putin Blagojevich financial regulations Tony Hayward bill clinton
Monday, February 28, 2011
FACT SHEET: A Win for States and Taxpayers: President Obama's Plan to Cut Red Tape, Give States Flexibility, and Save Money
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Today, President Obama issued a memorandum to Executive Departments and Agencies to work with State, Tribal, and local governments to reduce unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens in order to focus resources on achieving better outcomes at lower cost.
Over the last two years, the Administration has worked with States as well as Tribal and local governments through the Recovery Act and other means to create jobs, build infrastructure, and protect critical programs and services in the face of declining revenues. Still, through smarter government, we can do even more to help States, improve program outcomes, and lower costs for the American taxpayer. This is especially urgent at a time when many governments face large budget shortfalls.
This memorandum builds on the Executive Order issued on January 18 outlining the President’s regulatory strategy. Having heard from States, Tribes, and territories that the array of rules and regulations issued by various Federal programs and agencies may sometimes impede their efforts to modernize and integrate program delivery, the President is committed to continuing to cut this red tape while continuing to protect human health and safety.
The new Presidential Memorandum is attached.
In this memorandum, the President is:
Instructing the Director of OMB to lead a collaborative process of Federal agencies, State, Tribal, and local governments to coordinate and streamline procedures that cut across agency, program and geographic bounds.
Requiring agencies to work closely with States, Tribes, and local governments to identify administrative, regulatory, and legislative barriers in Federally-funded programs that currently prevent them from efficiently using tax dollars to achieve the best results for their constituents.
This work will be done in collaboration with territories as well, and with input from other key program partners.
Further, he is directing OMB to:
Review guidance concerning cost principles and audits for State, local, and Tribal governments to eliminate unnecessary, unduly burdensome, or low-priority recordkeeping requirements and to tie requirements to achievement of outcomes.
Standardize and streamline reporting and planning requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act to develop efficient, low-cost mechanisms for collecting and reporting data and preparing expenditure plans that can support multiple programs and agencies, and
Facilitate cost-efficient modernization of State and Tribal information systems, in collaboration with the Chief Technology Officer in the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Agencies are required to report back within 180 days of the date of this memorandum on their actions to identify regulatory and administrative requirements that can be streamlined, reduced, or eliminated, and where increased State flexibility could be provided to achieve the same or better outcomes at lower cost.
Progress in achieving better results at lower cost is already being made.
The President’s new memo will help expand on the success already underway in collaborating with States, Tribes, territories, and local governments, and new initiatives proposed in the President’s 2012 Budget. For example, the Administration:
Has created a collaborative forum with States, local governments, and other stakeholders through OMB’s Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation. The forum develops promising cross-program solutions to improve program integrity, reduce costs, and improve service and results in Federal programs that are administered by States.
Is taking steps to reduce reporting and documentation requirements that sap school resources from classroom learning. Specifically, the Department of Education and OMB are developing new guidelines to focus reporting and audits on performance outcomes and enhanced transparency instead of activity-based recordkeeping.
Proposed Pay for Success pilots in the 2012 Budget. These innovative projects offer Federal, State and local governments a market-based mechanism to finance and deliver services that achieve better results at lower cost. Under this new initiative, the private sector provides intervention services to a target population and the government pays only when clearly defined outcomes are achieved.
Proposed a new Workforce Innovation Fund in the 2012 Budget, which provides almost $380 million for grants to support systemic reforms of workforce development programs to deliver more cost-effective services and improve outcomes for participants. To maximize flexibility to test bold approaches to achieving better results through cross-program collaboration, the Budget requests waiver authority for the Departments of Labor and Education, contingent on strong State plans to measure outcomes and evaluate program impacts.
Proposed a “First in the World” competition among colleges and universities to help America restore its international leadership in the number of students graduating college. In 2012, this competition would invest $120 million in innovative institutional and State strategies to increase college access and completion and improve educational productivity.
Together, these and other initiatives could substantially reduce State and federal taxpayer costs and redirect resources to achieve improved outcomes for State, Tribal and local constituents. And these improved outcomes will play an important role in supporting the long term economic strength and competitiveness of our Nation.
For Immediate Release
Today, President Obama issued a memorandum to Executive Departments and Agencies to work with State, Tribal, and local governments to reduce unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens in order to focus resources on achieving better outcomes at lower cost.
Over the last two years, the Administration has worked with States as well as Tribal and local governments through the Recovery Act and other means to create jobs, build infrastructure, and protect critical programs and services in the face of declining revenues. Still, through smarter government, we can do even more to help States, improve program outcomes, and lower costs for the American taxpayer. This is especially urgent at a time when many governments face large budget shortfalls.
This memorandum builds on the Executive Order issued on January 18 outlining the President’s regulatory strategy. Having heard from States, Tribes, and territories that the array of rules and regulations issued by various Federal programs and agencies may sometimes impede their efforts to modernize and integrate program delivery, the President is committed to continuing to cut this red tape while continuing to protect human health and safety.
The new Presidential Memorandum is attached.
In this memorandum, the President is:
Instructing the Director of OMB to lead a collaborative process of Federal agencies, State, Tribal, and local governments to coordinate and streamline procedures that cut across agency, program and geographic bounds.
Requiring agencies to work closely with States, Tribes, and local governments to identify administrative, regulatory, and legislative barriers in Federally-funded programs that currently prevent them from efficiently using tax dollars to achieve the best results for their constituents.
This work will be done in collaboration with territories as well, and with input from other key program partners.
Further, he is directing OMB to:
Review guidance concerning cost principles and audits for State, local, and Tribal governments to eliminate unnecessary, unduly burdensome, or low-priority recordkeeping requirements and to tie requirements to achievement of outcomes.
Standardize and streamline reporting and planning requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act to develop efficient, low-cost mechanisms for collecting and reporting data and preparing expenditure plans that can support multiple programs and agencies, and
Facilitate cost-efficient modernization of State and Tribal information systems, in collaboration with the Chief Technology Officer in the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Agencies are required to report back within 180 days of the date of this memorandum on their actions to identify regulatory and administrative requirements that can be streamlined, reduced, or eliminated, and where increased State flexibility could be provided to achieve the same or better outcomes at lower cost.
Progress in achieving better results at lower cost is already being made.
The President’s new memo will help expand on the success already underway in collaborating with States, Tribes, territories, and local governments, and new initiatives proposed in the President’s 2012 Budget. For example, the Administration:
Has created a collaborative forum with States, local governments, and other stakeholders through OMB’s Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation. The forum develops promising cross-program solutions to improve program integrity, reduce costs, and improve service and results in Federal programs that are administered by States.
Is taking steps to reduce reporting and documentation requirements that sap school resources from classroom learning. Specifically, the Department of Education and OMB are developing new guidelines to focus reporting and audits on performance outcomes and enhanced transparency instead of activity-based recordkeeping.
Proposed Pay for Success pilots in the 2012 Budget. These innovative projects offer Federal, State and local governments a market-based mechanism to finance and deliver services that achieve better results at lower cost. Under this new initiative, the private sector provides intervention services to a target population and the government pays only when clearly defined outcomes are achieved.
Proposed a new Workforce Innovation Fund in the 2012 Budget, which provides almost $380 million for grants to support systemic reforms of workforce development programs to deliver more cost-effective services and improve outcomes for participants. To maximize flexibility to test bold approaches to achieving better results through cross-program collaboration, the Budget requests waiver authority for the Departments of Labor and Education, contingent on strong State plans to measure outcomes and evaluate program impacts.
Proposed a “First in the World” competition among colleges and universities to help America restore its international leadership in the number of students graduating college. In 2012, this competition would invest $120 million in innovative institutional and State strategies to increase college access and completion and improve educational productivity.
Together, these and other initiatives could substantially reduce State and federal taxpayer costs and redirect resources to achieve improved outcomes for State, Tribal and local constituents. And these improved outcomes will play an important role in supporting the long term economic strength and competitiveness of our Nation.
immigration Afghan Tropical Storm Gulf of Mexico jeremiah wright
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Susan Rice, 2/28/2011
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
3:33 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As I mentioned this morning, we have with us today the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. She was just in a meeting with the President and the U.N. Secretary General, and I would like her to speak about that meeting. And then she’ll take some questions from you. And I'll step aside. Thanks.
AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you very much, Jay. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to start by giving a brief readout of the President’s meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that just finished a little while ago.
As you might expect, a significant portion of that meeting was devoted to discussing the situation in Libya. The U.N. has played a positive and very important role in efforts to end the bloodshed there and to hold the Qaddafi regime accountable, and support the Libyan people. Indeed, in Libya, the United Nations is demonstrating the indispensable role that it can play in advancing our interests and defending our values.
We'll come back to Libya in a few minutes, but let me just finish with the brief readout of the President’s meeting with the Secretary General.
The President and the Secretary General also discussed the situation elsewhere in the Middle East as well as the situation in Côte d’Ivoire. And with respect to Côte d’Ivoire, they expressed their concern about the escalation of violence there and the need to enable the legitimately elected president, Alassane Quattara, to assume responsibility for governing Côte d’Ivoire.
They also discussed the historic referendum that recently took place in Southern Sudan, where the people overwhelmingly voted for independence. And they discussed the vital work that the U.N. and the international community have still to do, along with the parties to the Sudanese conflict, to resolve outstanding issues and ensure lasting peace as the South gains its independence in July of this year.
The President and the Secretary General also discussed their shared agenda to build on the strengths of the United Nations while pursuing and implementing very important management reforms as well as budgetary discipline.
And finally, President Obama reaffirmed the administration’s strong belief that the United Nations continues to play a vital role in addressing tough, global and transnational threats, and in doing so, its work enhances the safety and well-being of the American people.
Now, coming back to Libya, as you know on Saturday night in New York, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1970, a tough and binding set of sanctions aimed at stopping the Libyan regime from killing its own people.
As you know, from the very beginning of the crisis in Libya, we’ve been clear that it’s vitally important for the international community to speak with one voice, and it has done so with an unusual and important sense of urgency, determination and unity of purpose.
This resolution that we passed had several important components. First, it refers the situation in Libya directly to the International Criminal Court. This is the first time that the Security Council has unanimously voted to refer a case of heinous human rights violations to the ICC.
Secondly, it includes a travel ban and an assets freeze on key Libyan leaders. It imposes a complete arms embargo on Libya and mechanisms to enforce it. And finally, it takes new steps against the use of mercenaries by the Libyan government to attack its own people, and it facilitates the delivery of vital humanitarian assistance.
These sanctions and accountability mechanisms should make all members of the Libyan regime think about the choice they have before them: Violate human rights and be held accountable, or stop the violence and respect the Libyan peoples’ call for change. There’s no escaping that critical choice.
Meanwhile, all the members of the United Nations Security Council are united in their determination that these sanctions work and work as swiftly as possible. But the Security Council has not finished its business and will continue to monitor the situation in Libya quite closely.
And I’ll reiterate what the President said over the weekend. Now is the time for Colonel Qaddafi to step aside to prevent further bloodshed and to allow the Libyan people to have a government that is responsive to their aspirations.
I’m happy to take a few of your questions.
MR. CARNEY: I just want to, if I could, just -- I'll call on people. What I'd like to do is do all questions for Ambassador Rice now, and we can get to other issues after that.
But, Darlene, why don't you start?
Q Thank you. Madam Ambassador, can you update us on the status of the talks for instituting a no-fly zone? How far along are those talks?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, as Secretary Clinton said today in Geneva, these talks are underway with our partners in NATO and elsewhere. We have made clear that it is an option that we are considering and considering actively and seriously.
MR. CARNEY: Steve.
Q Are you prepared to offer material support to the anti-government rebels in Libya?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, we are, first of all, in communication with all sort of elements of Libyan society -- civil society, leaders of all sorts -- to understand their perspectives and be able to be as supportive as we can of the Libyan people’s aspirations for freedom and for justice.
It’s unclear at this point who will emerge as the critical opposition elements, and we await to see how the opposition will coalesce. In that context, it’s certainly premature I think to begin to talk about any kind of military assistance.
Q Dr. Rice, thanks for being here. In an interview with several reporters, Moammar Qaddafi said that he’s not going anywhere, he’s never used force, all my people love me. And he expressed surprise that the United Nations would impose sanctions and implement a travel ban based purely on media reports. I was wondering if you had any response to any of the things he said in the interview.
AMBASSADOR RICE: It sounds, just frankly, delusional. And when he can laugh in talking to American and international journalists while he is slaughtering his own people, it only underscores how unfit he is to lead and how disconnected he is from reality. It makes all the more important the urgent steps that we have taken over the course of the last week on a national basis, as well as the steps that we’ve taken collectively through the United Nations and the Security Council.
And we’re going to continue to keep the pressure on. You’ve seen reports about the massive quantity of resources, some $30 billion that the Treasury Department has seized since the assets freeze went into effect on Friday -- and this in light of the fact that Colonel Qaddafi and his son Saif say they have no resources out there to be seized; they led a clean and uncorrupt life.
Q Ambassador Rice, when you talk about Colonel Qaddafi slaughtering his own people, he was -- he appeared to be doing that a week or so, even longer, and yet the President stopped short of calling for regime change until this weekend. So if -- why did it take so long for you to call for regime change? The President was saying it’s up to the Libyan people. Now you’re saying Qaddafi has to go. He’s been slaughtering these people for days. Why did it take until this weekend to say he has to go?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, first of all, it is up to the Libyan people. And we will continue to be very supportive of their efforts to achieve the universal rights and the freedoms and the opportunity that they are seeking. I think we have been very, very clear about what is right and what is moral in this situation, and what has been unacceptable and inexcusable violence. And we have taken very strong and very swift actions to confront that.
On Friday, we froze the assets of Libya’s leaders, and on Monday, $30 billion -- an unprecedented quantity of resources have been seized in just over the last several days. On Saturday, the Security Council with the U.S. and leadership of others moved at a speed that is, I can tell you from my experience, almost unheard of, to pass unanimously a resolution that not only imposed a travel ban, an assets freeze, and arms embargo, but referred the situation in Libya for the first time on a unanimous basis to the International Criminal Court.
Q What changed from February 23rd? What changed from February 23rd when the President --
AMBASSSADOR RICE: Well, first of all --
Q -- did not call for regime change?
AMBASSSADOR RICE: First of all, the situation has evolved. We have been, as the President has said, focused very urgently on the protection of Americans and ensuring that Americans are safe. But we have also, as the same time, been actively working and planning to enable the swift and decisive response that you’ve seen forthcoming from the U.S. government.
MR. CARNEY: Bill.
Q There’s been some talk about oil embargos. But does that make any sense now that it appears that most of the oil production is in the hands of rebel forces?
AMBASSSADOR RICE: Well, I think, from a sanctions point of view, the United Nations has historically, in recent years, moved away from sweeping measures, and focused most precisely on targeted measures that go after the leadership of the country and isolate those that are responsible for atrocities. We’re in a different world than we were 15, 20 years ago and have learned some lessons from regimes like Iraq and elsewhere that didn’t have the targeted effect that was desired and was more scattershot. So I think at least in the context of the Security Council in New York, when we look at sanctions, whether it’s on Iran, North Korea, or Libya, we aim, first and foremost, at targeted measures that go after those that are responsible for violations.
Q So in this case, not oil?
AMBASSSADOR RICE: We have not had active discussions in New York on oil.
MR. CARNEY: Chuck.
Q Dr. Rice, two questions. One, can you walk us through what the process would be for the United Nations to recognize the sort of opposition in Libya, or recognize maybe the eastern part of that controlled territory? And number two, is there a message in there for the Iranian government, the government of Bahrain about how swiftly the U.N. seemed to respond in this case, and maybe the lack of quickness they responded to the Iranian uprising a year and a half ago?
AMBASSSADOR RICE: The question of recognition is a very complicated one. And to recognize or seat a changed government requires a vote of a U.N. credentials committee. And depending on the murkiness of the situation, that can be more or less complicated. We’re dealing now with a request to the Secretary General from Qaddafi to withdraw accreditation for his diplomats in New York who stood up -- his perm rep, his deputy perm rep -- to the regime, and have been very clear in calling for the kinds of measures that the Security Council took on Saturday.
It’s too soon to say, in all honesty, how issues of credentials and issues of recognition will be sorted out. Unless and until there’s an obvious alternative government, it’s hard to give credentials to --
Q How long will this process take? Weeks? Months?
AMBASSADOR RICE: It depends on how it evolves. Unless and until there’s an obvious alternative, it’s hard to take from one and give to another because there’s not a clear other to whom recognition can be given.
Q And the Iran question?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, I think when -- what enabled the Security Council to act so swiftly and decisively in this instance was that there was just an egregious and widely reported series of mass killings by security forces on innocents -- not only those protesting, but those who stuck their heads out of windows; going into hospitals, reportedly, and shooting those dead that had already been wounded; shooting people as they came out of mosques.
And all of this I think served to galvanize a sense of outrage and determination on the part of the Security Council and the rest of the international community that action had to be taken. And quite unusually, the first calls came from the Arab League and the African Union, and subsequently the OIC for this kind of action. And the fact that Libya’s own diplomats in New York were urging decisive action I think also was an important factor.
MR. CARNEY: Mike.
Q You’ve reiterated the call for Qaddafi to go, and yet the U.S. does not have significant contact with the Libyan opposition. If he were to oblige and get on a plane and go, what does the U.S. want to see happen next?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Obviously, the United States wants to see a responsible government emerge that respects the will of the Libyan people. They are -- there's a serious institution-building challenge that exists in Libya, as elsewhere in the region. We believe there are universal rights that need to be acknowledged and respected, and processes that are determined by the people in each of these different countries that charts a specific course that's suitable to that country. And it would be wrong of us to sit here with a road map for a political transformation in Libya.
But our consistent message across the region and indeed across the world is that the people deserve the right to chart their own future in a fashion that is -- that enables them to express themselves freely, assemble freely, select their leaders, and do so free of violence and intimidation.
MR. CARNEY: Why don't we get one more for Ambassador Rice?
Margaret?
Q Thank you. Ambassador, two questions. With regard to the military question, I know you’re saying it’s premature to decide whether to commit troops. Is it the U.S.’s position that that would need to be done through a NATO commitment and not through a U.S. military commitment?
And then, secondly, in the conversations with Ban Ki-moon, is the President discussing more broadly how to do a proactive strategy with the unrest that's sweeping the Middle East? And how do you get ahead of that?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, let me come to your second question first. The President and the Secretary General discussed the region broadly and the international efforts, including those led and coordinated by the United Nations, to be responsive to developments in each of these countries. So, for example, the Secretary General reported that he has sent high-level teams to both Egypt and Tunisia to engage those governments about the process of transition and the political support that the United Nations and the international community might be able to provide in support of those political transitions.
With respect to Libya, the Secretary General indicated that he intended to name a senior-level person to coordinate the United Nations humanitarian and political efforts with respect to Libya. That was something that we had encouraged and welcomed. And so there was a real effort discussed and agreed that would help to coordinate and consolidate both the humanitarian response, particularly with respect to Libya, and the political efforts to help support the democratic transformations that we hope are underway in various parts of the region.
Q And the military question?
AMBASSADOR RICE: With respect to the military question, we are in discussions with partners and allies in NATO and elsewhere. We have been very clear that we have a range of options, a wide range of options that we’re considering, but it would be premature to say more than that.
Q I’m sorry, but you don’t want the U.S. -- it seems like the U.S. doesn’t necessarily want a U.S. stamp on any action. The President has taken great pains to say there has to be a unified response. Is that a decision --
AMBASSADOR RICE: I think it’s, frankly, quite premature to speculate about any potential military action. We’re simply in the process of planning and discussing various contingencies.
Q One more, Jay?
MR. CARNEY: Maybe one more.
Q Okay, thank you. Ambassador Rice, you said something to the effect that we have not actively discussed oil at the U.N. Are you talking about specifically the Libyan issue or the increase, the request to increase oil in other countries like Mexico, Canada and some portions of Africa?
AMBASSADOR RICE: No, I was responding to the specific question of whether multilateral oil sanctions had been discussed actively in New York with respect to Libya, and the answer to that is no. The other issues have not been, to my knowledge, discussed in any formal venue and it’s really not the place where that kind of discussion would occur.
Q But also, could you quantify the $10 million of humanitarian effort that the United States has committed for those refugees who are fleeing into the other countries that are bordering Libya?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, the U.S. government has begun to mount a very robust humanitarian response that will include resources to the various concerned agencies like the High Commissioner for Refugees, like the International Organization for Migration. We’ll also be looking at other kinds of humanitarian needs. The Secretary General explained to the President today, for instance, that the U.N. is quite concerned about the dearth of medical supplies in Libya and the importance of urgent action being taken to ensure that those kinds of critical humanitarian needs are meet. And we’ll be supportive of those efforts as we always are.
Thank you.
MR. CARNEY: Okay, guys, I’ve got to let the Ambassador go.
AMBASSADOR RICE: Thanks very much.
Q Thanks, Dr. Rice.
MR. CARNEY: Okay, we’ll return to our regular programming. Let’s see -- yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Jay. The governors have had meetings with the President. What are the requests that they have made that the administration seems likeliest to comply with on short notice?
MR. CARNEY: You mean broadly speaking? If you want me to give -- I can give you a readout on the meeting itself today and the issues they discussed. I don't have any specific -- you know that the President did announce today support for legislation that Senators Wyden, Brown and Landrieu have introduced that would speed up the innovation waiver for states to -- with ideas of their own to pursue health care reform in their states from 2017 to 2014. That was obviously a major announcement he made today.
Q That would be along the lines of the waiver on welfare a few years ago?
MR. CARNEY: I don't know how to compare it to that. But I think if you saw the announcement, and I’m sure you’ve seen the remarks, the President is very interested in the very good ideas that states might have to achieve the goals set by the Affordable Care Act in different ways. And he now supports the legislation put forward that was originally put out last year and again a few weeks ago that will allow the states three years earlier than planned to propose initiatives that can bring them to -- achieve the goals set by the Affordable Care Act through the innovative ideas that they themselves come up with. And that's the kind of flexibility the President thinks is important and that he wants to give the states when appropriate.
Perry.
Q Jay, did you all ask Republicans in Congress or Republican governors if they liked this idea before he proposed it?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't know that -- if you mean the President, that he had any discussions with Republican governors --
Q -- support this idea right now, so I’m curious if you -- other than from Scott Brown -- so I’m just curious if you’ve met with anyone to see if they would like it first. It seems like a --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we think that the states will be, and are, interested in this kind of approach to implementing the Affordable Care Act in that it gives them more flexibility to achieve the very important goals that the act lays out in terms of coverage, no costs to the deficit, levels of benefits, and the four items that were laid out. So I think that we expect and hope that there will be support in Congress for this. It’s already a bipartisan bill, as you noted, and we -- the President supports it.
Yes.
Q Thanks, Jay. The President warned governors not to denigrate or vilify public employees. Does he think that's what they’ve been doing?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as the President said several weeks ago now, he is very sympathetic to the need that governors and state legislators have in dealing with their budget issues, to have sacrifice at all levels; that everyone needs to come together, tighten their belts, and deal with their budget shortfalls, and that includes public sector employees. But he does not believe that it is helpful to denigrate or vilify public sector employees in a way that brings you no closer to resolving the problems and sows division instead of creating the kind of unity that you need when everyone sits at the table to solve the issues together.
Q So he would characterize what's been happening as a denigration and vilification?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to his speech. And I think that it’s fairly clear from what he said in the past that he does not think that an assault on public sector employees or the collective bargaining rights of public sector employees is the way to go. Rather, that everyone needs to come together, share the sacrifice, and resolve the issues that have led to these budget shortfalls.
Q Can I also ask a Libya question? You’ve said a few times and Dr. Rice just said that the administration is in contact with all members of organized civil society, and leaders of various stripes. And it’s hard to see what the organized elements of civil society and what those leaders could be, since Colonel Qaddafi has tried so hard to squelch all of them. What's there? Who’s there? What are the organizations to talk to?
MR. CARNEY: Well, you make a good point about the situation in Libya, and it goes to the broader point that we’ve made about how every country is different in the region, the countries that have experienced unrest.
Without specifying particular individuals or groups that we are reaching out to -- and reaching out to through both diplomatic means but through businesses and NGOs -- I would say that we are having those conversations, finding out where these groups stand in terms of the desire for a process that is democratic and inclusive and responsive to the desires and aspirations of the Libyan people. But I’m not prepared to identify this group or this individual at this point.
Q Just a quick follow-up on that.
MR. CARNEY: Yes.
Q The Crown Prince of Libya last week asked international assistance to Moammar Qaddafi. Are you in touch with him? Are you going to -- because his flags are -- their flags have come up with the rebels.
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not able to specify individuals that we’re in touch with. And I want to emphasize that the channels we are using are not just government channels; they are also through the business community and NGOs and other channels that we can use to talk to these groups who are interested in democratic reform and being responsive to the aspirations of the Libyan people.
Yes.
Q Jay, thanks. Do you have a deadline today for Qaddafi to leave? Because he doesn’t seem to leave. He’s still there.
MR. CARNEY: Yes, he is. The President made clear, we’ve made clear, Ambassador Rice made clear that Colonel Qaddafi needs to step aside, to step down. He has lost all legitimacy in the eyes of his people, most importantly, and in the eyes of the world community. He is no longer in a position to credibly lead his nation. And he is, in the meantime, inflicting horrific violence on the people he claims to serve and the people he claims love him -- which is quite a claim indeed. So I won’t put a deadline on it, except to say now would be good.
Savannah.
Q To the extent there is this urgency, do you think that this effort to have Qaddafi leave would be helped along by a strong statement from the President along the likes of the one we just saw from Ambassador Rice? She didn’t mince words.
MR. CARNEY: No, she didn’t. And neither has the President in his statements, or neither has Secretary of State Clinton or other government officials. And we have worked assiduously behind the scenes to bring about the kind of dramatic objectives in terms of the action at the United Nations and the unilateral sanctions that we’ve implemented that are putting, we believe, great pressure, and will put great pressure on not just Colonel Qaddafi, but the Libyan regime. I mean, if you are now a member of the Libyan government, you have to think very, very seriously about whose side you want to be on. Because if you stay with Qaddafi, if you stay with this regime, if you accept and act on orders to murder your own people, you will be held accountable. And the action taken by the United Nations to refer this to the ICC is a very dramatic statement about the accountability we expect those perpetrators to be held to.
Q But who is going to hold them accountable? I mean, it’s one thing to say we hold them accountable, but who is going to do it? Are we?
MR. CARNEY: Bill, the history -- recent history has examples to show you that bad actors who treat their people in this manner can be held accountable, and we intend with our international partners for that to be the case.
Jake.
Q Can you comment on reports that U.S. naval warships are repositioning themselves in the Gulf to prepare -- I don’t know where they would position themselves -- in the Gulf or in the Mediterranean -- to prepare for action against -- any possible military action against Libya?
MR. CARNEY: What I will say, I believe the Defense Department has commented on that, that this force is being positioned. But this is part of, A, making sure that all options remain on the table for us; and, B, positioning our assets in a way that can be helpful in the cause of bringing humanitarian relief to the Libyan people. So that does not necessarily signal an intent to use military force -- although, as I said, we are leaving all options on the table.
Yes, Julianna.
Q I just want to go back to Savannah’s question. At what point would it be appropriate to hear directly from the President calling on Qaddafi to step down, beyond readouts from phone calls or descriptions of conversations that he had with other officials?
MR. CARNEY: I’m sure the President will address this issue again. It’s not a matter of -- presidential action comes in many different ways and you just heard from our Ambassador to the United Nations, who just emerged from a meeting with the President and the U.N. Secretary General. She discussed in very clear terms the President’s position on the situation in Libya, on the Qaddafi regime. And I’m sure the President will address that again. But I’m not here to make any announcements on future statements by the President, but you can be sure that he has been incredibly active in dealing with this, as have all the principal members of the national security team. Secretary Clinton, I’m sure you all saw today, was in Geneva, and again, Ambassador Rice here.
Let me get to the back. Yes, sir, with the glasses and blue tie.
Q Thank you. I’m interested -- is anybody considering to offer Mr. Qaddafi an easier way out? I mean, of course, I also want to see him held accountable -- if he has only the alternative to stay in Libya in power until he will be forced out by the rebels and shot like Ceaucescu, or he goes to the criminal court in the Hague, then that's not very attractive. Shouldn’t one -- if you want to stop the bloodshed, wouldn't it be best to give him the opportunity to find a way into exile and stop it that way?
MR. CARNEY: I mentioned this morning -- I’m not sure you were here --
Q No, I was not.
MR. CARNEY: -- that exile is an option. And we -- it would be a quick option and it would comport with our desire to see him step down and remove himself from power. We are most interested in the end of his treatment of his people, the end of the violence against the Libyan people. And if exile is a quick option to make that happen, we would support that. But he and others will be held accountable for their actions regardless.
Q Jay, in a different part of the world, the Irish general elections were held on Friday. Do you have any reaction to the results from the election with Gerry Adams now taking his place -- the first time he’s been in Irish parliament?
And also, there are reports that the President is now going to add Ireland to his visit when he goes to the G8 summit in May. Do you have any confirmation of that?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any scheduling announcements to make in terms of presidential travels, and I’m afraid I don’t have a reaction to the elections for you. I’m sure the State Department would be one place you could go for that.
Yes, Chuck.
Q Jay, I want to ask about something Secretary Gates said on Friday when he said that a future Defense Secretary would have to have his head examined if he recommended a land war like Iraq or Afghanistan to another Commander-in-Chief ever again. What does the President say to a parent of a soldier in the battlefield right now in Afghanistan who might be wondering, well, the Secretary of Defense says they need to get their head examined, then isn’t it time to start withdrawing sooner rather than later?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t seen the Secretary’s comments or the context of the comments, but what I would say, Chuck, is that the President takes his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief enormously seriously and he -- that is why, with regard to Afghanistan, for example, he engaged in this intense, deliberate process to review our policy to make sure that it was the best possible policy towards the aims that -- the objectives that he set out, because he believes that asking our men and women in the Armed Services to serve in harm’s way is a heavy, heavy duty that needs to be done with utmost seriousness. And he -- again, I can’t -- in comment to the Secretary’s remarks, I just --
Q It’s a pretty -- I mean --
MR. CARNEY: Again, Chuck, I --
Q -- I know, it’s a pretty wildly -- I mean, I guess the -- can you -- I mean, does the President -- he must have -- this is his Secretary of Defense who questioned the entire premise --
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I’m not sure of the context --
Q -- the idea of a war like this again.
MR. CARNEY: But, Chuck, I’m not sure of the context of the comments, and I think that -- I’m sure the Secretary feels, as we all do, that war is a terrible enterprise that you pursue when -- only when your national interests demand that you do it. But beyond that, I don’t have a comment.
Mr. Knoller, did you still want to ask me a question?
Q Sure. How do you reason with a foreign leader who may be delusional?
MR. CARNEY: Well, delusional is a very good word and it’s the word that Ambassador Rice used.
Q Right.
MR. CARNEY: I don’t think we’re attempting to reason with him beyond to make -- beyond making the choices he faces starkly clear. And that goes for not just Colonel Qaddafi but those around him who -- the circle of people in the regime around who make up the protection that keeps him in power. Every one who is a member of that support network is placing himself or herself at great risk of being held accountable in a very serious way. And many of them have now had a substantial amount of their assets frozen by the actions taken unilaterally by the United States, announced by the Department of Treasury. And again, the consequences of their actions are being felt and will continue to be felt, and we would certainly urge those around Colonel Qaddafi to reconsider their position.
Q Jay, a follow-up to Mark?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, April.
Q If he is delusional, is he -- in all seriousness, if he’s delusional, is he capable of understanding the magnitude of what is happening and what the world community is requiring and requesting of him and saying?
MR. CARNEY: I can’t psychoanalyze Colonel Qaddafi and I -- I would simply say that we in the international community are making very clear what he needs to do and what our position is. And I am sure that he and others around him understand very clearly what our position is and what choices they face now with this kind of united international opposition to what he’s doing and to his government.
Yes.
Q Jay, the characterization of Libya -- a delusional leader literally suppressing his people facing sanctions -- it sounds an awful lot like Iran, as well. We equivocate about calling for the ouster of Ahmadinejad. Why do we do that?
MR. CARNEY: What I will say very clearly about what we’ve seen in Libya is, unlike anything we have seen in the unrest in the Middle East thus far in terms of the mass brutalization of people, the random killings, as the Ambassador mentioned, shooting people in windows, in hospitals, protestors -- unarmed, peaceful protestors on the street.
We have also condemned the violence that other governments, including the Iranian government, have used against peaceful protestors in no uncertain terms. And we do it again today. And we note with continued astonishment the hypocrisy of the Iranian government as recently as today where the foreign minister, I believe, claimed that there was absolutely no comparison between the protests in Iran, the peaceful broad-based pro-reform protests in Iran that were brutally suppressed, and the protests that they claim to support in other parts -- in other countries in the region. So that hypocrisy is clear for everyone to see.
Q Why can’t you just come out and call for Ahmadinejad’s ouster? I mean, you’re drawing --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think we’ve made very clear why the situation in Libya demanded the response that we’ve given it.
Q May I follow on that?
MR. CARNEY: Yes.
Q Did, in the Rice-Ban Ki-moon meeting, did the situation in Iran come up, and including the recent actions against human rights activists, journalist and bloggers, but also the protests and the government statements?
MR. CARNEY: In the meeting with the U.N. Secretary General, I don't have a readout that reflects that they discussed Iran. They might have. But I can say that we obviously are -- find the detention of opposition leaders to be unacceptable and we call on them to be treated well and released.
Q And is there a concern that the turmoil in the Middle East may be empowering Iran? There is some talk that it may be doing that. What is the White House view of this?
MR. CARNEY: Our view is that peaceful protests by populations in different countries that are representative of broad interests and broad segments of society in a demand for peaceful, democratic change are inherently good things; that the governments there need to respond peacefully to them, to listen to the aspirations of their people, to engage their people in the political process; and that when real democracy is strengthened, when real democracy takes root, I think that's good for the people of the region. It’s good for the rest of the world, and it’s good for the United States.
That's it.
Q That doesn’t really answer my question.
MR. CARNEY: Thank you very much.
END
4:14 P.M. EST
For Immediate Release
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
3:33 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As I mentioned this morning, we have with us today the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. She was just in a meeting with the President and the U.N. Secretary General, and I would like her to speak about that meeting. And then she’ll take some questions from you. And I'll step aside. Thanks.
AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you very much, Jay. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to start by giving a brief readout of the President’s meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that just finished a little while ago.
As you might expect, a significant portion of that meeting was devoted to discussing the situation in Libya. The U.N. has played a positive and very important role in efforts to end the bloodshed there and to hold the Qaddafi regime accountable, and support the Libyan people. Indeed, in Libya, the United Nations is demonstrating the indispensable role that it can play in advancing our interests and defending our values.
We'll come back to Libya in a few minutes, but let me just finish with the brief readout of the President’s meeting with the Secretary General.
The President and the Secretary General also discussed the situation elsewhere in the Middle East as well as the situation in Côte d’Ivoire. And with respect to Côte d’Ivoire, they expressed their concern about the escalation of violence there and the need to enable the legitimately elected president, Alassane Quattara, to assume responsibility for governing Côte d’Ivoire.
They also discussed the historic referendum that recently took place in Southern Sudan, where the people overwhelmingly voted for independence. And they discussed the vital work that the U.N. and the international community have still to do, along with the parties to the Sudanese conflict, to resolve outstanding issues and ensure lasting peace as the South gains its independence in July of this year.
The President and the Secretary General also discussed their shared agenda to build on the strengths of the United Nations while pursuing and implementing very important management reforms as well as budgetary discipline.
And finally, President Obama reaffirmed the administration’s strong belief that the United Nations continues to play a vital role in addressing tough, global and transnational threats, and in doing so, its work enhances the safety and well-being of the American people.
Now, coming back to Libya, as you know on Saturday night in New York, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1970, a tough and binding set of sanctions aimed at stopping the Libyan regime from killing its own people.
As you know, from the very beginning of the crisis in Libya, we’ve been clear that it’s vitally important for the international community to speak with one voice, and it has done so with an unusual and important sense of urgency, determination and unity of purpose.
This resolution that we passed had several important components. First, it refers the situation in Libya directly to the International Criminal Court. This is the first time that the Security Council has unanimously voted to refer a case of heinous human rights violations to the ICC.
Secondly, it includes a travel ban and an assets freeze on key Libyan leaders. It imposes a complete arms embargo on Libya and mechanisms to enforce it. And finally, it takes new steps against the use of mercenaries by the Libyan government to attack its own people, and it facilitates the delivery of vital humanitarian assistance.
These sanctions and accountability mechanisms should make all members of the Libyan regime think about the choice they have before them: Violate human rights and be held accountable, or stop the violence and respect the Libyan peoples’ call for change. There’s no escaping that critical choice.
Meanwhile, all the members of the United Nations Security Council are united in their determination that these sanctions work and work as swiftly as possible. But the Security Council has not finished its business and will continue to monitor the situation in Libya quite closely.
And I’ll reiterate what the President said over the weekend. Now is the time for Colonel Qaddafi to step aside to prevent further bloodshed and to allow the Libyan people to have a government that is responsive to their aspirations.
I’m happy to take a few of your questions.
MR. CARNEY: I just want to, if I could, just -- I'll call on people. What I'd like to do is do all questions for Ambassador Rice now, and we can get to other issues after that.
But, Darlene, why don't you start?
Q Thank you. Madam Ambassador, can you update us on the status of the talks for instituting a no-fly zone? How far along are those talks?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, as Secretary Clinton said today in Geneva, these talks are underway with our partners in NATO and elsewhere. We have made clear that it is an option that we are considering and considering actively and seriously.
MR. CARNEY: Steve.
Q Are you prepared to offer material support to the anti-government rebels in Libya?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, we are, first of all, in communication with all sort of elements of Libyan society -- civil society, leaders of all sorts -- to understand their perspectives and be able to be as supportive as we can of the Libyan people’s aspirations for freedom and for justice.
It’s unclear at this point who will emerge as the critical opposition elements, and we await to see how the opposition will coalesce. In that context, it’s certainly premature I think to begin to talk about any kind of military assistance.
Q Dr. Rice, thanks for being here. In an interview with several reporters, Moammar Qaddafi said that he’s not going anywhere, he’s never used force, all my people love me. And he expressed surprise that the United Nations would impose sanctions and implement a travel ban based purely on media reports. I was wondering if you had any response to any of the things he said in the interview.
AMBASSADOR RICE: It sounds, just frankly, delusional. And when he can laugh in talking to American and international journalists while he is slaughtering his own people, it only underscores how unfit he is to lead and how disconnected he is from reality. It makes all the more important the urgent steps that we have taken over the course of the last week on a national basis, as well as the steps that we’ve taken collectively through the United Nations and the Security Council.
And we’re going to continue to keep the pressure on. You’ve seen reports about the massive quantity of resources, some $30 billion that the Treasury Department has seized since the assets freeze went into effect on Friday -- and this in light of the fact that Colonel Qaddafi and his son Saif say they have no resources out there to be seized; they led a clean and uncorrupt life.
Q Ambassador Rice, when you talk about Colonel Qaddafi slaughtering his own people, he was -- he appeared to be doing that a week or so, even longer, and yet the President stopped short of calling for regime change until this weekend. So if -- why did it take so long for you to call for regime change? The President was saying it’s up to the Libyan people. Now you’re saying Qaddafi has to go. He’s been slaughtering these people for days. Why did it take until this weekend to say he has to go?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, first of all, it is up to the Libyan people. And we will continue to be very supportive of their efforts to achieve the universal rights and the freedoms and the opportunity that they are seeking. I think we have been very, very clear about what is right and what is moral in this situation, and what has been unacceptable and inexcusable violence. And we have taken very strong and very swift actions to confront that.
On Friday, we froze the assets of Libya’s leaders, and on Monday, $30 billion -- an unprecedented quantity of resources have been seized in just over the last several days. On Saturday, the Security Council with the U.S. and leadership of others moved at a speed that is, I can tell you from my experience, almost unheard of, to pass unanimously a resolution that not only imposed a travel ban, an assets freeze, and arms embargo, but referred the situation in Libya for the first time on a unanimous basis to the International Criminal Court.
Q What changed from February 23rd? What changed from February 23rd when the President --
AMBASSSADOR RICE: Well, first of all --
Q -- did not call for regime change?
AMBASSSADOR RICE: First of all, the situation has evolved. We have been, as the President has said, focused very urgently on the protection of Americans and ensuring that Americans are safe. But we have also, as the same time, been actively working and planning to enable the swift and decisive response that you’ve seen forthcoming from the U.S. government.
MR. CARNEY: Bill.
Q There’s been some talk about oil embargos. But does that make any sense now that it appears that most of the oil production is in the hands of rebel forces?
AMBASSSADOR RICE: Well, I think, from a sanctions point of view, the United Nations has historically, in recent years, moved away from sweeping measures, and focused most precisely on targeted measures that go after the leadership of the country and isolate those that are responsible for atrocities. We’re in a different world than we were 15, 20 years ago and have learned some lessons from regimes like Iraq and elsewhere that didn’t have the targeted effect that was desired and was more scattershot. So I think at least in the context of the Security Council in New York, when we look at sanctions, whether it’s on Iran, North Korea, or Libya, we aim, first and foremost, at targeted measures that go after those that are responsible for violations.
Q So in this case, not oil?
AMBASSSADOR RICE: We have not had active discussions in New York on oil.
MR. CARNEY: Chuck.
Q Dr. Rice, two questions. One, can you walk us through what the process would be for the United Nations to recognize the sort of opposition in Libya, or recognize maybe the eastern part of that controlled territory? And number two, is there a message in there for the Iranian government, the government of Bahrain about how swiftly the U.N. seemed to respond in this case, and maybe the lack of quickness they responded to the Iranian uprising a year and a half ago?
AMBASSSADOR RICE: The question of recognition is a very complicated one. And to recognize or seat a changed government requires a vote of a U.N. credentials committee. And depending on the murkiness of the situation, that can be more or less complicated. We’re dealing now with a request to the Secretary General from Qaddafi to withdraw accreditation for his diplomats in New York who stood up -- his perm rep, his deputy perm rep -- to the regime, and have been very clear in calling for the kinds of measures that the Security Council took on Saturday.
It’s too soon to say, in all honesty, how issues of credentials and issues of recognition will be sorted out. Unless and until there’s an obvious alternative government, it’s hard to give credentials to --
Q How long will this process take? Weeks? Months?
AMBASSADOR RICE: It depends on how it evolves. Unless and until there’s an obvious alternative, it’s hard to take from one and give to another because there’s not a clear other to whom recognition can be given.
Q And the Iran question?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, I think when -- what enabled the Security Council to act so swiftly and decisively in this instance was that there was just an egregious and widely reported series of mass killings by security forces on innocents -- not only those protesting, but those who stuck their heads out of windows; going into hospitals, reportedly, and shooting those dead that had already been wounded; shooting people as they came out of mosques.
And all of this I think served to galvanize a sense of outrage and determination on the part of the Security Council and the rest of the international community that action had to be taken. And quite unusually, the first calls came from the Arab League and the African Union, and subsequently the OIC for this kind of action. And the fact that Libya’s own diplomats in New York were urging decisive action I think also was an important factor.
MR. CARNEY: Mike.
Q You’ve reiterated the call for Qaddafi to go, and yet the U.S. does not have significant contact with the Libyan opposition. If he were to oblige and get on a plane and go, what does the U.S. want to see happen next?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Obviously, the United States wants to see a responsible government emerge that respects the will of the Libyan people. They are -- there's a serious institution-building challenge that exists in Libya, as elsewhere in the region. We believe there are universal rights that need to be acknowledged and respected, and processes that are determined by the people in each of these different countries that charts a specific course that's suitable to that country. And it would be wrong of us to sit here with a road map for a political transformation in Libya.
But our consistent message across the region and indeed across the world is that the people deserve the right to chart their own future in a fashion that is -- that enables them to express themselves freely, assemble freely, select their leaders, and do so free of violence and intimidation.
MR. CARNEY: Why don't we get one more for Ambassador Rice?
Margaret?
Q Thank you. Ambassador, two questions. With regard to the military question, I know you’re saying it’s premature to decide whether to commit troops. Is it the U.S.’s position that that would need to be done through a NATO commitment and not through a U.S. military commitment?
And then, secondly, in the conversations with Ban Ki-moon, is the President discussing more broadly how to do a proactive strategy with the unrest that's sweeping the Middle East? And how do you get ahead of that?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, let me come to your second question first. The President and the Secretary General discussed the region broadly and the international efforts, including those led and coordinated by the United Nations, to be responsive to developments in each of these countries. So, for example, the Secretary General reported that he has sent high-level teams to both Egypt and Tunisia to engage those governments about the process of transition and the political support that the United Nations and the international community might be able to provide in support of those political transitions.
With respect to Libya, the Secretary General indicated that he intended to name a senior-level person to coordinate the United Nations humanitarian and political efforts with respect to Libya. That was something that we had encouraged and welcomed. And so there was a real effort discussed and agreed that would help to coordinate and consolidate both the humanitarian response, particularly with respect to Libya, and the political efforts to help support the democratic transformations that we hope are underway in various parts of the region.
Q And the military question?
AMBASSADOR RICE: With respect to the military question, we are in discussions with partners and allies in NATO and elsewhere. We have been very clear that we have a range of options, a wide range of options that we’re considering, but it would be premature to say more than that.
Q I’m sorry, but you don’t want the U.S. -- it seems like the U.S. doesn’t necessarily want a U.S. stamp on any action. The President has taken great pains to say there has to be a unified response. Is that a decision --
AMBASSADOR RICE: I think it’s, frankly, quite premature to speculate about any potential military action. We’re simply in the process of planning and discussing various contingencies.
Q One more, Jay?
MR. CARNEY: Maybe one more.
Q Okay, thank you. Ambassador Rice, you said something to the effect that we have not actively discussed oil at the U.N. Are you talking about specifically the Libyan issue or the increase, the request to increase oil in other countries like Mexico, Canada and some portions of Africa?
AMBASSADOR RICE: No, I was responding to the specific question of whether multilateral oil sanctions had been discussed actively in New York with respect to Libya, and the answer to that is no. The other issues have not been, to my knowledge, discussed in any formal venue and it’s really not the place where that kind of discussion would occur.
Q But also, could you quantify the $10 million of humanitarian effort that the United States has committed for those refugees who are fleeing into the other countries that are bordering Libya?
AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, the U.S. government has begun to mount a very robust humanitarian response that will include resources to the various concerned agencies like the High Commissioner for Refugees, like the International Organization for Migration. We’ll also be looking at other kinds of humanitarian needs. The Secretary General explained to the President today, for instance, that the U.N. is quite concerned about the dearth of medical supplies in Libya and the importance of urgent action being taken to ensure that those kinds of critical humanitarian needs are meet. And we’ll be supportive of those efforts as we always are.
Thank you.
MR. CARNEY: Okay, guys, I’ve got to let the Ambassador go.
AMBASSADOR RICE: Thanks very much.
Q Thanks, Dr. Rice.
MR. CARNEY: Okay, we’ll return to our regular programming. Let’s see -- yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Jay. The governors have had meetings with the President. What are the requests that they have made that the administration seems likeliest to comply with on short notice?
MR. CARNEY: You mean broadly speaking? If you want me to give -- I can give you a readout on the meeting itself today and the issues they discussed. I don't have any specific -- you know that the President did announce today support for legislation that Senators Wyden, Brown and Landrieu have introduced that would speed up the innovation waiver for states to -- with ideas of their own to pursue health care reform in their states from 2017 to 2014. That was obviously a major announcement he made today.
Q That would be along the lines of the waiver on welfare a few years ago?
MR. CARNEY: I don't know how to compare it to that. But I think if you saw the announcement, and I’m sure you’ve seen the remarks, the President is very interested in the very good ideas that states might have to achieve the goals set by the Affordable Care Act in different ways. And he now supports the legislation put forward that was originally put out last year and again a few weeks ago that will allow the states three years earlier than planned to propose initiatives that can bring them to -- achieve the goals set by the Affordable Care Act through the innovative ideas that they themselves come up with. And that's the kind of flexibility the President thinks is important and that he wants to give the states when appropriate.
Perry.
Q Jay, did you all ask Republicans in Congress or Republican governors if they liked this idea before he proposed it?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't know that -- if you mean the President, that he had any discussions with Republican governors --
Q -- support this idea right now, so I’m curious if you -- other than from Scott Brown -- so I’m just curious if you’ve met with anyone to see if they would like it first. It seems like a --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we think that the states will be, and are, interested in this kind of approach to implementing the Affordable Care Act in that it gives them more flexibility to achieve the very important goals that the act lays out in terms of coverage, no costs to the deficit, levels of benefits, and the four items that were laid out. So I think that we expect and hope that there will be support in Congress for this. It’s already a bipartisan bill, as you noted, and we -- the President supports it.
Yes.
Q Thanks, Jay. The President warned governors not to denigrate or vilify public employees. Does he think that's what they’ve been doing?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as the President said several weeks ago now, he is very sympathetic to the need that governors and state legislators have in dealing with their budget issues, to have sacrifice at all levels; that everyone needs to come together, tighten their belts, and deal with their budget shortfalls, and that includes public sector employees. But he does not believe that it is helpful to denigrate or vilify public sector employees in a way that brings you no closer to resolving the problems and sows division instead of creating the kind of unity that you need when everyone sits at the table to solve the issues together.
Q So he would characterize what's been happening as a denigration and vilification?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to his speech. And I think that it’s fairly clear from what he said in the past that he does not think that an assault on public sector employees or the collective bargaining rights of public sector employees is the way to go. Rather, that everyone needs to come together, share the sacrifice, and resolve the issues that have led to these budget shortfalls.
Q Can I also ask a Libya question? You’ve said a few times and Dr. Rice just said that the administration is in contact with all members of organized civil society, and leaders of various stripes. And it’s hard to see what the organized elements of civil society and what those leaders could be, since Colonel Qaddafi has tried so hard to squelch all of them. What's there? Who’s there? What are the organizations to talk to?
MR. CARNEY: Well, you make a good point about the situation in Libya, and it goes to the broader point that we’ve made about how every country is different in the region, the countries that have experienced unrest.
Without specifying particular individuals or groups that we are reaching out to -- and reaching out to through both diplomatic means but through businesses and NGOs -- I would say that we are having those conversations, finding out where these groups stand in terms of the desire for a process that is democratic and inclusive and responsive to the desires and aspirations of the Libyan people. But I’m not prepared to identify this group or this individual at this point.
Q Just a quick follow-up on that.
MR. CARNEY: Yes.
Q The Crown Prince of Libya last week asked international assistance to Moammar Qaddafi. Are you in touch with him? Are you going to -- because his flags are -- their flags have come up with the rebels.
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not able to specify individuals that we’re in touch with. And I want to emphasize that the channels we are using are not just government channels; they are also through the business community and NGOs and other channels that we can use to talk to these groups who are interested in democratic reform and being responsive to the aspirations of the Libyan people.
Yes.
Q Jay, thanks. Do you have a deadline today for Qaddafi to leave? Because he doesn’t seem to leave. He’s still there.
MR. CARNEY: Yes, he is. The President made clear, we’ve made clear, Ambassador Rice made clear that Colonel Qaddafi needs to step aside, to step down. He has lost all legitimacy in the eyes of his people, most importantly, and in the eyes of the world community. He is no longer in a position to credibly lead his nation. And he is, in the meantime, inflicting horrific violence on the people he claims to serve and the people he claims love him -- which is quite a claim indeed. So I won’t put a deadline on it, except to say now would be good.
Savannah.
Q To the extent there is this urgency, do you think that this effort to have Qaddafi leave would be helped along by a strong statement from the President along the likes of the one we just saw from Ambassador Rice? She didn’t mince words.
MR. CARNEY: No, she didn’t. And neither has the President in his statements, or neither has Secretary of State Clinton or other government officials. And we have worked assiduously behind the scenes to bring about the kind of dramatic objectives in terms of the action at the United Nations and the unilateral sanctions that we’ve implemented that are putting, we believe, great pressure, and will put great pressure on not just Colonel Qaddafi, but the Libyan regime. I mean, if you are now a member of the Libyan government, you have to think very, very seriously about whose side you want to be on. Because if you stay with Qaddafi, if you stay with this regime, if you accept and act on orders to murder your own people, you will be held accountable. And the action taken by the United Nations to refer this to the ICC is a very dramatic statement about the accountability we expect those perpetrators to be held to.
Q But who is going to hold them accountable? I mean, it’s one thing to say we hold them accountable, but who is going to do it? Are we?
MR. CARNEY: Bill, the history -- recent history has examples to show you that bad actors who treat their people in this manner can be held accountable, and we intend with our international partners for that to be the case.
Jake.
Q Can you comment on reports that U.S. naval warships are repositioning themselves in the Gulf to prepare -- I don’t know where they would position themselves -- in the Gulf or in the Mediterranean -- to prepare for action against -- any possible military action against Libya?
MR. CARNEY: What I will say, I believe the Defense Department has commented on that, that this force is being positioned. But this is part of, A, making sure that all options remain on the table for us; and, B, positioning our assets in a way that can be helpful in the cause of bringing humanitarian relief to the Libyan people. So that does not necessarily signal an intent to use military force -- although, as I said, we are leaving all options on the table.
Yes, Julianna.
Q I just want to go back to Savannah’s question. At what point would it be appropriate to hear directly from the President calling on Qaddafi to step down, beyond readouts from phone calls or descriptions of conversations that he had with other officials?
MR. CARNEY: I’m sure the President will address this issue again. It’s not a matter of -- presidential action comes in many different ways and you just heard from our Ambassador to the United Nations, who just emerged from a meeting with the President and the U.N. Secretary General. She discussed in very clear terms the President’s position on the situation in Libya, on the Qaddafi regime. And I’m sure the President will address that again. But I’m not here to make any announcements on future statements by the President, but you can be sure that he has been incredibly active in dealing with this, as have all the principal members of the national security team. Secretary Clinton, I’m sure you all saw today, was in Geneva, and again, Ambassador Rice here.
Let me get to the back. Yes, sir, with the glasses and blue tie.
Q Thank you. I’m interested -- is anybody considering to offer Mr. Qaddafi an easier way out? I mean, of course, I also want to see him held accountable -- if he has only the alternative to stay in Libya in power until he will be forced out by the rebels and shot like Ceaucescu, or he goes to the criminal court in the Hague, then that's not very attractive. Shouldn’t one -- if you want to stop the bloodshed, wouldn't it be best to give him the opportunity to find a way into exile and stop it that way?
MR. CARNEY: I mentioned this morning -- I’m not sure you were here --
Q No, I was not.
MR. CARNEY: -- that exile is an option. And we -- it would be a quick option and it would comport with our desire to see him step down and remove himself from power. We are most interested in the end of his treatment of his people, the end of the violence against the Libyan people. And if exile is a quick option to make that happen, we would support that. But he and others will be held accountable for their actions regardless.
Q Jay, in a different part of the world, the Irish general elections were held on Friday. Do you have any reaction to the results from the election with Gerry Adams now taking his place -- the first time he’s been in Irish parliament?
And also, there are reports that the President is now going to add Ireland to his visit when he goes to the G8 summit in May. Do you have any confirmation of that?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any scheduling announcements to make in terms of presidential travels, and I’m afraid I don’t have a reaction to the elections for you. I’m sure the State Department would be one place you could go for that.
Yes, Chuck.
Q Jay, I want to ask about something Secretary Gates said on Friday when he said that a future Defense Secretary would have to have his head examined if he recommended a land war like Iraq or Afghanistan to another Commander-in-Chief ever again. What does the President say to a parent of a soldier in the battlefield right now in Afghanistan who might be wondering, well, the Secretary of Defense says they need to get their head examined, then isn’t it time to start withdrawing sooner rather than later?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t seen the Secretary’s comments or the context of the comments, but what I would say, Chuck, is that the President takes his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief enormously seriously and he -- that is why, with regard to Afghanistan, for example, he engaged in this intense, deliberate process to review our policy to make sure that it was the best possible policy towards the aims that -- the objectives that he set out, because he believes that asking our men and women in the Armed Services to serve in harm’s way is a heavy, heavy duty that needs to be done with utmost seriousness. And he -- again, I can’t -- in comment to the Secretary’s remarks, I just --
Q It’s a pretty -- I mean --
MR. CARNEY: Again, Chuck, I --
Q -- I know, it’s a pretty wildly -- I mean, I guess the -- can you -- I mean, does the President -- he must have -- this is his Secretary of Defense who questioned the entire premise --
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I’m not sure of the context --
Q -- the idea of a war like this again.
MR. CARNEY: But, Chuck, I’m not sure of the context of the comments, and I think that -- I’m sure the Secretary feels, as we all do, that war is a terrible enterprise that you pursue when -- only when your national interests demand that you do it. But beyond that, I don’t have a comment.
Mr. Knoller, did you still want to ask me a question?
Q Sure. How do you reason with a foreign leader who may be delusional?
MR. CARNEY: Well, delusional is a very good word and it’s the word that Ambassador Rice used.
Q Right.
MR. CARNEY: I don’t think we’re attempting to reason with him beyond to make -- beyond making the choices he faces starkly clear. And that goes for not just Colonel Qaddafi but those around him who -- the circle of people in the regime around who make up the protection that keeps him in power. Every one who is a member of that support network is placing himself or herself at great risk of being held accountable in a very serious way. And many of them have now had a substantial amount of their assets frozen by the actions taken unilaterally by the United States, announced by the Department of Treasury. And again, the consequences of their actions are being felt and will continue to be felt, and we would certainly urge those around Colonel Qaddafi to reconsider their position.
Q Jay, a follow-up to Mark?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, April.
Q If he is delusional, is he -- in all seriousness, if he’s delusional, is he capable of understanding the magnitude of what is happening and what the world community is requiring and requesting of him and saying?
MR. CARNEY: I can’t psychoanalyze Colonel Qaddafi and I -- I would simply say that we in the international community are making very clear what he needs to do and what our position is. And I am sure that he and others around him understand very clearly what our position is and what choices they face now with this kind of united international opposition to what he’s doing and to his government.
Yes.
Q Jay, the characterization of Libya -- a delusional leader literally suppressing his people facing sanctions -- it sounds an awful lot like Iran, as well. We equivocate about calling for the ouster of Ahmadinejad. Why do we do that?
MR. CARNEY: What I will say very clearly about what we’ve seen in Libya is, unlike anything we have seen in the unrest in the Middle East thus far in terms of the mass brutalization of people, the random killings, as the Ambassador mentioned, shooting people in windows, in hospitals, protestors -- unarmed, peaceful protestors on the street.
We have also condemned the violence that other governments, including the Iranian government, have used against peaceful protestors in no uncertain terms. And we do it again today. And we note with continued astonishment the hypocrisy of the Iranian government as recently as today where the foreign minister, I believe, claimed that there was absolutely no comparison between the protests in Iran, the peaceful broad-based pro-reform protests in Iran that were brutally suppressed, and the protests that they claim to support in other parts -- in other countries in the region. So that hypocrisy is clear for everyone to see.
Q Why can’t you just come out and call for Ahmadinejad’s ouster? I mean, you’re drawing --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think we’ve made very clear why the situation in Libya demanded the response that we’ve given it.
Q May I follow on that?
MR. CARNEY: Yes.
Q Did, in the Rice-Ban Ki-moon meeting, did the situation in Iran come up, and including the recent actions against human rights activists, journalist and bloggers, but also the protests and the government statements?
MR. CARNEY: In the meeting with the U.N. Secretary General, I don't have a readout that reflects that they discussed Iran. They might have. But I can say that we obviously are -- find the detention of opposition leaders to be unacceptable and we call on them to be treated well and released.
Q And is there a concern that the turmoil in the Middle East may be empowering Iran? There is some talk that it may be doing that. What is the White House view of this?
MR. CARNEY: Our view is that peaceful protests by populations in different countries that are representative of broad interests and broad segments of society in a demand for peaceful, democratic change are inherently good things; that the governments there need to respond peacefully to them, to listen to the aspirations of their people, to engage their people in the political process; and that when real democracy is strengthened, when real democracy takes root, I think that's good for the people of the region. It’s good for the rest of the world, and it’s good for the United States.
That's it.
Q That doesn’t really answer my question.
MR. CARNEY: Thank you very much.
END
4:14 P.M. EST
Readout of President Obama's Call with the President of Mexico
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
President Obama spoke with President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa this evening and thanked him for Mexican efforts to bring to justice the murderers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Jaime Zapata, including the arrest today of one of his alleged killers.
The President said neither the United States nor Mexico could tolerate violence against those who serve and protect our citizens, as Special Agent Zapata did so selflessly through his own life. President Obama said he looked forward to welcoming President Calderón to the White House on Thursday, March 3, to discuss our important bilateral relationship and key global issues.
For Immediate Release
President Obama spoke with President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa this evening and thanked him for Mexican efforts to bring to justice the murderers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Jaime Zapata, including the arrest today of one of his alleged killers.
The President said neither the United States nor Mexico could tolerate violence against those who serve and protect our citizens, as Special Agent Zapata did so selflessly through his own life. President Obama said he looked forward to welcoming President Calderón to the White House on Thursday, March 3, to discuss our important bilateral relationship and key global issues.
Walker Isolated
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), today:
I'm not sending the state police after anybody. I'm not gonna divert a single trooper from their job of protection the Indiana public. I trust that people's consciences will bring them back to work. ... For reasons I've explained more than once I thought there was a better time and place to have this very important and legitimate issue raised.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), today:
My belief is as long as people know what they?re doing, collective bargaining is fine.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), tonight's "fireside":
The missing Senate Democrats must know that their failure to come to work will lead to dire consequences very soon.�� Failure to act on this budget repair bill means (at least) 15 hundred state employees will be laid off before the end of June.� If there is no agreement by July 1st, another 5-6 thousand state workers -- as well as 5-6 thousand local government employees would be also laid off.
Tone.� Deaf.� Someone has been giving Walker some very bad PR advice.� The real fight at this point is whether Republicans in the legislature will do the walking back, letting Walker save face, or if they'll let him shoulder the over-reach alone.� Walker, legislative Republicans or Democrats, someone has to back down, and momentum is behind the state Democrats standing their ground.� And the longer the fight continues, the more discussion around Walker's proposal -- designed as a reactionary, quick, "crisis" driven move, not ready for prime time scrutiny -- the better the position for unions and Democratic lawmakers.
Public support for union bargaining rights nationwide is high, the unions have agreed to the financial concessions, and rally's from Colorado to New Jersey to Montana in support of Wisconsin workers have drawn headlines.� Walker's only hope here is that the toxicity the battle he and state Republicans have chosen doesn't hang with them for the next four years.
But here's hoping it does.
I'm not sending the state police after anybody. I'm not gonna divert a single trooper from their job of protection the Indiana public. I trust that people's consciences will bring them back to work. ... For reasons I've explained more than once I thought there was a better time and place to have this very important and legitimate issue raised.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), today:
My belief is as long as people know what they?re doing, collective bargaining is fine.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), tonight's "fireside":
The missing Senate Democrats must know that their failure to come to work will lead to dire consequences very soon.�� Failure to act on this budget repair bill means (at least) 15 hundred state employees will be laid off before the end of June.� If there is no agreement by July 1st, another 5-6 thousand state workers -- as well as 5-6 thousand local government employees would be also laid off.
Tone.� Deaf.� Someone has been giving Walker some very bad PR advice.� The real fight at this point is whether Republicans in the legislature will do the walking back, letting Walker save face, or if they'll let him shoulder the over-reach alone.� Walker, legislative Republicans or Democrats, someone has to back down, and momentum is behind the state Democrats standing their ground.� And the longer the fight continues, the more discussion around Walker's proposal -- designed as a reactionary, quick, "crisis" driven move, not ready for prime time scrutiny -- the better the position for unions and Democratic lawmakers.
Public support for union bargaining rights nationwide is high, the unions have agreed to the financial concessions, and rally's from Colorado to New Jersey to Montana in support of Wisconsin workers have drawn headlines.� Walker's only hope here is that the toxicity the battle he and state Republicans have chosen doesn't hang with them for the next four years.
But here's hoping it does.
barney franks obamacare socialized medicine socialism stem cell
On the Ground in Ohio
cross-posted from Sum of Change
COLUMBUS, OH: I am on the ground in Ohio, here to cover the protests for the couple days that I can afford to be away from DC. Today, despite a persistent rain, demonstrators lined the sidewalk outside of the Capitol Building in Columbus to voice their opposition to Senate Bill 5 which threatens state employees' bargaining rights. Today's protest was a lead up to tomorrow, when thousands are expected to descend on Columbus.
I also want to include the full interview I did with one of the teachers:
Some helpful facts about Ohio and collective bargaining (from the Examiner , not directly quoted)
• Ohio public employees make the same or less than their counterparts in the private sector (although a higher percentage of state workers have college degrees) • In the last 9 years, state workers have taken 5 years of pay freezes (that's with collective bargaining) • Budget gaps are higher, on average, in states that do not allow collective bargaining • State employee payroll in Ohio equals only 9% of the state budget
We'll be here for part of the protest tomorrow too!
COLUMBUS, OH: I am on the ground in Ohio, here to cover the protests for the couple days that I can afford to be away from DC. Today, despite a persistent rain, demonstrators lined the sidewalk outside of the Capitol Building in Columbus to voice their opposition to Senate Bill 5 which threatens state employees' bargaining rights. Today's protest was a lead up to tomorrow, when thousands are expected to descend on Columbus.
I also want to include the full interview I did with one of the teachers:
Some helpful facts about Ohio and collective bargaining (from the Examiner , not directly quoted)
• Ohio public employees make the same or less than their counterparts in the private sector (although a higher percentage of state workers have college degrees) • In the last 9 years, state workers have taken 5 years of pay freezes (that's with collective bargaining) • Budget gaps are higher, on average, in states that do not allow collective bargaining • State employee payroll in Ohio equals only 9% of the state budget
We'll be here for part of the protest tomorrow too!
Bush tax cuts Rubio Charlie Crist Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Remarks by the President at "In Performance At The White House: The Motown Sound"
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Location:
East Room
7:31 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everybody. Please have a seat. Tonight we continue one of my favorite traditions here at the White House by celebrating the music that’s at the heart of the American story. And as we come to the end of Black History Month, I can’t think of a better way to do it than by honoring the legendary sound of Motown. (Applause.)
I want to start by thanking our performers here tonight: Natasha Bedingfield, Sheryl Crow, Jamie Foxx, Gloriana, Nick Jonas, Ledisi, John Legend, Amber Riley, Mark Salling, Seal, Jordin Sparks, Smokey Robinson -- (applause) -- and because we weren’t sure that was enough, we thought we might throw Stevie Wonder in there. (Applause.) And obviously we are grateful for all the other Motown legends who are gracing us with their presence. Thank you for being here.
Over the years, this room has hosted some of the most talented musicians in the world, from classical to country. But Motown is different. No one knows exactly when jazz began. Nobody knows who the first person was to sing a freedom song. But we know where Motown came from. We know it was born in the basement of a house on West Grand Boulevard in the Motor City -- Detroit. (Applause.) And we know it started with a man named Berry Gordy, who is here with us tonight. Stand up, Berry. (Applause.)
Now, apparently Berry tried a lot of things before following his heart into music. A high school dropout, he failed as a record store owner, competed as an amateur boxer, finally took a job earning $85 a week on the assembly line at the local Lincoln-Mercury plant. And it was there, watching the bare metal frames transformed into gleaming automobiles, that Berry wondered why he couldn’t do the same thing with musicians, and help turn new talent into stars.
And before long, he quit his job at the plant, borrowed $800, and set up shop in a little house with a banner across the front that read “Hitsville, U.S.A.” His family thought he was delusional. (Laughter.) But as Berry said, “People thought the Wright Brothers had a stupid idea, so I say, ‘Bring on the stupid ideas.’”
As it turned out, Berry could recognize talent and potential better than anybody else in the business. It began with Smokey Robinson, who stopped by the Motown house with a group of friends calling themselves the Miracles. Then came one of Smokey’s neighbors -– a high school senior named Diana Ross, who started out working as a secretary. One of the Miracles brought along his little brother, who invited a 10-year-old blind kid named Stephen Hardaway Judkins to tag along. (Laughter.) And then there was a group called the Jackson Five, fresh from amateur night at the Apollo, that Gladys Knight told Berry he just had to see.
Pretty soon, the basement studio was turning out hits faster than Detroit was turning out cars. From 1961 to 1971, Motown produced 110 Top 10 hits from artists like Marvin Gaye, The Temptations, The Four Tops and The Supremes. In the process, Motown’s blend of tight lyrics, catchy melodies and deep soul began to blur the line between music that was considered either “black” or “white.” As Smokey Robinson said, “I recognized the bridges that were crossed, the racial problems and the barriers that we broke down with music. I recognized that because I lived it.”
Along the way, songs like “Dancing in the Streets” and “What’s Going On” became the soundtrack of the civil rights era. Black artists began soaring to the top of the pop charts for the first time. And at concerts in the South, Motown groups literally brought people together –- insisting that the ropes traditionally used to separate black and white audience members be taken down.
So, today, more than 50 years later, that’s the Motown legacy. Born at a time of so much struggle, so much strife, it taught us that what unites us will always be stronger than what divides us. And in the decades since, those catchy beats and simple chords have influenced generations of musicians, from Sheryl Crow to the Jonas Brothers.
So to everybody watching, both here and at home, let’s take a trip back to that little studio in Detroit and enjoy the unmistakable sound of Motown. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
7:38 P.M. EST
For Immediate Release
Location:
East Room
7:31 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everybody. Please have a seat. Tonight we continue one of my favorite traditions here at the White House by celebrating the music that’s at the heart of the American story. And as we come to the end of Black History Month, I can’t think of a better way to do it than by honoring the legendary sound of Motown. (Applause.)
I want to start by thanking our performers here tonight: Natasha Bedingfield, Sheryl Crow, Jamie Foxx, Gloriana, Nick Jonas, Ledisi, John Legend, Amber Riley, Mark Salling, Seal, Jordin Sparks, Smokey Robinson -- (applause) -- and because we weren’t sure that was enough, we thought we might throw Stevie Wonder in there. (Applause.) And obviously we are grateful for all the other Motown legends who are gracing us with their presence. Thank you for being here.
Over the years, this room has hosted some of the most talented musicians in the world, from classical to country. But Motown is different. No one knows exactly when jazz began. Nobody knows who the first person was to sing a freedom song. But we know where Motown came from. We know it was born in the basement of a house on West Grand Boulevard in the Motor City -- Detroit. (Applause.) And we know it started with a man named Berry Gordy, who is here with us tonight. Stand up, Berry. (Applause.)
Now, apparently Berry tried a lot of things before following his heart into music. A high school dropout, he failed as a record store owner, competed as an amateur boxer, finally took a job earning $85 a week on the assembly line at the local Lincoln-Mercury plant. And it was there, watching the bare metal frames transformed into gleaming automobiles, that Berry wondered why he couldn’t do the same thing with musicians, and help turn new talent into stars.
And before long, he quit his job at the plant, borrowed $800, and set up shop in a little house with a banner across the front that read “Hitsville, U.S.A.” His family thought he was delusional. (Laughter.) But as Berry said, “People thought the Wright Brothers had a stupid idea, so I say, ‘Bring on the stupid ideas.’”
As it turned out, Berry could recognize talent and potential better than anybody else in the business. It began with Smokey Robinson, who stopped by the Motown house with a group of friends calling themselves the Miracles. Then came one of Smokey’s neighbors -– a high school senior named Diana Ross, who started out working as a secretary. One of the Miracles brought along his little brother, who invited a 10-year-old blind kid named Stephen Hardaway Judkins to tag along. (Laughter.) And then there was a group called the Jackson Five, fresh from amateur night at the Apollo, that Gladys Knight told Berry he just had to see.
Pretty soon, the basement studio was turning out hits faster than Detroit was turning out cars. From 1961 to 1971, Motown produced 110 Top 10 hits from artists like Marvin Gaye, The Temptations, The Four Tops and The Supremes. In the process, Motown’s blend of tight lyrics, catchy melodies and deep soul began to blur the line between music that was considered either “black” or “white.” As Smokey Robinson said, “I recognized the bridges that were crossed, the racial problems and the barriers that we broke down with music. I recognized that because I lived it.”
Along the way, songs like “Dancing in the Streets” and “What’s Going On” became the soundtrack of the civil rights era. Black artists began soaring to the top of the pop charts for the first time. And at concerts in the South, Motown groups literally brought people together –- insisting that the ropes traditionally used to separate black and white audience members be taken down.
So, today, more than 50 years later, that’s the Motown legacy. Born at a time of so much struggle, so much strife, it taught us that what unites us will always be stronger than what divides us. And in the decades since, those catchy beats and simple chords have influenced generations of musicians, from Sheryl Crow to the Jonas Brothers.
So to everybody watching, both here and at home, let’s take a trip back to that little studio in Detroit and enjoy the unmistakable sound of Motown. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
7:38 P.M. EST
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/24/2011
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
See below for an answer to a question (marked with an asterisk) posed in the briefing that required follow up.
*The President was briefed on Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari earlier this month and yesterday he was informed that an arrest was likely.
1:18 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, everybody. Sorry I’m late. I apologize.
Q New regime.
Q This is a new leaf.
MR. CARNEY: What, the apology? Gibbs never apologized. I take it back. (Laughter.)
Q There you go.
MR. CARNEY: Before we get started, I have a couple of details about recent conversations that President Obama has had with foreign leaders. First, since the readout was sent last night fairly late, I just want to make sure that all of you know that last night around 8:00 p.m. Eastern, the President spoke with Mexico President Calder?n. President Obama expressed appreciation for the strong investigative work of the Mexicans to arrest one of Special Agent Zapata’s alleged killers. And President Calder?n expressed appreciation for the cooperation of American agencies that made the arrest possible.
The President said that neither the United States nor Mexico could tolerate violence against those who serve and protect our citizens, as Special Agent Zapata did so selflessly through his own life.
President Obama also said he was looking forward to welcoming President Calder?n to the White House on Thursday, March 3rd, to discuss our important bilateral relationship and key global issues.
Also, I’d like to mention that this afternoon the President is scheduled to speak with Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy to coordinate our actions in response to the situation in Libya. We expect additional conversations with foreign leaders on this topic in the days ahead.
With that, I am ready for your questions.
Q Can you talk about the Americans that are in this situation with the ferry that’s not able to leave Tripoli? Are there contingency plans to get them out?
MR. CARNEY: The State Department, the government is working very hard to evacuate the Americans from Libya. The details of those operations are available at the State Department, but we are doing everything we can to safely evacuate them from Libya.
Q And with that evacuation still not having happened, how does that complicate the U.S. response to the situation?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as I think you heard the President say yesterday very clearly what our -- what his position is towards the situation, towards the actions of the Libyan government, very clear condemnation of the violence against the protesters there, violence against Libyan citizens, he also is obviously very concerned about the safety of Americans, and that is a priority. That’s all I can say on that.
Q Any movement on sanctions, no-fly zone?
MR. CARNEY: Obviously sanctions are something we’re looking at. I don’t want to get into specifics. We’re working very closely with the international community, and we’re hoping and believe that the international community will speak with one voice, as I think is often the case. When the international community comes together and speaks with one voice it has a powerful impact in terms of persuading a government like Libya’s to do the right thing, to stop the kind of violence it’s been perpetrating on its own people.
So we’re examining a lot of options -- sanctions are one of them, but I don’t want to specify that one is going to happen and one’s not going to happen. But we’re working with our partners on that.
Q Will sanctions be on the agenda when the President speaks to Cameron and Sarkozy today?
MR. CARNEY: Well, they will be discussing Libya. And I think that they will be discussing different options that we can take -- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, other countries, international partners -- to affect the behavior of the Libyan government. So I’m sure, broadly speaking, our options will be discussed.
Yes, go ahead.
Q What kind of military options are being considered?
MR. CARNEY: I think what we’ve said is that there are no options we’re taking off the table. But what we’re focused on are the options that we can take to affect the situation in the nearer term. And we would like to see the kind of concerted, broad-based international action that can compel the Libyan government to cease and desist from the kind of actions it’s taking against its own people.
Q As far as keeping U.S. citizens safe in Libya, who is the -- who are you guys talking to within the Libyan government? I mean, while we’re waiting for the ferry to go since the weather is not supposed to change for at least the next few days.
MR. CARNEY: Well, obviously the security of these American citizens is an extremely high priority, and I wouldn’t want to say anything from this podium or publicly that would affect their security. So I’m not going to get into what specifically we’re doing to make sure they’re safe. We are taking -- doing everything we can to evacuate them, to make sure they are safe. But beyond that I don’t want to get into how we’re doing that.
Yes, Jake.
Q Colonel Qaddafi today in a rambling phone interview with Libyan state television, as well as two days ago, talked about how the protesters had been fed hallucinogens by Osama bin Laden. I was wondering if the administration had any response to anything Mr. Qaddafi has said in the last couple days.
MR. CARNEY: Jake, the way we’ve approached this, the way the President has approached this, is that our position on the unrest in these countries is not about an individual leader. It’s about the responsibility that each government has to not respond with violence to peaceful demonstrators, to not restrict the universal rights that their citizens have, and to move forward with the kind of reforms that will be responsive to the legitimate aspirations of their people. It’s not about personalities.
And I would simply note that one consistent theme I think you’ve seen in the way that we have responded to these developments, these events in the Middle East, in the region, has been to make it clear that it’s also not about the United States. It’s not about the United States dictating outcomes, picking leaders, telling countries who can run, who can be their leader and who can’t be -- because what we have seen are legitimate, organic, grassroots risings by the peoples of these countries demanding more freedom and greater opportunity in their lives. And again, it’s not about individual leaders and it’s about the peoples in these countries.
Q The French Defense Minister has talked openly about imposing a no-fly zone more openly than the U.S. has talked about it. Can you explain why?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t want to explain what other leaders in other countries have said or other senior officials from other countries. What we have said is that we’re not going to specify which options are on or off the table. We are discussing a full range of options with our partners at the U.N. and elsewhere. And we expect to take action in the near term with the international community to, we believe, hopefully compel the Libyan government to stop killing its own people.
Q Do you have any theory as to why other nations have been allowed by the Libyan government to land planes to extricate their citizens and the Libyan government has not allowed the United States to do so?
MR. CARNEY: Again, for the details on our efforts to extract American citizens from -- or help evacuate American citizens from Libya I refer you to the State Department. I just know that we are doing everything we can to make that happen.
Dan.
Q Thank you. Back to the military options. Has the President been presented yet with a military plan on Libya from the Pentagon?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to get into specific options that are under consideration or not under consideration. I would again point out that we want to work with our international partners because we think the most effective action in many cases can be when the international community speaks with one voice and acts in a united way. I’m not -- again, I’m not ruling out bilateral options, but I’m just saying that that is a focus right now.
Q So you’re not ruling out that there is a military option?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not ruling anything out.
Q But you won’t say if the President has been presented with a military option yet?
MR. CARNEY: No, I won’t say that.
Q Is there a list of priorities in terms of what options you would like to attack first? This is -- whether it’s sanctions, whether it’s no-fly zone, whether it’s military -- has the administration put together a list of options in priority?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think we’ve -- I’ve been asked and it’s been discussed, the possibility of different kinds of sanctions, different measures that can be taken. That’s obviously on the table. I don’t want to categorize which options might come in which order, but we are interested in acting quickly because we have a situation in Libya that demands quick action. So we are interested in some of the actions that can be taken in the near term.
Q Any frustration for the administration that this is a country that the U.S. has no real deep ties to, no real financial ties to, and so the options, what’s available, what may have been available in Egypt or other places is not available in Libya?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Dan, as we’ve said, each country that has been affected by this unrest is different. Each country in the region is different. Each country has different traditions, political systems and relationships with the United States and other countries around the region and the world.
So the way we approach our policy positions and make our decisions based on -- in reaction to the events in these countries is obviously affected by those differences, while it’s also guided by the principles that we’ve talked about that apply to -- that guide our approach to all these countries and the unrest in them.
So that’s a long way of saying each country is different and we deal with them and their differences as necessary.
Yes, Chip.
Q Thanks, Jay. You said that it’s not about an individual leader and you’ve been saying that all along and it was said during the Egyptian situation also. But at the same time, the President wasn’t reluctant or hesitant to use the name Mubarak when he spoke, but he seems reluctant to even mention the name Qaddafi. Why the difference?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I wouldn’t read over -- read too much into that because the overlying principle here is that it’s not about the individual leaders, it’s not about the United States deciding who should or should not lead a country -- that’s for the people of the country to decide. And that in many ways is what this unrest has been about, either specific leaders or regimes or the way that the governments have treated their peoples.
And I would point you, again, to the fact that the leader this country, Colonel Qaddafi, has tried to suggest that the United States was behind the uprisings of its own people or the demonstrations, the peaceful demonstrations, in its own country by its own -- by Libya’s own people. And that’s clearly not the case. And I think Jake pointed out that now he’s searching around for somebody else to blame.
Our focus is on the principles we’ve outlaid -- we’ve laid out on the need for these governments in the region and around the world to be responsive to the legitimate aspirations of their people, and first and foremost, not to use violence in response to peaceful demonstrations.
Q And on military options, I know you said you don’t want to take anything off the table. But my guess is a lot of the American people would like one option taken off the table and that’s sending significant numbers of U.S. troops into Libya. Is that an option you can take off the table?
MR. CARNEY: Chip, again, I’ll just -- I’m going to go back to my answer. I don’t think it’s productive for us as we’re examining our options to take one option or the other off the table. But I am focused on -- I mean, we are focused on working with our partners internationally to take steps that will persuade or compel the Libyan government to change its behavior.
Q Then I guess the logic of that is if you won’t take that off the table, then sending significant numbers of troops is on the table.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I just will say that I’m not taking options off the table -- we’re not.
Q On the Wisconsin -- I’m sorry, on the Wisconsin situation, Congressman Ellison and others have called for the President to come out to Wisconsin and stand with the workers. Is that under discussion?
MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of, Chip. I think what we have made pretty clear is that the President thinks and we think, he’s stated this, that obviously a lot of states in the union are dealing with fiscal issues, big problems in their state budgets that need to be addressed. And they need to act responsibly, tighten their belts, live within their means, just as we in Washington, the executive branch and Congress need to do with our federal situation.
Q And forgive me --
MR. CARNEY: But again, he believes very strongly that the way to achieve that, just like the way to achieve it here, is that people need to come to the table, work together, share the sacrifice, and produce the result that the people in the states want and, again, extrapolating to the larger picture here, the whole country -- do the things that we need to do to live within our means so that we can invest in the future, and I think that’s true on a state level.
Q And forgive me if I’m being redundant, I missed much of yesterday’s briefing. But you’ve been asked about what he said about joining the picket lines back in 2007 when he said, “If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States.” Is he ready to put on a comfortable pair of shoes and fulfill that promise?
MR. CARNEY: I think, Chip, that the President, as President, has a -- obviously an ability to be heard when he speaks, and he spoke to the situation in Wisconsin and his views on it last week. And I’ll leave it at that.
Q And I know you weren’t with him at the time, but do you think he meant that when he said it? Is that a promise?
MR. CARNEY: I wasn’t with him at the time, but again, I think that the President has different means of speaking out on issues and being heard, and clearly he did -- he made his viewpoints known on the situation in Wisconsin, the need for people to come together. He takes very seriously the fiscal situation that the states find themselves in -- some of the states -- and understands it because he understands it at the federal level. But he encourages the parties involved to come together and sacrifice together and reach a solution that serves the interests of all the people of the states, just like he’s trying to do for the broader nation.
Q Thanks.
MR. CARNEY: Wendell.
Q The inspector general of the Home Affordable Modification Program says it’s effectively failed. Does the President disagree?
MR. CARNEY: Hold on a second. I’m not sure I have anything on that for --
Q Spencer Bachus of Alabama.
MR. CARNEY: No, I understand. I understand. I’m just -- okay.
Q Whether or not the President agrees with the IG’s report, Spencer Bachus of Alabama plans hearings in the House next week, and he is going to try and cut funding for it. Would you fight that attempt?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t want to speculate about what we’re going to do in response to a possible action by a senator. So if and when something happens we’ll have a response.
Q All right. Would you consider saving 600,000 or 700,000 mortgages when the goal was 4 million to be a success?
MR. CARNEY: Well, look, we’ve been very clear about the seriousness with which we have been trying to deal with stabilizing the housing market, helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes. The fact is that, as you state, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of homeowners are in their homes because of the program. And we’re working to make sure that those responsible homeowners that can be helped are able to stay in their homes. And it is important to remember that those homeowners have been helped by this program.
Q The Wall Street Journal says you’re working on a new program that would have the industry put up a pool of money to reduce the principals of loans that are underwater. Comment?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have a comment on possible programs we may be working on.
Q Can you talk about the Saudi national arrested last night in Texas, apparently trying to construct a bomb and targeting former President Bush?
MR. CARNEY: I can say a few things about that. The President was informed about the operation by John Brennan prior to the arrest. This arrest -- I assume everybody here knows about this story -- the arrest once again underscores the necessity of remaining vigilant against terrorism here and abroad. The President thanks the FBI, the Department of Justice and the rest of our law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security professionals who continue to keep us safe and who, once again, have served with extraordinary skill and with the commitment that their enormous responsibilities demand.
For anything else, I’ll have to refer you to the Department of Justice because obviously this arrest has been made and there’s an investigation.
Q He was told before the arrest?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, he was aware of it before the arrest.
Q That the arrest was coming or that this was a lone-wolf terrorist out there that they were worried about?
MR. CARNEY: He was informed that the arrest was coming.*
Chuck.
Q Can you say whether the President has asked Secretary Gates to come up with a contingency plan to enforce a no-fly zone or start working with NATO on that respect? There is some reports that that’s taking place. I understand you guys aren’t ruling any options out, but are plans being updated at least so that if the President gives an execute order this can happen fast?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Chuck, I think it’s fair to say that when we’re examining all options, and that option has been tabled, I guess, at least in the press, but certainly been discussed in other venues; that by exploring those options we’re looking at the feasibility. And I mean that broadly about all the options that are -- that could potentially be on the table.
So without getting into updated plans for this option or that, exploring the options means just that: examining what our options are and what might work.
Q What kind of consultation has there been with NATO?
MR. CARNEY: I refer you to the Defense Department, but, again, I’m not -- I don’t want to go down one lane here on one option and leave you with the impression that ---
Q I understand that, but has there been any consultation --
MR. CARNEY: -- that I’m ranking them. Again, there have been -- we are examining all the options that are available to us, and conversations around that examination are obviously taking place.
Q On the issue of sanctions, can you -- is there a concern that if you -- that some set of sanctions are going to harm the -- I guess the free part of Libya, the eastern -- where Qaddafi doesn’t have control? I mean, is there a way to do sanctions that can humanitarily help one part of the country while punishing the government itself?
MR. CARNEY: As we look at the options, we’re obviously examining the impact of different options. And our interest is not in causing more harm to innocent people in Libya, the very people we’re trying to help, the international community is trying to help by getting -- doing what it can to get the Libyan government to stop its behavior. So I’m sure that is a consideration about how you would execute different options in a way that have the greatest impact towards the goal we’re trying to achieve without negative consequences.
Because you raised the humanitarian aspect of this, the Libyan government has a responsibility not only to refrain from violence but to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need. And as humanitarian assistance is attempted to be made available to Libyans, that’s another responsibility that the Libyan government is going to be held accountable for.
Q Does the government -- does the administration view this as a full-fledged humanitarian crisis taking place right now in Libya?
MR. CARNEY: The administration views this as a serious issue, and that’s why we are working -- why Secretary Clinton is traveling to Geneva, why Bill Burns is traveling and engaging in these consultations, why the President is having phone calls with other leaders tonight on this issue and will continue to have conversations with other leaders about it. This is -- has definitely -- is definitely a focus of our efforts right now.
Q One question on the continuing resolution debate, is the President open to signing a short-term continuing resolution that does have some spending cuts in it?
MR. CARNEY: Chuck, there are two broad points to make here. One, the President made clear when he released his budget that he believes we need to cut spending. Democrats on the Hill have also said that they agree, we need to cut spending, as have Republicans.
He wants to work together, the President wants to work together with the leaders of Congress, both parties, to make that happen.
On the issue of the continuing resolution, the short-term funding of the bill, how that process will be negotiated out, I don’t want to prejudge different options. But we believe that we -- two things: that we can work something out, and that the American people absolutely want us to work something out, because as the leaders of both houses of Congress have said, Republican and Democrat, as the President has said, it is not in the interests of the American people for the government to shut down. And that’s because -- principally because of the impact it could have on our economy. We are still in the stages of recovery here, and the negative consequences of a shutdown, the uncertainty that that would create, could be detrimental to our economy.
Q Is the President encouraged or discouraged by what he’s watching take place right now between Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid?
MR. CARNEY: The President believes the leaders of the House and the Senate need to get together to work something out. And he and senior members of the administration are engaged in conversations on the Hill as well. But as you know, there is a congressional process here that has to work. The House passes something, the Senate passes something, compromises are worked out. But we’re also participating in that process because we believe we can work together to get something done, and that’s what the American people want.
Let me move around a little bit here. Yes.
Q On that, Jay. Last week the President suggested one consequence of a government shutdown would be Social Security checks not going out. During the Clinton shutdowns, Social Security checks did continue going out. Is there reason to believe it would be different this time around?
MR. CARNEY: Well, look, as I said, we’re confident that we can find the common ground that we need to find in order to avoid a government shutdown, and that leaders in both parties agree that that’s what we need to do.
The President was pointing out some of the consequences, the potential consequences of failing to act, of failing to prevent a shutdown. And some recipients, new retirees, new applications might not receive their checks. If retirees have questions about their checks, if they didn’t get their check in the mail, if they have a change of address, all those things could prevent them from getting their check.
So there are obviously consequences that directly affect people who are recipients of Social Security benefits, and there could be. But the broader point is that the uncertainty created by this, the number of consequences that could unfold if this does happen, would create the kind of environment that would be harmful to the economy overall, which would then -- Speaker of the House said yesterday he’s focused on jobs and the economy; the President makes clear every day, as he will this afternoon when he speaks with his new council on jobs and competitiveness, that he’s focused on jobs and the economy. And we do not want and we do not believe the leaders of Congress and we know the American people don’t want actions to be taken in Washington that upset this recovery, set us back, affect growth and affect job creation.
Yes, Glenn.
Q Jay, there are reports on the ground from Benghazi and other cities of people being killed -- a woman, for instance, I think this was Tripoli, there was a report of a woman being shot for standing on the balcony to sort of look out and see what was going on. There was a quote I think in a CNN dispatch today of a person in a crowd in Benghazi saying, “We are being murdered and the world is just standing by.” The President yesterday said the world is watching. What is the message the administration is giving to the people who are being killed right now in Libya about what the United States intends to do to keep this kind of thing from happening to people who are simply exercising their desire for freedom?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we’ve made very clear that we absolutely support the people of Libya, the people of Bahrain, the people of Egypt, other people who have peacefully expressed their desire for change in their country. Again, I take you back to our governing principles as we approach these problems.
We are working with the international community to take the kind of action that will prevent the Libyan government from continuing to wreak this kind of havoc on its own people. The President has been very clear about how strongly he condemns this action. It’s unacceptable. It’s reprehensible. It’s abhorrent.
Q But how does sending Secretary Clinton to a conference on Monday ameliorate the situation for people on the ground --
MR. CARNEY: We’re interested in outcomes. We’re interest in doing -- taking the measures that will actually have the desired effect, which is to get the Libyan government to stop the bloodshed. And the President has been absolutely focused --
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. CARNEY: Let me speak to Glenn here. The President is absolutely focused on this, as is Secretary Clinton and the rest of the national security team.
Q Is there a concern that more forceful -- we’ve talked a bit about sort of the Americans on the ground -- is there a concern that a more forceful response by the administration could result in more bloodshed against Libyan protestors?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t want to speculate about what might happen, but anytime you have a situation like this you have to gauge what the response will be to the actions you take. It’s a fluid, dynamic and dangerous situation. And we’re committed to getting this right so that the Libyan people are no longer subjected to the kind of violence that they’re being subjected to by their government.
April.
Q Can I follow up?
Q Thanks, Jay. Back on the situation with Libya. Protests have just been spreading in North Africa and the Middle East; the result is gas prices going up here in America. Is this administration asking countries in Africa that support -- that I guess export oil to us -- is this administration asking Canada, is this administration asking Mexico, is this administration asking Saudi Arabia to increase their output to keep prices down?
MR. CARNEY: April, whenever you have unrest in this part of the world, there are going to be reactions in the oil markets, and that is obviously something we’ve seen. The situation remains fluid, but we are monitoring this closely. We’re very cognizant of the fact that oil prices can affect the economy and can affect people in their wallets and pocketbooks. But we are in touch with the IEA and oil-producing countries about the developments in the market. We have the capacity to act in the event of a major supply disruption. I don’t want to speculate on any particular action and I don’t want to, again, speculate that -- predict what may or may not happen in terms of disruption. But the global community has -- global system has a lot of experience in managing the kind of disruption that we’ve seen, and our focus now is on monitoring this and making sure that we know what our options are if they need to be taken.
Q But it’s an issue of supply and demand for the sweet crude. And is the administration concerned that analysts, oil analysts, are talking about the possibility of $5 a gallon? I mean, we saw $4.11 a gallon at its height and people were really upset then. The economy was starting to show signs of breaking. So what is happening right now?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I can assure you, April, that we are very closely watching this situation. I don’t want to speculate on where oil prices may or may not go or what the effects of unrest in Libya may or may not have tomorrow or next week or down the road on oil prices. But we have the capacity to act in case of a major supply disruption, and we are talking with international institutions and other -- and oil-producing nations to -- as we examine the developments in the markets.
Q Can I follow up Glenn’s question real quick?
MR. CARNEY: Yes.
Q Given what Glenn says, that there are people being killed en masse right now in Libya, what is the timeline for the administration’s getting the international community together and getting a tangible response to what’s going on? What is -- what’s the timeframe?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I can assure you we are working on this aggressively, and specifically with the goal of taking action that can be most effective, most efficiently. And I’m not going to tell you that this is going to happen tomorrow and then something else will happen in two or three days because we’re talking about actions that we are coordinating with our international partners. And I don’t want to preview, again, take options on or off -- take options off the table. But believe me, we are moving very quickly.
Q Coordination -- coordinating an international response to something is basically the definition of herding cats, and it’s a very fast-moving situation over in Libya. If you don’t want to tell me what the timeline is, is there even a timeline for getting a response in place?
MR. CARNEY: Well, look, I would point you to the fact -- look at the international reaction. This is a case where what Libya has done has garnered very little support around the globe -- quite the contrary. The international community is speaking almost with -- entirely with one voice in condemning what’s happening there. And so I don’t believe this is a case of herding cats. I believe that this is an opportunity to act in a concerted way with our international partners.
Q So no timeline for a specific --
MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to give you a timeline. Right.
Let me -- yes, Mike.
Q On the -- sort of following up a little bit on April’s question. Several Democratic members of Congress have asked the President to consider releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep prices from rising too much. Is this something that he’s considering? How does he react to these members’ of Congress request?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think I would just repeat what I said, which is that we have the capacity to act in case of a major disruption. Right now we don’t -- we’re simply monitoring the situation and discussing with the IEA and oil-producing states what’s happening in the markets, but I’m not going to preview what might happen if a further disruption happens and what our options are.
Q President Obama back in August of 2008 advocated using oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve back in August ‘08 when the price of oil was about $120 a barrel. At what price would President Obama want to release oil?
MR. CARNEY: I think what’s important about that to remember is that the causes of the surge in oil prices in 2008 were quite different from the circumstances that we’re seeing now. And then I would say that we are examining our options and we have the capacity if necessary to act in case of a major disruption. But again, it’s important -- there’s not a one-size-fits-all response when the actual circumstances are quite different.
Q Can we do another topic, Jay? Please, Jay?
MR. CARNEY: Let me -- all the way in the back. Yes, ma’am. Yes. Yes, I’m sorry. I don’t know your name with the glasses.
Q Thank you. My name is Sarah.
MR. CARNEY: Sarah.
Q Yes. My question is if we should have a government shutdown, would the people still get paid, or -- I was going to ask about Social Security, because obviously that would affect me. (Laughter.) Is that -- what you just said, that’s not going to be touched? Or you don’t know yet, or what’s going to happen?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would -- first of all, part of the problem is the uncertainty that it creates. But there are what I -- the point I want to make very clearly is that we believe we can work together with Congress to avoid a shutdown because we all agree that a shutdown would be disruptive to the economy, affect our capacity to grow and create jobs. That’s an outcome that no one -- we certainly don’t want, the President doesn’t want and the American people don’t want. So I don’t want to predict what might happen in a circumstance that we very much hope to avoid.
All the way in the back. Yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Jay. About the uprisings. You’ve said that all the nations are different and all the relationships are different. So then what metrics is the administration using to evaluate that an uprising in one country is different from an uprising in another country and that the response should be different from one country to another?
MR. CARNEY: Well, because each country is different there -- you have to measure that. But we’re guided by these principles that I talked about yesterday that were enunciated by the President in his speech in Cairo, about the need for the countries in the region to respond to the aspirations, the democratic aspirations of their peoples, because they had a problem on their hands. And that still pertains, that is our approach: no violence; respect for the universal rights of your citizens; and actions, reforms, that respond to the demands and aspirations that are legitimate of the people.
And in terms of how you evaluate, again, these are events that are happening from the ground up. And we’ve all seen them -- in Egypt, how the people on the streets represented all walks of life in Egypt. And obviously we look at that in each country and how broad-based the unrest is.
Fundamentally, peaceful demonstrations should never be responded to with violence.
Q Some other topic, Jay? Jay, some other topic?
Q Another international story, is there any comment from the White House about the extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden?
MR. CARNEY: I have no comment on that because it’s an ongoing investigation.
Jonathan.
Q The Vice President is meeting with Richard Trumka today, along with Hilda Solis, and I’m wondering why the President was not on that list and does -- did the President drop in on that meeting?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t believe the President did, but I will double-check. And if he did, I’ll let you know. But I don’t believe he did and this was a long-scheduled meeting. As you know, the Vice President meets with labor leaders periodically. This is -- has been scheduled for quite a while.
Q But, I mean, we’re right in the middle of a big labor fracas. Is the President trying to keep his distance from this?
MR. CARNEY: The President made very clear, as all of you wrote about and many of you made more of than what was actually the case, his view on the need for public sector employees to tighten their belts just like everyone else in these -- as we all try to get control of our budgets at the state level and the federal level -- but his concern that what not happen is that the fiscal problems that states find themselves in be used as an excuse to go after the fundamental bargaining rights, collective bargaining rights, the sort of underlying foundation of unions. So I think he made his position on that very clear.
Sam.
Q Yes, a different topic, following yesterday’s decision by the Department of Justice to drop its defense of DOMA, members of Congress have reintroduced legislation to actually overturn the law. Considering that the administration now has a position that DOMA is unconstitutional, will we be expecting support from the President for these pieces of legislation to make the law inoperative?
MR. CARNEY: The President has long believed that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is an unnecessary and unfair law. He supports the repeal of the law. As for its constitutionality, obviously he made clear his views on that in the decision he made that was announced yesterday. But he does support the repeal, yes.
Michael.
Q Jay, why did the President tell us that Ray Davis --
MR. CARNEY: There’s a lot of Michaels in here. You’re next.
Q Why did the President tell us -- why did the President tell us that Ray Davis was a diplomat?
MR. CARNEY: Look, Mr. Davis was received by the government of Pakistan as an employee of the embassy and he was granted diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Conventions. And what we are saying very clearly is that he needs to be released in accordance with those treaties, which apply to the personnel of countries -- not just the United States in foreign countries, but Pakistan’s employees in the United States and around the globe, and every other country that are participatory -- that participate in those important treaties. And it’s a fundamental principle that can’t be compromised.
Q So it’s not misleading in any way for the President to say this man is a diplomat, when he in fact was working for the Central Intelligence Agency?
MR. CARNEY: What he said -- what we’re talking about here is the fact that he was received by the Pakistani government as an employee of the embassy, of the United States embassy, and had the protections of the Vienna Conventions. And that needs to pertain and needs to hold true and he needs to be released according to that.
Michael.
Q Given the President’s commitment to transparency, is there any guidance White House officials get about when it’s appropriate to meet off campus with a lobbyist and when a lobbyist meeting should be on campus?
MR. CARNEY: This administration has taken extraordinary actions to be transparent. I think this question stems from a story that, frankly, was absurd. We release hundreds of thousands of records voluntarily, a policy instituted by this President because of his desire for transparency -- something no administration had ever done before. The decisions about where -- and those records are available to every American citizen online to be reviewed, and all different types of people come to the White House complex for meetings on issues. And our level of transparency and disclosure is unprecedented because the President believes deeply in it.
What I would say is that, as any of you who have walked around this complex know, been in the West Wing -- not like the TV show; very small space, very few meeting rooms. The Old Executive Office Building -- the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, a third of which has been under renovation since we’ve been here -- very limited space. Jackson Place is a White House conference center -- so designated -- and therefore when we have large meetings sometimes we use that space if there are no spaces here.
So that’s --
Q But would you agree that there’s effectively a transparency loophole here, if the goal is to show when lobbyists, powerful interests, are meeting with White House officials, that right now it’s routine for White House officials to meet off campus with these people and there’s no daylight on that?
MR. CARNEY: It is routine for the White House officials to meet with all types of people, including lobbyists, and frequently here. The suggestion that we’re not being transparent is laughable given the unbelievable precedent this administration has set in its -- closing the door, the revolving door, and releasing these records. There are no -- the WAVES system, which is the system that produces the records, operates in certain buildings and not others. And for those decisions, how that operates and why, I refer you to the United States Secret Service. But the principle here is the unprecedented level of transparency that we have provided because we believe deeply in it.
Q Would it be inappropriate for a White House official to intentionally arrange a meeting off campus to not be caught by the WAVES records?
MR. CARNEY: Look, we have meetings with all sorts of people. We have them here. Those records are available.
Q But would it be appropriate if you choose to go off campus because you didn’t want it to show up in the files? It’s yes or no.
MR. CARNEY: The guiding principle here is transparency, and we believe that -- nobody is, that I’m aware of, is hiding where they’re meeting. The meetings that happen at Jackson Place, it’s a big meeting place and that’s where --
Q If it’s so big, why not change the policy and release those names --
MR. CARNEY: We do not control where the WAVES is. And I’m not going to -- in terms of --
Q You could release them separately. You could change the policy.
MR. CARNEY: Well, Chip, look, I’m not aware what policies might be instituted in the future. But what I think is fundamentally important to remind you of is that we release information that has never been released before. I think you probably remember, you were covering the previous administration. They went to court, to the Supreme Court, to prevent the disclosure of people who were meeting with the Vice President. We voluntarily release the records that are available to us. And we never said that there was a way to get every name in every meeting. The principle is disclosure, and we have gone to extraordinary lengths to make that happen.
Q Would you consider changing the policy to increase disclosure?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t want to predict about future policies that may be put in place. I just want to remind everybody about what we’ve done and why.
Q Jay --
Q Jay, on this side?
MR. CARNEY: The woman in red.
Q What is the level of concern in the White House about the nine metric tons of mustard gas that are currently stockpiled in Libya?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything for you on that.
Q Jay --
MR. CARNEY: Yes, ma’am.
Q Jay, you said that it’s important for us to move quickly on Libya today. But the President said yesterday, Wednesday, that Secretary Clinton will be going to Europe on Monday to consult with the Human Rights Council. That’s five days. A lot of Libyans can die in five days.
MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, Secretary Burns is also traveling to deal with this issue. Secretary Clinton, the President, officials at every level of the national security team are working on this full time. I can assure you.
Q Also, in addition -- I haven’t quite finished -- in addition, my other question was, you said it’s very important for us to speak as one international voice. Some of the European counterparts are already calling for sanctions.
MR. CARNEY: And we’re discussing options with --
Q So why not join in with them?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we are absolutely interested in examining sanctions as a possible option. But we’re examining all options and we will have -- we will take action as soon as possible.
Q Jay, on that?
MR. CARNEY: Let me go to Jared. Yeah.
Q Jay, on the European counterparts, you said at the top of the briefing that Cameron and Sarkozy are getting calls from the President. Is there any outreach to Hu and Medvedev to get the other members of the U.N. Security Council P5 for something on that level? Is that on the table?
MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of. I think the President will be discussing, having conversations with other foreign leaders going forward. I don’t have anything on who, specifically, or what contacts the State Department might be making or our ambassador at the U.N.
Let me go here, sorry. Yes.
Q When the President makes phone calls like the two that he’s going to make today, there’s always some groundwork before them. So would you describe this as a decision call on what’s going to happen next with these two other leaders, or is this just continuing the consultations?
MR. CARNEY: I wouldn’t want to characterize beyond what I’ve said.
Q Now, on the assets of Qaddafi and his family, the Swiss government today has frozen the assets of Qaddafi, his sons and the rest of the family. Are the wheels in motion for that to happen here?
MR. CARNEY: I would simply say that we are examining a variety of options and that we will move as quickly as possible to implement them.
Yes.
Q Jay, on the arrest in Texas, does the White House believe President Bush was a target?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t want to get into the details of this investigation, so I’m not going to comment on that.
Q Has President Obama spoken to President Bush about this?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t believe he has, but President Bush was notified.
Q Can I ask a follow-up on that? Jay, can I ask a follow-up on that? There are a lot of allegations that this student, who is a Saudi who was arrested, should not have been in this country. Is there a loophole in the immigration system? Should the screening process be tightened to screen out potential jihadists?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I don’t want to comment on this investigation in any capacity, so -- I mean, in any detail. Questions about immigration I direct you to DHS.
Q Three other topics, please?
MR. CARNEY: Connie. Three? No, let’s just do one.
Q I’ll go real fast. Okay, well, can I do one quick on New Zealand and one on the pirates? Thank you -- on New Zealand, any chance the President will visit New Zealand when he goes to Hawaii in September?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any announcements on presidential travel.
Q All right, on the Somali pirates. There’s been nothing said in the few days since the Americans were slaughtered. There are some increasing calls to bomb the headquarters of the Somali pirates. Do you have any sort of strategy? What are you going to do with them?
MR. CARNEY: I would not and could not speak about operations that may or may not happen. I don’t want to suggest that anything is happening, Connie, but it’s not something I would talk about.
Q Anything in public?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we -- obviously outraged by the actions of pirates that result in the deaths of American citizens. And the President, as you know, I believe has expressed his sincere condolences to the families of the victims. But beyond that I don’t want to get into details.
Q Thanks, Jay.
MR. CARNEY: Thank you. I’ll take one more. Yes, sir.
Q Given the fact that the Libyan government has seemingly already abandoned sort of rational reasoning and behavior by turning on its own citizens, is it realistic to think that sanctions and international efforts would convince it to stop doing so?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t want to predict what the Libyan government will do. But what I do know is that this administration, leaders of governments around the world are outraged and appalled by what we’ve seen happen in Libya and will take and are taking the actions that they believe will be most effective in changing the behavior of the Libyan government.
Q Would any sanctions be partly designed not necessarily just targeting Qaddafi, but family members, other power centers that might kind of convince them to try and peel away from Qaddafi?
MR. CARNEY: I would only say that we’re examining a variety of options.
That’s it. Thanks, guy.
END
2:11 P.M. EST
For Immediate Release
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
See below for an answer to a question (marked with an asterisk) posed in the briefing that required follow up.
*The President was briefed on Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari earlier this month and yesterday he was informed that an arrest was likely.
1:18 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, everybody. Sorry I’m late. I apologize.
Q New regime.
Q This is a new leaf.
MR. CARNEY: What, the apology? Gibbs never apologized. I take it back. (Laughter.)
Q There you go.
MR. CARNEY: Before we get started, I have a couple of details about recent conversations that President Obama has had with foreign leaders. First, since the readout was sent last night fairly late, I just want to make sure that all of you know that last night around 8:00 p.m. Eastern, the President spoke with Mexico President Calder?n. President Obama expressed appreciation for the strong investigative work of the Mexicans to arrest one of Special Agent Zapata’s alleged killers. And President Calder?n expressed appreciation for the cooperation of American agencies that made the arrest possible.
The President said that neither the United States nor Mexico could tolerate violence against those who serve and protect our citizens, as Special Agent Zapata did so selflessly through his own life.
President Obama also said he was looking forward to welcoming President Calder?n to the White House on Thursday, March 3rd, to discuss our important bilateral relationship and key global issues.
Also, I’d like to mention that this afternoon the President is scheduled to speak with Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy to coordinate our actions in response to the situation in Libya. We expect additional conversations with foreign leaders on this topic in the days ahead.
With that, I am ready for your questions.
Q Can you talk about the Americans that are in this situation with the ferry that’s not able to leave Tripoli? Are there contingency plans to get them out?
MR. CARNEY: The State Department, the government is working very hard to evacuate the Americans from Libya. The details of those operations are available at the State Department, but we are doing everything we can to safely evacuate them from Libya.
Q And with that evacuation still not having happened, how does that complicate the U.S. response to the situation?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as I think you heard the President say yesterday very clearly what our -- what his position is towards the situation, towards the actions of the Libyan government, very clear condemnation of the violence against the protesters there, violence against Libyan citizens, he also is obviously very concerned about the safety of Americans, and that is a priority. That’s all I can say on that.
Q Any movement on sanctions, no-fly zone?
MR. CARNEY: Obviously sanctions are something we’re looking at. I don’t want to get into specifics. We’re working very closely with the international community, and we’re hoping and believe that the international community will speak with one voice, as I think is often the case. When the international community comes together and speaks with one voice it has a powerful impact in terms of persuading a government like Libya’s to do the right thing, to stop the kind of violence it’s been perpetrating on its own people.
So we’re examining a lot of options -- sanctions are one of them, but I don’t want to specify that one is going to happen and one’s not going to happen. But we’re working with our partners on that.
Q Will sanctions be on the agenda when the President speaks to Cameron and Sarkozy today?
MR. CARNEY: Well, they will be discussing Libya. And I think that they will be discussing different options that we can take -- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, other countries, international partners -- to affect the behavior of the Libyan government. So I’m sure, broadly speaking, our options will be discussed.
Yes, go ahead.
Q What kind of military options are being considered?
MR. CARNEY: I think what we’ve said is that there are no options we’re taking off the table. But what we’re focused on are the options that we can take to affect the situation in the nearer term. And we would like to see the kind of concerted, broad-based international action that can compel the Libyan government to cease and desist from the kind of actions it’s taking against its own people.
Q As far as keeping U.S. citizens safe in Libya, who is the -- who are you guys talking to within the Libyan government? I mean, while we’re waiting for the ferry to go since the weather is not supposed to change for at least the next few days.
MR. CARNEY: Well, obviously the security of these American citizens is an extremely high priority, and I wouldn’t want to say anything from this podium or publicly that would affect their security. So I’m not going to get into what specifically we’re doing to make sure they’re safe. We are taking -- doing everything we can to evacuate them, to make sure they are safe. But beyond that I don’t want to get into how we’re doing that.
Yes, Jake.
Q Colonel Qaddafi today in a rambling phone interview with Libyan state television, as well as two days ago, talked about how the protesters had been fed hallucinogens by Osama bin Laden. I was wondering if the administration had any response to anything Mr. Qaddafi has said in the last couple days.
MR. CARNEY: Jake, the way we’ve approached this, the way the President has approached this, is that our position on the unrest in these countries is not about an individual leader. It’s about the responsibility that each government has to not respond with violence to peaceful demonstrators, to not restrict the universal rights that their citizens have, and to move forward with the kind of reforms that will be responsive to the legitimate aspirations of their people. It’s not about personalities.
And I would simply note that one consistent theme I think you’ve seen in the way that we have responded to these developments, these events in the Middle East, in the region, has been to make it clear that it’s also not about the United States. It’s not about the United States dictating outcomes, picking leaders, telling countries who can run, who can be their leader and who can’t be -- because what we have seen are legitimate, organic, grassroots risings by the peoples of these countries demanding more freedom and greater opportunity in their lives. And again, it’s not about individual leaders and it’s about the peoples in these countries.
Q The French Defense Minister has talked openly about imposing a no-fly zone more openly than the U.S. has talked about it. Can you explain why?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t want to explain what other leaders in other countries have said or other senior officials from other countries. What we have said is that we’re not going to specify which options are on or off the table. We are discussing a full range of options with our partners at the U.N. and elsewhere. And we expect to take action in the near term with the international community to, we believe, hopefully compel the Libyan government to stop killing its own people.
Q Do you have any theory as to why other nations have been allowed by the Libyan government to land planes to extricate their citizens and the Libyan government has not allowed the United States to do so?
MR. CARNEY: Again, for the details on our efforts to extract American citizens from -- or help evacuate American citizens from Libya I refer you to the State Department. I just know that we are doing everything we can to make that happen.
Dan.
Q Thank you. Back to the military options. Has the President been presented yet with a military plan on Libya from the Pentagon?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to get into specific options that are under consideration or not under consideration. I would again point out that we want to work with our international partners because we think the most effective action in many cases can be when the international community speaks with one voice and acts in a united way. I’m not -- again, I’m not ruling out bilateral options, but I’m just saying that that is a focus right now.
Q So you’re not ruling out that there is a military option?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not ruling anything out.
Q But you won’t say if the President has been presented with a military option yet?
MR. CARNEY: No, I won’t say that.
Q Is there a list of priorities in terms of what options you would like to attack first? This is -- whether it’s sanctions, whether it’s no-fly zone, whether it’s military -- has the administration put together a list of options in priority?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think we’ve -- I’ve been asked and it’s been discussed, the possibility of different kinds of sanctions, different measures that can be taken. That’s obviously on the table. I don’t want to categorize which options might come in which order, but we are interested in acting quickly because we have a situation in Libya that demands quick action. So we are interested in some of the actions that can be taken in the near term.
Q Any frustration for the administration that this is a country that the U.S. has no real deep ties to, no real financial ties to, and so the options, what’s available, what may have been available in Egypt or other places is not available in Libya?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Dan, as we’ve said, each country that has been affected by this unrest is different. Each country in the region is different. Each country has different traditions, political systems and relationships with the United States and other countries around the region and the world.
So the way we approach our policy positions and make our decisions based on -- in reaction to the events in these countries is obviously affected by those differences, while it’s also guided by the principles that we’ve talked about that apply to -- that guide our approach to all these countries and the unrest in them.
So that’s a long way of saying each country is different and we deal with them and their differences as necessary.
Yes, Chip.
Q Thanks, Jay. You said that it’s not about an individual leader and you’ve been saying that all along and it was said during the Egyptian situation also. But at the same time, the President wasn’t reluctant or hesitant to use the name Mubarak when he spoke, but he seems reluctant to even mention the name Qaddafi. Why the difference?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I wouldn’t read over -- read too much into that because the overlying principle here is that it’s not about the individual leaders, it’s not about the United States deciding who should or should not lead a country -- that’s for the people of the country to decide. And that in many ways is what this unrest has been about, either specific leaders or regimes or the way that the governments have treated their peoples.
And I would point you, again, to the fact that the leader this country, Colonel Qaddafi, has tried to suggest that the United States was behind the uprisings of its own people or the demonstrations, the peaceful demonstrations, in its own country by its own -- by Libya’s own people. And that’s clearly not the case. And I think Jake pointed out that now he’s searching around for somebody else to blame.
Our focus is on the principles we’ve outlaid -- we’ve laid out on the need for these governments in the region and around the world to be responsive to the legitimate aspirations of their people, and first and foremost, not to use violence in response to peaceful demonstrations.
Q And on military options, I know you said you don’t want to take anything off the table. But my guess is a lot of the American people would like one option taken off the table and that’s sending significant numbers of U.S. troops into Libya. Is that an option you can take off the table?
MR. CARNEY: Chip, again, I’ll just -- I’m going to go back to my answer. I don’t think it’s productive for us as we’re examining our options to take one option or the other off the table. But I am focused on -- I mean, we are focused on working with our partners internationally to take steps that will persuade or compel the Libyan government to change its behavior.
Q Then I guess the logic of that is if you won’t take that off the table, then sending significant numbers of troops is on the table.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I just will say that I’m not taking options off the table -- we’re not.
Q On the Wisconsin -- I’m sorry, on the Wisconsin situation, Congressman Ellison and others have called for the President to come out to Wisconsin and stand with the workers. Is that under discussion?
MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of, Chip. I think what we have made pretty clear is that the President thinks and we think, he’s stated this, that obviously a lot of states in the union are dealing with fiscal issues, big problems in their state budgets that need to be addressed. And they need to act responsibly, tighten their belts, live within their means, just as we in Washington, the executive branch and Congress need to do with our federal situation.
Q And forgive me --
MR. CARNEY: But again, he believes very strongly that the way to achieve that, just like the way to achieve it here, is that people need to come to the table, work together, share the sacrifice, and produce the result that the people in the states want and, again, extrapolating to the larger picture here, the whole country -- do the things that we need to do to live within our means so that we can invest in the future, and I think that’s true on a state level.
Q And forgive me if I’m being redundant, I missed much of yesterday’s briefing. But you’ve been asked about what he said about joining the picket lines back in 2007 when he said, “If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States.” Is he ready to put on a comfortable pair of shoes and fulfill that promise?
MR. CARNEY: I think, Chip, that the President, as President, has a -- obviously an ability to be heard when he speaks, and he spoke to the situation in Wisconsin and his views on it last week. And I’ll leave it at that.
Q And I know you weren’t with him at the time, but do you think he meant that when he said it? Is that a promise?
MR. CARNEY: I wasn’t with him at the time, but again, I think that the President has different means of speaking out on issues and being heard, and clearly he did -- he made his viewpoints known on the situation in Wisconsin, the need for people to come together. He takes very seriously the fiscal situation that the states find themselves in -- some of the states -- and understands it because he understands it at the federal level. But he encourages the parties involved to come together and sacrifice together and reach a solution that serves the interests of all the people of the states, just like he’s trying to do for the broader nation.
Q Thanks.
MR. CARNEY: Wendell.
Q The inspector general of the Home Affordable Modification Program says it’s effectively failed. Does the President disagree?
MR. CARNEY: Hold on a second. I’m not sure I have anything on that for --
Q Spencer Bachus of Alabama.
MR. CARNEY: No, I understand. I understand. I’m just -- okay.
Q Whether or not the President agrees with the IG’s report, Spencer Bachus of Alabama plans hearings in the House next week, and he is going to try and cut funding for it. Would you fight that attempt?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t want to speculate about what we’re going to do in response to a possible action by a senator. So if and when something happens we’ll have a response.
Q All right. Would you consider saving 600,000 or 700,000 mortgages when the goal was 4 million to be a success?
MR. CARNEY: Well, look, we’ve been very clear about the seriousness with which we have been trying to deal with stabilizing the housing market, helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes. The fact is that, as you state, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of homeowners are in their homes because of the program. And we’re working to make sure that those responsible homeowners that can be helped are able to stay in their homes. And it is important to remember that those homeowners have been helped by this program.
Q The Wall Street Journal says you’re working on a new program that would have the industry put up a pool of money to reduce the principals of loans that are underwater. Comment?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have a comment on possible programs we may be working on.
Q Can you talk about the Saudi national arrested last night in Texas, apparently trying to construct a bomb and targeting former President Bush?
MR. CARNEY: I can say a few things about that. The President was informed about the operation by John Brennan prior to the arrest. This arrest -- I assume everybody here knows about this story -- the arrest once again underscores the necessity of remaining vigilant against terrorism here and abroad. The President thanks the FBI, the Department of Justice and the rest of our law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security professionals who continue to keep us safe and who, once again, have served with extraordinary skill and with the commitment that their enormous responsibilities demand.
For anything else, I’ll have to refer you to the Department of Justice because obviously this arrest has been made and there’s an investigation.
Q He was told before the arrest?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, he was aware of it before the arrest.
Q That the arrest was coming or that this was a lone-wolf terrorist out there that they were worried about?
MR. CARNEY: He was informed that the arrest was coming.*
Chuck.
Q Can you say whether the President has asked Secretary Gates to come up with a contingency plan to enforce a no-fly zone or start working with NATO on that respect? There is some reports that that’s taking place. I understand you guys aren’t ruling any options out, but are plans being updated at least so that if the President gives an execute order this can happen fast?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Chuck, I think it’s fair to say that when we’re examining all options, and that option has been tabled, I guess, at least in the press, but certainly been discussed in other venues; that by exploring those options we’re looking at the feasibility. And I mean that broadly about all the options that are -- that could potentially be on the table.
So without getting into updated plans for this option or that, exploring the options means just that: examining what our options are and what might work.
Q What kind of consultation has there been with NATO?
MR. CARNEY: I refer you to the Defense Department, but, again, I’m not -- I don’t want to go down one lane here on one option and leave you with the impression that ---
Q I understand that, but has there been any consultation --
MR. CARNEY: -- that I’m ranking them. Again, there have been -- we are examining all the options that are available to us, and conversations around that examination are obviously taking place.
Q On the issue of sanctions, can you -- is there a concern that if you -- that some set of sanctions are going to harm the -- I guess the free part of Libya, the eastern -- where Qaddafi doesn’t have control? I mean, is there a way to do sanctions that can humanitarily help one part of the country while punishing the government itself?
MR. CARNEY: As we look at the options, we’re obviously examining the impact of different options. And our interest is not in causing more harm to innocent people in Libya, the very people we’re trying to help, the international community is trying to help by getting -- doing what it can to get the Libyan government to stop its behavior. So I’m sure that is a consideration about how you would execute different options in a way that have the greatest impact towards the goal we’re trying to achieve without negative consequences.
Because you raised the humanitarian aspect of this, the Libyan government has a responsibility not only to refrain from violence but to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need. And as humanitarian assistance is attempted to be made available to Libyans, that’s another responsibility that the Libyan government is going to be held accountable for.
Q Does the government -- does the administration view this as a full-fledged humanitarian crisis taking place right now in Libya?
MR. CARNEY: The administration views this as a serious issue, and that’s why we are working -- why Secretary Clinton is traveling to Geneva, why Bill Burns is traveling and engaging in these consultations, why the President is having phone calls with other leaders tonight on this issue and will continue to have conversations with other leaders about it. This is -- has definitely -- is definitely a focus of our efforts right now.
Q One question on the continuing resolution debate, is the President open to signing a short-term continuing resolution that does have some spending cuts in it?
MR. CARNEY: Chuck, there are two broad points to make here. One, the President made clear when he released his budget that he believes we need to cut spending. Democrats on the Hill have also said that they agree, we need to cut spending, as have Republicans.
He wants to work together, the President wants to work together with the leaders of Congress, both parties, to make that happen.
On the issue of the continuing resolution, the short-term funding of the bill, how that process will be negotiated out, I don’t want to prejudge different options. But we believe that we -- two things: that we can work something out, and that the American people absolutely want us to work something out, because as the leaders of both houses of Congress have said, Republican and Democrat, as the President has said, it is not in the interests of the American people for the government to shut down. And that’s because -- principally because of the impact it could have on our economy. We are still in the stages of recovery here, and the negative consequences of a shutdown, the uncertainty that that would create, could be detrimental to our economy.
Q Is the President encouraged or discouraged by what he’s watching take place right now between Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid?
MR. CARNEY: The President believes the leaders of the House and the Senate need to get together to work something out. And he and senior members of the administration are engaged in conversations on the Hill as well. But as you know, there is a congressional process here that has to work. The House passes something, the Senate passes something, compromises are worked out. But we’re also participating in that process because we believe we can work together to get something done, and that’s what the American people want.
Let me move around a little bit here. Yes.
Q On that, Jay. Last week the President suggested one consequence of a government shutdown would be Social Security checks not going out. During the Clinton shutdowns, Social Security checks did continue going out. Is there reason to believe it would be different this time around?
MR. CARNEY: Well, look, as I said, we’re confident that we can find the common ground that we need to find in order to avoid a government shutdown, and that leaders in both parties agree that that’s what we need to do.
The President was pointing out some of the consequences, the potential consequences of failing to act, of failing to prevent a shutdown. And some recipients, new retirees, new applications might not receive their checks. If retirees have questions about their checks, if they didn’t get their check in the mail, if they have a change of address, all those things could prevent them from getting their check.
So there are obviously consequences that directly affect people who are recipients of Social Security benefits, and there could be. But the broader point is that the uncertainty created by this, the number of consequences that could unfold if this does happen, would create the kind of environment that would be harmful to the economy overall, which would then -- Speaker of the House said yesterday he’s focused on jobs and the economy; the President makes clear every day, as he will this afternoon when he speaks with his new council on jobs and competitiveness, that he’s focused on jobs and the economy. And we do not want and we do not believe the leaders of Congress and we know the American people don’t want actions to be taken in Washington that upset this recovery, set us back, affect growth and affect job creation.
Yes, Glenn.
Q Jay, there are reports on the ground from Benghazi and other cities of people being killed -- a woman, for instance, I think this was Tripoli, there was a report of a woman being shot for standing on the balcony to sort of look out and see what was going on. There was a quote I think in a CNN dispatch today of a person in a crowd in Benghazi saying, “We are being murdered and the world is just standing by.” The President yesterday said the world is watching. What is the message the administration is giving to the people who are being killed right now in Libya about what the United States intends to do to keep this kind of thing from happening to people who are simply exercising their desire for freedom?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we’ve made very clear that we absolutely support the people of Libya, the people of Bahrain, the people of Egypt, other people who have peacefully expressed their desire for change in their country. Again, I take you back to our governing principles as we approach these problems.
We are working with the international community to take the kind of action that will prevent the Libyan government from continuing to wreak this kind of havoc on its own people. The President has been very clear about how strongly he condemns this action. It’s unacceptable. It’s reprehensible. It’s abhorrent.
Q But how does sending Secretary Clinton to a conference on Monday ameliorate the situation for people on the ground --
MR. CARNEY: We’re interested in outcomes. We’re interest in doing -- taking the measures that will actually have the desired effect, which is to get the Libyan government to stop the bloodshed. And the President has been absolutely focused --
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. CARNEY: Let me speak to Glenn here. The President is absolutely focused on this, as is Secretary Clinton and the rest of the national security team.
Q Is there a concern that more forceful -- we’ve talked a bit about sort of the Americans on the ground -- is there a concern that a more forceful response by the administration could result in more bloodshed against Libyan protestors?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t want to speculate about what might happen, but anytime you have a situation like this you have to gauge what the response will be to the actions you take. It’s a fluid, dynamic and dangerous situation. And we’re committed to getting this right so that the Libyan people are no longer subjected to the kind of violence that they’re being subjected to by their government.
April.
Q Can I follow up?
Q Thanks, Jay. Back on the situation with Libya. Protests have just been spreading in North Africa and the Middle East; the result is gas prices going up here in America. Is this administration asking countries in Africa that support -- that I guess export oil to us -- is this administration asking Canada, is this administration asking Mexico, is this administration asking Saudi Arabia to increase their output to keep prices down?
MR. CARNEY: April, whenever you have unrest in this part of the world, there are going to be reactions in the oil markets, and that is obviously something we’ve seen. The situation remains fluid, but we are monitoring this closely. We’re very cognizant of the fact that oil prices can affect the economy and can affect people in their wallets and pocketbooks. But we are in touch with the IEA and oil-producing countries about the developments in the market. We have the capacity to act in the event of a major supply disruption. I don’t want to speculate on any particular action and I don’t want to, again, speculate that -- predict what may or may not happen in terms of disruption. But the global community has -- global system has a lot of experience in managing the kind of disruption that we’ve seen, and our focus now is on monitoring this and making sure that we know what our options are if they need to be taken.
Q But it’s an issue of supply and demand for the sweet crude. And is the administration concerned that analysts, oil analysts, are talking about the possibility of $5 a gallon? I mean, we saw $4.11 a gallon at its height and people were really upset then. The economy was starting to show signs of breaking. So what is happening right now?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I can assure you, April, that we are very closely watching this situation. I don’t want to speculate on where oil prices may or may not go or what the effects of unrest in Libya may or may not have tomorrow or next week or down the road on oil prices. But we have the capacity to act in case of a major supply disruption, and we are talking with international institutions and other -- and oil-producing nations to -- as we examine the developments in the markets.
Q Can I follow up Glenn’s question real quick?
MR. CARNEY: Yes.
Q Given what Glenn says, that there are people being killed en masse right now in Libya, what is the timeline for the administration’s getting the international community together and getting a tangible response to what’s going on? What is -- what’s the timeframe?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I can assure you we are working on this aggressively, and specifically with the goal of taking action that can be most effective, most efficiently. And I’m not going to tell you that this is going to happen tomorrow and then something else will happen in two or three days because we’re talking about actions that we are coordinating with our international partners. And I don’t want to preview, again, take options on or off -- take options off the table. But believe me, we are moving very quickly.
Q Coordination -- coordinating an international response to something is basically the definition of herding cats, and it’s a very fast-moving situation over in Libya. If you don’t want to tell me what the timeline is, is there even a timeline for getting a response in place?
MR. CARNEY: Well, look, I would point you to the fact -- look at the international reaction. This is a case where what Libya has done has garnered very little support around the globe -- quite the contrary. The international community is speaking almost with -- entirely with one voice in condemning what’s happening there. And so I don’t believe this is a case of herding cats. I believe that this is an opportunity to act in a concerted way with our international partners.
Q So no timeline for a specific --
MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to give you a timeline. Right.
Let me -- yes, Mike.
Q On the -- sort of following up a little bit on April’s question. Several Democratic members of Congress have asked the President to consider releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep prices from rising too much. Is this something that he’s considering? How does he react to these members’ of Congress request?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think I would just repeat what I said, which is that we have the capacity to act in case of a major disruption. Right now we don’t -- we’re simply monitoring the situation and discussing with the IEA and oil-producing states what’s happening in the markets, but I’m not going to preview what might happen if a further disruption happens and what our options are.
Q President Obama back in August of 2008 advocated using oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve back in August ‘08 when the price of oil was about $120 a barrel. At what price would President Obama want to release oil?
MR. CARNEY: I think what’s important about that to remember is that the causes of the surge in oil prices in 2008 were quite different from the circumstances that we’re seeing now. And then I would say that we are examining our options and we have the capacity if necessary to act in case of a major disruption. But again, it’s important -- there’s not a one-size-fits-all response when the actual circumstances are quite different.
Q Can we do another topic, Jay? Please, Jay?
MR. CARNEY: Let me -- all the way in the back. Yes, ma’am. Yes. Yes, I’m sorry. I don’t know your name with the glasses.
Q Thank you. My name is Sarah.
MR. CARNEY: Sarah.
Q Yes. My question is if we should have a government shutdown, would the people still get paid, or -- I was going to ask about Social Security, because obviously that would affect me. (Laughter.) Is that -- what you just said, that’s not going to be touched? Or you don’t know yet, or what’s going to happen?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would -- first of all, part of the problem is the uncertainty that it creates. But there are what I -- the point I want to make very clearly is that we believe we can work together with Congress to avoid a shutdown because we all agree that a shutdown would be disruptive to the economy, affect our capacity to grow and create jobs. That’s an outcome that no one -- we certainly don’t want, the President doesn’t want and the American people don’t want. So I don’t want to predict what might happen in a circumstance that we very much hope to avoid.
All the way in the back. Yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Jay. About the uprisings. You’ve said that all the nations are different and all the relationships are different. So then what metrics is the administration using to evaluate that an uprising in one country is different from an uprising in another country and that the response should be different from one country to another?
MR. CARNEY: Well, because each country is different there -- you have to measure that. But we’re guided by these principles that I talked about yesterday that were enunciated by the President in his speech in Cairo, about the need for the countries in the region to respond to the aspirations, the democratic aspirations of their peoples, because they had a problem on their hands. And that still pertains, that is our approach: no violence; respect for the universal rights of your citizens; and actions, reforms, that respond to the demands and aspirations that are legitimate of the people.
And in terms of how you evaluate, again, these are events that are happening from the ground up. And we’ve all seen them -- in Egypt, how the people on the streets represented all walks of life in Egypt. And obviously we look at that in each country and how broad-based the unrest is.
Fundamentally, peaceful demonstrations should never be responded to with violence.
Q Some other topic, Jay? Jay, some other topic?
Q Another international story, is there any comment from the White House about the extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden?
MR. CARNEY: I have no comment on that because it’s an ongoing investigation.
Jonathan.
Q The Vice President is meeting with Richard Trumka today, along with Hilda Solis, and I’m wondering why the President was not on that list and does -- did the President drop in on that meeting?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t believe the President did, but I will double-check. And if he did, I’ll let you know. But I don’t believe he did and this was a long-scheduled meeting. As you know, the Vice President meets with labor leaders periodically. This is -- has been scheduled for quite a while.
Q But, I mean, we’re right in the middle of a big labor fracas. Is the President trying to keep his distance from this?
MR. CARNEY: The President made very clear, as all of you wrote about and many of you made more of than what was actually the case, his view on the need for public sector employees to tighten their belts just like everyone else in these -- as we all try to get control of our budgets at the state level and the federal level -- but his concern that what not happen is that the fiscal problems that states find themselves in be used as an excuse to go after the fundamental bargaining rights, collective bargaining rights, the sort of underlying foundation of unions. So I think he made his position on that very clear.
Sam.
Q Yes, a different topic, following yesterday’s decision by the Department of Justice to drop its defense of DOMA, members of Congress have reintroduced legislation to actually overturn the law. Considering that the administration now has a position that DOMA is unconstitutional, will we be expecting support from the President for these pieces of legislation to make the law inoperative?
MR. CARNEY: The President has long believed that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is an unnecessary and unfair law. He supports the repeal of the law. As for its constitutionality, obviously he made clear his views on that in the decision he made that was announced yesterday. But he does support the repeal, yes.
Michael.
Q Jay, why did the President tell us that Ray Davis --
MR. CARNEY: There’s a lot of Michaels in here. You’re next.
Q Why did the President tell us -- why did the President tell us that Ray Davis was a diplomat?
MR. CARNEY: Look, Mr. Davis was received by the government of Pakistan as an employee of the embassy and he was granted diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Conventions. And what we are saying very clearly is that he needs to be released in accordance with those treaties, which apply to the personnel of countries -- not just the United States in foreign countries, but Pakistan’s employees in the United States and around the globe, and every other country that are participatory -- that participate in those important treaties. And it’s a fundamental principle that can’t be compromised.
Q So it’s not misleading in any way for the President to say this man is a diplomat, when he in fact was working for the Central Intelligence Agency?
MR. CARNEY: What he said -- what we’re talking about here is the fact that he was received by the Pakistani government as an employee of the embassy, of the United States embassy, and had the protections of the Vienna Conventions. And that needs to pertain and needs to hold true and he needs to be released according to that.
Michael.
Q Given the President’s commitment to transparency, is there any guidance White House officials get about when it’s appropriate to meet off campus with a lobbyist and when a lobbyist meeting should be on campus?
MR. CARNEY: This administration has taken extraordinary actions to be transparent. I think this question stems from a story that, frankly, was absurd. We release hundreds of thousands of records voluntarily, a policy instituted by this President because of his desire for transparency -- something no administration had ever done before. The decisions about where -- and those records are available to every American citizen online to be reviewed, and all different types of people come to the White House complex for meetings on issues. And our level of transparency and disclosure is unprecedented because the President believes deeply in it.
What I would say is that, as any of you who have walked around this complex know, been in the West Wing -- not like the TV show; very small space, very few meeting rooms. The Old Executive Office Building -- the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, a third of which has been under renovation since we’ve been here -- very limited space. Jackson Place is a White House conference center -- so designated -- and therefore when we have large meetings sometimes we use that space if there are no spaces here.
So that’s --
Q But would you agree that there’s effectively a transparency loophole here, if the goal is to show when lobbyists, powerful interests, are meeting with White House officials, that right now it’s routine for White House officials to meet off campus with these people and there’s no daylight on that?
MR. CARNEY: It is routine for the White House officials to meet with all types of people, including lobbyists, and frequently here. The suggestion that we’re not being transparent is laughable given the unbelievable precedent this administration has set in its -- closing the door, the revolving door, and releasing these records. There are no -- the WAVES system, which is the system that produces the records, operates in certain buildings and not others. And for those decisions, how that operates and why, I refer you to the United States Secret Service. But the principle here is the unprecedented level of transparency that we have provided because we believe deeply in it.
Q Would it be inappropriate for a White House official to intentionally arrange a meeting off campus to not be caught by the WAVES records?
MR. CARNEY: Look, we have meetings with all sorts of people. We have them here. Those records are available.
Q But would it be appropriate if you choose to go off campus because you didn’t want it to show up in the files? It’s yes or no.
MR. CARNEY: The guiding principle here is transparency, and we believe that -- nobody is, that I’m aware of, is hiding where they’re meeting. The meetings that happen at Jackson Place, it’s a big meeting place and that’s where --
Q If it’s so big, why not change the policy and release those names --
MR. CARNEY: We do not control where the WAVES is. And I’m not going to -- in terms of --
Q You could release them separately. You could change the policy.
MR. CARNEY: Well, Chip, look, I’m not aware what policies might be instituted in the future. But what I think is fundamentally important to remind you of is that we release information that has never been released before. I think you probably remember, you were covering the previous administration. They went to court, to the Supreme Court, to prevent the disclosure of people who were meeting with the Vice President. We voluntarily release the records that are available to us. And we never said that there was a way to get every name in every meeting. The principle is disclosure, and we have gone to extraordinary lengths to make that happen.
Q Would you consider changing the policy to increase disclosure?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t want to predict about future policies that may be put in place. I just want to remind everybody about what we’ve done and why.
Q Jay --
Q Jay, on this side?
MR. CARNEY: The woman in red.
Q What is the level of concern in the White House about the nine metric tons of mustard gas that are currently stockpiled in Libya?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything for you on that.
Q Jay --
MR. CARNEY: Yes, ma’am.
Q Jay, you said that it’s important for us to move quickly on Libya today. But the President said yesterday, Wednesday, that Secretary Clinton will be going to Europe on Monday to consult with the Human Rights Council. That’s five days. A lot of Libyans can die in five days.
MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, Secretary Burns is also traveling to deal with this issue. Secretary Clinton, the President, officials at every level of the national security team are working on this full time. I can assure you.
Q Also, in addition -- I haven’t quite finished -- in addition, my other question was, you said it’s very important for us to speak as one international voice. Some of the European counterparts are already calling for sanctions.
MR. CARNEY: And we’re discussing options with --
Q So why not join in with them?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we are absolutely interested in examining sanctions as a possible option. But we’re examining all options and we will have -- we will take action as soon as possible.
Q Jay, on that?
MR. CARNEY: Let me go to Jared. Yeah.
Q Jay, on the European counterparts, you said at the top of the briefing that Cameron and Sarkozy are getting calls from the President. Is there any outreach to Hu and Medvedev to get the other members of the U.N. Security Council P5 for something on that level? Is that on the table?
MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of. I think the President will be discussing, having conversations with other foreign leaders going forward. I don’t have anything on who, specifically, or what contacts the State Department might be making or our ambassador at the U.N.
Let me go here, sorry. Yes.
Q When the President makes phone calls like the two that he’s going to make today, there’s always some groundwork before them. So would you describe this as a decision call on what’s going to happen next with these two other leaders, or is this just continuing the consultations?
MR. CARNEY: I wouldn’t want to characterize beyond what I’ve said.
Q Now, on the assets of Qaddafi and his family, the Swiss government today has frozen the assets of Qaddafi, his sons and the rest of the family. Are the wheels in motion for that to happen here?
MR. CARNEY: I would simply say that we are examining a variety of options and that we will move as quickly as possible to implement them.
Yes.
Q Jay, on the arrest in Texas, does the White House believe President Bush was a target?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t want to get into the details of this investigation, so I’m not going to comment on that.
Q Has President Obama spoken to President Bush about this?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t believe he has, but President Bush was notified.
Q Can I ask a follow-up on that? Jay, can I ask a follow-up on that? There are a lot of allegations that this student, who is a Saudi who was arrested, should not have been in this country. Is there a loophole in the immigration system? Should the screening process be tightened to screen out potential jihadists?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I don’t want to comment on this investigation in any capacity, so -- I mean, in any detail. Questions about immigration I direct you to DHS.
Q Three other topics, please?
MR. CARNEY: Connie. Three? No, let’s just do one.
Q I’ll go real fast. Okay, well, can I do one quick on New Zealand and one on the pirates? Thank you -- on New Zealand, any chance the President will visit New Zealand when he goes to Hawaii in September?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any announcements on presidential travel.
Q All right, on the Somali pirates. There’s been nothing said in the few days since the Americans were slaughtered. There are some increasing calls to bomb the headquarters of the Somali pirates. Do you have any sort of strategy? What are you going to do with them?
MR. CARNEY: I would not and could not speak about operations that may or may not happen. I don’t want to suggest that anything is happening, Connie, but it’s not something I would talk about.
Q Anything in public?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we -- obviously outraged by the actions of pirates that result in the deaths of American citizens. And the President, as you know, I believe has expressed his sincere condolences to the families of the victims. But beyond that I don’t want to get into details.
Q Thanks, Jay.
MR. CARNEY: Thank you. I’ll take one more. Yes, sir.
Q Given the fact that the Libyan government has seemingly already abandoned sort of rational reasoning and behavior by turning on its own citizens, is it realistic to think that sanctions and international efforts would convince it to stop doing so?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t want to predict what the Libyan government will do. But what I do know is that this administration, leaders of governments around the world are outraged and appalled by what we’ve seen happen in Libya and will take and are taking the actions that they believe will be most effective in changing the behavior of the Libyan government.
Q Would any sanctions be partly designed not necessarily just targeting Qaddafi, but family members, other power centers that might kind of convince them to try and peel away from Qaddafi?
MR. CARNEY: I would only say that we’re examining a variety of options.
That’s it. Thanks, guy.
END
2:11 P.M. EST
putin Blagojevich financial regulations Tony Hayward bill clinton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)