tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89427599165981503412024-03-12T19:42:00.876-07:00Presidential PoliticsUnited States political journal containing speech transcripts, photos, editorial and archives of historical documents relating to the Presidency of the United States.Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.comBlogger333125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-24991782804754080132013-06-09T03:05:00.001-07:002013-06-09T03:05:20.372-07:00United States Addresses $250 million Egytian Funding in Press Conference<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<h2>
U.S. Assistance to Egypt</h2>
</div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
</div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Taken Question</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Office of the Spokesperson</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Washington, DC</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/06/210413.htm" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">Question Taken at the June 7, 2013 Daily Press Briefing</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
June 8, 2013</div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<hr style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<b>QUESTION:</b> How much is the U.S. obligated to provide to Egypt under the Camp David Accords? Does the FY2013 Foreign Military Financing amount include the $250 million the Secretary pledged in Cairo?<br />
<b>ANSWER:</b> The United States is not obligated to provide assistance to Egypt. We provide assistance because it serves U.S. national interests in a crucial and volatile region.<br />
The $250 million that Secretary Kerry announced in Cairo included $190 million in budget support and $60 million for the Egyptian-American Enterprise Fund, which is an independent, private nonprofit entity. Both are funded out of Economic Support Funds. The $250 million did not include any Foreign Military Financing. We will continue to work closely with Congress to determine how best to assist the Egyptian people and promote Egypt’s democratization and its economic stabilization and development, as well as our regional security interests.</div>
Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-44384904995763292142012-12-17T03:00:00.001-08:002012-12-17T03:00:54.573-08:00President Obama's Remarks at Sandy Hook Interfaith Prayer Vigil<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mIA0W69U2_Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
Remarks by the President at Sandy Hook Interfaith Prayer Vigil<br />
<br />
Newtown High School<br />
<br />
Newtown, Connecticut<br />
<br />
8:37 P.M. EST<br />
<br />
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you, Governor. To all the families, first responders, to the community of Newtown, clergy, guests -- Scripture tells us: “…do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away…inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.”<br />
<br />
We gather here in memory of twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults. They lost their lives in a school that could have been any school; in a quiet town full of good and decent people that could be any town in America.<br />
<br />
Here in Newtown, I come to offer the love and prayers of a nation. I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts. I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief; that our world too has been torn apart; that all across this land of ours, we have wept with you, we’ve pulled our children tight. And you must know that whatever measure of comfort we can provide, we will provide; whatever portion of sadness that we can share with you to ease this heavy load, we will gladly bear it. Newtown -- you are not alone.<br />
<br />
As these difficult days have unfolded, you’ve also inspired us with stories of strength and resolve and sacrifice. We know that when danger arrived in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary, the school’s staff did not flinch, they did not hesitate. Dawn Hochsprung and Mary Sherlach, Vicki Soto, Lauren Rousseau, Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy -- they responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances -- with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.<br />
<br />
We know that there were other teachers who barricaded themselves inside classrooms, and kept steady through it all, and reassured their students by saying “wait for the good guys, they’re coming”; “show me your smile.” <br />
<br />
And we know that good guys came. The first responders who raced to the scene, helping to guide those in harm’s way to safety, and comfort those in need, holding at bay their own shock and trauma because they had a job to do, and others needed them more.<br />
<br />
And then there were the scenes of the schoolchildren, helping one another, holding each other, dutifully following instructions in the way that young children sometimes do; one child even trying to encourage a grown-up by saying, “I know karate. So it’s okay. I’ll lead the way out.” (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
As a community, you’ve inspired us, Newtown. In the face of indescribable violence, in the face of unconscionable evil, you’ve looked out for each other, and you’ve cared for one another, and you’ve loved one another. This is how Newtown will be remembered. And with time, and God’s grace, that love will see you through.<br />
<br />
But we, as a nation, we are left with some hard questions. Someone once described the joy and anxiety of parenthood as the equivalent of having your heart outside of your body all the time, walking around. With their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves -- our child -- is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice. And every parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm. And yet, we also know that with that child’s very first step, and each step after that, they are separating from us; that we won’t -- that we can’t always be there for them. They’ll suffer sickness and setbacks and broken hearts and disappointments. And we learn that our most important job is to give them what they need to become self-reliant and capable and resilient, ready to face the world without fear. <br />
<br />
And we know we can’t do this by ourselves. It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself. That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation. And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children. <br />
<br />
This is our first task -- caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.<br />
<br />
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children -- all of them -- safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?<br />
<br />
I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change.<br />
<br />
Since I’ve been President, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting. The fourth time we’ve hugged survivors. The fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims. And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and big cities all across America -- victims whose -- much of the time, their only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.<br />
<br />
We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law -- no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.<br />
<br />
But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that -- then surely we have an obligation to try. <br />
<br />
In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens -- from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators -- in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?<br />
<br />
All the world’s religions -- so many of them represented here today -- start with a simple question: Why are we here? What gives our life meaning? What gives our acts purpose? We know our time on this Earth is fleeting. We know that we will each have our share of pleasure and pain; that even after we chase after some earthly goal, whether it’s wealth or power or fame, or just simple comfort, we will, in some fashion, fall short of what we had hoped. We know that no matter how good our intentions, we will all stumble sometimes, in some way. We will make mistakes, we will experience hardships. And even when we’re trying to do the right thing, we know that much of our time will be spent groping through the darkness, so often unable to discern God’s heavenly plans. <br />
<br />
There’s only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have -- for our children, for our families, for each other. The warmth of a small child’s embrace -- that is true. The memories we have of them, the joy that they bring, the wonder we see through their eyes, that fierce and boundless love we feel for them, a love that takes us out of ourselves, and binds us to something larger -- we know that’s what matters. We know we’re always doing right when we’re taking care of them, when we’re teaching them well, when we’re showing acts of kindness. We don’t go wrong when we do that. <br />
<br />
That’s what we can be sure of. And that’s what you, the people of Newtown, have reminded us. That’s how you’ve inspired us. You remind us what matters. And that’s what should drive us forward in everything we do, for as long as God sees fit to keep us on this Earth.<br />
<br />
“Let the little children come to me,” Jesus said, “and do not hinder them -- for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”<br />
<br />
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison. <br />
<br />
God has called them all home. For those of us who remain, let us find the strength to carry on, and make our country worthy of their memory.<br />
<br />
May God bless and keep those we’ve lost in His heavenly place. May He grace those we still have with His holy comfort. And may He bless and watch over this community, and the United States of America. (Applause.)<br />
<br />
END 8:55 P.M. EST Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-53977711067216171012012-11-16T02:17:00.000-08:002012-11-16T02:17:14.257-08:00President Barack Obama's Press Conference (1st Since Re-election)<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/01zClkV1n24" width="560"></iframe><br />
<h2 class="transcript-title" style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.333em; font-weight: normal; margin: 20px 0px 5px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: center;">
<br />
</h2>
<h2 class="transcript-title" style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.333em; font-weight: normal; margin: 20px 0px 5px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: center;">
Remarks by President Barack Obama in a News Conference</h2>
<div>
(1st Public Appearance Since Winning 2nd Term Election Bid)</div>
<div class="rtecenter" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
East Room</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
1:34 P.M. EST</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Please have a seat. I hear you have some questions for me. (Laughter.) But let me just make a few remarks at the top, and then I'll open it up.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
First of all, I want to reiterate what I said on Friday. Right now, our economy is still recovering from a very deep and damaging crisis, so our top priority has to be jobs and growth. We’ve got to build on the progress that we’ve made, because this nation succeeds when we’ve got a growing, thriving middle class. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And that’s the idea at the core of the plan that I talked about on the campaign trail over the last year: Rewarding manufacturers and small businesses that create jobs here, not overseas; providing more Americans the chance to earn the skills that businesses are looking for right now; keeping this country at the forefront of research, technology, and clean energy; putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges, and our schools; and reducing our deficit in a balanced and responsible way.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Now, on this last item, we face a very clear deadline that requires us to make some big decisions on jobs, taxes and deficits by the end of the year. Both parties voted to set this deadline. And I believe that both parties can work together to make these decisions in a balanced and responsible way. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Yesterday, I had a chance to meet with labor and civic leaders for their input. Today, I’m meeting with CEOs of some of America’s largest companies. And I’ll meet with leaders of both parties of Congress before the week is out. Because there’s only one way to solve these challenges, and that is to do it together.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
As I’ve said before, I’m open to compromise and I’m open to new ideas. And I’ve been encouraged over the past week to hear Republican after Republican agree on the need for more revenue from the wealthiest Americans as part of our arithmetic if we’re going to be serious about reducing the deficit. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Because when it comes to taxes, there are two pathways available: Option one, if Congress fails to act by the end of the year, everybody’s taxes will automatically go up -- including the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 a year and the 97 percent of small businesses who earn less than $250,000 a year. That doesn’t make sense. Our economy can’t afford that right now. Certainly no middle-class family can afford that right now. And nobody in either party says that they want it to happen.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
The other option is to pass a law right now that would prevent any tax hike whatsoever on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. And by the way, that means every American, including the wealthiest Americans, get a tax cut. It means that 98 percent of all Americans, and 97 percent of all small businesses won’t see their taxes go up a single dime. The Senate has already passed a law like this. Democrats in the House are ready to pass a law like this. And I hope Republicans in the House come on board, too. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
We should not hold the middle class hostage while we debate tax cuts for the wealthy. We should at least do what we agree on, and that's to keep middle-class taxes low. And I’ll bring everyone in to sign it right away so we can give folks some certainty before the holiday season.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
I won’t pretend that figuring out everything else will be easy, but I'm confident we can do it -- and I know we have to. I know that that's what the American people want us to do. That was the very clear message from the election last week. And that was the message of a letter that I received over the weekend. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
It came from a man in Tennessee who began by writing that he didn’t vote for me -- which is okay. (Laughter.) But what he said was even though he didn’t give me his vote, he’s giving me his support to move this country forward. And he said the same to his Republican representatives in Washington. He said that he’ll back each of us, regardless of party, as long as we work together to make life better for all of us. And he made it clear that if we don’t make enough progress, he’ll be back in touch. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
“My hope,” he wrote, “is that we can make progress in light of personal and party principles, special interest groups, and years of business as usual. We’ve got to work together and put our differences aside.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
I couldn't say it better myself. That’s precisely what I intend to do. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And with that, let me open it up for your questions. And I'm going to start off with Ben Feller of AP.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Can you assure the American people that there have been no breaches of national security or classified information in the scandal involving Generals Petraeus and Allen? And do you think that you as Commander-in-Chief and the American people should have been told that the CIA chief was under investigation before the election?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have no evidence at this point from what I've seen that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Obviously there’s an ongoing investigation. I don't want to comment on the specifics of the investigation. The FBI has its own protocols in terms of how they proceed, and I'm going to let Director Mueller and others examine those protocols and make some statements to the public generally.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
I do want to emphasize what I’ve said before: General Petraeus had an extraordinary career. He served this country with great distinction in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and as head of the CIA. By his own assessment, he did not meet the standards that he felt were necessary as the Director of CIA with respect to this personal matter that he is now dealing with, with his family and with his wife. And it’s on that basis that he tendered his resignation, and it’s on that basis that I accepted it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
But I want to emphasize that from my perspective at least, he has provided this country an extraordinary service. We are safer because of the work that Dave Petraeus has done. And my main hope right now is, is that he and his family are able to move on and that this ends up being a single side note on what has otherwise been an extraordinary career.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q What about voters? Did they deserve to know?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Again, I think you’re going to have to talk to the FBI in terms of what their general protocols are when it comes to what started off as a potential criminal investigation. One of the challenges here is, is that we’re not supposed to meddle in criminal investigations, and that’s been our practice. And I think that there are certain procedures that both the FBI follow, or DOJ follow, when they’re involved in these investigations. That’s traditionally been how we view things, in part because people are innocent until proven guilty, and we want to make sure that we don’t pre-judge these kinds of situations. And so my expectation is, is that they followed protocols that they already established.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Jessica Yellin. Where’s Jessica?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Mr. President, on the fiscal cliff, two years ago, sir, you said that you wouldn’t extend the Bush-era tax cuts, but at the end of the day, you did. So, respectfully, sir, why should the American people and the Republicans believe that you won’t cave again this time?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Well, two years ago, the economy was in a different situation. We were still very much in the early parts of recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And ultimately, we came together not only to extend the Bush tax cuts, but also a wide range of policies that were going to be good for the economy at that point -- unemployment insurance extensions, payroll tax extension -- all of which made a difference, and is part of the reason why what we've seen now is 32 consecutive months of job growth and over 5.5 million jobs created and the unemployment rate coming down.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
But what I said at the time is what I meant, which is this was a one-time proposition. And what I have told leaders privately as well as publicly is that we cannot afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. What we can do is make sure that middle-class taxes don’t go up. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And so the most important step we can take right now -- I think the foundation for a deal that helps the economy, creates jobs, gives consumers certainty, which means gives businesses confidence that they're going to have consumers during the holiday season -- is if we right away say 98 percent of Americans are not going to see their taxes go up; 97 percent of small businesses are not going to see their taxes go up. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
If we get that in place, we are actually removing half of the fiscal cliff. Half of the danger to our economy is removed by that single step. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And what we can then do is shape a process whereby we look at tax reform -- which I'm very eager to do. I think we can simplify our tax system. I think we can make it more efficient. We can eliminate loopholes and deductions that have a distorting effect on our economy. I believe that we have to continue to take a serious look at how we reform our entitlements, because health care costs continue to be the biggest driver of our deficits.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
So there is a package to be shaped, and I'm confident that parties -- folks of goodwill in both parties can make that happen. But what I'm not going to do is to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent that we can't afford, and according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q You've said that the wealthiest must pay more. Would closing loopholes instead of raising rates for them satisfy you?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: I think that there are loopholes that can be closed, and we should look at how we can make the process of deductions, the filing process easier, simpler. But when it comes to the top 2 percent, what I’m not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don’t need it, which would cost close to a trillion dollars. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And it’s very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars -- if we’re serious about deficit reduction -- just by closing loopholes and deductions. The math tends not to work. And I think it’s important to establish a basic principle that was debated extensively during the course of this campaign. I mean, this shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. If there was one thing that everybody understood was a big difference between myself and Mr. Romney, it was when it comes to how we reduce our deficit, I argued for a balanced, responsible approach, and part of that included making sure that the wealthiest Americans pay a little bit more. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
I think every voter out there understood that that was an important debate, and the majority of voters agreed with me. By the way, more voters agreed with me on this issue than voted for me. So we’ve got a clear majority of the American people who recognize if we’re going to be serious about deficit reduction, we’ve got to do it in a balanced way. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
The only question now is are we going to hold the middle class hostage in order to go ahead and let that happen? Or can we all step back and say, here’s something we agree on -- we don’t want middle-class taxes to go up. Let’s go ahead and lock that in. That will be good for the economy. It will be good for consumers. It will be good for businesses. It takes the edge off the fiscal cliff. And let’s also then commit ourselves to the broader package of deficit reduction that includes entitlement changes and it includes potentially tax reform, as well as I’m willing to look at additional work that we can do on the discretionary spending side.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
So I want a big deal. I want a comprehensive deal. I want to see if we can, at least for the foreseeable future, provide certainty to businesses and the American people so that we can focus on job growth, so that we’re also investing in the things that we need. But right now what I want to make sure of is that taxes on middle-class families don’t go up. And there’s a very easy way to do that. We could get that done by next week.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Lori Montenegro, Telemundo.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Thank you, Mr. President. On immigration reform, the criticism in the past has been that you did not put forth legislation with specific ideas and send it up to the Hill. This time around you have said again that this will be one of the top priorities for a second term. Will you then send legislation to the Hill? And exactly what do you envision is broad immigration reform? Does that include a legalization program? And also, what lessons, if any, did Democrats learn from this last election and the Latino vote?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think what was incredibly encouraging was to see a significant increase in Latino turnout. It is the fastest-growing group in the country. And historically what you’ve seen is the Latino vote, vote at lower rates than the broader population, and that's beginning to change. You're starting to see a sense of empowerment and civic participation that I think is going to be powerful and good for the country.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And it is why I’m very confident that we can get immigration reform done. Before the election I had given a couple interviews where I predicted that the Latino vote was going to be strong, and that that would cause some reflection on the part of Republicans about their position on immigration reform. I think we’re starting to see that already. I think that's a positive sign.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
This has not historically been a partisan issue -- we’ve had President Bush and John McCain and others who have supported comprehensive immigration reform in the past. So we need to seize the moment. And my expectation is, is that we get a bill introduced and we begin the process in Congress very soon after my inauguration. And in fact, some conversations I think are already beginning to take place among senators and congressmen and my staff about what would this look like.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And when I say comprehensive immigration reform, it is very similar to the outlines of previous efforts at comprehensive immigration reform. I think it should include a continuation of the strong border security measures that we’ve taken because we have to secure our borders. I think it should contain serious penalties for companies that are purposely hiring undocumented workers and taking advantage of them. And I do think that there should be a pathway for legal status for those who are living in this country, are not engaged in criminal activity, are here simply to work. It’s important for them to pay back-taxes. It’s important for them to learn English. It’s important for them to potentially pay a fine. But to give them the avenue whereby they can resolve their legal status here in this country I think is very important.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Obviously, making sure that we put into law what the first step that we’ve taken administratively dealing with the DREAM Act kids is very important as well. One thing that I’m very clear about is that young people who are brought here through no fault of their own, who have gone to school here, pledged allegiance to our flag, want to serve in our military, want to go to school and contribute to our society, that they shouldn’t be under the cloud of deportation, that we should give them every opportunity to earn their citizenship.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And so there are other components to it, obviously. The business community continues to be concerned about getting enough high-skill workers, and I am a believer that if you’ve got a PhD in physics or computer science who wants to stay here and start a business here, we shouldn’t make it harder for him to stay here; we should try to encourage him to contribute to this society. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
I think that the agricultural sector obviously has very specific concerns about making sure that they’ve got a workforce that helps deliver food to our tables. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
So there are going to be a bunch of components to it, but I think whatever process we have needs to make sure our border security is strong, needs to deal with employers effectively, needs to provide a pathway for the undocumented here, needs to deal with the DREAM Act kids. And I think that’s something that we can get done.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Chuck Todd. Where’s Chuck?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Mr. President, I just want to follow on both Ben’s question and Jessica’s question. On having to do with Ben’s question --</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: How about Lori’s question? Do you want to follow up on that one, too? (Laughter.)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q No, I feel like you answered that one completely. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Are you withholding judgment on whether you should have known sooner that there was a potential -- that there was an investigation into whether your CIA Director -- potentially there was a national security breach with your CIA Director -- do you believe you should have known sooner? Are you withholding judgment until the investigation is complete on that front? </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And then the follow-up to Jessica’s question -- tax rates. Are you -- is there no deal at the end of the year if tax rates for the top 2 percent aren’t the Clinton tax rates, period? No ifs, ands, or buts -- any room in negotiating on that specific aspect of the fiscal cliff?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: I am withholding judgment with respect to how the entire process surrounding General Petraeus came up. We don’t have all the information yet, but I want to say that I have a lot of confidence generally in the FBI, and they’ve got a difficult job. And so I’m going to wait and see to see if there’s any other --</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q -- that you should have known? Do you think in hindsight --</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, Chuck, what I’ll say is, is that if -- it is also possible that had we been told, then you’d be sitting here asking a question about why were you interfering in a criminal investigation. So I think it’s best right now for us to just see how this whole process unfolded.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
With respect to the tax rates, I just want to emphasize I am open to new ideas. If Republican counterparts or some Democrats have a great idea for us to raise revenue, maintain progressivity, make sure the middle class isn’t getting hit, reduces our deficit, encourages growth, I’m not going to just slam the door in their face. I want to hear ideas from everybody.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q -- red line.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Look, I believe this is solvable. I think that fair-minded people can come to an agreement that does not cause the economy to go back into recession, that protects middle-class families, that focuses on jobs and growth, and reduces our deficit. I’m confident it can be done.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
My budget, frankly, does it. I understand that -- I don’t expect the Republicans simply to adopt my budget. That’s not realistic. So I recognize that we're going to have to compromise. And as I said on Election Night, compromise is hard, and not everybody gets 100 percent of what they want and not everybody is going to be perfectly happy.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
But what I will not do is to have a process that is vague, that says we're going to sort of, kind of, raise revenue through dynamic scoring or closing loopholes that have not been identified. And the reason I won't do that is because I don’t want to find ourselves in a position six months from now or a year from now where, lo and behold, the only way to close the deficit is to sock it to middle-class families, or to burden families that have disabled kids or have a parent in a nursing home, or suddenly we've got to cut more out of our basic research budget that is the key to growing the economy in the long term.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
So that’s my concern. I'm less concerned about red lines, per se. What I'm concerned about is not finding ourselves in a situation where the wealthy aren't paying more or aren't paying as much as they should, middle-class families one way or another are making up the difference -- that’s the kind of status quo that has been going on here too long, and that’s exactly what I argued against during this campaign. And if there’s one thing that I'm pretty confident about is the American people understood what they were getting when they gave me this incredible privilege of being in office for another four years. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
They want compromise. They want action. But they also want to make sure that middle-class folks aren't bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well. And that’s going to be my guiding principle during these negotiations, but, more importantly, during the next four years of my administration.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Nancy Cordes.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Mr. President, on Election Night, you said that you were looking forward to speaking with Governor Romney, sitting down in the coming weeks to discuss ways that you could work together on this nation's problems. Have you extended that invitation? Has he accepted? And in what ways do you think you can work together?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't scheduled something yet. I think everybody forgets that the election was only a week ago and -- I know I've forgotten. I forgot on Wednesday. (Laughter.) So I think everybody needs to catch their breath. I'm sure that Governor Romney is spending some time with his family.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And my hope is, before the end of the year, though, that we have a chance to sit down and talk. There are certain aspects of Governor Romney’s record and his ideas that I think could be very helpful. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Such as?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Well, to give you one example, I do think he did a terrific job running the Olympics. And that skill set of trying to figure out how do we make something work better applies to the federal government. There are a lot of ideas that I don’t think are partisan ideas but are just smart ideas about how can we make the federal government more customer friendly; how can we make sure that we’re consolidating programs that are duplicative; how can we eliminate additional waste. He presented some ideas during the course of the campaign that I actually agree with. So it would be interesting to talk to him about something like that. There may be ideas that he has with respect to jobs and growth that can help middle-class families that I want to hear.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
So I’m not either prejudging what he’s interested in doing, nor am I suggesting I’ve got some specific assignment. But what I want to do is to get ideas from him and see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q But when it comes to your relationships with Congress, one of the most frequent criticisms we’ve heard over the past few years from members on both sides is that you haven’t done enough to reach out and build relationships. Are there concrete ways that you plan to approach your relationships with Congress in a second term?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Look, I think there’s no doubt that I can always do better, and so I will examine ways that I can make sure to communicate my desire to work with everybody, so long as it’s advancing the cause of strengthening our middle class and improving our economy. I’ve got a lot of good relationships with folks both in the House and the Senate. I have a lot of relationships on both sides of the aisle. It hasn’t always manifested itself in the kind of agreements that I’d like to see between Democrats and Republicans. And so I think all of us have responsibilities to see if there are things that we can improve on. And I don’t exempt myself from needing to do some self-reflection and see if I can improve our working relationship. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
There are probably going to be still some very sharp differences. And as I said during the campaign, there are going to be times where there are fights, and I think those are fights that need to be had. But what I think the American people don’t want to see is a focus on the next election instead of a focus on them. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And I don’t have another election. And Michelle and I were talking last night about what an incredible honor and privilege it is to be put in this position. And there are people all across this country, millions of folks, who worked so hard to help us get elected, but there are also millions of people who may not have voted for us but are also counting on us. And we take that responsibility very seriously. I take that responsibility very seriously. And I hope and intend to be an even better President in the second term than I was in the first.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Jonathan Karl.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be Secretary of State, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that. And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I’m not going to comment at this point on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And we’re after an election now. I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information. And we’ve got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And I don't think there’s any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, that's a problem. And we’ve got to get to the bottom of it, and there needs to be accountability. We’ve got to bring those who carried it out to justice. They won’t get any debate from me on that.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
But when they go after the U.N. Ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me. And should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity of the State Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination that I’ve made yet.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Ed Henry.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q I want to take Chuck’s lead and just ask a very small follow-up, which is whether you feel you have a mandate not just on taxes but on a range of issues because of your decisive victory? </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
But I want to stay on Benghazi, based on what Jon asked because you said, if they want to come after me, come after me. I wanted to ask about the families of these four Americans who were killed. Sean Smith’s father, Ray, said he believes his son basically called 911 for help and they didn't get it. And I know you’ve said you grieve for these four Americans, that it’s being investigated, but the families have been waiting for more than two months. So I would like to -- for you to address the families, if you can. On 9/11, as Commander-in-Chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Ed, I’ll address the families not through the press. I’ll address the families directly, as I already have. And we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day. That’s what the investigation is for. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
But as I’ve said repeatedly, if people don’t think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don’t know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks. Their number-one priority is obviously to protect American lives. That’s what our job is. Now --</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q (Inaudible.)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Ed, I will put forward every bit of information that we have. I can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe. And that’s the same order that I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger, whether they’re civilian or military, because that’s our number-one priority.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
With respect to the issue of mandate, I’ve got one mandate. I’ve got a mandate to help middle-class families and families that are working hard to try to get into the middle class. That’s my mandate. That’s what the American people said. They said: Work really hard to help us. Don’t worry about the politics of it; don’t worry about the party interests; don’t worry about the special interests. Just work really hard to see if you can help us get ahead -- because we’re working really hard out here and we’re still struggling, a lot of us. That’s my mandate.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
I don’t presume that because I won an election that everybody suddenly agrees with me on everything. I’m more than familiar with all the literature about presidential overreach in second terms. We are very cautious about that. On the other hand, I didn’t get reelected just to bask in reelection. I got elected to do work on behalf of American families and small businesses all across the country who are still recovering from a really bad recession, but are hopeful about the future. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And I am, too. The one thing that I said during the campaign that maybe sounds like a bunch of campaign rhetoric, but now that the campaign is over I am going to repeat it and hopefully you guys will really believe me -- when you travel around the country, you are inspired by the grit and resilience and hard work and decency of the American people. And it just makes you want to work harder. You meet families who are -- have overcome really tough odds and somehow are making it and sending their kids to college. And you meet young people who are doing incredible work in disadvantaged communities because they believe in the American ideal and it should available for everybody. And you meet farmers who are helping each other during times of drought, and you meet businesses that kept their doors open during the recession, even though the owner didn’t have to take a salary. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And when you talk to these folks, you say to yourself, man, they deserve a better government than they've been getting. They deserve all of us here in Washington to be thinking every single day, how can I make things a little better for them -- which isn't to say that everything we do is going to be perfect, or that there aren't just going to be some big, tough challenges that we have to grapple with. But I do know the federal government can make a difference. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
We're seeing it right now on the Jersey coast and in New York. People are still going through a really tough time; the response hasn't been perfect; but it's been aggressive and strong and fast and robust, and a lot of people have been helped because of it. And that’s a pretty good metaphor for how I want the federal government to operate generally, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure it does.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Christi Parson. Hey. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Thank you, Mr. President, and congratulations, by the way. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q One quick follow up --</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Christi was there when I was running for state Senate.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q That’s right, I was. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: So Christi and I go back a ways.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q I've never seen you lose. I wasn't looking that one time. (Laughter.) </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: There you go. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q One quick follow-up, and then I want to ask you about Iran. I just want to make sure I understood what you said. Can you envision any scenario in which we do go off the fiscal cliff at the end of the year? </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And on Iran, are you preparing a final diplomatic push here to resolve the nuclear program issue, and are we headed toward one-on-one talks?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: Well, obviously, we can all imagine a scenario where we go off the fiscal cliff. If despite the election, if despite the dangers of going over the fiscal cliff and what that means for our economy, that there’s too much stubbornness in Congress that we can't even agree on giving middle-class families a tax cut, then middle-class families are all going to end up having a big tax hike. And that’s going to be a pretty rude shock for them, and I suspect will have a big impact on the holiday shopping season, which, in turn, will have an impact on business planning and hiring, and we can go back into a recession. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
It would be a bad thing. It is not necessary. So I want to repeat: Step number one that we can take in the next couple of weeks, provide certainty to middle-class families -- 98 percent of families who make less than $250,000 a year, 97 percent of small businesses -- that their taxes will not go up a single dime next year. Give them that certainty right now. We can get that done. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
We can then set up a structure whereby we are dealing with tax reform, closing deductions, closing loopholes, simplifying, dealing with entitlements. And I’m ready and willing to make big commitments to make sure that we’re locking in the kind of deficit reductions that stabilize our deficit, start bringing it down, start bringing down our debt. I’m confident we can do it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And, look, I’ve been living with this for a couple of years now. I know the math pretty well. And it really is arithmetic; it’s not calculus. There are some tough things that have to be done, but there is a way of doing this that does not hurt middle-class families, that does not hurt our seniors, doesn’t hurt families with disabled kids, allows us to continue to invest in those things that make us grow, like basic research and education, helping young people afford going to college. As we’ve already heard from some Republican commentators, a modest tax increase on the wealthy is not going to break their backs; they’ll still be wealthy. And it will not impinge on business investment. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
So we know how to do this. This is just a matter of whether or not we come together and go ahead and say, Democrats and Republicans, we’re both going to hold hands and do what’s right for the American people. And I hope that’s what happens.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
With respect to Iran, I very much want to see a diplomatic resolution to the problem. I was very clear before the campaign, I was clear during the campaign, and I’m now clear after the campaign -- we’re not going to let Iran get a nuclear weapon. But I think there is still a window of time for us to resolve this diplomatically. We’ve imposed the toughest sanctions in history. It is having an impact on Iran’s economy. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
There should be a way in which they can enjoy peaceful nuclear power while still meeting their international obligations and providing clear assurances to the international community that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And so, yes, I will try to make a push in the coming months to see if we can open up a dialogue between Iran and not just us, but the international community, to see if we can get this things resolved. I can’t promise that Iran will walk through the door that they need to walk through, but that would be very much the preferable option.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q And under what circumstances would one-on-one conversations take place?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: I won’t talk about the details in negotiations. But I think it’s fair to say we want to get this resolved, and we’re not going to be constrained by diplomatic niceties or protocols. If Iran is serious about wanting to resolve this, they’ll be in a position to resolve it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q At one point just prior to the election that was talk that talks might be imminent. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: That was not true, and it’s not true as of today.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Just going to knock through a couple others. Mark Landler. Where’s Mark? There he is right in front of me.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg said he was motivated by the belief that you would do more to confront the threat of climate change than your opponent. Tomorrow you’re going up to New York City where you’re going to, I assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which many people say is further evidence of how a warming globe is changing our weather. What specifically do you plan to do in a second term to tackle the issue of climate change? And do you think the political will exists in Washington to pass legislation that could include some kind of a tax on carbon? </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: As you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily -- there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we've got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Now, in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That will have an impact. That will take a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere. We doubled the production of clean energy, which promises to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels for power generation. And we continue to invest in potential breakthrough technologies that could further remove carbon from our atmosphere. But we haven't done as much as we need to.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
So what I'm going to be doing over the next several weeks, next several months, is having a conversation, a wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers, and elected officials to find out what can -- what more can we do to make a short-term progress in reducing carbons, and then working through an education process that I think is necessary -- a discussion, a conversation across the country about what realistically can we do long term to make sure that this is not something we're passing on to future generations that's going to be very expensive and very painful to deal with.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
I don't know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point, because this is one of those issues that's not just a partisan issue; I also think there are regional differences. There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices. And understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused, and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth, that if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody is going to go for that. I won't go for that.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
If, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth, and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, I think that's something that the American people would support.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
So you can expect that you’ll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps move this agenda forward.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Sounds like you're saying, though, in the current environment, we're probably still short of a consensus on some kind of attack.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: That I'm pretty certain of. And, look, we're still trying to debate whether we can just make sure that middle-class families don't get a tax hike. Let’s see if we can resolve that. That should be easy. This one is hard -- but it’s important because one of the things that we don't always factor in are the costs involved in these natural disasters; we just put them off as something that's unconnected to our behavior right now. And I think what -- based on the evidence we're seeing, is that what we do now is going to have an impact and a cost down the road if we don’t do something about it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
All right, last question. Mark Felsenthal. Where’s Mark?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q Thank you. Mr. President, the Assad regime is engaged in a brutal crackdown on its people. France has recognized the opposition coalition. What would it take for the United States to do the same? And is there any point at which the United States would consider arming the rebels?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: I was one of the first leaders I think around the world to say Assad had to go, in response to the incredible brutality that his government displayed in the face of what were initially peaceful protests.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Obviously, the situation in Syria has deteriorated since then. We have been extensively engaged with the international community as well as regional powers to help the opposition. We have committed to hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian aid to help folks both inside of Syria and outside of Syria. We are constantly consulting with the opposition on how they can get organized so that they’re not splintered and divided in the face of the onslaught from the Assad regime. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
We are in very close contact with countries like Turkey and Jordan that immediately border Syria and have an impact -- and obviously Israel, which is having already grave concerns, as we do, about, for example, movements of chemical weapons that might occur in such a chaotic atmosphere and that could have an impact not just within Syria, but on the region as a whole.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
I’m encouraged to see that the Syrian opposition created an umbrella group that may have more cohesion than they’ve had in the past. We’re going to be talking to them. My envoys are going to be traveling to various meetings that are going to be taking place with the international community and the opposition.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
We consider them a legitimate representative of the aspirations of the Syrian people. We’re not yet prepared to recognize them as some sort of government in exile, but we do think that it is a broad-based representative group. One of the questions that we’re going to continue to press is making sure that that opposition is committed to a democratic Syria, an inclusive Syria, a moderate Syria.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
We have seen extremist elements insinuate themselves into the opposition, and one of the things that we have to be on guard about -- particularly when we start talking about arming opposition figures -- is that we’re not indirectly putting arms in the hands of folks who would do Americans harm, or do Israelis harm, or otherwise engage in actions that are detrimental to our national security.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
So we're constantly probing and working on that issue. The more engaged we are, the more we'll be in a position to make sure that we are encouraging the most moderate, thoughtful elements of the opposition that are committed to inclusion, observance of human rights, and working cooperatively with us over the long term.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Thank you very much.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Q -- spending side of the fiscal cliff. On spending, the $1.2 trillion trigger, is that something that you can see having a short-term component -- because I remember you said it's not happening -- </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
THE PRESIDENT: That was a great question, but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out. (Laughter.) </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
So thank you very much, guys.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
END <br />
2:26 P.M. EST</div>
Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com01600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, White House, Washington, DC 20500, USA38.8977379 -77.036319638.848303400000006 -77.1152836 38.9471724 -76.9573556tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-62537612153908244602012-07-29T19:59:00.000-07:002012-07-29T20:03:49.998-07:00United Nations Arms Treaty Conference - US State Department Press Release<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j_C7BrrCLYU/UBX4Yw7ySjI/AAAAAAAAQUA/l2KYVr22eOo/s1600/usdos-logo-seal.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j_C7BrrCLYU/UBX4Yw7ySjI/AAAAAAAAQUA/l2KYVr22eOo/s200/usdos-logo-seal.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<h2>
Arms Trade Treaty Conference</h2>
<br />
Press Statement<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
Victoria Nuland<br />
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson</div>
</div>
<div>
Washington, DC
</div>
<div>
July 27, 2012</div>
<br />
<hr />
<div>
The United
States supports the outcome today at the Arms Trade Treaty Conference.
While the Conference ran out of time to reach consensus on a text, it
will report its results and the draft text considered back to the UN
General Assembly (UNGA). The United States supports a second round of
negotiations, conducted on the basis of consensus, on the Treaty next
year; we do not support a vote in the UNGA on the current text. The
illicit trafficking of conventional arms is an important national
security concern for the United States. While we sought to conclude this
month’s negotiations with a Treaty, more time is a reasonable request
for such a complex and critical issue. The current text reflects
considerable positive progress, but it needs further review and
refinement.<br />
With that in mind, we will continue to work towards an Arms Trade
Treaty that will contribute to international security, protect the
sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meet the
objectives and concerns that we have been articulating throughout the
negotiation, including not infringing on the constitutional right of our
citizens to bear arms. The United States took a principled stand
throughout these negotiations that international trade in conventional
arms is a legitimate enterprise that is and should remain regulated by
the individual nations themselves, and we continue to believe that any
Arms Trade Treaty should require states to develop their own national
regulations and controls and strengthen the rule of law regarding arms
sales.<br />
We support an Arms Trade Treaty because we believe it will make a
valuable contribution to global security by helping to stem illicit arms
transfers, and we will continue to look for ways for the international
community to work together to improve the international arms transfer
regime so that weapons aren’t transferred to people who would abuse
them.</div>
<br />
<br />
PRN: 2012/1235Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-77889292523120929002012-06-21T11:01:00.000-07:002012-06-21T11:03:06.950-07:00Obama's Comments at LGBT Pride Month Reception 6-2012<h1>Remarks by President Barack Obama President at the LGBT Pride Month Reception</h1><h1><object width="480" height="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="bgcolor" value="282828"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.whitehouse.gov/xml/video/160279/config.xml&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf"></param><embed src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="300" flashvars="config=http://www.whitehouse.gov/xml/video/160279/config.xml&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf&share_url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/06/15/lgbt-pride-month-reception"></embed></object><br />
</h1><h3>East Room</h3>5:16 P.M. EDT<br />
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, hello, hello! (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much. Well, thank you very much. <br />
Well, welcome to the White House, everybody. (Applause.) We are glad all of you could join us today. I want to thank the members of Congress and the members of my administration who are here, including our friends who are doing outstanding work every day -- John Berry, Nancy Sutley, Fred Hochberg. (Applause.) <br />
Now, each June since I took office, we have gathered to pay tribute to the generations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans who devoted their lives to our most basic of ideals –- equality not just for some, but for all. Together we’ve marked major milestones like the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, when a group of brave citizens held their ground against brutal discrimination. Together, we’ve honored courageous pioneers who, decades ago, came out and spoke out; who challenged unjust laws and destructive prejudices. Together, we’ve stood resolute; unwavering in our commitment to advance this movement and to build a more perfect union.<br />
Now, I’ve said before that I would never counsel patience; that it wasn’t right to tell you to be patient any more than it was right for others to tell women to be patient a century ago, or African Americans to be patient a half century ago. After decades of inaction and indifference, you have every reason and right to push, loudly and forcefully, for equality. (Applause.)<br />
But three years ago, I also promised you this: I said that even if it took more time than we would like, we would see progress, we would see success, we would see real and lasting change. And together, that’s what we’re witnessing. <br />
For every person who lost a loved one at the hand of hate, we ended a decade of delay and finally made the Matthew Shepard Act the land of the law. (Applause.) For every person with HIV who was treated like an outcast, we lifted the HIV entry ban. (Applause.) And because of that important step, next month, for the first time in more than two decades, the International AIDS conference will be held right here in the United States. (Applause.)<br />
For every American diagnosed with HIV who couldn’t get access to treatment, we put forward a National HIV/AIDS strategy -- because who you are should never affect whether you get life-extending care. Marjorie Hill, the head of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, is here. (Applause.) GMHC has saved so many lives, and this year they are celebrating their 30<sup>th</sup> anniversary. So I want to give them and all these organizations who work to prevent and treat HIV a big round of applause. Give it up for Marjorie and everybody else. (Applause.)<br />
For every partner or spouse denied the chance to comfort a loved one in the hospital, to be by their side at their greatest hour of need, we said, enough. Hospitals that accept Medicare or Medicaid -– and that is most of them -– now have to treat LGBT patients just like any other patient. For every American denied insurance just for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, we passed health insurance reform, which will ban that kind of discrimination. (Applause.)<br />
We’ve expanded benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees, prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity for workers in the federal government. (Applause.) We’ve supported efforts in Congress to end the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. (Applause.) And as we wait for that law to be cast aside, we’ve stopped defending its constitutionality in the courts. (Applause.)<br />
We’ve put forward a strategy to promote and protect the rights of LGBT communities all over the world, because, as Secretary Clinton said back in December, gay rights are human rights. (Applause.)<br />
And, of course, last year we finally put an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell” -- (applause) -- so that nobody would ever have to ever again hide who they love in order to serve the country they love. And I know we've got some military members who are here today. (Applause.) I'm happy to see you with your partners here. We thank you for your service. We thank your families for their service, and we share your joy at being able to come with your spouses or partners here to the White House with your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)<br />
Now, we know we've got more to do. Americans may feel more comfortable bringing their partners to the office barbecue -- (laughter) -- but we're still waiting for a fully inclusive employment non-discrimination act. (Applause.) Congress needs to pass that legislation, so that no American is ever fired simply for being gay or transgender.<br />
Americans may be able serve openly in the military, but many are still growing up alone and afraid; picked on, pushed around for being different. And that’s why my administration has worked to raise awareness about bullying. And I know -- I just had a chance to see Lee Hirsch, the director of BULLY, who is here. And we thank him for his work on this issue. (Applause.)<br />
I want to acknowledge all the young leaders here today who are making such a big difference in their classrooms and in their communities. And Americans may be still evolving when it comes to marriage equality -- (laughter and applause) -- but as I've indicated personally, Michelle and I have made up our minds on this issue. (Applause.)<br />
So we still have a long way to go, but we will get there. We'll get there because of all of you. We’ll get there because of all of the ordinary Americans who every day show extraordinary courage. We’ll get there because of every man and woman and activist and ally who is moving us forward by the force of their moral arguments, but more importantly, by the force of their example.<br />
And as long as I have the privilege of being your President, I promise you, you won't just have a friend in the White House, you will have a fellow advocate -- (applause) -- for an America where no matter what you look like or where you come from or who you love, you can dream big dreams and dream as openly as you want.<br />
Thank you. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-55702469269789611282012-01-25T07:14:00.000-08:002012-01-25T07:16:13.398-08:00State of the Union 2012 (Speech Transcript and Enhanced Video)<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Zgfi7wnGZlE" width="560"></iframe><br />
<div id="content"><div class="information"><div class="title">The White House</div>Office of the Press Secretary<br />
<div class="dateline"><div class="release">For Immediate Release </div><div class="date">January 24, 2012 </div></div></div><h1>Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address</h1><div class="rtecenter">United States Capitol<br />
Washington, D.C.</div>9:10 P.M. EST<br />
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:<br />
Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought -- and several thousand gave their lives.<br />
We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. (Applause.) For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. (Applause.) For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. (Applause.) Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.<br />
These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.<br />
Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. (Applause.) Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.<br />
We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. (Applause.) My grandfather, a veteran of Patton’s Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.<br />
<br />
The two of them shared the optimism of a nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share -- the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.<br />
The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. (Applause.) What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.<br />
Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.<br />
In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.<br />
It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hardworking Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect.<br />
Those are the facts. But so are these: In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. (Applause.)<br />
Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like this never happens again. (Applause.)<br />
The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place. (Applause.) <br />
No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last -– an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.<br />
Now, this blueprint begins with American manufacturing.<br />
On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number-one automaker. (Applause.) Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs. <br />
We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back. (Applause.) <br />
What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can’t bring every job back that’s left our shore. But right now, it’s getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. (Applause.) Today, for the first time in 15 years, Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity. (Applause.) <br />
So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed. (Applause.) <br />
We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. So let’s change it.<br />
First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. (Applause.) That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home. (Applause.) <br />
Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. (Applause.) From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America. (Applause.) <br />
Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers. (Applause.) <br />
So my message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away. (Applause.) <br />
We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements we signed into law, we’re on track to meet that goal ahead of schedule. (Applause.) And soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago. (Applause.) <br />
I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration –- and it’s made a difference. (Applause.) Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.<br />
Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. (Applause.) There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing financing or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you -– America will always win. (Applause.)<br />
I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that –- openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work. It’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it. <br />
Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.<br />
I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train 2 million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. (Applause.) My administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, and Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers -– places that teach people skills that businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.<br />
And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help that they need. It is time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work. (Applause.)<br />
<br />
These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.<br />
For less than 1 percent of what our nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every state in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning -- the first time that’s happened in a generation.<br />
But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.<br />
At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced states to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies -- just to make a difference.<br />
Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. (Applause.) And in return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn. That’s a bargain worth making. (Applause.)<br />
We also know that when students don’t walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. So tonight, I am proposing that every state -- every state -- requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18. (Applause.)<br />
When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. (Applause.)<br />
Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves millions of middle-class families thousands of dollars, and give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years. (Applause.)<br />
Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid. We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we’ll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.<br />
Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Some schools redesign courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. (Applause.) Higher education can’t be a luxury -– it is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.<br />
Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: the fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.<br />
That doesn’t make sense. <br />
I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office. The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. (Applause.)<br />
But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away. (Applause.)<br />
You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. (Applause.) It means we should support everyone who’s willing to work, and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs. <br />
After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. (Applause.) Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year. (Applause.)<br />
Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don’t gut these investments in our budget. Don’t let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.<br />
And nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. (Applause.) Right now -- right now -- American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right -- eight years. Not only that -- last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years. (Applause.)<br />
But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. (Applause.) A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.<br />
We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. (Applause.) And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. (Applause.) Because America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.<br />
The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. (Applause.) And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock –- reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground. (Applause.) <br />
Now, what’s true for natural gas is just as true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled, and thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.<br />
When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it’s hiring workers like Bryan, who said, “I’m proud to be working in the industry of the future.”<br />
Our experience with shale gas, our experience with natural gas, shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. (Applause.) I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.<br />
We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. (Applause.) It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs. (Applause.)<br />
We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well, tonight, I will. I’m directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history -– with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year. (Applause.)<br />
Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s a proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs. (Applause.) <br />
Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America’s infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges; a power grid that wastes too much energy; an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.<br />
During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.<br />
In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. (Applause.)<br />
There’s never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren’t the only ones who were hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who’ve seen their home values decline. And while government can’t fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief. <br />
And that’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low rates. (Applause.) No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit and will give those banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust. (Applause.)<br />
Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.<br />
We’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them. That’s why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. (Applause.) Rules to prevent financial fraud or toxic dumping or faulty medical devices -- these don’t destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.<br />
There’s no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. (Applause.) I’ve ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense. We’ve already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill -- because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk. (Laughter and applause.)<br />
Now, I’m confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. (Applause.) Absolutely. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. (Applause.) I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your coverage, or charge women differently than men. (Applause.)<br />
And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system’s core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, or start a business, or send their kids to college.<br />
So if you are a big bank or financial institution, you’re no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail –- because the rest of us are not bailing you out ever again. (Applause.) And if you’re a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices -- those days are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them. (Applause.) <br />
We’ll also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.<br />
And tonight, I’m asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. (Applause.) This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.<br />
Now, a return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.<br />
Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. (Applause.) People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let’s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay. Let’s get it done. (Applause.)<br />
When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. <br />
Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else –- like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both. <br />
The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.<br />
But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. (Applause.)<br />
Tax reform should follow the Buffett Rule. If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. (Applause.) You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief. <br />
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.<br />
We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get a tax break I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference -- like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know that’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last. (Applause.)<br />
Now, I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt, energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right about now: Nothing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.<br />
Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?<br />
The greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year didn’t come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?<br />
I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad -- and it seems to get worse every year.<br />
Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow. (Applause.) Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa -- an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.<br />
Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything -– even routine business –- passed through the Senate. (Applause.) Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. (Applause.) For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days. (Applause.) <br />
The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. (Applause.) That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy, so that our government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people. (Applause.) <br />
Finally, none of this can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common-sense ideas.<br />
I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. (Applause.) That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and states. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.<br />
On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about government spending have supported federally financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home.<br />
The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there’s nothing the United States of America can’t achieve. (Applause.) That’s the lesson we’ve learned from our actions abroad over the last few years.<br />
Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America. (Applause.)<br />
From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America. (Applause.)<br />
As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana’a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qaddafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators -– a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change cannot be reversed, and that human dignity cannot be denied. (Applause.)<br />
How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it’s ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings –- men and women; Christians, Muslims and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.<br />
And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.<br />
Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. (Applause.)<br />
But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.<br />
The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our ironclad commitment -- and I mean ironclad -- to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. (Applause.)<br />
We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.<br />
Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. (Applause.)<br />
That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world who are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin, from Cape Town to Rio, where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing. No, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs –- and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way. (Applause.) <br />
That’s why, working with our military leaders, I’ve proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I’ve already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber-threats. (Applause.)<br />
Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. (Applause.) As they come home, we must serve them as well as they’ve served us. That includes giving them the care and the benefits they have earned –- which is why we’ve increased annual VA spending every year I’ve been President. (Applause.) And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our nation.<br />
With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we’re providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I’m proposing a Veterans Jobs Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her. (Applause.)<br />
Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian, Latino, Native American; conservative, liberal; rich, poor; gay, straight. When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind.<br />
One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates -- a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary -- and Hillary Clinton -- a woman who ran against me for president.<br />
All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job -- the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other -- because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s somebody behind you, watching your back.<br />
So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.<br />
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)<br />
END<br />
10:16 P.M. EST<br />
</div>Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-57019067536334362982012-01-20T02:39:00.000-08:002012-01-20T02:39:16.910-08:00President Barack Obama Tourism Speech Delivered at Disneyworld<br />
The White House<br />
<br />
Office of the Press Secretary<br />
For Immediate Release<br />
January 19, 2012<br />
Remarks by President Barack Obama Unveiling a Strategy to Help Boost Travel and Tourism<br />
<br />
Walt Disney World Resort<br />
Orlando, Florida<br />
<br />
12:40 P.M. EST<br />
<br />
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) I am glad to be at Disney World! (Applause.) The Magic Kingdom. This is outstanding.<br />
<br />
Well, let me begin by thanking Ruben for that extraordinary introduction. And he was too bashful -- maybe he’s not supposed to do this. I will do it. His restaurant is called Zaza [Yaya’s]. (Applause.) New Cuban diners. So everybody check it out. And I told him, he was -- on the way out, he was wondering, I don’t know, I don’t do this a lot. He’s a natural. (Laughter.) We’re going to have to run him for something. (Laughter.) <br />
<br />
But thank you so much for taking the time. It is great to be here. It is rare that I get to do something that Sasha and Malia envy me for. (Laughter.) That doesn’t happen very often. Maybe for once they’ll actually ask me at dinner how my day went. (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
And I confess, I am excited to see Mickey. It’s always nice to meet a world leader who has bigger ears than me. (Laughter.) <br />
<br />
I want to acknowledge the presence of one of Florida’s outstanding mayors, the mayor of Orlando -- Buddy Dyer is in the house. (Applause.) We’ve got two outstanding members of my Cabinet -- Interior Secretary Ken Salazar -- (applause) -- and Commerce Secretary John Bryson. (Applause.) Because they’re focused on what brings us here today, and that’s creating jobs and boosting tourism. <br />
<br />
You just heard what a huge difference tourism makes for small businesses like Ruben’s. Every year, tens of millions of tourists all over the world come to visit America. Makes sense. You got the greatest country on Earth -- people want to come. As folks in Orlando know, that’s good for our economy. It means people are renting cars and they’re staying in hotels and they’re eating at restaurants and they’re checking out the sights. It means people are doing business here in the United States. In 2010, nearly 60 million international visitors helped the tourism industry generate over $134 billion. Tourism is the number-one service that we export. Number one. And that means jobs. <br />
<br />
More money spent by more tourists means more businesses can hire more workers. This is a pretty simple formula. And that’s why we’re all here today -- to tell the world that America is open for business. We want to welcome you, and to take concrete steps to boost America’s tourism industry so that we can keep growing our economy and creating more jobs here in Florida and all across the country.<br />
<br />
Now, here’s the good news: We’ve got the best product to sell. I mean, look at where we are. We’ve got the most entertaining destinations in the world. This is the land of extraordinary natural wonders -– from the Rocky Mountains to the Grand Canyon; from Yellowstone to Yosemite. <br />
<br />
This is the land where we do big things, and so have incredible landmarks, like the Golden Gate Bridge and the Empire State Building; the Hoover Dam; the Gateway Arch. This is the land of iconic cities and all their sights –- from Independence Hall in Philadelphia to Faneuil Hall in Boston; from the Space Needle in Seattle to the skyline of my hometown in Chicago. It’s a nice skyline, for those of you who have never been there. (Laughter.) All right, a couple of Chicagoans back there. (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
But I’m here today because I want more tourists here tomorrow. I want America to be the top tourist destination in the world. (Applause.) The top tourist destination in the world. (Applause.) And this is something that we’ve been focused on for some time.<br />
<br />
Two years ago, I signed a bill into law called the Travel Promotion Act. It had broad support of both Democrats and Republicans. And as you know, that doesn’t always happen. (Laughter.) And it set up a new nonprofit organization called Brand USA. Its job is to pitch America as a travel destination for the rest of the world to come to visit. <br />
<br />
You guys see advertising for other countries, other destinations, here in the United States, right? Well, we’ve got to do the same thing, so that when people are thinking about where they want to travel, where they want to spend their vacation, we want them to come here. And so that’s already in place, but we’ve got to do more.<br />
<br />
So today, I directed my administration to send me a new national tourism strategy focused on creating jobs. And some of America’s most successful business leaders –- some who are here today –- have signed up to help. We’re going to see how we can make it easier for foreign tourists to find basic information about visiting America. And we’re going to see how we can attract more tourists to our national parks. We want people visiting not just Epcot Center, but the Everglades, too. The more folks who visit America, the more Americans we get back to work. It’s that simple. <br />
<br />
Now, just as we do a better job of marketing our tourist destinations, we’ve also got to make it easier for tourists to make the visit. There’s a good reason why it’s not easy for anybody to get a visa to come to America. Obviously, our national security is a top priority. We will always protect our borders and our shores and our tourist destinations from people who want to do us harm. And unfortunately, such people exist, and that’s not going to change. <br />
<br />
But we also want to get more international tourists coming to America. And there’s no reason why we can’t do both. We can make sure that we’re doing a good job keeping America secure while at the same time maintaining the openness that’s always been the hallmark of America and making sure that we’re welcoming travelers from all around the world.<br />
<br />
So one step we’re taking is the expansion of something called the Global Entry Program. It’s a program that protects our borders and makes life easier for frequent travelers to and from the United States. Now, getting into the program requires an extensive background check. But once you’re in, once you’ve proven yourself to be a solid individual who is coming here for business or recreation purposes, instead of going through long lines at immigration, we can scan your passport, your fingerprints, and you’re on your way. <br />
<br />
So it’s a great example of how we’re using new technology to maintain national security and boost tourism at the same time. And we’re now going to make it available to almost all international travelers coming to the United States. If they’re willing to submit themselves to the background checks necessary, we can make sure that we’re facilitating their easy travel into the United States. (Applause.)<br />
<br />
There are some additional steps, though, that we can take. Right now, there are 36 countries around the world whose citizens can visit America without getting a tourist visa. After they go online they get pre-cleared by Homeland Security, and there’s only one thing they have to do and that’s book a flight. And that’s been a great boost for tourism. Over 60 percent of our visitors don’t require a visa, and in most cases that’s because of this program.<br />
<br />
Today, I’m directing my administration to see if we can add more countries to it. (Applause.) We want more folks to have an easier time coming to the United States.<br />
<br />
And let’s also realize that in the years ahead, more and more tourists are going to come from countries not currently in this program -- countries with rapidly growing economies, huge populations, and emerging middle classes; countries like China and India, and especially important here in Florida, Brazil, a huge population that loves to come to Florida. (Applause.) But we make it too hard for them. More and more of their people can now afford to visit America who couldn’t come before, and in fact, over the next four years, the tourists traveling from those countries we expect to more than double.<br />
<br />
But we want them coming right here. We want them spending money here, in Orlando, in Florida, in the United States of America, which will boost our businesses and our economy. <br />
<br />
So today, I’m directing the State Department to accelerate our ability to process visas by 40 percent in China and in Brazil this year. We’re not talking about five years from now or 10 years from now -- this year. (Applause.) <br />
<br />
We’ve already made incredible progress in this area. We’ve better staffed our embassies and our consulates. We’ve streamlined services with better technology. Waiting times for a visa are down. But applications keep on going up -- they are skyrocketing. People want to come here. And China and Brazil are the two countries which have some of the biggest backlogs. And these are two of the countries with some of the fastest-growing middle classes that want to visit and have disposable income -- money that they want to spend at our parks and our monuments and at businesses like Ruben’s.<br />
<br />
So that’s what this is all about: telling the world that America is open for business; making it as safe and as simple as possible to visit; helping our businesses all across the country grow and create jobs; helping those businesses compete and win.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, that’s how we’re going to rebuild an economy where hard work pays off, where responsibility is rewarded, and where anybody can make it if they try. That’s what America is all about. That’s part of the reason why people want to come here, because they know our history. They know what the American Dream has been all about. And a place like Disneyland represents that quintessentially American spirit. This image is something that’s recognized all around the world, and this weather -- (laughter) -- is something that people appreciate all around the world, including the northern parts of this country. (Laughter.) <br />
<br />
So we want everybody to come. All who are watching, Disney World and Florida are open for business, but we want people all around the world to know the same. And we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we’re continuing to boost tourism for decades to come. <br />
<br />
Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-52661606143632908472012-01-19T07:03:00.000-08:002012-01-19T07:03:30.633-08:00Obama asks for Betty White's Birth Certificate<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="421" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=2S7VXX12JPFSL099&content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
TEXT<br />
Dear Betty,<br />
<br />
You look so fantastic and full of energy, I can’t believe you’re 90 years old. In fact, I don’t believe it.<br />
<br />
That’s why I’m writing to ask if you will produce a copy of your long-form birth certificate.<br />
<br />
Thanks, and happy birthday, no matter how old you are. <br />
<br />
Courtesy NBC, Mediaite - Event Documented Jan 17, 2012Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-31372779775299616592012-01-19T03:54:00.000-08:002012-01-19T03:56:00.023-08:00White House Responds To SOPA - Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet<div class="petition-response individual-response">
<div class="response-author-org clearfix">
<span class="official">Official White House Response to</span>
<span class="petition-title">Stop the E-PARASITE Act.
<a class="no-follow" href="https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition-tool/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet" id="more-petitions">
and 1 other petition </a>
</span>
</div>
<h1 class="title">
Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet</h1>
By Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra, and Howard Schmidt<br />
<br />
Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and
actions illustrate the importance of maintaining an open and democratic
Internet.<br />
<br />
Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning
the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy
Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act and the Online Protection and Digital
ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you
what the Administration will support—and what we will not support. Any
effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders,
including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and
maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.<br />
<br />
While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious
problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not
support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases
cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global
Internet.<br />
<br />
<b>Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk
of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation
by our dynamic businesses large and small</b>. Across the globe,
the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in
business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize
this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites
beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited
under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due
process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering
Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment
processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to
prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage
unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and
innovative firms from growing.<br />
<br />
<b>We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet</b>.
Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the
Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a
foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering
provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real
risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services
accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to
dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security
policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.<br />
<br />
Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American
economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class
workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative
companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists
to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large
movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous
enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not
strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. <b>That
is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass
sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders
new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders</b>
while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response.
We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of
legitimate American values.<br />
<br />
This is not just a matter for legislation. <b>We expect and
encourage all private parties, including both content creators and
Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary
measures and best practices to reduce online piracy</b>.<br />
<br />
So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask
yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s
the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right.<br />
<br />
Already, many of
members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are
paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public
input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random
sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss
this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we
will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions.
Details on that will follow in the coming days.<br />
<br />
Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on
rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative
efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be
committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new
legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without
jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will
bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.<br />
<br />
Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan
basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight
against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open
Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and
innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this
important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.<br />
<br />
<i>Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget</i><br />
<br />
<i>Aneesh Chopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to
the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of
Science and Technology Policy</i><br />
<br />
<i>Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff</i></div>Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-25463209782927571472012-01-19T02:15:00.000-08:002012-01-20T02:18:00.377-08:00White House Press Briefing en route Orlanda, FL<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r1EJ-RHYbcI/TwtkOh4YW_I/AAAAAAAAOmQ/wC3g1ebiOkQ/s1600/WhiteHouseLogo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r1EJ-RHYbcI/TwtkOh4YW_I/AAAAAAAAOmQ/wC3g1ebiOkQ/s1600/WhiteHouseLogo.gif" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The White House<br />
<br />
<br />
Office of the Press Secretary<br />
For Immediate Release<br />
January 19, 2012<br />
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route Orlando, Florida, 1/19/2012<br />
<br />
Aboard Air Force One<br />
En Route Orlando, Florida<br />
<br />
11:03 A.M. EST<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY: </b> Okay, everybody ready? We can’t wait. Thank you for coming today on the President’s trip to Orlando, Florida. As you know, he will be visiting Disney World, Main Street USA, where he will be announcing an executive order and other initiatives, new initiatives, aimed at significantly increasing travel and tourism in the United States.<br />
<br />
As I’m sure you’re aware, the U.S. tourism and travel industry is a substantial component of U.S. GDP and employment. It represents 2.7 percent of GDP and 7.5 million jobs; that was in 2010. With international travel alone, the United States supporting 1.2 million jobs. <br />
<br />
The industry, the travel and tourism industry, estimates that more than 1 million jobs could be created over the next decade if we increased our market share of the international tourism market -- share of the international tourism market.<br />
<br />
That’s why the President is making the announcements he is today, because making the United States the number-one destination for international tourists is a job creator. The fact of the matter is that when so-called long-haul tourists, foreign travelers come to the United States, they spent on average $4,000 per person here. So that’s business that we want to capture here in the United States.<br />
<br />
So through an executive order and some other initiatives, the President is calling for a national strategy to make the United States the world’s top travel and tourism destination. The number of travelers from emerging economies -- and this is one of the targets of the President’s initiative -- emerging economies with growing middle classes such as China, Brazil and India is projected to grow by 135 percent, 274 percent and 50 percent respectively by 2016 compared to 2010. So there’s an enormous opportunity there.<br />
<br />
I won’t go into too many of the details -- I know you have paper -- but the President has signed an executive order tasking the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to co-lead an interagency task force to develop recommendations for national travel and tourism strategy to promote domestic and international travel opportunities. He has tasked the Departments of State and Homeland Security with increasing non-immigrant visa processing capacity in China and Brazil by 40 percent in 2012, and ensuring that 80 percent of non-immigrant visa applicants are interviewed within three weeks of receipt of application.<br />
<br />
There are a variety of other initiatives attached to this and I think you have the paper on them.<br />
<br />
With that, I will take your questions.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Jay, does the President think that his administration could approve an alternate route for Keystone before 2013, knowing that that might ease some of the anger from unions and Republicans? Or is 2013 still the earliest that you could foresee approval?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> Julie, as you know, this is a process conducted by and overseen by the State Department -- the State Department in accordance with many years of precedent, many administrations, because it involves a transnational pipeline. The State Department, in reviewing these kinds of things, determines the duration, the amount of time that is needed to do the proper evaluations of a permit request -- permit application.<br />
<br />
I think that it’s important to remember -- because I heard some reporting this morning that just missed some of the facts here -- that the State Department made the announcement because of the decision to change the route and there needed to be a delay, more time allowed for a new route to be developed and then a new route to be reviewed. That was in November. <br />
<br />
So two months ago, Republicans, in a purely political move, inserted an extraneous provision in the tax cut -- payroll tax cut extension bill back in December calling for an arbitrary 60-day deadline, insisting that the administration make this decision in that timeframe. So it’s been two months since the original decision by the State Department.<br />
<br />
TransCanada, the company involved here, has not even identified an alternate route yet. Not because they’re moving slowly -- in fact, they’re not -- but because this is a process that requires careful consideration and study to ensure that it makes sense for the company, to ensure that it makes sense for the United States and the equities that we have to weigh when considered this kind of project, including economic security, the health and safety of the American people, environmental impacts, job-creation impact.<br />
<br />
So it is a fallacy to suggest that anything besides the arbitrary insistence by House Republicans on setting a false deadline is responsible for the decision that the administration made yesterday, and the President conferred with.<br />
<br />
<i>Q So, given all that, it would --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I would refer you to the State Department about what -- what kind of timeframe would be required to review a new permit request that would establish an alternate route through Nebraska. I mean, remember -- and again, this is another thing that needs to be corrected because there was some -- I think Ed Henry was talking about how the governor of Nebraska was now in favor of an expedited process. Let’s be clear, the governor of Nebraska wrote the administration asking the State Department to deny the permit -- wrote in August on the proposed route and requesting an alternate route.<br />
<br />
He has said that he is in favor of an alternate route, and that being approved once an alternate route is identified. But that route itself has not even been identified, let alone been reviewed, so I think that needs to be clarified.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Was any consideration given to a partial permit process perhaps that would let work start at each end, knowing that there would be some alternate route in --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, I would refer you again to the State Department, which oversees this process in a nonpolitical, substantive way. It seems to me that you can’t -- if you pre-approve portions of a permit, you’re basically guaranteeing -- you’ve made your decision ahead of time. The issue is that the entire -- a proposal for a pipeline needs to be submitted, reviewed appropriately, with all factors weighed and considered before a decision is made. What the Republicans did in a moment of political pique -- because they were upset about the fact that the President was insisting that they extend the tax cut for 160 million Americans -- inserted a provision within that bill to arbitrarily set a deadline that has resulted in what the State Department made clear what happened, is that they had to deny the permit because they had no -- there was no way to review the request. There’s not even an alternate route proposed yet. <br />
<br />
But in terms of how the review process works, I would refer you to the State Department.<br />
<br />
<i>Q The Iranians this morning made what you can only describe as rather threatening comments, warning that allies of the United States in the Middle East risk placing themselves in a dangerous situation because of their close collaboration with Washington. What assurances is Washington providing to your friends in the Middle East that it would shield them from any reprisals from Iran for that close collaboration?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I mean, I don’t have any specific assurances, except that obviously we have important relationships with our allies and friends in the region as we do around the world. I think this is another example of provocative rhetoric emerging from Iran that’s designed purely to distract attention from the fact that the Iranian refusal to abide by its international obligations has resulted in the most extensive and effective sanctions regime ever applied to Iran, that has caused great pressure to be put on the Iranian economy, and has created divisions within the Iranian leadership.<br />
<br />
So I think this is just another example of that kind of attempt to distract attention from the impact of a policy approach that this President put into place when he came into office that has united the international community and put a spotlight on the fact that it is the Iranian leadership that has refused to negotiate in good faith and has refused to live up to its international obligations.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q Do you guys have the news on up front?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I did in my cabin, yes.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Has the President seen Perry’s dropout?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, he was in the cabin speaking with Secretary Bryson with the TV on, so he might have noticed it, but I didn’t discuss it with him.<br />
<br />
<i>Q So no reaction from the President on that?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: None to report.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Is Bryson with him?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Bryson is on board. Yes, Secretary Bryson is on board.<br />
<br />
Q Anyone else we didn’t see?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: No, I don’t think so, but I could check.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, I know you’ve said you don’t want to get ahead of the President’s State of the Union address, but could you talk sort of in a more maybe a broader sense about whether -- the fact that the President proposed a big jobs bill, a $450 billion plan, that has had moderate -- only small parts of it or modest parts of it be adopted by Congress. And now you guys are rolling out continued sort of smaller-scale actions on this, “We Can’t Wait.” Are you going to see like a big visionary kind of speech that sort of sets a big agenda? Or is it going to be something a little more realistic of, here’s what we’re able to do right now over the next several months to get this economy moving on this sort of smaller, more dedicated scale that he’s been rolling out these plans?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I won’t preview any specifics of the President’s State of the Union address. But if your suggestion is that the President is going to give up in his efforts to convince Congress of the absolute necessity to take action to put Americans back to work and grow the economy, the answer is no. <br />
<br />
<i>Q But I mean, he’s still going to talk --</i><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: And it is incumbent upon the Republicans in Congress who blocked portions of the American Jobs Act; who refused to vote yes to putting 400,000 teachers and first responders back to work; who refused to vote yes to put tens of thousands of construction workers back to work rebuilding our infrastructure to either explain why to their constituents, or, we hope, do the right thing -- reconsider their position, and take up those initiatives and pass them.<br />
<br />
<i>Q So he’s going to continue to harp on that theme, even next week and the --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: He will continue to focus on his number-one priority, which is doing everything he can, working collaboratively with Congress through the legislative process, and also using his executive authority, as he is today, to promote economic growth and job creation. There is no higher priority for the President, and no more important task for the United States government to undertake.<br />
<br />
Because we suffered a tremendous body blow in this country -- the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, terrible unemployment, terrible shrinkage of our economy. And we’ve been steadily recovering, but it’s a long -- it’s a long path, and we need to keep moving.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q The President’s said month after month, through the fall and even now, proposing new actions. I mean, what more can he offer next week?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Let’s review. Because of the President’s focus on -- because of the President’s focus on and unrelenting focus on that, we’ve forced the Republicans in Congress to agree to a payroll tax cut, which they initially said they didn’t want -- ironically, because in theory anyway, it is supposed to be a priority of Republicans to cut taxes. But for some reason, they were more fiercely devoted to protecting the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans than they were to extending a tax break to 160 million middle-class Americans.<br />
<br />
And I think -- I would just point to the analysis of everyone here and every one of your colleagues on how successful politically the Republicans’ approach was to the payroll tax cut debate. We look forward to the Congress, without drama, extending the payroll tax cut for the full calendar year and to working with the President and his team on other bipartisan measures.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q You guys have called that the last -- the full extension of the payroll tax cut the last must-do legislation. Is that it, then? Is the President going to make clear that that’s --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: It’s not even close to it. We will be pushing Congress to take action on a variety of measures, including the other elements of the American Jobs Act and I’m sure other things for which you should stay tuned.<br />
<br />
The point was simply that it is with absolute necessity that the payroll tax cut be extended through the calendar year, because we’re confident that even as perplexing sometimes as the positions are that some members of the Republican caucus take -- in the House in particular -- we do not believe that they want to face reelection in November having to explain to their constituents why they raised taxes on almost all of them.<br />
<br />
<i>Q That’s not the full review I thought we were going to get. I mean, there was a big windup there</i>.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q That was good, that was good.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: You want more? Because I got more.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Hey, Jay, can I just have you clarify one thing in the tourism report? That jobs number that’s at the top, that’s just sort of a general estimate of jobs that could be created, but that’s not --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: That’s the tourism industry --<br />
<br />
<i>Q Right, but that’s not specific to what the President is proposing?</i><br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: No, not -- because obviously there are a lot of moving -- it’s a complex industry with a lot of moving pieces to it. But the tourism industry itself says with an increase of market share over the course of a decade, it could lead to an additional 1 million jobs. And our interest is doing everything we can because it is such a growing and significant industry that contributes already to our gross domestic product and to jobs in America. We want to take advantage of that. <br />
<br />
I mean, this is the United States of America. We have just -- including Orlando today, but all over the country just fantastic places for tourists to visit in all 50 of our states, and we want -- I think that the United States has not done what a number of countries have done, which is really promote what we have to offer here to international tourists, and we’re going to take up that cause to bring more visitors here so that they can enjoy all that America has to offer.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Is the President more of a Disney World or a Disneyland kind of guy? (Laughter.)</i><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> I actually did talk with him about this. He’s visited -- he grew up the western part of the country, he’s visited Disneyland, but I think this might be his first visit to Disney World.<br />
<br />
<i>Q So just for the record, the President prefers the theme park in California, where there are fewer electoral votes that he has a chance of actually -- that are contested electoral votes -- than Disney World? </i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: The President is very excited about visiting Disney World today.<br />
<br />
<i>Q His second-favorite Disney theme park, in the state of Florida with 29 electoral votes. </i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m just making the point that I believe -- I’ll have to double-check, we had this conversation this morning that when he was a child he visited Disneyland in California.<br />
<br />
Q Tourism is a big industry in both Washington, D.C., and New York, and the President is headed to New York later today for campaign events. Why not do this event in either of those two places?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> You make a great point that there are premier tourist destinations in a lot of places across the country. There may be -- there are few as iconic as Disney World. It’s a --<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q The fake Statue of Liberty is more iconic than the real Statue of Liberty?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Not at all. I don’t want to rank them. But I think it’s certainly I think an apt choice given how familiar folks are around the world with Disney World.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Could you talk about how the four airports were -- or the four cities were chosen for the airports to have these global entry kiosks to --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY: </b>You know, I --<br />
<br />
<i>Q They just happen to be in battleground states.</i><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> I would refer you to the Department of Homeland Security for that.<br />
<br />
<i>Q I have an oil question that’s not Keystone. Settlement talks with BP -- have those bubbled up -- if you’ll excuse the pun -- to the White House level yet?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I would have to take that question. I don’t know.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Okay, thanks.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Anybody got anything else? Anybody have a favorite ride, experience?<br />
<br />
<i>Q I want to go on Magic Mountain.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q Alister Bull of Reuters was just talking about Magic Mountain since the first thing he arrived at Andrews. (Laughter.)</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q Did the President say --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Space Mountain, right? Isn’t it --<br />
<br />
<i>Q There’s Space Mountain and Magic Mountain.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I did Space Mountain a lot.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Space Mountain is in the dark. That’s a good one, too.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: You know what’s great is the -- is it the Tower of Terror or something -- like the one with the -- what is it called? <br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q -- with the drop?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Yes. What’s that called?<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q It’s Tower of Terror.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Yes, I always -- with the Twilight Zone theme? Fantastic.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Did the President say anything about what his daughters’ reaction was to his coming for the first time to Disney World without them?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: He didn’t. I know I didn’t tell my kids because it would be --<br />
<br />
Q Have the girls been to Disney World before, or Disneyland?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I have to check. I don’t know.<br />
<br />
Q Is there any chance the President is going to do a ride?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: We have no plans for that.<br />
<br />
Q OTR to Space Mountain.<br />
<br />
Q Thanks, Jay.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: All right, good to see you all.<br />
<br />
Q Thank you.<br />
<br />
END<br />
11:20 A.M. ESTBranson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-70932658194256327422012-01-18T13:44:00.000-08:002012-01-19T03:45:02.617-08:00White House Press Briefing January 18, 2012<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r1EJ-RHYbcI/TwtkOh4YW_I/AAAAAAAAOmQ/wC3g1ebiOkQ/s1600/WhiteHouseLogo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r1EJ-RHYbcI/TwtkOh4YW_I/AAAAAAAAOmQ/wC3g1ebiOkQ/s1600/WhiteHouseLogo.gif" /></a></div>
The White House<br />
<br />
Office of the Press Secretary<br />
For Immediate Release<br />
January 18, 2012<br />
Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/18/12<br />
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room<br />
<br />
1:44 P.M. EST<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the White House for your daily briefing. It is always a pleasure to see you. I have a couple of things I want to say at the top.<br />
<br />
First, following the President’s State of the Union address, he will begin a five-state, three-day swing across the country. He will begin his trip with a visit to the Cedar Rapids area, followed by an event in the Phoenix area, before traveling to Las Vegas on January 25th.<br />
<br />
On January 26th, the President will hold events in the Las Vegas area and the Denver area before traveling to Detroit that evening. The following day, January 27th, the President will deliver remarks in the Detroit area before returning to Washington, D.C.<br />
<br />
More details, including information about the President’s events and media credentialing, will be released as they are available.<br />
<br />
Secondly, I want to anticipate a number of questions you may have on a particular subject based on reporting, sourcing and anonymous sources about the Keystone pipeline. And I just want to get it out of the way up front that I’m not going to confirm any reports. I’m not going to get ahead of the administration, of the Secretary of State or the President. We may have more information for you about that later today, but I’m not going to get ahead of the Secretary of State or the President.<br />
<br />
I would simply ask that you review the facts here, which is that in a precedent established long ago that has held through many administrations, both Democratic and Republican, pipelines like Keystone that cross transnational borders, as this one would, the permits for those pipelines have been reviewed in a process led by the State Department. That was the case here.<br />
<br />
When, in the case of the Keystone pipeline, concerns were raised about the environmental impacts on the air and water quality in Nebraska by, among others, the governor of Nebraska, a Republican, a decision was made that an alternate route be sought, and that, therefore, the process had to be delayed so that an adequate review could be undertaken, following the same standards that have always been in place, that were in place in the beginning of this process for this particular pipeline, and that have been in place for these kinds of projects for many years.<br />
<br />
In a purely partisan effort to score a political point, Republicans in Congress insisted on inserting an extraneous provision within a bill that had nothing to do with pipelines, but was a bill to extend a tax cut to 160 million Americans -- a tax cut that this President fought very hard to get and to extend.<br />
<br />
Even prior to the signing of that legislation, the State Department, which, again, reviews this process, made clear that setting an arbitrary deadline through this purely political effort would put the State Department in a corner, would severely hamper their ability to review an alternative route and a new pipeline route in the proper way, a way that has long been established by precedent and that would take into consideration all the criteria that are so important in decisions like this: economic impact, national security impact, environmental impact, the effect on the water that our children breathe -- or rather water our children drink and the air that they breathe.<br />
<br />
They made clear at the State Department in a statement prior to the signing of this legislation that imposing an arbitrary 60-day deadline on this process would make it virtually impossible for an adequate review to take place of a route, an alternate route, that to this day does not yet exist.<br />
<br />
So I am simply reviewing the facts as we know them.<br />
<br />
Q Yes, but he signed the law that says he had to do that.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: And we made clear -- well, he signed a law that forced a decision to be made in an arbitrary fashion, no question. And I don't have an announcement about any decision that would be forthcoming on that. But I'm just reviewing the facts as they existed yesterday as well as today.<br />
<br />
Q The facts are the law says that --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Let me get Erica.<br />
<br />
Q But to follow up on that, you're saying that you don't want to get ahead of the President or the State Department, but the law specifies that it is the President's decision. So is there any reason that this announcement would come from the State Department --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Again, I'm not going to get into details about -- I've made clear that we may have more information for you on that later today, and I'll look to that -- I would urge you to look to that for guidance on that question.<br />
<br />
Q And just to be clear, are you saying that there has not been a decision made, or you're not --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I'm not saying one way or the other regarding that.<br />
<br />
Q And can you speak to some of the Republican criticism that's already coming out, anticipating what the decision will be, that the President hates jobs, et cetera? (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, I think I did anticipate some of that in my opening remarks, but I would make clear that there is a proper process that has existed for many years and many administrations by which a project like this is reviewed and a permit is either granted or denied. Because of concerns expressed by numerous stakeholders, including the Republican governor of Nebraska, it was decided that an alternate route through Nebraska was necessary. The choosing of that alternate route has not even been completed yet.<br />
<br />
The State Department, which conducts and oversees this multiagency review process, made clear at the time, in December, that inserting this extraneous provision in an attempt to get a political victory -- because for some reason extending a tax cut to 160 million Americans wasn’t victory enough -- the Republicans put in jeopardy a process that should be immune from politics, should be conducted on the basis of pragmatic and considered analysis, and tried to hijack it through that. And the State Department warned that that would create serious problems.<br />
<br />
So the President’s commitment to job creation has been amply demonstrated by the policies that he has pursued, that he has signed into law, that have contributed considerably to the creation of 3.2 million private sector jobs. They’ve been demonstrated by his fierce commitment to doing everything he can, both working with Congress and acting independently, to further assist the economy as it recovers from the worst recession since the Great Depression, to further assist the economy as it creates more jobs -- most notably, recently, his proposal, the American Jobs Act, which if the Republicans were committed to job creation they would join with him in making sure that all of the provisions of that law became -- of that proposal became law, including the provision that would put 400,000 teachers and first responders back to work, the provision that would help us rebuild our infrastructure and put idle constructions workers back to work -- hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans who would have jobs were the Republicans to finish the work of passing the American Jobs Act.<br />
<br />
So that would be my answer to that criticism.<br />
<br />
Jake.<br />
<br />
Q You say that the move by Congress to force the President and the State Department to make a decision within 60 days about this pipeline is partisan. How is it any less political for the President, faced with a difficult choice between jobs and environmental concerns -- the two important constituencies for his reelection -- to say, you know what, I’m going to delay a decision on this until after the reelection in November 2012? How is that any less political than what Congress did?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, because there is an established process by which these reviews are conducted. When, because of the concerns expressed by many stakeholders, including the Republican governor of Nebraska, a decision was made that an alternate route needed to be considered, that process needed to be delayed and the full review needed to be conducted on the alternate route. I mean, that’s the way this process is supposed to work.<br />
<br />
Q What would have happened if the President hadn’t intervened? If the President hadn’t --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: The State Department -- first of all, again, the decision to create an alternate route was made based on the requests of stakeholders affected by the original route, including, again, the governor of Nebraska and others in that state. And that necessitated, as deemed by the State Department, which has to conduct this review, the postponement, and the allowance of enough time to thoroughly review the new route.<br />
<br />
Again, I think it’s important to note that, as the State Department made clear, 60 days is simply not enough time. We don't even have an alternate route identified yet, so how could anyone possibly review it thoroughly, in the manner that is expected in this process?<br />
<br />
So the point is, is that these things are supposed to be decided in a methodical, responsible manner so that all these criteria are properly weighed, because a decision like this has long-term implications for our economy and for our environment, for our national security. And those criteria all have to be considered as the decision is being made.<br />
<br />
The effort to score a political point, in a process that was wholly unrelated, because they were unhappy about the fact that the President was pushing for a payroll tax cut extension for 160 million Americans, I don’t think makes a lot of substantive sense in terms of the issue that proponents of that course say they care about, which is a decision that needs to be made on a pipeline and the potential economic -- positive economic impacts that that would have. You got to let the process unfold the way it’s supposed to unfold without this kind of extraneous political interference, and then a decision would be made on the merits.<br />
<br />
Q Would you clear this up, though?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Sure.<br />
<br />
Q The President signed this into law. It says that unless he finds that it is not in the national interest of the United States, within 60 days, then the project will go ahead, he takes no action. It leaves the State Department out of the equation and puts it squarely on the President.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Again, I’m not going to preview for you any information we might have about this process or decision prior to that taking place. I’m not quibbling with the legislation the President signed into law. I am making a broader statement about who conducts the review, and the fact that the State Department, which, again, through decades of precedent, conducts this review, made clear back in December what it felt the impact would be of an arbitrary deadline set by -- for political reasons.<br />
<br />
So if your issue is like -- if your concern here is who’s going to make the decision, I’ll suggest you wait for the decision to be made.<br />
<br />
Q The logical extension of that would be that the President would find that it’s not in the national interest, just go ahead --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, I would point you to what the State Department said, that it would be impossible -- or highly unlikely, if not impossible, to conduct a proper review of an alternate route that, again, on January 18, 2011, does not even exist, so how could you possibly review it?<br />
<br />
Q Doesn’t he have to do it?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Again, I’d point you to the future, 2012 -- what did I say? I don’t think I’ve made that mistake in any checks I’ve written so far this month.<br />
<br />
Q Hasn’t the Nebraska governor said that he doesn’t have these concerns anymore and he’s okay? Because you keep citing him, but he’s since said --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: He’s not okay with the original route. That was one of the primary reasons why this --<br />
<br />
Q But he said it should go forward while an alternate route is looked at, though.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: You don’t grant a permit for a pipeline with a significant portion of it missing.<br />
<br />
Q Yes, but you keep citing that he’s opposed, but he’s saying --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: He was opposed --<br />
<br />
Q Before.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: His opposition was important to the decision to seek an alternate route, which then delayed the process. And then the process requires the permitting of the full pipeline. It’s not a partial proposition. <br />
<br />
I want to go to Alister.<br />
<br />
Q Can we stay on this?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Yes, we can. <br />
<br />
Q Just -- I’m going to change the subject very quickly. (Laughter.) Officials in Iran have said that they reached out to Western powers to discuss restarting negotiations over their nuclear program soon. So do you have any response to that? And could you talk about your -- the administration’s attitude towards getting back to the negotiating table with Iran?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, our position has been clear and has not changed for a long, long time here. We have made clear from the beginning, when the President took office, that the path is open to Iran to get right with the international community, to fulfill its international obligations, abide by its commitments, and that the international community, including the United States, would be willing to work with Iran if it were willing to do that -- to ensure, for example, that it had access to nuclear technology for non-military purposes. And that stands.<br />
<br />
Iran’s behavior and its refusal to engage in serious discussions about this issue, its refusal to live up to its international obligations, its persistence in pursuing a nuclear program in a manner that’s not consistent with those international obligations has led to the consistent ratcheting up of pressure on Iran, led by the United States, but together with many, many international allies and partners, and that process continues. <br />
<br />
And it has put enormous pressure on Iran. It has isolated Iran. And that continues. But the fact remains that there is an alternate course here available to Iran should it respond to the letter from the P5-plus-1 and be willing to live up to its obligations. This is a simple choice that has been available to Iran from the beginning.<br />
<br />
Ann. <br />
<br />
Q Thank you, Jay. In general, the President doesn't oppose the construction of pipelines. After all, this is just an extension of an existing one. Overall, the President thinks that they're an important part of the oil infrastructure?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Definitely. And I think that's an important point to make, which I think I made yesterday, which is that this President’s commitment to expanding domestic oil and gas production is firm, and has been demonstrated by the fact that, again, in 2011, as was the case in 2010, the United States produced more oil and gas than at any time since 2003.<br />
<br />
And he has continued to make more territory available, both in the Gulf and in Alaska and elsewhere, to production and development. And he has done that in a way that at the same time maintains the standards of safety and responsible development that he thinks are key.<br />
<br />
So he takes an all-of-the-above approach here. He believes firmly that we need to continue to exploit, if you will, our domestic resources. We need to continue to invest in clean energy technologies. And doing so, taking this approach that includes oil, natural gas, nuclear power and other clean energy technologies, is the best energy policy and the surest way to ensure that we increase -- improve our national security and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.<br />
<br />
And so this is not an either/or proposition; it’s a both/and. You can do this, you can increase domestic oil and gas production, as has been the case on his watch, and do it in a safe and responsible way. And doing it in a safe and responsible way includes ensuring that the proper reviews are conducted for a proposal like this Keystone pipeline, in accordance with longstanding bipartisan tradition in multiple administrations.<br />
<br />
Q This, of course, is an extension to Canadian oilfields. Does he had an opinion on tar sands and whether those are an appropriate place to --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: The President is a firm believer in the fact that we need -- that we can and we must develop energy sources in a safe and responsible way. And obviously there are -- you have to take a lot of factors into consideration when you do that. \<br />
<br />
The overall issue here is about economic security and national security. And that’s why it is so important to embrace the possibility of further development and ensure that we do it in a way that’s safe and responsible. And that’s true for oil, it’s true for natural gas, it’s true for nuclear and it’s true for clean air technology -- I mean, sorry, clean energy technology. Getting ahead of myself.<br />
<br />
Mr. Henry, again.<br />
<br />
Q Thank you very much. Can I follow up on Iran real quick and then a question on taxes? You said in your answer to Alister, by talking about the P5-plus-1, and that is a channel the U.S. can use. But there’s a lawmaker in Iran and the foreign minister in Iran are both on the record saying that a letter has come from President Obama directly to the Supreme Leader saying that there should be direct U.S.-Iranian talks. Has such a letter been written, and are you open to direct talks?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Our position has not changed. Any communications we may have had with -- or may have with the Iranians are the same in private as they have been in public, and that is along the lines of what I just restated in terms of our position and our policy. The P5-plus-1 structure is in place. If the Iranians are serious about restarting talks, then they need to respond to that letter. That is the channel by which -- the mode by which the restarting of those talks would take place.<br />
<br />
Again, our expression of our position is the same in private as it is in public. The statement that there is a path here towards renewed talks and a path here for Iran to pursue if it so chooses that would allow it to get right with the international community, that would allow it to stop the process that has isolated it further and further, has been apparent from the beginning and it remains available to Iran to this day.<br />
<br />
But Iran has shown no inclination thus far to make that choice, to make that decision. And what we have seen over the three years since this President has been in office is he has -- by pursuing the Iranian issue in the way that he has, he has ensured that a world that was in conflict over this issue is now united -- an international community -- and an Iran that was united is now in conflict. And that is the effect that the President’s policies have had on Iran and on this process. He has brought to bear a level of consensus in the international community on the need to pressure Iran and isolate Iran on this issue that did not exist prior to him taking office.<br />
<br />
Q But can you address going back to the ’08 campaign, then-Republican-candidate John McCain was complaining that direct talks with Iran that the President had talked about then in the campaign would show weakness because why would you sit down with a country for direct talks --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: The President has always made clear --<br />
<br />
Q -- wipe Israel off the map?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: -- the process by which negotiations or talks would take place is the P5-plus-1. The President has always made clear that -- as he did when he took office, as he stated during the campaign -- that by offering the possibility of resolving this dispute with the Iranians through negotiations and talks would strengthen the United States’ hand, because if Iran agreed to do that and fulfilled its international obligations and abandoned its nuclear -- its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, that would be to the greater good and in the interest of the United States as well as its allies and partners around the world.<br />
<br />
And if it did not, it would be clear to the whole world that Iran was the problem here -- not the United States. And that is exactly what has happened. We have a level of international consensus about Iranian behavior that we did not have before. We have a situation where Iran’s economy is clearly suffering from the effects of the international sanctions regime, as well as the unilateral sanctions that various nations have placed on Iran. And that isolation has caused disunity within the Iranian leadership and made clear to the world that they have isolated themselves outside of international norms.<br />
<br />
Q The last thing, on taxes. Yesterday, when Norah asked you about Mitt Romney saying that his tax rate is around 15 percent -- this gets back to the old thing that you mentioned, the President has mentioned, about Warren Buffett paying less than his secretary because of the rate that capital gains are taxed. What is the President’s -- from a policy standpoint, what then is his solution? I mean, he’s talked about various things like the Buffett Rule and whatnot, but in terms of law, is it to bring capital gains tax rates up closer to income tax rates so that’s more fair? Is it -- what is his prescription then?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, I appreciate the question, Ed, and it’s a legitimate one. The President has made clear what his principles are in terms of tax reform. He is for both corporate tax reform and individual tax reform. And one of the principles that he would bring to the table in the development of individual tax reform is the Buffett Rule, which would ensure that millionaires and billionaires, because of the nature of their income, do not pay at a lower rate than middle-class Americans -- that Warren Buffett does not pay a lower rate in taxes than his secretary, as Mr. Buffett himself has said.<br />
<br />
How you get there is a matter that I will leave to the President and others to propose, because tax reform is a -- there are many ways to skin the cat, and it’s a complicated process. But the principle of the Buffett Rule is one that he believes is very important, because it goes right to the situation we were talking about yesterday and that you raise, and that is that it simply, as a matter of fairness, does not make a lot of sense for millionaires and billionaires to be able to pay taxes at a much lower rate than somebody making $100,000 a year or less.<br />
<br />
And so that is a principle he would bring to bear here. It is particularly -- there are a variety of ways that -- there are a variety of loopholes within the tax code that -- or elements of the tax code, as well as loopholes within it, that create that situation, not least of which -- and he’s identified this -- is the carried interest loophole, that allows hedge fund managers and private equity managers to take income for their labor and have it taxed at a capital gains rate.<br />
<br />
The President believes that’s just -- in the world that we live in right now, when middle-class Americans are struggling, when they’ve seen their wages stagnate or decline, when there’s enormous economic pressure on hardworking American families, that’s just not fair. And we have important things that we need to do to ensure that America is strong and that our economy is powerful in the 21st century. And so we need to make sure that everyone has a fair shot and everyone pays a fair share.<br />
<br />
April.<br />
<br />
Q Hi, Jay. Back on Keystone, realistically, a timeline<br />
-- now that there’s been a rejection, what’s the timeline as far as an alternative route. What do you think that -- when do you think you’ll --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I refer, April -- first of all, I don’t have any announcements to make regarding any decisions on this, so I would just take issue with your question in that regard. But --<br />
<br />
Q You’re giving us answers, so you didn’t take issue --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, I’ve been reviewing facts that have been true prior to today.<br />
<br />
As for pipeline proposals of the nature that are -- of the nature of Keystone that are transnational, I mean, those would go through the normal channels, through the State Department. And their duration in terms of the review process would be -- again, absent extraneous, political interference, would take place in the normal manner. But that’s just the way the process exists.<br />
<br />
Q -- in a 60-day process?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, the 60-day thing was the arbitrary element inserted into an unrelated tax cut bill. But that’s not how the process works. The process works in the manner that the State Department has run -- designed and run it for many years.<br />
<br />
Q And the reason why I ask that question is because there are already concerns about the fact that "tens of thousands of jobs" will be lost because of this rejection. So would you consider this more so of a deferment of job creation?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, let me just make clear here, as the State Department decided and the President concurred, the review process was extended because of a decision to change the route. That process should be allowed to take its course. The review should be allowed to be conducted in the appropriate way with all factors weighed and considered, overseen by the State Department. That is certainly the way this thing should happen.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, because of the decision by Republicans to insert this extraneous provision within a tax cut bill, there is this arbitrary deadline of 60 days, forcing the administration’s hand. But again, the broader process will continue to work the way it has always worked, again, predating this administration.<br />
<br />
Q But I’m talking about the issue of job creation that comes from this and while people are screaming that tens of thousands of jobs are lost now because --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: April, you have -- these projects -- you have to weigh a variety of considerations: economic impact, environmental impact, health and safety, national security -- and that's the way it should be.<br />
<br />
There are hundreds of thousands of teachers and first responders who could go back to work right away if Congress would act on the American Jobs Act, if Republicans would stop blocking the provisions within the American Jobs Act that this President proposed and Democrats support.<br />
<br />
There are tens of thousands of construction workers -- infrastructure jobs, not unlike the building of a pipeline -- who could be going back to work rebuilding our infrastructure, making us more competitive for the 21st century, if Republicans would support, as they often have in the past, the kind of infrastructure investments that are included in the American Jobs Act.<br />
<br />
And again, as we’ve said earlier -- I’ve said earlier this month in briefings, we remain optimistic that that kind of cooperation could be forthcoming this year, because it really is incumbent upon every elected member of Congress as well as the President to work together towards the goal of improving our economy and creating jobs.<br />
<br />
Kristen.<br />
<br />
Q Thanks, Jay. Just to follow up a bit on what April was asking, the bottom line is the Keystone pipeline has become a political lighting rod this year. So what’s the administration’s level of concern that the debate itself has really in some ways pitted this administration against some unions who are saying this would put them back to work?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I would simply say that on issues like this there is a non-political, professional process that has been in place, was established long before this administration came to office, and is the proper way to conduct the reviews for applications for permits for these kinds of transnational projects. That review process is run by the State Department. It was being run by the State Department. A change in the route was made because of concerns expressed -- legitimate concerns expressed by stakeholders in Nebraska and elsewhere. And because of that, the process had to be extended.<br />
<br />
That’s how it’s supposed to work. There are a lot of factors to weigh in these kinds of decisions, including national security factors, issues of the health and safety of our children and the residence of folks in the area of any proposed pipeline, economic impacts, job impacts, the effect on our energy security. And that’s the kind of process that the State Department oversees. It involves input from many agencies. And that’s the way this should proceed. It should not become, as you say, highly political in the way that it has become because of the decision to insert an extraneous provision within a tax cut bill.<br />
<br />
Q I understand there is a non-political process, but given that we’re in a reelection year, isn’t it impossible for this not to take some sort of a political --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: It’s up to others to decide how political they want to be about any kind of decision like this. This President, this administration, is tasked with the responsibility of reviewing these matters in a way that’s appropriate, that takes into consideration all the different criteria that need to be brought to bear in a decision like this. And that’s the approach the State Department has taken and the President has taken, and will continue to take.<br />
<br />
Q And just to ask one quick one on another topic, Jay. Representative Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, as you know, back in August, raised some concerns over Kathryn Bigelow’s upcoming Osama bin Laden movie, raised some concerns that there were potentially some classified information that was leaked about the kill and capture of Osama bin Laden. Last week, the CIA and the Defense Department officially opened an investigation up into this project. What’s the administration’s reaction?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, the CIA and the Defense Department are part of the administration. And I would point you to them and their announcement of their look into this.<br />
<br />
What I made clear at the time is that there was some loose reporting in a column about what the White House did. And I made clear that in discussing that mission and those days with folks involved in making this film or writing books or articles or doing TV pieces, we said all the same things and none of it was classified.<br />
<br />
Q And you’re confident that this investigation --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, again, I would refer you to the Defense Department and the CIA -- with regard to that -- because I was part of that process -- with regard to the White House’s engagement with reporters like everyone in this room, practically, as well as others who were working on magazine articles or books or films, we provided the same information to everybody, and none of it was classified.<br />
<br />
Laura.<br />
<br />
Q My question is a process question. Why, knowing as you do the interest in the Keystone issue, and knowing as you do that this decision is going to be announced later today, why would you announce it after the briefing, and therefore put yourself in a position where you won’t answer any questions about it and where we won’t have an opportunity --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, I’m not going anywhere. You know you guys can ask me questions. I’m here most days.<br />
<br />
Q Okay. All right.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: You’re welcome to fill a seat.<br />
<br />
Q I'll call you after the decision comes out.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I know it’s hard to believe, but the schedule of decision-making and policy processes and stuff are not all dependent on my schedule, or the briefing schedule, or the communications shop. And that’s how it should be. So, again, you guys probably don't like me to brief in the middle of the evening or something, so I would just point you to the fact that we may have something more to say about this later today.<br />
<br />
Margaret.<br />
<br />
Q Thanks. On Keystone, without confirming a rejection, can you explain to us what a rejection would mean? In other words -- (laughter.) No, no, I’m not -- I’m totally serious.<br />
<br />
Q No, good question.<br />
<br />
Q Okay, so if TransCanada has to submit a new route, does that just -- like, does the clock start at zero again? Are we looking at another 10-year process? You can say that House Republicans forced their hand on that, but I’m trying to understand what does -- what would a rejection mean. Would a rejection mean --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, let me make two points --<br />
<br />
Q -- begin at the complete beginning?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, let me make two points. First of all, these reviews are conducted by the State Department, and the details of how they work are best explained by the State Department.<br />
<br />
However, I would point out that absent the payroll tax cut and the insertion of an extraneous provision within it that had created this arbitrary 60-day deadline, there was a process in place that wasn’t 10 years, but when the route had been changed was -- I think it was 18 months, if I’m not mistaken. And that's because that's the amount of time that the State Department believes was necessary -- would be necessary to properly review an alternate route.<br />
<br />
I would refer you to the State Department for more details about how that process generally works, depending on whatever decision was made because of the necessity created out of this legislation.<br />
<br />
Q So this is the White House’s understanding that this would probably begin another 18-month time clock then? I can ask -- I’ll ask my State Department reporters to ask --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I don’t have a White House view to express on that except for what I just said, which is that the process -- I mean, because it depends on a lot of factors, including the outcome of this decision. But as you noted in even your question, there are players in this process, including companies, private companies; there’s another country involved, which is the reason why the State Department is engaged in this. So I would be -- I would not want to speculate.<br />
<br />
Q It may have been eight months from now that you guys gave it the green light, and what I’m asking is, is that option now totally obviated? Is that no longer an option?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I would just refer you to the State Department. I just don’t have details for that. And again, it’s based on the premise of a decision that I’m not announcing from here.<br />
<br />
Q And any White House reaction, in just working principle, as you’ve gone through your day, have the Internet provider and website protests affected you guys in any way?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, I don’t have any effects or impacts that I’ve noted beyond to point out that we made very clear over the weekend our views on this, and we had tremendous response to our “We the People” initiative. And we think it’s an important process here that has been conducted where there’s a lot of external input expressed about the many important issues that are at stake. And our firm belief is that we need to do something about online piracy by foreign websites, but we need to do it in a way that does not impinge upon a free and open Internet. And what that means is that both sides, loosely defined, the two sides in this issue need to come together and find a solution that strikes a balance.<br />
<br />
And I think that process has been benefited by the interest and the number of voices that have been heard on this issue. We’ve been really impressed by the volume of response that we’ve gotten online to what we put out over the weekend.<br />
<br />
Lesley, and then Jackie.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, can you give us a little bit more on the President’s visit to Florida tomorrow and some of the Republican criticism that he’s going to be there just a few days before Republican GOP candidates will arrive, after South Carolina and polls are down in the state for him?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, I’ve discussed his travel. I mean, he goes to states all across the country. And every President should travel across the country to meet with Americans from as many states as possible -- and that’s a principle this President pursues.<br />
<br />
He will travel tomorrow to Florida, to Orlando, to Walt Disney World, where he will unveil a strategy that will significantly help boost tourism and travel, which is an important and sometimes overlooked sector in the U.S. economy. The action will be taken as the President’s “We Can’t Wait” agenda of executive actions that will aid job growth and do not require congressional approval -- which goes back to the point I made earlier, which is he’s pursuing every avenue possible here to tackle what he thinks is our most important challenge, which is growing the economy, creating jobs, positioning the American economy to compete and dominate in the 21st century. And this is another indication of that effort. I think --<br />
<br />
Q -- a few days out of the Florida primary being started, it has nothing to do with --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: You can argue that, but, first of all, our schedules are made with a lot of different considerations well in advance. I think I read reports a few weeks ago that this thing would be over after Iowa. You can’t -- that would -- or that it could go on until May as it did in -- or June, as it did in 2008. That would make it impossible for us for -- if we were guessing in the weeks in advance that we make travel arrangements like this, it would make it very hard for us to go to many, many places.<br />
<br />
This is -- it’s obvious when you’re making a tourism and travel announcement that one of the premier sites of U.S. tourism industry is Orlando, so it seems pretty self-evident that you would do that.<br />
<br />
Q Can I follow up on that?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Sure.<br />
<br />
Q Is the President disappointed that Senator Nelson won’t be with him tomorrow in Orlando?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I’m not aware of any opinion he’s expressed on that.<br />
<br />
Q Apart from general State of the Union follow-up, what’s the message next week on this five-state tour?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, since he’ll be talking about the subjects that he raised in the State of the Union, if I were to talk about the subjects he’ll raise in the states that he visits I would be getting ahead of the President. (Laughter.) So look, I think one thing you can be sure of -- and this is broadly speaking, you shouldn’t rule out other subjects -- but that he is fiercely focused on economic growth and job creation and pursuing every -- using every tool available to him to assist in that project.<br />
<br />
So that will certainly be a topic generally of his address next week, and it will be a topic that he discusses on the road both after the State of the Union and beyond, as he has so frequently prior to the State of the Union.<br />
<br />
Q And I appreciate that the Florida plan had nothing to do with the fact that Florida is about to vote, and then he’s going to Nevada, which is the next state up to vote. (Laughter.) It seems awfully coincidental.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, look, again, if we -- we would have to rule out -- remember what happened in 2008. We would have had to decide back in December or November -- and we make decisions fairly far in advance about where we’re going to travel -- that we couldn’t go to any state that had a primary -- that's 50 states, basically -- because all of them could be the place where the nomination was decided in the other party. We can't do that.<br />
<br />
This President, as every President is, is President of all the United States of America, of all the people in the country, and he’s going to travel around the country to talk about the issues that are important to Americans in every state, including, most importantly, economic growth and job creation.<br />
<br />
Brianna. I’m sorry. Did I miss you this whole time?<br />
<br />
Q I didn't consider it --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Okay.<br />
<br />
Q On Keystone you talk about these are processes that have been in place in other administrations. I mean, the President has talked about kind of greasing the rails in some ways to create jobs. Isn’t this sort of one of those bureaucratic mountains that he’s talked about moving?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, you eliminate red tape and you eliminate bureaucracy; you do the kinds of things that he has done in an unprecedented move with his regulatory look-back process that has eliminated a lot of rules and regulations to make life easier for American businesses. But you do that in a careful review to make sure that you’re not eliminating processes or rules that are vital to either health and safety of the American people, or national security, or energy security.<br />
<br />
So, no, you don't ignore potential issues involving the health and safety of residents in numerous states who would be affected by this pipeline. You have to --it’s your responsibility. And that’s why this process is always done in a manner that’s very thorough, very considered, that weighs all the different factors that are at stake here in a decision like this.<br />
<br />
Q But wouldn’t it serve him --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I mean, the issue here is to short-circuit a process and approve a pipeline, the route for which hasn’t even been decided -- or proposed.<br />
<br />
Q I’m not saying in a haphazard way. But wouldn’t it be better to move forward in some way, in tandem with the state review? Some way to move forward on this instead of being hit, as he’s going to be hit, over and over by Republicans who are saying, according to TransCanada, this is 20,000 jobs -- and they’re going to put it over and over in different pieces of legislation and it will be a fight over and over. Isn’t he better off moving forward in some way?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: There are going to be a lot of fights. And I understand the Republicans, for lack of alternative arguments to make on the proper way to balance our budget, or on tax reform, or how we should best pay for the kinds of investments we need, or why they oppose putting 400,000 teachers and first responders back to work, or why they oppose putting construction workers back to work, that they will grab onto some other arguments. But that doesn't mean the President doesn't have the responsibility, and his administration doesn’t have a responsibility, to conduct a review like this properly and by the book. And that’s how they’re going to do it.<br />
<br />
Q These are private sector jobs. They don’t require any expenditure by government.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: That’s not the issue. The issue is the impact that a development project like this, transnational development project like this would have on the health and safety of the American people in the region, on our economic security, on job creation, on our energy security. These are -- there’s a variety of factors that have to be considered, and they should be considered. They should not be set aside out of -- for political gain.<br />
<br />
I mean, let’s go back to how this happened, right? The President was making a very compelling argument about the need to implement the provision within the American Jobs Act to extend the payroll tax cut. His original proposal was to expand the payroll tax cut so that Americans got -- 160 million Americans got a bigger tax cut this year. Republicans went from opposing that to being ambivalent about it to suddenly deciding that they needed some -- because they were going to have to go along with it in the end because it was the right thing to do and their constituents were telling them it was the right thing to do -- to deciding they needed some sort of political victory, and this is what they settled on, an attempt to hijack a process, to short-circuit a review process that needs to be conducted properly in order that all the prerogatives here are considered. And that’s how it should be and that’s how it will be.<br />
<br />
George. Oh, Jackie, I said you next.<br />
<br />
Q On another issue that pits constituencies against each other, you mentioned that, on Saturday’s blog post about the issue of intellectual property rights and piracy, that you were just trying to urge the sides to come together on a solution. But it was widely interpreted in some as the White House taking sides with Google against Hollywood. Why do you think that's the wrong way to look at it?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Because as I just stated, we believe there is a need absolutely to address the problem of online piracy conducted by foreign websites, which is the real driving issue here. We made clear in the statement that we put out over the weekend that we oppose the so-called DNS filter, and we made clear what our principles are in how we pursue -- or how the government ought to pursue addressing the issue of online privacy, and in doing that, it must not impinge upon the freedom of the Internet because the Internet is such a vital resource for our economy and for the American people.<br />
<br />
But these are -- there are absolute issues here that -- and interests that all sides of this debate have, and they're legitimate, and that's why there needs to be the kind of dialogue we believe that could bring us to a resolution -- that could result in a resolution that is balanced and addresses concerns about online privacy, but doesn't impinge upon the freedom of the Internet.<br />
<br />
Q But you had bills moving forward in each house towards markup, and typically this administration is, if anything, deferential towards the legislative process in Congress. Why --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Everybody hear that? (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
Q Why the timing? And why was it timed on a Saturday? I mean, there are so many aspects of the timing of this that are unusual.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, I think there was a great deal of focus and interest and intensity on this issue. We have the "We the People" process and solicited opinions on this issue, and the threshold was met for us to respond and we did. I think it’s entirely appropriate for us to put forward our view on pending bills, as you stated, at least on the provision in particular within one of them or both of them on the DNS filter, and on the overall principles that we think should guide this process.<br />
<br />
Q Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Anybody else? George, I owe you, and then that will be it.<br />
<br />
Q Yes, I just wanted to clarify --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: And then Cheryl, I know you’re dying in the back there, sorry.<br />
<br />
Q I just wanted to clarify your answer to Ed. Are you confirming that the President sent a new letter to the leadership in Iran?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I’m not -- we don’t discuss specific communications, diplomatic communications. I would say that we have a variety of channels through which we can communicate with the Iranians and that any message we communicate to the Iranians about these issues would be entirely consistent with what we’ve said publicly, what I’ve said publicly, the President, the Secretary of State and others. And you can be sure of that.<br />
<br />
Cheryl.<br />
<br />
Q Two personnel issues -- I know you love talking about that. Are you considering --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I have no personnel announcements to make.<br />
<br />
Q Is the President considering Larry Summers to head the World Bank?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I don’t have any personnel announcements to make.<br />
<br />
Q And is the President actively looking for a new OMB director, or is Jeff Zients going to stick around for a while?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, he just became acting director for the second time. So I don’t want to foreshadow anything. The President is very appreciative of Jeff’s excellent service so far, his willingness to be acting director in the past, his willingness to do this again now. This is a very important role. It’s very important specifically as regards our interactions with Congress. So he’s very pleased that Jeff is taking on this responsibility.<br />
<br />
Q Has the President talked to Prime Minister Harper?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I don’t have any foreign calls to announce.<br />
<br />
Q So he hasn’t talked to him?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I just said I don’t have any foreign calls to announce.<br />
<br />
Thanks.<br />
<br />
Q Will we have the President on Keystone?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Am I the warm-up act?<br />
<br />
Q Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I have no -- nothing more to say on the matter.<br />
<br />
END 2:35 P.M. ESTBranson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-54987148881999616492012-01-17T12:53:00.000-08:002012-01-19T03:35:57.333-08:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r1EJ-RHYbcI/TwtkOh4YW_I/AAAAAAAAOmQ/wC3g1ebiOkQ/s1600/WhiteHouseLogo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r1EJ-RHYbcI/TwtkOh4YW_I/AAAAAAAAOmQ/wC3g1ebiOkQ/s1600/WhiteHouseLogo.gif" /></a></div><br />
<object width="480" height="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="bgcolor" value="282828"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.whitehouse.gov/xml/video/113125/config.xml&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf"></param><embed src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="300" flashvars="config=http://www.whitehouse.gov/xml/video/113125/config.xml&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf&share_url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/17/press-briefing"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<br />
The White House<br />
<br />
<br />
Office of the Press Secretary<br />
For Immediate Release<br />
January 17, 2012<br />
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/17/12<br />
<br />
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room<br />
<br />
12:53 P.M. EST<br />
<br />
Please see below for a correction of a typo (marked with asterisks) to the transcript.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I have no announcements to make -- welcome to the White House for your daily briefing -- so I will go straight to questions. Ken. <br />
<br />
Q The President is going to be meeting with King Abdullah today. What is he hoping to accomplish with this meeting? And at this point, what are the expectations for Middle East peace?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President is meeting with the King of Jordan, as you note. They will discuss a variety of issues, as they always do -- regional issues as well as King Abdullah's important leadership role in the region, notably through his pursuit of our shared goal of a two-state solution through the Middle East peace process. They will also discuss Syria and the King's courageous statements calling on President Assad to step down in that neighboring state.<br />
<br />
As for our view of the peace process, we commend the Jordanian King for the role he's played in the talks and the renewal of talks. We believe that those talks offer the parties a real opportunity to make meaningful progress towards peace. This is a difficult issue; it has long been a difficult issue. And it has its best chance of reaching a positive result when the two sides are sitting down negotiating face to face. That's the way to bring about peace. That's the way to resolve the issues that divide the Israelis and the Palestinians. <br />
<br />
So we support this progress, but we obviously recognize that there's a long road to travel here to get to a final result.<br />
<br />
Q Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this morning the Palestinians had no interest in entering peace talks. Does that perhaps put some cold water on these discussions?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Look, we don't characterize other leaders' remarks. We're focused on a process here and the reality that the way to achieve peace is through face-to-face, direct negotiations. The fact that there has been some progress in that regard is a good thing. We're certainly not going to overstate it. There are many thorny issues to resolve, but this is the mode and the forum by which you can get this done.<br />
<br />
Q Some members of the Jobs Council would like the U.S. to stop taxing overseas profits. Does the administration support that proposal? And what's the administration's take on the proposal to open up federal land to more exploration of oil, gas and coal?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't have any announcements to make on the specific policy that you mentioned. I would note that of the 35 recommendations from the Jobs Council that don't require legislative action, the administration has taken action on 33 of them and completed implementation on 16. That includes, most recently, from last week, the establishment of SelectUSA -- or rather that was in June -- but the insourcing forum that the President had highlighting this very important trend in American business where American companies are bringing jobs back to the United States, which is a very positive thing indeed, and the efforts the President wants to take to increase that trend.<br />
<br />
The fact of the matter is, on oil and gas production, we have higher oil production in this country in -- had it in 2010 than we've had since 2003. This President is committed to an all-of-the-above approach in our energy development, which means increasing production here at home, a focus on natural gas and its importance for our energy future, as well as investments in clean energy. <br />
<br />
We have some stats here on the fact that last month, the Department of the Interior held a major oil and gas lease sale covering more than 21 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that are currently not leased. Also last month, as part of the President's effort, the Department of the Interior held a lease sale that covered over 140,000 acres in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. And the point of this is that we're absolutely committed to increasing domestic oil and gas production, but to do it in a safe and responsible way. We believe that's possible, and the facts that I just laid out to you demonstrate that.<br />
<br />
Let me move around -- Bill.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, is Newt Gingrich correct in calling our President "the food stamp President"?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: The fact of the matter is this country is emerging from the worst recession since the Great Depression, the greatest economic and financial crisis of our lifetimes. When this President took the oath of office in January of 2009, our economy was in freefall. We were hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of nearly 800,000 a month. The economy was contracting -- or had contracted in the previous quarter, the last quarter of President Bush's term in office, by nearly 9 percent. The result of that terrible recession was a dramatic increase in unemployment and a dramatic increase -- or an increase, rather, in the number of people who need assistance -- needed assistance.<br />
<br />
I would simply say that those are the facts, and the economic policies that helped create that situation are ones that, in the case of the candidate you just mentioned, he supported and they're the kinds of policies that he advocates to this day. This President takes a different approach.<br />
<br />
Q But the language that the speaker uses is that these are people that President Obama put on the food stamps.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, you know as well as I do that that's crazy. <br />
<br />
April.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, on the economy and some of the polls talking about -- the President has been in office more than two years, and some are saying that after two years, the President should take responsibility for some part of the economy. Where does the Bush presidency end in this presidency when it comes to the economy, and where does this President pick up in taking responsibility for the economy?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President took responsibility on the day he was sworn into office, and began a process of creating policies and implementing them that have helped us return to economic growth, have helped us have an economy that has created more than 3.1 million private sector jobs in the last 22 months, I believe. <br />
<br />
The fact is the hole that was dug by this recession was very deep, and we are still climbing our way out of it. There is still much more that needs to be done. And that's why the President is focused on passing the American Jobs Act, for example, the need to work with Congress to do more to help the economy create jobs and grow faster. That's why he is so insistent that Congress act to extend the payroll tax cut through the end of the calendar year and extend unemployment insurance through the end of the calendar year. And the President expects that Congress will do that without drama, and there’s certainly been some indication that members of Congress agree with that approach.<br />
<br />
Q So -- but also there’s the issue -- you’re talking about the hole was deep. Do you think that we could go back into that hole with another component of the economy, the possibility of gas prices going up to $5 a gallon?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, this President remains concerned about oil prices and the effect an increase in gas prices can have on Americans across the country who are struggling to make ends meet. That's been the case since the day he took office. It has been an issue that we are always focused on, as we were when there were price surges last year during the Arab Spring, and we continue to monitor that.<br />
<br />
It’s why the President has the all-of-the-above, all-inclusive approach to energy development and production that I described earlier at this briefing. And again, it’s why it’s so important to have domestic oil and gas production increase as it has and to have our reliance on imports decrease as it has.<br />
<br />
But this is long-term work, April, as you know. We need to take a multifaceted approach to developing oil and gas resources here at home, to developing clean energy sources as well as taking other measures to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and broadly -- not just regarding the price of oil -- but helping the middle class through the measures this President has put forward to get on sounder economic footing. That is the number-one objective -- domestic objective that this President has.<br />
<br />
Dan, did you have one?<br />
<br />
Q Back to the Jobs Council and their recommendations, those that will require congressional approval. What are the chances that there will be any real progress there, when the President himself pointed out this morning that in an election year, it will be difficult to get some of these things done?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, that is certainly often the case that election years can create a difficult environment for legislative action. However, there are notable exceptions to that. Those of us who were here in 1996 remember a great deal of cooperation between a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. We certainly hope that that will be the case this year. There’s a lot of work to be done, and there’s a lot of work that can only be done through legislative action, through the kind of bipartisan cooperation that this President has stood for since he took office. And there's a great deal of opportunity out there for that kind of cooperation if leaders in Congress want to go in that direction, and if Republicans in particular want to go in that direction. <br />
<br />
The President has put forward an agenda of economic and job-creating initiatives that are the kinds of initiatives that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, that have traditionally garnered the kind of Republican support in the past that has ensured that these kinds of measures become law -- spending on our infrastructure, for example, the kinds of investments that help our economy in the long term but also put people back to work right away, idle construction workers who could be working right now if that element of the jobs act were passed by Congress and signed into law by this President. Certainly the President would endorse that and hope that -- he hopes that happens. <br />
<br />
And that's true of a variety of measures that could be acted on if we can get the kind of bipartisan support that can be tough to find in an election year, but there is certainly precedent for it.<br />
<br />
Q When the President views the economy overall, what does he rate it at right now? Where does he see it?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I haven't discussed it in those terms with him, but I know that he believes we are on a better path. The economy has been growing now for two years, roughly -- I forget the number of quarters -- but after shrinking considerably during the recession. The economy has been creating jobs -- 3.2 million private sector jobs thus far. And that's all -- those are all good signs of positive progress.<br />
<br />
But none of it is enough. This President is keenly aware of the fact that there are too many Americans out there who are still worried about losing their job or still looking for jobs and can't find them. That's why he's focused on doing everything he can, working with Congress and using his executive authority, to address that need for economic security and the need to grow the economy further and create jobs.<br />
<br />
Q One quick question -- back on Newt Gingrich, also out on the trail today. Someone in the audience was asking him about getting tougher on the President and when he was going to bloody his nose, and he said, "I don't want to bloody his nose, I want to knock him out." What do you, and what does the President, perhaps, think --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I hadn’t heard those comments. But, look, the campaign trail is filled with exuberant rhetoric and I'll just let that one pass.<br />
<br />
Jake.<br />
<br />
Q I'm sorry if you've answered this in the past. The National Defense Authorization Act -- the President expressed concern about the provision that would allow the military to indefinitely detain an American citizen. Last night at the debate -- at the Republican debate, not only did Ron Paul express a concern about that provision but Rick Santorum, not known for being libertarian or liberal on these issues, said that he thought the way the law was before was more appropriate than this new law. Is President Obama doing anything to rescind this provision that gives the military this new power?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I appreciate the question. I have talked about it in the past. But as you know, we had concerns with the legislation as it was written. We worked with the authors of the legislation and changes were made that allowed the President to sign the bill. And we have made clear in the signing of the legislation and in our discussions afterwards that the President retains the flexibility that he believes is essential for the Commander-in-Chief to make sure that our people in the field have all the tools necessary to do their job and that make sure that we are handling these matters in a way that are consistent with our values.<br />
<br />
So we will implement the law in a way that makes that achievable.<br />
<br />
Q But that's a signing statement that says this is how you're interpreting the law. But the law is the military now has the power to indefinitely detain an American citizen if they suspect them of terrorism. And I understand that the President is going to interpret it his way, but he's not going to be the President forever. He might not even be the President for --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I have no updates for you on -- since the law was just passed and signed.<br />
<br />
Q There's no update to --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would just say that we made clear our concerns about it. We've made clear how we will approach implementation of it. And how this is revisited, if it is revisited, remains to be seen. But at this moment, I think the President has been very clear about the values he brings to it and the method -- or rather the approach he will take when the law is implemented.<br />
<br />
Q Would you disagree with the way that the civil liberties groups and Rick Santorum are interpreting the law? I mean, is it not --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would just refer you to the President's statement -- signing statement about it.<br />
<br />
Q But that's not a declaration of -- I'm not talking about how he's going to implement it. I'm just talking about the law as it stands on the books. <br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I understand that, and we've made clear what our position is on how it needs to be implemented in a way that's consistent with our values, in a way that -- and in a way that maintains maximum flexibility for our operators in the field.<br />
<br />
Q Well, let me just ask this final question. Are you comfortable with how any President in the future might interpret that law? Is the President comfortable?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, you're -- that's a hypothetical about the future, and in terms of how we will approach this issue in the future I don't want to speculate. I can just point you to the way we have discussed it and the signing statement, as you mentioned, that the President used when he signed it into law.<br />
<br />
Yes, Norah.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, the centerpiece of the President's economic or tax policy has been that everybody pays their fair share. Mitt Romney, this morning, was asked about his tax rate. He said that he pays closer to the 15 percent rate. What does the President think of that?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I haven't discussed that with the President. I think you know, from what the President has said and others in the administration, that he believes very strongly that -- or he agrees, rather, with Warren Buffett that those who are making millions of dollars -- millionaires and billionaires, say -- should not pay a lower effective tax rate than middle-class Americans. As Warren Buffett put it, he should not pay a much lower tax rate than his own administrative assistant, his own secretary.<br />
<br />
The President shares that belief. And I think that this only illuminates what he believes is an issue, which is that everybody who's working hard ought to pay their fair share, and that includes millionaires who might be paying an effective tax rate of 15 percent when folks making $50,000 or $75,000 or $100,000 a year are paying much more. He thinks we ought to fix that. And that is an element of the approach he takes in his economic proposals, as you know.<br />
<br />
Q But Mitt Romney is just following the law, isn't he?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not disagreeing with that. The President believes that we ought to change the law for that reason. His policies about the need for everybody to get a fair shot and to pay their fair share have been quite clear. We've had a lot of debates about it already with Congress, and I assume we'll have a debate about it this year once the Republicans choose their nominee. The President feels very strongly that everybody needs to pay their fair share and that everybody, therefore, gets a fair shot at the American Dream. And that would apply to somebody paying 15 percent -- an effective tax rate of 15 percent on millions of dollars of income.<br />
<br />
Q We don't know exactly the rate that Mitt Romney is paying because he has not released his tax returns. He says that he hadn't -- he said last night in the debate that he hadn't planned on releasing his tax records but that most likely he's going to get asked to do it in April. <br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well -- what's the question? Sorry. (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
Q Yes. Chomping at the bit. (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I was anticipating. But go ahead. (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
Q Why should he have to release his tax records?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, it's not for us to call on someone to release his tax records, but it is an established tradition for presidential candidates to release their tax records. Then-Senator Obama did release multiple years of his tax records, and obviously has released his tax records, as tradition dictates, since he's been President. And the President is not unique in that regard. President George W. Bush, President Clinton, nominees for each party for years and years and years -- I think going back to 1976, this has been a very standard tradition. And obviously we think it’s a good tradition. And that's why then-Senator Obama released his tax records going back I think six or seven years when he was a candidate for President in the 2008 election cycle.<br />
<br />
And I believe -- I think it was a tradition that was initiated by then-presidential candidate George Romney, back in 1968, who released 12 years of tax records in ’68, as I understand it.<br />
<br />
Q Can I just follow on Bill’s question about --<br />
<br />
Q Just happened to know that? (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
Q I just want to follow on Bill’s question about Gingrich last night saying that --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I'm a student of presidential politics.<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
Q -- more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any President in history. It is true that since Barack Obama has been President it’s gone up 45 percent -- the number of people on food stamps. So what is inaccurate about what Speaker Gingrich said?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I answered this question already, Norah. I think everyone understands that this economy took a body blow in 2007, 2008, from which we are still recovering, and that that resulted in an economy that was contracting, that was shrinking at an historic pace, an economy --<br />
<br />
Q -- 2131 that the number of people has gone up more than any other President. You’re just saying it’s not the President’s fault?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m saying that it was the result of the worst recession since the Great Depression that was brought on by economic policies that certainly predate this President, and that this President has been working very hard with his team to try to fix, and working with Congress to try to fix and correct, so that we can grow, as we have been growing on his watch, so that we can create private sector jobs, as we have been doing -- 3.2 million private sector jobs in the last many months. <br />
<br />
And that's the direction that we need to be going in. Not the direction that we were headed into when he took office three years ago almost to the day, when the economy was in freefall, when there was talk of another Great Depression, there was talk of unemployment as high as 25 percent potentially. Because of the actions that this President took working with Congress, we averted that absolute calamity. But the impact of the recession has been severe, and it’s been severe on the most vulnerable Americans, and it’s been severe on middle-class Americans who have had to struggle to make ends meet as a result of it. <br />
<br />
And that's why this President’s focus is so keenly on helping those Americans deal with this economy, emerge from the recession on sounder economic footing, and why he believes that the folks who benefitted the most from the previous 10 years, who saw their share of the nation’s wealth increase dramatically while middle-class Americans saw their incomes shrink or stagnate, that they need to pay their fair share -- which goes back to the Buffett rule, and the idea that someone making millions of dollars should not pay a lower effective tax rate than somebody making 50 grand or 75 grand.<br />
<br />
Ari.<br />
<br />
Q Thanks. Over the weekend, the White House expressed opposition to the current form of the Online Privacy Act. And I wonder whether it’s fair to describe this as the White House siding with Silicon Valley over Hollywood? And how important is it to the White House that some version of this bill pass?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don't believe that that's an accurate way to describe it. I think what you saw in the exposition of the administration’s position over the weekend was a keen focus on the need to do something serious about online piracy, especially by foreign websites. It’s a serious problem that requires serious legislative responses. But we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cyber security risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative, global Internet. And that’s the approach and the balance that we think needs to be taken as we work through this issue in Congress, and as the stakeholders who have a lot of important contributions to make to the debate engage with Congress as this legislation moves forward.<br />
<br />
So we made very clear over the weekend our opposition to what’s called the DNS filter because we believe it creates a cyber security risk. And that’s something that we are a direct player in because obviously national security and cyber security are something that we are engaged in directly.<br />
<br />
As far as the interests of private sector actors, I mean, there are legitimate concerns on both sides and those need to be addressed. That’s why we need to maintain Internet freedom; that’s why we need to do something serious about online piracy from foreign websites. But our position on this, the approach that we believe is the best approach to take we did spell out over the weekend as a result of the “We the People” petition.<br />
<br />
Yes, Ed.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, you’ve said before from the podium the President spends I think about 10 percent of his time or some small number like that on the presidential campaign. So how did you know about George Romney’s 12 years of tax returns?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I said that he spends. I do a lot of reading, Ed. (Laughter.) He didn’t tell me about that.<br />
<br />
Q So your percentage is what, 30 or 40 percent?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: No, no, no, I just read that in probably an article that one of your colleagues wrote.<br />
<br />
Q Okay. Now, I don’t know how many years -- maybe you do -- George Romney released of his college transcripts, but Republicans like to complain the President has not released his college transcripts. What is the stated reason for that?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I’d refer you to the campaign. I mean, I think --<br />
<br />
Q Is it a question you could take --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Sure. I think we’ve answered this a bunch. I think that the tradition of releasing income tax records for presidential candidates, for serious potential nominees and nominees of the two parties is well established. It’s not a law, but it’s well established. And it’s one that this President abided by when he was a candidate as senator. It’s one that numerous Republicans and Democrats have abided by, and we just think it’s a good idea.<br />
<br />
Q I want to go back to the Jobs Council, because it seems like the whole point has been -- the narrative has been the President is acting on jobs and other things as part of the whole “We Can’t Wait” campaign. Republicans, as you can imagine, are very excited this morning to read the report, and it has a whole section, the President’s own Jobs Council saying that, as was talked about a little bit before, more oil and energy production -- and his own Jobs Council says that this could create hundreds of thousands of jobs, which has really been a Republican talking point on Keystone, that it could create if not hundreds maybe tens of thousands of jobs, something you disagree --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Or maybe six or seven. I mean, some jobs, that’s right.<br />
<br />
Q Well, okay. So the President’s own Jobs Council now, though, seems to be agreeing with the Republicans that at least -- they don’t specifically mention Keystone, but a lot of jobs could be created. Regardless of the number, a lot. So why hasn’t the President signed the certification yet?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, the Jobs Council wasn’t talking about Keystone specifically. The Jobs Council was talking about the importance of expanding domestic oil and gas production, a goal this President shares and has expounded upon at length, and has taken action as a policy matter to demonstrate his commitment to, which --<br />
<br />
Q Right, but the certification is sitting on his desk right now. So you say he’s taking action --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: No, no, no, no, no.<br />
<br />
Q -- it’s ready to act on right now.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: What certification? You mean the --<br />
<br />
Q The 60-day clock started running on the President signing --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: You’re talking about the congressional -- the political ideological action by Congress to try to short-circuit a process that is long established --<br />
<br />
Q Excuse me, but the President signed that into law, correct, even though you say it’s ideological?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: And you --<br />
<br />
Q He signed it into law, though, right? Did he?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: You apparently know that there is no alternate route yet in Nebraska, right?<br />
<br />
Q Sure, but he signed this into law that he had 60 days to decide. It’s on his desk. You’re saying he’s acting on this. Why hasn’t he acted on Keystone?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Ed, the State Department runs this process, as you know, which is a precedent that long predates this administration. The delay in the review was a result of concerns in Nebraska about the route by which the pipeline was meant to take -- the route the pipeline was meant to take through Nebraska and how it would affect the aquifer there -- concerns that were expressed by a number of stakeholders there, including the Republican governor of Nebraska.<br />
<br />
When the State Department decided that those concerns were legitimate and there needed to be an alternate route, that began another process, and this process requires the careful weighing of a variety of criteria, and that has always been the case.<br />
<br />
Everyone -- a lot of people, and certainly we made clear back in December that a political effort to short-circuit that process for ideological reasons would be counterproductive because a proper review that weighed all the important issues in this case could not be achieved in 60 days -- according to the State Department, which, again, runs this review process.<br />
<br />
I don’t have any updates for you. I refer you to the State Department on where that stands now that the legislation has been signed into law. But it is a fallacy to suggest that the President should sign into law something when there isn’t even an alternate route identified in Nebraska and when the review process is -- there was an attempt to short-circuit the review process in a way that does not allow the kind of careful consideration of all the competing criteria here that needs to be done.<br />
<br />
Q So shouldn’t the council report say we could create hundreds of thousands of jobs if we wait three or four years?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I understand that you’re trying to conflate --<br />
<br />
Q But there’s an expectation that you’re creating jobs.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: You’re trying to conflate something here that the Jobs Council didn’t say. The Jobs Council supports increased oil and gas production, which the President supports and, in fact, as I read out earlier, has taken action on. The President believes, for example, that natural gas is an important component of our energy future and he is very supportive of exploiting that resource in this country in a safe and responsible manner going forward, as he is -- and as he has shown he is with regards to oil production here in the United States.<br />
<br />
He also is committed to an all-of-the-above approach, including the development of clean energy resources here in the United States, all with the aim of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And the fact of the matter is domestic production is up and imports are down.<br />
<br />
We will continue to pursue this all-of-the-above approach because it’s the right thing for the United States, it’s the right thing for our national security and it’s the right thing for our economic security.<br />
<br />
Yes, Jerry.<br />
<br />
Q Just a couple things from the campaign trail. Does the President have any reaction to the departure of his former ambassador to China from the Republican nomination process?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don't have any for you. No, I haven’t -- much to the chagrin of a lot of people, I haven’t talked politics with him today. <br />
<br />
Q Does the President have any reaction -- I know this is probably another no -- but does the President have any reaction to the entry of Stephen Colbert into the -- (laughter) -- Republican process?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I have none to report.<br />
<br />
Q Does he think that there’s a point to be made about super PACs?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Again, I just haven't had the -- I haven't spent my valuable time with him today talking about these issues.<br />
<br />
Q And lastly, if I could go 0-for-4, does the President have --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: You could try one that I can answer. (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
Q -- any concern -- let everyone else do that. (Laughter.) Does the President have any concerns about moving his acceptance speech of the Democratic nomination to the Bank of America stadium?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: The President -- well, first of all, I would refer you for more information about this to the campaign. But the President looks forward to delivering his acceptance speech in a stadium with a large capacity, much as he did in Denver in 2008. That allows for greater participation by Americans from all walks of life. That's the reason why he did it in 2008 at Invesco Field, and that's why he'll do it later this year in Charlotte. That's the biggest venue, and he looks forward to holding that event and delivering his acceptance speech before tens of thousands of Americans in person, as well as, we certainly hope, many millions of Americans watching on television. <br />
<br />
Q So the choice was made based on the size of the venue?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Yes. He wants as many Americans as possible -- as was the case in 2008 -- to be able to participate.<br />
<br />
Ann.<br />
<br />
Q Want to move the State of the Union to a stadium? (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: That would be a great idea. (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
Q Where does the State of the Union stand? How far has he gotten along with it? Will he be able to incorporate any of the long-range jobs proposals, particularly something like significant tax reform? And is this speech this year, because it's a reelection year, a far more political approach than he would have last year?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don't want to preview any specifics. I can say that he's obviously engaged in the process of deciding what he wants to say in the State of the Union address, the issues he wants to address, the policy proposals that he wants to include. I think that it will be, as is tradition, something that is very substantive, a speech that will contain a lot of policy substance. And I think that he looks forward to the opportunity to describe his vision going forward to the American people about the kinds of things that he can do and that he can do with Congress to help the American economy grow and to help middle-class Americans feel more economically secure. <br />
<br />
Look, there are going to be a lot of opportunities, including in Charlotte, for the President to give political speeches. This will be heavy on substance.<br />
<br />
Q Well, but you talked a moment ago about this being a difficult environment in an election year for legislation. Will he be more along the track of, I'm going to do things my way without the help of Congress?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I think he will echo the themes that we've been talking about, he's been talking about, for a long time now -- I mean, broadly speaking, that he's been talking about since he began running for this office back in 2007, which is the need to help the middle class, which even prior to the beginning of the recession had been under a great deal of stress. That will be a theme that you'll hear certainly at the State of the Union address. And he'll talk about the need to do everything he can legislatively, working with Congress, as well as the imperative that he do everything he can using his executive authority to help the American people, to protect them, to give them greater economic security.<br />
<br />
Those are themes that you'll hear. But they are also themes that you have heard from him, and there will be a great deal of consistency in that.<br />
<br />
Q Sounds pretty familiar.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, no, I -- again, there will be, I think -- there will be plenty of things within the speech that you will consider new and newsworthy.<br />
<br />
Q Just a quick follow on that and, in fact, a theme. Will we hear the phrase, "win the future," or is that a line of the past?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I'm not going to preview specific elements of the State of the Union address from here today.<br />
<br />
Kristen.<br />
<br />
Q Thanks, Jay. During the Jobs Council meeting, the President talked about the consolidation authority proposal that he's going to be sending to the Hill. Is that legislative language complete, and is the goal to send that to the Hill before the State of the Union?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I'll have to get an update for you on that. I know that we will be sending proposed legislation to the Hill. I don't have a specific day for you. <br />
<br />
Q Do you know if there have been any phone calls, letters written, sort of ahead of sending the legislation?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I expect there has been communication at least at a staff level, but also, I'm sure, with some members about it -- those members who take a specific interest in it. The President looks forward to Congress taking action on this. This goes back to some of the questions that I had earlier about whether or not there's the potential for bipartisan cooperation in this election year, if you will. And I think this is a perfect indication of an opportunity -- consolidating government, streamlining it, making it more efficient, and writing into law through the consolidation authority the requirement that the President who receives that authority use it in a way that reduces costs I think is something that every American should support and certainly that Republicans would normally be supportive of.<br />
<br />
So with any luck, Republicans as well as Democrats will support granting the President consolidation authority. And then he can move on the first initiative, which Jeff Zients described for you last week, which is to bring under one roof the six agencies that deal with promoting American business and our competitiveness abroad.<br />
<br />
Q And, Jay, on Iran, the OPEC governor there said on Tuesday that a European embargo on Iranian oil would be "economic suicide for Europe." Does the administration still view the tone that's coming out of Iran to be suggestive of the fact that their currency is in a downward spiral? Or is there a real concern that we could, in fact, be nearing some sort of a military engagement with them?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I think there is no doubt that the concerted effort of this administration, working with our international partners and allies, to implement the most stringent sanctions against Iran in history have had a significant impact on Iran, on the Iranian economy, and have contributed to the fissures within the Iranian leadership that many of your colleagues have reported on. They are also probably a precipitating factor in the kind of provocative statements and diversionary tactics that the Iranians have used to try to change the subject from the fact that they will not abide by their international obligations, and that is why they are the subject of this kind of pressure and this kind of isolation.<br />
<br />
We will keep up that pressure, and we will keep up the effort to work with our allies and partners to further isolate Iran, even as we make clear that there is a solution here, and that is for Iran to get right with the international community; that is for Iran to abandon efforts to pursue nuclear weapons and to abide by its international commitments. That's the path forward for Iran. We will continue the effort to isolate and pressure Iran, working with our international partners going forward. We think it's been effective. And we hope that the Iranian leadership will choose the path of working with the international community to abide by its obligations.<br />
<br />
Q Jay.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Steve.<br />
<br />
Q Just to follow up on that, that view of the sanctions doesn't seem to be shared by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said yesterday that they would only be real and effective if they included petroleum sanctions, sanctions on the central bank. And there were reports also that the administration had asked Israel not to take a unilateral early strike against Iran. Is it fair to say that the U.S. and Israel are not on the same page on the speed and method of deterring Iran?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, the remarks that I believe the Prime Minister made to The Australian actually were of a different nature, where he talked about the effectiveness of the sanctions regime. And we certainly share that view. Israel is a key ally and partner, and Israel has a profound interest in the effort to pressure Iran into abiding by its international obligations, as do many nations in the region and the world. <br />
<br />
We believe, as I was just describing to Kristen, that that effort is unprecedented -- I mean, it is a demonstrable fact that it is unprecedented that we have the kind of international consensus, the likes of which we have not seen in the past -- certainly, the kind of consensus that did not exist prior to this President taking office -- and that that has made the fact of Iran's noncompliance all the clearer to the international community. And it has contributed to the kind of international -- or internal, rather, tension that you've seen within Iran, and it's certainly had a dramatic impact -- a significant impact on the Iranian economy.<br />
<br />
Q So you take the Israeli position to be what was expressed in the interview with The Australian, and not what Netanyahu has said --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: No, I'm simply saying that you can cherry-pick some of the quotes. We have worked very closely with the Israeli government, with the Prime Minister, as we do on a number of issues, and we believe that the approach we’ve taken has put unprecedented pressure on Iran to change its behavior. It has isolated Iran far more effectively than past efforts. And we certainly hope that -- and we will continue to ratchet up the pressure and the isolation, working with our allies, until Iran abides by its international obligations and works with the international community in a way that assures all of us that it is not and will not pursue a nuclear weapon.<br />
<br />
Ken.<br />
<br />
Q When the President meets with the King, King Abdullah, shortly, how important will the effort to talk Israel out of a military strike on Iran be?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't have any specifics to provide to you about a conversation that has not yet taken place. There are a variety of issues that the King and the President will discuss, including the Middle East peace process, including Syria, including the King’s efforts towards reform in Jordan, which we support. <br />
<br />
I would note with regard to Syria that one of the signs of desperation that we’ve seen in the Assad regime is the fact that they -- that the head of the Quds Force, Soleimani, visited Damascus, and the fact that Assad is relying on essentially his last friend for support in his repression against his own people I think makes all the clearer that his time has come. He must go. He must step down.<br />
<br />
Q The Italian cruise ship? The Italian ship?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Yes, Connie.<br />
<br />
Q Thank you. Have you been in touch with the Prime Minister or Italian authorities? Do you have any comments? And does this disaster make any statements on Americans taking ships that might be under foreign control, that they're in danger perhaps?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Connie, I would refer you to the State Department where I think they’ve been handling questions about Americans aboard the cruise ship. But this is obviously a terrible tragedy. We’ve all seen the horrific images and our hearts go out to the families of the victims -- both American and from everywhere else. But in terms of the other questions you had about it, I would refer you to the State Department.<br />
<br />
Q Is President Obama going to call the Italian --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don't have any updates on foreign leader calls.<br />
<br />
Q Needless to say that the State of the Union will be focusing on domestic issues, the economy, et cetera. How much of this State of the Union will be focused on an international audience, especially in terms of what my colleagues just mentioned, as well as the euro and the European countries being downgraded by S&P?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I will ask you to listen and read the speech. I’m not going to preview it for you here. As part of the tradition of the State of the Union address, I think it will be broadly cast, but I don't want to get into percentages about how much on domestic issues, how much on international, which ones have more attention. We’ll let you guys judge that after he speaks. <br />
<br />
Chris.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, I want to ask you about a settlement that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached early this month with a military contractor called Dyncorp. A straight employee there was allegedly harassed based on his perceived sexual orientation, and when he complained the company did nothing. He was awarded $155,000, but the company isn’t required to change its non-discrimination policy to include protections based on sexual orientation. Dyncorp receives more than 96 percent of its revenue from federal contracts that amount to $2 billion each year, making it the 32nd largest federal contractor. Does the White House have a problem with companies having policies allowing this kind of anti-gay harassment if they receive this amount of federal money?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Chris, why don't I take that question because I know none of the details that you just described, so I wouldn’t -- I don't want to make a general statement about it since I know nothing about the specifics. But I’ll take the question.<br />
<br />
Q -- very misleading generally speaking --*<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don't want to do -- you just listed a number of details about a case that I don't have any information on, so why don't we take that question and I’ll get back to you.<br />
<br />
Yes, Washington Times.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, back on food stamps for a second. What policies did Newt Gingrich advocate as speaker 15 years ago that now are resulting in more people --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: No, I said that the economic policies that contributed to the great recession were supported by and are being proposed by I believe all of the leading contenders for the Republican nomination. I mean that's a fact, so --<br />
<br />
Q What specific policies --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, are you contesting that the economic policy -- that economic policy had nothing to do with -- I mean the approach, say, to regulating Wall Street that was taken by -- in the lead-up to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, that's not an approach this President shares. And yet we’ve heard from every major Republican candidate that they would abolish Dodd-Frank, the reforms -- the Wall Street reforms that this President signed into law. <br />
<br />
We are -- astoundingly you hear from some folks who are out running for office that they would not only either water down or abolish those important Wall Street reforms, but they would further reduce regulation of the very financial sector that contributed so mightily to the economic hardship of so many millions and millions of Americans. That's just an approach we disagree with, and we look forward to the debate with whomever emerges from the primary process. <br />
<br />
Yes, and then all the way in the back.<br />
<br />
Q Thank you, Jay. Some supporters of the Occupy movement on the Hill this morning had a huge banner saying, "Liberals admit it, Obama let you down." How worried is the President that the most liberal of his supporters won’t show up on Election Day?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: These are questions I would direct to the campaign. This President is focused on the job he needs to do as President of the United States, and he is focused primarily, when it comes to domestic policy, on continuing the recovery, improving growth, improving job creation. <br />
<br />
We have had some positive signs in the economic picture, but we have a lot more work to do. We have over the last many months seen the creation of 3.2 million private sector jobs, but we have a lot more that need to be created in this country so that we can get to the point where every American who wants a job and is looking for a job can find a job. So that’s what this President is focused on.<br />
<br />
I think that he looks forward to the debate about who has the better economic plan, who has the best blueprint for our economic future. But that time hasn’t come. He’s now focused on the work that he can do as President of the United States, working with Congress, working with his -- working through his executive authority, working with the private sector, to do what he can do improve the American economy and improve the job picture, as well as, obviously, our national security.<br />
<br />
Q But he understands that they're -- some of them are very disappointed with the type of --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I think this President is very focused on the job he needs to do. The fact is that Americans of every persuasion support the idea that we need to take action to help the economy grow, support the idea that we need to do the kinds of things that can put more Americans back to work. That message that the President brought when he put forward the American Jobs Act was supported by a broad majority of the American people, including progressives, as well as independents and even conservatives. So he’s going to keep pushing that agenda, keep pushing that approach, and he’ll let the politics of this take care of itself.<br />
<br />
Q Thanks.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Thank you very much.<br />
<br />
Q Happy birthday to the First Lady.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Thank you very much, on her behalf.<br />
<br />
END <br />
1:43 P.M. ESTBranson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20502, USA38.8976092 -77.036717238.8960647 -77.039184699999993 38.8991537 -77.0342497tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-65193515103114194112012-01-16T07:57:00.000-08:002012-01-17T08:34:13.237-08:00Stopping Iran's Nukes Takes 4 Pronged Approach - JPOST<div id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_article_control_art_header">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z9m8w8oLFi4/TxWi_Rak_LI/AAAAAAAAOno/Dhd5eFpnJn0/s1600/iran.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z9m8w8oLFi4/TxWi_Rak_LI/AAAAAAAAOno/Dhd5eFpnJn0/s1600/iran.jpg" /></a></div>
<h1>
<span id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_article_control_lblArticleTeaser">Combination of covert operations, sanctions, diplomatic pressure, military threat necessary against Iran.</span> </h1>
<span class="jp-writer">
<span id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_article_control_lblAuthor"><span class="">By Jerusalem Post EDITORIAL</span></span>
</span>
<br />
<span class="jp-date">
<span id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_article_control_lblDateAndHour">01/15/2012 22:07</span>
</span>
</div>
<div id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_article_control_art_header">
Original Document URL
<br />
<h2 id="teaser_val">
<span id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_article_control_lblArticleTeaser"></span><span id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_article_control_lblArtHeader"></span>
</h2>
</div>
<span class="block-spacer"></span><span class="block-spacer"></span>
<br />
<div id="body_val">
<span id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_article_control_lblArticleBody">Iran seems intent on pushing forward with its nuclear program and there seems to
be no surefire way of stopping it. If the current situation continues, we might
have to face the horrific prospect of <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD3">learning</span> to live with a nuclear
Iran.<br /><br />It has been five <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD5">years</span> since the UN Security Council first demanded
that Iran cease enriching uranium. But the Islamic Republic continues to defy
international pressure and is stubbornly advancing with what appears to be a bid
to acquire nuclear weapons in the coming year.<br /><br />On November 8, the
International Atomic Energy Agency released a report expressing “serious
concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.” The
most recent development is Iran’s announcement that it is beginning to enrich
uranium in a new facility in Fordo, near the holy city of Qom.<br /><br />The
imminent opening of the new enrichment site further complicates a military
option. Since the new facility is buried deep underground at a well-defended
military site, it is considered far more resistant to air strikes than the
existing enrichment site at Natanz. And even if a military strike against
Iranian nuclear facilities succeeded, the geopolitical fallout is liable to be
nightmarish, although the prospect of a nuclear Iran is no less of a
nightmare.<br /><br />Covert actions, in contrast, carry much less of a risk, but
are also less effective. For instance, last week’s assassination of Mostafa
Ahmadi Roshan, director of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, undoubtedly
dealt a blow to Iran’s nuclear program.<br /><br />But the delay, if any, is only
temporary since Roshan is obviously not the only person in Iran privy to nuclear
know-how. And these sorts of operations have negative <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD4">side effects</span>.
Theoretically, if the US was behind the killing of Roshan or one of the other
four (or five, depending on which reports you believe) scientists killed since
2007 and this became known, the Obama administration might have a more difficult
time putting together a unified front consisting of Russia, China and other
countries against Iran.<br />
<br />
Some say that targeted killings strengthen
extremists, though it is difficult to claim today that there is any significant
“moderate” opposition challenging the Islamic Republic’s leadership.<br />
<br />
In
contrast, cyber warfare or other non-lethal covert operations such as the
Stuxnet virus are less likely to hurt American attempts to muster a broad
coalition against Iran. Some of these operations can be presented by the
Iranians as “accidents.”<br />
<br />
Economic sanctions, meanwhile, have so far not
changed Iranian nuclear policy, though they have caused some damage. Indeed,
since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, there have been numerous attempts to
influence Iranian policy through economic sanctions.<br />
<br />
Arguably, such
sanctions helped end Iran’s war with Iraq in 1988. At the same time, Iran’s
economy has been forced to adapt to functioning under various Western boycotts
while developing <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD1">alternative</span> trade ties with Russia, China and several South and
Central American countries.<br />
<br />
Still, Tehran’s threat to close the Strait of
Hormuz, gateway to much of the world’s oil trade, could be a sign of its growing
economic desperation. Iranians are plagued by inflation, unemployment and
economic stagnation. And the economic situation will only worsen. Though
a new round of Security Council-backed sanctions has been delayed due to
opposition from Russia and China, the US and Europe have put in place their own
penalties. Japan pledged to buy less Iranian oil while South Korea said
it was looking for alternative suppliers. And even China can take advantage of a
situation in which fewer countries are buying Iranian oil to put pressure on
Tehran to lower prices.<br />
<br />
A new US law that would penalize foreign
companies that <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD2">do business</span> with Iran’s central bank and an oil embargo that EU
foreign ministers plan to approve on January 23 could have an even bigger
impact.<br />
<br />
A combination of covert operations, economic sanctions and
diplomatic pressure, while at the same time keeping the military option “on the
table,” is the only way to convince Tehran to back down. And maintaining a broad
coalition of countries behind the sanctions is the best way to make them
effective.</span>
<br />
<div id="galeryDiv" style="display: block; margin: 0pt auto; width: 475px;">
</div>
</div>
<span class="block-spacer"></span>Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-27996330614254485612012-01-16T03:21:00.001-08:002012-01-16T03:21:36.411-08:00MLK Hate Crime Prevented By FBI 2011<table border="0" align="center" style="font-size: 12px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font: inherit; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); width: 500px; "><tbody><tr><th style="padding-right: 0px; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; "><img src="http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/january/hatecrime_011312/image/composite-of-parade-route-attendees" alt="Composite of parade route, attendees" class="image-inline" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; vertical-align: middle; " /></th></tr><tr><td style="padding-right: 0px; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; "><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: center; "><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">On January 17, 2011, as hundreds of people gathered (above) in downtown Spokane to participate in the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Unity March</span><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">, Kevin Harpham placed a backpack bomb (inset) along the parade route on Main Avenue. The graphic shows the likely direction of the blast had the bomb detonated. </span><br /></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="graphicboxheader" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 18px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: center; ">MLK Parade Bomber<span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "><br />Horrific Hate Crime Prevented; Case Solved</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">01/13/12<br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">Had his homemade bomb gone off—one he had diabolically constructed using shrapnel coated with a substance meant to keep blood from clotting in wounds—Kevin Harpham would have undoubtedly caused the death and injury of many people at last year’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Unity March in Spokane, Washington.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "></span></p><table border="0" align="right" style="font-size: 12px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font: inherit; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); width: 324px; height: 648px; "><tbody><tr><th style="padding-right: 0px; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; width: 5px; "><br /></th><th style="padding-right: 5px; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; padding-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; background-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); "><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "><b><img src="http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/january/hatecrime_011312/image/file-cabinet" alt="file cabinet" class="image-inline" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; vertical-align: middle; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; " /><br /><br />A Bomb Designed to Kill</b></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: left; "><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">Kevin Harpham had been an artilleryman in the Army, and the bomb he meticulously constructed—using 128 fishing weights for shrapnel, each coated with an anticoagulant commonly found in rat poison—was not a typical improvised explosive device (IED).</span></p><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "></span><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "></span> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: left; "><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">“JTTF members on this investigation have had experience on many other bombing cases both here and abroad,” said Special Agent Joe Cleary, who worked alongside other agents, evidence technicians, and intelligence analysts on the Harpham case. “But none of us had ever seen this type of bomb in the U.S.”</span></p><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "></span><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "></span> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: left; "><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">Cleary explained that most IEDs are triggered with fuses or timers. “This was command-detonated,” he said. “Harpham designed it so he could remotely control when the blast would occur and the direction in which the shrapnel would fly. He placed the bomb so it would explode directly across the line of the march, thereby inflicting maximum damage to the marchers. This was a weapon of mass destruction.”</span></p><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "></span><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "></span> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: left; "><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">When bomb experts from the FBI Laboratory reconstructed the device and detonated it, the results were sobering, Cleary said. “The shrapnel exploded with such a high velocity that some targets in the shape of humans were blown over, and a metal filing cabinet was perforated—it was filled with holes.”</span></p><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "></span><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "></span> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: left; "><span class="blackgraphtxsidebar" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">“Harpham intended to use this extremely lethal weapon on individuals solely because of their race and perhaps their religion,” Cleary said. “His plan was to wreak havoc on a crowd of innocents.”</span></p></th></tr></tbody></table><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">Instead, Harpham was eventually caught and recently sentenced to 32 years in prison for a hate crime and other offenses related to the attempted bombing. The case illustrates how a quick response by citizens and local law enforcement averted a tragedy, and how teamwork and time-tested investigative techniques led to the apprehension of an individual who has shown no remorse for his actions.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><b><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">“Clearly he intended to detonate the device, cause mass carnage, and then survey the devastation,” said Special Agent Frank Harrill, who supervised the investigation. “Harpham was acting out against what he termed multiculturalism, but his hatred was firmly rooted in violent white supremacy. This was a prototypical hate crime.”</span></b></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">On January 17, 2011, as hundreds of people gathered in downtown Spokane to participate in the march, Harpham placed his backpack bomb along the parade route at Washington Street and Main Avenue. Alert city workers discovered the suspicious backpack before the march started, and Spokane Police Department officials changed the route as a precaution. The Spokane Police and Sheriff’s Office bomb squad was called in, and their precision in disarming the device enabled evidence to be preserved that would help lead FBI agents to Harpham.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Spokane immediately began an investigation, and JTTF members canvassed the region for batteries and other components similar to those used in the bomb. Within a month, in a small town about 60 miles north of Spokane, they discovered that a local outlet of a large retail chain was selling the same kind of fishing weights Harpham had used as shrapnel.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">Store records showed there had been three large purchases of the weights in recent months—two were paid for in cash, but a debit card was used in one transaction, and it belonged to Harpham. At the same time, the FBI Laboratory had been working to extract a DNA sample from the backpack which was later matched to Harpham through his military records.</span></p><table border="0" align="right" style="font-size: 12px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font: inherit; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); height: 150px; width: 150px; "><tbody><tr><th style="padding-right: 0px; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; padding-left: 5px; "><br /></th><th style="padding-right: 0px; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; "><img src="http://www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/image/insidethefbi.jpg" alt="insidethefbi.jpg" class="image-inline" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; vertical-align: middle; " /></th></tr><tr><td style="padding-right: 0px; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; "><br /></td><td style="padding-right: 0px; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; "><span class="blackgraphtx10" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 14px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; "><b>Listen:</b><br /><b><a class="external-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/inside/martin-luther-king-jr.-unity-march-case/view" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); background-color: transparent; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 10px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-color: initial; text-decoration: none; ">FBI Special Agent Frank Harrill Discusses the Case.</a></b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><b><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">Investigators also learned of Harpham’s white supremacy postings on the Internet and his affiliation with a neo-Nazi group called the National Alliance.</span></b></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">Because he lived in a remote, relatively inaccessible area and was likely heavily armed, our Hostage Rescue Team devised a ruse to lure Harpham out of his house. He was arrested March 9, 2011 without incident—but as agents suspected, he was armed when taken into custody.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">“Kevin Harpham was the lone wolf that all of us in law enforcement dread,” Harrill said. “He lived alone and he worked alone, and he didn’t foreshadow the bombing plot in any meaningful way. He targeted those who were attempting to celebrate an event meant to unite society,” Harrill added, “and he was prepared to indiscriminately kill men, women, and children.”</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 16px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span class="blackgraphtx" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-size: 12px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: disc; ">Harrill credited teamwork and strong partnerships for stopping Harpham and bringing him to justice. “From the workers who noticed the device to the police response, the JTTF investigation, the expertise of the FBI Laboratory, and the prosecuting skill of the U.S. Attorney’s office—everything worked just as it should have.”</span></p>Missouri Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12274040607585372100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-66837505118190098042012-01-14T04:03:00.000-08:002012-01-14T04:04:43.228-08:00FBI Top Ten News Stories Week Ending Jan 13, 2012<div id="pressreleaseHeader">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-chvVkO-p520/TxFu82JB62I/AAAAAAAAOnY/KUsdpso5tS4/s1600/fbilogo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-chvVkO-p520/TxFu82JB62I/AAAAAAAAOnY/KUsdpso5tS4/s1600/fbilogo.png" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h1 class="documentFirstHeading" id="parent-fieldname-title">
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012
<br /><span id="subTitle"></span>
</h1>
<div class="pressReleaseSubHeader">
<table id="pressReleaseSubHeader"><tbody>
<tr><td><span class="releaseLocation summary" id="parent-fieldname-location">
Washington, D.C.
</span>
<span class="releaseDate summary" id="parent-fieldname-releaseDate">
<span title="2012/01/13 07:00:00 US/Eastern">January 13, 2012</span>
</span>
</td>
<td><div id="relatedItems">
<fieldset id="relatedItemBox">
<ul class="visualNoMarker">
<li>
<span class="contenttype-presscontact">
<span class=" state-published visualIconPadding" title="">FBI National Press Office</span>
<span class="contactPhone">(202) 324-3691</span>
</span>
</li>
</ul>
</fieldset>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div>
<div class="plain" id="parent-fieldname-text">
<ol>
<li><b>Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa</b>A
25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in
connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a
vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives. <a class="internal-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/tampa/press-releases/2012/florida-resident-charged-with-plotting-to-bomb-locations-in-tampa">Full Story</a></li>
<li><b>Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab</b>A
man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the
Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al
Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his
return to Maryland after traveling to Africa. <a class="internal-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/baltimore/press-releases/2012/former-army-solider-charged-with-attempting-to-provide-material-support-to-al-shabaab">Full Story</a></li>
<li><b>Salt Lake City: Update on Sherry Arnold Disappearance</b>One
man has been taken into custody and another is being questioned in
connection with the disappearance of Sherry Arnold, a Montana teacher
who went missing Saturday, January 7, 2012, at approximately 6:30 a.m.,
while on her morning run. <a class="internal-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/saltlakecity/press-releases/2012/fbi-update-on-sherry-arnold-disappearance"><span class="internal-link">Full Story</span></a></li>
<li><b>Houston: Harris County Constable and Others Arrested</b>FBI
agents arrested long-time Harris County Precinct One Constable Jack
Abercia, his chief lieutenant, and his office chief on federal public
corruption charges. <a class="internal-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/houston/press-releases/2012/abercia-indicted">Full Story</a></li>
<li><b>Detroit: Fifteen Individuals Indicted in Large-Scale Drug Conspiracy Case</b>Fifteen
individuals were indicted for their roles in a large scale drug
conspiracy that dated back to 2008 and involved in excess of 1,000
kilograms of marijuana, five kilograms of cocaine, and 280 grams of
crack cocaine. <a class="internal-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/detroit/press-releases/2012/fifteen-individuals-indicted-in-large-scale-drug-conspiracy-case">Full Story</a></li>
<li><b>Norfolk: Bounty Hunter Bloods Gang Member Sentenced for Attempted Murder</b>Draindell
Domonta Bassett Jr., was sentenced in federal court for participating
in a pattern of racketeering activity including conspiracy to commit
murder, attempted murder, and conspiring to distribute controlled
substances. <a class="internal-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/norfolk/press-releases/2012/bounty-hunter-bloods-gang-member-sentenced-for-attempted-murder">Full Story</a><b><br /></b></li>
<li><b>Milwaukee: Former Police Officer Convicted of Sexually Assaulting Woman</b>A
federal jury convicted Ladmarald Cates, a former Milwaukee police
officer, of a civil rights charge stemming from his July 16, 2010,
sexual assault of a Milwaukee woman. <a class="internal-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/milwaukee/press-releases/2012/former-milwaukee-police-officer-convicted-of-civil-rights-violation-for-sexual-assault-of-milwaukee-woman">Full Story</a></li>
<li><b>El Paso: Federal Life Sentences Handed Down in Double Murder Investigation</b>Francisco
Sauseda and Armando Sauseda, Sr., were sentenced to life in federal
prison for their roles in two drug-related homicides in 2009. <a class="internal-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/elpaso/press-releases/2012/federal-life-sentences-handed-down-in-double-murder-investigation">Full Story </a></li>
<li><b>Anchorage: Fairbanks Man Sentenced for Role in Drug Conspiracy</b>Saepharn was sentenced to 78 months in prison and five years’ supervised release for his 2010 distribution of methamphetamine. <a class="internal-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/anchorage/press-releases/2012/fairbanks-man-sentenced-for-role-in-drug-conspiracy">Full Story</a></li>
<li><b>New Haven: New Haven Man Charged with Orchestrating Arsons to Further Development Plans</b>Angelo
Reyes was charged with federal offenses stemming from his alleged
participation in the arson of two properties so that he could purchase
them at a decreased value in order to provide better access to adjacent
properties that he owned and developed. <a class="internal-link" href="http://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-releases/2012/new-haven-man-charged-with-orchestrating-arsons-to-further-development-plans">Full Story</a></li>
</ol>
</div>Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-91945292390704238652012-01-13T09:18:00.000-08:002012-01-19T02:42:31.737-08:00White House Press Briefing Jan 12, 2012<object height="300" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf">
</param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
</param>
<param name="bgcolor" value="282828">
</param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">
</param>
<param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.whitehouse.gov/xml/video/112303/config.xml&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf">
</param>
<embed src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="300" flashvars="config=http://www.whitehouse.gov/xml/video/112303/config.xml&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf&share_url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/12/press-briefing"></embed></object><br />
<div id="content">
<div class="information">
<div class="title">
The White House</div>
Office of the Press Secretary<br />
<div class="dateline">
<div class="release">
For Immediate Release </div>
<div class="date">
January 12, 2012 </div>
</div>
</div>
<h1>
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/12/2012</h1>
<h3>
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room</h3>
</div>
PRESS BRIEFING<br />
BY PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY<br />
<br />
<br />
1:42 P.M. EST<br />
<br />
<i>Q Contacts?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I’ll never tell.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Can you see?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: No. (Laughter.) Who’s that asking? (Laughter.) I was going to try to go for a run today, which is when I put in my contacts, but I had meetings scheduled instead, so here we go.<br />
<br />
With that bit of irrelevant information, I will go straight to questions. I have no announcements to make.<br />
<br />
Ben.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Thank you, Jay. The administration yesterday condemned the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist unequivocally, and I’m wondering if the White House can say just as unequivocally that Israel had nothing to do with it.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, obviously we don’t speak for any other country, Ben. We had nothing to do with it. This has been expressed by officials at a variety of levels of the U.S. government. And we condemn the violence in Iran, but we’re not going to -- you should not take from this anything except that we’re not speaking for any other country when we make statements like that.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q But the condemnation -- I’m correct in saying the condemnation from the White House extends to anybody behind it, any party, any country?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, the condemnation is pretty clear. It is condemnation in and of itself of the act of violence in Iran. But again, our statement about -- in response to accusations that there was American involvement is categorical.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Okay. So you can’t say either way whether --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Again, I won’t speak for any other country.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Did the President address the incident in his conversation with the Prime Minister?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I think we provided a readout to you -- has that gone out? Yes -- of the President’s call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Part of their regular communications on bilateral and regional issues.<br />
<br />
The subjects were many, including the Middle East peace process, developments in the region, including in Iran. But I won’t get more specific than that.<br />
<br />
(Cell phone rings.)<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Sorry.</i><br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I was going to welcome Jake back. (Laughter.) <br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q What song is that?</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q That’s Snoop Dogg, yes.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Fantastic.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Sorry, out of practice of putting it on silent.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Actually, I kind of liked it. But yes.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Sorry, but I wanted to ask you about the video -- allegedly of Marines desecrating the bodies of the Taliban fighters. Can you tell us whether the President has seen that video and whether there’s a concern in the White House that this incident will give the military a black eye?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, you’ve heard the I think quite strong statements or seen the strong statements from Secretary Panetta. We find this -- we’ve seen the video and what it depicts is -- or what it apparently depicts is deplorable, reprehensible and unacceptable. The alleged action is obviously under investigation. And as you know, Secretary Panetta spoke with President Karzai about it. But I don’t know whether or not the President has actually seen the video. He is certainly aware of it and shares in the sentiment expressed by Secretary Panetta.<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Jake, welcome back.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Thank you.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Do you have a question for me?<br />
<br />
<i>Q I do. I’d love to ask about the talks with the Taliban. I understand it’s probably restricted what you can talk about. But apparently the administration later last evening became a little bit more willing to talk about what’s going on. I thought in light of that you could maybe share what is the goal here. How do talks with the Taliban jive with the continuing military effort against the Taliban? And what would the overall message be to soldiers who, or families of soldiers, who -- I understand that you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends. But what would the message be about that such reconciliation?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I think those are all very good questions. As you know, the administration’s position has been for a long time that we would support and participate in Afghan-led reconciliation initiatives as one key part of our overall strategy. As you say, you have to have a political solution at some point. And a political settlement is essential here. But it coexists with our military campaign. It is in fact our military campaign that has set the conditions for initial reconciliation discussions that we hope will begin taking place.<br />
<br />
But to be clear, we will continue to energetically prosecute the military campaign as we pursue this political effort. And our role in this is to build confidence-building measures, to bring about a set of confidence-building measures that would allow both Afghan parties, the government and the Taliban, to demonstrate their seriousness in pursuing the process and eventually begin negotiating. <br />
<br />
But the reconciliation process has to be between the Afghan government and the Taliban. We are helping facilitate that, but we are supporting an Afghan-led process.<br />
<br />
<i>Q And the message to the families or the troops that have served there?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: The service that our men and women in uniform as well as our civilians have provided in Afghanistan has been exemplary and the sacrifice has been enormous. And the whole point of the President’s strategy is to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda, al Qaeda being the reason why we sent forces to Afghanistan in the first place and to create breathing room, if you will, space for the Afghan government to be able to build up Afghan forces so that Afghan forces can take the security lead, which as enunciated in Lisbon will happen by the end of 2014, and ultimately, for that country to succeed in the process of reconciliation that allows for peace in that very troubled land.<br />
<br />
But reconciliation, as you know, is contingent upon some very important criteria, including laying down arms, renouncing al Qaeda, abiding by the Afghan constitution, including its provisions for minority rights and women’s rights. So this is not -- it is not without conditions that this reconciliation process would take place.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q And lastly -- I’m sorry -- but the U.S. possible confidence -- the role that the U.S. might play in confidence-building measures may be the release of five Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo. I know that no decision has been made, but it’s certainly a possibility. What can you tell the American people about these five Taliban and why the U.S. feels it’s okay -- hypothetically, because it is being discussed -- why it might be acceptable to release them to the Afghan government or to release them to the Taliban?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, a couple of points. One, as you point out, we have not decided to transfer any Taliban officials from Guantanamo Bay. Two, we’re not in a position to discuss ongoing deliberations or individual detainees. But our goal of closing Guantanamo is well established and widely understood. In general, any decision to transfer a detainee from Guantanamo would be undertaken in accordance with U.S. law and in consultation with Congress.<br />
<br />
The process of transferring detainees out of Guantanamo Bay has been ongoing -- this is broadly and not specific to your question -- but has been ongoing for a long time and obviously predates this administration. And each transfer is done, again, undertaken in accordance with U.S. law and in consultation with the Congress.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Thank you.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Let me go up and back here. Cheryl.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Jay, this morning the U.S. Chamber had a big event where leaders spoke about their policy positions, calling on the administration to pass Keystone as quickly as possible to create as many jobs as possible. Where is the President on that?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, it is a State Department-led process, as you know, Cheryl. The fact of the matter is, as you know, the provision that extended the payroll tax cut put this artificial 60-day deadline, if you will, on the decision-making process, and State Department -- the State Department has been very clear that that does not allow for the kinds of reviews that are necessary. <br />
<br />
To underscore that point, I think it’s important to note that not only has no route been identified by the company, but the state of Nebraska, which will now do their own assessment of whatever the proposed alternate route is, has made clear in recent reports that their own environmental assessment would take six to nine months.<br />
<br />
And the point I’m trying to make here is that there is a reason why this process has within it the duration required to properly review all the different aspects of a project like this and to weigh all the important criteria. And to try to circumvent that process is, as we said at the time, counterproductive, we believe, to even the goals stated by those who insisted on trying to do that.<br />
<br />
Having said that, I have no new information and I’d refer you to the State Department about that process.<br />
<br />
Jessica.<br />
<br />
<i>Q As you may know, Mitt Romney said to CBS in an interview yesterday that the attacks on Bain Capital and his business are a lot like -- are unfair given what the President has done in his effort to save General Motors and Chrysler. He said, “In the general election, I’ll be pointing out that the President took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler, closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers as he tried to save the business.” Does the White House agree that in the case of the auto industry, it was necessary for some people to lose their jobs in order to save these businesses?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: The fact of the matter is, Jessica, as you know, is that the automobile industry in this country was heading over a cliff and would likely not have survived were it not for -- certainly not at its size and competitiveness -- were it not for the decision this President made, a decision which I believe certainly the candidate you’re referring to, but I believe all the candidates, for the Republican nomination, opposed.<br />
<br />
So, I mean, I’d be delighted to recite to you, as I did the other day, the very impressive statistics about the revival of the American automobile industry, including the two major companies that this President acted to save, and in doing so insisted on the kinds of changes in those companies that would lead them to be more competitive and to have the kind of success that they’ve been having of late. <br />
<br />
And I think the discussions you’re talking about are going on within the Republican primary process, which I’m not going to wade into from here.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Does the White House agree that it was necessary for some people to lose jobs in order to save the industry?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I think what our action was designed to do and did do was prevent the elimination of up to a million jobs in the automobile industry and create a situation where that industry is now creating jobs again. So I think that’s an important story to tell.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q And is that similar to what Mitt Romney did at Bain Capital?</i><br />
<u><br />
</u><br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> You know, I just -- I don’t have a comparative to give to you on that. I know that Governor Romney and all of the candidates for -- as far as I know, pretty sure of this -- all the candidates for the Republican nomination opposed the President’s decision to do what he did to save the automobile industry in this country, and that is certainly something that the President expects to debate when the time comes in the general election. <br />
<br />
<i>Q Finally, in his speech the other night, Mitt Romney accused the President of playing the “politics of envy.” Do you have any response to that or want to address it in any way?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> I’m not sure what that means. This President is focused on providing opportunity and security to the middle class, a middle class that has been under great stress for years now, that saw its incomes stagnate or decline in the previous 10 years, even as those at the highest income levels saw their incomes grow substantially and their share of wealth in this country grow substantially. <br />
<br />
And he is eager for everyone to succeed, and he wants to help build an economy that rewards hard work, rewards responsibility, that holds people accountable, and that insists that folks on -- in all the different parts of our economy and on all levels of the economic ladder play by the same rules. That’s why Wall Street reform was so important. That’s why appointing and installing Richard Cordray as our consumer watchdog was so important, because Wall Street needs to play by the same rules as Main Street. And then the opportunity for everyone to succeed becomes far greater, and that’s his approach.<br />
<br />
Bill.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q</i><i> Jay, I want to go back a week or so ago to the Defense Authorization Act. When the President signed it he issued a very strong statement saying he would never carry out the provisions that would allow him to -- allow any President to detain an American indefinitely without a trial. My question is, does the President intend to challenge that in any way and try to get that off the books, or leave that for some future President to exercise?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I think I would refer you to statements I made and others made about that at the time, when the President signed the bill into law. And our concerns about that provision within the defense authorization bill were well known as it was being developed in our consultations with the authors. <br />
<br />
Some of those concerns were addressed, and addressed to the point where the President felt he could sign the bill because of its importance overall. And then, as you state, our approach to this has been further clarified and illuminated, but I don’t think I can improve upon what was said in the signing statement or --<br />
<br />
<i>Q But it does mean that the power will continue, the potential for that will continue for whoever the next President is.</i><br />
<br />
<b><u>MR. CARNEY</u></b>: Well, the President, as you know, is focused on making sure that the law is implemented in a way that maintains the flexibility that our forces need to do their jobs and protect this country and protect American citizens -- and he’s committed to that.<br />
<br />
I don’t have anything to say about future actions we might take legislatively or otherwise. I would just to point you to what he has said and I have said and what others have said about implementation of this law.<br />
<br />
April.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Hi, Jay. This is the two-year anniversary of the earthquake in Haiti. What tangible results has this administration seen since giving funding for that country that’s still devastated?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: It is, as you note, the two-year anniversary, and the earthquake and the damage that was done was indeed devastating. What I can tell you is that there are signs of progress and promise in Haiti. <br />
<br />
The significant portion of the rubble has been cleared. A large portion or majority of the folks who were living in tents and similar-type housing have been located into better places.<br />
<br />
And I think -- I can give you more detail about the actions that this administration took, that this President took immediately, including establishing the -- I believe it was the Clinton-Bush Fund in reaction to Haiti. And we remain committed to Haiti and to its recovery from that terrible earthquake.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Since you say this administration remains committed, before the earthquake Haiti was considered the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. And many people have had guesstimates saying that it would take more than a decade, decades even, to make it -- just to come back to where it was. Where is the guesstimate now? I mean, those guesstimates were right outside of the earthquake. What are the guesstimates now? How long does this --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: That’s an excellent question and I simply don’t have an answer. I can research it for you, or perhaps State might have -- the State Department might have more details. But the -- I mean, that country’s very difficult history obviously predates the terrible earthquake, and the earthquake did that country no favors. And the hardship there is well known and extraordinary. And we’ve been working very hard to assist Haitians in this very difficult time over the last two years. And again, progress has been made but circumstances there remain very challenging. <br />
<br />
Mark.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Jay, in your comments on the Marine video, did you intend to suggest that it may not be what it appears to be?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: As a legal matter, I don’t pass pronouncements. I think that the activity is alleged and what’s seen in the video is apparent. But I’m not going to from here go beyond that. It’s certainly -- what is apparently occurring in that video is deplorable and does not live up to the very high standards set for the United States Marines or broadly the United States military. <br />
<br />
<i>Q But you don’t have any suggestion that it’s not genuine?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I’m not saying that. I’m simply saying it’s a matter under investigation and I’m not going to pass judgment, a legal judgment from here except to say that the apparent activity -- the activity that’s apparent in that video is truly regrettable and deplorable.<br />
<br />
<i>Q And on Cheryl’s question about Keystone, are you saying the President might be moving toward a statement where he blocks Keystone under the law, which he has to do by February 21st? </i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, again, the process for Keystone, as I’ve said on so many occasions from here, is conducted at the State Department on behalf of the federal government. And the State Department has been clear about the time necessary to assess any alternate route. That route hasn’t even been identified yet, as I said.<br />
<br />
But the company and the state of Nebraska has said it needs six to nine months for the environmental assessment to be done after that route is identified. So I cite those facts because it goes straight to the point about the very political and arbitrary action taken by some folks in Congress, by Republicans in Congress, to try to play political games with the payroll tax cut. We said it was a bad idea at the time. It’s a bad idea for a bunch of reasons, including the ones I just laid out. But I don’t have any announcement to make about action that the State Department might take or the President might take.<br />
<br />
<i>Q But he’ll take action by the deadline in the bill that he signed?</i><br />
<u><b><br />
</b></u><br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> He signed a bill into law, so I would refer you to the State Department about how that will be taken under consideration. <br />
<br />
Yes, Matt.<br />
<br />
<i>Q To keep you rolling on Keystone, some Republicans in Congress are working on a plan for legislation they say would force the issuing of a permit for Keystone, effectively bypassing the President or overruling the President if he fails to take action by February 21st. Does the administration see this is as a legitimate course of action?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, there’s several layers of speculation about legislation that may or may not be written, that may or may not be submitted, that may or may not be voted on. I’m going to deal with the facts as we know them, which is that this is a process that long predates this administration that has a review like this conducted out of the State Department. <br />
<br />
The timeframe for something like this is well established based on the kinds of procedures that need to be considered, the criteria that need to be weighed in a decision-making process like this. The decision to seek an alternate route necessitated a delay of the decision-making process so that route could be identified and then assessed. And the State Department is overseeing that process now. <br />
<br />
Ed.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Jay, two subjects -- one, on the insourcing event yesterday, the President was obviously very critical of outsourcing. Why then does he have Jeff Immelt of GE, who has been accused of a lot of outsourcing, as the head of his Jobs Council?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: The President had that event yesterday because there is a mighty important trend underway globally that greatly affects the American economy and American workers. And it is a very welcome trend and it is one that this President believes we need to enhance to ensure that the trend continues, which is American businesses making judgments about where to best invest and to hire workers are increasingly deciding that that place is here in the United States of America -- not abroad, not in China. The statistics are pretty overwhelming and very impressive.<br />
<br />
And your viewers, everyone here has -- the audiences that you reach have been reading and seeing and hearing reports about outsourcing of American jobs for a very long time. And that’s because that process did happen and has happened. And it’s a very important reversal of that trend that’s underway here. And that’s why the President had the event that he had.<br />
<br />
Now, we have global companies that are American. We have companies that do business around the world, and that’s a good thing, too. Now we want to focus attention on and increase the likelihood that American businesses will choose to invest here, but we also want our businesses to compete globally. So they do not cancel each other out.<br />
<br />
<i>Q On the Taliban, what did the Vice President mean a few weeks ago when he told Newsweek that the Taliban per se is not our enemy? Was that a way to try to get the Taliban to the table by saying you’re no longer the enemy?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I appreciate the question, which I remember answering at the time very clearly, which is the United States of America did not send military forces under George W. Bush to Afghanistan because the Taliban was in power. The Taliban had been in power. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan because attacks were launched against the United States by al Qaeda, located in Afghanistan, and that’s why we went in. His point is that there is not -- our number-one objective, as I just stated, in the President’s Afghanistan policy is to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda. I think the President’s focus on that goal has been clear to the American people now for quite some time both in the approach he’s taken in Afghanistan specifically and in the approach he’s taken in terms of taking the fight to al Qaeda, most memorably by the decision he made to remove Osama bin Laden from the battlefield.<br />
<br />
What remains true, as I was saying earlier in answer to Jake’s questions, is that peace in Afghanistan will come through reconciliation. There has to be a political settlement. That has been the policy for a long time. Reconciliation of the Taliban is conditional and it would require any Taliban soldier or official to renounce the use of violence, promise allegiance to the Afghan constitution, disavow al Qaeda. But there needs to be a political settlement for all the reasons that I’ve said.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, our military action -- the heroics of our military forces -- have helped create the conditions that allow for the possibility of negotiations to begin and we will not let up in that effort. So I think that is a fuller explanation of what the Vice President was talking about.<br />
<br />
Welcome back. Everybody is back now. Did something happen? Is there a lull in the action or something?<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q I’m going to follow up on Iran. What is the stated U.S. policy when it comes to Iran’s attempt to gain this nuclear technology?</i><br />
<br />
<b><u>MR. CARNEY</u></b>: The administration is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q So it’s fair to say that covert action would be on the table?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I’m not going to discuss those kinds of things from here. But we have a policy that’s focused on working with our international partners collectively and then, obviously, unilaterally to put pressure on Iran to abide by its international obligations, to come clean about its nuclear ambitions. We have provided numerous opportunities for the Iranian government to act on the international community’s invitation to get right by their obligations. And we will continue to take action to add pressure, increase their isolation until they make the right call.<br />
<br />
<i>Q But you can say definitively that it wouldn’t be the policy of the United States to covertly assassinate people?</i><br />
<u><b><br />
</b></u><br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> Well, look, I -<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Or be involved in some sort of attempt like that.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: What we’ve said is that we deplore the violence, deplore the action --<br />
<br />
<i>Q This violence? Or the violence of all of the assassinations --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, it is -- it’s a matter of U.S. policy in terms of the kind of action that you talk about, so I’m not about to revise that from here. This comes up in relation to a specific incident that we have made clear that we had nothing to do with. We’ve rejected those accusations. We are engaged in an effort to try to pressure Iran to live up to its obligations, to give up its nuclear ambitions -- nuclear weapons ambitions. And we will continue to engage in that effort.<br />
<br />
<i>Q How concerned are you about retaliation? Is the U.S. government concerned about retaliation?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I think we’ve been categorical and clear about the fact that we were not involved in the death of this individual. Our concern about Iranian behavior is ever present. And we are very vigilant and mindful of various threats that can be -- that are made, whether they involve the Straits of Hormuz or other areas or issues. So -- but I don’t have a specific level of concern to convey to you.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q If Iran decides to retaliate on Israel in a military way, U.S. response would be what?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, we are absolutely committed to Israel’s security, as we made clear again today in our readout of the President’s phone conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. But I’m not going to speculate about what we might do if some action were taken by another country.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Was there any concern, by the way, of making that readout public, because it might feed the conspiracy theorists in Iran?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Look, I don’t think there’s any secret to the fact that we have an important and ongoing relationship with Israel. We have many important issues to discuss with the Israeli government. The President has many important matters to raise with Prime Minister Netanyahu and vice versa. So that’s -- those conversations are regular and ongoing.<br />
<br />
<i>Q And just one final question. Any reason why you kept cameras away from the President visiting his campaign reelection headquarters?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: It was an OTR. I think it was a brief -- a brief drop-by.<br />
<br />
<i>Q You guys love when we cover OTRs at delis, at barbeque restaurants. </i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I think this was --<br />
<br />
<i>Q Campaign reelection headquarters, that’s not --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: -- on the fly and brief. The President was very gratified to have the opportunity. I think it underscores the point I’ve been trying to make from here in answer to questions about the President’s reelection campaign, which is that he is here in Washington focused on doing his job as President. He is --<br />
<br />
<i>Q So you weren’t concerned that pictures of this would make it look otherwise?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, no. I mean, look, he obviously had campaign events last night in Chicago that you all covered. I mean, we’re not hiding the fact that he is engaged in some campaign activities. But as a --<br />
<br />
<i>Q A little bit. You try to minimize it.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Mark, I try and tell you -- give you the facts, which is, the fact is, the President’s reelection campaign isn’t across the river in Rosslyn, isn’t in Washington. It’s in Chicago, halfway across the country. And that reflects the President --<br />
<br />
<i>Q And Chuck’s point is that if he makes a rare visit to his campaign headquarters --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, look, we can debate campaign access. We made clear that he went there. We made clear that he -- you guys come into his -- pools come into his -- when he speaks at these campaign events and will continue to do so. <br />
<br />
We release, the campaign releases information about its campaign goals. And we’re not -- we’re obviously -- there is a robust effort underway, based in Chicago, to ensure that this President is reelected so that he can continue to take action to help the American economy grow, to help it create jobs, to protect the middle class and protect the country as a matter of national security. So we’re not at all shy about that.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Can I follow up on Chuck’s question?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Let me move around. Julia.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Yes, thanks, Jay.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> Up and back, as I do a lot. Yes.<br />
<br />
<i>Q I saw the Department of Justice memo that they okayed the appointment during recess of Richard Cordray, but the date was January 6th, it looks like it came to the White House. Cordray was appointed on the 4th, so then does that mean that the decision was made without the approval of the Department of Justice?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: No. The fact is the opinion was rendered verbally prior to the date of the opinion itself. The opinion was based on the advice provided by OLC, and it is very standard for -- especially a long -- as you’ve seen in the lengthy opinion that was put out, for those things to be developed over a period of time. And this is -- the timeframe for this is very similar to, in my understanding, to previous occasion.<br />
<br />
So the decision was -- the opinion was rendered before the --<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Verbally.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: -- decision made by the President.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Okay.</i><br />
<u><b><br />
</b></u><br />
MR. CARNEY<u><b>:</b></u> That’s my understanding. <br />
<br />
Yes, ma’am.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Thank you. </i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I wasn’t talking to Roger. (Laughter.)<br />
<br />
<i>Q Thank you. A couple of questions. Apparently there’s military exercises underway between Israel and the United States. Do you have any details? Is that part of a warning to Iran?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I’m not aware of that. I’d refer you to the Department of Defense.<br />
<br />
<i>Q All right. And what’s the situation with the American who’s under arrest and accused of spying in Iran? Anything new on his --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I’ve spoken to this a few times earlier this week with regard to the absolutely invalid accusations and sentence levied against him. So it’s -- we call on him to be released immediately.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Finally, on talks with the Taliban, are you pressing the Taliban to change their attitude toward women?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I think, Connie, I’ve made clear today and on many occasions that reconciliation is contingent upon members of the Taliban laying down their arms, renouncing allegiance to al Qaeda, and abiding by the Afghan constitution, which includes provisions protecting the rights of women.<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q Jay, can I follow up on that?</i><br />
<u><b><br />
</b></u><br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Let me get to Roger, then you, John. Yes.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Thank you. I was wondering if you had an update on when the debt ceiling request is going to the Hill.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Days, not weeks. (Laughter.) That was true a couple of days ago, and it remains <i>true. I don’t have anything more specific for you.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Q It’s imminent?</i><br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, in that it’s not weeks, it’s imminent. But when we have something more specific we’ll give it to you. <br />
<br />
Dan.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Thanks. There are a number of Asian leaders who are going to be visiting the Gulf region -- Saudi Arabia, China’s Premier going there, and South Korean Prime Minister going as well to the region. Is the President satisfied with the progress that Geithner has made in terms of trying to get the oil issue resolved in Beijing? I mean, there’s been some progress with Japan apparently, but what about the Chinese position at this point?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, we’ve been pleased with the progress that has been made. You noted Japan; I think it’s also worth noting Europe. And we are continuing to have discussions with other partners and allies around the world about the need to continue to put pressure on Iran so that it ceases its -- to behave outside of its international obligations. That process is ongoing.<br />
<br />
Q<i> Will he be meeting with Geithner? </i><br />
<u><br />
</u><br />
<u>MR. CARNEY</u>: I’m sorry?<br />
<br />
<i>Q Will he be meeting with Geithner? How soon will they talk about what was accomplished on that --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY: </b></u>“He,” being the President? I’m not sure when Tim returns, but Secretary Geithner is in these hallways quite frequently and sees the President quite often. But I don’t have a specific meeting to announce.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Jay.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Yes, sir.<br />
<br />
Q Regarding the reconciliation process. Has this administration been in contact or discussions with its allies, including Great Britain, regarding this process?<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I am sure that we are in consultation with all the ISAF countries and with all our allies on this matter. I don’t have anything specific to impart to you about that, but you can be sure, since this effort is an international effort, that we are consulting with and engaging with our allies.<br />
<br />
Q Thank you.<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Kristen, I didn’t see you back there. How are you?<br />
<br />
Q Good, thanks. Jay, can you confirm that the President plans to reprise his deficit reduction plans, which he first mapped out in September as a part of his 2013 budget proposal?<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I don’t want to get ahead of the President’s budget proposal, nor do I want to get ahead of the President’s State of the Union address, but it is certainly fair to say that the approach the President laid out in September, a balanced approach to comprehensive deficit reduction, reflects how he believes we need to move going forward. So I don’t -- without getting into specifics about the budget, that approach is the one he still believes needs to be taken, and he would very happily endorse a decision by Congress to take up that approach.<br />
<br />
The process that was put in place by the Budget Control Act that created the super committee that created the sequestration remains in place, minus the super committee. In other words, the sequester is designed not to happen. It is designed to be a forcing mechanism to force Congress to take action.<br />
<br />
And it is simply incontrovertible that the only viable approach to comprehensive deficit reduction, viable both economically and certainly politically, is a balanced approach. That’s the approach that has been endorsed by bipartisan commissions. It’s the approach that at least some Republicans have said they support, and it’s certainly the approach that this President and the overwhelming majority of the American people support.<br />
<br />
So we would greatly endorse a decision by congressional leaders, in particular Republicans, to take this approach.<br />
<br />
Q But why consider reprising a plan that’s already been rejected?<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, no, that’s not how this works, though. I mean, you put forward -- first of all, I’m not getting into the specifics about what’s going to be in the budget. But that’s -- there is no other alternative here than a balanced approach to bipartisan deficit reduction. <br />
<br />
Obviously, the specifics of how that were to work if Congress, in its wisdom, were to take it up and Republican leaders were to allow it to proceed, then the details would be negotiated. <br />
<br />
But balance is essential so that no sector of American society has to bear the burden by itself, or unduly, of reducing our deficit and getting our fiscal house in order for the long term. So that’s the approach that has to be taken. Hopefully it will be taken.<br />
<br />
Q And Jay, going back to the insourcing event quickly, the President announced that he plans to put forward new tax proposals to reward companies that choose to invest or bring back jobs to the United States. Can you talk a little bit about what those proposals might look like, and will they be a part of the budget?<br />
<br />
<u>MR. CARNEY</u>: Well, again, I don’t want to get ahead of anything we might be announcing in the future. I think that what the President was expressing is his overall goal and intention of doing what he can to make sure this trend continues and to strengthen it, to bring -- to make it even more worthwhile for companies to invest in the United States and to hire here in the United States and build our economy and build jobs. <br />
<br />
Because there are some fascinating facts about what’s happening out there and the assessments that are being made by companies about not just the labor cost, but the overall cost and efficiency comparisons that are being made about whether or not to locate a factory, if you will, overseas in China or somewhere else, versus locating it here in the United States.<br />
<br />
And increasingly, businesses are making the judgment that the over -- and these are clear-eyed, bottom-line-minded businessmen and businesswomen who are making the judgment that it is a good time to locate those factories and jobs here in the United States. And that’s a good thing, and it’s a trend the President wants to strengthen and encourage.<br />
<br />
Q Can I just follow up?<br />
<br />
<b><u>MR. CARNEY</u></b>: Last one, Mike.<br />
<br />
Q Thanks, Jay.<br />
<br />
<b><u>MR. CARNEY</u></b>: And then Paula. I’m sorry, you had it up. So I’ll go Mike, Paula, and then I’ll get out of here.<br />
<br />
Q I just want to get back to the DOJ memo. And in it they acknowledged that this was a novel area and that it possibly could lead to some litigation. And one of the reasons for the appointment that was given by the White House was that there was concern without a director in place the bureau would never be able to exercise all of its authorities. But why aren’t you concerned that this litigation might not hamper all of its efforts if they end up in court?<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, because we believe our legal argument is very strong, will absolutely pass muster. And the fact that, hypothetically, there might be a legal challenge to it doesn’t mitigate against the fact that Richard Cordray is the consumer watchdog; he is in place making sure that Americans are protected from payday lenders and non-bank financial institutions and student loan brokers and others, from the abuses that they were not protected against prior to him being installed by the President and recess appointed by the President. <br />
<br />
So the absolute necessity of doing this remains as clear today as it was when he did it and prior to him doing it. And I think that the American people by and large -- in fact overwhelmingly -- support the existence of somebody here in Washington looking out for them; making sure that the institutions that have very well-paid lobbyists, armies of them here looking out for their interests, have somebody else to deal with here in Washington looking out for the interests of regular Americans in their financial dealings. <br />
<br />
Q And is the administration ready for those fights when they do come?<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I would just refer you to the OLC memo.<br />
<br />
Yes, Paula.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, the law says -- sorry, the memo says that the President has appointed him, but the memo does not address the underlying question of whether a recess appointment is the same as a confirmation. Because the 2010 law that established the bureau said the new powers come to an appointee who is confirmed. Is the President saying his recess appointment is legally the same as a confirmation by the Senate?<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: The President is saying that in recess appointing Richard Cordray, Richard Cordray has absolutely the powers he needs to fulfill his responsibilities in that job. And there have been a number of rather enlightening instances in the past 24 hours of confirmation by unusual sources of the fact that the House and Senate are indeed in recess. In the very press release put out by a Republican congresswoman arguing against the recess appointment, she acknowledged that the Senate was in recess. I believe on the House Majority Leader’s website today it said the House was not in recess -- I mean, not in session.<br />
<br />
So look, anybody who doubts this, any American who doubts that this is a recess appointment, should, through you, take a look at what’s happening on Capitol Hill and argue to -- and have Congress argue that they’re in session, they’re doing their jobs on Capitol Hill, when in fact they’re not even around.<br />
<br />
Paula.<br />
<br />
Q The insourcing tax proposals, is it possible that this could be coming out as part of the overall corporate tax reform?<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I want you to repeat that so I make sure I get it right. Say that again.<br />
<br />
Q The insourcing proposals that are to be coming out, is it possible that they may be coming out as part of the overall reform of the corporate tax system? <br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I have no announcements to make about that kind of issue. Urge you to stay very focused on what we’re doing here -- State of the Union address is coming up, the release of the budget is coming up. Lots of really interesting things to cover. <br />
<br />
Q What is the state of the union? It’s good? Strong? Very strong?<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, we’re getting stronger. <br />
<br />
Q Is that the wording that’s in the draft already?<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: No! Thank you all very much.<br />
<br />
END 2:26 P.M. EST<br />
<br />
<br />Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-28520229487053540272012-01-13T03:02:00.000-08:002012-01-19T03:28:56.847-08:00Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney and OMB Deputy Director for Management Jeff Zients, 1/13/12Office of the Press Secretary<br />
<div class="dateline">
<div class="release">
For Immediate Release </div>
<div class="date">
January 13, 2012 </div>
</div>
<h1>
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney and OMB Deputy Director for Management Jeff Zients, 1/13/12</h1>
<div class="rtecenter">
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room</div>
10:26 A.M. EST<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Good morning, everyone. Thanks for being with us for this
off-camera gaggle, but on the record. I have with me this morning, and
I’d like to start with him, Mr. Jeff Zients. He is the Deputy Director
for Management at the Office of Management and Budget. He is also the
President’s chief performance officer, the first ever chief performance
officer.<br />
<br />
He has overseen the process, the review of -- the review that has led
to the announcement this morning of the President’s proposal to request
consolidation authority from Congress so that he can make our government
more efficient and more effective for the American people.<br />
<br />
So I will turn this over to Jeff, who will make a few remarks, take
questions from you on this initiative. And if you hold questions on
other subjects until after Jeff leaves, I will remain and answer them,
and then get you out of here in time for the 11:00.<br />
<br />
Okay, with that, I give you Mr. Zients.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: Thank you, Jay. Thank you, everybody. Now, I thought I’d
start just with a little bit of background, then as Jay said, open it
up for questions.<br />
<br />
Really, since the very beginning of the administration, the President
has been focused on making government more accountable -- getting rid of
waste, saving money and making government services more responsive.
It’s really what companies across America have done: increase
productivity, save money, and improve service quality.<br />
<br />
And as you know, we’ve done a lot. We’ve gotten rid of billions of
dollars of unneeded real estate. Contracting -- across the government
total contracting actually decreased last fiscal year, fiscal year ‘10,
for the first time in 13 years. And we’ve reduced those improper
payments. <br />
<br />
Those are the payments to the wrong people, the wrong place,
the wrong time; those payments to people that are in jail. As an
example, they decreased by more than $20 billion.<br />
<br />
Today, the President is asking Congress to pass consolidation
authority, which is a critical next step in our efforts to continue to
streamline government, save money and improve government services.<br />
<br />
The government we have is not the government we need. The last major
reorganization of the whole government was done more than a half century
ago, led by Herbert Hoover. Since then, agencies have been layered on
top. Rarely has an agency been downsized or eliminated. So we’ve added
incrementally over time.<br />
<br />
The President is asking for the reinstatement of the same authority
that presidents had, from Hoover through Reagan, for more than 50
years. And that is to submit to Congress specific proposals for a
fast-track up or down vote. But there’s an important distinction here,
and that is that the consolidation authority requires any proposal save
money and reduce the size of government. Again, in the past, government
has been added to incrementally. Consolidation authority requires
saving money and reducing the size of government. <br />
<br />
The bottom line is that the President, like any chief executive, needs
the ability to streamline and modernize operations, and save money and
improve service.<br />
<br />
The President will also announce today that his first proposal, under
the consolidation authority, would be to consolidate six agencies
focused on business and trade. I’ll run through those.<br />
<br />
It’s the core business and trade components of the Department of
Commerce. Over half of the Commerce Department’s budget is actually
NOAA, so NOAA would move to the Interior Department. But the core
business and trade business components of the Department of Commerce --
along with SBA -- the Small Business Administration -- USTR, Ex-Im, OPIC
and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency. All six of those
consolidated and integrated into one.<br />
<br />
The most important reason for doing this is to better serve businesses,
especially its small businesses. Today, when a small business is
thinking about exporting for the first time, there are multiple
websites, forms and applications. The consolidated department will have
one website, one telephone number and one mission: to help American
businesses succeed and make it much easier for small businesses to
access government services.<br />
<br />
While we wait for Congress to act and pass consolidation authority,
given the importance of small business to the economy, the President is
elevating the Small Business Administration to his Cabinet. The
administrator, Karen Mills, will join the Cabinet.<br />
<br />
With that background, why don’t I open it up for questions?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Why don’t we start with Associated Press?<br />
<br />
<i>Q Jeff, just on this larger issue, it’s something a lot of the
administrations have tried to do in the past, reorganize government,
make government smaller. Do you feel like you have a window of
opportunity here? I mean why is this time different, I guess?</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. ZIENTS</b>: Well, first, as I said, for 50 years or so, presidents had
this type of authority, so this is not new. I think we would all agree
we’re at a point where we need to make sure that every taxpayer dollar
is well spent. That’s a bipartisan belief, and I think we can all
believe that making government operations leaner, smarter, more
efficient is essential. And consolidation authority is a very important
tool for ensuring that we achieve a smarter, leaner government.<br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. CARNEY:</b> Matt.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q What happens --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> I called on Matt, if I could just -- let me just do this in order.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Sorry, the Republicans are already kind of scoffing at the idea of
this being fairly modest relative to the size of the overall federal
budget. And they’re saying that the President has presided over one of
the largest expansions of government ever. So in view of that attitude,
in view of the gridlock in D.C., what makes the administration think
that they’re going to be able to get the up or down -- the authority for
up or down votes to come from this Congress? And maybe Jay would weigh
in on that, because it’s kind of a political question, too.</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. ZIENTS:</b> Well, again, presidents have enjoyed this authority for 50
years. We’re at a point in time where we have to streamline
government, make sure every dollar is well spent, improve the quality of
government services. The proposal that the President is outlining,
which would be his first specific proposal, would be one of a series of
proposals across time that collectively would save billions of dollars.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> What was the political aspect of it?<br />
<br />
<i>Q Well, considering the gridlock in D.C., the in ability to move
legislative projects past the Congress with Republican resistance, I
mean, you’re asking them to give the President somewhat of a carte
blanche and move straight to the up or down vote without any kind of
intermediary steps involving lawmakers.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Well, two points. One, I think we do not share the
pessimism about -- that others have expressed about an inability to get
things through Congress. We think this is the kind of thing that should
have bipartisan support. Republicans have expressed a desire to make
government less costly, more efficient, more effective. We agree with
that assessment. That’s what this is designed to do.<br />
<br />
The consolidation authority would require, as Jeff said, that it would
reduce costs overall, would save the federal government money. That is
something that we certainly would expect Republicans would want to agree
to. So every elected official in Washington has to explain to his or
her constituents on this issue, as on others, why they oppose it, if
they oppose it.<br />
And we, again, think this is very common sense, this very much what we
need to make our government more efficient and more effective, and we
look forward to working with Congress to get it done.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Can you clarify on the EPA? I mean the SBA, sorry. Moving it to a
Cabinet agency requires what? And nominating the administrator as a
Cabinet Secretary means confirmation, right?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: No.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q No?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> The President has the ability to designate his Cabinet, and the SBA will be now part of his Cabinet.<br />
<br />
Q So it could get done?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> Yes.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q But just to clarify, so you would -- the President would lift the
SBA into Cabinet status, but then with the consolidation authority
eliminate the SBA as a separate agency?</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. ZIENTS</b>: That’s right. The SBA would be represented in the new
agency by the secretary of the agency that is focused on business
competitiveness.<br />
<br />
<i>Q So it’s a short timeframe.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> We hope to get consolidation authority very quickly so we
can begin to streamline government and save money and improve services.
The first specific proposal would be the one I outlined.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q Follow on that?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY: </b> Yes.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Jeff, you just said the agency focused on business competiveness,
is this going to be the Commerce -- I mean, is that going to be -- what
is the --</i><br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q What’s the name of the agency?</i><br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q -- the name of the new agency?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> The name of the agency will be worked out through the
process of submitting the specific proposal to Congress once we get the
consolidation authority.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q And will John Bryson be the head of that department?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> The President will decide once the new department is created who the secretary is.<br />
<br />
Q Are you effectively eliminating the Commerce Department? Is that what you’re saying?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS: </b> We are effectively taking the core business and trade
components of Commerce and bringing those -- integrating those with the
other five agencies that I mentioned in creating a new streamlined
department that will save $3 billion and better serve businesses.<br />
<br />
The other component of Commerce --<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q NOAA --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> NOAA, which is more than 50 percent of the budget of Commerce, will go to the Interior Department.<br />
<br />
Q So what’s left of Commerce that goes into that?<br />
<br />
Q What about the Census Department?<br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. ZIENTS</b>: The Census will be part of the new department. There will
be a division of statistics, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics from
the Labor Department will be integrated into the Census and the BEA for
one economics statistics department, which will save money and help
modernize our -- continue to modernize our statistics.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> Let me -- hey, Laura, let me just -- okay, go Laura, and then let’s get back to calling on people. Go ahead.<br />
<br />
<i>Q So the new statistical agency would include the Census Bureau and the Labor Department statistics?</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. ZIENTS</b>: And BEA, which is part of Commerce today.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Okay, and any of the other government statistic agencies?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS: </b> There’s one component from the National Science Foundation.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q And Commerce would cease to exist?</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. ZIENTS: </b> I’m sorry?<br />
<br />
<i>Q Commerce would cease to exist?</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. ZIENTS:</b> Yes. There will be one new department that integrates the six departments -- the six agencies.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Which will be housed where?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> That will be --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY: </b> Can you guys -- can we -- I just want to return to not just shouting questions and calling -- go ahead, Laura.<br />
<br />
<i>Q If this proposal were to go through, would the SBA administrator
remain in the Cabinet even though SBA would be part of the new agency?</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. ZIENTS: </b> There would be one secretary of the new agency which is
focused on small businesses, business and competitiveness. That person
will be part of the Cabinet. Until then, given the importance of small
business, the President has decided to put the Small Business
Administration administrator on his Cabinet.<br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. CARNEY: </b> Kristen, then Christi.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q Thank you. How many -- I just heard you mention the $3 billion
figure for savings. How many jobs could potentially be lost under this
reorganization? And also, the President talked about doing this
initially during his State of the Union address? Can you talk about why
now? Why not put forth this type of proposal sooner?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: The answer to the jobs component of it is 1,000 to 2,000, and that can be handled through attrition.<br />
<br />
This is hard, important work, and we spent a lot of time out and about
talking to businesses, particularly small businesses, hundreds of
businesses, getting input on what works best and how can we make things
work better, how can we streamline. We spoke to the current heads of
these agencies. We solicited ideas from frontline employees through a
website.<br />
<br />
So this is based on a lot of work and analysis. It’s an important
decision, and one that’s well thought through, and it’s driven by how do
we best serve our customer in this situation, which are businesses,
small, medium and large businesses; and at the same time, how do we save
money.<br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. CARNEY: </b> Christi.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q Two things. The 1,000 to 2,000 jobs, what percentage is that of
the total payroll of those agencies as they exist right now?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: It’s -- we can follow up with an exact number, but it’s a few percent. Few percent.<br />
<br />
Q A few percent?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q So you’re talking about cutting the total by roughly what?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> It’s $3 billion over 10 years; on an FTE basis, it’s a few percent.<br />
<br />
Q And how long does it take that attrition to do away with the number of jobs you’re talking about?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: Across a couple of years.<br />
<br />
<i>Q A couple years. And also, could you just explain the
consolidation authority a little bit? Where does it derive from? What
happened to it? Why did it go away? How did it work?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: It sunsetted under Reagan. And again, what we’re doing
here is reinstating something that existed for that 50-year period of
time, but with a very important change or requirement, which is that we
will save money, reduce the size of government. The history of
reorganization authority is that it was used more to add to government
than it was to streamline or save money. Consolidation authority
requires saving money, streamlining government.<br />
<br />
<i>Q And why even go and ask Congress for this authority, given the
resistance that it’s likely to face? Why not instead -- wouldn’t there
be a way to figure out how to do this through a “We Can’t Wait”
initiative?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: We’re doing all we can. To do this type of consolidation
requires legislation, legislative authority to do it. You can’t do this
through executive action.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the President, about 75 days ago -- because I know
we’ve got 15 days left on our deadline -- ordered us, directed us to
launch a one-stop website, which we will do in the next couple of weeks,
which will allow small businesses finally to go to one website to
understand the various services that different agencies can provide.<br />
<br />
So we’re doing what we can do. But to realize this cost savings, the
$3 billion, and to integrate and create improved service, we need the
authority and then the specific proposal for this new department to
pass.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> Dave.<br />
<br />
<i>Q This might be better for Jay, I don’t know. But in Hawaii a
couple weeks ago you guys described the payroll tax cut as the final
must-do legislation of sort of -- as we head into the rest of the year
and possibly the election. But would you add this to that? And how
would you describe how far the President is willing to go on this one to
sort of engage in a real potential fight with Congress, or if they want
to add their own --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: That’s a good question. The payroll tax cut must be
extended or else taxes will go up on 160 million Americans at just the
wrong time. We fully expect Congress to extend the payroll tax cut for
the remainder of the calendar year, to extend unemployment insurance for
the remainder of the calendar year, and to do so without drama, with
political brinksmanship, because it’s the right thing to do and it’s
something that, in the end, as it should have in the beginning, garnered
broad bipartisan support.<br />
<br />
This is a proactive initiative that the President is putting forward.
We absolutely, as Jeff said, hope that Congress will act very quickly to
pass the consolidation authority, because Democrats and Republicans
alike have a keen interest in making government more efficient and in
doing what this specific authority would require, which is reducing the
size of government and saving money.<br />
<br />
So we want this to happen as soon as possible. It differs from the
payroll tax cut in that it is absolutely essential that Americans’ taxes
-- 160 million Americans don’t see their taxes go up on March 1st.<br />
Mark.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Two questions. One, I’m wondering whether this also reflects in
any way a dissatisfaction with the way the Commerce Department functions
as it’s currently organized. And then secondly, is there any danger
that by taking USTA and merging it into something else, you sort of make
the trade agenda and the importance of reaching further trade deals or
maybe even a global trade deal, you end up taking that position and
appearing to diminish its importance?</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. ZIENTS</b>: Good question. The U.S. Trade Representative will
maintain his Cabinet status, and this will strengthen our trade
enforcement, our trade promotion, our export promotion, our financing
for exports by integrating them into one department. So this
strengthens our trade position.<br />
<br />
Your Commerce question, that’s a structural issue. The Department of
Commerce does a great job with the set of services it provides, but if
you take something like trade enforcement, their trade enforcement
functions at several different agencies in addition to Commerce, so
bringing them all together will make us more effective and save money
across the board.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Mike, and then Brianna.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Yes, you said that this was the first major reorganization since -- and I’m sorry, was it Hoover, or FDR?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: Looked at the whole government, yes.<br />
<br />
<i>Q How do you contrast that, though, with the reorganization that
happened after 9/11 that created the Department of Homeland Security?
How is that different or more expansive?</i><br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
</i><b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: Well, the Hoover commission looked at the whole of
government. Obviously DHS was a new department around a set of agencies
and bureaus. This is a new department that will be very integrated,
that will save money, that we’re going to plan for in advance in terms
of how we realize the cost savings and the efficiency gains and the
service quality improvements. And when I -- I guess just lifting up
again, DHS was the creation of one new department; Hoover was a look
across government. Consolidation authority gives the President to
submit specific proposals like the one he’s outlining today that save
money and improve service at the same time.<br />
<br />
So once given consolidation authority, we anticipate this would be the first proposal, but there would be many thereafter.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> A couple more for Jeff. Yes, Lesley.<br />
<br />
<i>Q You said that the consolidation authority sunsetted under
President Reagan. Has any other President tried to reauthorize it since
then, and what was the track record on them?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> There have been some attempts -- we can get you more
background -- I think President Bush -- obviously it has not been
reinstated, and no one has positioned it as consolidation authority,
which I think is essential in these times, that we do more with less,
that we save money and improve services at the same time.<br />
<br />
So I think that we can all -- it’s a bipartisan issue, as Jay said, to
streamline government, make sure every taxpayer dollar counts. I think
we’re at a point in time where we all can agree that the chief executive
needs this authority.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY: </b> George, and then --<br />
<br />
<i>Q I just wanted to make sure that I didn’t misread your answer just
now on USTR. USTR would be in this new department but would retain
Cabinet status? Wouldn’t be reporting to the new secretary of the --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS: </b> Be reporting both -- it’s similar to the U.N. ambassador,
Susan Rice, in terms of reporting in to the Secretary of State and being
part of the President’s Cabinet. Similar here. Part of the
integration and making sure that we’re strengthening our trade and
export strategies overall is that this be integrated into this new
department at the same time the U.S. Trade Representative would maintain
his or her Cabinet status.<br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. CARNEY:</b> This is going to be the last one for Jeff. Donovan. Oh,
I’m sorry, Brianna and then Donovan. I did call on her before and then
forget.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Thank you. So the umbrella, sort of asking for the congressional
authority and then specific votes on different proposals, this being the
first, will the other proposals -- I mean, how quickly do you plan --
is there going to be a series? And will you be looking for things that
have what you would argue should be bipartisan consensus like this
specific one, or are we going to see other ones that might not be --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS: </b> We’ll be looking for terrains that are fragmented,
inefficient, where we can achieve cost savings and service quality
improvement simultaneously. So once we get the consolidation authority,
first we will be working to get the very specific proposal in the
terrain of trade and competitiveness and business that I outlined. At
the same time, we’ll be looking to our next terrains, and again, we’ll
be looking for areas where we’re fragmented, inefficient, where
streamlining can both save money, which will be a requirement, and
improve service at the same time.<br />
<br />
<i>Q So is that the sole requirement, or is it something that you think you could get buy-in from Congress?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS: </b> I’m sorry?<br />
<br />
Q Individual proposals. I’m just wondering if there’s been partisan bickering over some of the proposals.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS: </b> You know, I think that it’s important that these be --
that you have the fast-track authority. If not, you run into a lot of
special interests, jurisdictional lines in Congress. There’s a lot of
resistance to this. So having that fast-track authority, the
consolidation authority is critical.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q How many proposals? How many? I’m just -- every month? Every --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> I think it’s one step at a time.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Are there several?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> Hopefully that first step comes very quickly, we get
consolidation authority. Once we get it, we just outlined what the
specific proposal -- what the outline of the specific proposal would be,
it would be much more detailed at that point working together with our
agencies to make sure that we have a plan that’s fully integrated and
that saves the money we talked about and provides better service.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY: </b> And these are done, obviously, after careful review and consolidation that Jeff has led.<br />
<br />
<i>Q So the fast-track is to avoid some of that jurisdictional and special interest lobbying, basically?</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. ZIENTS:</b> The fast-track authority is needed to get these hard
things done, and to make sure that this doesn’t get bogged down in
amendments and special interests and all the rest.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Donovan, did you --<br />
<br />
Q Yes, mine is very bureaucratic. Do you have any paper on this, on
like -- you mentioned a lot of detailed things about this section.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: 11:15 a.m., I’m told, we’ll have paper.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q Thank you.</i><br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q Will you be sending this up or asking Congress to develop it?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: Consolidation authority, the bill, will be sent up in short order --<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: When Congress returns from recess.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS:</b> In short order.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Last one, and then I’m going to take questions. We’ve got
a few minutes until you guys have to go. So if you have questions on
other subjects -- is that a yes?<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q Jeff, what are the costs associated with doing this consolidation with elevating SBA to Cabinet level? I mean, is this --</i><br />
<b><br />
MR. ZIENTS</b>: There’s no cost associated with elevating SBA to Cabinet level.<br />
<br />
<i>Q -- consolidated departments, the DHS consolidation turned out to be very expensive. </i><br />
<i>
</i><i>
MR. ZIENTS: Factored into our cost savings is this transition period
of time where we can handle, through the current budgets, the
transition. And then the cost-saving kicks in, and that’s the $3
billion. </i><br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q There’s going to be a lot of concern on the Hill about
consolidation of presidential power. I mean, given that you were
actually able to establish a whole new agency and a Department of
Homeland Security without this authority, why do you necessarily need
this type of fast-track authority to do this?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: Well, I think the DHS was in a period of crisis, and it
was the creation of something new. We’re talking about streamlining and
saving money, and I think that’s always even more difficult to do. And
again -- and we don’t see one opportunity to do this, there’s going to
be multiple opportunities to do this. Given the imperative that we save
money and improve government services, we need this authority.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Thank you.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Thank you, Jeff.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. ZIENTS</b>: Thank you. Thank you, everybody.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: We’ve got about five, six minutes on other subjects.<br />
Yes, sir.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Jay, on the New York Times piece this morning, has the
administration directly told the Ayatollah that closing the Strait of
Hormuz would provoke an American response?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> We have a number of ways to communicate our views to the
Iranian government, and we have used those mechanisms regularly on a
range of issues over the years.<br />
<br />
I’m not going to get into the details of those communications or
mechanisms, but any message that we have delivered -- and this goes to
your question -- to the Iranian government would be the same as what
we’ve said publicly.<br />
<br />
So we obviously have means of communicating with the Iranian
government. We use those means and methods and -- but our message
privately -- we deliver the same message in private that we deliver in
public.<br />
<br />
<i>Q How serious does the administration take these threats? Is there a
concern that this may be tilting towards some sort of military action?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY: </b> The United States and the international community have a
strong interest in the free flow of commerce and freedom of navigation
in all international waterways. We have consistently communicated our
views on that subject and concerns on those issues to the Iranians and
to the international community broadly.<br />
<br />
I wouldn’t want to characterize the nature of this issue right now
beyond saying that our views are clear, we’re expressing them publicly
and privately, and I’ll leave it at that.<br />
<br />
Yes, Matt.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Myanmar freed 200 prisoners, and they promise to free more in
amnesty. The U.S. has said that freeing political prisoners was crucial
to even considering the lifting of economic sanctions. Will that
process now get underway of giving consideration to --</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: We have seen those reports, Matt, thank you for the
question. If true, that would be a positive development. But I don’t
have -- I have no new announcements with regard to that.<br />
Julianna.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Just back to Iran. So does that mean, then, that the White House
does agree that -- with Panetta and other administration officials who
have said that any disruption or closing of the Strait of Hormuz would
be considered a red line?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY:</b> Well, without using -- I would refer you to the comments
of the Secretary of Defense, but we are -- this would clearly be an
issue because we have a strong interest in the free flow of commerce and
freedom of navigation there and around the world. And obviously that’s
a very important part of the world.<br />
<br />
So I can almost anticipate other questions about how we might react,
and I’m not going to -- we take no options off the table. But we are
engaged in the kinds of diplomatic efforts that you would expect in a
situation like this and will continue to make our views on this known
very clearly.<br />
<br />
<i>Q But you won’t go so far as to call it a red line?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY: </b> It’s not that I won’t, I’m just -- he kind of outranks me
on issues like these, so I would just point you to his comments.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: Let’s do two more, Jay.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Mark. And then Brianna.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Do you have any other announcements on Myanmar?</i><br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don’t. That’s your question? Awesome. (Laughter.)
No, I don’t have any other -- I don’t have any -- but it’s a fair
question. I might have forgotten an announcement. But no, I don’t.
Not at this time. As I said to Matt, we’ll -- these reports suggest a
positive development. It is the kind of development that we expressed
-- that we’ve made clear would be a good one if it were to take place.
And we’ll I’m sure have more to say about it as things progress.<br />
<br />
Brianna.<br />
<br />
<i>Q There’s a published excerpt of Michael Hastings’s new book out
that quotes a State Department official talking about President Obama
during a visit to Iraq complaining about taking photos with soldiers.
And I’m just wondering if you’re responding to that.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: I saw that. It’s just -- I know from my time with him
that there is nothing he would rather do than spend time with the men
and women in the military. And so I -- anonymous, unnamed, single
sources saying something ridiculous like that, I wouldn’t put too much
credibility in. So that’s all I have to say about that.<br />
Thank you all very much.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Week ahead?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: Coming shortly, sorry.<br />
END<br />
11:07 A.M. ESTBranson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-86933925053767365502012-01-13T01:50:00.000-08:002012-01-13T01:50:02.983-08:00Romney Boasts Missouri Endorsements<div class="content clearfix">
<i>(Press Release Mitt Romney) </i><br />
Mitt Romney today announced the support of Missouri leaders, including Congressman Billy Long.<br />
“It’s an honor to have the support of so many conservative Missouri
leaders,” said Mitt Romney. “This level of support shows that my message
of restoring fiscal sanity to Washington is resonating with voters
across the country. These supporters will be crucial to help me spread
my message of creating jobs and cutting spending in the months to come.”<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
“I’m extremely proud to support a true conservative like Mitt
Romney,” said Congressman Billy Long. “Missouri voters — as well as
voters across the country — are looking for someone who will reverse
President Obama’s failed policies. Mitt Romney will get rid of
Obamacare, stop our government’s out-of-control spending, and — most
important of all — create jobs for the American people. If conservatives
are serious about getting our country back on track, Mitt Romney is the
clear choice.”<br />
Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer said, “The next election will be
one of the most important in generations. We can choose to continue on
the high-spending and economically stagnant path we are on, or we can
elect Mitt Romney, a conservative businessman with a lifelong record of
results. Missouri voters are looking for a change in direction for our
country – that is why they will support Mitt Romney.”<br />
<strong>Missouri leaders supporting Mitt Romney:</strong><br />
<ul>
<li>Congressman Billy Long</li>
<li>Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer</li>
<li>State Sen. Dan Brown</li>
<li>State Sen. Mike Parson</li>
<li>State Sen. David Pearce</li>
<li>State Sen. Kurt Schaefer</li>
<li>State Rep. Kathy Conway</li>
<li>Cass County Committeeman Ryan Johnson</li>
<li>St. Louis County Committeeman Jim Gwinner</li>
</ul>
</div>Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-57268144913767989132012-01-13T01:49:00.000-08:002012-01-20T01:51:35.924-08:00Barack Obama Proclamation on Religous Freedom Day<div id="content">
<div class="information">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r1EJ-RHYbcI/TwtkOh4YW_I/AAAAAAAAOmQ/wC3g1ebiOkQ/s1600/WhiteHouseLogo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r1EJ-RHYbcI/TwtkOh4YW_I/AAAAAAAAOmQ/wC3g1ebiOkQ/s1600/WhiteHouseLogo.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="title">
The White House</div>
Office of the Press Secretary<br />
<div class="dateline">
<div class="release">
For Immediate Release </div>
<div class="date">
January 13, 2012 </div>
</div>
</div>
<h1>
Presidential Proclamation -- Religious Freedom Day, 2012</h1>
<div class="rtecenter">
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY, 2012</div>
<div class="rtecenter">
- - - - - - -</div>
<div class="rtecenter">
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</div>
<div class="rtecenter">
A PROCLAMATION</div>
<div class="rtecenter">
<br /></div>
For nearly four centuries, men and women have immigrated to America's
shores in pursuit of religious freedom. Hailing from diverse
backgrounds and faiths, countless settlers have shared a simple
aspiration -- to practice their beliefs free from prejudice and
persecution. In 1786, the Virginia General Assembly took a bold step
toward preserving this fundamental liberty by passing the Virginia
Statute for Religious Freedom, which brought to life the ideal of
religious tolerance from the texts of the Enlightenment in the laws of
state. On Religious Freedom Day, we celebrate this historic milestone,
reflect upon the Statute's declaration that "Almighty God hath created
the mind free," and reaffirm that the American people will remain
forever unshackled in matters of faith.<br />
<br />
Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, the Virginia Statute formed the basis for
the First Amendment, which has preserved religious freedom for both
believers and non-believers for over 220 years. As our Nation has
grown, so too has its diversity of faiths, cultures, and traditions;
today, individuals of rich and varied beliefs call America home and seek
to follow their consciences in peace. Our long history of religious
tolerance and pluralism has strengthened our country, helped create a
vibrant civil society, and remained true to the principles enshrined in
our founding documents.<br />
<br />
Our Nation is committed to religious liberty not only for all
Americans, but also for individuals around the world. Internationally,
we bear witness to those who live in fear of violence and discrimination
because of their beliefs. My Administration continues to stand with
all who are denied the ability to choose, express, or live their faith
freely, and we remain dedicated to protecting this universal human right
and the vital role it plays in ensuring peace and stability for all
nations.<br />
<br />
Today, as we reflect on the many ways religious freedom enriches our
country and our lives, let us lend our voice to all people striving to
exercise their innate right to a free mind.<br />
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of
America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 16, 2012, as
Religious Freedom Day. I call on all Americans to commemorate this day
with events and activities that teach us about this critical foundation
of our Nation's liberty, and show us how we can protect it for future
generations at home and around the world.<br />
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of
January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the
Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and
thirty-sixth.<br />
<br />
<div class="rtecenter">
BARACK OBAMA</div>
</div>Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-62720551225708282772012-01-11T16:40:00.000-08:002012-01-19T02:45:13.763-08:00Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest en route Chicago<h1>
Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest en route Chicago</h1>
<h3>
Aboard Air Force One, En Route Chicago, Illinois</h3>
<h3>
January 11 2012 </h3>
4:40 P.M. EST<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: Good afternoon, everybody. It’s nice to see you on our
way to Chicago. Thought I would come by. I have a couple of quick
things to flag for you. And then if you have a couple of quick
questions we can do a couple of those as well. The first thing, the top
priority on the President’s domestic agenda is strengthening the
economy and creating jobs here in the United States at this
make-or-break moment for the middle class. In the insourcing American
jobs forum, he highlighted the decisions made by an increasing number of
companies, both large and small, to bring jobs back and invest in
America.<br />
<br />
You heard the President mention a couple of ideas for increasing
support and incentives for companies who are looking to invest in
America, including ramping up the efforts at SelectUSA. He’ll lay out
some additional ideas, including some good incentives for companies
contemplating these kinds of decisions in the weeks ahead.<br />
<br />
It reflects his unwavering commitment to working with Congress when
possible, and acting unilaterally when necessary, to put in place a set
of economic policies that reflects his vision for an American economy
where everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does their fair share.<br />
The second thing is a scheduling announcement, and I wanted to give you
a heads up on this but I would ask that you not report this until we
arrive, which is that our first stop, once we get off the helicopter in
Chicago, will be to travel to the Obama for America headquarters in
downtown Chicago.<br />
<br />
So again, this is an unscheduled stop. I just wanted to give you a
heads up for your planning. Please don’t report it until the motorcade
pulls up to the headquarters.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q This is being piped back to the White House, though, right?</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. EARNEST</b>: I don’t know whether or not it’s being piped back.<br />
<br />
Q I think it is.<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: But I’d ask that people not report until they see a pool report from Mr. Gillman or Ms. Parsons. Okay?<br />
<br />
Q Josh, is this being piped back to the White House press room?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I have no idea. So we’ll see.<br />
<br />
Q What did she ask?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: Whether it was being piped back to the White House or not.<br />
<br />
Q Presume that it is.<br />
<br />
Q Why is he stopping by campaign headquarters?<br />
<br />
MR. EARNEST: It would be an opportunity for him to say hello and thank
the people in Chicago who are working hard on his reelection campaign.
As you know, the President himself and his staff at the White House has
been focused on the critical priorities and the items on his agenda as
President of the United States, and that the people who are working in
Chicago and have been for the better part of the last year have been
focused on his reelection, have ensured that he’s had time to focus on
his duties as President of the United States.<br />
<br />
And so this will be an opportunity for him to swing by the office to
say hello to the staff that’s been hard at work there and to thank them
for their efforts.<br />
<br />
Q It seems like a safe bet that people will read this as the
President is, in fact, more focused on his reelection than on running
the country. Would that be correct or incorrect?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: Well, essentially, they’ll see, in your stories, that he
began his day by -- at an insourcing forum in the White House, and that
reflects that -- that item wasn’t just the first thing on his schedule,
it’s also the first thing on his agenda and it’s on the forefront of his
mind.<br />
As I began my remarks here, that the President is focused on his
number-one domestic agenda item, is creating jobs and strengthening the
economy at this make-or-break moment for the middle class, and that’s
where his focus remains. And frankly, that’s why we have a separate
operation in Chicago, so they can be focused on the reelect while the
President himself is focused on his responsibilities as the
Commander-in-Chief.<br />
Margaret.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Has he been -- how many times has he been to the campaign
headquarters? And does he have any -- what were his thoughts on the
Republican primary, given the fact that Mitt Romney has now had two
consecutive victories?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I’ll have to check on the number of visits. I believe
this is actually the first time that he will have visited the
headquarters since the reelection operation got up and running.<br />
In terms of the New Hampshire results last night, I’m not going to
handicap the race from here. I asked the President, anticipating that
one of you might ask me whether or not the President watched the returns
last night. He did not. He has read about the race in the newspapers
this morning, but didn’t have any specific reaction.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Has he heard any of the attacks that Mitt Romney has made on him?
Has he started to formulate in his head what he’d like to say to those,
if Romney ends up being the eventual nominee?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: Well, certainly the President has been following the race
by reading the newspapers. But I got to tell you, I think that the
things that he’s formulating in his own mind are some ideas that he has
for strengthening the economy and creating jobs. This insourcing forum
is certainly one of them. I’m certain that he’ll have some ideas that
he’ll lay out in the State of the Union address.<br />
<br />
Those are the things that are at the forefront of his mind. It’s not the reelect at this point.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Does he consider Romney to be the likely nominee?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I’m not going to handicap the race at this point. I have
not heard him say that. But I’m not in a position to handicap the
race. I’ll let you guys draw those conclusions.<br />
<br />
Q Was the insourcing event designed to provide a contrast to the charges that Mitt Romney outsourced jobs at Bain?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: The insourcing event was designed to highlight the
decision that’s being made by an increasing number of companies, both in
America and around the world, that it makes sense to invest in the
United States of America. We have the most productive workers, the most
ambitious entrepreneurs and the greatest universities that prepare our
workforce to compete in the 21st century. That’s what the President was
focused on today. That was the reason for the event, because the
President does want to encourage other companies to step up and take
advantage of the opportunity that exists in the United States of
America.<br />
Mary.<br />
<br />
Q Can you give us any more details on the kind of -- the new tax
breaks that the President plans to propose and what kind of incentives
he plans to give companies to hire more in the U.S.?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: It’s a good question, but I don’t have anything on that right now. But we will in the weeks ahead.<br />
<br />
Q You said the weeks ahead. Is that something we should expect out of the State of the Union, perhaps?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: It’s certainly possible.<br />
<br />
Q Could it be before then, or will it not be until the State of the Union?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I don’t have an exact release date for you, but certainly in the next couple of weeks.<br />
<br />
Q OMB -- the timing of the OMB replacement? Do you expect that to
come before the State of the Union address? And can you give us any
more guidance or detail on how the President is formulating his
decision, whether it’s already been made, who it will be and when it
will be announced?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I don’t have any information about personnel appointments
at this point. Whoever will serve in that job as the director of the
OMB will have big shoes to fill, taking over for Jack Lew. It’s
obviously a very important job; it’s the senior member of the
President’s economic team. But Mr. Lew will remain in that job through
the end of the process that’s currently underway to formulate a fiscal
year 2013 budget.<br />
So he’ll be in that office for another couple of weeks until the budget
is finished, and then -- but I don’t have any update for you in terms
of timing about when a successor to Mr. Lew would be announced.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q But the decision will be made from the inside the administration?
You won’t be bringing someone else from the outside for that position?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I don’t have any information about who Mr. Lew’s replacement might be.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Daley is leaving after the State of the Union address, so is Jack
taking over directly after that? Or will there be some overlap there
before he takes over?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: It’s my understanding there will be some overlap, but that transition will occur at the end of the month.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q Tonight’s events are all fundraisers. When do you expect the
President will start doing campaign events that are not fundraisers?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I don’t have a specific date for you. What I can tell
you is that at this point in time the President remains focused on his
number-one job, which is serving the American public as the President of
the United States. And he’s focused on a wide range of things, from
national security issues to certainly the strength and health and
welfare of our economy, and putting in place the kinds of economic
policies that will support an American economy that ensures everybody a
fair shot and a fair shake.<br />
<br />
That’s where his attention is devoted, and that’s at the forefront of
his mind. I don’t have a specific date for you about when campaign
rallies will begin. But at this point, there will be a time and a place
for the reelection campaign to be fully engaged, but we’re not there
yet.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Josh, on the Iranian nuclear scientist who was killed in a car
bombing, what reaction does the administration have to that? And I
guess does the administration consider this person an innocent victim
here?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: We’ve seen the reports of the bombing. The United States
condemns this kind of violence. I know there was a suggestion at some
point that somehow the United States was involved. That is
categorically not true, and in fact this is the kind of violence that we
would condemn.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q And in terms of Mr. Roshan, the person who was killed, does the administration consider him to be an innocent victim here?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: Well, I don’t have a lot of information about the victim
himself. What I can tell you is, is that this is exactly the kind of
violence that we unequivocally condemn.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Can you give us any updates about the Keystone pipeline project
decision-making? The deadline for that is getting a little bit closer
every week. How involved is the President in that right now, and when
can we expect to see a decision?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I don’t have any updates for you on the timing of the
Keystone decision. As you know, the payroll tax cut extension
legislation that the President signed gave him 60 days to make a
decision. You’ve heard from the State Department about this, that it
would be a -- they issued a statement back in December saying that 60
days would not permit them enough time to evaluate this project.<br />
<br />
I’ve actually seen some reports that the company itself has not
actually even proposed an alternate route at this point. So that sort
of underscores the difficulty of evaluating and affirming this project
within that 60-day window, considering that there’s not even a route for
that pipeline that’s under consideration at this point, that’s been
proposed at this point.<br />
<br />
But in terms of any sort of presidential -- any sort of administration
announcement on the project, I don’t have an update for you in terms of
timing on that.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Josh, got a question from back here. On the first stop, will photo coverage be allowed?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I’ll have to check on the press access for you.<br />
<br />
Q Hey, Josh, this is the President’s first fundraising trip outside
of D.C. in the new year. Is there any particular significance to it?
Was he bent on getting back to Chicago to start the new year for some
particular reason?<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I don’t know if it necessarily is pegged to the first
trip of the year for fundraising purposes, but I can tell you that the
President is pleased to enjoy a lot of support in his hometown for his
reelection campaign; that there are a lot of Chicagoans who are -- who,
as you’ll see tonight, are committed to the President’s reelection. And
the President is looking forward to the opportunity that he’ll have
tonight to visit with some of them.<br />
<br />
<i>Q And both Bill Daley and Valerie Jarrett are traveling with and
will go to all of those events tonight. Will they take part in any way?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I know that they will attend -- both Ms. Jarrett and Mr.
Daley will attend the events this evening. I don’t know what sort of
role they may have at the events.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q Is the mayor going to be there as well?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I would assume so, but I don’t know. I don’t know what the mayor’s schedule is today.<br />
Q Is the pool not going into the HQ?<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: I don’t know what the press access is going to be. We’ll check on it, we’ll let you know. Okay?<br />
<br />
<i>Q When we go wheels down, assuming that everyone is listening to
this back home, if someone doesn’t honor the -- I’m a little concerned
about everyone knowing something and it getting reported on.</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: Maybe I have more faith in your colleagues than you do. All right?<br />
Q Josh, just on the payroll tax. I mean, is there any schedule in
place to begin negotiations, begin discussions with the House
Republicans on this?<br />
<br />
<b>MR. EARNEST</b>: Well, I can tell you that the White House is regularly in
contact with our counterparts on Capitol Hill. I don’t have any
specific conversations to read out to you. But certainly, Christi made
reference to the beginning of the calendar year. In terms of the
President’s legislative agenda, this is at the top of it for the
beginning of this year, making sure that we extend the payroll tax cut
for the entire year of 2012.<br />
<br />
<i>
</i><i>
Q Thank you, sir.</i><br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b>
MR. EARNEST:</b> Okay. Thanks, everybody. We’ll see you in a little bit.<br />
Q Okay.<br />
END<br />
4:53 P.M. ESTBranson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-50295744449011292482012-01-11T06:49:00.000-08:002012-01-11T06:49:21.885-08:00White House Press Corps - Complete Roster Jan 2012<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Television">Television</span></h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Tapper" title="Jake Tapper">Jake Tapper</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News" title="ABC News">ABC News</a></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yunji_de_Nies&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Yunji de Nies (page does not exist)">Yunji de Nies</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News" title="ABC News">ABC News</a></li>
<li><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reynolds_%28journalist%29" title="Robert Reynolds (journalist)">Rob Reynolds</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English" title="Al Jazeera English">Al Jazeera English</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julianna_Goldman" title="Julianna Goldman">Julianna Goldman</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Television" title="Bloomberg Television">Bloomberg Television</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norah_O%27Donnell" title="Norah O'Donnell">Norah O'Donnell</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_News" title="CBS News">CBS News</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Plante" title="Bill Plante">Bill Plante</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_News" title="CBS News">CBS News</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Reid" title="Chip Reid">Chip Reid</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_News" title="CBS News">CBS News</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brody_%28correspondent%29" title="David Brody (correspondent)">David Brody</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Broadcasting_Network" title="Christian Broadcasting Network">Christian Broadcasting Network</a></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_Charbonneau&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Melissa Charbonneau (page does not exist)">Melissa Charbonneau</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Broadcasting_Network" title="Christian Broadcasting Network">Christian Broadcasting Network</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Malveaux" title="Suzanne Malveaux">Suzanne Malveaux</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Lothian" title="Dan Lothian">Dan Lothian</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yellin" title="Jessica Yellin">Jessica Yellin</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN" title="CNN">CNN</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Goler" title="Wendell Goler">Wendell Goler</a> of <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News" title="Fox News">Fox News</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Henry" title="Ed Henry">Ed Henry</a> of <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News" title="Fox News">Fox News</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Todd" title="Chuck Todd">Chuck Todd</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News" title="NBC News">NBC News</a></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurence_Ha%C3%AFm&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Laurence Haïm (page does not exist)">Laurence Haïm</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal%2B" title="Canal+">Canal+</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-T%C3%A9l%C3%A9" title="I-Télé">i-Télé</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>
<span class="editsection"></span><span class="mw-headline" id="Print_and_Internet">Print and Internet</span></h3>
<ul>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carol_Lee&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Carol Lee (page does not exist)">Carol Lee</a> of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal" title="The Wall Street Journal">The Wall Street Journal</a></i></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Meckler&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Laura Meckler (page does not exist)">Laura Meckler</a> of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal" title="The Wall Street Journal">The Wall Street Journal</a></i></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Allen_%28journalist%29" title="Michael Allen (journalist)">Mike Allen</a> of <i><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico_%28newspaper%29" title="Politico (newspaper)">Politico</a></i></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Ambinder" title="Marc Ambinder">Marc Ambinder</a> of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Journal" title="National Journal">National Journal</a></i></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Babington&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Charles Babington (page does not exist)">Charles Babington</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press" title="Associated Press">Associated Press</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Baker_%28author%29" title="Peter Baker (author)">Peter Baker</a> of the <i><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times" title="New York Times">New York Times</a></i></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Bazinet&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Ken Bazinet (page does not exist)">Ken Bazinet</a> of the <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_News_%28New_York%29" title="Daily News (New York)">New York Daily News</a></i></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caren_Bohan" title="Caren Bohan">Caren Bohan</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters" title="Reuters">Reuters</a></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Christopher&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Tommy Christopher (page does not exist)">Tommy Christopher</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediaite" title="Mediaite">Mediaite</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helene_Cooper" title="Helene Cooper">Helene Cooper</a> of the <i>New York Times</i></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Corn" title="David Corn">David Corn</a> of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_%28magazine%29" title="Mother Jones (magazine)">Mother Jones</a></i></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Gizzi&action=edit&redlink=1" title="John Gizzi (page does not exist)">John Gizzi</a> of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Events" title="Human Events">Human Events</a></i></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Kinsolving" title="Lester Kinsolving">Lester Kinsolving</a> of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily" title="WorldNetDaily">WorldNetDaily</a></i></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Loven" title="Jennifer Loven">Jennifer Loven</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press" title="Associated Press">Associated Press</a></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christi_Parsons&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Christi Parsons (page does not exist)">Christi Parsons</a> of the <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune" title="Chicago Tribune">Chicago Tribune</a></i></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Quinn_%28writer%29" title="Sean Quinn (writer)">Sean Quinn</a> of <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight.com" title="FiveThirtyEight.com">FiveThirtyEight.com</a></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Feldman&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Linda Feldman (page does not exist)">Linda Feldman</a> <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor" title="Christian Science Monitor">Christian Science Monitor</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Stein" title="Sam Stein">Sam Stein</a> of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post" title="The Huffington Post">The Huffington Post</a></i></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Ward_%28journalist%29&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Jon Ward (journalist) (page does not exist)">Jon Ward</a> of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller" title="The Daily Caller">The Daily Caller</a></i> <sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-politico1_0-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_press_corps#cite_note-politico1-0"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Bellantoni&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Christina Bellantoni (page does not exist)">Christina Bellantoni</a> of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Points_Memo" title="Talking Points Memo">Talking Points Memo</a></i> <sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-politico1_0-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_press_corps#cite_note-politico1-0"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Thomma&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Steven Thomma (page does not exist)">Steven Thomma</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_McClatchy_Company" title="The McClatchy Company">McClatchy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wolffe" title="Richard Wolffe">Richard Wolffe</a> of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek" title="Newsweek">Newsweek</a></i></li>
</ul>
<h3>
<span class="editsection"></span><span class="mw-headline" id="Radio">Radio</span></h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Compton" title="Ann Compton">Ann Compton</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News_Radio" title="ABC News Radio">ABC News Radio</a></li>
<li>Scott Horsley of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR" title="NPR">NPR</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Gonyea" title="Don Gonyea">Don Gonyea</a> of <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio" title="National Public Radio">National Public Radio</a></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Knoller&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Mark Knoller (page does not exist)">Mark Knoller</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_News" title="CBS News">CBS News</a></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connie_Lawn&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Connie Lawn (page does not exist)">Connie Lawn</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Radio_Network" title="USA Radio Network">USA Radio Network</a> (senior correspondent)</li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Maer&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Peter Maer (page does not exist)">Peter Maer</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_News" title="CBS News">CBS News</a></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=April_Ryan_%28reporter%29&action=edit&redlink=1" title="April Ryan (reporter) (page does not exist)">April Ryan</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Urban_Radio_Networks" title="American Urban Radio Networks">American Urban Radio Networks</a></li>
<li><a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jelani_D._Hilliard_Jackson&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Jelani D. Hilliard Jackson (page does not exist)">Jelani D. Hilliard Jackson</a> of <a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Progressive_Talk_Radio_Network&action=edit&redlink=1" title="The Progressive Talk Radio Network (page does not exist)">The Progressive Talk Radio Network</a></li>
</ul>Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-14186088525119597812012-01-10T05:27:00.000-08:002012-01-11T06:38:08.854-08:00White House Press Briefing January 10, 2012 (Full Transcript and Video)<object height="300" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf">
</param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
</param>
<param name="bgcolor" value="282828">
</param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">
</param>
<param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.whitehouse.gov/xml/video/111475/config.xml&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf">
</param>
<embed src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="300" flashvars="config=http://www.whitehouse.gov/xml/video/111475/config.xml&path_to_plugins=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/modules/wh_multimedia/wh_jwplayer/plugins&path_to_player=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf&share_url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/10/press-briefing"></embed></object><br />
The White House<br />
<br />
Office of the Press Secretary<br />
For Immediate Release (Full Transcript)<br />
January 10, 2012<br />
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/10/12<br />
<br />
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room<br />
<br />
12:28 P.M. EST<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I apologize for that -- scheduling is a complicated business, and a lot of moving parts here in the West Wing of the White House.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q Tell us about them.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q Any personnel --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I will, I’ll be telling --<br />
<br />
<i>Q What do you got?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, it’s -- let me begin, if I may. I wanted to mention this yesterday and forgot, and I just wanted to offer my condolences to Tony Blankley’s family. I knew him reasonably well -- we spent a lot of time in green rooms together -- a very decent gentleman and smart man who served both the Reagan administration and then Speaker Newt Gingrich well. And we will miss him -- I will, personally.<br />
<br />
I would also like to say a few things about the united -- the American automobile industry. Yesterday the North American International Auto Show kicked off in Detroit, Michigan, with companies unveiling their new vehicles and folks eager to get their first peak. <br />
<br />
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was on hand for the opening events, and Commerce Secretary John Bryson, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and the Labor Department’s Director of the Office of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers Jay Williams are all taking part in auto show activities this week.<br />
<br />
And the auto show is a reminder to me -- and I’m sure to you -- of the fact that in the face of stiff opposition, the President made a tough choice to help provide the auto industry with the temporary support it needed to rebuild their companies and get moving again.<br />
<br />
This was a difficult decision, and it came with significant risk. But the President was not willing to walk away from those workers, and to allow the great American automobile industry disappear.<br />
<br />
Today, that industry is coming back, creating jobs and moving cars off the line. Last month the automotive industry added nearly -- rather 11,000 positions, bringing the total number of jobs added in the fourth quarter of 2011 to 36,000. The industry added 100,000 jobs over the course of 2011. In December, we saw auto sales climb for the seventh consecutive month, and the Big Three -- Ford, GM and Chrysler -- all saw sale increases for December and the year as a whole. Since Chrysler and GM emerged from bankruptcy in June of 2009, the auto industry has added back more than 170,000 jobs -- the best period of job growth for that industry in more than a decade.<br />
<br />
I would also note that, as many of you know, that one of the positive signs we’ve seen of late, among other positive signs for the economy, is the growth in manufacturing. And while the automotive industry makes up 5 percent of manufacturing in this country, it is responsible for 25 percent of that rebound in manufacturing.<br />
<br />
So another reminder of why it was so important to make the decision the President made to rescue the American automobile industry a few years ago.<br />
<br />
With that, I will go to The Associated Press. Jim.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i><u><b>Associated Press:</b></u> Thank you, Jay. I wanted to go back to yesterday’s surprise personnel announcement. Mr. Daley had earlier indicated he would stay through January of next year, and he was supposed to build relations with Republicans, build relations with the business community. What prompted his sudden decision to leave? And did he get to accomplish that? You don’t seem to have the strong relations that maybe he intended to build as he came in?</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> First of all, Jim, I appreciate the question, and I think this is a case where it’s important and accurate to take at face value what Bill said, Bill Daley said in his letter of resignation to the President, and what the President said yesterday in announcing this transition.<br />
<br />
2011 has been -- was an extraordinary year in a rather extraordinary three years of this President’s first term. Even before he had officially taken the job, the day after he was announced, if I recall correctly, he was here in the White House doing some paperwork associated with taking over as Chief of Staff when the news came that there had been a shooting in Tucson, Arizona. He found himself in the Situation Room with the President as that terrible news unfolded. <br />
<br />
And from that day on, Bill Daley proceeded to help the President navigate an extremely event-filled and difficult year for Washington and for the country -- a year that included the Arab Spring, events in Egypt and Libya and the rest of the Middle East; the tsunami and -- earthquake and tsunami in Japan; a near-government shutdown; a extraordinarily impressive and important mission to remove Osama bin Laden from the face of the Earth; the very tough negotiations with Congress over the debt ceiling increase and deficit reduction that resulted, despite not achieving the grand bargain that the President and Bill Daley sought so aggressively -- nevertheless, locked in $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction.<br />
<br />
In the fall, he helped oversee the President’s American Jobs Act proposal, which, by the end of the year, resulted in several provisions passing, including, most importantly, the extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance. <br />
<br />
These jobs are difficult. People talk about how a year in the White House, and the West Wing in particular, you can measure it in dog years. This one was particularly jam-packed. And as the President said in his announcement in the State Dining Room, but also to us in a staff meeting, in a senior staff meeting, he is extremely grateful for Bill’s leadership and for his friendship. <br />
<br />
<i>Q What does it mean about the White House’s outreach to the business community, though, and to Republicans? He seemed to be your best opportunity to do that. What does it mean going forward?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, going forward with Jack Lew at the helm, we have someone who for decades has had excellent relations with both Democrats and Republicans, is broadly respected throughout Washington for his service in the House of Representatives for the former -- for then Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, for his service in the Clinton administration, as well as his service here at the State Department and as Director of OMB. I think if you ask any member of Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- who has dealt with Jack Lew, they will testify to the fact that he is a total straight shooter and knows how to work with members on both sides of the aisle.<br />
<br />
And he also, to the point about business, has a lot of respect in the business community, so there is continuity in that respect. And the President, as I’ve said and he has said, is absolutely committed to working with Congress this year to get more accomplished for the American people. And we remain optimistic that opportunities will present themselves to do just that. There are ones that -- there are things that have to get done, like the extension of the payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment insurance for the full calendar year. There are other things that really should get done if members of Congress are listening to their constituents. Putting construction workers back to work rebuilding our infrastructure is a key component of the American Jobs Act that could really help our economy, help folks who are out of work now go back to work rebuilding our bridges and highways and schools and other things, and working on projects that help our economy grow well beyond the duration of the project they’re working on.<br />
<br />
So Jack Lew will be intimately involved in that process. I think it is -- while it was, as the President said, a surprise that Bill decided that this was the right time for him to go back to Chicago, a town he loves dearly, as does the President -- if I could digress, I don’t think there’s another family like the Daleys more closely associated with a great American city, so the connection there is extremely strong.<br />
<br />
And while this was a surprise for the President, the fact is it is because he has somebody like Jack Lew who can step right in and fulfill the Chief of Staff’s role that we will not miss a beat here in the West Wing.<br />
<br />
<i>Q You mentioned continuity. How quickly do you want to -- does the President want to get a new budget director? And how do you get over a confirmation hump given the toxic environment with Congress?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I don’t have any announcements to make on Jack’s replacement at OMB. He will be staying there to finish the 2013 budget. In addition to Jack, there is a very talented team, senior team there at the OMB that will function as effectively as they have under his leadership after he’s gone. And once the President makes a decision about leadership at OMB, we’ll have an announcement for you.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q But does he want to have somebody in shortly after the month --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Again, I don’t have any --<br />
<br />
<i>Q -- before the payroll tax cut extension?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I don’t want to go any further than I have. I don’t want to get ahead of any announcement the President might make. <br />
<br />
Let me move around. Mike.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Thank you. There was a GAO report that came out the other day. And one of the conclusions that it found was that in the press releases the Treasury has put out regarding the TARP, it tended to highlight areas --</i><br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Regarding to what, sorry?<br />
<br />
<i>Q In regarding press releases put out by the Treasury regarding TARP --</i><br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: TARP, okay.<br />
<br />
<i>Q -- that they tended to highlight those areas where TARP was making a profit, if you will, bringing money into the government but not the areas where the TARP was losing money for the government. Do you have any response to that?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> I’m not aware of the report, Mike. I think we’ve been very straightforward about how much TARP has cost, what the projected cost was versus what the actual cost has been and where money has been paid back. And that’s true also of the automobile industry. I’m not aware of any discrepancies with regard to that, but I’m not familiar with the report.<br />
<br />
Yes, Matt.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Back on Jack Lew, does the President have a short list or is he -- do you have a time frame in which he will come up with a short list for a successor for Jack Lew?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I have no announcements on that and no estimation of the length of the list for you. I’m sure there’s a list.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Will the President consider a recess appointment, using a recess appointment in light of the likely Republican opposition?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I’m not going to speculate on that.<br />
<br />
<i>Q And one last -- the reports that the President plans to create a government task force to monitor China for trade and other business violations and that he plans to announce this around the time of the State of The Union address -- can you confirm that?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I don’t have any announcements today on any new administration task forces or efforts on that issue. What I can tell you is that we will continue to work to take the steps necessary to level the playing field for American workers and businesses. You’ve heard the President speak about this repeatedly, and he did so on his trip to the Asia Pacific region not that long ago, where he made it clear that he will continue to stand up for American workers and businesses.<br />
<br />
As you know, Secretary Geithner is in Beijing today, and that is part of our constant discussions with China as well as our friends and partners in the region about the importance of the Asia Pacific region and the importance of our economic relations with that region.<br />
<br />
Yes, sir.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q The Iranians apparently have confirmed to the Swiss, who are our protecting power, that they’ve sentenced the American captive to death. Has the administration heard anything, have you responded and how, to the Iranians through the Swiss? What’s new?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I don’t have anything new for you in terms of communications through the Swiss from us. But we -- our position is what it was yesterday, which is that the charges, the allegations against Mr. Hekmati are false. This is not the first time, though we could only hope it would be the last, that the Iranians have falsely accused people of being spies. We urge his immediate release, and are working towards that end and hope that it happens soon.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q Now that you know he’s been officially sentenced to death, what’s the response?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, that is the response. It’s absolutely -- the allegations are false, the sentence is absurd and wrong, and we urge his release.<br />
<br />
Ken.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Jay, next week King Abdullah comes to the White House, and it won’t be his first visit. They’ll be talking about the efforts to jumpstart the Middle East peace process, we presume. Again, not the first time they’ve talked about that. Will there be any new approaches this time? What will they try this time that they’ve not tried before?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, as you know, the President has already thanked King Abdullah for hosting the resumption of talks. They will obviously discuss that issue. They will discuss the King’s efforts at reform in Jordan. And they will discuss the host of issues affecting the region. So it won’t be limited simply to the Middle East peace process, although that will certainly be part of it.<br />
<br />
I don’t have anything new to report about our approach to that very difficult issue. Our commitment to doing everything we can, working with our partners, to urge both sides to come together and negotiate a peace remains very strong. And we will continue to work with Jordan and other nations toward that end.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Are you satisfied with the King’s commitment to working to try to get things solved in a more peaceful way in Syria?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> Well, you know our position on Syria. We’ve been working with a variety of and a long list of nations, friends, partners and allies around the region and the globe to put pressure on the Syrians, to put pressure on President Assad, whose legitimacy has long since been lost because of the wretched violence he’s perpetrated upon his own people, and our position on that certainly hasn’t changed. <br />
<br />
Yes, Brianna, and then Christi.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q Jay, Democratic Senator Robert Menendez is blocking the President’s nomination of Judith Shwartz to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and some suspect it’s because her long-time partner is the head of that corruption unit that investigated him. Is the President concerned there’s any sort of revenge going on here?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: You know, Brianna, I honestly don’t -- I don’t have anything on that. We obviously want to see all of the President’s nominees considered in a timely manner, and we would like this nominee also to be considered in a timely manner. But I don’t have anything specific on this particular nomination or those stories.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q But isn’t it strange it’s a Democrat that’s getting in the way this time? </i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, again, I don’t have any particular comment on this. Whatever obstacles are presented by members of the Senate to nominees, we are always disheartened by those. The President has put forward very qualified nominees, including the woman you’re referring to right now, and they ought to be considered on the merits.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Has the Senator -- he said he has substantive concerns. Has he voiced those to the White House?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Not that I’m aware of, but I haven’t had a lot of in-depth discussions about that here.<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
<i>Q There is planning to pay in Indian rupees under a new financial mechanism with Iran, and Pakistan is going ahead with building the Pakistan-Iran pipeline. So is the White House worried about these leaks in enforcing the sanctions on Iran?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, we are working with our partners and allies around the country to enforce the sanctions and to take a multilateral approach, an approach that we hope will maximize the impact of the sanctions without creating any unintended consequences, any negative impacts on the oil markets or on our allies. And we are engaged in that effort right now.<br />
<br />
Christi.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q Jay, can you say what Bill Daley’s role with the campaign will be and when it will begin?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I don’t have a specific announcement on that. I know that he will be -- I mean, I would expect the campaign would have that. But I’m sure he will be very involved. He was involved last time. And I’m sure it will be a suitably high-profile role. <br />
<br />
He is very committed to this President and to his reelection, to the policies that the President has put into place last year with Bill’s help and to ensuring that all the work that has been done to pull this country out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, to put it on a path towards growth and job creation and greater security for the middle class continues. And I know that Bill will be very involved in the reelection campaign.<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Q Is he traveling with the President tomorrow to Chicago? Do you know?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I don’t know for sure, although I wouldn’t be surprised if he were. <br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Jay, I wanted to ask on Jack Lew and Bill Daley, when Bill Daley was named a year ago, the President made a point of saying, as a business guy, as you were talking with Jim about, he had created jobs. He was the CEO of several companies. Why, then -- since you also told Jim that Jack Lew has good ties to the business community -- why didn’t the President mention yesterday Jack Lew’s private sector experience being a hedge fund executive at Citigroup?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I don’t know that there’s an answer to why. Jack’s resume is quite long. It is most notable for the fact that he was budget director twice and in his first stint is, as the President mentioned, the only budget director in history to oversee three years of surpluses, surpluses that were quickly squandered in the years that the next administration was in power, and that his tenure here both at the State Department and here in the White House as director of OMB for the second time has been stellar. But it is also true that he has private sector experience as a manager at a private firm. And I think that is part of a very broad resume. <br />
<br />
<i>Q When he was a manager at that private firm, The Huffington Post, which is not usually very critical of the administration, said that he ran Citigroup’s alternative investments division, which made billions of dollars by “betting that U.S. homeowners would not be able to make their mortgage payments.” How does that --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, Jack was a management executive. He was not an investment advisor at Citigroup. <br />
<br />
<i>Q He was the chief operating officer, I believe, was the title of the alternative investment --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: But again, he was not an investment advisor. He didn’t make investment advice.<br />
<br />
<i>Q But how does that, running a business like that or helping to run a business like that, how does that square with what the President has been talking about with Richard Cordray and the administration is going to be really tough on the big banks when the White House -- new White House Chief of Staff is somebody who used to be at one of those big banks?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Ed, I would suggest to you that you’re tilling very fallow ground here, but I appreciate the effort. We believe very strongly in the fact that the American financial industry needs to be successful and robust. It’s an important part of the American economy. It also needs to follow the same rules as Wall Street -- I mean as Main Street. Wall Street needs to go by the same rules as Main Street.<br />
<br />
That’s why the President pushed so hard to pass and sign into law Wall Street reform. That’s why he pushed so hard, since you raised it, to get Richard Cordray nominated -- I mean to get Richard Cordray confirmed. And when Senate Republicans despite his obvious qualifications refused to allow an up or down vote on Richard Cordray, the President felt he had no other alternative but to make a recess appointment -- one of the relatively few recess appointments he has made as President compared to his predecessors -- because this country needs, the middle class here in this country, folks who engage with non-bank financial institutions like payday lenders and non-bank mortgage brokers and things, they need somebody here in town watching out for them, looking out for their interests. So the President is absolutely committed to the mission that CFPB has and to the mission that Richard Cordray specifically has.<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
<i>Q Thanks, Jay. How will Jack Lew and Pete Rouse split up their duties?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY: I</b></u> think we will wait until Jack takes over as Chief of Staff, which will not be before the end of the month. He has some loose ends to tie up as OMB Director, and he will obviously make some decisions about how his office is structured going forward. But Pete is an invaluable senior advisor to the President. His role under Bill Daley was highly effective in terms of helping the operations of the West Wing run smoothly, and I am very confident that Pete will continue to be one of the most valuable players here in the West Wing.<br />
<br />
Q Has -- and I know that the transition is still taking place -- but has it been determined who the point person for Congress will be at this point?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I’m sorry, for what? <br />
<br />
Q For Congress. Who will be the lead person? Who will we see sort of leading when we revisit the payroll tax cut debate, for example? Who will take the lead on that?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I mean, we have a variety of folks who engage in that, but we do have -- our head of Legislative Affairs is Rob Nabors, who -- speaking of most valuable players -- might be my top vote getter. So he will, as he has, take the lead in that effort.<br />
<br />
Q But I mean, Jack Lew as the Chief of Staff will obviously have a large role as well?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, no question. No question. And it’s important to remember, in terms of Jack’s legacy at OMB, is that he was intimately involved in that process last fall and in December to bringing that agreement finally to fruition with Congress that allowed for the extension of the payroll tax cut to make sure that 160 million Americans didn’t see a tax hike as a New Year’s Day present. And he will be intimately involved in the effort to ensure that Congress does the right thing without drama and extends it for the full year.<br />
<br />
Q One political insider described the timing of this as switching places in a canoe in rough waters. How does the administration see the timing of this, given that you are headed into a tough reelection year?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would disagree with that description because of what I think I told Jim, which is that Bill’s leadership has been exceptional through a very challenging year. Jack has been there. He has I think it’s important to remember been a participant in the 7:30 a.m. meeting, as you know, the meeting of the most senior staff in the Chief of Staff’s office every morning. Jack has been there every morning.<br />
<br />
He will, I think, as much as anyone possibly could, slide pretty effortlessly and seamlessly into that role. He’s widely respected here inside the West Wing and the broader White House, just as he is up on Capitol Hill.<br />
<br />
And for those of you who know him, he is just about as decent and smart an individual as you will ever encounter here in Washington. <br />
<br />
Yes, Cecilia.<br />
<br />
Q The Supreme Court today is hearing arguments on indecency in broadcasting. As you know, this administration supports those stricter standards. But would you at all agree with critics who say you can log onto the Internet at any time during the day, you can turn on cable television at any time and see and hear these images that are being questioned right now? And in any way would you concede with these critics who say there’s no need for the government to take stricter controls over broadcasting in this day?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I confess that I have not looked into this issue, so I don’t want to venture an opinion except to say that as a parent you always have to weigh concerns about exposing kids to things as a parent you’d otherwise -- you’d rather not have them exposed to.<br />
<br />
But I’ll have to take your question in terms of the broader issue because I wasn’t aware of it.<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, I know you addressed this yesterday, the insourcing forum, but can you tell us more about I guess what the President wants to learn out of that? Is this -- I know it seems like an idea session, but is he trying to come up with ways -- is this the groundwork for in the future possibly ideas to spur more insourcing or foreign --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Absolutely. He wants to hear from the executives who will be part of this forum, participating in it, and who are examples of major American companies that have brought jobs back to the United States, why they did that, what were the incentives to doing that. And he’s very interested in ideas that go to just your question, which is what can we do to further develop this trend, which has American companies that are international and global companies, that do have factories and installations abroad and employ a lot of people abroad, what kind of incentives can be created to bring those jobs back to the United States that keep companies highly competitive, keep them making the best products in the world -- with American labor when that’s possible and when that makes sense.<br />
<br />
So, absolutely, this will be a two-way session where ideas are exchanged, as well as the fact of insourcing and reinvesting in America is noted and celebrated.<br />
<br />
Q Is he going to bring or I guess announce any ideas related to that, or just kind of talk to them, talk to the --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I’ll let him make whatever announcements he might want to make tomorrow. But I think it will be an important event, and it goes to what I’ve been talking about and he’s been talking about for a long time now, which is that he is committed to doing whatever he can, working with the private sector, using his executive authority, working with Congress, to further grow the economy, to get the economy creating more jobs as we dig ourselves out of this terrible recession.<br />
<br />
And this is an important aspect of this. I noted at the top the decision he made about the automobile industry, to rescue it, and why that has paid dividends and why it was the right thing to do. And there are a variety of decisions and levers that a President can pull -- decisions he can make and levers he can pull to help that cause. And this President is committed to exercising all his options with regard to growing the economy and creating jobs.<br />
<br />
Alexis.<br />
<br />
Q The President recently went to CFPB and was a booster for the employees there. He’s doing the same thing at EPA this afternoon, something similar, celebrating the employees there. Is he going to continue to do that around the executive branch? It seems like he’s sort of rediscovered that he has these career people who are keeping the government operating.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think he’s keenly aware of the high level of -- the high quality of people working out in the agencies, doing exemplary work for the American people. And I don’t want to preview or predict other visits he might make, but he is noting important work that people are doing. And his visit today, I’m sure, is about that and -- EPA played an integral role in the automobile efficiency standards -– fuel efficiency standards that were announced by the President as he was surrounded by close to a dozen automobile executives, automobile company executives. EPA was integral on that. EPA was -- obviously played a lead role in the mercury standards that were released after more than a decade, maybe two decades of work on that. Mercury, as you know, is a very dangerous neurotoxin and those standards are very important to the health and welfare of American children and American citizens across the country. So he will thank them for their hard work and thank them for the work to come. <br />
<br />
Q Is he at all -- just to follow up, is he at all concerned that some of his decisions seem to -- recently seem to have gone against EPA’s direction? And does he feel like he’s trying to maybe boost the morale about his support for their work?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Look, I think you were more on target in the first part of your question about taking note of the often unheralded work that really talented Americans do at some of these agencies and the work they do on behalf of the American people. And then with regard to the EPA, which is often under siege but is responsible for ensuring that the air we breathe, that our children breathe when they run out on the soccer field is clean and that the water they drink is clean and not harmful, do really important work.<br />
<br />
And this is an agency that was created under President Nixon -- people forget -- and has been responsible for ensuring the health and safety, in many cases, of millions of Americans. So I think he’ll note that. <br />
<br />
Roger Runningen.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Roger Runningen</b></i>.<i> Thank you. You mentioned Mr. Geithner being in China a few minutes ago. One of the things that he’s doing is asking China to reduce imports of oil from Iran. Are there some indications that China might do that? Or what arguments is the administration making to convince them?</i><br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I would just refer you to the answer I gave about sanctions on Iran generally and our efforts multilaterally to work with our friends and allies around the globe in that effort to ensure that they are implemented in a way that has maximum effect, maximum designed effect, and the fewest number of unintended consequences. So we’ll be having that discussion with leaders of numerous countries, allies and partners around the world as regard that effort with Iran.<br />
<br />
Q But you don’t have any indications that they might proceed to --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don’t want to get ahead of either Secretary Geithner’s conversations or other conversations we may or may not be having with the Chinese. The Secretary’s portfolio in his dealings with China is certainly broader than that.<br />
<br />
Q A real quick question. The debt ceiling increase, does that need to go to the Hill this week?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have a specific announcement for you. I’m confident it will be executed in a matter of days, not weeks. <br />
<br />
Mark, did you have something?<br />
<br />
Q That was it. <br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Mr. Landler, did you have something?<br />
<br />
Q I do. Speaking of Mr. Geithner, when the Treasury Secretary indicated to the President that he wanted to go home to New York, the President leaned on him exceptionally hard to stay on the job. I’m wondering why that case is different than the case of the Chief of Staff. I understand he asked him to sleep on it, but that’s a very different order of pressure than he brought to bear on the Treasury Secretary. Why is it easier to let this happen than it was to let that happen?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, look, I think you’re talking about -- I’ll simply address the Daley decision -- Daley without the “I.” I mean, Bill, for those of you who know him, I think made up his mind, believed it was the right time. And yes, the President did ask him to reconsider, to sleep on it, to think about it, and they would talk again the next day. But Bill had made his decision, and the President respected that. And he understood, in particular perhaps because of their shared love of Chicago and as their mutual hometown, and understanding Bill’s connection to it, why he would want to return to Chicago.<br />
<br />
And let’s point out here that Bill will continue to be a very important part of the team in the broader effort here in terms of the President’s reelection and will be available to give advice to the President, and I’m sure, as the President noted, he will be calling Bill for advice going forward. But I think that Bill was very clear about what his decision was.<br />
<br />
Q It would have been the President’s clear preference for him to stay through this year?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I think we’ve established that the President was surprised and -- but completely understood Bill’s decision and was gratified by the fact that both he and Bill had the same thought, which is that Jack Lew would be an excellent successor to Bill as Chief of Staff, and gratified by the fact that Jack Lew was, if you will, standing by and ready to be able to take on those responsibilities and to do so seamlessly.<br />
<br />
Q Just one last question on this. Did the President make sort of a persuasive, impassioned case to Mr. Daley? This is why -- “We’ve got so much left to do together, please think about staying on. I know you may not love it, but” -- anything like that?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have a further readout of that private conversation or conversations because there was -- there were more than -- there was more than one. I think we’ve unveiled the tick-tock with a fair amount of detail, but I don’t have any more for you.<br />
<br />
Ann, yes.<br />
<br />
Q Is the President concerned that any other senior members of the administration might choose to leave during this year? Has he done what some of his predecessors have done, asking senior staff, senior Cabinet-level people to stick with it for an election year to bring continuity to the -- keep continuity for the administration?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the President is concerned about staff turnover. He knows that everybody here is committed to this enterprise, to helping the American people -- helping him help the American people; helping him do what he can do as President to grow the economy and create jobs and keep Americans safe both here and abroad. <br />
<br />
Transitions are an inherent part of -- as you know, Ann, you’ve covered several White Houses. You know that transitions are a part of it. These are demanding jobs. I mean, think about what flows through the corridors and offices here. Every -- decisions of enormous global impact are made every day, and the pressure is significant. The privilege is profound. But these are not jobs that people occupy for long periods of time. That’s always been the case, and especially in this White House where the Chiefs of Staff in all cases have been and will be empowered and have significant portfolios and responsibilities. These are tough jobs, and the President appreciates Bill’s service just as he greatly appreciated Rahm Emanuel’s service.<br />
<br />
Q Isn’t that exactly the point, that because of the sensitivity and the import of these jobs, if the top person in a presidential campaign leaves, it’s interpreted as a problem with the campaign or a disruption? Is that not applicable to the White House?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don’t think it is, Ann, because of the kind of team that this President has assembled that allows for this transition, which I accept is a big one -- it’s the Chief of Staff -- but allows for it to be as smooth as it will be because of the exceptional qualifications and temperament that Jack Lew brings to this job.<br />
<br />
So I don’t -- I think this will be exceptionally smooth and seamless. And I think that’s because of the way that Bill has effectively been Chief of Staff, and the way that the President has dictated to his senior staffers how they ought to conduct their business, and because of the kinds of men and women the President has surrounded himself with.<br />
<br />
I just ended a sentence with a preposition. (Laughter.) <br />
<br />
Q That’s all right, we’ll forgive you if I could ask one two-part question. (Laughter.) <br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: NPR. (Laughter.) <br />
<br />
Q Speaking of vacancies, what can you tell us about the Domestic Policy Council?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I can tell that the President has asked -- and she has accepted -- Cecilia Muñoz to be the next White House Director of Domestic Policy. Cecilia, as you know, has served as the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, where she has overseen the Obama administration’s relationships with state and local governments.<br />
<br />
As IGA director, under Valerie Jarrett, Ms. Muñoz leads a partnership between federal, state, local and tribal governments that Governing Magazine described as “more prominent and responsive than it ever was” -- citing praise from local and state elected officials from across the political spectrum.<br />
<br />
Cecilia has enormous experience and brings a great deal of policy knowledge and intellect to this position, and the President is greatly appreciative of the fact that she’s willing to take on this important job.<br />
<br />
Anybody else? <br />
<br />
Q Just a follow-up.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: You again? Go ahead.<br />
<br />
Q Three in one day. Do you think this will help I guess outreach to the Hispanic community, considering her prior role?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I think Cecilia is the best person for the job. And she has done great work at IGA. She’s -- for those of you who know her and know how -- what an effective advocate she is for the President’s policies and how knowledgeable she is about the whole set of domestic policy issues that any White House confronts and that this President has been dealing with for the past three years.<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
Q Thank you.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: No, no, no, I’m sorry. Hold on.<br />
<br />
Q Oh, I see.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I want to keep it clean, Lester, so I’m going here.<br />
<br />
Q You want to keep it clean? Oh, my. <br />
<br />
Q Following the latest action by Iran, and now Syria’s Assad saying -- coming out against I guess pressure against his regime -- has the White House has conversations with their allies about increasing the pressure that they’re putting on the two governments, and maybe being --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I’m sorry, on Iran and --<br />
<br />
Q On Iran and Syria both. And maybe stepping it up and being a little more aggressive in the pressure that they’re putting?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, the answer is absolutely we have been working quite aggressively with the international community, with our partners and allies around the world, to put pressure on Syria and put pressure -- and isolate Iran. And in both cases -- and obviously with regards to Iran, this is an ongoing effort. We have effectively isolated Iran to a degree that has never before been the case. And the impact of the sanctions and the efforts that we’ve implemented is profound as every report out there has recognized. And we will continue to work with our allies to do that, to get Iran to behave, to live up to its international obligations.<br />
<br />
And in the case of Syria, to pressure President Assad to cease the violence against his own people, and to step aside so that the Syrian people can have the democratic transition that they demand and deserve.<br />
<br />
Q Do these talks include military action?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I have said with regards broadly to these questions that the President, of course, takes no option off the table, but that we are focused in both cases on diplomatic, economic and other non-military actions that we can take to bring about the results that we and many, many countries around the world -- our international partners and allies -- are demanding.<br />
<br />
Q My last question is, a lot of people in the region are wondering what more it can take from these regimes to do to I guess see a military or strong response from the U.S. and its allies.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I think that -- again, we take no option off the table. It is not -- well, I would just say that. We take no option off the table. We are pursuing at this point diplomatic, economic and other means to bring about the results that we and so many other nations are demanding with regards to Iranian and Syrian behavior.<br />
<br />
Sorry, behind Chris. Tell me --<br />
<br />
Q Nadia.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Nadia, of course.<br />
<br />
Q Jay, can you confirm that President Saleh of Yemen is no longer requesting to come to the U.S., and when was the last time that you’ve been in touch with him?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I don’t think I have an update on that. Let me see. As of -- let me just double-check and see if it’s changed. I just don’t have an update on his application status for you. To my understanding it hasn’t changed. But if it has, I can -- I’ll take that for you.<br />
<br />
Q Can you please?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Sure.<br />
<br />
Q Because there is news that he is going to Saudi Arabia now instead of coming to the U.S.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I’ll check on that. But that -- what his decisions might be about where he might be going may not necessarily be related to his application status for a visa here.<br />
<br />
Chris.<br />
<br />
Q Just one? Just one?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Chris.<br />
<br />
Q Yes. Yesterday Rick Santorum said that he and the President have the same view on same-sex marriage. What’s the President’s response to candidates using his position on marriage equality to say that?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I think, Chris, you know very well what the President’s views are on LGBT issues and civil rights, and the President is very proud of this administration’s record on those issues.<br />
<br />
Q That’s not the question. The question is about marriage.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: The question is -- but I have no updates for you on the President’s position on same-sex marriage. I think that you know and others here know and understand that his position broadly on LGBT issues is quite significantly different from that particular candidate’s views.<br />
<br />
Q Thanks, Jay.<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Neal, last one.<br />
<br />
Q Thanks, Jay. I have just two quick questions. First one, Mitt Romney told supporters at an event that he knows what it’s like to worry about getting pink-slipped, and the comment is getting a lot of attention. I’m wondering if the President had any reaction to that, and if he’s ever had to worry about -- had that sort of anxiety himself? Do you know of a time when that happened?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I would point you to his memoir. I’m not -- I haven’t had that discussion with him, and I have not discussed those remarks with the President.<br />
<br />
Q And to follow on Chris’s question. Over the weekend, Sarah Palin tweeted out something similar, but the language that she used was very specific. She said, “The President position on the definition of marriage is the same as Santorum’s, Gingrich’s and Romney’s.”<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Again, I would just point you to the answer I just gave.<br />
<br />
Q Would that be a true statement?<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: I will just point you to what the President has said and his record --<br />
<br />
Q But the President -- he said before that he believed that marriage was between one man and one woman, years ago. And now he says his position is evolving. Would it be fair to say that that definition no longer exclusively --<br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have anything -- I don’t have anything new to give you on this. I appreciate the question, but the President has spoken to it. I’m sure he’ll be asked again about it. But as of now, I have no --nothing new for you on it.<br />
<br />
Thank you all very much.Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20502, USA38.89765 -77.035666938.896105 -77.03813439999999 38.899195 -77.0331994tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-87669876807779670192012-01-10T04:56:00.000-08:002012-01-11T05:05:16.032-08:00US Department of State Press Briefing January 10, 2012<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=1381458783001&playerID=1857622883&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAGWqYgE~,KxHPzbPALrFGi6o0QhQY9IxyliWBJ3Vq&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1381458783001&playerID=1857622883&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAGWqYgE~,KxHPzbPALrFGi6o0QhQY9IxyliWBJ3Vq&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>Index for Today's Briefing<br />
(Index Links Lead to Content Areas on the US State Department Website)<br />
<br />
<ul><li class="section"><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/01/180298.htm#DEPARTMENT">DEPARTMENT</a> <ul><li class="section-item">Deputy Secretary Burns' Meetings in Turkey / Travel to Egypt</li>
<li class="section-item">Secretary Clinton's Meeting with Secretary of Defense Panetta and National Security Advisor Donilon</li>
</ul></li>
<li class="section"><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/01/180298.htm#SYRIA">SYRIA</a> <ul><li class="section-item">President Assad's Speech</li>
<li class="section-item">Arab League Monitoring Mission</li>
<li class="section-item">UN Security Council Session</li>
<li class="section-item">Ambassador Ford's Demarches / Physical Security of U.S. Embassy</li>
</ul></li>
<li class="section"><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/01/180298.htm#ISRAEL">ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS</a> <ul><li class="section-item">Sesame Street / Funding Cuts</li>
</ul></li>
<li class="section"><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/01/180298.htm#PAKISTAN">PAKISTAN</a> <ul><li class="section-item">Bombing in Jamrud</li>
</ul></li>
<li class="section"><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/01/180298.htm#SAUDIARABIA">SAUDI ARABIA</a> <ul><li class="section-item">Secretary Clinton's Meeting Today with Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal</li>
</ul></li>
<li class="section"><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/01/180298.htm#YEMEN">YEMEN</a> <ul><li class="section-item">Reported Travel of Former President Saleh</li>
</ul></li>
<li class="section"><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/01/180298.htm#IRAQ">IRAQ</a> <ul><li class="section-item">Secretary Clinton's Call to U.S. Mission Iraq, Afghanistan</li>
<li class="section-item">Transition</li>
</ul></li>
<li class="section"><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/01/180298.htm#NORTHKOREA">NORTH KOREA</a> <ul><li class="section-item">Nuclear Program</li>
</ul></li>
<li class="section"><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/01/180298.htm#IRAN">IRAN</a> <ul><li class="section-item">U.S. Coast Guard Rescue of Iranians in Distress at Sea</li>
<li class="section-item">Amir Hekmati Sentenced to Death</li>
</ul></li>
<li class="section"><a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/01/180298.htm#NIGERIA">NIGERIA</a> <ul><li class="section-item">Nationwide Strikes</li>
<li class="section-item">Boko Haram</li>
</ul></li>
</ul><br />
<br />
<span class="transcript">TRANSCRIPT:</span><div id="templateFields"></div><a href="" name="DEPARTMENT"></a><span style="font-size: 10px;">12:46 p.m. EST</span><br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Afternoon, everybody. I have a brief statement at the top with regard to Deputy Secretary Burns’s trip to Turkey and Egypt, and then we’ll go to your questions. Deputy Secretary Burns wrapped up a visit to Ankara today, where he met with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu. He also met with Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs Sinirlioglu. They discussed a number of issues of shared interest, including developments in <a href="" name="IRAQ"></a>Iraq, the importance of international solidarity on <a href="" name="IRAN"></a>Iran, our shared concerns about the situation in <a href="" name="SYRIA"></a>Syria, and ways that we can coordinate to support Egypt’s democratic transition. Deputy Secretary Burns obviously affirmed our continuing support for Turkey’s own struggle to combat internal terrorism, and inclusive and transparent constitutional reform, and reiterated our desire to strengthen U.S.-Turkish economic ties.<br />
Ambassador – Deputy Secretary Burns has now landed in Cairo. He has meetings there tomorrow. He’ll meet with senior Egyptian Government officials. He’ll also meet with political leaders and members of civil society and the business community. His discussions in Cairo will focus on U.S.-Egyptian bilateral relations; our strong support for Egypt’s democratic political transition, including an active and independent civil society; and the current economic challenges facing Egypt; and, obviously, regional issues of shared concern.<br />
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Can we ask on Burns first?<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Go ahead.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Yeah. Is he going to be meeting with members of political parties, or is he going to follow Feltman’s rule that he won’t meet with them?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> He is going to meet with some political party leaders. I think we’ll wait until he has those meetings and then we’ll give you a sense of them tomorrow.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> You can’t say that he’s going to meet the Muslim Brotherhood, then?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I, frankly, don’t have the list of who’s going to be included in those meetings. I think it’s a roundtable, but let me read it out for you tomorrow, Lach, after he does it.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> It would be expected, though, that the biggest parties now in the country would be included in that roundtable, I’m guessing.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, let’s let him do it. But we will have more for you tomorrow after he does it.<br />
Please, Michel. Still on this one?<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> On Syria?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND: </b>On Syria?<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Have you read the Syrian president speech today, and what’s your reaction to it?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, obviously, we’ve seen the reporting on the president’s speech. It’s interesting, throughout the course of this speech, Assad manages to blame a foreign conspiracy that’s so vast with regard to the situation in Syria that it now includes the Arab League, most of the Syrian opposition, the entire international community. He throws responsibility on everybody but back on himself. And with regard to his own responsibility for the violence in Syria, he seems to aggressively deny any responsibility or any hand in the role of his own security forces.<br />
So again, he’s doing everything but what he needs to do, which is to meet the commitments that Syria made to the Arab League to end the violence, to pull tanks and heavy weapons out of cities, to allow journalists in, to release political prisoners, and to allow a real space for political dialogue to take place. So that’s what we’re looking to see in Syria, and obviously, this was an effort to deflect the attention of his own people from the real problems.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Does that worry you that he hasn’t changed his tone at all?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I think it just confirms us in our view that it’s time for him to step aside, that he’s not the guy who can lead Syria in the direction that it needs to go.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Does it worry you that he’s kind of setting – he seems to be setting up sort of this scenario of it’s an us against the rest of the world? You could almost see what he was trying to achieve there, sort of rallying support because the whole world is out to get us. Does that concern you?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, sadly, Cami, this is not new from him. He’s been doing this all along. In March, when all of this started, he had an opportunity to do what some other leaders have done and start a dialogue and really address his people’s concerns. And even from that moment and escalating ever since, it’s all been about the enemies of Syria rather than truly understanding that this is an internal movement. It’s coming from the Syrian people who want change, who are sick of corruption, sick of a government that doesn’t represent all the needs of all the people, and a government that is for him and his cronies, not for the Syrian people.<br />
So – and the fact that not only is he blaming everybody else, but he’s taken up arms against his own people. He’s responsible for this violence. So from our perspective it’s not new, and it’s also, obviously, not new that he is refusing to take any responsibility for the actions of his own security forces who are the instigators of the violence.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> So to follow up on Cami there, I mean, you – she asked if you were concerned about what he said. I mean, the opposition has seized on the fact that he’s vowed to crush their terrorism with an iron fist. Does that worry you that the crackdown is going to be as strong as ever, or what kind of intentions do you see there?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> It’s worried us all along, the kinds of violence he is perpetrating against his own people. This is a guy who’s overseeing a security apparatus that has tanks in every town and village, that is using those tanks on innocent civilians, that has security forces that are rampaging in towns, that is arresting and torturing members of the political opposition, that has thousands of political prisoners. So it’s already an iron fist. The question is: Is he going to meet any of these commitments that he’s made? The Arab League is doing its best to try to provide space for this opposition, but clearly he’s defiant.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Can we just – building on what Cami said, you mentioned that this tone dates back to March. So that’s just almost 10 months of political inaction and violent repression. Are we at an end point now for diplomatic efforts with this guy?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, the United States has been saying for some months, I think dating back – I can’t remember exactly, I think it was August or September – that we had given him an opportunity to be the guy to lead change; that rather than doing that, he has used violence against his own people. And so we believe that it’s time – well overdue – for him to step aside.<br />
That’s a different matter than whether this Arab League initiative is worth giving a try to see whether they could bring the Assad regime to implement the promises that it made. And we see a very, very, very incomplete picture there, as we’ve talked about all week.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> So are you --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Okay, but just one second.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Sorry.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Just – would you be supportive of further diplomatic efforts? It just seems that time and time again, he’s used each outreach effort as a stalling tactic, as a strategy to kind of keep the international community at bay while he continues with the crackdown and continues to fail to deliver on any meaningful political reform. So how would you approach continued efforts to – would you lend support to continued efforts in this vein?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> We’ve made clear we think the man needs to step aside. We’ve made clear that we want – we will continue to work with allies and partners around the world, particularly those in the region, trying to open space for political change, getting the violence to end, that we need to increase the pressure on the regime, the economic and political pressure. That’s what we have been leading with our own sanctions, with our efforts to encourage others to step up their sanctions, as we’ve seen.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> But what has been --<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> We did support this Arab League initiative because they made promises – he made promises to them. We wanted to see if they could be implemented. We’re seeing this incomplete picture. They are going to make their own evaluation on the weekend, and we have made clear that we will continue to work with the Arab League and other partners on the way ahead, including what more the international community can do to try to increase the pressure to end the violence and to allow space for change in Syria.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> But just finally --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Victoria --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> -- what has been the sum total then of these 10 months of diplomatic efforts? What have they actually accomplished?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, I think his regime is feeling the squeeze. I mean, many countries have stopped trading with him --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> I’m not talking about the sanctions. I’m talking about outreach, whether it was Turkey, whether it was the Arab League, whether it was some of his Gulf neighbors. What have they done? If you take all of them together since March, have they accomplished anything for the people in Syria?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, clearly we have not had success. I think that’s obvious from the situation on the ground.<br />
<br />
Please.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Yes. Victoria, I mean, he had very harsh words toward the Arab League. So obviously he is – they are – the regime is not going to cooperate with the mission, the monitoring mission by the Arab League. So why do you continue to have confidence in their ability and whatever report they’re coming up on the 19<sup>th</sup> of this month?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Said, we have said that we thought that they took on quite a lot of responsibility to do what they could to try to open space, to try to bear witness to what was going on, to do an honest reporting of what’s going on. We want to give them the opportunity to make that report, to make their own evaluation, to share their conclusions with all of the rest of us. And frankly, that will strengthen all of us going forward in our resolve to continue to increase the pressure and do what we can.<br />
So it is a matter of letting the Arab League complete this mission, as it plans to do on Friday and Saturday, to make its own evaluation. And then all of us can take stock based on what we’ve seen.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> But the integrity of the – if I’m --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Toria, why is it --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Go ahead.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Why is it an incomplete picture? You could say, “Whose fault is it that it’s an incomplete picture?”<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> No, the point I meant there, Jill, was, as we’ve been saying all week, we’ve seen some sporadic incidents in Syria where the presence of the monitors over the last couple of weeks have allowed the Syrian opposition to feel comfortable enough to come into the streets and make its views known. We saw big demonstrations about 10 days ago, a week ago, but those have been few and far between. And at the same time, we’ve seen Syrians continue to die at the hands of the security regime. We’ve seen the security situation not improve. We’ve seen the heavy weaponry, et cetera, that is emplaced all over Syria, not pulled back, as they promised. Journalists have not been allowed in. And we still have a thousand-plus political prisoners in Syrian jails, including some very prominent ones, with reports of torture.<br />
So the point is that the Assad regime promised that it would meet four commitments to the Arab League. It has not met any of them, which is to say – but which is not to say that the monitors, where they have been able to be present, where they have been able to operate, haven’t already begun to prove the point that when they feel safe, the Syrian people will go out into the streets and make their views known. And it is Assad who is denying them that right through his violence.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> But particularly as the observers are under attack yesterday, a group of Arab League observers were attacked – or was attacked by unknown protestors in Syria. Who is responsible, do you think, for these attacks?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I think we’re not in a position, obviously, to say who attacked the monitors. But this is the issue: The violence has not ended; the violence continues; and the Arab League presumably will draw its – draw conclusions from that when it makes its report at the end of the week.<br />
Lach.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> On the UN Security Council, what do you expect from their discussions on Syria, especially since the last time you didn’t get the hoped-for targeted measures with the support of China and Russia?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, the Security Council is having another session on Syria this morning. I would guess that Ambassador Rice will have something to say in New York after that session concludes. I think you know where we are, Lach, that we continue to believe that it is overdue for the Security Council to make a strong statement in support of peace and security and in support of the moves that we can all take together to help the people of Syria.<br />
We have a weak Russian draft on the table. We have consultations going on about how to strengthen it. So let us see if those lead anywhere today in New York and let them report from New York.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Any reason for optimism?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I think our sense is that we’re going to need to see the conclusion of this Arab League mission. We’re going to need to see their report. We’re going to need to have that report influence the views of the international community going forward.<br />
Please.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Yeah. Ambassador Ford has expressed concern regarding security and safety of the Embassy and the staff in Damascus, and we were told that he conveyed this concern to the Syrian officials. How far the Syrians were responsive to his concern?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, my understanding is that Ambassador Ford made renewed demarches in the last couple of days about the physical security of the Embassy. I don’t know that the Syrian Government has responded to those demarches yet. My understanding is that they had not yet. But we, like a number of other embassies in Damascus, are concerned about whether or not the environment around our missions is well-enough protected.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Do you have any reason to doubt the Syrians’ resolve to protect the American Embassy or any other diplomatic missions in Damascus?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Based on history, Said, we --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Based on history, yes.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> As you know, we had a bad incident in the fall. We’ve worked with the Syrians since. We’re now asking for more support, and we’ll see if the Syrian Government is forthcoming.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> But – I’m not saying that they shouldn’t provide it, but given the fact that you’ve called this regime illegitimate and said it should step down, how can you then ask to it to be legitimate in the sense that it should provide security? I mean, you’ve already said this is an illegitimate regime, so where does it get its legitimacy to provide support to anybody? I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be doing it, but --<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Clearly, they have the security forces available. Use less of them on their own people and more of them to protect diplomatic missions, including in conformity with the Vienna Convention. We protect their mission and their people here, and we expect the same for our mission and our people there.<br />
Please.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> I just actually – for some clarification on this legitimate/illegitimate discussion, a minute ago you said we’ve made clear that we think the man needs to step aside. I don’t – Bashar Assad is not going to step aside. So I guess what I’m wondering is: Is the United States calling for his ouster?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> We have been clear about this. The President said it in August. We think that this is not the guy to lead this country in a democratic transition. We have made clear that we think it is time for a dialogue that does not include him. We are not dictating how this needs to go forward, but we’re simply saying that in terms of our confidence that he can lead his country in a better direction, that’s over.<br />
Please.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Change topic?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Yeah.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Yes. Palestinian issue. The Palestinian television had to cancel Sesame Street because of the funds and the $200 million worth were cut and the – part of that money, 2 million, were going to the – was going to the Sesame Street fund. My question to you is that the State Department subsidized the <a href="" name="ISRAEL"></a>Israeli version of Sesame Street to the tune of $750,000. Would the State Department do the same thing to restore Sesame Street and Elmo and the other characters?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> This is a complicated picture here, and I had asked our friend Kermit the Frog to join us to explain this, but I’m going to have to do it without him because he’s busy promoting The Muppet Movie.<br />
The U.S., as you know, as you said, Said, did provide some support for the airing of Sesame Street to Palestinian kids. Unfortunately, with the cut in Economic Support Funds, we had to make some hard tradeoffs, and that was one of the things that we’ve not been able to do.<br />
We have also always supported television for young kids, kindergarten age kids, that is broadcast by Israeli TV to kids in both Israel and in the Palestinian territories, which supports the goal of kids understanding that they share citizenship, that Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews need to live together, that they are neighbors with the Palestinians. This is programming in Israel designed to promote common sense of citizenship between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Palestinians, but also between all Israelis and folks in the Palestinian territories. We think it’s an important program for kids. And the science indicates that if you get to children at the young level, before they’re even in school, that’s the best way to influence them. So yes, that does continue, and it comes out of a different pot of money.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> What I’m saying is could you provide the Palestinians with the same thing for the program that airs from Ramallah in Arabic?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, again, we had to make some difficult decisions because our funding that comes – that supports the purely Palestinian programs, as opposed to these pan-regional programs, comes out of the economic support funds, and the economic support funds have been cut. And so our priority has been funding those programs that support – and the institutions of the – Palestinian institutions, their ability to provide basic services to their people. And unfortunately, Kermit is not able to be supported at the moment.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> So what was the message of this now-cancelled Palestinian version of Sesame Street? Was it a peaceful message that’s been lost, or was it one that didn’t support the institutions?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> My understanding is it’s regular Sesame Street programming that is – but perhaps Said knows better. I haven’t seen it.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> It’s like all the others, it’s just coordinated with --<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Right.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> -- New York. And part of it comes --<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Right.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> -- from here, and part of it comes from there --<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Right.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> -- the programming, and it’s a very unfortunate thing.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Right.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Even the Israeli program, saying they are cutting funds actually is a disservice to peace because it teaches children how to live together and overcome all social and national barriers and so on.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, this speaks to the larger issue that we had pushed hard in the Congress and will continue to push hard for the – for full funding of the ESF account. At this point, we only have partial funding.<br />
Please, in the back.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> <a href="" name="PAKISTAN"></a>Pakistan today, there was a huge bombing (inaudible). What is your reaction? Do you know who might be behind this bombing? And what is – how – what is the status of – where do the U.S. and Pakistan and Afghanistan stand in terms of combating this challenge of militancy? Because there have been bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan both in recent days.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, let me say first that the United States strongly condemns today’s bombing at a marketplace in Jamrud, in the Khyber Agency. By callously targeting innocent people, the extremists who planned and perpetrated this attack are just showing their contempt for the value of human life. We offer our condolences to the families and friends of the victims, and we remain deeply committed to working with Pakistan to address these kinds of terrorist threats and the results of violent extremism. We’ve seen the reports, some claiming that there are al-Qaida hands behind this. Frankly, we’re not in a position to confirm one way or the other.<br />
Please, Michel.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> The meeting this afternoon between Secretary Clinton and the Saudi foreign minister, what are the topics that they will discuss? And is there any emergency for this meeting, especially that Assistant Secretary Feltman was in <a href="" name="SAUDIARABIA"></a>Saudi Arabia on Saturday and Sunday and Wendy Sherman was there last month, too?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, as you know, we – as you know, whenever we meet with representatives from the kingdom, it’s a very, very broad array of issues. From the Secretary’s side, I’m – I think she’s expecting that they’ll talk about virtually all of the regional issues – situation in Iran, situation in Iraq, promoting the democratic transition in Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, you name it. But let us let the meeting go forward. Obviously, we – they have a close relationship. We always see the foreign minister when he’s in town.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> But is there any emergency, especially that Assistant Secretary Feltman was there and he just came back?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I can’t speak to the timing of the foreign minister’s visit except to say that we always have a heavy agenda. And as I just made clear, we have a very heavy agenda today again.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> This meeting today with Saud Al-Faisal – I think tomorrow is – Hamad bin Jassim is coming?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> That’s right.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Okay. And now on the 17<sup>th</sup>, we have the Jordanian monarch coming in. Does the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations factor in at all in these discussions?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> In virtually all of these meetings, there is an exchange on where we are in our efforts to bring the parties to the table. I would guess that the – that issue will probably come up in all of these meetings.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Were you expecting the Saudi foreign minister to be here today before the visit that Assistant Secretary Feltman made?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I can’t speak to the exact sequencing of these issues. I don’t think that this was a surprise to us, if that’s what you’re asking.<br />
Samir.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Toria, did you find out if President Saleh of <a href="" name="YEMEN"></a>Yemen changed his mind to travel to Saudi Arabia instead of the U.S.?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I don’t have anything for you, Samir, on his travel plans. I would refer you to him. We don’t have anything new for you on that.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Because he withdrew his application for the visa to the U.S., Saleh.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, he took his passport back. What his travel plans are, I can’t speak to.<br />
Yeah.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Any information on the other meeting the Secretary has at the White House with Defense Secretary Panetta and Mr. Donilon?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> She – they meet regularly whenever they’re all home, and this is part of their regular consultation.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> But there’s no specific topic that this is --<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I’m sure there is, and I’m sure we’re not going to share it with you, Brad.<br />
Please.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Toria, I forget, is it today that she’s speaking with the staff in Iraq?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Yes, she spoke to them this morning. She did.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Yeah. What did she say?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> She had a phone call yesterday with our staff in Afghanistan and she had a phone call today with our staff in Iraq. These were New Year’s Day calls. Both of those staffs work extremely hard, seven days a week in most cases. They work under extreme conditions. And I think it was an opportunity to thank them for the work that they both did last year and to give them a pep talk going forward, because they’re both also shepherding important transitions in our relationships with both countries.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Right. And on the Iraq part, is there any early indication of how things are going now that the transition is happening?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> In terms of the State Department picking up --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Troops out. Yeah. Right.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> -- the lead, we’re working it through. As we’ve said from the beginning, this is – it’s a daunting effort, but we believe that we’re up to the task. I think you’ve seen that that Embassy’s been extremely busy, led by Ambassador Jeffrey, in its work with all of the Iraqi political parties to encourage them to talk to each other and encourage an Iraqi-owned process of national dialogue among the key leaders. So that continues, as do all of our civilian support opportunities and our training opportunities. So --<br />
Please.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> On <a href="" name="NORTHKOREA"></a>North Korea?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Mm-hmm.<br />
<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=1381458783001&playerID=1857622883&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAGWqYgE~,KxHPzbPALrFGi6o0QhQY9IxyliWBJ3Vq&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1381458783001&playerID=1857622883&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAGWqYgE~,KxHPzbPALrFGi6o0QhQY9IxyliWBJ3Vq&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><b>QUESTION:</b> North Korea announced that North Korea never ever give up their nuclear program. How is your response on that?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, I think you can imagine that that is disappointing. I think we’ve been absolutely clear that we are looking for North Korea to take significant steps on the path towards denuclearization to work with us to meet its obligations. So we’ve been clear in what we hope to see. Our Six-Party Talks partners have been clear as well.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> What would be the response of the United States if North Korea insist to be formally recognized as a nuclear power to come to Six-Party table?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> You mean as a precondition for coming to the Six-Party Talks?<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Yes.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I think you know the answer to that question. It’s not acceptable.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Right. Thanks.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Please.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Toria, do you have any comments on the second naval rescue operation in the Sea of Oman that happened today --<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Yeah. This is --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> -- within a week?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I have to tell you that I don’t have all the details. I think Brother Little and Brother Kirby at the Defense Department were going to speak to this earlier today. I don’t know if they got a chance to go out and do so, but they’ve got the details. Again, the – I think in this case, the U.S. Coast Guard appears to have rescued some Iranians at sea and in distress. I heard this morning that it had something to do with engine trouble. There was a fire. But I’m going to leave it to the brothers at the Pentagon to give you more detail.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Do you have --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> The P-5+1 talks aren’t really getting anywhere. How about a ship-to-ship diplomacy? (Laughter.)<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Yeah, it sounds like we’re kind of de facto doing it, aren’t we? Yeah. It’s interesting because, as you know, the State Department runs a Twitter feed in Farsi. We have our virtual embassy with Tehran where we try to push out lots of information about U.S. diplomacy, et cetera. Massive interest in this – in the previous incident, on both of those platforms in this from regular Iranians wanting to understand more and some fascinating comments as well.<br />
Yeah.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Do you have an update on Mr. Hekmati?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I have not a lot new, unfortunately. Let’s see. As I think I mentioned yesterday that we hadn’t yet been able to confirm the verdict, the Swiss protecting power has now been able to confirm to us the verdict. So we strongly condemn the death sentence verdict given to Mr. Hekmati. We’ve conveyed our condemnation to the Iranian Government through the Swiss protecting power. We maintain, as we have from the beginning, that these charges against him are a fabrication. We call on the Iranian authorities to release him immediately. We’ve also called on them to allow him to have legal counsel. Defendants in Iran are allowed to appeal within 20 days. And we call on the Government of Iran to respect the right – the fact that he is a U.S. citizen and grant the Swiss protecting power access to him.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Now, when the Swiss were informed of the sentence against him, was a justification for the charges or the sentence provided, or just simply the facts, as it were?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I don’t have details on that, I’m afraid.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Toria --<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Please.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> -- legally speaking, because Iran does not recognize the dual citizenship aspect, does the --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> He doesn’t have dual citizenship.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> I’m sorry?<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> He doesn’t have dual citizenship.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> He doesn’t – so he’s just an American citizen, okay. So --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> That is accepted – sorry – but informally.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> What is informally?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, we’ve talked about this before here, Said, and we have a specific warning in our travel notice with regard to Iran to Iranian Americans that we have this problem with Iran, that if you’re born in Iran, even if you’re an American citizen, the Iranians don’t always recognize it, and it’s caused difficulties in the past.<br />
So, anything else?<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Just one on Iran. You said that he should have legal counsel. Did he have some sort of counsel for his case, some sort of court-appointed lawyer or something like that?<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> I have to say to you that I’m not sure we know enough about the way he was handled to answer that question. But you’ve seen his family speak about trying to get counsel to him – independent counsel. So --<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> So the Swiss have not had any contacts with any legal representative, whether he was state-appointed or --<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> To my knowledge, no. And they’ve not been allowed to see him.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Just a quick one on <a href="" name="NIGERIA"></a>Nigeria.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Yes.<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Yesterday you talked a little bit about it, but the Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka said he feared the risk of a civil war in Nigeria. And I just wanted to ask you what you think the stakes are, if indeed you share that view. It’s an oil country. There’s large Muslim and Christian populations.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Well, as we said yesterday, Lach, we have concerns about what Boko Haram is doing about efforts to create and exacerbate existing tensions between Christians and Muslims in the country, north/south. We are supporting the efforts of the Nigerian Government to try to get a handle on that. On top of that, as you’ve probably seen, we also have nationwide strikes now in Nigeria in response to lifting of fuel subsidies. So that’s adding another layer to the difficulties in Nigeria. In the context of the nationwide strikes on the fuel situation, our view on that is that the Nigerian people have the right to peaceful protest, we want to see them protest peacefully, and we’re also urging the Nigerian security services to respect the right of popular protest and conduct themselves professionally in dealing with the strikes.<br />
Anything else?<br />
<b>QUESTION:</b> Thank you.<br />
<b>MS. NULAND:</b> Okay. Thank you all.Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com0Washington, DC, USA38.8951118 -77.036365838.7962463 -77.1942943 38.993977300000005 -76.8784373tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-67997776702305510552012-01-09T15:10:00.000-08:002012-01-19T02:46:46.946-08:00White House Press Briefing January 9, 2011<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r1EJ-RHYbcI/TwtkOh4YW_I/AAAAAAAAOmQ/wC3g1ebiOkQ/s1600/WhiteHouseLogo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r1EJ-RHYbcI/TwtkOh4YW_I/AAAAAAAAOmQ/wC3g1ebiOkQ/s1600/WhiteHouseLogo.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOG_video_class" contentid="UPLOADING" height="266" id="BLOG_video-UPLOADING-0" width="320"></object></div>
<h1>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></h1>
<h1>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">White House Press Briefing by Jay Carney, January 9</span></h1>
<h6>
<span class="dateblock" id="dateblock">09 January 2012</span></h6>
<div id="article-body">
THE WHITE HOUSE<br />
Office of the Press Secretary<br />
January 9, 2012<br />
<br />
<b>PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY</b><br />
<b>Formatted by Darin Codon @ <a href="http://missourinetizen.com/">Missouri News </a></b><br />
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room<br />
1:08 P.M. EST<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I want to ask your forgiveness that I had to switch
around the briefing schedule a couple times. I actually have to be done
at 1:45 p.m. So I’ll try to move quickly through your questions.<br />
Let me begin with an announcement, or rather a statement. On
Wednesday, President Obama and Vice President Biden will host an
In-Sourcing American Jobs Forum at the White House focused on the
increasing trend of companies choosing to in-source jobs and invest in
growing in the United States. As part of the In-Sourcing American Jobs
Forum, the President will meet with business leaders as well as experts
on the topic to discuss why it’s competitive to locate in the United
States and what more can be done to work with companies to take similar
steps to in-source American jobs.<br />
<br />
Following that meeting, the President will deliver remarks to a
group that will include leaders from the government and the private
sector that are taking steps to encourage companies to in-source and
invest in America. In the afternoon, Cabinet officials will host panel
discussions with both small and large businesses and experts on
in-sourcing and investing in America. There will be over a dozen large
and small businesses in attendance at the event that have made decisions
to bring jobs to the United States and to increase their investments
here. They will attend the forum.<br />
<br />
With that, I go to the Associated Press.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Associated Press:</b></u> Thank you, Jay. A couple topics today. I wanted to get
your updated reaction about what’s happened with Iran. Iran has
convicted and sentenced to death an American that Iran accuses of
spying. I know the White House has demanded his release, but I’m
wondering what more the White House and perhaps specifically the
President can do given that his life is on the line.<br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, it’s accurate that we have seen Iranian press
reports that Mr. Hekmati has been sentenced to death by an Iranian
court. Our State Department is working through the Swiss protecting
powers in Iran to confirm the veracity of those reports.<br />
<br />
If true, we strongly condemn such a verdict and will work with our
partners to convey our condemnation to the Iranian government.
Allegations that Mr. Hekmati either worked for or was sent to Iran by
the CIA are false. The Iranian regime has a history, as you know, of
falsely accusing people of being spies, of eliciting forced confessions
and of holding innocent Americans for political reasons.<br />
<br />
We call upon the Iranian government to grant the Swiss protecting
powers immediate access to Mr. Hekmati, grant him access to legal
counsel and release him without delay.<br />
<br />
The State Department can give you more details on that.<br />
<br />
Q:<i> Okay, but I mean the question still stands. You’ve call for his
release, if true, and the reports appear to be true, so what more can do
you do other than making these calls?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, I mean that’s a broad question, Ben. We are
putting a great deal of pressure on Iran broadly because of its rogue
behavior, if you will -- the fact that it won’t live up to its
international obligations with regards to its nuclear program. Those
actions that we’re taking in concert with our international partners
have had a significant impact on Iran, on the Iranian economy. I believe
it was just last week where the new sanctions when they went into
effect had the impact of causing the Iranian currency to drop
dramatically. So we work with our partners as well as unilaterally to
increase that pressure.<br />
<br />
As regards this particular incident, we will work in the manner that
I described to you to call upon Iran to release Mr. Hekmati
immediately.<br />
<br />
<b>Q:</b><i> Is it fair to say in a case like this that the administration would consider any option to try to intervene and protect him?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I don’t want to speculate about that. I think that we
take this matter very seriously, and we are addressing it in the
appropriate manner.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: One other topic. Wednesday is apparently the 10th anniversary of
the prison in Guantanamo Bay, and I’m wondering what the White House
says now to critics who point to this as a pretty clear broken promise.
The President had wanted to close that within a year. That hasn’t
happened for a lot of the history that you know of. And now it’s like
there’s really no end in sight. How do you respond to the criticism that
this is just a big, broken promise?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, the commitment that the President has to closing
Guantanamo Bay is as firm today as it was during the campaign. We all
are aware of the obstacles to getting that done as quickly as the
President wanted to get it done, what they were and the fact that they
continued to persist. But the President’s commitment hasn’t changed at
all. And it’s the right thing to do for our national security interests.<br />
<br />
That has been an opinion shared not just by this President or
members of this administration, but senior members of the military as
well as this President’s predecessor and the man he ran against for this
office in the general election. So we will continue to abide by that
commitment and work towards its fulfillment.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Do you think you’re any closer to closing it than you were the day he took office?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I think this is a process that faces obstacles that we’re all aware of and we will continue to work through it.<br />
<br />
Yes, Reuters.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Thanks, Jay. Did the President watch any of the Republican debates this weekend?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> I didn’t speak with him about that. I know because I
know him that it’s unlikely, not because they were debates, but because
he tends to, when he is watching television, not watch news or politics
but sports or movies. So I will venture a guess and say no.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: As the Republican field starts to narrow a little bit and as the
frontrunner is gaining traction, how does -- what has the President said
and what is the White House thinking about your own strategy in the
next few months?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Well, Jeff, as you know there is a reelection campaign
located in Chicago. And this President is doing the things that he needs
to do to prepare for his campaign, but his -- the level of his
engagement is relatively low now because he has work to do as President.<br />
<br />
He is very focused on his number-one priority, which is doing
everything he can as President, working with Congress or using his
executive authority or working with the private sector, to grow the
economy and create jobs. We’ve had some signs of improvement in the
economy, some indications that the recovery is strengthening, but we are
a long way from where we need to be as a country. And that’s why this
President is focused on the initiatives that he’s put forward in the
American Jobs Act, including the extension -- the full extension of the
payroll tax cut, the full extension of unemployment insurance, working
with Congress to fund infrastructure projects that will put construction
workers back to work but also build the foundation for the economy that
we need to be competitive in the 21st century, and doing the kinds of
things that he’ll do on Wednesday with this in-sourcing forum to work
with the private sector to focus people’s attention on the fact that
America is a great place to invest; it’s the right place for American
companies to in-source, if you will, to bring their investments and jobs
back to the United States.<br />
<br />
So he’ll use every tool in the toolbox to do that. The campaign,
when it comes, in terms of his enhanced engagement, will consume more
time at the appropriate time. But it’s not -- that’s not now for him.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: But even if the two operations are separate, as they clearly are,
aren’t things like the nomination of Richard Cordray last week and even
the in-sourcing event right now milestones for -- that will be used for
the campaigning season as well for this President?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: That’s like saying that anything you do as President is
inherently political. And the fact is he is running for reelection to a
political office, the presidency of the United States, and he will
obviously have a lot to say about what has been accomplished during his
time in office, and, even more so, what needs to be done in the ensuing
four years and why he believes that he has the right vision for the
country going forward.<br />
<br />
And having said that, his job is to be President. His job is to do
everything he can to help the American people as we emerge from the
worst recession since the Great Depression; to work with the private
sector, work with Congress, use his executive authority, to grow the
economy and create jobs; to make sure that he’s doing everything he can
as Commander-in-Chief to ensure the safety of the American people both
here and abroad; to take the kinds of actions that allowed him to
fulfill his promise to end the war in Iraq, as he did late last year;
and to continue to draw down forces in Afghanistan, even as we step up
our fight against al Qaeda.<br />
<br />
All these things are part of his day job, and they’re quite
consuming. And because he does not need to now, he is not engaging
particularly aggressively in his reelection campaign. It’s only January.
There is not a Republican nominee.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Isn’t the recess appointment engaging on some level?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNE</b></u>Y: I can’t remember -- I guess maybe you weren’t here last
week -- but the President recess-appointed Richard Cordray because
Republicans refused -- despite overwhelming bipartisan support,
overwhelming testaments to the fact that he is enormously qualified and
the overwhelming need to have a consumer watchdog in place, the
Republicans in the Senate refused to confirm him, refused to give him an
up or down vote.<br />
<br />
Every day that there isn’t -- or wasn’t a consumer watchdog in that
office was a day when Americans weren’t protected from abuses by payday
lenders, non-bank financial institutions, mortgage brokers, student loan
providers. So he insisted that he was not going to wait any longer to
allow those Americans to be unprotected.<br />
<br />
Republicans who opposed that nomination almost to a person have said
it’s not because they have any problem with Richard Cordray, it’s
because they have a problem with the bureau itself. And our position is
if they want to change the law, they should do that through the
legislative process. It is the law. It was passed by Congress.<br />
<br />
Wall Street reform is absolutely essential given the kind of crisis
we went through that contributed to the worst recession since the Great
Depression. And Richard Cordray needs to be on the job. That’s why the
President made that appointment.<br />
<br />
Let me move around. Mark.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Thanks, Jay. If I could come back to Iran for a moment, the
sanctions that the President signed into law over the holiday are sort
of requiring the U.S. to go to a lot of long-time allies and make the
case that they should curtail purchases of Iranian oil. I’m wondering,
in the week or so that those sanctions have been in effect, what’s the
earlier response been from countries like China, South Korea, Japan? Are
you confident that at the end of this six-month period, you’ll be able
to go to Congress and say in each of these cases these countries have
significantly reduced the amount of oil they buy from Iran?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: I don’t want to speak for other countries. Our belief is
that for these sanctions to be most effective, they need to be
multilateral and have multilateral participation. They need to be timed
and phased in a way that avoids negative repercussions to international
oil markets and in ways that might cause more damage to ourselves than
to Iran.<br />
<br />
So that’s why we worked so closely with Congress to ensure that the
flexibility was there, to allow us to implement this legislation, to
implement the sanctions in a way that had the most negative effect, if
you will, on Iran, while protecting our international partners and
protecting us from shocks in the oil markets. And we’re proceeding with
that approach.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: At the risk of getting into the weeds a tiny bit, in order to go
to Congress and ask for a waiver in any of these cases, the phraseology
is you need to show that these countries are importing significantly
less oil. Can you be more precise? What constitutes, in percentage
terms, a significant decline in purchases of Iranian oil?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> I won’t be more precise. I know that we believe strongly
that the flexibility that is necessary for the President to implement
this law effectively exists in the legislation. We worked with Congress
to make sure that was the case and we are now in the process of doing
that.<br />
All the way in the back.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Thank you, Jay. Pakistan’s new ambassador to the U.S., Sherry
Rehman, has arrived here. And my question is, since November 26th, when
there was another cross-border attack in which 26 Pakistani soldiers
were killed, you had tension in relations between the U.S. and Pakistan.
Is the President satisfied with the kind of cooperation you are
receiving from Pakistan now after that incident?</i><br />
<br />
<b><u>MR. CARNEY</u></b>: As you know, and I’ve discussed from here on numerous
occasions, we have an important relationship with Pakistan; we have a
complicated relationship with Pakistan. And we continue to work on it,
because it’s in the interest of the American people and in the interest
of American national security to do so. I don’t have any updates on that
for you, except to say that we are working with Pakistan precisely
because it’s in American national security interests to do so and we
will continue to do that.<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Jay, there’s a lot of interest in Jodi Kantor’s book that’s
coming out tomorrow -- details tensions between the First Lady and some,
well, former top aides to President Obama. I’m just wondering what you
think about her accounts in the book.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNE</b></u>Y: Well, let me just say that books like these tend to
overhype and sensationalize things and I think that’s the case here. The
fact of the matter is -- and I think this is depicted in the book --
the relationship between the President and the First Lady is incredibly
strong; their commitment to each other, to their children, and to the
reasons why this President ran for office is all very strong. The fact
of the matter is the First Lady is very focused on the issues that
matter to her -- helping military families, fighting childhood obesity
-- and she has done that remarkably well. And I think that’s reflected
also in the book.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: What do you make of the account that’s getting so much attention
that Robert Gibbs cursed the First Lady in a meeting with top White
House aides?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> Again, I think that books like these generally
over-sensationalize things. I know some people groan a little bit when I
do this, but I’ve covered a couple of White Houses myself, and the fact
of the matter is I’ve been here all three years, although not in this
position. The atmosphere and collegiality here is much better than any
of the White Houses I’ve covered. And that’s been the case from day one
here and continues to be the case.<br />
<br />
But these are high-pressure jobs. There’s always a lot at stake. And
the commitment the people show to the President, to the First Lady, and
to the causes that brought them here is fierce. And sometimes that
intensity leads people to raise their voices or have sharp exchanges.
But the overall picture is one of remarkable collegiality and a genuine
focus.<br />
<br />
I mean, I think you guys know this, too. A lot of you have covered
previous administrations, previous White Houses. This is a remarkably
harmonious place, given everything that’s at stake and the enormity of
the issues that are discussed and debated here every day.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Can you just speak to the voracity of the Gibb’s --</i><br />
<br />
MR. CARNEY: No, I’m not going to get into individual anecdotes from
there. And I’ll simply say that isolating one incident where there were
sharp words, whether it’s accurate or not, doesn’t reflect the overall
atmosphere and tenor here, or doesn’t make clear -- also doesn’t make
clear that in some cases these anecdotes -- what really is the focus
here, which every individual at the senior level that I know is
determined to work for the President, work for the First Lady, towards
achieving the things that they set out to do when they came here in
January of 2009.<br />
So that’s what I see every day. That’s what I saw in my first two
years in my other job. And I think it’s a testimony to the commitment
that the folks here have to these causes that we have this kind of
relationship among ourselves.<br />
<br />
Yes, Ann.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Follow up to that? In your three years here, has it been common
for Mrs. Obama to express an interest in the West Wing policy? Does she
voice her concerns? Has she --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> No, I think as the author of this book herself said just
the other day, if not today, that, in fact, no. The First Lady is very
focused on the issues that matter dearly to her -- military families and
the fight against childhood obesity. She’s also very focused on raising
her two children, and giving them an upbringing that is as normal as
can be in these rather unusual circumstances.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: She was not unhappy with the loss of her -- upset about the loss of the Senate seat --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> There wasn’t anybody who occupy -- who comes to work
here who wasn’t disappointed by a political loss, the one you’re
referring to. I don’t know that she was personally. She doesn’t come to
meetings in the West Wing. But I think everybody had hoped for a
different outcome to that race.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Why didn’t the White House confirm at the time that Johnny Depp was here?</i><br />
<br />
<b><u>MR. CARNEY: </u></b>This is a perfect example of why -- it goes right to my
first point about how these books take -- books like these take these
things out of context. A couple of outlets that I won’t name reported
that a secret party -- well, if it was secret, why did we invite the
press in? Why was there a pool report? Why were there contemporaneous
photographs? This was an event --<br />
<br />
<i>Q: There was no pool report from the State Dining Room about Johnny Depp being there.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Ann, this wasn’t a publicity event for the outside. This
was an event for military children and their families inside the White
House, where the press came, photographs were taken. It was
contemporaneously known who was here. If that’s -- if we’re trying to
hide something by bringing in the press, we’re not very good at it.<br />
<br />
So, again, I think as many people have said in the wake of those
reports, it’s an example of the kind of hype and sensationalizing that
books like this do.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: For the record, there’s not one statement from this White House about --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY: </b></u>But again, the purpose wasn’t to -- for any of these --
we do a lot of these things -- July 4th, other events here, including
other events that are geared towards military families and their kids,
where the purpose isn’t to publicize them externally for you guys, but
to have a nice event for them here, which is different from trying to
hide anything. Again, you don’t bring the press in, you don’t have
photographs going out of here in real time if you’re trying to keep
something on the down low.<br />
<br />
But the focus of the event was on celebrating and giving a nice time
to military families and their kids, and the event itself was
overwhelmingly for children.<br />
<br />
Yes, Ed.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: But the allegation that the author is making indirectly is that
the White House did deliberately keep Johnny Depp and just in general
the Hollywood angle out of this because of the recession.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> Then why were there pictures of Johnny Depp instantly available?<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Where?</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q: To who? Because the media was not --</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY: </b></u>I mean, there were pictures --<br />
<br />
<i>Q: -- let into that part where Johnny Depp was, if I understand it.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY: </b></u>There were many, many people in the White House --
public and staff and others -- and there were photographs out there. I
mean, honestly, Ed, I mean, again, there are outlets that have reported
this as a “secret” party, which is just silly. And it’s irresponsible
reporting to suggest that, that you would have a pool report and the
press at an event that’s secret, and have it attended by hundreds if not
thousands of people.<br />
<br />
So the focus was on military families and their kids. And it was not
on publicity outside of here, it was on those who were invited.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: So if you say the book is overhyped and sensationalized,
including that anecdote, why did 33 people around this White House to
include senior aides and cooperate with this author?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY: </b></u>Well, again, that happened before the book came out. But
we cooperate with all of you on the stories that you work on. We give
access to you, grant -- you get interviews. Some of your stories turn
out to accurately reflect what we know has happened here and some of
them, in our view, don’t necessarily reflect that. But that’s part of
our job, in the press shop here, is to work with folks -- working on
broadcast reports, radio reports, print reports, book, prose, poems,
short films -- (laughter) --<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Haiku.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Haiku. (Laughter.) All that kind of stuff.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Are you aware of -- on the anecdote that Brianna was talking
about, are you aware of Robert Gibbs apologizing to the First Lady about
that? Is that something the President was upset about?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: While I was at the White House I wasn’t in those
meetings at that time and I don’t have anything more for you on it. What
I can tell you is that Robert is, as you know, focused on helping the
President get reelected. He is out there, every bit as much of the team
and a member of the team now as he was back then. And then I would just
point you to what I said before about these are high-pressure jobs with a
lot at stake. But the fact of the matter is, the overall story here is
how collegial and harmonious and focused everyone is here on the task at
hand.<br />
<br />
Stephen.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: What’s the White House’s response to these attacks on the
President by Republican candidates over Iran, saying that his policies,
sanctions policies are feckless, weak and ineffective?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Again, I don’t have anything specific to those
criticisms. I’m pretty clear about what our approach is to Iran. We have
sanctions that are unprecedented, that are having demonstrable effect
on the Iranian economy. Iran is isolated in a way that it’s never been,
and the pressure on Iran is significant and increasing. We will continue
to work with our international partners to pressure Iran to change its
behavior, to abide by its international obligations.<br />
<br />
And I think, stepping back, this President’s approach to foreign
policy, the successes he’s had I think are pretty clear. So when that
debate comes he’ll be ready to engage in it.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Can I just follow?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> Let me get some more folks in the front row.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Let me go back to the book -- sorry, Jay. Has the President or
the First Lady responded at all to this so far? And then, secondly,
what’s the response to sort of the overarching theme in the book of the
First Lady’s what seems to be unhappiness with her role or seemed to be
back then, and what’s described as living in a “bunker-like atmosphere”
of the White House?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> Well, I would point you now to -- because obviously she
wasn’t interviewed for this book, but she has given interviews and
answered this question as recently as in the last few weeks about the
remarkable privilege she feels she’s been given to be First Lady and how
she feels blessed by the opportunity to be First Lady. So I would point
you to the First Lady’s words to answer that question.<br />
And broadly, I think you have to remember that the story here is of a
husband and wife, a mother and father whose lives were enormously
different five or six years ago from what they are and what they were
when they came to the White House. And that’s an incredible transition
that I think observers rightly point out has been done with remarkable
grace and success in terms of the priorities that the President has set
for himself and for the country, and in terms of the priorities that the
First Lady has set for herself and for her family.<br />
So that’s my reaction.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: But have they reacted personally to it?</i><br />
<br />
<b>MR. CARNEY</b>: No. My guess is they both have a lot on their plate.
Maybe they’ve seen a story or two, but it’s probably not something
they’re going to spend a lot of time reading. Don’t forget, there are
tons of books written about this White House, this administration, this
President, this First Lady. This is just another one of them. So my
guess is they stay focused on the things that matter most to them.<br />
<br />
Kate and then Bill.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: What is the White House doing to prepare for challenges from
Congress -- for recess appointments? What is the counsel’s office doing?
Any conversations with members of Congress?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> I don’t have any specific conversations or meetings to
report. You know our position. We feel very strongly about the legal
foundation for the course of action the President took. The fact of the
matter is -- and again, if you have any doubts, please head up to the
Hill and check out for yourself -- Congress is in recess. Chambers are
empty. The halls are quiet.<br />
<br />
Senate Republicans, despite overwhelming support across the country
from Republicans and Democrats, attorneys general, decided to block this
nominee and prevent middle-class Americans from having a watchdog
looking out for their interests here in Washington.<br />
<br />
Like I said before, financial institutions have a lot of well-paid
lobbyists in Washington working with Congress to try to get their
interests served. The American people deserve, and this President
believes they deserve, a consumer watchdog whose only job is to make
sure that they’re protected from abusive practices, and that’s why the
President took the action he did.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Can we expect more recess appointments while Congress is in recess?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> I don’t have any announcements with regard to appointments to make today.<br />
Q: And also General Dempsey said the U.S. would take action to open
the Strait of Hormuz if Iran closes it. What kind of preparations -- I
mean, what kind of action is he referring to specifically?<br />
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to the Department of Defense for
any specifics. We’re very confident in our capabilities. And I’ll leave
it at that.<br />
<br />
Julia. I’m sorry, Bill, yes. Then Julia.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Going back to the American prisoner in Iran. You said that you’d
heard reports. Do you not have any official word from the Swiss that he
--</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> We’re working through the Swiss protecting powers to
confirm those reports. I’m not saying that we doubt them. I’m just
saying that we’ve seen the reports and we’re working with the Swiss who
represent us -- or with whom we work to represent us in Tehran in our
dealings with the Iranian government.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: So no official word yet?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY</b></u>: Again, that’s right. That’s what I just said. We’re working with the Swiss to do that.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: This death sentence that he’s reported to have received is
subject, we understand, to confirmation by a larger supreme tribunal of
some kind. So will the U.S. be pushing to have it reversed?</i><br />
<br />
<b><u>MR. CARNEY:</u></b> Well, we’re pushing very clearly, as I just stated, that
Iran release him. I clearly stated, and others have, that the charges
against him are false and we want to see him released. I mean, the
intricacies of the judicial process in Iran are not what interests us
here. Our interest is in seeing him released.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: You said he’s definitely not CIA?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> That’s right.<br />
Kristen.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Thanks, Jay. Angela Merkel and Sarkozy met today to discuss the
European debt crisis. Has the President been briefed on the meeting? Has
he made any phone calls to them?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> I don’t have any phone calls to report. He may have been
briefed on it at his presidential daily briefing earlier today. I don’t
know that for sure, but I’m sure he’s aware of it. We continue to work
with our European partners --the President does, Secretary Geithner
does, others involved in this area do -- and we continue to monitor the
progress that European leaders are making towards ensuring that the
right measures are taken and are in place to stabilize that situation
and bring it to a decisive conclusion.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: And given the current situation, how much concern is there in the
administration that more European countries will see ratings agencies
downgrade?</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY:</b></u> Well, our concern about the potential for that situation
to worsen has been there and continues to be there. We’ve seen some
progress by the Europeans. There’s more work to be done.<br />
<br />
It’s always a reminder in this case that we need to focus on the
things that we have control over that can strengthen our economy,
improve prospects for growth and job creation. That’s why the President
will work with Congress to extend fully the payroll tax cut, to extend
fully unemployment insurance. And he hopes to pass other measures of the
American Jobs Act that will put people to work and grow our economy.<br />
<br />
You need that kind of insurance in a global economy like this
because, whether it’s Europe or other shocks that we saw in the global
economy last year -- the Arab Spring and its effect on oil prices, the
earthquake and tsunami and its effect on global supply chains -- these
are the kinds of things that you sometimes can’t predict, or often can’t
predict, that have effects on the economy. You need to do the things
you can do.<br />
That’s what the American people sent this President here to do.
That’s what the American people sent the members of Congress to
Washington to do. And I think that they need to focus on that challenge
when those members of Congress return to Washington. It would be I think
a great gift to the American people if, upon reflection over the
recess, members of Congress -- Republicans in particular -- decided that
cooperation was the right way to go for the sake of the economy. Let’s
extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance without drama,
without brinkmanship -- brinksmanship.<br />
<br />
Let’s take up the measures in the
American Jobs Act that have been left undone that have traditionally
enjoyed bipartisan support. Let’s get that done for the American people.
Let’s show them that we can work together on their priorities.<br />
<br />
I’m going to have to -- let’s do two more. Julia.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: On extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for a
year, has the President yet reached out to conferees before they return
to Congress? And what concessions specifically in relation to
unemployment insurance might the President be willing to make? The House
Republicans did propose making some changes to unemployment insurance
that would restrict those who qualified.</i><br />
<br />
<u><b>MR. CARNEY: </b></u>Well, the President put forward in his own proposal
reforms to unemployment insurance, and I refer you to the American Jobs
Act for that.<br />
<br />
In terms of overall concessions, let’s just be clear here. These are
things that the American people believe are necessary. These are things
that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. This is a tax cut
for 160 million Americans. With regards to the unemployment insurance
extension, economists across the board recognize that extending the
unemployment insurance benefit is vital not just to the people who
receive it but to the economy because that money is injected right into
the economic bloodstream and has a significant impact on growth and job
creation.<br />
<br />
I don’t think House Republicans are in a position if they’re serious
about growth and job creation to try to play politics with this. We saw
how that went not that long ago, and I think the American people would
be extremely disappointed if that approach were taken again. We can do
this. We can do it quickly and without drama, and we can move on to the
other priorities that the American people have.<br />
<br />
One more. Yes, ma’am.<br />
<br />
<i>Q: Thanks, Jay. On North Korea, North Korea announced yesterday that
North Korea never, ever give up their nuclear programs. How do you
respond on this?</i><br />
<br />
<b><u>MR. CARNEY</u></b>: I would have to refer you to the State Department. I don’t have specific response on that.<br />
Thank you all very much.<br />
END 1:41 P.M. EST</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>Branson Missourihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14881254309349130491noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8942759916598150341.post-21914081760359780002012-01-09T13:05:00.000-08:002012-01-09T13:11:10.276-08:00US Secretary of Defense Statement on Strategic Guidance (Full Text )<table width="100%" bgcolor="FFFFFF" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td><table width="600" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="108" align="left"><img src="http://www.defense.gov/graphics/DODc-small.gif" alt="Seal of the Department of Defense" width="100" border="" height="100" /></td> <td width="492" align="left"> <span style=" font-weight: bold;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;" >U.S. Department of Defense</span><br /> <span style=" ;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;" >Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)</span><br /> <span style="font: 24px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#606783;" >Speech</span> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="50%" align="left"> <span style=" ;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;" >On the Web: </span><br /><a style="font: normal 10px Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #1B1E47;" href="http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1643" title="Web link for this Page">http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1643</a><br /> <span style=" ;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;" >Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132</span></td> <td width="2%"><br /></td> <td valign="top" width="48%" align="left"> <span style=" ;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;" >Public contact:<br /> <a href="http://www.defense.gov/landing/comment.aspx" style="font: normal 10px Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #1B1E47;" title="Click here to contact Public Relations">http://www.defense.gov/landing/comment.aspx</a><br /> or +1 (703) 571-3343</span></td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table width="100%" bgcolor="FFFFFF" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" height="2"><hr size="1" noshade="noshade"></td></tr> <tr> <td> <div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color: #000000;" align="left">Statement on Defense Strategic Guidance</div> <div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: #000000;" align="left"><i>As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, Press Briefing Room, The Pentagon, Washington, DC, Thursday, January 05, 2012</i></div> </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="2"><hr size="1" noshade="noshade"></td></tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"> <div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: #000000;"><p> Let me begin by thanking President Obama for coming here to the Pentagon this morning, and also in particular to thank him for his vision and guidance and leadership as this department went through a very intensive review that we undertook to try to develop the new strategic guidance that we're releasing today. </p> <p> And in my experience, this has been an unprecedented process, to have the President of the United States participate in discussions involving the development of a defense strategy, and to spend time with our service chiefs and spend time with our combatant commanders to get their views. It's truly unprecedented. </p> <p> This guidance that we are releasing today, and which has been distributed now throughout the department -- it really does represent a historic shift to the future. And it recognizes that this country is at a strategic turning point, after a decade of war and after large increases in defense spending. </p> <p> As the president mentioned, the U.S. military's mission in Iraq has now ended. We do have continued progress in Afghanistan. It's tough, and it remains challenging, but we are beginning to enable a transition to Afghan security responsibility. The NATO effort in Libya has concluded with the fall of Gadhafi. And targeted counterterrorism efforts have significantly weakened al-Qaida and decimated its leadership. </p> <p> And now, as these events are occurring -- and the Congress has mandated, by law, that we achieve significant defense savings. So clearly, we are at a turning point. </p> <p> But even as our large-scale military campaigns recede, the United States still faces complex and growing array of security challenges across the globe. And unlike past drawdowns when oftentimes the threats that the country was facing went away, the fact is that there remain a number of challenges that we have to confront, challenges that call for reshaping of America's defense priorities: focusing on the continuing threat of violent extremism, which is still there and still to be dealt with; proliferation of lethal weapons and materials; the destabilizing behavior of nations like Iran and North Korea; the rise of new powers across Asia; and the dramatic changes that we've seen unfold in the Middle East. </p> <p> All of this comes at a time when America confronts a very serious deficit and debt problem here at home, a problem which is itself a national security risk that is squeezing both the defense and domestic budgets. Even as we face these considerable pressures, including the requirement of the Budget Control Act to reduce defense spending by what we have now as the number of $487 billion over 10 years, I do not believe -- and I've said this before -- that we have to choose between our national security and fiscal responsibility. The Department of Defense will play its part in helping the nation put our fiscal house in order. </p> <p> The president has made clear, and I've made clear, that the savings that we've been mandated to achieve must be driven by strategy and must be driven by rigorous analysis, not by numbers alone.</p> <p> Consequently, over the last few months, we've conducted an intensive review to try to guide defense priorities and spending over the coming decade, all of this in light of the strategic guidance that we received in discussions with the president and the recommendations of this department's both senior military and civilian leadership. Both of them provided those kinds of recommendations. This process has enabled us to assess risk, to set priorities and to make some very hard choices.</p> <p> Let me be clear again. The department would need to make a strategic shift regardless of the nation's fiscal situation. We are at that point in history. That's the reality of the world we live in. Fiscal crisis has forced us to face the strategic shift that's taking place now. </p> <p> As difficult as it may be to achieve the mandated defense savings, this has given all of us in the Department of Defense the opportunity to reshape our defense strategy and force structure to more effectively meet the challenges of the future -- to deter aggression, to shape the security environment and to decisively prevail in any conflict. </p> <p> From the beginning, I set out to ensure that this strategy review would be inclusive. Chairman Dempsey and I met frequently with department leaders, including our undersecretaries, the service chiefs, the service secretaries, the combatant commanders, our senior enlisted advisers. We also discussed this strategy and its implications, obviously, with the president, his national security advisers, with members of Congress and with outside experts. </p> <p> There are four over-arching principles that have guided our deliberations, and I've said this at the very beginning as we began this process. One, we must maintain the world's finest military, one that supports and sustains the unique global leadership role of the United States in today's world. </p> <p> Two, we must avoid hollowing out the force -- a smaller, ready, and well-equipped military is much more preferable to a larger, ill-prepared force that has been arbitrarily cut across the board. </p> <p> Third, savings must be achieved in a balanced manner, with everything on the table, including politically sensitive areas that will likely provoke opposition from parts of the Congress, from industry and from advocacy groups. </p> <p> That's the nature of making hard choices. </p> <p> Four, we must preserve the quality of the all-volunteer force and not break faith with our men and women in uniform or their families. With these principles in mind, I'll focus on some of the significant strategic choices and shifts that are being made. </p> <p> The United States military -- let me be very clear about this -- the United States military will remain capable across the spectrum. We will continue to conduct a complex set of missions ranging from counterterrorism, ranging from countering weapons of mass destruction, to maintaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. We will be fully prepared to protect our interests, defend our homeland and support civil authorities. </p> <p> Our goal to achieve the U.S. force for the future involves the following significant changes. </p> <p> First, the U.S. joint force will be smaller, and it will be leaner. But its great strength will be that it will be more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly, innovative, and technologically advanced. That is the force for the future. </p> <p> Second, as we move towards this new joint force, we are also rebalancing our global posture and presence, emphasizing the Pacific and the Middle East. </p> <p> These are the areas where we see the greatest challenges for the future. The U.S. military will increase its institutional weight and focus on enhanced presence, power projection, and deterrence in Asia- Pacific. </p> <p> This region is growing in importance to the future of the United States in terms of our economy and our national security. This means, for instance, improving capabilities that maintain our military's technological edge and freedom of action. At the same time, the United States will place a premium in maintaining our military presence and capabilities in the broader Middle East. The United States and our partners must remain capable of deterring and defeating aggression while supporting political progress and reform. </p> <p> Third, the United States will continue to strengthen its key alliances, to build partnerships and to develop innovative ways to sustain U.S. presence elsewhere in the world. A long history of close political and military cooperation with our European allies and partners will be critical to addressing the challenges of the 21st century. We will invest in the shared capabilities and responsibilities of NATO, our most effective military alliance. </p> <p> The U.S. military's force posture in Europe will, of necessity, continue to adapt and evolve to meet new challenges and opportunities, particularly in light of the security needs of the continent relative to the emerging strategic priorities that we face elsewhere. We are committed to sustaining a presence that will meet our Article 5 commitments, deter aggression, and the U.S. military will work closely with our allies to allow for the kinds of coalition operations that NATO has undertaken in Libya and Afghanistan. </p> <p> In Latin America, Africa, elsewhere in the world, we will use innovative methods to sustain U.S. presence, maintaining key military-to-military relations and pursuing new security partnerships as needed. Wherever possible, we will develop low-cost and small- footprint approaches to achieving our security objectives, emphasizing rotational deployments, emphasizing exercises -- military exercises with these nations, and doing other innovative approaches to maintain a presence throughout the rest of the world. </p> <p> Fourth, as we shift the size and composition of our ground, air and naval forces, we must be capable of successfully confronting and defeating any aggressor and respond to the changing nature of warfare. Our strategy review concluded that the United States must have the capability to fight several conflicts at the same time. We are not confronting, obviously, the threats of the past; we are confronting the threats of the 21st century. And that demands greater flexibility to shift and deploy forces to be able to fight and defeat any enemy anywhere. How we defeat the enemy may very well vary across conflicts. But make no mistake, we will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time. </p> <p> As a global force, our military will never be doing only one thing. It will be responsible for a range of missions and activities across the globe of varying scope, duration, and strategic priority. This will place a premium on flexible and adaptable forces that can respond quickly and effectively to a variety of contingencies and potential adversaries. Again, that's the nature of the world that we are dealing with. In addition to these forces, the United States will emphasize building the capacity of our partners and allies to more effectively defend their own territory, their own interests, through a better use of diplomacy, development, and security force assistance. </p> <p> In accordance with this construct, and with the end of U.S. military commitments in Iraq and the drawdown that is already under way in Afghanistan, the Army and Marine Corps will no longer need to be sized to support the kind of large-scale, long-term stability operations that have dominated military priorities and force generation over the past decade. </p> <p> Lastly, as we reduce the overall defense budget, we will protect, and in some cases increase, our investments in special operations forces, in new technologies like ISR and unmanned systems, in space -- and, in particular, in cyberspace --capabilities, and also our capacity to quickly mobilize if necessary. </p> <p> These investments will help the military retain and continue to refine and institutionalize the expertise and capabilities that have been gained at such great cost over the last decade.</p> <p> And most importantly, we will structure and pace the reductions in the nation's ground forces in such a way that they can surge, regenerate and mobilize capabilities needed for any contingency. Building in reversibility and the ability to quickly mobilize will be key. That means re-examining the mix of elements in the active and Reserve components. It means maintaining a strong National Guard and Reserve. It means retaining a healthy cadre of experienced NCOs and mid-grade officers and preserving the health and viability of the nation's defense industrial base. </p> <p> The strategic guidance that we're providing is the first step in this department's goal to build the joint force of 2020, a force sized and shaped differently than the military of the Cold War, the post- Cold War force of the 1990s, or the force that was built over the past decade to engage in large-scale ground wars.</p> <p> This strategy and vision will guide the more specific budget decisions that will be finalized and announced in the coming weeks as part of the president's budget. In some cases, we will be reducing capabilities that we believe no longer are a top priority. </p> <p> But in other cases, we will invest in new capabilities to maintain a decisive military edge against a growing array of threats. There's no question -- there's no question -- that we have to make some trade-offs and that we will be taking, as a result of that, some level of additional but acceptable risk in the budget plan that we release next month. These are not easy choices. </p> <p> We will continue aggressive efforts to weed out waste, reduce overhead, to reform business practices, to consolidate our duplicative operations. But budget reductions of this magnitude will inevitably impact the size and capabilities of our military. And as I said before, true national security cannot be achieved through a strong military alone. It requires strong diplomacy. It requires strong intelligence efforts. And above all, it requires a strong economy, fiscal discipline and effective government. </p> <p> The capability, readiness and agility of the force will not be sustained if Congress fails to do its duty and the military is forced to accept far deeper cuts, in particular, the arbitrary, across-the- board cuts that are currently scheduled to take effect in January of 2013 through the mechanism of sequester. That would force us to shed missions and commitments and capabilities that we believe are necessary to protect core U.S. national security interests. </p> <p> And it would result in what we think would be a demoralized and hollow force. That is not something that we intend to do.</p> <p> And finally, I'd like to also address our men and women in uniform, and the civilian employees who support them, whom I -- who I know have been watching the budget debates here in Washington with concern about what it means for them and for their families. You have done everything this country has asked you to do and more. </p> <p> You have put your lives on the line, and you have fought to make our country safer and stronger. I believe the strategic guidance honors your sacrifice and strengthens the country by building a force equipped to deal with the future. I have no higher responsibility than fighting to protect you and to protect your families. And just as you have fought and bled to protect our country, I commit to you that I will fight for you and for your families. </p> <p> There is no doubt that the fiscal situation this country faces is difficult, and in many ways we are at a crisis point. But I believe that in every crisis there is opportunity. Out of this crisis, we have the opportunity to end the old ways of doing business and to build a modern force for the 21st century that can win today's wars and successfully confront any enemy, and respond to any threat and any challenge of the future. </p> <p> Our responsibility -- my responsibility as secretary of defense -- is to protect the nation's security and to keep America safe. With this joint force, I am confident that we can effectively defend the United States of America. </p> <p> Thank you.</p> </div></td></tr></tbody></table>Missouri Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12274040607585372100noreply@blogger.com0