Remarks by the President on Reducing Gun Violence -- Denver, Colorado

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Denver Police Academy
Denver, Colorado

3:19 P.M. MDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you!  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Everybody, please have a seat.  Thank you.  Well, it is wonderful to be back in Colorado.  It is wonderful to be back in Denver.  I want to thank Chief White for that introduction.  You’ve got some outstanding elected officials who are here today, and I want to acknowledge them.  First of all, a wonderful governor -- John Hickenlooper is here.  (Applause.)  He’s here somewhere.  I know, because I just talked to him.  There he is.  Next to him an outstanding lieutenant governor, Joe Garcia.  (Applause.)  One of the finest young senators in the country -- Michael Bennet is here.  (Applause.)  Terrific members of the House of Representatives -- Ed Perlmutter -- (applause) -- and Dianna Degette.  (Applause.)  And your own mayor, Michael Hancock, is here.  (Applause.) 

I want to say thank you to the Denver Police for having me here, and more importantly, for the outstanding work that all of you do each and every day to serve your communities and protect your citizens. 

Before I came out here, I had a chance to sit down with some local law enforcement, Attorney General Holder, and some of the leaders I just mentioned, the wonderful mayor of Aurora who’s here, sportsmen, parents, loved ones of the victims of the shootings in Columbine and Aurora.  And we talked about what we can do to protect more of our citizens from gun violence. 

And from the beginning of this effort, we’ve wanted law enforcement front and center in shaping this discussion and the reforms that emerge from it -- because law enforcement lives this every day.  Law enforcement are the first to see the terrible consequences of any kind of violence, certainly gun violence -- lives lost, families broken, communities that are changed forever.  They’re very often in the line of fire.  The law enforcement knows what works and what doesn’t, and so we wanted that experience and that advice. 

And it was also important for us to hear from mayors like Steve Hogan, because he’s been on the front lines having to deal with these issues under incredibly sad circumstances.  And I’ve come to Denver today in particular because Colorado is proving a model of what’s possible.

It’s now been just over 100 days since the murder of 20 innocent children and six brave educators in Newtown, Connecticut -- an event that shocked this country and I think galvanized parents all across the country to say, we’ve got to do something more to protect our kids.  But consider this:  Over those 100 days or so, more than 100 times as many Americans have fallen victim to gun violence.  More than 2,000 of our fellow citizens, struck down, often because they were just going about their daily round.  They weren’t doing anything special.  Just doing what folks do every day -- shopping, going to school.  Every day that we wait to do something about it, even more of our fellow citizens are stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.

Now, the good news is Colorado has already chosen to do something about it.  (Applause.)  Look, this is a state that has suffered the tragedy of two of the worst mass shootings in our history -- 14 years ago this month in Columbine, and just last year in Aurora.  But this is also a state that treasures its Second Amendment rights -- the state of proud hunters and sportsmen.  And, by the way, the Governor wanted me to remind everybody that there is outstanding elk hunting here in Colorado.  (Laughter.)  There’s a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s handed down from generation to generation, and it’s part of the fabric of people’s lives.  And they treat gun ownership with reverence and respect.

And so I’m here because I believe there doesn't have to be a conflict in reconciling these realities.  There doesn’t have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our Second Amendment rights.  I’ve got stacks of letters in my office from proud gun owners, whether they’re for sport, or protection, or collection, who tell me how deeply they cherish their rights, don’t want them infringed upon, but they still want us to do something to stop the epidemic of gun violence.  And I appreciate every one of those letters.  And I’ve learned from them. 

And I think that Colorado has shown that practical progress is possible thanks to the leadership of Governor Hickenlooper and some of the state legislators who are here today.  When I was talking to Steve, he mentioned that Aurora is very much a purple city.  It’s got a majority Republican city council; a majority of the state legislators are Democrat.  But they came together understanding that out of this tragedy there had to be something that made sense.  And so we’ve seen enacted tougher background checks that won’t infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.  (Applause.)

Now, in January, just a few weeks after Newtown, I put forward a series of common-sense proposals along the same lines as what’s passed here in Colorado, to reduce gun violence and keep our kids safe.  In my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to give these proposals a vote.  And, by the way, before we even asked for a vote, I had already signed numerous executive orders doing what we could administratively to make sure that guns don't fall into the hands of the wrong people.

But what I said then is still true:  If we're really going to tackle this problem seriously, then we've got to get Congress to take the next step.  And as soon as next week, they will be voting.  As soon as next week, every senator will get to vote on whether or not we should require background checks for anyone who wants to purchase a gun. 

Now, some say, well, we already have background checks.  And they're right.  Over the past 20 years, those background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.  But the loopholes that currently exist in the law have allowed way too many criminals and folks who shouldn’t be getting guns -- it has allowed them to avoid background checks entirely.  That makes it harder for law enforcement to do its job.  It's not safe.  It's not smart.  And, by the way, it's not fair to responsible gun owners who are playing by the rules.

Now, understand, nobody is talking about creating an entirely new system.  We are simply talking about plugging holes, sealing a porous system that isn't working as well as it should.  If you want to buy a gun, whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller, you should at least have to pass a background check to show you're not a criminal or someone legally prohibited from buying on.  And that’s just common sense.  (Applause.) 

During our roundtable discussion with Governor Hickenlooper, who I know was in the midst of this passionate debate about the legislation here in Colorado, and some people said, well, background checks aren't going to stop everybody.  And the Governor was the first one to acknowledge, yes, they won't stop everybody, but as he pointed out, statistically, there are a whole bunch of folks who have been stopped. 

As a consequence of background checks, law enforcement has been able to stop people who have been convicted of murder from getting a gun, people who are under restraining orders for having committed violent domestic abuse from getting a gun.  In a couple of cases the governor mentioned to me, law enforcement has actually been able to arrest people who came to pick up their gun -- (laughter) -- because they were criminals, wanted.

So this does work.  And, by the way, if you’re selling a gun, wouldn’t you want to know who you’re selling it to?  Wouldn’t you want to know?  Wouldn’t you want in your conscience to know that the person you’re selling to isn’t going to commit a crime?  (Applause.) 

So these enhanced background checks won’t stop all gun crimes, but they will certainly help prevent some.  This is common sense.  And, by the way, most gun owners -- more than 80 percent -- agree this makes sense.  More than 70 percent of NRA members agree.  Ninety percent of the American people agree.  So there’s no reason we can’t do this unless politics is getting in the way.  There’s no reason we can’t do this.

As soon as next week, every senator will get a chance to vote on a proposal to help strengthen school safety and help people struggling with mental health problems get the treatment that they need.

As soon as next week, every senator will get to vote on whether or not we should crack down on folks who buy guns as part of a scheme to arm criminals.  That would keep more guns off the streets and out of the hands of people who are intent on doing harm.  And it would make life a whole lot easier and safer for the people behind me -- police officers. 

Every senator will get a say on whether or not we should keep weapons of war and high-capacity ammunition magazines that facilitate mass killings off our streets.  The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with a high-capacity magazine, has one purpose:  to pump out as many bullets as possible, as fast as possible.  It’s what allowed that gunman to shoot 70 people and kill 12 in a matter of a few minutes.  I don’t believe that weapons designed for theaters of war have a place in movie theaters.  Most Americans agree with that.  (Applause.) 

Most of these ideas are not controversial.  Right now, 90 percent of Americans -- 90 percent -- support background checks that will keep criminals and people who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun.  More than 80 percent of Republicans agree.  Most gun owners agree.  Think about it:  How often do 90 percent of Americans agree on anything?  (Laughter.)

And yet, there are already some senators back in Washington floating the idea that they might use obscure procedural stunts to prevent or delay any of these votes on reform.  Think about that.  They’re not just saying they’ll vote “no” on the proposal that most Americans support.  They’re saying they’ll do everything they can to avoid even allowing a vote on a proposal that the overwhelming majority of the American people support.  They’re saying your opinion doesn’t matter. 

We knew from the beginning that change wouldn’t be easy.  And we knew that there would be powerful voices that would do everything they could to run out the clock, change the subject, ignore the majority of the American people.  We knew they’d try to make any progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration, or maybe people would just stop paying attention.

The only way this time will be different is if the American people demand that this time it must be different -- that this time, we must do something to protect our communities and our kids.  (Applause.)  We need parents, we need teachers, we need police officers, we need pastors, we need hunters and sportsmen, Americans of every background to say, we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue.  We’re not going to just wait for the next Newtown or the next Aurora before we act.  And I genuinely believe that’s what the overwhelming majority of Americans -- I don’t care what party they belong to -- that’s what they want.  They just want to see some progress. 

It was interesting, during the conversation, a number of people talked about the trust issue.  Part of the reason it's so hard to get this done is because both sides of the debate sometimes don't listen to each other.  The people who take absolute positions on these issues, on both sides, sometimes aren't willing to concede even an inch of ground. 

And so one of the questions we talked about was, how do you build trust?  How do you rebuild some trust?  And I told the story about two conversations I had.  The first conversation was when Michelle came back from doing some campaigning out in rural Iowa.  And we were sitting at dinner, and she had been to like a big county, a lot of driving out there, a lot of farmland.  And she said, if I was living out in a farm in Iowa, I'd probably want a gun, too.  If somebody just drives up into your driveway and you're not home -- you don't know who these people are and you don't know how long it's going to take for the sheriffs to respond.  I can see why you'd want some guns for protection.  That's one conversation.

I had another conversation just a couple of months ago with a mom from Chicago -- actually, Evanston, Illinois -- whose son had been killed in a random shooting.  And she said, you know, I hate it when people tell me that my son was shot because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  He was in the right place.  He was on his way to school.  He wasn't in the wrong place.  He was exactly where he was supposed to be. 

Now, both those things are true.  And sometimes we're so divided between rural and urban, and folks whose hunting is part of their lives and folks whose only experience with guns is street crime.  And the two sides just talk past one another.  And more than anything, what I want to just emphasize is there are good people on both sides of this thing, but we have to be able to put ourselves in the other person's shoes.  If you're a hunter, if you're a sportsman -- if you have a gun in your house for protection -- you've got to understand what it feels like for that mom whose son was randomly shot. 

And if you live in an urban area and you're worried about street crime, you've got to understand what it might be like if you grew out on a ranch and your dad had been taking you hunting all your life.  And we had a couple of sportsmen in our conversation today, and I thought one of them said something very important.  He said, all my experiences with guns have been positive, but I realize that for others, all their experiences about guns have been negative.  Well, that's a start, right?  If we start listening to each other, then we should be able to get something done that's constructive.  We should be able to get that done.  (Applause.) 

One last thing I’m going to mention is that during this conversation -- I hope you don't mind me quoting you, Joe.  Joe Garcia, I thought, also made an important point, and that is that the opponents of some of these common-sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what’s being proposed and nothing to do with the facts, but feeds into this suspicion about government. 

You hear some of these quotes:  “I need a gun to protect myself from the government.”  “We can't do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away.” 

Well, the government is us.  These officials are elected by you.  (Applause.)  They are elected by you.  I am elected by you.  I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place.  It’s a government of and by and for the people.

And so, surely, we can have a debate that's not based on the notion somehow that your elected representatives are trying to do something to you other than potentially prevent another group of families from grieving the way the families of Aurora or Newtown or Columbine have grieved.  We’ve got to get past some of the rhetoric that gets perpetuated that breaks down trust and is so over the top that it just shuts down all discussion.  And it’s important for all of us when we hear that kind of talk to say, hold on a second.  If there are any folks who are out there right now who are gun owners, and you’ve been hearing that somehow somebody is taking away your guns, get the facts.  We’re not proposing a gun registration system, we’re proposing background checks for criminals.  (Applause.)

Don't just listen to what some advocates or folks who have an interest in this thing are saying.  Look at the actual legislation.  That's what happened here in Colorado.  And hopefully, if we know the facts and we’re listening to each other, then we can actually move forward. 

And that’s what members of Congress need to hear from you.  Right now, members of Congress are at home in their districts.  Many of them are holding events where they can hear from their constituents.  So I'm asking anyone out there who is listening today, find out where your member of Congress stands on these issues.  If they're not part of the 90 percent of Americans who agree on background checks, then ask them why not.  Why wouldn’t you want to make it more difficult for a dangerous criminal to get his or her hands on a gun?  Why wouldn’t you want to close the loophole that allows too many criminals to buy a gun without even the simplest of background checks?  Why on Earth wouldn’t you want to make it easier rather than harder for law enforcement to do their job?

I know that some of the officers here today know what it's like to look into the eyes of a parent or a grandparent, a brother or a sister, or a spouse who has just lost a loved one to an act of violence.  Some of those families, by the way, are here today.  And as police officers, you know as well as anybody, there is no magic solution to prevent every bad thing from happening in the world.  You still suit up, you put on your badge, put yourself at risk every single day.  Every single day, you go to work and you try to do the best you can to protect the people you're sworn to protect and serve.  Well, how can the rest of us as citizens do anything less?

If there is just one step we can take to prevent more Americans from knowing the pain that some of the families who are here have known, don’t we have an obligation to try?  Don’t we have an obligation to try?  (Applause.)  If these reforms keep one person from murdering dozens of innocent children or worshippers or moviegoers in a span of minutes, isn't it worth fighting for?  (Applause.)  I believe it is.  That’s why I'm going to keep on working.  I'm going to keep on giving it my best efforts.  But I'm going to need your help. 

This is not easy.  And I'll be blunt -- a lot of members of Congress, this is tough for them.  Because those who are opposed to any form of legislation affecting guns, they're very well-organized and they're very well-financed.  But it can be done if enough voices are heard.

So I want to thank all the police officers who are here for giving their best efforts every single day.  (Applause.)  I want to thank Governor Hickenlooper for his outstanding leadership.  (Applause.)  I want to thank all the families who are here for your courage in being willing to take out of this tragedy something positive.  I want to thank the people of Colorado for coming together in sensible ways.  (Applause.)  Let's see if we can get the whole country to do so.

Thank you, Denver.  God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

                                  END                3:45 P.M. MDT

President Obama tell the American people about the budget he is sending to Congress, which makes the tough choices required to grow our economy and shrink our deficits

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

President Obama marks the end of the Easter season with a prayer breakfast at the White House.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Denver, Colorado, 4/3/2013

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Denver, Colorado, 4/3/2013 | 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 Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Rural Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Technology Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Violence Prevention Women Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden Being Biden Audio Series First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 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

Take A Virtual Tour

View the Residence, East Wing and West Wing

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 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House 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 • Press Briefings   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release April 03, 2013 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Denver, Colorado, 4/3/2013

 

Aboard Air Force OneEn Route Denver, Colorado  2:14 P.M. EDT MR. CARNEY:  Thanks for joining us today on our flight to Denver, where, as you know, the President will be meeting with law enforcement officials and others at the Denver Police Academy where he will discuss the need for Congress to act on common-sense measures to reduce the scourge of gun violence in America.   I think you can expect that he will note that the legislation he supports that has been moving through Congress represents real, sensible, middle-of-the-road attempts to address this problem; that nothing he supports would in any way violate the Second Amendment rights of the American people, the Second Amendment rights that the President strongly supports. One provision that he supports -- the effort to close loopholes in our background check system -- is supported by over 90 percent of the American people, by vast majorities of Republicans and Democrats and independents, by a substantial majority of gun owners, and a substantial majority of members of the NRA.   He has made clear in his effort, his concerted effort, to move forward with these measures since the Newtown tragedy; that it is imperative the elected officials of the American people allow all of these measures to come to a vote -- and, in his view, to vote for them -- but at the very least, to allow them to come to a vote.  Because if you disagree with 90 percent of the American people on background checks, you ought to vote no, and not oppose -- not use parliamentary maneuvers to prevent a vote.  That’s the President’s view.   In any case, he looks forward to this event.  As you know, he will be going to Connecticut on Monday to continue this conversation.   Q    When the President insists on these votes, particularly on assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines, is it because he thinks that there is a price to pay for voting no?  And isn’t there just as well a price to pay by some members of Congress, some Democrats, for voting yes on those issues? MR. CARNEY:  Jim, there are definitely political issues involved in this.  This has always been the case.  But the President doesn’t look at this through a political lens.  He’s not asking for a vote for political reasons, he’s asking for a vote because the victims of Newtown and of Aurora and Virginia Tech, and the countless lesser-known victims of gun violence across America deserve at least a vote.  And the kids who were killed -- the 20 children who were killed in Newtown, they weren’t Republicans or Democrats; they didn’t care, and their parents don’t care about the political implications of voting yes or no on these bills.  They want things done that give other children more protection from this kind of violence, and that includes every measure that the President supports.  Q    Any reaction to reports that current and former cops think that today’s Denver venue is not the right place to have a speech? MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, obviously people have a variety of views on these issues across America.  I think it’s irrefutable that a majority of law enforcement professionals in America support common-sense measures that are at issue now and subject to votes in Congress.  I don't think anybody would argue with that. I think most law enforcement officials agree that closing loopholes in our background check system assists them in their job to protect the American people from gun violence.  If you're opposed to taking measures to prevent criminals from getting weapons, vote no and explain why.  Most police officers, law enforcement officers support the idea that we ought to take measures to ensure that the system that already exists is actually effective so that those who by law should not have weapons cannot obtain them.  It’s a pretty simple proposition. Q    How do you fight the perception, though, that these measures are losing steam in Congress?  MR. CARNEY:  I think perceptions are one thing, reality is another.  And the fact is we are moving forward with Congress and are in regular conversation with members and staff from both parties about how to move forward.  And the President is committed to pressing this agenda because it’s the right thing to do for our children and all the potential victims of gun violence in the country.  I think that as I said the other day and the President has made clear, he never believed and we never suggested that any of this would be easy.  There’s a reason why these kinds of actions have not succeeded for many years now.  There are a variety of reasons why.  But it is incumbent upon every elected official sent to Washington to address this challenge, this scourge, and to -- he believes -- do the common-sense things that can help save the lives of our children in the future. Q    But there’s a difference, isn’t there, between saying this isn’t going to be easy and counting votes.  And the votes for a lot of these things aren’t there. MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, the votes haven’t happened, first of all.  Secondly, if the votes were there, Jeff, they would have been voted and done and signed into law a long time ago.  That's why a process like this exists.  That’s why negotiations are ongoing on a variety of pieces of this proposal in an effort to try to find the votes necessary.  And, unfortunately, it is, as we've said many times, a feature of our system now that everything in the Senate is subject to a filibuster.  And what the President has said I think very clearly is that it would be shameful to not allow any one of these measures to come up to a vote.   Q    You talked about parliamentary procedures.  Would you consider a filibuster an illegitimate procedure?  I mean, it is part of the rules. MR. CARNEY:  I didn’t say it wasn't part of the rules.  I said that the victims of Newtown -- the 20 kids and the 6 educators who lost their lives -- deserve a vote.  And that if you want to vote no, vote no.  Don’t block a vote.  That’s not doing service to the memory of these kids.   Q    You said that -- you have emphasized that the President doesn’t mean to impinge on anyone's Second Amendment rights, but there are a lot of people out there who believe that he does.  And if I'm not mistaken, Saturday is the five-year anniversary of his speech in San Francisco where he talked about small-town Americans clinging to guns and religion.  What about the optics of going there right after this event in Denver to call attention to his views on guns? MR. CARNEY:  As you know, and as everyone who is an expert on this issue can attest, there is not a single thing that the President has proposed that would take a single firearm away from a single law-abiding citizen in America.  This President supports our Second Amendment rights.  The proposals he put forward -- like banning military-style assault weapons, like limiting high-capacity ammunition clips -- these are proposals that in no way infringe upon Second Amendment rights, and, again, would not take any firearm away from any law enforcement -- law-abiding citizen. When it comes to straw purchases -- I mean, again, this is about enforcing the law.  If you have individuals who are routinely buying weapons as straw purchasers on behalf of criminals who cannot buy weapons themselves because of their criminal record, that’s a violation of the law, and we ought to take action to ensure that the law is enforced.  That seems like a very common-sense, conservative principle to me, as does the idea that the background check system that already exists should be improved so that loopholes are closed that make sure that it does what it was intended to do, and that is ensure that those with criminal records and others who by law should not be allowed to, or are not allowed to purchase weapons cannot circumvent the law because of the loopholes in the system. Q    Does the President see Colorado as a model for other states after the legislation that they passed here? MR. CARNEY:  The President believes that actions in Colorado, the actions underway in Connecticut do represent important progress on these issues, and I think are useful models to look at as we undertake efforts in Washington. Q    Do you know which lawmakers are going to be at the event? MR. CARNEY:  I don’t.  I can try -- if I can find out, I’ll get that for you. Q    There’s a report that Senator Bennet would be there, but the other senator wouldn’t. MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don’t know.  I’ll have to find out, or we may find out when we get there. Q    On a different subject.  The President and Mrs. Obama are going to Dallas for the Bush Library opening.  Can you tell me how that decision came about, how excited he is about going to Dallas to do this?  What will be on his mind? MR. CARNEY:  He’s very pleased to be going, and looks forward to it.  The office of the President of the United States is a pretty rare position to hold, and only those who have held it can fully appreciate what it means to be President of the United States.  And he shares in common with President George W. Bush a love, a deep love for his country, and appreciates President Bush’s service, and looks forward to being there with him as well as President George H. W. Bush and Presidents Clinton and Carter. Q    Jay, on Keystone pipeline.  One of his hosts today at the fundraiser in San Francisco is an active opponent of the Keystone pipeline -- Tom Steyer.  There are also going to be protests planned outside the Getty mansion tonight.  I guess I’ll try a third time on the Arkansas spill:  Have you had a chance to talk to the President about that spill?  And how does it affect -- how does the Utah spill affect his thinking on the Keystone pipeline, and what would he tell his hosts today if that issue comes up? MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not going to preview hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions.  What I will say is that there are procedures in place -- Q    The answers wouldn’t be hypothetical, the questions would be.  The answers would be answers to the hypothetical. MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the whole thing would be hypothetical, Hans, but thank you for your -- Q    I’m just clarifying. MR. CARNEY:  I think you’re muddying, actually, but thanks. Q    No, you hide behind this hypothetical thing all the time. MR. CARNEY:  He asked me, if he’s asked, what would he say? Q    Right, but what he’d say would be his answer.  The “if” is the hypothetical. MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, the question hasn’t been asked.  He’s not here to give the answer to the hypothetical. Q    -- to the question is the hypothetical. MR. CARNEY:  Thank you for your assistance in the briefing, Hans.  As you know, when an incident like what has happened in Arkansas occurs, there are procedures in place.  The EPA takes the lead; the responsible party is held responsible, as is the case in this situation.  When it comes to Keystone, that is a process, as we’ve discussed many times, that is evaluated at the State Department, as has been the case for many, many years under multiple presidencies, and as is appropriate given the fact that it is a pipeline that crosses international borders.  And that process is underway, as you know. Q    But do incidents such as Arkansas, such as the spill in Utah, inform the decision-making? MR. CARNEY:  Again, the evaluation of these proposals is made at the State Department.  You can certainly ask the State Department about whether any incidents, present or past, what those incidents have in terms of an impact on their evaluation process.  I think there are standards that are followed in this evaluation process that are being followed today at the State Department, but the State Department is the location where this process takes place. Q    Is the decision of the administration at all influenced by people like Mr. Steyer, who is hosting the President today?  Is it at all influenced by the protest and demonstrators that the President sees? MR. CARNEY:  Look, I think we’ve seen over time that there are strongly held views on this issue, on both sides.  And the President is following a process that has been in place for quite some time, through multiple administrations of both parties, and that is the way it should be.  As you know, the process was delayed because of a political action by Congress, but the -- nevertheless, the process is underway and being undertaken by the State Department. Q    Are there any updates, Jay, on North Korea and monitoring of the North Korea situation? MR. CARNEY:  Well, we continue to monitor the situation.  The provocative actions and bellicose rhetoric that we see from North Korea is obviously of concern, and we take -- are taking the necessary precautionary measures, many of which have been reported on.  It is also the case that the behavior of the regime in Pyongyang that we are seeing now has a -- represents a familiar pattern, and as I think we’ve seen over the past several administrations.   So we are taking the necessary precautionary measures, but it is important to view this within the context of the kind of behavior that we’ve seen out of North Korea in the past.  And it’s important to say that, in every instance, this refusal to abide by its international obligations and to engage in threats and provocative rhetoric and behavior only serves to isolate North Korea further, to make it more and more difficult for the North Korean economy to develop, and imposes more and more hardships on the North Korean people.   North Korea knows the path that's available to it -- the regime does -- and that is a path towards greater integration in the international community, stronger economic development, and better prospects for the North Korean people if they take substantive steps towards denuclearization and abide by the series of international obligations that they are currently flouting. Q    Jay, I don’t know if you were asked this in the past few days.  But on immigration, Senator Leahy is saying he is calling for, once a bill is introduced by the Gang of Eight, that he wants to accelerate the process, to mark it up, and then advance it to the Senate floor.  Marco Rubio is calling for regular order -- wants hearings, wants more hearings.  He says we need to make sure that we really understand this bill.  What is the administration's view?  Do you believe that, like Senator Leahy, you have to move as fast as possible on this thing, because otherwise it could just die in the Senate because of it just being drawn out, and that we shouldn't go through regular order just because we've already had enough hearings over the past several years? MR. CARNEY:  I think the characterization of regular order here has to be understood within the context of the fact that this legislation in essence has been on the table and subject to debate in the United States Congress for many years now.  The basic outlines of what has been under consideration and is being worked on by the Gang of Eight and has been proposed by the President reflects legislation that was considered in Congress, in 2006, 2007, I believe.   Senator Leahy, as I understand it -- and I would refer you to him and his statements -- has held multiple hearings on this issue.  And the Gang of Eight and all of its members are the ones writing the legislation, which the President obviously believes is a good thing.  And the progress that they have made thus far is also a good thing.   So I leave it to and we leave it to the Chairman and other leaders in the Senate to decide on the process they want to follow.  But the President has made clear that he believes there is no reason to delay this process.  There is no reason to postpone it.  And he has been encouraged by the progress thus far, and hopes and expects that that progress will continue, and that it will result in the production of a bill and the consideration of the bill and a vote on the bill. Q    Now Rubio and other Republicans are saying, wait a minute, why rush it -- if it's good legislation, doesn't it deserve the test of scrutiny, of talking -- it is a new Congress.  The country has changed in the past six years; don't we want to talk it over and look at it more, possibly offer other amendments, make it better.  Do you fear that it would just get killed if it's going to be dragged out?  Is that the problem?  Or is it that people are being deported and you need to get this on the books and end the deportations that the administration is carrying out? MR. CARNEY:  Again, as veterans of the Senate know, this issue has been under consideration at very serious levels periodically for a long time now.  There is a great need to act on comprehensive immigration reform and a great opportunity to do it now, as the President has made clear.  It has been in the past, and seems to be now, a bipartisan priority.  And that is as it should be, in the President's view.   And he has been encouraged by and welcomes the progress being made by the bipartisan Group of Eight.  He has contributed to this process through the blueprint that has been available publicly for a long time now that outlines his principles when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform, and again, looks forward to further progress by the Senate, and action -- and consideration of the bill and action on the bill. Q    Jay, on another -- one last thing.  There’s a new independent report today -- among its leaders are Senator Sam Nunn -- and it says that the U.S. and Russia need to gradually take their nuclear weapons off ready-to-launch status.  I was wondering if you were familiar with that, if the President is familiar with it.  Does he endorse that idea?   MR. CARNEY:  I am not familiar with it.  I am obviously familiar with the very important work that former Senator Nunn and former Senator Lugar have done on the issues of proliferation and reduction of nuclear arsenals, but I’m not familiar with this report.   END2:35 P.M. EDT

Blog posts on this issue April 06, 2013 5:30 AM EDTWeekly Address: The President’s Plan to Create Jobs and Cut the Deficit

President Obama tell the American people about the budget he is sending to Congress, which makes the tough choices required to grow our economy and shrink our deficits

April 05, 2013 4:42 PM EDTWeekly Wrap Up: “We Have Not Forgotten”

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

April 05, 2013 4:00 PM EDTPresident Obama Marks the End of Easter Season at Prayer Breakfast

President Obama marks the end of the Easter season with a prayer breakfast at the White House.

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 Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Rural Taxes Technology Urban Policy Veterans Violence Prevention Women 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

Denver Post Defends Front Page Picture Of Gay Speaker Kissing

Photo Credit: Craig F. Walker, The Denver Post

The Denver Post commemorated yesterday’s passage of civil unions in Colorado’s House with a front-page picture of Speaker Mark Ferrandino (D) kissing his partner Greg Wertsch — complete with a bottle of formula on the desk that belongs to their foster child. Anticipating negative reactions from readers, the editors published a defense for running the picture, arguing that it “shows the truth, no matter how objectionable”:

One of the missions as journalists is to take our readers where they can’t go, and the speaker’s office is definitely one of those places. Ferrandino, who is gay, has been fighting to get this bill passed for at least the last three years, and he spoke eloquently on the subject while the bill was being debated. So it made sense to get his perspective. [...]

We have received objections to our photographs of gay couples before, so we all knew there would likely be a negative reaction to running the picture of Ferrandino. The civil unions vote was historic for Colorado and celebrating it was not a surprise. That led one editor to note, “We have no issues showing a straight couple kissing on election night.”

Another detail that made the photo so compelling was the baby bottle on Ferrandino’s desk. It belongs to the foster child he and his partner have; given that the civil unions bill offered protections for children and families, it was another element that gave context.

There is a difference between a picture that people object to and an “objectionable” photo. It’s disappointing that the editorial board thought the decision was “difficult.” Indeed, the one editor’s observation is key: it’s not kissing that people object to — it’s homosexuality . What has proven to be one the most effective ways to shift people’s opinions on gay rights is knowing gay people and learning about their lives and their families. No number of objections changes the reality that the Speaker of the Colorado House is a gay man with a loving partner and child; and reporting on reality is never a difficult decision.

View the original article here