made, and we will continue to work with our European friends and allies to do that, and to offer advice and counsel based on our own experience with these kinds of issues.

        As you know, certainly, Secretary Geithner has spent a lot of time in recent months interacting with his counterparts in Europe, discussing these various issues and offering his perspective based on his experience here in the United States.

        Q    On one other topic, Mr. Donilon visited Jerusalem over the weekend.  Can you talk about the message that he took there? Was he there to try and persuade the Israelis to give sanctions more time and talk them out of taking military action against Iran?  And did his -- was he persuasive on that issue?

        MR. CARNEY:  Mr. Donilon, the National Security Advisor, was in Israel, discussing security matters and our important relationship with Israel, and specifically Iran; discussing the fact that Israel and the United States share the same objective, which is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon; and discussing the fact that the approach that this administration has taken has led to a situation where Iran is isolated as never before, where it is under pressure economically as never before, where there is an international consensus around the idea that it is -- the problem here is Iranian bad behavior, their refusal to live up to their international obligations.

        Now, we feel as I’ve said and others have said, as, most importantly, the President has said, that there is time and space for diplomacy to work, for the effective sanctions to result in a change in Iranian behavior, an agreement by Iran to live up to its obligations, to engage in negotiations and resolve this matter peacefully.

        We do not, of course, as we’ve said many times take any option off the table.  And that was the context of the discussions that Mr. Donilon had with his counterparts in Israel.

        Jake, then I’ll move back.  Yes.

        Q    I was wondering if you have any reaction -- Republicans are -- I know you haven’t said that you’ll be tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but you have said it’s on the table. The President did it last summer.  Republicans have legislation that would tie the President’s hands, would make him have to okay the Keystone pipeline in order for him to be able to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  And I’m wondering if you have a reaction to that.

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'll make a couple of points on that.  In terms of Keystone, as you all know, the history here is pretty clear.  And the fact is, is that because Republicans decided to play politics with Keystone, their action essentially forced the administration to deny the permit process because they insisted on a timeframe within which it was impossible to appropriately approve the pipeline.  There wasn't even an alternate route proposed yet through Nebraska, an alternate that was deemed necessary based on the request of many in Nebraska, including the Republican governor.  

        So the fact that the process ended the way it did in terms of that permit request is wholly the responsibility of the Republicans who insisted on playing politics with the payroll tax cut extension back at the end of last year.  

        Going forward, let's just talk a little bit about oil prices.  There are no magic solutions to rising oil prices and the pain that Americans feel at the pump.  This is a -- the fact is, is that the President is very aware of the impact that the global price of oil has on families.  And this is not something that this administration discovered or rediscovers every spring, as some politicians do.  As you're aware, Jake, oil production in the United States has increased every year that this President has been in office.  And right now --

        Q    Is that all because of his actions?  Isn't that -- some of that because of the previous administration?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, it is now a combination of both.  And the fact is, is that American oil production is at its highest now than it has been in eight years.  Moreover -- and this goes to our actions -- over the past three years we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration.  As part of our focus on continuing to expand responsible domestic production, last month the President directed his administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas reserves -- resources, including a 38-million-acre lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico scheduled for this summer, which could produce up to 1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.  
        And then, also, let's step back.  When you look at this as a long-term issue and not magic solutions that politicians propose in the spring and forget about come summer and fall, this President put into place historic fuel efficiency standards, that will more than nearly double the efficiency of the vehicles we drive over the next decade.  And that alone will save American families $1.7 trillion at the pump, and cut oil consumption by 12 million billion barrels. **

        The President is also committed to -- I mean, he takes an all-of-the-above approach.  We've approved new nuclear reactor development -- first time I believe in 30 years.  We are focused on increasing domestic oil and gas production.  But we're also focused on developing alternative sources of fuel; whether they're biofuels or wind and solar, alternative energy is another means by which we can reduce our reliance on foreign oil, reduce our vulnerability because of global oil -- changes in the global price of oil.  That's the kind of approach we have to take to ensure our economic future.

        Q    Give your reaction to Republicans tying -- trying to tie --

        MR. CARNEY:  I don't have reaction to a specific proposed piece of legislation, or even any legislation that's been submitted now.  I would simply point you to the actions that this President is taking to increase domestic oil production, increase domestic gas production, reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy, and suggest to you that that's the right approach, and that this record -- the record the President has here is -- speaks for itself.

        Q    How can you say you have an all-of-the-above approach if the President turned down the Keystone pipeline?  And you blame the Republicans for making a political --

        MR. CARNEY:  But the President didn't turn down the Keystone pipeline.  There was a process in place with long precedent, run out of the State Department because of the issue of a pipeline crossing an international boundary, that required an amount of time for proper view after an alternate route was deemed necessary through Nebraska, at the request of the Republican governor of Nebraska and other stakeholders in Nebraska and the region, that needed to take its -- that needed to play out to be done appropriately.  You can't review and approve a pipeline, the route for which doesn't even exist.  

        The Republicans were the ones, unfortunately, who decided, because they were looking for scalps, I guess, or looking for wins in a situation where somehow they found themselves on the wrong side of cutting taxes for 160 million Americans last December -- they decided to play politics with this decision and attach it to the payroll tax cut extension.  That essentially -- even though it had been made clear by the State Department that doing so would make it impossible for them to conduct a review responsibly, they did it anyway, knowing what the result would be.

        Q    I don't want to relitigate the whole thing.  The Republicans say that the President was playing politics first, by delaying a decision until after the election.

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, I appreciate that and we have been through this.  But I would note that the delay was the result of a decision made to honor the concerns of those in Nebraska, including the Republican governor, who felt that the proposed pipeline associated with the permit request ran through a portion of Nebraska that would threaten the aquifer -- threaten the water supply in Nebraska.  The decision was then made to delay approval, delay the process to allow for examination of alternate routes.  \

        That's the way the process should work.  It is unfortunate that the process was artificially halted because of the decision to play politics with the payroll tax cut extension.

        Kristen.

        Q    Jay, thanks.  As you know, this weekend there were fresh calls from Senators McCain, Graham, and some others to arm the opposition movement in Syria.  I know the White House has said consistently that this is not something that they are currently considering seriously, but given these fresh calls, might you start to reconsider?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, Kristen, I appreciate the question.  We still believe that a political solution is what's needed in Syria.  We don't want to take actions that would contribute to the further militarization of Syria because that could take the country down a dangerous path.  But we don't rule out additional measures that -- working with our international partners -- that the international community might take if the international community should wait too long and not take the kind of action that needs to be taken to ensure that Assad steps aside, to ensure that a peaceful democratic transition can take place in Syria.

        So I’m not ruling out potential future actions, but there is an opportunity that still exists we believe for a peaceful transition to occur in Syria.  And we don't want to contribute to the further militarization there.

        Q    Also on the issue of Syria, the International Committee of the Red Cross is calling for a daily, two-hour cease-fire so that it can deliver humanitarian aid.  What’s the latest information that you have about that situation?  And how concerned is the White House that aid is not getting to the people who need it most there?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, we remain -- we are very concerned about the humanitarian situation in Syria.  We support calls for cease-fires to allow for the provision of humanitarian supplies to Syrians who desperately need it.

        The fact is the reprehensible actions taken by the Assad regime, the brutal violence perpetrated by the Syrian leader against his own people has led us to this situation where basic supplies, humanitarian supplies are in -- are very scarce, and therefore action needs to be taken.  So we would certainly support the calls for those kinds of cease-fires.

        Q    Some reporters on the ground have looked at the situation and said that it seems to be moving toward a civil war. In fact, one reporter said that it’s careening toward an all-out civil war.  Is that how the White House sees the situation?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, there’s no question that there is an intense level of violence, largely one-sided, because of the brutal attacks by the Syrian forces against the Syrian people in certain parts of the country.  

        The fact is, as we’ve seen, the Assad regime does not control the entire country, is gradually losing control of parts of the country.  We believe that we are in a situation where the international community needs to act in order to allow for the transition from Assad to a more democratic future for Syria to take place before the situation becomes too chaotic.  So that's why we were so disappointed in the failure of the United Nations Security Council to pass that resolution that was vetoed by two members.

        I would point you to the General Assembly resolution and the enormous support for that resolution.  The opposition to it was minimal and included countries that certainly can't claim to be friends of the Syrian people.

        Q    Would you use the term "civil war"?

        MR. CARNEY:  I wouldn’t characterize it that way at this time, but there’s no question that the situation continues to get worse.  And as long as Assad shows no regard for the very people he purports to govern, the situation will continue to get more dire.  

        Yes, sir.

        Q    Two quick topics.  One, the White House has spoken out about congressional earmarks and how they’ve been abused.  The Heritage Foundation, which is obviously a conservative think tank, has a report out saying they looked at federal grants that the administration had put out on the eves of -- on the eve of big votes on the President’s agenda -- health care plan, cap and trade, Dodd-Frank -- and they claim that the money mostly goes to lawmakers who are in districts that -- that they’re folks who are on the fence over a number of these issues.  They’re charging you’re being hypocritical because you go after congressional earmarks but essentially you’re doing the same thing.  What do you say to that?

        MR. CARNEY:  This is The Heritage Foundation?

        Q    Yes.

        MR. CARNEY:  Where the individual responsibility provision was born before it was adopted by Massachusetts and then taken up by the Affordable Care Act?  I would simply say that the President’s opposition to earmarks is well known.  The fact of the matter is I’m confident that the issuance of grants through agencies, that process is done on a merit-based -- in a merit-based way.  And I would simply suggest that the report itself, given some of the authors, is not particularly credible.

        Q    I want to talk about the issue of faith because Robert Gibbs on ABC was talking to Jake on Sunday and basically said that Rick Santorum crossed the line in questioning the President’s faith.  But then Santorum went on Fox last night and brought up Reverend Wright, which is now a four-year-old story.  Not to relive all of those details and repeat them, but this man might be the Republican nominee.  What does the White House make of the fact that he appears to not be backing down from questioning the President’s faith?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, Ed, I would simply point you and others to the statements the President made at the National Prayer Breakfast not long ago where he spoke very explicitly about his own Christian faith.  And then I would say that this President is focused on doing the things that he believes the American people elected him to do, which is work with Congress or independently to take every measure and every action he can to grow the economy and create jobs, to protect the middle class, to help this country recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression.  

        You guys can decide, and your editors and your bookers, what’s a story and what’s not.  This President’s focused on his job as President, getting this country moving in the right direction, ensuring that the recovery -- which is underway -- continues forward; that we continue the positive economic growth that we’ve had; that we continue the 23 straight months of private sector job growth that we’ve had -- over 3.7 million jobs created -- private sector jobs created in the last 23 months.

        Those are the issues that the President is focused on.  Those are the issues that the President believes the America people are focused on, and want their representatives in Washington and those who would represent them in the White House to focus on.

        Q    Last thing, you mentioned the prayer breakfast.  In that speech, the President also went after his critics a little bit and said -- he used the phrase, he said, “we should listen to our Creator and avoid phony religiosity.”  How does the White House think "phony religiosity" in talking about your critics is different than what Rick Santorum said when he was talking about “phony theology”?

        MR. CARNEY:  Look, I would again point you to what the President said in his remarks at the national prayer service, the expression of his own faith, it’s importance to his life.  And I think what the President was describing is in some ways what you’re asking me about.  And these are decisions that, in the end, those of you who decide what the American people are most interested in, what they want to see on your air or what they want to read about in your paper, you decide what’s news.  And we’ll leave those judgments to you and your editors.

        Q    Can I follow on that?

        MR. CARNEY:  Let me get back to you.  

        Cheryl.

        Q    Thanks, Jay.  Back to taxes, will the White House this week release the President’s corporate tax reform plan?  And will that include the Buffett Rule, or is that separate?

        MR. CARNEY:  I do not have specifics for you, but we will release the corporate reform -- corporate tax reform proposal before the end of the month.  I think that takes us potentially into next week, if today is the 21st.  So I don't have a specific date for you, and no specifics on what will be included and what won’t.  I don't want to steal anybody’s thunder.

        Jessica.

        Q    The Reverend Billy Graham -- sorry -- the Reverend Franklin Graham made some astonishing comments this morning on “Morning Joe,” including that he can't say categorically that the President is not a Muslim, Islam has had a pass under this President, and the Muslims of the world -- the President seems more concerned about them than the Christians that are being murdered in Muslim countries.  I wonder if the President -- because he took this man seriously enough to meet with him personally -- has a reaction to this, is astonished by this.  And what the White House’s position is in response to these comments?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, strangely enough, going to my response to Ed’s question, I did meet with the President this morning for about 45 minutes, and amazingly he didn't bring this up because he was actually talking about policy issues that he believes are the most important things he can do and he can focus on as President, and that they are the most important things to the vast majority of the American people who are concerned about paying the rent or the mortgage, sending their kids to school, making ends meet.  

        I mean, you heard him speak earlier today at the payroll tax cut extension event where he firmly believes that getting an extra $40 in every paycheck is of vastly greater significance to most Americans than someone’s opinion expressed on cable television about his personal faith, which, again, he has spoken about explicitly as recently as a few weeks ago at the national prayer service.

        Thanks.

        Norah.

        Q    On gas prices, you talked about meeting with the President today.  Are there some things that the President and the White House is considering, though, to deal with the rising gas prices?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, we don't rule anything out.  I think that was mentioned by Jake -- or perhaps Ben.

        Q    That was me.

        MR. CARNEY:  It was you.  It was Jake.  I just want to give credit where credit is due.

        We are doing -- the President is doing a variety of things, and has been, since he took office to increase domestic oil and gas production; to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy; to increase our generation of alternative energy, which, again, helps reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy, which is important not just for national security reasons but also for -- because of the fact that you have -- in a global oil market, you have spikes in prices, and the more we -- the more action we take to create domestic energy, the most insulated we are from those kinds of changes in the market.  

        But I’ll also say that this is a broader issue because we have to do everything we can.  And I remember talking about this when we weren’t in a period of a price surge in oil prices, but we had seen them in the past and were likely to see them again in the future.  It just underscores why this President’s approach is that we have to do everything we can that we can control to grow the economy and create jobs.  

        That's why we have to extend the payroll tax cut.  That's why we have to extend unemployment insurance.  That's why Congress should act immediately to pass the elements of the American Jobs Act that they have not yet passed -- because those are the things we can absolutely control.  Because the surest hedge, if you will, the surest insurance against the effects on the economy from the global marketplace are the actions that we take to make the American economy stronger and to put money in people’s pockets.  

        That means extending the payroll tax cut, which the President looks forward to signing.  That means Congress acting on his refinancing proposal, which for responsible homeowners would result in an extra $3,000.  And that money obviously would help ease the pain at the pump that higher oil prices and gas prices are causing.

        Q    Can I ask you, Secretary Vilsack had a conference call this morning with reporters, talking about the increased use of bio-based products.  And he said about gas prices, “Our hope is that oil companies will work with us and with the country to ensure that the recovery that we’re now seeing is not jeopardized by energy costs that get out of control.”  Our hope is that oil companies will work with us -- is the White House speaking with oil companies about something new?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, I didn’t see those remarks by the Agriculture Secretary.  I mean, he was talking about our efforts to promote a bio-economy, to the fact that the President will issue a presidential memorandum directing the federal government to take decisive steps to dramatically increase the purchase of bio-based products over the next two years.  And that's part of his all-of-the-above approach to America's energy needs, that we can ensure -- we can reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy if we expand in every direction -- if we increase oil production, increase gas production, increase our investments in alternative energy, and take dramatic action, like he did with the fuel efficiency standards, the dramatically reduce our consumption of oil and save Americans $1.7 trillion in costs.

        So, again, I don't have the transcript and didn’t see what the Secretary's remarks were, so I'll have to take that and get back to you.

        Q    And can I ask you about Newt Gingrich?  He was on CBS this morning, and he said the President has had a policy that's been "outrageously anti-American."  He said the President does want more expensive gas, and he cited that Secretary Chu in 2008 said he wanted gasoline prices to get to the European level, which is $9 or $10 a gallon, and last year he said people shouldn’t complain about high gas prices, that they ought to buy more efficient cars.  The President said he wants to get there --

        MR. CARNEY:  He said "outrageously"?

        Q    Yes.  He said the policy has been "outrageously and anti-American policy."

        MR. CARNEY:  He loves his adverbs, there's no question about that.  (Laughter.)  I would -- I enjoyed them a lot when I covered him.  I would simply say that -- I would point you to the fact -- and it is an extensive list of facts -- all of the actions the President has taken since being sworn into office to increase domestic oil production, to increase domestic gas production, the lease sales that I just talked about, the efforts to increase our fuel efficiency to reduce our dependence on foreign energy.  

        Again, as I mentioned in response to another question earlier, there are -- this kind of situation that comes periodically because of a rise in the price of oil globally often results in magic solutions being put forward by politicians who may or may not know what they're talking about.  But the fact is you have to have an approach that's comprehensive, that takes a long-term look at reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy, increasing domestic production, and developing alternative sources of fuel.  And that's the approach the President is taking.

        Q    Is the rise in gas prices the President's fault?

        MR. CARNEY:  Look, the rise in gas prices is clearly the effect of a variety of factors on the global price of oil.  They include unrest in certain regions of the world.  They include growth in areas like China and India.  You know this well, you've covered it.  The fact that this is happening only underscores the need, as it did last year when prices went up, and as it did two years before that -- underscores the need to have a comprehensive energy policy, which this President has and has been putting into place.  And that has causes -- that has resulted in more domestic oil production than we've had in the past eight years, greater sales of leases in the Gulf and elsewhere to increase our production, the reduction in our reliance on foreign energy sources.

        I mean, these are the kind of policies that have long-term, positive impact on the American economy and on our national security.  And that's why the President has taken the actions he has.

        Q    The President just today had this event on the payroll tax cut.  Why wasn’t it -- why weren’t Republicans included?  Did they not want to come because it was their supposed surrender on this issue?  Or did you not invite them, or was it not a priority to hold a signing ceremony?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, we don't have a bill to sign yet.  Congress works in mysterious and often slow ways to pass paper from one building to another.  But we expect that to arrive soon and the President will sign it as soon as it does.  

        The event today was meant to highlight the impact that regular folks had by raising their voices on Congress to get them to act in the way that resulted in the extension of the payroll tax cut.  As the President said, this was -- it happened late last year and it happened again, where Congress, after exploring other alternatives, decided to act in a rational way, to compromise, where everybody didn’t get everything they wanted, but the result was what was necessary for the American people and what was necessary for the American economy.  And that's a positive thing.

        So his event today was meant to say, this is how the system can work and should work if the focus is on helping Americans and helping the economy grow and helping it create jobs.  And if Congress keeps that as its focus, it should then move on to other important things, like the President's refinance proposal to help Americans, help the economy -- and help the economy create jobs.  
        That was the purpose of the event.  It wasn’t a celebration; it was an exhortation.

        Q    I was curious about how -- when you decide to hold a signing ceremony and when you don't decide, because there is that issue of (inaudible.)  And I understand -- I did talk to members on the Hill, and they said that it could have gotten here by today.

        MR. CARNEY:  We don't control when the bill arrives.  We just don't.  That's a congressional prerogative.

        Q    It could have gotten here by today, from what I understand, so it wasn’t like taking advantage of a time --

        MR. CARNEY:  Again, the point was, whether it was here this morning or gets here this afternoon or tomorrow, or whenever it arrives, the point of the event wasn’t to have a signing ceremony.  The point of the event -- or to celebrate action that was simply Congress doing the right thing and acting rationally on behalf of the American people, and being willing to compromise on behalf of the American people.  It was meant to say, that's not enough, let's do more -- and to note, as the President did, that we do not accept the conventional wisdom oft expressed by the various outlets represented here, that Congress can't do anything this year because it's an election year.

        They've already proven otherwise.  And we believe that they have an excellent opportunity in the weeks and months ahead to do so again -- to show that the fact that it's an election year does not mean that important things can't get done.

        So we look forward to working with Congress and disproving the experts on this, because it's the right thing to do for the American people.

        All the way in the back.

        Q    Back to oil prices.  Do you think the agreement that was signed yesterday with Mexico will help the President -- and what is he going to do to convince the U.S. Congress to ratify that agreement?   

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't have a legislative strategy for you.  But absolutely, the agreement reached with Mexico represents, again, the President's all-of-the-above approach to safely and responsibly develop domestic sources of oil and gas, and in partnership with other countries, develop oil and gas.  Because he believes that the right thing to do.  It's the only way, because there's not a single solution to the problem of our reliance on foreign sources of energy, or the problem of spikes in oil prices.  You have to take a holistic, broad, all-of-the-above approach.  And that's what he's doing.

        Q    Do you think he will have the support of Congress on the agreement?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, we certainly would hope that in the interest of production of oil and gas, and in the interest of our energy security, that we would have that support, yes.

        FOX Radio.

        Q    Thanks, Jay.  There's a group of 2,500 pastors and evangelical leaders that sent a letter to the White House yesterday expressing their concern about the contraception policy.  I know you haven't received that yet.  But in light of that, I wanted to ask you what the status was of the administration's dialogue with faith leaders on that issue, who's been contacted and that sort of thing.

        MR. CARNEY:  I don't have a list of contacts for you.  I know that there have been contacts, especially as we work with stakeholders on the issue of a the self-insured, the element that we will resolve in this same context that we resolved, we believe -- or found the right balance, we believe, in terms of ensuring that religious institutions like universities and hospitals that have an objection do not have to pay for or directly provide contraceptive services, but the women who work for those institutions will get the same coverage and preventive services coverage that women across America will get.  

        And we are continuing to have those conversations to work out a solution as it relates to self-insured institutions.

        Q    And just to follow up, what is the White House perspective on this controversy?  Do you feel that it's being -- that the concerns are being addressed and contained?  Or in light of this letter and some of the suits that have popped up -- lawsuits that have popped up recently, do you feel that it's widening?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President's focus was on finding the right balance.  You heard him say so from this very podium that he was absolutely committed to ensuring that these important services were provided to women, regardless of where they work.  But he was also very committed to ensuring that it was done in a way that respected religious beliefs and religious concerns.  

        He knows from his own experience that these issues matter and they need to be respected.  And that is the balance he sought and the solution that was put forward.  And we are continuing to work with stakeholders to implement that solution in a way that we believe satisfies the concerns -- or should satisfy the concerns of those in terms of their religious beliefs.  

        The approach was to find that balance, to ensure that the coverage was provided, and to respect religious beliefs.  It was not to ensure that everybody said that they were okay with it -- because you often cannot find a solution to difficult issues if that’s the approach you take.  

        You guys can decide whether the issue is -- as a political issue or even a policy issue -- is expanding or contracting.  It is sometimes amusing to read how one week, what is viewed as a colossal error by the White House, the next week is viewed as some brilliant political move -- when, in fact, the approach all along has just been an effort to find the right policy.

        MR. CARNEY:  Mr. Landler, how are you?

        Q    I’m fine.  Thanks Jay.  Back to Iran for a moment.  There’s been this series of strong statement about Iran from Israeli leaders.  There’s been obviously a long series of retaliatory statements by the Iranians.  Iran has become a very big topic on the campaign trail, with Republicans arguing that the President may not be doing enough to back up Israel, and some media critics have likened this period to sort of the period leading up to the Iraq war.  I’m wondering whether the President, the White House feels that there’s been too much emphasis on military options and whether there’s a bit too much of a drumbeat of war that perhaps gets in the way of seeing whether the sanctions strategy will work out?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, I guess one part of your question has to do with media coverage, and that is what it is.  But we take very seriously -- we, A, share the concerns strongly that Israel has about the potential development by Iran of a nuclear weapon.  We share those concerns.  And we certainly understand the heightened concern that Israel has, given its geographic location and other circumstances that are involved here for Israel.

        Having said that, we believe that the approach this administration has taken has resulted in a level of consensus within the international community regarding Iranian behavior that has never been attained before.  It has resulted in a level of punitive sanctions that have never been attained before, that in turn, have resulted in a level of disruption to the Iranian economy and the Iranian leadership that have never been achieved before, and that that is having an impact.

        We believe that there is time and space to attempt to resolve this peacefully.  And we are endeavoring to do that with our international partners and allies.  Having said that, as the President never fails to make clear, he is not removing any option off the table.  We are very -- we are committed to trying to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  We share that goal with Israel.  

        Q    Is there any danger that the issue could become overly politicized in this country?  Do you think it's time, as some other senior -- former senior officials have suggested, that people on the campaign trail think carefully about the things they say on this subject?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, I think that any issue could become over politicized.  And again, we'll have to let reporters in many ways decide whether that is what's happening in this case, or with regards to any other issue.  Our focus is on -- an important matter like this is on American national security and the security of Israel and other allies, and that's the approach we've taken.

        And, again, just to review some of the history here -- that when the President came into office we had a situation where Iran had pursued its nuclear ambitions, and yet, broadly viewed, there was division about whether Iran was responsible or the United States, and whether the United States had taken the right approach to this.  And what this President did was unify, through his actions and his policy, unify the international community to focus the world's attention on Iranian behavior and the fact that the Iranian regime had refused to live up to its international obligations, and that it was Iran that was causing the problem here and not the United States.

        That has resulted in punitive sanctions that have been ratcheted up continuously, and continue to this day to be ratcheted up.  And that has put immense pressure on the economy and on the leadership.  And I think sometimes, when you hear from Iran provocative statements or other things -- actions taken -- it's often driven by a desire to distract attention from the very significant impact that this policy has had on their economy and on their politics.

        Ann.

        Q    The Supreme Court has agreed to take up another affirmative action case.  What does the President think about colleges and universities using race as one of the factors for admission?

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, Ann, I'll say a couple of things.  First of all, I'm not going to comment on the Supreme Court's decision to take up a case or not take up a case.  I think as the Supreme Court has recognized in the past, diversity in the classroom has learning benefits for students, campuses and schools.  President Obama has said that while he opposes quotas and thinks an emphasis on universal and not race-specific programs is good policy, considering race along with other factors can be appropriate in certain circumstances.  

        But again, I want to make sure that's viewed as a broad statement of where he has been and what his position is broadly, not a reference to this specific case.

        Q    And on gas prices, what does he think the impact of $5-a-gallon gasoline?  Has he asked --

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that -- you’re speculating about where markets may go, and I’m not able to engage in that.

        Q    Some gas stations are charging that now.

        MR. CARNEY:  Well, that may be true, but the fact of the matter is this President is keenly aware of the effect that, and the impact, that high gas prices have on average Americans as they're trying to make ends meet.  One of the reasons why passing the payroll tax cut last year was so important is that it helped average American families, hardworking Americans, deal with the spike in oil prices in 2011.  

        There is no question that the fact that this President has led, and this Congress has acted, on extending the payroll tax cut for the full calendar year in 2012 will help insulate Americans from higher gas prices this year as it did last year.
        It’s just another reason why we need to take every step we can.  We need to work with Congress where Congress will work with us, and then the President will take every action he can independently to grow the economy and create jobs, to put more money in people’s pockets and to give middle-class Americans greater economic security.

        We have to act on the things we can control to protect ourselves from the things that we can't.  And I think that that is an approach that dictates the need for Congress to act on the President’s refinance proposal, for Congress to pass infrastructure investments that would put construction workers back to work while our infrastructure is being rebuilt in a way that solidified our economic foundation.  There are a host of things that Congress can do, and that this President will do to keep the economy recovering and to keep it creating jobs.

        Mr. Knoller.

        Q    Jay, when you were speaking a minute ago about the slow and mysterious ways of Congress were you saying that Congress or congressional leaders were delaying --

        MR. CARNEY:  No, not at all.

        Q    Okay.

        MR. CARNEY:  I was simply commenting on the fact that it sometimes -- it takes a certain amount of time -- hours, days, whatever -- for bills to be enrolled and processed and --

        Q    Delivered.

        MR. CARNEY:  -- delivered.  And that was all.  But my point was that this event was never meant to be a bill-signing event.  This was an event designed to highlight the impact that Americans had by raising their voices and pushing Congress to pass a payroll tax cut extension, and the impact that passing it has on average Americans, and to -- in making that point, to show -- and to call on Congress to do more, to take action, continued action to help American families as we recover the from recession.

        Q    Thanks, Jay.

        MR. CARNEY:  All right, thanks, all.  Appreciate it.

END 1:50 P.M. EST

Today, Vice President Biden met with first responders to thank them for their service and to discuss the new nationwide public safety broadband network included in the Payroll Tax Extension legislation.  In addition, he announced the release of a new report from the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), The Economic Benefits of New Spectrum for Wireless Broadband), describing the substantial economic value of aggressively pursuing President Obama’s goal of nearly doubling the amount of spectrum available for wireless broadband over ten years and deploying a nationwide interoperable wireless network for public safety. 

The report summarizes the compelling evidence that additional spectrum for wireless broadband is needed to accommodate the surging demand for wireless data traffic, projected to increase by a factor of twenty between 2010 and 2015.  The report also describes the potential for wireless broadband to play a transformative role in public safety and as a platform for innovation in many areas of the economy, and documents the substantial impact on jobs, growth, and investment that the growth of wireless broadband will have.

“I’ve been working on changing the way we allocate spectrum for a long time, because a smarter system is good for our economy, good for innovation, and vital to keeping our cops, firefighters and EMTs safe,” said Vice President Biden. “The measure that Congress just passed picks up on many aspects of the President’s Wireless Innovation Initiative and will enable new spectrum to be used for innovation, to speed wireless communication, and to fulfill a promise made to first responders after 9/11 that they would have the technology they need to stay safe and do their jobs.”
President Obama will soon sign into law a measure will implement important pieces of the Administration’s wireless initiative – including a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network that will, for the first time, allow law enforcement, firefighters and EMTs to have a dedicated communications network so they can talk with one another. 

Our modern information economy depends on use of the radio airwaves for everything from smartphones and laptops connected to the Internet over wireless networks, to satellite and other wireless networks that bring Internet access to rural areas where running cables is too expensive. This report shows how important it is to continue supporting the growth of this vital sector of the economy.

In addition to describing the economic benefits of making additional spectrum available for wireless broadband, the new report addresses a number of key issues related to spectrum policy.  Specifically, the report reaches the following conclusions: 

• The use of voluntary incentive auctions will ensure that spectrum is reassigned from the lowest value uses to the highest, and that the economic benefits are widely shared among stakeholders, including broadcasters, wireless carriers, consumers, and taxpayers. The recently passed spectrum bill gives the FCC authority to conduct these auctions.
• Unlicensed spectrum is a valuable complement to licensed spectrum, and allocating new spectrum for a mix of licensed and unlicensed uses will offer the most fertile environment for future innovation.  The spectrum bill gives the FCC authority to allocate more spectrum for unlicensed uses, creating new opportunities for the development of innovative wireless technologies.
• Federal funding for research and development in emerging wireless technologies will have substantial public benefits, particularly to support the development of innovative technologies for use in public safety. The bill sets aside $100-300 Million for public safety network R&D, funds that will be vital to helping the public safety community build a new robust, flexible and innovative network for first responders all around the country.

State Dining Room

2:41 P.M. EST
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Hey!  (Applause.)  You guys, rest yourselves.  Welcome to the White House.  (Laughter.)  What do you think?  (Applause.)  Do you like our house? 
 
AUDIENCE:  Yes.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  It's the State Dining Room; there's state dining that goes on here.  But now it's for you.  We're so excited today as we kick off this latest edition of the White House music series.  In the past three years, we have highlighted country, we've done a little Motown, we've done a little classical, we've done jazz, and today, we’ve got the blues.  (Applause.)  Yes.  But in a very good way we've got the blues.  (Laughter.)
 
You see, the blues are as deeply American -- and as deeply human -- as just about any form of music that we’ve got in this country.  This music wraps all of our emotions -- whether it's love and loss, joy and sorrow, heartbreak and celebration -- it wraps it all into an art form that stirs our souls and it helps us rise above all our struggles.
 
And that’s why this music series is so deeply rooted in the American experience.  That’s why it has traveled from the Deep South into every part of the country and just about every form of music that we hear today.
 
And that’s why, as we celebrate African American History Month, I am proud to have all these folks on stage with me.  It's a good thing.  So let me introduce a couple of them:  Bob Santelli, who has just been amazing -- Bob helps us with everything we do here in our music series.  He's always right there.  He's from the Grammy Museum.  He is always participating in these clinics.  He is just phenomenal, and he knows his stuff.  He is here with us -- Bob.  (Applause.) 
 
We've got Keb Mo, we've got Shemekia Copeland, and we have Troy "Trombone Shorty" Andrews with us.  (Applause.)
 
And finally, I just want to take a minute to recognize all of you here today, because you all are really the reason that we’re here today.  And I understand that you're coming from all over the country -- we've got Mississippi here, we've got a little California, a little Tennessee, a little Missouri, right? 
 
AUDIENCE:  Yeah!
 
MRS. OBAMA:  A few others -- did I miss somebody?
 
AUDIENCE:  Washington.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Washington -- oh, Washington, D.C.? 
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  No, state.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Washington state.
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Philly.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Philly?  A little Philly here, see?  A little everybody -- everybody, just represent.  What, Jersey?  And a little Jersey.  That's good, that's good. 
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Illinois.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Illinois!  What part of Illinois? 
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  St. Louis area. 
 
MRS. OBAMA:  St. Louis area.  Well, see, you all are from all over the place.  And this is a good thing.  You are, from what I understand, some of the brightest young musical talent -- is this true? -- (laughter) -- at your schools and in our country.  Is that true?  We've got some of the brightest, some of the -- yes.  Said, "Yes, I am!"  (Laughter.)  What do you play?
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Clarinet.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Clarinet.  What else we got?  Who else --
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Saxophone.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Saxophone -- (laughter) -- some of the best.  What's this, vocals?  Is that what you're saying?  (Laughter.) 
 
Well, we've invited you here at the White House because we want you to know that you all have a place here -- a place here at the White House.  Yes, here.  This is your spot.  We want this house to truly be the people’s house.  That's something that we say -- people say, this is the people's house.  We just happen to occupy upstairs, but this belongs to everybody.  And in opening up the doors to this house, we also want to open up a world of possibilities for young people like you.  
 
See, since its very beginning, our country has been built by young people like all of you.  Maybe folks that maybe didn't start out with much, but they worked hard, they followed their hearts, and they did whatever they could to make this country stronger, and whether that was in government or business, science or the arts.
 
If you take these folks sitting up here, they represent that.  Before he was a three-time Grammy winner, Keb Mo was simply Kevin Moore.  (Laughter.)  Keb Mo was just little Kevin -- (laughter) -- the kid down the block in South Central L.A.  Little Kevin.  And then Troy was a little boy marching through the streets of New Orleans with a trombone twice his size.  (Laughter.)
 
MR. ANDREWS:  (Inaudible.)
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Yeah, I can see that.  (Laughter.)  No offense.  (Laughter.)  And as a young woman growing up in Harlem, Shemekia struggled -- stage fright.  Is that true? 
 
MS. COPELAND:  Yes, ma'am.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  She's not shy now.  (Laughter.)  And one time, she was actually afraid to be up on stage performing at all -- you were afraid.  You're over that now, right?
 
MS. COPELAND:  Yeah.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  All right.  But today --
 
MS. COPELAND:  Nervous now.
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Little nervous, little nervous.  (Laughter.)  Well, we're in the White House, you've got every right to be a little nervous. 
 
But today she, Keb, Troy, they're all up here, at the White House, right? 
 
And I mean, just thinking a little -- they were like you all, right?  Did you ever think you'd be sitting up here in the White House?
 
MS. COPELAND:  No way.  (Laughter.)
 
MRS. OBAMA:  Invited by the President of the United States himself?  (Laughter.)  See, that is the beauty of America, right?  You can go from there to here in a split second -- just a little focus, right?
 
And I should mention that the President didn't start out at the top either.  Neither did I, but let's talk about him for a little bit since he's not here.  (Laughter.)  As many people know, he was raised by his grandparents and by his mom, who was a single mom.  And she struggled, just like many parents do, to pay the bills.  But he had to work hard, and get a little focused -- and he wasn’t focused all the time.  It was later in life that he got a little focus, right?  So even if you mess up a little bit, you can get right on track.
 
So I say all this, it's because I want you all to believe that anything is possible for you all.  That's one of the reasons we do this music series.  That's why it is so important for me to open up these doors, to have you guys come from all over the country to sit in the same chairs that kings and queens and ambassadors and senators have sat in, right?  They sit right in those chairs.  And I want you all to hear from people who have struggled, who have worked, who built up careers and art forms for themselves. 
 
Because the point is:  You can be here, too.  This house belongs to you.  These opportunities belong to you.  You never rule yourself, right?  You never sell yourself short.  You stay focused on your craft.  And all of you have been given a talent, a blessing.  God, I would love it if I could sing or play something -- but I can't.  It's okay.  (Laughter.)
 
But you can.  So I want you to use this opportunity, as you sit here, to ask these wonderful men and women some good questions; find out what they've done to stay on track; learn about the art form.  Don't waste this time.  Don't be shy -- although I don't think there are too many shy people here.  (Laughter.)  But ask some good questions.  And remember that you're grooming to be the next greatest something, right?  But it starts with believing that you can be there.  And half of it is walking in these doors at the White House and sitting down here, and just being here, right?  Just get comfortable here, right?  Get comfortable with a little greatness.  (Laughter.)  See how it feels.  Put it on.  Wear it a little bit, right?  Feels pretty good. 
 
But it requires a lot of hard work.  That is the constant theme I think you will hear.  Here you will hear from the President, you will hear from me -- anybody who has experienced any level of success, there's a lot of hard work that comes with it.  So don't be afraid of hard work.  Don't be afraid to fail a little bit.  Don't be afraid to trip, stumble, make a fool out of yourself sometimes.  Sometimes that's the best way to get to your goal, all right?
 
So I am thrilled to have you all here.  Have fun.  And I have to go to some meetings, okay?  (Laughter.) 
 
So with that I will turn it over to Bob.  You all have fun.  (Applause.)
 
END
2:50 P.M. EST
 

Karen Golinski (right) with her wife, Amy Cunninghis

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

That ruling came down today from the Hon. Jeffrey White, and sometimes Pres. George W. Bush's judicial nominees say the darndest things:

The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples. Even though animus is clearly present in its legislative history, the Court, having examined that history, the arguments made in its support, and the effects of the law, is persuaded that something short of animus may have motivated DOMA’s passage:

Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile
animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of
careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against
people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.

Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374-75 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

Click to enlarge.

Yep, GOP. You're stuck with them. (DonkeyHotey)

WASHINGTON – While most Republicans wish they had different choices in the party's presidential field, a nationwide USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds overwhelming resistance to the idea of an old-styled brokered convention that would pick some new contender as the nominee.

By 66%-29%, the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents surveyed say it would be better if one of the four candidates now running managed to secure enough delegates to clinch the nomination. [...]

There is undeniable dissatisfaction with the field. A 55% majority of Republicans say they wish someone else was running; 44% say they're pleased with the selection of candidates.

The intensity gap the GOP has shown in this primary seems destined to plague the party in the general, as well, no matter who emerges out of this sorry crowd.

Hoekstra, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, has scrubbed all mention of the ad featuring an actress portraying a Chinese woman speaking in broken English from his campaign Facebook page and YouTube account. Back on Feb 5, when the ad ran during the Michigan broadcast of the Super Bowl, Hoekstra posted it in both places. Then as the controversy kicked up, he used his YouTube account to post clips of him vehemently defending the spot on Fox News.

Now the ad is gone from his Facebook page (as captured in this screenshot, which shows all entries from Feb. removed) as well as his YouTube account. More interestingly, Hoekstra's defense of the ad has also been scrubbed from YouTube (as this screenshot shows).  

The only explanation that makes sense is that Hoekstra's team thought it would win them points in the general election against Sen. Debbie Stabenow. They genuinely believed that the voters of their state were racist xenophobes who would applaud the offensive ad.

In a cycle full of dramatic GOP overreach and unforced errors, it won't be the last time  that Republicans misread the public.

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com at 8 PM ET.
 

As I wrote yesterday, the big question in tonight's debate will be whether and how Rick Santorum addresses questions about his religious agenda—particular his warning about Satan's attack on America. That might make Republicans uncomfortable, but this is the party they created, and it's not like Mitt Romney hasn't been doing it too.

As ABC's Rick Klein notes, today is Ash Wednesday. Santorum has been wearing ash on his forehead today, although Newt Gingrich hasn't. I suspect Santorum won't wear it during the debate, but it would be a striking visual if he were to do so.

Mitt Romney hopes to put his tax plan at the center of the debate, but his back-to-back gaffes (saying that cutting spending hurts the economy, and using the language of Occupy Wall Street to describe his tax plan), could haunt him.

Newt Gingrich is apparently planning on returning to Churchillian form by letting the others be chihauhaus, whatever that means, and Ron Paul will, as always, be Ron Paul. So gather yourself around the Daily Kos comment threads and join us tonight to watch what would be the most hilarious debate yet.

Harold Simmons (Tom Fox)

Individuals are limited to $2500 direct contributions to a candidate's campaign. But there is no limit on contributions to Super PACS. These aren't supposed to coordinate with the campaigns, but that is a joke.

By far the most generous contributor is Harold Simmons of Texas, though he has not played favorites during this election cycle. He gave more than $1 million to Rick Perry's super PAC last year (before he dropped out of the race), threw $500,000 to Newt Gingrich in December, quickly pivoted with a $100,000 check to the pro-Mitt Romney Restore Our Future PAC, then went back to Gingrich with another $500,000 check. Perhaps he got confused by the names of the competing PACs — Restore Our Future (Romney) versus Winning the Future (Gingrich). Or as some have pointed out, anyone giving money to Gingrich at this point is really supporting Romney, since Newt's refusal to quit actually undermines Rick Santorum's chances.

As Joan McCarter wrote earlier this month, "looking at these numbers, you don't have to wonder who's future and destiny they're talking about, who is going to be made great again under a Republican president. A hint: It wouldn't to be the 99 percent."

From the Michigan Democratic Party:

Friends,

Republicans have extended an invitation to all Michigan Democrats to crossover and vote in the Michigan GOP presidential primary this Tuesday, February 28th. Yesterday, Republican Senators Rick Jones and Arlan Meekhof said they’d welcome Democrats to crossover. You can check out the invitation for yourselves by watching the video clip below.

Any Democrat who takes Senators Jones and Meekhof up on their offer will still be able to participate in the Michigan Democratic Party’s presidential caucuses on May 5, 2012.

If Democratic crossover votes affect the results of the GOP presidential primary next Tuesday, the Republicans will only have themselves to blame.

Sincerely,

Mark Brewer
Chair, Michigan Democratic Party

• Today's comic by Jen Sorensen is Pundit retraining:
  
  
• Join us tonight at 8 ET as Jed Lewison liveblogs the latest Republican debate, where the candidates will discuss issues that weigh on the minds of all Americans: Satan, transvaginal probes and whether or not women should have basic health care.
• Who is Ann Romney trying to kid?
  

  Making her pitch for Mitt Romney's candidacy during stops in conservative corners of Michigan, Ann Romney said Tuesday that her husband was a “little reluctant” about running for president in 2012.

  Mitt Romney has been running for president for (at least) six years—unless he has some other reason for keeping his money in a blind trust after leaving the governor's office.
• Herman Cain wants to be a kingmaker:
  

  The charismatic former pizza executive is throwing his weight behind a handful of Republican congressional hopefuls who are intent on advancing the conservative platform he espoused — including his signature “9-9-9” tax plan — campaigning for some of them and endorsing others.

  Cain will hit the road this week ...

  ... where he'll probably be on the prowl for another woman to sexually harass.
• This is a game-changer—former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer is dropping his bid for the 2012 Republican nomination and will run as a third-party candidate.
• Republican Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra is trying to erase all evidence of his racist ad that ran during this year's Super Bowl:
  

  The controversial spot has been wiped from its YouTube channel, stricken from its Facebook page and there's no mention of it on the campaign website.

  Even the interviews about the spot have been scrubbed, including Hoekstra's appearance on Fox News Channel. [...]

  A spokesperson for the Hoekstra campaign did not respond to an inquiry seeking an explanation.

• Ever wondered who the hottest president in U.S. history was? I've got to go with Rutherford B. Hayes.
• President Obama sings "Sweet Home Chicago" at a White House event.
• Condolences to family and friends:
  

  American journalist Marie Colvin and award-winning French photographer Remi Ochlik were killed Wednesday in the besieged Syrian city of Homs, opposition activists and a French official said.

• This has to be the best—and by best I mean hilarious—defense by a lawyer for a client caught up in an investigation about a prostitution ring:
  

  A lawyer for Mr. Strauss-Kahn appeared to confirm that he had attended the events, saying that his client would not have been aware if the women who entertained him were prostitutes.

  “He could easily not have known, because as you can imagine, at these kinds of parties you’re not always dressed, and I challenge you to distinguish a naked prostitute from any other naked woman,” the lawyer, Henri Leclerc, told a French radio station, Europe 1, in December.

• They needed to conduct a study to figure this one out?
  

  Men put on their best behaviour when attractive ladies are close by. When the scenario is reversed however, the behaviour of women remains the same. These findings were published February 2, 2012, in the British Psychological Society's British Journal of Psychology via the Wiley Online Library. [...]

  Dr Iredale said: "The research shows that good deeds among men increase when presented with an opportunity to copulate.

• The opportunity to enter your organization or small company in the Netroots Nation's 2nd annual "Grab a Booth" contest ends next Tuesday, February 28th. Netroots Nation is giving away six free booths in the Community and Exhibit Hall at NN12 in Providence this June. Enter today!

Gov. Bob McDonnell reads polls

Now, McDonnell has changed his mind and is opposing the bill as currently written. From his statement:

Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state.No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

1:12 PM PT: The Virginia House of Delegates just passed the bill, taking out the mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound, mandating just a regular ultrasound.

Rep. Darrell Issa's women's health experts
(House Oversight Committee Democrats)

At the now infamous no-girlz-allowed birth control policy hearing Rep. Darrell Issa held last week, the Democrats had one witness they wanted to speak in the first panel. Unbelievably (to the GOP), it was a woman. Sandra Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown Law and past president of the school’s Students for Reproductive Justice group, was slated to speak about how the policy would actually affect women.

The horror.

So Democrats have decided to hold their own hearing, an unofficial one because they are in the minority in the house, with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spearheading the effort. But here's how much Republicans want the discussion of women's health to be limited entirely to male theologians: they aren't allowing the hearing to be broadcast.

Pelosi aides say the House recording studio has denied a request to broadcast the event, “apparently” at the behest of the Republican-controlled Committee on House Administration.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill pointed to a July 2008 decision in which the committee lifted restrictions on use of the studio.

“If Chairman [Dan] Lungren has reversed this policy, he has done so in secret and not consulted with CHA Democrats,” Hammill said in an email. “This leaves us only to think that the House Republican leadership is acting out yet again to silence women on the topic of women’s health.”

The GOP wants, desperately, this fight to be about religious freedom instead of what it's really about: controlling women. The problem for them is that the more they shut women out, the more obvious their anti-woman agenda is and the less success they'll have in changing the narrative.

So let's help Pelosi and the Democrats keep this issue alive. Sign this petition to tell the Republicans to let women talk about women's heallth.