Executive Order -- Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

IMPROVING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE CYBERSECURITY

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Repeated cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure demonstrate the need for improved cybersecurity. The cyber threat to critical infrastructure continues to grow and represents one of the most serious national security challenges we must confront. The national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable functioning of the Nation's critical infrastructure in the face of such threats. It is the policy of the United States to enhance the security and resilience of the Nation's critical infrastructure and to maintain a cyber environment that encourages efficiency, innovation, and economic prosperity while promoting safety, security, business confidentiality, privacy, and civil liberties. We can achieve these goals through a partnership with the owners and operators of critical infrastructure to improve cybersecurity information sharing and collaboratively develop and implement risk-based standards.

Sec. 2. Critical Infrastructure. As used in this order, the term critical infrastructure means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.

Sec. 3. Policy Coordination. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions and programs described and assigned herein shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System), or any successor.

Sec. 4. Cybersecurity Information Sharing. (a) It is the policy of the United States Government to increase the volume, timeliness, and quality of cyber threat information shared with U.S. private sector entities so that these entities may better protect and defend themselves against cyber threats. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security (the "Secretary"), and the Director of National Intelligence shall each issue instructions consistent with their authorities and with the requirements of section 12(c) of this order to ensure the timely production of unclassified reports of cyber threats to the U.S. homeland that identify a specific targeted entity. The instructions shall address the need to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources, methods, operations, and investigations.

(b) The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a process that rapidly disseminates the reports produced pursuant to section 4(a) of this order to the targeted entity. Such process shall also, consistent with the need to protect national security information, include the dissemination of classified reports to critical infrastructure entities authorized to receive them. The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a system for tracking the production, dissemination, and disposition of these reports.

(c) To assist the owners and operators of critical infrastructure in protecting their systems from unauthorized access, exploitation, or harm, the Secretary, consistent with 6 U.S.C. 143 and in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, shall, within 120 days of the date of this order, establish procedures to expand the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program to all critical infrastructure sectors. This voluntary information sharing program will provide classified cyber threat and technical information from the Government to eligible critical infrastructure companies or commercial service providers that offer security services to critical infrastructure.

(d) The Secretary, as the Executive Agent for the Classified National Security Information Program created under Executive Order 13549 of August 18, 2010 (Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities), shall expedite the processing of security clearances to appropriate personnel employed by critical infrastructure owners and operators, prioritizing the critical infrastructure identified in section 9 of this order.

(e) In order to maximize the utility of cyber threat information sharing with the private sector, the Secretary shall expand the use of programs that bring private sector subject-matter experts into Federal service on a temporary basis. These subject matter experts should provide advice regarding the content, structure, and types of information most useful to critical infrastructure owners and operators in reducing and mitigating cyber risks.

Sec. 5. Privacy and Civil Liberties Protections. (a) Agencies shall coordinate their activities under this order with their senior agency officials for privacy and civil liberties and ensure that privacy and civil liberties protections are incorporated into such activities. Such protections shall be based upon the Fair Information Practice Principles and other privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks as they apply to each agency's activities.

(b) The Chief Privacy Officer and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall assess the privacy and civil liberties risks of the functions and programs undertaken by DHS as called for in this order and shall recommend to the Secretary ways to minimize or mitigate such risks, in a publicly available report, to be released within 1 year of the date of this order. Senior agency privacy and civil liberties officials for other agencies engaged in activities under this order shall conduct assessments of their agency activities and provide those assessments to DHS for consideration and inclusion in the report. The report shall be reviewed on an annual basis and revised as necessary. The report may contain a classified annex if necessary. Assessments shall include evaluation of activities against the Fair Information Practice Principles and other applicable privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks. Agencies shall consider the assessments and recommendations of the report in implementing privacy and civil liberties protections for agency activities.

(c) In producing the report required under subsection (b) of this section, the Chief Privacy Officer and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of DHS shall consult with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

(d) Information submitted voluntarily in accordance with 6 U.S.C. 133 by private entities under this order shall be protected from disclosure to the fullest extent permitted by law.

Sec. 6. Consultative Process. The Secretary shall establish a consultative process to coordinate improvements to the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. As part of the consultative process, the Secretary shall engage and consider the advice, on matters set forth in this order, of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council; Sector Coordinating Councils; critical infrastructure owners and operators; Sector-Specific Agencies; other relevant agencies; independent regulatory agencies; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; universities; and outside experts.

Sec. 7. Baseline Framework to Reduce Cyber Risk to Critical Infrastructure. (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall direct the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (the "Director") to lead the development of a framework to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure (the "Cybersecurity Framework"). The Cybersecurity Framework shall include a set of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address cyber risks. The Cybersecurity Framework shall incorporate voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices to the fullest extent possible. The Cybersecurity Framework shall be consistent with voluntary international standards when such international standards will advance the objectives of this order, and shall meet the requirements of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113), and OMB Circular A-119, as revised.

(b) The Cybersecurity Framework shall provide a prioritized, flexible, repeatable, performance-based, and cost-effective approach, including information security measures and controls, to help owners and operators of critical infrastructure identify, assess, and manage cyber risk. The Cybersecurity Framework shall focus on identifying cross-sector security standards and guidelines applicable to critical infrastructure. The Cybersecurity Framework will also identify areas for improvement that should be addressed through future collaboration with particular sectors and standards-developing organizations. To enable technical innovation and account for organizational differences, the Cybersecurity Framework will provide guidance that is technology neutral and that enables critical infrastructure sectors to benefit from a competitive market for products and services that meet the standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes developed to address cyber risks. The Cybersecurity Framework shall include guidance for measuring the performance of an entity in implementing the Cybersecurity Framework.

(c) The Cybersecurity Framework shall include methodologies to identify and mitigate impacts of the Cybersecurity Framework and associated information security measures or controls on business confidentiality, and to protect individual privacy and civil liberties.

(d) In developing the Cybersecurity Framework, the Director shall engage in an open public review and comment process. The Director shall also consult with the Secretary, the National Security Agency, Sector-Specific Agencies and other interested agencies including OMB, owners and operators of critical infrastructure, and other stakeholders through the consultative process established in section 6 of this order. The Secretary, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other relevant agencies shall provide threat and vulnerability information and technical expertise to inform the development of the Cybersecurity Framework. The Secretary shall provide performance goals for the Cybersecurity Framework informed by work under section 9 of this order.

(e) Within 240 days of the date of this order, the Director shall publish a preliminary version of the Cybersecurity Framework (the "preliminary Framework"). Within 1 year of the date of this order, and after coordination with the Secretary to ensure suitability under section 8 of this order, the Director shall publish a final version of the Cybersecurity Framework (the "final Framework").

(f) Consistent with statutory responsibilities, the Director will ensure the Cybersecurity Framework and related guidance is reviewed and updated as necessary, taking into consideration technological changes, changes in cyber risks, operational feedback from owners and operators of critical infrastructure, experience from the implementation of section 8 of this order, and any other relevant factors.

Sec. 8. Voluntary Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Program. (a) The Secretary, in coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies, shall establish a voluntary program to support the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and any other interested entities (the "Program").

(b) Sector-Specific Agencies, in consultation with the Secretary and other interested agencies, shall coordinate with the Sector Coordinating Councils to review the Cybersecurity Framework and, if necessary, develop implementation guidance or supplemental materials to address sector-specific risks and operating environments.

(c) Sector-Specific Agencies shall report annually to the President, through the Secretary, on the extent to which owners and operators notified under section 9 of this order are participating in the Program.

(d) The Secretary shall coordinate establishment of a set of incentives designed to promote participation in the Program. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary and the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce each shall make recommendations separately to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, that shall include analysis of the benefits and relative effectiveness of such incentives, and whether the incentives would require legislation or can be provided under existing law and authorities to participants in the Program.

(e) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Secretary and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, shall make recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, on the feasibility, security benefits, and relative merits of incorporating security standards into acquisition planning and contract administration. The report shall address what steps can be taken to harmonize and make consistent existing procurement requirements related to cybersecurity.

Sec. 9. Identification of Critical Infrastructure at Greatest Risk. (a) Within 150 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall use a risk-based approach to identify critical infrastructure where a cybersecurity incident could reasonably result in catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, or national security. In identifying critical infrastructure for this purpose, the Secretary shall use the consultative process established in section 6 of this order and draw upon the expertise of Sector-Specific Agencies. The Secretary shall apply consistent, objective criteria in identifying such critical infrastructure. The Secretary shall not identify any commercial information technology products or consumer information technology services under this section. The Secretary shall review and update the list of identified critical infrastructure under this section on an annual basis, and provide such list to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs.

(b) Heads of Sector-Specific Agencies and other relevant agencies shall provide the Secretary with information necessary to carry out the responsibilities under this section. The Secretary shall develop a process for other relevant stakeholders to submit information to assist in making the identifications required in subsection (a) of this section.

(c) The Secretary, in coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies, shall confidentially notify owners and operators of critical infrastructure identified under subsection (a) of this section that they have been so identified, and ensure identified owners and operators are provided the basis for the determination. The Secretary shall establish a process through which owners and operators of critical infrastructure may submit relevant information and request reconsideration of identifications under subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 10. Adoption of Framework. (a) Agencies with responsibility for regulating the security of critical infrastructure shall engage in a consultative process with DHS, OMB, and the National Security Staff to review the preliminary Cybersecurity Framework and determine if current cybersecurity regulatory requirements are sufficient given current and projected risks. In making such determination, these agencies shall consider the identification of critical infrastructure required under section 9 of this order. Within 90 days of the publication of the preliminary Framework, these agencies shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Director of OMB, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, that states whether or not the agency has clear authority to establish requirements based upon the Cybersecurity Framework to sufficiently address current and projected cyber risks to critical infrastructure, the existing authorities identified, and any additional authority required.

(b) If current regulatory requirements are deemed to be insufficient, within 90 days of publication of the final Framework, agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section shall propose prioritized, risk-based, efficient, and coordinated actions, consistent with Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive Order 13609 of May 1, 2012 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), to mitigate cyber risk.

(c) Within 2 years after publication of the final Framework, consistent with Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens), agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section shall, in consultation with owners and operators of critical infrastructure, report to OMB on any critical infrastructure subject to ineffective, conflicting, or excessively burdensome cybersecurity requirements. This report shall describe efforts made by agencies, and make recommendations for further actions, to minimize or eliminate such requirements.

(d) The Secretary shall coordinate the provision of technical assistance to agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section on the development of their cybersecurity workforce and programs.

(e) Independent regulatory agencies with responsibility for regulating the security of critical infrastructure are encouraged to engage in a consultative process with the Secretary, relevant Sector-Specific Agencies, and other affected parties to consider prioritized actions to mitigate cyber risks for critical infrastructure consistent with their authorities.

Sec. 11. Definitions. (a) "Agency" means any authority of the United States that is an "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(b) "Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council" means the council established by DHS under 6 U.S.C. 451 to facilitate effective interaction and coordination of critical infrastructure protection activities among the Federal Government; the private sector; and State, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

(c) "Fair Information Practice Principles" means the eight principles set forth in Appendix A of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace.

(d) "Independent regulatory agency" has the meaning given the term in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(e) "Sector Coordinating Council" means a private sector coordinating council composed of representatives of owners and operators within a particular sector of critical infrastructure established by the National Infrastructure Protection Plan or any successor.

(f) "Sector-Specific Agency" has the meaning given the term in Presidential Policy Directive-21 of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience), or any successor.

Sec. 12. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. Nothing in this order shall be construed to provide an agency with authority for regulating the security of critical infrastructure in addition to or to a greater extent than the authority the agency has under existing law. Nothing in this order shall be construed to alter or limit any authority or responsibility of an agency under existing law.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) All actions taken pursuant to this order shall be consistent with requirements and authorities to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources and methods. Nothing in this order shall be interpreted to supersede measures established under authority of law to protect the security and integrity of specific activities and associations that are in direct support of intelligence and law enforcement operations.

(d) This order shall be implemented consistent with U.S. international obligations.

(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

President Obama issued an Executive Order directing federal departments and agencies to use their existing authorities to provide better cybersecurity for the Nation, efforts that will by necessity involve increased collaboration with the private sector.

Alan Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, answered questions from the public about President Obama's State of the Union Address in an “Open for Questions” session moderated by Yahoo! Finance. Check it out below.

The stars of the Oscar-nominated drama joined Mrs. Obama to help teach students about the hard work required to create a beautiful movie.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

UPDATE 3-Hospira gets FDA notice over medical device problems

* Rocky Mount plant back to capacity in 2013 -Hospira

* Q4 adjusted eps 55 cents vs Street view 54 cents

* Expects 2013 sales up 1 pct to 3 pct, adjusted diluted eps of $2.05-$2.20

Feb 13 (Reuters) - Hospira Inc, a hospital products maker that has grappled with regulatory issues at manufacturing plants for the past 18 months, said it had received a notice over the quality of its medical devices from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The company reported the notice during a conference call on Wednesday after announcing a profit for the fourth quarter vs a year-earlier loss as sales of generic injectable drugs, IV solutions, drug pumps and other products increased more than 8 percent.

Hospira said the FDA completed an inspection of its medical device quality systems at its headquarters in Lake Forest, Illinois, last month and issued a list of 10 objectionable conditions. The list is known in the industry as a Form 483.

Some of the quality systems assessed as part of the Lake Forest inspection included supplier quality systems and medical device reporting and complaint systems, a Hospira spokeswoman said.

The company also said it sent notices to customers about some of its infusion pumps that had to either be recalled, fixed or adjusted.

Hospira has sent out 11 device notifications so far in 2013, including recall and device corrections, the spokeswoman said.

"While there may still be additional device field notifications going forward, we do not believe they will continue at the rate we have seen recently," she said in an email.

Shares in Hospira fell $2.05 to $32.90 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Chief Executive F. Michael Ball said that FDA inspectors acknowledged some progress since the last inspection.

"The observations re-enforced our own assessment there is still a lot of work to be done within our device operations," Ball said on the conference call.

He said management had been doing a complete review of all of its medical devices even before the FDA notice. He said the new strategy would be aimed at modernizing and streamlining platforms.

Ball said there has been progress at some of its other manufacturing facilities that have had problems, including its Rocky Mount facility in North Carolina. Ball said a reinspection by the FDA would be extensive and lengthy but he expects it increase production this year.

He said Hospira's other plants emerged from shut downs on schedule.

Hospira's Clayton, North Carolina facility has resumed manufacturing propofol, an anesthesia that is administered intravenously and has been in short supply, and is building inventory in the fourth quarter of 2012 for an early 2013 relaunch.

He said the drug was being priced at a premium.

Hospira said it expects sales to rise 1 percent to 3 percent for 2013, and adjusted earnings per diluted share to be between $2.05 and $2.20.

Management said the relatively wide range is based on the expected rate of supply recovery and share gains, as well as improvements in quality and manufacturing performance.

In the fourth quarter, its net income was $5.3 million, or 3 cents per share, in the latest quarter, compared with a net loss of $214.0 million, or $1.30 per share, in the year-earlier period.

Adjusted earnings were 55 cents per share. On that basis, analysts on average were expecting earnings per share of 54 cents.

Net sales rose to $1.1 billion in the quarter from $1.0 billion a year before.

View the original article here

Laura Ingraham: Celebrities Can Talk About Fracking But a Neurosurgeon Can't Discuss Healthcare

Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham on Tuesday made a marvelous observation about the media firestorm surrounding Dr. Benjamin Carson's speech last week at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Ingraham said, "We can have celebrities talk about fracking and all sorts of political issues...but the head of pediatric neurosurgery at one of the top hospitals in the world" shouldn't discuss healthcare (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):

LAURA INGRAHAM: So we can have celebrities, right, talk about fracking and all sorts of political issues, but we actually have the head of neurosurgery, pediatric neurosurgery, at one of the top hospitals in the world, who gets up on that stage at the National Prayer Breakfast, and he addresses a number of topics, right, but from a common sense, very respectful fashion. He wasn’t mean-spirited. He wasn’t nasty. But the reaction was so profound from the public, thinking, “Why don’t we have politicians who speak in these common sense terms?”

Absurd, but not at all surprising.

Consider the anthropogenic global warming debate.

The media are far more interested in what Al Gore - a man that did terribly in science classes while at Harvard! - and pop star Sheryl Crow have to say on this subject than actual scientists including the over 31,000 that have signed the Oregon Petition.

America's press in 2013 aren't interested in facts or a serious discussion on issues facing the nation.

Instead, the modus operandi is to fill the airwaves and print with nonsensical propaganda while demonizing anyone that deigns to disagree with it.

As Dr. Carson said Monday, "An uneducated populace will fall for anything" including "pundits on television."

(HT Mediaite)

View the original article here

Controversial Cybersecurity Bill Reintroduced Without Changes

Less than twenty-four hours after President Obama announced an executive order aimed at strengthening the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure and called for congressional action on cybersecurity in his State of the Union Address, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) reintroduced the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) to the House.

CISPA caused widespread outcries from privacy and civil liberties advocates when it was considered in 2012 due to provisions that would in effect allow intelligence agencies a backdoor into the personal information of most Americans by allowing companies to share information about activities on their network with very little oversight. The version of the bill introduced for the 113th Congress is unchanged from the amended version from the 112th session, which President Obama threatened to veto. Indeed, press materials from the House Intelligence Committee say “the bill that was introduced today is identical to the ‘Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act’ (H.R. 3523) that passed the House by a strong bipartisan vote of 248-168 in April 2012.”

Online privacy advocates began organizing a response based on rumors of its revival earlier in the month, with Fight for the Future launching the site Cispaisback.com and Gregory T. Nojeim, Director of the Project on Freedom, Security & Technology at the Center for Democracy & Technology telling ThinkProgress “CISPA is deeply flawed” and recommending Members “seriously consider” if they wanted to re-open the debate over the bill.

View the original article here

Sen. Paul threatens hold on Brennan over armed drone strikes

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday threatened to hold John Brennan's nomination for CIA director unless he receives more answers on the administration’s drone program.

“I have asked Mr. Brennan if he believed that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and my question remains unanswered," Paul said in a statement. "I will not allow a vote on this nomination until Mr. Brennan openly responds to the questions and concerns my colleagues and I share.

"These issues must be discussed openly so that the American people can understand what constraints exist on the government’s power to use lethal force against its citizens," Paul continued. "Before confirming Mr. Brennan as the head of the CIA, it must be apparent that he understands and will honor the protections provided to every American by the Constitution."

Brennan, Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, faced a contentious confirmation hearing last week, as lawmakers pressed him on the legality of using armed drone strikes against suspected terrorists, in particular American citizens.

The increased congressional scrutiny followed the leak of a Justice Department (DOJ) memo laying out the circumstances in which the administration would authorize a deadly drone strike on a U.S. citizen.

Lawmakers, though, have demanded that the DOJ share its actual legal memos justifying the targeting of Americans abroad.

The administration attempted to defuse congressional anger by providing a private briefing to lawmakers before Brennan’s hearing. Brennan also testified that the administration only authorizes lethal force as a “last resort to save lives.”

But the briefing and Brennan’s testimony did little to satisfy lawmakers. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have said they will hold more hearings on the issue.

Feinstein last week also suggested creating a federal court to oversee and approve drone strikes, but Republicans quickly rebuffed the proposal.

“I think it is a terrible idea,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told The Hill.

Over the weekend Graham also said he would put a hold on Brennan's nomination as well as former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Obama’s nominee for Defense secretary, until the administration provides more details about its response to the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

View Comments

View the original article here

Statement by the President on Ash Wednesday

Statement by the President on Ash Wednesday | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Immigration Reform Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

7 Things You Need to Know

About the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2012 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release February 13, 2013 Statement by the President on Ash Wednesday

 

Michelle and I join with Christians here and around the world in marking Ash Wednesday.  This is a day of both reflection and joy, a time to ponder the meaning of repentance and restoration.  As we enter Lent, we join millions in renewing our faith and remembering our commitment to love and serve one another.

Blog posts on this issue February 13, 2013 6:39 PM ESTImproving the Security of the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure

President Obama issued an Executive Order directing federal departments and agencies to use their existing authorities to provide better cybersecurity for the Nation, efforts that will by necessity involve increased collaboration with the private sector.

February 13, 2013 5:15 PM ESTOpen for Questions: The State of the Union and the Economy

Alan Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, answered questions from the public about President Obama's State of the Union Address in an “Open for Questions” session moderated by Yahoo! Finance. Check it out below.

February 13, 2013 4:55 PM ESTFirst Lady Michelle Obama hosts a “Beasts of the Southern Wild” Movie Workshop for Students

The stars of the Oscar-nominated drama joined Mrs. Obama to help teach students about the hard work required to create a beautiful movie.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Colorado Considers Banning Guns On College Campuses, Overruling State Supreme Court

A bill to ban guns on college campuses cleared Colorado’s House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and heads to the Education Committee Wednesday morning. The bill would add college campuses to the short list of exceptions to concealed carry permits. Permits currently let gun owners carry their weapons everywhere in the state besides K-12 schools and federal properties.

House Bill 1226 was crafted in response to a 2011 state Supreme Court ruling that forced the University of Colorado to allow guns on campus. Permit holders could still carry their guns on campus, but not in campus buildings, school sporting arenas, or at school-sponsored events.

After the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, the University of Colorado compromised by creating separate off-campus housing for students who wanted to carry their guns on campus. However, zero students opted to live in the college’s gun dorm. While the University of Colorado has had no complaints since their gun ban was overturned, there have been 20 shootings on college campuses in the US since the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.

The state legislature is also considering a bill that would require gun owners to pay $10 for their own background check, which one Republican lawmaker argued is “a poll tax.” Another measure approved by the Judiciary Committee would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than 15 rounds, like the kind used by James Holmes in the Aurora theater shooting.

View the original article here

Press Gaggle by Press Secetary Jay Carney and Principal Deputy NEC Director Jason Furman, 2/13/2013

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Asheville, North Carolina

10:40 A.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Welcome aboard Air Force One.  It is fantastic to have you here.  I know you all covered the President’s speech -- State of the Union Address last night.  As I think you might expect, we believe the speech went off very well and has been received very well.  And as is tradition, the President is traveling the day after the State of the Union to amplify some of the aspects of his agenda that he talked about last night.

Today, his focus will be on the need to continue the trend towards a reinvigorated manufacturing sector in this country, and the measures we can take to push that trend forward. 

For that reason, I have with me today the Principal Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, your friend and mine, Jason Furman, who I will turn this over to, to discuss today’s business.

MR. FURMAN:  Great.  Thanks, Jay.  So one of the important questions the President posed in the State of the Union is what are we going to do to make America a magnet for jobs.  An important part of that answer is manufacturing in America, and that’s what the President will be highlighting today. 

He’ll be going to Linamar Plant -- that’s a Canadian company that has four U.S. manufacturing facilities.  They announced that this one was opening in 2011 to make parts for Caterpillar and other trucks.  They employ 160 workers.  They’re hiring another 40 at the end of the year. 

And this is emblematic of the trend of insourcing that we’re seeing in the United States, in part due to the trained workers we have here in our country, the cost advantages we have in things like electricity because of our abundant natural gas, and our abilities as an exporter. 

Because of all of that, we’ve seen 500,000 jobs added in manufacturing in the last three years.  And the President wants to not just rest on that, but see what we can do to push it forward and accelerate the pace of job creation.  And I think you have the fact sheet which goes through a whole range of them.  Gene Sperling will be doing a detailed on-the-record briefing later.  But I wanted highlight in particular three things that the President will be talking about today.

One is national manufacturing institutes.  He announced one in Youngsville, Ohio last summer on -- Youngstown, Ohio -- thank you -- last summer, that focuses on 3-D printing.  In the State of the Union last night he said that this year we’ll be setting up three more; that’s by pulling and using our existing resources.  In addition, he would like Congress to pass another trillion -- a billion dollars to set up 15 more of those institutes around the country.

Second is corporate tax reform, which would lower tax rates overall, particularly lower them for manufacturing down to a tax rate of 25 percent.  And that would be paid for by broadening the tax-based structural reforms and reducing the incentive to locate production and profits overseas. 

And then finally, he’s going to be highlighting things that you can do for manufacturing communities in America, including a $113 million competition that he’ll be proposing for manufacturing communities, and on the SelectUSA initiative which helps people locate in America.

Just very briefly, on paying for all of this -- because I think this is an example of how everything within the speech was paid for as part of a plan that not only pays for them but would also reduce the deficit.  Some of it is existing money, like the three manufacturing institutes.  Some of it is discretionary proposals, like the manufacturing communities that would be paid for within the overall caps in the Budget Control Act.  So in our budget you will see a bunch of things go down and some things go up, and it adds up to the caps. 

And then the $1 billion from manufacturing institutes is what is called a mandatory initiative.  And just to put context on that, the last budget the President put forward had over $1.5 trillion in revenue and mandatory savings.  Our next budget will have additional mandatory savings -- additional savings initiatives on top of those that will more than pay for the much smaller cost of initiatives like this and the other ones he talked about in the State of the Union.

MR. CARNEY:  So with that, questions for Jason or me.

Q    On the spending that you hope Congress will buy into from the manufacturing institutes particularly, and the infrastructure program -- it seems like the President may have proposed elements of this before, and Congress didn’t agree to fund it.  What is your strategy this time for sort of getting Congress's approval on this strategy?

MR. FURMAN:  I can start, and if Jay wants to add.  I mean, the President is not new to the topics of manufacturing, infrastructure, energy; he's been pushing them for four years.  He's accomplished things in all of those areas, and some of these proposals are new and re-tooled proposals -- things like infrastructure, an emphasis on “Fix-It-First”, which is very consistent with what experts across the political spectrum think is how we should be spending our money. 

Part of what he was doing was going out last night and arguing his case for all of this.  And these are really areas where we have seen, again, outside of the Congress and to some degree inside of Congress, Democrats and Republicans support these types of ideas.

Q    But the fact remains that these ideas didn’t pass the last time.  What's changed to make them pass this time?

MR. CARNEY:  Let me try this.  Look, if you have the right proposal that has broad-based support, that is proven to be effective, you have to keep pushing it and fighting for it.  As Jason just noted, there is considerable support in the business community and in the public at large for these kinds of measures to improve the manufacturing sector's prospects.  It makes a great deal of sense to do what the President is proposing -- not just because of the immediate effect on our growth and job creation, but because of the long-term need to build a powerful foundation for our economy in the 21st century.

If this President or any leader approached these challenges with an attitude of, well, this is going to be hard so I won't try, we wouldn’t get anything done in Washington.  And as you've seen from President Obama over these past four years, he never takes that approach.

And the fact is everything he proposed last night has had at different times and with different configurations significant bipartisan support, and we expect where Congress has a role to play, Congress will act on this agenda.

Q    Would this region or this company benefit from any of the proposals the President talked about last night?  What’s the reason for this particular locale?

MR. FURMAN:  Obviously, this is a company that came here because of a lot of the advantages the United States already has, and that's why we’re creating jobs.  But certainly something like corporate tax reform that cuts tax rates for companies that are producing things here in America would benefit a company like this.

I don't know what the next set of manufacturing institutes will focus on.  That will depend on the applications we get and what ways a company like this would benefit from their technologies.  But certainly things like 3-D printing are widely used in manufacturing. 

And generally, if you look at things like the President’s energy agenda, for example, something like natural gas, that's helped bring the price of electricity down -- to bring it down further -- and that matters a lot to the manufacturing sector.

Q    Do we have a thought on the Hagel nomination -- where we are with it?  Do you still feel confident it’s going to go through?

MR. CARNEY:  We do.  We’re pleased to see that the committee voted the nomination out.  We hope and expect the full Senate to take action expeditiously to confirm Senator Hagel as the next Secretary of Defense and to fill this vital post in our national security apparatus.

We know with 100 percent confidence that there is majority support for Senator Hagel’s nomination -- majority and then some.  So we ask Congress, the Senate to move quickly to confirm him as Secretary of Defense.

Q    Can you map out the travel for the rest of the week?  Today is manufacturing.  When he’s in Georgia and Chicago later this week, what the focus is going to be?

MR. CARNEY:  The whole issue is not to drive too fast by today’s important visit and the policy focus that comes with it.  The travel tomorrow, travel Friday will highlight other elements of the President’s economic agenda.  And then, moving forward, we have a lot of business to conduct.  And you heard the President’s ambitious agenda last night, and he looks forward to working with Congress and talking to the American people about every aspect of it.

Q    Jay, the President in 2008 proposed raising the minimum wage to $9.50.  Last night he proposed $9.00.  So are Americans able to get by on less now than they would be four years ago?

MR. FURMAN:  An important factor in how the minimum wage proposal was designed was exactly what the President said last night, which is that no one working full-time at the minimum wage should have to raise their children in poverty.  And the President takes a comprehensive approach to that.  Part of that depends on how much they're paid, and part of it depends on things like the tax credits they’ve gotten.  And the President was able to secure in 2009 and extend most recently in the tax agreement at the beginning of January refundable tax credits for families with children that are worth 75 cents an hour if you work full-time and have two children. 

So if you think of that extra money, together with the extra money from this minimum wage increase, the two of those together would first of all exceed the minimum wage number he had called for on the campaign, but more importantly at a fundamental level, take you from below the poverty line to above the poverty line for someone working full-time with children.

I’d also add that $9.00 an hour is a robust increase in the minimum wage and would put it at a higher level adjusted for inflation than any time since 1981.

MR. CARNEY:  And I would just make the point -- because this goes to the question about enacting this agenda and potential obstacles that the President may face -- in 1996, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, Congress passed an increase in the minimum wage.  When George Bush -- George W. Bush was President, he supported an increase in the minimum wage.  It is a bipartisan American principle, the President believes, that no one in the United States should work full-time and live in poverty.  The benefits of the hike that the President is proposing are manifold -- economic and social.  And he hopes that action will be taken in the bipartisan spirit that action has been taken in the past. 

Q    Do you know whether the President watched or read the text of Rubio's speech last night and had any reaction?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't know whether he had a chance.  He certainly didn't watch it.  He was on Capitol Hill past the time that Senator Rubio spoke.  I haven't spoken to him this morning about it.

I would say one thing, which is that while the messenger may have changed, the message we heard last night from the Republican Speaker was entirely consistent with the policy ideas that Mitt Romney campaigned on last year that the American people did not support.  This was not a focus of his address last night, but I know -- and the President is aware of the fact that Senator Rubio wants to play and is playing an important role in an effort to achieve bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform.

But aside from that, if you look at the remarks by Senator Rubio last night, they could have been delivered by Governor Romney in their policy essence.  And I think what the President was saying last night is we need to move forward on an agenda that builds the middle class; that produces not a bigger government but a smarter government; and that grows the economy while reducing our deficit in a way that's fair, that doesn't ask senior citizens or middle-class families sending their kids to college, or parents with disabled children to bear the burden solely of reducing our deficit. 

That's an approach that doesn't just have the President's support or the Democratic Party's support, or even support of independents, which it does.  It has support among Republicans out in the real world, and it has support of numerous Republican former elected officials who have led or served on bipartisan commissions who have looked at deficit reduction.

Q    Jay, the President warned last night of the economic consequences of the sequester.  Is he -- obviously, he's talking manufacturing today, other elements in the State of the Union tomorrow and Friday.  But what else is he doing kind of behind the scenes?  Is he reaching out to lawmakers?  Is he engaging in any conversations to still try and head off the sequester?

MR. CARNEY:  We at the White House, led by the President, are working with Congress to try to urge them to take action to avert the sequester, the implementation of which would be wholly unnecessary and an arbitrary wound inflicted on our economy at a time when we're recovering.  And we should be and are poised to be creating jobs and growing further. 

The Senate is working on a proposal that would buy down the sequester for a relatively short period of time to give Congress the time and space necessary to do what it is setting itself up to do, which is work through in regular order a budget process that hopefully will produce the kind of middle-of-the-road, common sense, balanced deficit reduction that the President seeks and which has the support of the American people.  So the answer is yes. 

Unfortunately, we've heard -- I think I just saw a commentary from Senator McConnell flatly predicting that the sequester will take effect.

I know that Speaker Boehner has in the past -- and not-so-distant past -- posted to the Wall Street Journal about the support he has among Republicans in the House to allow the sequester to take effect and the political leverage that will give him -- leverage to achieve political goals.  Unfortunately, what “leverage” means in this case is jobs.  It's people.  It's tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who suffer or would suffer the consequences of that kind of political gambit.

Q    And also, Jack Lew’s confirmation hearings are today.  He's going to face some questions about his time at Citi, and also an offshore account.  Does the White House see any conflict in that, that the President spent the campaign sort of rallying against offshore tax havens?  And are there any concerns about his confirmation?

MR. CARNEY:  We have no concerns about Jack Lew's confirmation.  He is extraordinarily qualified to be the next Treasury Secretary.  And on the matter you raised, I would say two things.  One, Jack Lew has been confirmed by the Senate to previous posts, and is fully -- all this information about his background was available on those occasions.

Two, the President campaigned on reforming our tax code so that it rewards companies that invest here, that closes loopholes that are available to the few and not the many.  And in that effort, he was aided ably by his Chief of Staff at a policy level, and that was Jack Lew.

The debate last year wasn't about individuals, it was about what policy do you support when it comes to our tax code.  The policies the President supports and urges Congress to implement and did again last night are the policies that Jack Lew supports.  And they're quite different from the policies that, unfortunately, Republicans supported last year and apparently this year as well.

Q    On tax reform -- I read this morning an analysis, I think from Brookings, that the statements last night were a rejection of the idea of a territorial tax system.  Is that an analysis that you would agree with?  Is that really what's being said here?

MR. FURMAN:  Sorry, I didn’t see that analysis.  But just in terms of restating --

MR. CARNEY:  I applaud Roberta for in the morning reading think-tank analysis before everyone else.  (Laughter.) 

MR. FURMAN:  But I certainly will make up for that deficiency on my part. 

But I'll just restate where the President is on this, which is the President has rejected a pure territorial system; doesn’t want a system in which you face a much lower tax rate on an investment that takes place overseas, rather than an investment that takes place here.  But he does recognize that we currently do have a hybrid tax system; that the global competitiveness of our companies is important.  They are going to operate all around the world and succeed and compete all around the world, and so wants a hybrid system that would encourage that, but would really toughen up the ways in which right now you, for example, shift profits overseas, avoid paying taxes here.  And that leads not just to jobs overseas, but also higher tax rates on our companies here in America.

Q    Any chance in the ideas about a tax reform for a repatriation holiday of some type?  Maybe tied to job creation?

MR. FURMAN:  The administration has really rejected a temporary repatriation holiday.  The last time we tried it, it wasn’t successful in creating jobs.  It cost us a substantial amount of money, and it rewards companies that have put a lot of money in low-tax jurisdictions.

What we would be willing to work together on is a permanent reform of the tax system that makes it smarter so our companies can be more competitive globally, have less incentive -- more incentive to undertake production here in the United States.  But it’s that type of longer-term tax reform that we’re focused on, not these types of one-off repatriation holidays.

Q    You call this trip the traditional day-after-the-State of the Union trip.  That actually has not been this President’s tradition.  So he has not always gone out the day after the State of the Union to sell the message.  So why now?  Is it something where he feels he has more he has to sell now?  Or does he feel like he has more of an opportunity to get something done now?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I believe we traveled last year.  I’ll have to look at my travel logs.  I think having covered the President’s two predecessors, it is more or less a tradition to travel in the wake of the State of the Union.  Whether it’s tradition or not, it’s a good idea. 

The President doesn’t believe -- as unique and humbling an opportunity it is for a President to be able to speak to Congress, a joint session, and to the nation, as the President did last night, you don’t just do that and stop the conversation.  You continue to take your arguments and your case to the people.  That’s what the President is doing today, tomorrow and Friday, and that’s what he will do throughout his second term. 

As we’ve discussed in the briefing room, this is an approach the President believes is the right approach, because the American people have a stake in everything Washington will or won’t do this year.  And they have a deep stake in it, and they care about and expect to be engaged in the conversations about what we should do moving forward.

As I’ve said before, the President believes that making that case to the American people helps the system and it helps get things done.  It is not to the exclusion of working directly with members of Congress.  We obviously do that all the time.  But it’s a two-pronged strategy, if you will.

Q    And how can the President do something like expanding preschool to every student in the United States without expecting that that’s going to somehow add to the deficit?  And are there specific things he’s saying will be reduced to offset those costs?

MR. FURMAN:  So as I said in my opening, the last budget had over $1.5 trillion of mandatory and revenue savings -- things like reductions in entitlements, closing loopholes.  The initiatives he talked about yesterday were at a substantially smaller scale in terms of dollars than that.  And, in addition, you’ll see in our budget that we’re going to have new savings above and beyond what we proposed before, just like we’re going to have some new initiatives above and beyond what we proposed before.  So you’ll see all the gory details in our budget. 

And part of why you can rest assured on this question is the President’s record on the topic, which is since he’s been in office he’s restored a principle we hadn’t had in the previous eight years, which is all of the new long-term initiatives that he’s done -- whether they were small things like healthy foods, or large things like the Affordable Care Act -- have been paid for.  And that’s something he’ll continue to do and more than pay for them while reducing the deficit.  And you’ll see more details of that coming up.

MR. CARNEY:  Let’s just be clear -- that PAYGO principle was abandoned under the previous administration; has been restored under this.

Q    Last night it seemed like the President’s tone as he addressed Congress was sometimes needling them, sometimes chiding them for going to the ribbon-cuttings.  Why does the President think that that tone is the helpful tone to strike when addressing Congress?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the last example you used -- I was on the floor, and it was greeted with chuckling, as appropriate.  The President is a former member of the Senate.  He understands how the Congress works.  I think his tone last night was one where he, sure, was cajoling and urging Congress to act, but it was one that is entirely consistent with -- thematically with almost every major speech he’s given on domestic and economic policy, dating back to his keynote convention address in 2004 in Boston when he was a mere state senator.

He called on Republicans and Democrats to come together, because fundamentally we are Americans first before we’re Democrats or Republicans or independents.  And as he said in Boston, we may hail from red states or blue states, but we all live in the United States. 

And reflecting the themes he set out in the inaugural address, he talked about the fact that obviously we’re not going to resolve all our differences.  We’re going to continue to disagree on a number of issues, and those disagreements can be based on both sides in principle.  But we were sent here -- again, the President saying this -- elected officials were sent to Washington to get the business of the public done.  And there are too many urgent challenges not to do that work on behalf of the American people.  And that was the tone the President brought last night that it was -- he was obviously urging Congress to act, but it was one where he was asking to act in concert with Congress on behalf of the people.

Q    When’s the budget coming out?

MR. CARNEY:  I think we’ve noted that it will be sometime in March, but we haven’t got a specific date for you.

Anything else?

Q    Jay, when the President talked about strengthening checks and balances on our counterterrorism operations, was he expressing an openness for the ideas that have been floated on Capitol Hill about having some type of a FISA-like drone court?

MR. CARNEY:  He was not specific about any particular idea.  What he was committing himself to is the principle that he has
demonstrated throughout this process, which was his desire to ensure that we build the legal architecture behind our counterterrorism efforts so that those efforts reflect not just our national security interests but our values and our legal system, and that we do that in consultation with Congress; that we continue that consultation with Congress and deepen it; and that we make every effort within the restraints of our national security imperatives to be public with the American people about the rationale behind our counterterrorism strategies and the legal justification behind them.

You’ve seen that in the actions taken on behalf of the President by senior administration officials in the last several years -- major speeches by John Brennan, by the Attorney General, by others where they have talked quite openly, again, within the parameters allowed by our national security, imperative about our counterterrorism efforts and the legal justification behind them.

Great to see you all. 

END  
11:09 A.M. EST

President Obama issued an Executive Order directing federal departments and agencies to use their existing authorities to provide better cybersecurity for the Nation, efforts that will by necessity involve increased collaboration with the private sector.

Alan Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, answered questions from the public about President Obama's State of the Union Address in an “Open for Questions” session moderated by Yahoo! Finance. Check it out below.

The stars of the Oscar-nominated drama joined Mrs. Obama to help teach students about the hard work required to create a beautiful movie.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here