Presidential Politics

State of the Union 2012 (Speech Transcript and Enhanced Video)

2012-01-25T07:14:00.000-08:00

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 24, 2012

Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address

United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.

9:10 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Those are the facts. But so are these: In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. (Applause.)
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.)
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.)
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.
Now, this blueprint begins with American manufacturing.
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.
We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back. (Applause.)
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.)

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.
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.
But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
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.
That doesn’t make sense.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.”
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.
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END
10:16 P.M. EST

President Barack Obama Tourism Speech Delivered at Disneyworld

2012-01-20T02:39:00.000-08:00

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 19, 2012
Remarks by President Barack Obama Unveiling a Strategy to Help Boost Travel and Tourism

Walt Disney World Resort
Orlando, Florida

12:40 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) I am glad to be at Disney World! (Applause.) The Magic Kingdom. This is outstanding.

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.

Obama asks for Betty White's Birth Certificate

2012-01-19T07:03:00.000-08:00

TEXT
Dear Betty,

You look so fantastic and full of energy, I can’t believe you’re 90 years old. In fact, I don’t believe it.

That’s why I’m writing to ask if you will produce a copy of your long-form birth certificate.

Thanks, and happy birthday, no matter how old you are.

Courtesy NBC, Mediaite - Event Documented Jan 17, 2012

White House Responds To SOPA - Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet

2012-01-19T03:54:00.000-08:00

Official White House Response to Stop the E-PARASITE Act. and 1 other petition

Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet

By Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra, and Howard Schmidt

Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and actions illustrate the importance of maintaining an open and democratic Internet.

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.

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.

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. 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.

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. 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.

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. 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 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.

This is not just a matter for legislation. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget

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

Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff

White House Press Briefing en route Orlanda, FL

2012-01-19T02:15:00.000-08:00

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 19, 2012
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route Orlando, Florida, 1/19/2012

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Orlando, Florida

11:03 A.M. EST

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are a variety of other initiatives attached to this and I think you have the paper on them.

With that, I will take your questions.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Q So, given all that, it would --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

But in terms of how the review process works, I would refer you to the State Department.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q Do you guys have the news on up front?

MR. CARNEY: I did in my cabin, yes.

Q Has the President seen Perry’s dropout?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q So no reaction from the President on that?

MR. CARNEY: None to report.

Q Is Bryson with him?

MR. CARNEY: Bryson is on board. Yes, Secretary Bryson is on board.

Q Anyone else we didn’t see?

MR. CARNEY: No, I don’t think so, but I could check.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q But I mean, he’s still going to talk --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q So he’s going to continue to harp on that theme, even next week and the --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q That’s not the full review I thought we were going to get. I mean, there was a big windup there.

Q That was good, that was good.

MR. CARNEY: You want more? Because I got more.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: That’s the tourism industry --

Q Right, but that’s not specific to what the President is proposing?

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.

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.

Q Is the President more of a Disney World or a Disneyland kind of guy? (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: The President is very excited about visiting Disney World today.

Q His second-favorite Disney theme park, in the state of Florida with 29 electoral votes.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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 --

Q The fake Statue of Liberty is more iconic than the real Statue of Liberty?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: You know, I --

Q They just happen to be in battleground states.

MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the Department of Homeland Security for that.

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?

MR. CARNEY: I would have to take that question. I don’t know.

Q Okay, thanks.

MR. CARNEY: Anybody got anything else? Anybody have a favorite ride, experience?

Q I want to go on Magic Mountain.

Q Alister Bull of Reuters was just talking about Magic Mountain since the first thing he arrived at Andrews. (Laughter.)

Q Did the President say --

MR. CARNEY: Space Mountain, right? Isn’t it --

Q There’s Space Mountain and Magic Mountain.

MR. CARNEY: I did Space Mountain a lot.

Q Space Mountain is in the dark. That’s a good one, too.

MR. CARNEY: You know what’s great is the -- is it the Tower of Terror or something -- like the one with the -- what is it called?

Q -- with the drop?

MR. CARNEY: Yes. What’s that called?

Q It’s Tower of Terror.

MR. CARNEY: Yes, I always -- with the Twilight Zone theme? Fantastic.

Q Did the President say anything about what his daughters’ reaction was to his coming for the first time to Disney World without them?

MR. CARNEY: He didn’t. I know I didn’t tell my kids because it would be --

Q Have the girls been to Disney World before, or Disneyland?

MR. CARNEY: I have to check. I don’t know.

Q Is there any chance the President is going to do a ride?

MR. CARNEY: We have no plans for that.

Q OTR to Space Mountain.

Q Thanks, Jay.

MR. CARNEY: All right, good to see you all.

Q Thank you.

END
11:20 A.M. EST

White House Press Briefing January 18, 2012

2012-01-18T13:44:00.000-08:00

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 18, 2012
Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/18/12
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:44 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

More details, including information about the President’s events and media credentialing, will be released as they are available.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So I am simply reviewing the facts as we know them.

Q Yes, but he signed the law that says he had to do that.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q The facts are the law says that --

MR. CARNEY: Let me get Erica.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q And just to be clear, are you saying that there has not been a decision made, or you're not --

MR. CARNEY: I'm not saying one way or the other regarding that.

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.)

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

So that would be my answer to that criticism.

Jake.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q What would have happened if the President hadn’t intervened? If the President hadn’t --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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?

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.

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.

Q Would you clear this up, though?

MR. CARNEY: Sure.

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.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q The logical extension of that would be that the President would find that it’s not in the national interest, just go ahead --

MR. CARNEY: 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?

Q Doesn’t he have to do it?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: He’s not okay with the original route. That was one of the primary reasons why this --

Q But he said it should go forward while an alternate route is looked at, though.

MR. CARNEY: You don’t grant a permit for a pipeline with a significant portion of it missing.

Q Yes, but you keep citing that he’s opposed, but he’s saying --

MR. CARNEY: He was opposed --

Q Before.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

I want to go to Alister.

Q Can we stay on this?

MR. CARNEY: Yes, we can.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

Ann.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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. \

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.

Mr. Henry, again.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: The President has always made clear --

Q -- wipe Israel off the map?

MR. CARNEY: -- 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.

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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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.

April.

Q Hi, Jay. Back on Keystone, realistically, a timeline
-- 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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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 --

Q You’re giving us answers, so you didn’t take issue --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I’ve been reviewing facts that have been true prior to today.

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.

Q -- in a 60-day process?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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.

Kristen.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q And you’re confident that this investigation --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Laura.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not going anywhere. You know you guys can ask me questions. I’m here most days.

Q Okay. All right.

MR. CARNEY: You’re welcome to fill a seat.

Q I'll call you after the decision comes out.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Margaret.

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.

Q No, good question.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me make two points --

Q -- begin at the complete beginning?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Lesley, and then Jackie.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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 --

Q -- a few days out of the Florida primary being started, it has nothing to do with --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q Can I follow up on that?

MR. CARNEY: Sure.

Q Is the President disappointed that Senator Nelson won’t be with him tomorrow in Orlando?

MR. CARNEY: I’m not aware of any opinion he’s expressed on that.

Q Apart from general State of the Union follow-up, what’s the message next week on this five-state tour?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Brianna. I’m sorry. Did I miss you this whole time?

Q I didn't consider it --

MR. CARNEY: Okay.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q But wouldn’t it serve him --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q These are private sector jobs. They don’t require any expenditure by government.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

George. Oh, Jackie, I said you next.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: Everybody hear that? (Laughter.)

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.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: Anybody else? George, I owe you, and then that will be it.

Q Yes, I just wanted to clarify --

MR. CARNEY: And then Cheryl, I know you’re dying in the back there, sorry.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Cheryl.

Q Two personnel issues -- I know you love talking about that. Are you considering --

MR. CARNEY: I have no personnel announcements to make.

Q Is the President considering Larry Summers to head the World Bank?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any personnel announcements to make.

Q And is the President actively looking for a new OMB director, or is Jeff Zients going to stick around for a while?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q Has the President talked to Prime Minister Harper?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any foreign calls to announce.

Q So he hasn’t talked to him?

MR. CARNEY: I just said I don’t have any foreign calls to announce.

Thanks.

Q Will we have the President on Keystone?

MR. CARNEY: Am I the warm-up act?

Q Yes.

MR. CARNEY: I have no -- nothing more to say on the matter.

END 2:35 P.M. EST

2012-01-17T12:53:00.000-08:00

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 17, 2012
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/17/12

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:53 P.M. EST

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

So we support this progress, but we obviously recognize that there's a long road to travel here to get to a final result.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Let me move around -- Bill.

Q Jay, is Newt Gingrich correct in calling our President "the food stamp President"?

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.

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.

Q But the language that the speaker uses is that these are people that President Obama put on the food stamps.

MR. CARNEY: Well, you know as well as I do that that's crazy.

April.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Dan, did you have one?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Q When the President views the economy overall, what does he rate it at right now? Where does he see it?

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.

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.

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 --

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.

Jake.

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?

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.

So we will implement the law in a way that makes that achievable.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I have no updates for you on -- since the law was just passed and signed.

Q There's no update to --

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.

Q Would you disagree with the way that the civil liberties groups and Rick Santorum are interpreting the law? I mean, is it not --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would just refer you to the President's statement -- signing statement about it.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Yes, Norah.

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?

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.

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.

Q But Mitt Romney is just following the law, isn't he?

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.

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.

MR. CARNEY: Well -- what's the question? Sorry. (Laughter.)

Q Yes. Chomping at the bit. (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: I was anticipating. But go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q Why should he have to release his tax records?

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.

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.

Q Can I just follow on Bill’s question about --

Q Just happened to know that? (Laughter.)

Q I just want to follow on Bill’s question about Gingrich last night saying that --

MR. CARNEY: I'm a student of presidential politics.

Yes.

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?

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 --

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?

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.

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.

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.

Ari.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Yes, Ed.

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?

MR. CARNEY: I said that he spends. I do a lot of reading, Ed. (Laughter.) He didn’t tell me about that.

Q So your percentage is what, 30 or 40 percent?

MR. CARNEY: No, no, no, I just read that in probably an article that one of your colleagues wrote.

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?

MR. CARNEY: I’d refer you to the campaign. I mean, I think --

Q Is it a question you could take --

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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: Or maybe six or seven. I mean, some jobs, that’s right.

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?

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 --

Q Right, but the certification is sitting on his desk right now. So you say he’s taking action --

MR. CARNEY: No, no, no, no, no.

Q -- it’s ready to act on right now.

MR. CARNEY: What certification? You mean the --

Q The 60-day clock started running on the President signing --

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 --

Q Excuse me, but the President signed that into law, correct, even though you say it’s ideological?

MR. CARNEY: And you --

Q He signed it into law, though, right? Did he?

MR. CARNEY: You apparently know that there is no alternate route yet in Nebraska, right?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Q So shouldn’t the council report say we could create hundreds of thousands of jobs if we wait three or four years?

MR. CARNEY: I understand that you’re trying to conflate --

Q But there’s an expectation that you’re creating jobs.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, Jerry.

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?

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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: I have none to report.

Q Does he think that there’s a point to be made about super PACs?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I just haven't had the -- I haven't spent my valuable time with him today talking about these issues.

Q And lastly, if I could go 0-for-4, does the President have --

MR. CARNEY: You could try one that I can answer. (Laughter.)

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?

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.

Q So the choice was made based on the size of the venue?

MR. CARNEY: Yes. He wants as many Americans as possible -- as was the case in 2008 -- to be able to participate.

Ann.

Q Want to move the State of the Union to a stadium? (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: That would be a great idea. (Laughter.)

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Q Sounds pretty familiar.

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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: I'm not going to preview specific elements of the State of the Union address from here today.

Kristen.

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?

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.

Q Do you know if there have been any phone calls, letters written, sort of ahead of sending the legislation?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Q Jay.

MR. CARNEY: Steve.

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?

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.

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.

Q So you take the Israeli position to be what was expressed in the interview with The Australian, and not what Netanyahu has said --

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.

Ken.

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?

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.

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.

Q The Italian cruise ship? The Italian ship?

MR. CARNEY: Yes, Connie.

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?

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.

Q Is President Obama going to call the Italian --

MR. CARNEY: I don't have any updates on foreign leader calls.

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?

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.

Chris.

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?

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.

Q -- very misleading generally speaking --*

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.

Yes, Washington Times.

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 --

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 --

Q What specific policies --

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.

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.

Yes, and then all the way in the back.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Q But he understands that they're -- some of them are very disappointed with the type of --

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.

Q Thanks.

MR. CARNEY: Thank you very much.

Q Happy birthday to the First Lady.

MR. CARNEY: Thank you very much, on her behalf.

END
1:43 P.M. EST

Stopping Iran's Nukes Takes 4 Pronged Approach - JPOST

2012-01-16T07:57:00.000-08:00

Combination of covert operations, sanctions, diplomatic pressure, military threat necessary against Iran.

By Jerusalem Post EDITORIAL
01/15/2012 22:07

Original Document URL

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 learning to live with a nuclear Iran.

It has been five years 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 side effects. 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.

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.

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.”

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.

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 alternative trade ties with Russia, China and several South and Central American countries.

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.

A new US law that would penalize foreign companies that do business 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.

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.

MLK Hate Crime Prevented By FBI 2011

2012-01-16T03:21:00.001-08:00


On January 17, 2011, as hundreds of people gathered (above) in downtown Spokane to participate in the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Unity March, 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.

MLK Parade Bomber
Horrific Hate Crime Prevented; Case Solved

01/13/12

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.

A Bomb Designed to Kill

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).

“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.”

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.”

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.”

“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.”

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.


	Listen: FBI Special Agent Frank Harrill Discusses the Case.

Investigators also learned of Harpham’s white supremacy postings on the Internet and his affiliation with a neo-Nazi group called the National Alliance.

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.

“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.”

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.”

FBI Top Ten News Stories Week Ending Jan 13, 2012

2012-01-14T04:03:00.000-08:00

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012

Washington, D.C. January 13, 2012

FBI National Press Office (202) 324-3691

Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in TampaA 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. Full Story
Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al ShabaabA 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. Full Story
Salt Lake City: Update on Sherry Arnold DisappearanceOne 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. Full Story
Houston: Harris County Constable and Others ArrestedFBI agents arrested long-time Harris County Precinct One Constable Jack Abercia, his chief lieutenant, and his office chief on federal public corruption charges. Full Story
Detroit: Fifteen Individuals Indicted in Large-Scale Drug Conspiracy CaseFifteen 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. Full Story
Norfolk: Bounty Hunter Bloods Gang Member Sentenced for Attempted MurderDraindell 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. Full Story
Milwaukee: Former Police Officer Convicted of Sexually Assaulting WomanA 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. Full Story
El Paso: Federal Life Sentences Handed Down in Double Murder InvestigationFrancisco Sauseda and Armando Sauseda, Sr., were sentenced to life in federal prison for their roles in two drug-related homicides in 2009. Full Story
Anchorage: Fairbanks Man Sentenced for Role in Drug ConspiracySaepharn was sentenced to 78 months in prison and five years’ supervised release for his 2010 distribution of methamphetamine. Full Story
New Haven: New Haven Man Charged with Orchestrating Arsons to Further Development PlansAngelo 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. Full Story

White House Press Briefing Jan 12, 2012

2012-01-13T09:18:00.000-08:00

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 12, 2012

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/12/2012

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

PRESS BRIEFING
BY PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY

1:42 P.M. EST

Q Contacts?

MR. CARNEY: I’ll never tell.

Q Can you see?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

With that bit of irrelevant information, I will go straight to questions. I have no announcements to make.

Ben.

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.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q But the condemnation -- I’m correct in saying the condemnation from the White House extends to anybody behind it, any party, any country?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q Okay. So you can’t say either way whether --

MR. CARNEY: Again, I won’t speak for any other country.

Q Did the President address the incident in his conversation with the Prime Minister?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

(Cell phone rings.)

Q Sorry.

MR. CARNEY: I was going to welcome Jake back. (Laughter.)

Q What song is that?

Q That’s Snoop Dogg, yes.

MR. CARNEY: Fantastic.

Q Sorry, out of practice of putting it on silent.

MR. CARNEY: Actually, I kind of liked it. But yes.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

MR. CARNEY: Jake, welcome back.

Q Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: Do you have a question for me?

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

Q And the message to the families or the troops that have served there?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: Let me go up and back here. Cheryl.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

Having said that, I have no new information and I’d refer you to the State Department about that process.

Jessica.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

Q Does the White House agree that it was necessary for some people to lose jobs in order to save the industry?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q And is that similar to what Mitt Romney did at Bain Capital?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Bill.

Q 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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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 --

Q But it does mean that the power will continue, the potential for that will continue for whoever the next President is.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

April.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Mark.

Q Jay, in your comments on the Marine video, did you intend to suggest that it may not be what it appears to be?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q But you don’t have any suggestion that it’s not genuine?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q But he’ll take action by the deadline in the bill that he signed?

MR. CARNEY: He signed a bill into law, so I would refer you to the State Department about how that will be taken under consideration.

Yes, Matt.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Ed.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

Welcome back. Everybody is back now. Did something happen? Is there a lull in the action or something?

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?

MR. CARNEY: The administration is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Q So it’s fair to say that covert action would be on the table?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q But you can say definitively that it wouldn’t be the policy of the United States to covertly assassinate people?

MR. CARNEY: Well, look, I -

Q Or be involved in some sort of attempt like that.

MR. CARNEY: What we’ve said is that we deplore the violence, deplore the action --

Q This violence? Or the violence of all of the assassinations --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q How concerned are you about retaliation? Is the U.S. government concerned about retaliation?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q If Iran decides to retaliate on Israel in a military way, U.S. response would be what?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q Was there any concern, by the way, of making that readout public, because it might feed the conspiracy theorists in Iran?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q And just one final question. Any reason why you kept cameras away from the President visiting his campaign reelection headquarters?

MR. CARNEY: It was an OTR. I think it was a brief -- a brief drop-by.

Q You guys love when we cover OTRs at delis, at barbeque restaurants.

MR. CARNEY: I think this was --

Q Campaign reelection headquarters, that’s not --

MR. CARNEY: -- 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 --

Q So you weren’t concerned that pictures of this would make it look otherwise?

MR. CARNEY: 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 --

Q A little bit. You try to minimize it.

MR. CARNEY: 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 --

Q And Chuck’s point is that if he makes a rare visit to his campaign headquarters --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q Can I follow up on Chuck’s question?

MR. CARNEY: Let me move around. Julia.

Q Yes, thanks, Jay.

MR. CARNEY: Up and back, as I do a lot. Yes.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

So the decision was -- the opinion was rendered before the --

Q Verbally.

MR. CARNEY: -- decision made by the President.

Q Okay.

MR. CARNEY: That’s my understanding.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I wasn’t talking to Roger. (Laughter.)

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?

MR. CARNEY: I’m not aware of that. I’d refer you to the Department of Defense.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q Finally, on talks with the Taliban, are you pressing the Taliban to change their attitude toward women?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q Jay, can I follow up on that?

MR. CARNEY: Let me get to Roger, then you, John. Yes.

Q Thank you. I was wondering if you had an update on when the debt ceiling request is going to the Hill.

MR. CARNEY: Days, not weeks. (Laughter.) That was true a couple of days ago, and it remains true. I don’t have anything more specific for you.

Q It’s imminent?

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.

Dan.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q Will he be meeting with Geithner?

MR. CARNEY: I’m sorry?

Q Will he be meeting with Geithner? How soon will they talk about what was accomplished on that --

MR. CARNEY: “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.

Q Jay.

MR. CARNEY: Yes, sir.

Q Regarding the reconciliation process. Has this administration been in contact or discussions with its allies, including Great Britain, regarding this process?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: Kristen, I didn’t see you back there. How are you?

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

So we would greatly endorse a decision by congressional leaders, in particular Republicans, to take this approach.

Q But why consider reprising a plan that’s already been rejected?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

Q Can I just follow up?

MR. CARNEY: Last one, Mike.

Q Thanks, Jay.

MR. CARNEY: And then Paula. I’m sorry, you had it up. So I’ll go Mike, Paula, and then I’ll get out of here.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q And is the administration ready for those fights when they do come?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would just refer you to the OLC memo.

Yes, Paula.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Paula.

Q The insourcing tax proposals, is it possible that this could be coming out as part of the overall corporate tax reform?

MR. CARNEY: I want you to repeat that so I make sure I get it right. Say that again.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q What is the state of the union? It’s good? Strong? Very strong?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re getting stronger.

Q Is that the wording that’s in the draft already?

MR. CARNEY: No! Thank you all very much.

END 2:26 P.M. EST

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney and OMB Deputy Director for Management Jeff Zients, 1/13/12

2012-01-13T03:02:00.000-08:00

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 13, 2012

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney and OMB Deputy Director for Management Jeff Zients, 1/13/12

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

10:26 A.M. EST

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

Okay, with that, I give you Mr. Zients.

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

With that background, why don’t I open it up for questions?

MR. CARNEY: Why don’t we start with Associated Press?

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?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

MR. CARNEY: Matt.

Q    What happens --

MR. CARNEY: I called on Matt, if I could just -- let me just do this in order.

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.

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

MR. CARNEY: What was the political aspect of it?

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.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.
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.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: No.

Q    No?

MR. ZIENTS: The President has the ability to designate his Cabinet, and the SBA will be now part of his Cabinet.

Q    So it could get done?

MR. ZIENTS: Yes.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: That’s right. The SBA would be represented in the new agency by the secretary of the agency that is focused on business competitiveness.

Q    So it’s a short timeframe.

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

Q    Follow on that?

MR. CARNEY: Yes.

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 --

Q    What’s the name of the agency?

Q    -- the name of the new agency?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

Q    And will John Bryson be the head of that department?

MR. ZIENTS: The President will decide once the new department is created who the secretary is.

Q    Are you effectively eliminating the Commerce Department? Is that what you’re saying?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

The other component of Commerce --

Q    NOAA --

MR. ZIENTS: NOAA, which is more than 50 percent of the budget of Commerce, will go to the Interior Department.

Q    So what’s left of Commerce that goes into that?

Q    What about the Census Department?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

MR. CARNEY: Let me -- hey, Laura, let me just -- okay, go Laura, and then let’s get back to calling on people. Go ahead.

Q    So the new statistical agency would include the Census Bureau and the Labor Department statistics?

MR. ZIENTS: And BEA, which is part of Commerce today.

Q    Okay, and any of the other government statistic agencies?

MR. ZIENTS: There’s one component from the National Science Foundation.

Q    And Commerce would cease to exist?

MR. ZIENTS: I’m sorry?

Q    Commerce would cease to exist?

MR. ZIENTS: Yes. There will be one new department that integrates the six departments -- the six agencies.

Q    Which will be housed where?

MR. ZIENTS: That will be --

MR. CARNEY: Can you guys -- can we -- I just want to return to not just shouting questions and calling -- go ahead, Laura.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

MR. CARNEY: Kristen, then Christi.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: The answer to the jobs component of it is 1,000 to 2,000, and that can be handled through attrition.

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.

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.

MR. CARNEY: Christi.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: It’s -- we can follow up with an exact number, but it’s a few percent. Few percent.

Q    A few percent?

MR. ZIENTS: Yes.

Q    So you’re talking about cutting the total by roughly what?

MR. ZIENTS: It’s $3 billion over 10 years; on an FTE basis, it’s a few percent.

Q    And how long does it take that attrition to do away with the number of jobs you’re talking about?

MR. ZIENTS: Across a couple of years.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

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.

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.

MR. CARNEY: Dave.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.
Mark.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

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.

MR. CARNEY: Mike, and then Brianna.

Q    Yes, you said that this was the first major reorganization since -- and I’m sorry, was it Hoover, or FDR?

MR. ZIENTS: Looked at the whole government, yes.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

So once given consolidation authority, we anticipate this would be the first proposal, but there would be many thereafter.

MR. CARNEY: A couple more for Jeff. Yes, Lesley.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

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.

MR. CARNEY: George, and then --

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 --

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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 --

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

Q    So is that the sole requirement, or is it something that you think you could get buy-in from Congress?

MR. ZIENTS: I’m sorry?

Q    Individual proposals. I’m just wondering if there’s been partisan bickering over some of the proposals.

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

Q    How many proposals? How many? I’m just -- every month? Every --

MR. ZIENTS: I think it’s one step at a time.

Q    Are there several?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

MR. CARNEY: And these are done, obviously, after careful review and consolidation that Jeff has led.

Q    So the fast-track is to avoid some of that jurisdictional and special interest lobbying, basically?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

MR. CARNEY: Donovan, did you --

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.

MR. CARNEY: 11:15 a.m., I’m told, we’ll have paper.

Q    Thank you.
Q    Will you be sending this up or asking Congress to develop it?

MR. ZIENTS: Consolidation authority, the bill, will be sent up in short order --

MR. CARNEY: When Congress returns from recess.

MR. ZIENTS: In short order.

MR. CARNEY: 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?

Q    Jeff, what are the costs associated with doing this consolidation with elevating SBA to Cabinet level? I mean, is this --

MR. ZIENTS: There’s no cost associated with elevating SBA to Cabinet level.

Q    -- consolidated departments, the DHS consolidation turned out to be very expensive.
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.

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?

MR. ZIENTS: 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.

Q    Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: Thank you, Jeff.

MR. ZIENTS: Thank you. Thank you, everybody.

MR. CARNEY: We’ve got about five, six minutes on other subjects.
Yes, sir.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

Q    How serious does the administration take these threats? Is there a concern that this may be tilting towards some sort of military action?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Yes, Matt.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: 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.
Julianna.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q    But you won’t go so far as to call it a red line?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

MR. EARNEST: Let’s do two more, Jay.

MR. CARNEY: Mark. And then Brianna.

Q    Do you have any other announcements on Myanmar?

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.

Brianna.

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.

MR. CARNEY: 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.
Thank you all very much.

Q    Week ahead?

MR. CARNEY: Coming shortly, sorry.
END
11:07 A.M. EST

Romney Boasts Missouri Endorsements

2012-01-13T01:50:00.000-08:00

(Press Release Mitt Romney)
Mitt Romney today announced the support of Missouri leaders, including Congressman Billy Long.
“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.”

“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.”
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.”
Missouri leaders supporting Mitt Romney:

Congressman Billy Long
Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer
State Sen. Dan Brown
State Sen. Mike Parson
State Sen. David Pearce
State Sen. Kurt Schaefer
State Rep. Kathy Conway
Cass County Committeeman Ryan Johnson
St. Louis County Committeeman Jim Gwinner

Barack Obama Proclamation on Religous Freedom Day

2012-01-13T01:49:00.000-08:00

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 13, 2012

Presidential Proclamation -- Religious Freedom Day, 2012

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY, 2012

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.

BARACK OBAMA

Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest en route Chicago

2012-01-11T16:40:00.000-08:00

Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest en route Chicago

Aboard Air Force One, En Route Chicago, Illinois

January 11 2012

4:40 P.M. EST

MR. EARNEST: 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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

Q    This is being piped back to the White House, though, right?

MR. EARNEST: I don’t know whether or not it’s being piped back.

Q    I think it is.

MR. EARNEST: But I’d ask that people not report until they see a pool report from Mr. Gillman or Ms. Parsons. Okay?

Q    Josh, is this being piped back to the White House press room?

MR. EARNEST: I have no idea. So we’ll see.

Q    What did she ask?

MR. EARNEST: Whether it was being piped back to the White House or not.

Q    Presume that it is.

Q    Why is he stopping by campaign headquarters?

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.

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.

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?

MR. EARNEST: 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.
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.
Margaret.

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?

MR. EARNEST: 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.
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.

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?

MR. EARNEST: 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.

Those are the things that are at the forefront of his mind. It’s not the reelect at this point.

Q    Does he consider Romney to be the likely nominee?

MR. EARNEST: 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.

Q    Was the insourcing event designed to provide a contrast to the charges that Mitt Romney outsourced jobs at Bain?

MR. EARNEST: 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.
Mary.

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.?

MR. EARNEST: It’s a good question, but I don’t have anything on that right now. But we will in the weeks ahead.

Q    You said the weeks ahead. Is that something we should expect out of the State of the Union, perhaps?

MR. EARNEST: It’s certainly possible.

Q    Could it be before then, or will it not be until the State of the Union?

MR. EARNEST: I don’t have an exact release date for you, but certainly in the next couple of weeks.

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?

MR. EARNEST: 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.
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.

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?

MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any information about who Mr. Lew’s replacement might be.

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?

MR. EARNEST: It’s my understanding there will be some overlap, but that transition will occur at the end of the month.

Q    Tonight’s events are all fundraisers. When do you expect the President will start doing campaign events that are not fundraisers?

MR. EARNEST: 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.

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.

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?

MR. EARNEST: 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.

Q    And in terms of Mr. Roshan, the person who was killed, does the administration consider him to be an innocent victim here?

MR. EARNEST: 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.

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?

MR. EARNEST: 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.

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.

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.

Q    Josh, got a question from back here. On the first stop, will photo coverage be allowed?

MR. EARNEST: I’ll have to check on the press access for you.

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?
MR. EARNEST: 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.

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?

MR. EARNEST: 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.

Q    Is the mayor going to be there as well?

MR. EARNEST: I would assume so, but I don’t know. I don’t know what the mayor’s schedule is today.
Q    Is the pool not going into the HQ?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t know what the press access is going to be. We’ll check on it, we’ll let you know. Okay?

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.

MR. EARNEST: Maybe I have more faith in your colleagues than you do. All right?
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?

MR. EARNEST: 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.

Q    Thank you, sir.

MR. EARNEST: Okay. Thanks, everybody. We’ll see you in a little bit.
Q    Okay.
END
4:53 P.M. EST

White House Press Corps - Complete Roster Jan 2012

2012-01-11T06:49:00.000-08:00

White House Press Briefing January 10, 2012 (Full Transcript and Video)

2012-01-10T05:27:00.000-08:00

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release (Full Transcript)
January 10, 2012
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/10/12

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:28 P.M. EST

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.

Q Tell us about them.

Q Any personnel --

MR. CARNEY: I will, I’ll be telling --

Q What do you got?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

With that, I will go to The Associated Press. Jim.

Associated Press: 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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q But does he want to have somebody in shortly after the month --

MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have any --

Q -- before the payroll tax cut extension?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Let me move around. Mike.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: Regarding to what, sorry?

Q In regarding press releases put out by the Treasury regarding TARP --

MR. CARNEY: TARP, okay.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Yes, Matt.

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?

MR. CARNEY: I have no announcements on that and no estimation of the length of the list for you. I’m sure there’s a list.

Q Will the President consider a recess appointment, using a recess appointment in light of the likely Republican opposition?

MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to speculate on that.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Yes, sir.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q Now that you know he’s been officially sentenced to death, what’s the response?

MR. CARNEY: Well, that is the response. It’s absolutely -- the allegations are false, the sentence is absurd and wrong, and we urge his release.

Ken.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q Are you satisfied with the King’s commitment to working to try to get things solved in a more peaceful way in Syria?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Yes, Brianna, and then Christi.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q But isn’t it strange it’s a Democrat that’s getting in the way this time?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Q Has the Senator -- he said he has substantive concerns. Has he voiced those to the White House?

MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of, but I haven’t had a lot of in-depth discussions about that here.

Yes.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

Christi.

Q Jay, can you say what Bill Daley’s role with the campaign will be and when it will begin?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Q Is he traveling with the President tomorrow to Chicago? Do you know?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t know for sure, although I wouldn’t be surprised if he were.

Yes.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: Well, Jack was a management executive. He was not an investment advisor at Citigroup.

Q He was the chief operating officer, I believe, was the title of the alternative investment --

MR. CARNEY: But again, he was not an investment advisor. He didn’t make investment advice.

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?

MR. CARNEY: 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.

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.

Yes.

Q Thanks, Jay. How will Jack Lew and Pete Rouse split up their duties?

MR. CARNEY: I 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.

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?

MR. CARNEY: I’m sorry, for what?

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?

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.

Q But I mean, Jack Lew as the Chief of Staff will obviously have a large role as well?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Yes, Cecilia.

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?

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.

But I’ll have to take your question in terms of the broader issue because I wasn’t aware of it.

Yes.

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 --

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.

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.

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 --

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.

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.

Alexis.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Roger Runningen.

Roger Runningen. 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?

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.

Q But you don’t have any indications that they might proceed to --

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.

Q A real quick question. The debt ceiling increase, does that need to go to the Hill this week?

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.

Mark, did you have something?

Q That was it.

MR. CARNEY: Mr. Landler, did you have something?

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?

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.

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.

Q It would have been the President’s clear preference for him to stay through this year?

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.

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?

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.

Ann, yes.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I just ended a sentence with a preposition. (Laughter.)

Q That’s all right, we’ll forgive you if I could ask one two-part question. (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: NPR. (Laughter.)

Q Speaking of vacancies, what can you tell us about the Domestic Policy Council?

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.

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.

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.

Anybody else?

Q Just a follow-up.

MR. CARNEY: You again? Go ahead.

Q Three in one day. Do you think this will help I guess outreach to the Hispanic community, considering her prior role?

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.

Yes.

Q Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: No, no, no, I’m sorry. Hold on.

Q Oh, I see.

MR. CARNEY: I want to keep it clean, Lester, so I’m going here.

Q You want to keep it clean? Oh, my.

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 --

MR. CARNEY: I’m sorry, on Iran and --

Q On Iran and Syria both. And maybe stepping it up and being a little more aggressive in the pressure that they’re putting?

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.

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.

Q Do these talks include military action?

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, behind Chris. Tell me --

Q Nadia.

MR. CARNEY: Nadia, of course.

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?

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.

Q Can you please?

MR. CARNEY: Sure.

Q Because there is news that he is going to Saudi Arabia now instead of coming to the U.S.

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.

Chris.

Q Just one? Just one?

MR. CARNEY: Chris.

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?

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.

Q That’s not the question. The question is about marriage.

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.

Q Thanks, Jay.

MR. CARNEY: Neal, last one.

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?

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.

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.”

MR. CARNEY: Again, I would just point you to the answer I just gave.

Q Would that be a true statement?

MR. CARNEY: I will just point you to what the President has said and his record --

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 --

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.

Thank you all very much.

US Department of State Press Briefing January 10, 2012

2012-01-10T04:56:00.000-08:00

Index for Today's Briefing
(Index Links Lead to Content Areas on the US State Department Website)

DEPARTMENT
- Deputy Secretary Burns' Meetings in Turkey / Travel to Egypt
- Secretary Clinton's Meeting with Secretary of Defense Panetta and National Security Advisor Donilon
SYRIA
- President Assad's Speech
- Arab League Monitoring Mission
- UN Security Council Session
- Ambassador Ford's Demarches / Physical Security of U.S. Embassy
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
- Sesame Street / Funding Cuts
PAKISTAN
- Bombing in Jamrud
SAUDI ARABIA
- Secretary Clinton's Meeting Today with Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal
YEMEN
- Reported Travel of Former President Saleh
IRAQ
- Secretary Clinton's Call to U.S. Mission Iraq, Afghanistan
- Transition
NORTH KOREA
- Nuclear Program
IRAN
- U.S. Coast Guard Rescue of Iranians in Distress at Sea
- Amir Hekmati Sentenced to Death
NIGERIA
- Nationwide Strikes
- Boko Haram

TRANSCRIPT:

12:46 p.m. EST
MS. NULAND: 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 Iraq, the importance of international solidarity on Iran, our shared concerns about the situation in 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.
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.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Can we ask on Burns first?
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: You can’t say that he’s going to meet the Muslim Brotherhood, then?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: It would be expected, though, that the biggest parties now in the country would be included in that roundtable, I’m guessing.
MS. NULAND: Well, let’s let him do it. But we will have more for you tomorrow after he does it.
Please, Michel. Still on this one?
QUESTION: On Syria?
MS. NULAND: On Syria?
QUESTION: Have you read the Syrian president speech today, and what’s your reaction to it?
MS. NULAND: 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.
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.
QUESTION: Does that worry you that he hasn’t changed his tone at all?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: 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.
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.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: 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.
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.
QUESTION: So are you --
QUESTION: Okay, but just one second.
QUESTION: Sorry.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: But what has been --
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: But just finally --
QUESTION: Victoria --
QUESTION: -- what has been the sum total then of these 10 months of diplomatic efforts? What have they actually accomplished?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think his regime is feeling the squeeze. I mean, many countries have stopped trading with him --
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: Well, clearly we have not had success. I think that’s obvious from the situation on the ground.

Please.
QUESTION: 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^th of this month?
MS. NULAND: 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.
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.
QUESTION: But the integrity of the – if I’m --
QUESTION: Toria, why is it --
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Why is it an incomplete picture? You could say, “Whose fault is it that it’s an incomplete picture?”
MS. NULAND: 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.
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.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: 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.
Lach.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: 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.
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.
QUESTION: Any reason for optimism?
MS. NULAND: 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.
Please.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason to doubt the Syrians’ resolve to protect the American Embassy or any other diplomatic missions in Damascus?
MS. NULAND: Based on history, Said, we --
QUESTION: Based on history, yes.
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: 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 --
MS. NULAND: 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.
Please.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: 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.
Please.
QUESTION: Change topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: 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 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?
MS. NULAND: 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.
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.
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.
QUESTION: What I’m saying is could you provide the Palestinians with the same thing for the program that airs from Ramallah in Arabic?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is it’s regular Sesame Street programming that is – but perhaps Said knows better. I haven’t seen it.
QUESTION: It’s like all the others, it’s just coordinated with --
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: -- New York. And part of it comes --
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: -- from here, and part of it comes from there --
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: -- the programming, and it’s a very unfortunate thing.
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: 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.
MS. NULAND: 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.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: 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.
MS. NULAND: 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.
Please, Michel.
QUESTION: 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 Saudi Arabia on Saturday and Sunday and Wendy Sherman was there last month, too?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: But is there any emergency, especially that Assistant Secretary Feltman was there and he just came back?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: This meeting today with Saud Al-Faisal – I think tomorrow is – Hamad bin Jassim is coming?
MS. NULAND: That’s right.
QUESTION: Okay. And now on the 17^th, we have the Jordanian monarch coming in. Does the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations factor in at all in these discussions?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: Were you expecting the Saudi foreign minister to be here today before the visit that Assistant Secretary Feltman made?
MS. NULAND: 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.
Samir.
QUESTION: Toria, did you find out if President Saleh of Yemen changed his mind to travel to Saudi Arabia instead of the U.S.?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: Because he withdrew his application for the visa to the U.S., Saleh.
MS. NULAND: Well, he took his passport back. What his travel plans are, I can’t speak to.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Any information on the other meeting the Secretary has at the White House with Defense Secretary Panetta and Mr. Donilon?
MS. NULAND: She – they meet regularly whenever they’re all home, and this is part of their regular consultation.
QUESTION: But there’s no specific topic that this is --
MS. NULAND: I’m sure there is, and I’m sure we’re not going to share it with you, Brad.
Please.
QUESTION: Toria, I forget, is it today that she’s speaking with the staff in Iraq?
MS. NULAND: Yes, she spoke to them this morning. She did.
QUESTION: Yeah. What did she say?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: Right. And on the Iraq part, is there any early indication of how things are going now that the transition is happening?
MS. NULAND: In terms of the State Department picking up --
QUESTION: Troops out. Yeah. Right.
MS. NULAND: -- 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 --
Please.
QUESTION: On North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: North Korea announced that North Korea never ever give up their nuclear program. How is your response on that?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: You mean as a precondition for coming to the Six-Party Talks?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. NULAND: I think you know the answer to that question. It’s not acceptable.
QUESTION: Right. Thanks.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Toria, do you have any comments on the second naval rescue operation in the Sea of Oman that happened today --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. This is --
QUESTION: -- within a week?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: Do you have --
QUESTION: The P-5+1 talks aren’t really getting anywhere. How about a ship-to-ship diplomacy? (Laughter.)
MS. NULAND: 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.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have an update on Mr. Hekmati?
MS. NULAND: 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.
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have details on that, I’m afraid.
QUESTION: Toria --
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: -- legally speaking, because Iran does not recognize the dual citizenship aspect, does the --
QUESTION: He doesn’t have dual citizenship.
QUESTION: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: He doesn’t have dual citizenship.
QUESTION: He doesn’t – so he’s just an American citizen, okay. So --
QUESTION: That is accepted – sorry – but informally.
QUESTION: What is informally?
MS. NULAND: 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.
So, anything else?
QUESTION: 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?
MS. NULAND: 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 --
QUESTION: So the Swiss have not had any contacts with any legal representative, whether he was state-appointed or --
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, no. And they’ve not been allowed to see him.
QUESTION: Just a quick one on Nigeria.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: 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.
MS. NULAND: 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.
Anything else?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Okay. Thank you all.

Presidential Politics

State of the Union 2012 (Speech Transcript and Enhanced Video)

Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address

President Barack Obama Tourism Speech Delivered at Disneyworld

Obama asks for Betty White's Birth Certificate

White House Responds To SOPA - Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet

Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet

White House Press Briefing en route Orlanda, FL

White House Press Briefing January 18, 2012

Stopping Iran's Nukes Takes 4 Pronged Approach - JPOST

Combination of covert operations, sanctions, diplomatic pressure, military threat necessary against Iran.

MLK Hate Crime Prevented By FBI 2011

FBI Top Ten News Stories Week Ending Jan 13, 2012

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012

White House Press Briefing Jan 12, 2012

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/12/2012

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney and OMB Deputy Director for Management Jeff Zients, 1/13/12

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney and OMB Deputy Director for Management Jeff Zients, 1/13/12

Romney Boasts Missouri Endorsements

Barack Obama Proclamation on Religous Freedom Day

Presidential Proclamation -- Religious Freedom Day, 2012

Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest en route Chicago

Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest en route Chicago

Aboard Air Force One, En Route Chicago, Illinois

January 11 2012

White House Press Corps - Complete Roster Jan 2012

Television

Print and Internet

Radio

White House Press Briefing January 10, 2012 (Full Transcript and Video)

US Department of State Press Briefing January 10, 2012