Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/1/2011
Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff 2009 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff Ethics Pledge Waivers Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense The Way Forward in Afghanistan Disabilities Economy Financial Reform Innovation Startup America Education Educate to Innovate Higher Education Race to the Top Commencement Challenge Energy & Environment A Secure Energy Future A New Foundation Deepwater BP Oil Spill Ethics Family Fiscal Responsibility Foreign Policy Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Trip to Asia 2010 Haiti Earthquake Speech in Cairo Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Poverty Rural State Fair Tour Seniors & Social Security Service Taxes Tax Cuts, Unemployment Insurance and Jobs Technology Urban Policy Veterans Women Additional Issues The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Bill Daley Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Interactive Tour History White House Rooms White House Art Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Recent Class Staff Bios White House Internships The Story About Us Program Apply Here Submit a Recommendation Tours & Events 2011 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Holidays 2010 Inside the White House Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('.topnav-feature','#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings table.system-status-report th, table td, table th { padding: 5px;}.item-list ul.pager {margin: 0;}.view-display-id-page_1 {padding: 20px;}.node-form .text {width:95%;}.node-form, #node-delete-confirm, #user-login {max-width:648px;}dl.node-type-list {max-width: 615px; padding: 20px; margin: 20px;}#edit-delete, div.submenu.revisions {display: none;}ul.secondary li {display: block;}ul.secondary a.active {border-bottom: 1px solid #999;} The White House Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release April 01, 2011 Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/1/2011 James S. Brady Press Briefing Room1:18 P.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first briefing of April, 2011. Before I get started, I have a statement from the President I would like to read -- from the President:
“I condemn in the strongest possible terms the attack on the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan today. Together with the American people, I offer my deepest condolences to those injured and killed, as well as to their loved ones. The brave men and women of the United Nations, including the Afghan staff, undertake their work in support of the Afghan people. Their work is essential to building a stronger Afghanistan for the benefit of all its citizens. We stress the importance of calm and urge all parties to reject violence and resolve differences through dialogue.”
That’s what I have to start the briefing, and I will take your questions. Ben.
Q Thanks, Jay. In Libya, the rebels are apparently talking about the prospect of a ceasefire if Colonel Qaddafi concedes to certain provisions. While there is no sign that Qaddafi would agree to those conditions, including allowing peaceful protests, I’m wondering of the White House’s position on that concept. Is it something the President could support -- a ceasefire that would keep Qaddafi in power?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Ben, as you know, the President’s position is that Muammar Qaddafi is no longer fit to lead. He has lost legitimacy in the eyes of his people and the world. So, no, it is not his position that Qaddafi should stay in power.
As we’ve discussed and tried to make clear, there is the mission undertaken under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, the military mission, which is designed to protect civilians -- protect Libyan civilians from Qaddafi’s forces; and then there is the policy of the United States and the efforts undertaken unilaterally and multilaterally that are aimed at pressuring Qaddafi, the Qaddafi regime, and -- in a way that we hope and believe will produce the result of him leaving power.
Q But if the people of Libya decide this is an agreement that they could live with?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the people -- well, okay, let me step back. Of course, the future of Libya should be decided by the Libyans. And that is true -- we believe that the Libyan people do not want -- no longer want Qaddafi to remain in power as the leader of Libya.
But I don’t want to speculate about outcomes of potential ceasefires or negotiations. It remains the President’s position that Qaddafi should not lead Libya and that the Libyan people should decide their future. And we support a democratic transition, free and fair elections, and a government that arises out of that process that is responsive to the aspirations of the Libyan people. And that remains our position.
Q Okay. One question on the budget, pivoting off of some comments the President just had in Landover, sounding somewhat optimistic about being close to a deal, at least on the number to be cut, but the details to be worked out. Can you give us any update on where that stands? Is it in fact close to a final deal, or is the sense that this might come down to the deadline of April 8?
MR. CARNEY: The process of negotiating a budget compromise continues. It is a complicated one. And we are engaged in that process. It’s an appropriations process, the bill itself. So we are -- the House and Senate appropriators are the ones who are actually constructing the pieces. And we are there to advise and assist and consult and engage at the leadership level, as you know we have. The Vice President recently, on Capitol Hill, also speaking with Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid.
Whether we’re -- how close we are I don’t want to speculate. Obviously, we have a fairly short window here before this continuing resolution expires. People need to get to work and work diligently to try to find that common ground, to work out the details, so that we can reduce spending, cut spending of $73 billion, the target that both sides have agreed is the target we can reach.
But we need to find -- we need to agree on the details of how we get there. And we need to do it in a way, as the President has said, that cuts deeply, but does not cut the very investments that we need to make in education, infrastructure, research and development that will guarantee our success, job creation, and economic growth in the future.
Q So a follow-up on the budget, and also another question on Libya. What prompted the President today to sort of speak out so forcefully on the budget, on the budget compromise efforts? And is he basically trying to put the screws on both sides to get something done here?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President was speaking on an economic issue today, as you know, about the National Green Fleets Initiative -- a partnership with private businesses, those shipping companies that have large car and truck fleets, and our goal to have -- part of the process that the federal fleets are doing, as well -- of greening those fleets so that we can -- in ways that will help build towards that goal of reducing our dependence on oil and diversifying our -- the sources from which we get our energy.
So it was an economic speech. He also was very glad to report the encouraging jobs numbers that we received today, the rather strong economic -- rather jobs growth that we got in March -- 230,000 private-sector jobs net; 216,000 total. As the President said, that's 13 straight months of job growth, job creation, private sector job creation, for a total of 1.8 million jobs over 13 months. And as you know, a full 1 point drop in the unemployment rate in just four months, which is the steepest decline since 1984. All good news.
Not good enough. Rate still too high. But in speaking with him about this yesterday in a meeting, it forces everyone to focus on the fact that we are in the midst of a recovery; the economy is showing signs of strength. We should not do anything to jeopardize the recovery. We should not do anything that halts the growth in the economy or halts the progress we’re making in job creation.
And -- which brings us to this budget deal, and one of the things that we have spoken out so clearly about is that while we need to cut spending, we need to reduce the deficit -- we agree with Republicans on both those goals -- that we have to do it in a way that is responsible and that does not jeopardize the recovery. And certainly one thing that we have said that would jeopardize the recovery is if we allowed the government to shut down because of the economic uncertainty it would create.
So he wanted to address within the context of his remarks both obviously the jobs numbers and the broader economic picture, but also these negotiations that are ongoing. And he spoke optimistically about the capacity to find common ground that he believes exists, and that that's the right thing to do. That's what the American people want us to do.
Q Okay. On Libya, today as you know, Qaddafi’s forces are making advances against the rebel stronghold in the west, in Misurata. Each day we seem to have a shift in the movement of forces and who’s on top. Is there any concern in the White House, or what’s the level of concern in the White House, about the possibility of a -- of this settling into just a bloody stalemate that -- with no chance of actually dislodging Qaddafi and over the near term, if not the midterm?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think it’s important to step back and broaden the perspective a little bit and not judge the course of the conflict based on advances and retreats day-by-day or hour-by-hour -- which is not to dismiss your point, but just simply to say that the overall trend here is positive in terms of the conflict. The success that the NATO coalition has had in -- or the broader coalition has had in decimating Qaddafi’s forces, air assets, air defenses, and forcing him to retreat from Benghazi and other civilian -- other places where they threaten to do great harm to civilians.
But it’s obviously an ongoing situation there, and the NATO mission continues. The NATO now -- NATO-controlled mission, NATO-commanded mission, continues to protect civilians, to enforce the no-fly zone and to enforce the arms embargo.
On a separate track, we are also working very diligently to continue to put pressure on the Qaddafi regime. And I would note, as I did yesterday, that there are a variety of ways to measure Qaddafi’s relative strength in this situation, or weakness. And I think one measure is to look at what’s happening to the circle around him. And as you know, one of his most trusted aides defected, flew to United Kingdom with no immunity, and has abandoned the regime -- abandoned what we think is a sinking ship. And we think that’s an important development.
Q Thanks, Jay. A couple of questions on Libya. Republican senators, specifically McCain and Graham, are being highly critical that the United States is pulling U.S. assets out, kind of putting them out of commission as we move into a supporting role, at the same time saying that it remains a priority that Qaddafi must go. Where’s the disconnect there?
MR. CARNEY: Well, look, Senator McCain has also been very supportive of the action the President has taken in general. We simply disagree that -- with the idea that the United States should be militarily decapitating the Qaddafi regime; that it should use military force, unilaterally -- which is what it would mean -- to pursue the policy goal of having Qaddafi no longer rule Libya.
We believe that the course the President took here in building this coalition, in working with not just our NATO allies, but the Arab League and other partners, to build a broad consensus behind military action in a remarkably fast timeframe to protect Libyan civilians at a dramatic moment when the potential for a terrible humanitarian catastrophe existed was an important, important development, and it’s ongoing.
Another important aspect in this, as the President I think spoke very clearly about on Monday night to the American people, was that he believes that while this is a situation -- he believes that he retains an absolute right, as the Commander-in-Chief and the President, to use military force unilaterally when the United States is threatened, when American citizens are threatened, when our core interests are threatened, when our allies are threatened.
In other circumstances, when our general interests are affected, when -- and general interests that we share with international partners -- it is better to pursue the avenue that we pursued, which is to build a coalition to share the burden, to share the cost, to share the risk. And also, not just because of the -- those goals are important in and of themselves in a time when we have a lot of commitments around the world, but also to do that because it enhances the prospect of a good outcome; that working with our coalition partners here makes the possibility of a good outcome in Libya greater because it makes clear that the unrest in Libya, the revolution, if you will, has come from the ground up, is driven by the desires and aspirations of the Libyan people, as it has been by the peoples of different countries, and it is not an America operation, it is not American- or Western-inspired.
And we think that is very, very important when the President takes the long view about what all these development means -- all these developments mean in the Middle East and what posture we should take to best ensure that our national security interests are protected and that the outcome in the region is as positive as possible for the people of the region and for the people of the United States. And I apologize for giving you such a long answer.
Q No problem at all, but you talk about it coming from the ground up, and we know that -- we’ve heard over the past many days that you’re assessing who these rebels are, what they’re about, their differing agendas. Our people on the ground say that the opposition is a ragtag group of people with more heart than they have military training and than they have in weapons, quite honestly. So is this -- are these people the people that the administration is relying on to go towards the end goal, toppling Qaddafi?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, our goal of having Qaddafi step down, take himself out of power or be removed from power, is a nonmilitary goal. We support the aspirations of the Libyan people. The opposition to Qaddafi is driven by the fact that Qaddafi was such a brutal leader and did not respond or answer to the desires and aspirations of the Libyan people.
We make -- we are making a lot of assessments about the composition of the opposition. We have -- the Secretary of State has met, as you know, with the leader of the National Council in Paris and in London, and we were -- we view positively the statement that was put out by the council about what their vision is for the future of Libya, and the fact that it is inclusive and tolerant and envisions free and fair democratic elections.
So we’re working very closely with the contact group that was stood up after the recent conference in London -- broad group of international partners that are participating in that -- to look at ways we can assist the opposition and help imagine with them what the future of Libya will look like. But in the end, it’s up for -- up to the Libyans themselves to decide that future for themselves.
Q Real quick, Jay. I think that it’s lost a little bit that many -- like the American people hearing that it’s a political goal that Qaddafi should not be leading, but that we’re pulling these military assets out, and that it should then be kind of driven by the opposition -- who the administration acknowledges they're not trained to do, to take on such a fight at the moment. So we’re in it, but we’re not in it. I think the American people don't see a big difference -- if you want Qaddafi to go politically, why don’t we do it?
MR. CARNEY: I think what the American people understand very clearly is that this President did not believe that unilateral military action to remove an Arab leader from power and basically to own that country for the United States was the right course of action in this case. It wasn’t right for the United States. It wasn’t right for the region. It wasn’t right for Libya. And we have some experience with that and the costs associated with doing that. And moreover, the course that he is pursuing with our partners, he believes very strongly, it creates a better opportunity for success in the long run for the Libyan people, for the United States, for the other countries in the region, and for all our allies.
And the issue of removing assets, I mean, he made very clear his position that we would take the lead initially in the military operation because of our unique capacities to shape the battlefield, if you will, but that we would then step back, still remain part of the coalition, but make that transition to a NATO lead. We are still very much a part of the coalition, but we are not in the lead of the coalition. That means that the burdens and costs of this operation are shared, which we think is a good thing and we think the American people probably think is a good thing, as well.
Jake.
Q Regarding the massacre at Mazar-e-Sharif that you read the statement from the President about, I’m wondering -- that began as a protest against Pastor Terry Jones burning the Koran or involved in a protest that burned the Koran. And I’m wondering how much the President feels that Terry Jones and his team played a role in what happened in Mazar-e-Sharif, or how much of this is to be viewed as violence in Afghanistan in and of itself?
MR. CARNEY: Well, my understanding is there were protests around Afghanistan, and that we are still assessing what the cause of the protest was, what the motivation behind them was, and specifically this protest that led to this horrific action that was taken. And we strongly condemn the violence that took place there. But I don’t -- we don’t have any -- we don’t have enough information about what was the cause to make a comment on it. We have obviously -- well, I’d just leave it at that.
Q In terms of Libya, given the emphasis that you and the administration have been giving to the diplomatic and other efforts to remove Qaddafi from power as opposed to the military ones, is there any update you can give us on information coming from the foreign minister who defected or other efforts to get others from his inner circle to defect, any information about -- information about Qaddafi’s state of mind?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything specific on that for you except that the outreach is ongoing and the broad reports of outreach in the other direction from people in the Qaddafi regime to various folks on the outside has also taken place, as Secretary of State Clinton has mentioned and talked about. But we are not -- it is not clear yet in our mind what that means in terms of Qaddafi’s view of his situation, in terms of him personally.
Clearly, from Mr. Koussa’s decision to leave, that’s an indication -- at least gives us some insight into the sort of state of the circle around Colonel Qaddafi, but I don’t have any hard information about his state of mind or how he views his own predicament right now.
Q And lastly, could you give us your best assessment of the capabilities of the Libyan rebels?
MR. CARNEY: I would leave specifics to those who know better at NATO or the Defense Department. But we don’t dispute the idea that this is not a formal military force. I mean, that is part of its -- I mean, it is opposing what was a former military force that is still loyal, parts of which are still loyal to Muammar Qaddafi, precisely because that regime was so brutal.
And so it is made up of, in many senses, untrained, unexperienced people who are fighting for the right to be more free and to participate more fully in their country’s future and to create more economic prosperity for their children. I mean, that’s my understanding, without -- as I discussed yesterday, obviously there are elements of this very broad opposition that we either don’t know a lot about or we assume that not everybody who opposes Qaddafi is necessarily a friend of the United States. But that the -- that it is not a professional military I think is a notion we can agree on.
Chip.
Q Thanks, Jay. You said earlier this week that there’s no military option on the table with regard to Syria. Is the United States simply in a position where they’re an observer, with regard to Syria, or is there any option of any sword on the table? Is there anything the government can do other than watch and monitor?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we have spoken quite clearly about the need for the Syrian government to refrain from violence, to cease the arrest of human rights activists and lawyers and journalists, to act on the promises that the Syrian President made once in 2005 and made again the other day to initiate a series of reforms that the Syrian people clearly want. And the message -- it’s not an observation role only. Obviously, we are working with our allies in the region and speaking directly, or rather publicly, to the Syrian government, urging them to cease the violence and to engage in national dialogue.
Q Are there any actual options -- diplomatic, economic, anything --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not going to prejudge what -- I mean, there are already quite substantial sanctions in place in Syria -- have been since they were passed in 2003.
Q Anything more --
MR. CARNEY: But there’s obviously always more that can be done, or potentially more that could be done, in response to a situation in any given country, whether unilaterally or multilaterally -- many measures that could be taken short of military action, but I don’t have a list of specifics that are under consideration.
Q Okay, so it’s too early to say that there are options on the table?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have a list of the specifics. The team that focuses on the region, focuses on Syria, I’m sure is evaluating the situation. I mean, I know they are and I know that they evaluate various policy options that we might -- the President might pursue. But I don’t -- I can’t enumerate them or describe them to you because it’s premature to do that.
Q John McCain on Libya. John McCain says he’s working Senator Kerry, Senator McConnell and others to try to pass a -- I know there’s been talk of this, but now there’s a real -- a specific effort, we’re told, to pass a -- to find a resolution that could be overwhelmingly passed by the Senate, maybe just a sense of the Senate resolution, but something that they can vote on. Is the White House discouraging that, encouraging it, involved in it?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we have said -- I don’t know that -- if we’ve addressed the specific effort that you refer to, but we have said that we welcome congressional support for the actions that the President authorized and the mission that the United States remains engaged in, both the military mission and the diplomatic, economic, political mission, if you will, that encompasses all the other actions that we’re taking with regard to Libya. So we would, broadly speaking, welcome that support.
Q And last question. John Boehner, just a short time ago, again, said that he denies there is any target number on these. Do you still say there is a target number that he agreed to?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would just point you to the statement that he made yesterday that -- and that we agree on -- that there is a target number, but nothing -- there is not an agreement until there’s an agreement; that there is not -- but there is an agreement on a target, that if we -- if we can --
Q So you’re saying he has agreed with the $33 billion target number?
MR. CARNEY: -- has alternately been described in different terms depending on which baseline you’re working off of. But $73 --
Q You’re saying he agreed to that as a target number?
MR. CARNEY: As a target to give to the appropriators to work off of as they negotiate the details of cuts and spending, and try to find the common ground that would allow us to get to that number in a way that is acceptable to the House, the Senate, and the White House.
Q On Libya, are we withdrawing -- the planes the U.S. is basically withdrawing from the no-fly zone activities tomorrow, will they be replaced by planes from other countries?
MR. CARNEY: Well, NATO has assumed sole command of the operation, both the enforcement of the no-fly zone and the enforcement of the arms embargo and the enforcement of the civilian protection aspect of the mission. So how that -- how they do that, obviously it involves air assets as well as other assets, and how that breaks down, I would refer you to NATO -- but, yes.
Again, the idea that it’s like a withdrawal -- I mean, we made very clear, the President made very clear, that our engagement would be very intense in the beginning, would involve a lot of American assets, a lot of hardware, a lot of pilots, et cetera, and missiles that were utilized; and that we would then -- in a matter of days, not weeks -- pull back, having done the things that we can do uniquely, more effectively, more quickly, better than anyone, and then broaden the effort in terms of participation to the point where we are still obviously a partner in this, participating in this, but it is led by NATO and other coalition partners are contributing the lead assets, if you will, to the enforcement efforts.
Q On the ceasefire, Secretary Gates was asked yesterday in one of the hearings whether he could envision the conflict ending with Qaddafi in power. He said, no, but he could envision a ceasefire. And he went on to lay out some of the terms that it seems the opposition has laid out -- stop attacks on civilians, move the troops out of the cities, allow humanitarian aid deliveries, et cetera. Is there any space between the Secretary and the President on this?
MR. CARNEY: Zero space. We obviously believe very strongly that it is for the Libyan people to decide their future. We -- the civilian protection mission is probably -- and I’m not -- as he described it and as I understand it -- encompassed in the goals that the opposition talked about that any ceasefire would require the cessation of hostilities, the cessation of violence against the Libyan people.
But the overall goal -- and I think you referenced this at the top -- is that Qaddafi no longer attempt to or remain in Libya or remain in power. And how that takes place -- obviously, we are engaged and our international partners are engaged in taking measures that we believe move that process along. And, obviously, the Libyan people will and the opposition will engage in that process also.
Q And on today’s job numbers, if I may, they’re getting a lot of cheers. But former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao points out that at 216,000 net jobs a month, it would still be the end of the decade before we got back to pre-recession unemployment rate levels. So does that make this rate of job creation acceptable to the President?
MR. CARNEY: Well, what the President said today is that he wakes up every morning -- and I know this because it’s on his mind when we talk early in the day and it’s on his mind when he goes home at the end of the day -- that this is his focus: job creation and economic growth. He has a lot on his plate but there is no greater priority for him. And what he said today is obviously -- he will not be satisfied until every American who is looking for a job, a well-paying job, finds one.
And so the answer to your question is of course it is not acceptable -- 8.8 percent, while it is the most dramatic and steep decline in the unemployment rate since 1984, it is certainly still too high. And that is why we are focused, as the President was today, on a variety of measures aimed at continuing the economic recovery, increasing job creation, increasing competitiveness. This is the principal focus of his administration, of his White House.
Q The question was whether the creation of 230,000-plus private sector jobs is acceptable.
MR. CARNEY: What I will tell you, it is good news. And to suggest otherwise, I think is -- maybe it’s an April fools’ joke -- but it is rather sour to suggest that the creation of 230,000 private sector jobs and net 216,000 jobs is anything but extremely good news, the kind of sustained job creation at a high level that we have not seen in many, many years.
Is it enough? No, it is not. But what your question does I think remind people is how deep the hole is, how deep the hole was, that we found ourselves in because of this recession. Remember that in the first several months that this President took office, in the midst of this terrible recession that was here when we got here, the job loss was in the 700,000-a-month range. That’s job loss. So we’re now at job creation, private sector job creation, in the 200,000-plus range. That is a 900,000 jobs turnaround. Not enough, not good enough, the hole is deep, but we are very happy at the job creation we’ve seen, 13 straight months of job creation, the 1.8 million private sector jobs that we’ve seen created in these last 13 months. That is good news.
Q I’m curious about this $33 billion/$73 billion. You, the Vice President, have used a number quite frequently. The Speaker said flatly today there is no number. And I’m just wondering, is this -- your choosing to emphasize it, is it an attempt to sow dissension between --
MR. CARNEY: Absolutely not.
Q -- the leadership and fiscal conservatives in the House Republican conference?
MR. CARNEY: No. Our point is that there is no reason that we cannot get a deal here if everyone agrees that they will not -- I mean, I understand that as I think the actions the House is taking today, that they would love H.R. 1 to become law. But as the Speaker said I believe yesterday, this is a government --Congress and the executive branch -- where one portion of it does not get to dictate the outcome. And the fact is that measure could not pass the Senate and would be vetoed by the President.
So it is not the end result. It may be what they wish for in an ideal world, but it’s not happening. And the President’s 2011 baseline budget that he proposed is obviously not happening, right? So what we have made clear is we -- the President will make tough choices. He will -- in the spirit of compromise and finding common ground, he will accept cuts that are hard, accept some details that he would not otherwise in an ideal world want to accept, but that he believes the American people expect us to find that common ground, expect us to be reasonable. Political rhetoric and shooting spitballs is not, I assure you -- and I know you know this -- is not what the American people want out of Washington right now.
So he -- we’re talking about a few billion dollars difference in terms of a top-line number, and that should not be the block over which we stumble to lead to a government shutdown or to demonstrate to the rest of America that we can’t get things done, because we believe we can. And we believe -- notwithstanding the things that have been said, that there is ample common ground available to us to reach a compromise.
Q Okay, just one more. I want to follow up on something you said yesterday. You spoke very generally about U.S. intelligence assets being helped -- being used to assist the operation yesterday. I’m just wondering, are those assets being -- American intelligence assets being used exclusively for the furtherance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, or are they also being used for the furtherance of the unilateral American administration’s goal of having Qaddafi leave power?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I cannot, as you know, speak about intelligence matters in any specific way. The conversation that we had yesterday was with regard to, as the President and others have said and I have said, regard to the things that we can continue to do in support of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which is, as a member of the coalition that is enforcing that resolution, that we can supply intelligence --
Q But the resolution is limited to protecting civilians --
MR. CARNEY: Well, and that's what I was -- and that -- and again, that is what I am referring to. But I will not speak about intelligence gathering or operations from this podium.
Q Well, can you say whether the American intelligence apparatus is constrained because they're working under the auspices of 1973 from helping further the American unilateral goal?
MR. CARNEY: I’m just not going to comment on that one way or the other. I will say, echoing the President, that one of the capabilities that we are still able to -- that we will still provide in our roles advising and assisting and supporting the NATO-led mission is intelligence capacity, intelligence -- the provision of intelligence. But that also includes refueling capacity, the capacity to jam signals of the Qaddafi regime. So there are a variety of ways that we continue to assist the NATO mission.
Q Jay, one of the cuts that the President himself made in the NASA budget was a funding for the Destiny satellite, which is an earthquake detection capability. Now, given the tremendous turbulence, unprecedented turbulence in this Pacific Ring of Fire that we saw come out in Japan, isn’t it total folly to begin taking down some of these NASA capabilities, given that perhaps solar flares and other things are affecting the magnetic field of the earth, when we can, if not prevent them, at least warn the population in good time to deal with them? Isn’t that verge on criminality when we’re faced with this kind of a situation in that region?
MR. CARNEY: You’re asking me whether or not some position we took that I confess I have -- I’m not -- is a criminal action or just folly?
Q It’s the Destiny -- the Destiny satellite --
Q Which is it?
Q -- which would allow us to give some lead time, maybe an hour, maybe an hour and a half in, say, San Francisco. If such an earthquake were to hit, you could at least warn the people in time so they weren’t caught totally by surprise. That has been axed out of the budget.
MR. CARNEY: Sir, I confess that I don’t -- I do not know the specifics of that, the budget line that you referenced. I’m happy to take that question or if you want to get back in touch with me or my office, we’ll try to get an answer for you.
Q I think there are 40 scientists who are protesting the --
MR. CARNEY: And I certainly think you might ask NASA about it. But I’m happy to take that question and provide my answer, but I just don’t have one right now.
Q NASA is dependent on the President.
MR. CARNEY: Thank you, but I will -- as I said, I would happily answer that question if I had more information on it. But I will get more information for you if you contact my office after the briefing.
Mark.
Q Jay, back to the budget talks, Harry Reid said the EPA riders are off the table. The White House, he said -- neither the White House nor Senate Democrats will accept EPA riders. Is that your position?
MR. CARNEY: Well, what the President has said and what I have said and others have said is that we do not believe this process is the right forum for injecting politically charged or ideologically driven agenda items that are highly contentious, the injection of which seem to us to be designed to derail this train that needs to move forward into the station. I’m not going to negotiate line by line what items are acceptable or unacceptable, but our position on that broad basket of issues is clear.
Q Because, I mean, when you discussed this yesterday, it seemed like you were not specifically taking anything for that matter off the table, and it sounds like he is just taking it off the table.
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I don’t want to -- I mean, I don’t want to refine Senator Reid’s words. But I will tell you what our position is, which is not to negotiate the items of the hoped-for compromise and resolution from here. Those negotiations are ongoing, and the confidentiality of how that -- of those negotiations is something I will not breach from here.
But our overall position about the need to remove from the process those things that seem to us to be wholly unrelated to a deficit reduction and spending cut and funding bill should be removed in order to allow this process to move forward. And if lawmakers have -- feel passionately about a specific issue, they should write legislation, bring it to the floor, and have it debated on the floor.
Mr. Knoller.
Q Jay, can you tell us what the White House thinks of the government shutdown bill that the House is working on this afternoon?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would just say what I said earlier, which is that the -- H.R. 1 passed the House, did not pass the Senate. If it had miraculously arrived on the President’s desk, we made clear in a statement of administration policy that the President would veto it. So it will not become the law of the land. I understand that that is the ideal for one segment of Congress, but nobody is going to get everything they want in this process. We have acknowledged that and many others have acknowledged that on both sides.
So it’s an interesting exercise. It is not an exercise that brings us any closer to accomplishing what needs to be accomplished for the American people and what they expect us to do. And so we hope that it will not distract attention from the work that needs to be done very quickly to find resolution on funding for the rest of this fiscal year so we can move on to these bigger issues. We are talking about a funding bill for a year that is already almost half over. It needs to get done.
Q And earlier today, you said the President sees a need to agree on details that cut deeply, but not education, R&D, infrastructure. Can you tell us what are the programs in which you want to cut deeply?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to the substantial cuts the President proposed in his fiscal year 2012 budget, and there were substantial cuts in that, including to programs that he said when he put forward that budget proposal he cares a lot about and would not want to cut in the manner that he is cutting them in an ideal world. And a number of those cuts have been incorporated into some of the proposals that are on the table that are cuts that we can agree on and that Republicans can agree on.
So he has put forward a series of substantial cuts in a series of areas. And again, I don’t want to negotiate on specifics, but the point is that there are lines beyond which he feels he cannot go and will not go because the future economic growth of this country depends that those lines not be crossed.
Q And last question. On his directive, the greening of the federal fleet, does he want to see his limousines made hybrid or all-electric vehicles?
MR. CARNEY: You know, the limousines are part of -- I believe run and operated and commissioned by the United States Secret Service, so I would refer you to them on that.
Q Yes, but it’s his directive.
Q Can “The Beast” go green?
MR. CARNEY: Can “The Beast” go green? I honestly don’t know. Obviously security matters are not ones that I tend to address from here, but I’d refer you to the Secret Service for that.
Mr. Thrush.
Q Jay, virtually every news outline is reporting, citing the police chief in Afghanistan, saying that demonstrators were at least partially motivated by Terry Jones burning the Koran. Two questions. Do you think he has, to some extent, blood on his hands, this pastor? And the second question is, does this administration have a message to Afghans and other Muslims talking about how they view the burning of the Koran and its -- and the significance of what it says about the United States?
MR. CARNEY: Glenn, I’m not -- I am going to refrain from now from commenting on what may or may not have been the cause of the demonstrations that led to this horrific act, which is in no way justified no matter -- regardless of what the motivation was. But, again, on the cause, the motivation behind it, I don’t want to speculate because it’s important that we get it right. So we are looking into that, investigating it. And I’m sure when we have some conclusions about that that we make, as opposed to others, I’m sure we -- we’ll have a comment on it and you can -- and I’ll comment on it from here if you like. But I’m not going to say anything about it now.
Q Is there any reason to believe the Taliban instigated this?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t -- I just don’t have enough information -- we don’t have enough information and we’re still getting that information.
Kara.
Q Thanks, Jay. The Colombian government announced this week that its free trade agreement with Canada is going to be going into effect in July. And the President has obviously said that he wants to finish work on the U.S.-Colombia agreement. But I was just wondering, can you point to any evidence of progress, that progress is actually being made on that front?
MR. CARNEY: I can. I was in a meeting this morning with Ambassador Kirk, and that he’s working extremely diligently to try to make progress on the Colombian trade deal. And the President is committed to getting it done, and we have done a lot in the past weeks and months to intensify that activity and -- so that we can get a trade deal that is good for American business, good for American labor, good for America, and move forward and get some of these important trade deals completed and passed, as the highly significant trade deal with South Korea has been completed and awaits passage -- approval from Congress.
Q Any estimate for any goal, any timeline?
MR. CARNEY: Sooner than later.
April.
Q Jay, the White House is very upbeat about the unemployment numbers, but there is a concern that the black unemployment numbers inched up two-tenths of a percent to 15.5 percent. And I spoke with Mary Frances Berry earlier, the former head of the Civil Rights Commission, and she said that there needs to be come type of targeted approach for those who continue to be in that number of -- the large unemployment number, and she said an anti-poverty approach, a poverty agenda, per se. Is the White House looking at a targeted approach now as the overall numbers are going down but minority numbers are still going up?
MR. CARNEY: Unacceptably high. The overall number is unacceptably high; the minority number is unacceptably high. And there is no question that is discouraging news that that number ticked up, as you mentioned. It also has come down overall in the last months when -- as the overall rate has come down.
But the President, as I noted earlier, wakes up every morning focused on this issue and goes home every night focused on this issue. And he believes very strongly that the economic measures that he has taken have been beneficial to staving off an even worse economic calamity, an actual depression as opposed to the worst recession that we’ve ever seen -- in generations, rather, since the Great Depression; and that there were very -- there were programs within the Recovery Act and other measures that we took that were -- by their design would help communities that were hardest hit.
And those -- we believe those programs have been effective -- not enough, but effective. And we’re always looking for ways to address -- as the economy recovers, address those areas which are not recovering as well or fast enough, whether they be parts of the economy or communities or regions. And I don't have a specific new proposal from the President for you, but this weighs heavily on him.
Laura.
Q Thanks.
MR. CARNEY: What’s going on here? You’ve been ousted.
Q I’m out of position. No, you should actually call on Ryan because he was here because I was late, so --
MR. CARNEY: On Ryan, maybe.
Q Will you yield?
Q Yes, I’ll yield to Ryan. He was here on time.
MR. CARNEY: Ryan.
Q Thanks, Jay. Ryan Tracy, Dow Jones, and the Journal. I want to ask -- I know you don't want to refer to specific policy riders in the budget negotiations, but can you talk generally about whether the administration would accept cuts to health care implementation, for example, or Planned Parenthood?
MR. CARNEY: Look, I think the President has made clear -- first of all, if you’re talking about the Affordable Care Act, the answer is we believe this is an essential element to reducing the deficit, to ensuring far greater access to health care, to reducing costs for businesses and individuals, so that is an important area to protect.
On other issues, it is simply not the place to have those contentious fights on social policy or other types of policy that have nothing to do with funding the government, reducing spending, cutting the -- cutting spending and reducing the deficit.
So we -- without getting into specifics, because I don't want to negotiate it from here, it is very much the President’s position that this is not the vehicle to have those debates. And it is certainly not appropriate, and the American people will not be happy to learn if this thing founders because of an insistence that something be inserted in the bill that is highly contentious and has nothing to do with the fiscal year 2011 funding of the government.
Q Just to follow up on that, what -- is there any difference with the EPA riders in that sense? I mean, that's --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not going to get into the specifics, Ryan.
Yes -- sorry.
Q Jay, when you were -- in response to Ryan’s question just now and then earlier you were talking about shooting spitballs, is that a characterization that you would talk about in terms of a segment of Congress exclusive to their attitude with regard to policy riders, or is that a generally cavalier or less-than-serious attitude toward the --
MR. CARNEY: I like the second part. (Laughter.) I just -- I meant as a general statement. I wasn’t aiming that specifically at anyone, and in Washington there have been spitballs delivered from all sides.
But the point is, is that this is not a time -- if there ever is a time, this is certainly not one, where the public wants its leaders in Congress, in Washington or in the White House, for that matter, to engage in a lot of heated political partisan rhetoric. When the opportunity for compromise is there, we have shown and the leaders of Congress have shown a capacity to work together in a bipartisan way to compromise and get things done for the American people at a time that when doing that a lot of people would have predicted was impossible -- I’m talking about the lame duck session last year.
There is no reason, given what we know about what the elements of the various proposals are in terms of reducing the deficit and cutting spending in the fiscal year 2011 funding process that we cannot reach a compromise. Not 100 percent of what we want, not 100 percent of what Republicans want, Senate Democrats -- everybody is going to have to give. But there is ample room to find common ground.
Q But you don’t see that attitude coming from one area or another?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, we just think it’s not a good approach in general, and I don’t think -- we don’t think it’s good for the process, we don’t think it’s what the American people want to hear.
Q Week ahead, Jay?
MR. CARNEY: I do have a week ahead. I’m going to read the week ahead and get out of here, if I could.
Q Does this include filing with the FEC?
MR. CARNEY: On Monday, the President will --
Q File with --
MR. CARNEY: Wait for it, Chip. On Monday, the President will attend meetings at the White House. (Laughter.)
On Tuesday, the President will welcome Israeli President Shimon Peres to the White House for a working lunch. The President looks forward to discussing with President Peres the full range of issues of common concern, including U.S.-Israeli security cooperation, recent developments across the Middle East, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and its neighbors.
On Wednesday, the President will --
Q Coverage? (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything on coverage, but get back to me on that.
Q Will it be a kosher option? (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: That was good. I like that. (Laughter.) .
On Wednesday, the President will -- I’m sorry, will travel to the Philadelphia -- (laughter) -- travel to the Philadelphia area to discuss his long-term plan to prevent -- or rather, to protect consumers against rising oil prices and decrease oil imports, as well as key components of his broader energy plan. You may have noticed that we are -- he is, rather, speaking quite a bit about this in these days and weeks.
The President will visit Gamesa -- I hope I’m pronouncing that right -- Gamesa Technology Corporation in Fairless Hills, where he will hold a town hall discussion with workers about building a 21st-century clean energy economy to win the future.
On Wednesday -- also Wednesday, the President will travel to New York, New York, to deliver remarks at the National Action Network’s 20th anniversary and national convention.
We will have more details about Thursday and Friday’s schedule, including -- well, who knows -- early next week.
Thanks very much.
Q Just one on Japan?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, I’ll take one on Japan.
Q On Tuesday, the President spoke with Prime Minister Kan about just the continuing commitment in the long and short term. If maybe you could flesh out some of that long-term support? Has there been any discussions on whether that would include decontamination of soil or water?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have the specifics on that. I think maybe the Department of Energy might or the NRC. The commitment -- I mean, the longstanding commitment is embedded in the nature of the relationship with our very close ally. And we will do, as the President has said, everything we can and provide any assistance we can to help Japan in this incredibly difficult period.
Q Can you comment, then, on the roughly 150 Marines or so that are either arriving or have arrived today to support with decontamination?
MR. CARNEY: I just don’t have those details. If you want to check back with me later, I can help you get more information. But it is something that the President is briefed on every day and updated on the situation we have. As you know, Dr. John Holdren is the director of the Office of Science and Technology who is all over this all the time, and making sure the President is kept abreast of developments. And then, as you noted, he himself has engaged with the Prime Minister regularly on this.
Thanks a lot.
END
2:10 P.M. EDT
April 01, 2011 8:06 PMPress Briefing Blog posts on this issue April 02, 2011 5:30 AM EDTWeekly Address: Gas Prices & Energy SecuritySpeaking from a UPS customer center as part of the new public-private Green Fleet Partnership, the President discusses his Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future to help free us from oil and boost the American economy.
April 01, 2011 8:03 PM EDTCommemorating 50 Years of Peace and Friendship Through Service
Aaron S. Williams, Director of the Peace Corps and former Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic, reflects on the importance of community service and the impact Peace Corps has had in communities around the world.
April 01, 2011 7:57 PM EDTGoing Green and Saving GreenThe White House Council on Environmental Quality answers a question from Twitter on how the U.S. is going green without raising the deficit.
view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrMySpaceYouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Family Fiscal Responsibility Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Poverty Rural Seniors & Social Security Service Taxes Technology Urban Policy Veterans Women Additional Issues The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Interactive Tour History Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Inside the White House Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources
En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Subscribe to RSS Feeds Apply for a Job
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko and Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Poneman, 3/14/2011
Office of the Press Secretary
James S. Brady Press Briefing RoomPlease see below for a correction (marked with asterisks) to the transcript.
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Jay.
We have been working very closely with our colleagues throughout the interagency process here at the Department of Energy. We've been ***led by Secretary Chu -- I just came from speaking with him on this matter and we've been speaking continuously throughout the weekend.
1:07 P.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, everyone. Over the weekend, as you know, the President was briefed multiple times on the situation in Japan in the wake of the tragic earthquake and tsunami there. USAID is leading our humanitarian assistance effort with the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others.
Here at the White House, Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan is coordinating an interagency process with regards to Japan and engaging with relevant officials from across the government. Because we knew that you would have a lot of questions about the situation in Japan, especially with regard to nuclear issues, I brought with me today, asked to come today, Greg JACZKO, who is the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He can answer questions people have about the safety of American citizens in Japan, as well as he can just generally update Americans about the impact of the accident -- or rather the aftermath of the tsunami and earthquake.
And then I also have Dan Poneman, who is our Deputy Secretary of Energy, and he can outline everything that we are doing to assist Japan as it deals with the aftermath.
With that, I'll ask these two gentlemen to speak. If you could address the questions related to their areas to them, and then we'll let them get out of here and get back to work. And I will take questions on other issues. Thanks very much.
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: If I could just start with just a few points. First and foremost, based on the type of reactor design and the nature of the accident we see a very low likelihood, really a very low probability that there’s any possibility of harmful radiation levels in the United States or in Hawaii, or in any other U.S. territories.
Right now, based on the information we have, we believe that the steps that the Japanese are taking to respond to this crisis are consistent with the approach that we would use here in the United States. And most importantly, we advise Americans in Japan to listen to and to follow the instructions of the Japanese government with regard to the nuclear facilities.
The agency has been providing technical assistance to the Japanese government as they are requesting, and in particular, we have dispatched two technical experts to Japan and are continuing to assemble a team of experts that would be dispatched in the near future.
So with that, I will then turn to Dan.
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Jay.
We have been working very closely with our colleagues throughout the interagency process here at the Department of Energy. We've been by Secretary Chu -- I just came from speaking with him on this matter and we've been speaking continuously throughout the weekend. John Brennan has been coordinating matters interagency. We have had frequent meetings in person, we've had frequent meetings over the telephone, as we are trying to respond to all of the data that we are taking in.
We've also been in very, very close, continuous consultation, all hours of the day, with Ambassador John Roos -- and hats off to him for the incredible job he and the country team have been doing as they’ve been coordinating the American response. And as appropriate, given their independent regulatory status, we're making sure we share information as appropriate with Chairman JACZKO and our colleagues over at the NRC.
We have focused our efforts on consulting very, very closely with our Japanese colleagues. We also have dispatched subject matter experts -- both reactor experts and an expert on emergency response. We are in consultation with them and we will make sure that any requirement that they have we are prepared to meet. And we are talking with them even on a real-time basis as that proceeds. So we have technical expertise already there on the ground. We have additional capabilities if and as needed. Of course, the Japanese government has tremendous capabilities on their own, but because a matter of this nature requires all of our best efforts, we stand ready to assist as required.
MR. CARNEY: What I'll do is I'll go ahead and call on people. Ben, why don't you start?
Q Thank you. Chairman Jaczko, can you give us a sense of how President Obama is getting briefed about this nuclear crisis in Japan and the risk to the people there? And also, in the plainest terms you can, can you describe sort of the nature of what we’re seeing and just how bad it is?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Well, I would turn to one of the others about the President’s briefings.
MR. CARNEY: Let me just say, Ben, if I could, the President was briefed multiple times over the weekend. He has been briefed this morning and is being updated throughout the day. John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, is taking a lead on that and gathering information and coordinating the briefings the President gets with all the relevant officials in the government.
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: It terms of the second part of your question, it is a serious situation certainly in Japan. The efforts right now of the Japanese government, with our assistance where they’ve requested it, is to continue to look for ways to provide the ability to keep the reactors cool. And that is a process that has been ongoing now for some time, and we continue to provide assistance where we can. In particular, they have asked for additional types of equipment that will help provide water and other resources to ensure that the reactors continue to be cool.
Q Has there been a partial meltdown in any of these reactors there?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: At this time, we don’t really have detailed information about the nature of the core in the reactor itself. But it is a situation in which there has been a loss of the normal type of cooling mechanisms to the reactor. So as the situation continues to develop we’ll get better information. But right now, the focus has been to do everything possible to ensure that the reactor continues to be cooled.
Q And this incident leading to any safety concerns at nuclear facilities here in the United States?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Well, as I said, from the NRC’s perspective, we are always focused on the safety and security of nuclear power plants in this country. That will always be something that we do. Whenever there’s any new information, we always take that information into consideration and make changes if necessary. But right now we continue to believe that nuclear power plants in this country operate safely and securely.
I’ll stop at that point.
MR. CARNEY: Jill.
Q Following up on that, is there any attempt, though, at this stage to assess, carry out a study of the ability of these plants in the United States to withstand an earthquake? Because after all, you have California. And also at least one of the reactors in jeopardy apparently in Japan uses that MOX fuel. Is there more concern about that, heightened -- any situation with the venting?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Well, with regard to the U.S. power plants, the U.S. power plants are designed to very high standards for earthquake effects. All our plants are designed to withstand significant natural phenomena like earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis. So we believe we have a very solid and strong regulatory infrastructure in place right now. But of course, as we always do, as an independent regulatory agency, we will continue to take new information and see if there are changes that we need to make with our program.
With regard to the MOX fuel, again, we are providing assistance to the Japanese where they request our assistance. And at this time, they have not asked for any specific information with regard to the MOX fuel.
Q You just talked about how the high standards are here in the United States domestically. What are the differences in safety standards between what Japan has and what the United States does have?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Well, right now as I said, our focus is always on keeping the nuclear power plants in this country secure. We are also putting a strong focus right now on providing technical expertise to the Japanese as they request it. Questions about exactly the differences and what changes we might want to consider and look at in this country is something we’ll deal with down the road. But bottom line right now, we believe that the plants in this country continue to be designed to a very high standard for seismic and tsunami-type events.
Q There’s already been calls -- this might be more for Jay, but there are already calls for moratoriums in the United States. For example, Congressman Markey called for that. Does the President know about these calls for changes in U.S. handling of this issue? And you said you were reviewing, but what is the timeline for that? This is obviously something that Americans are concerned about.
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Again, as an independent regulatory agency, we will always take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the safety and security of nuclear power plants in this country. But right now we believe we have a very strong program in place. As we get more information from Japan, as this immediate crisis ultimately comes to an end, we will look at whatever information we can gain from this event and see if there are changes we need to make to our system.
I would just add as a similar scenario, following the 2004 tsunami, we did review tsunami requirements for nuclear power plants, and, in fact, went and made sure that our plants would be able do deal with that type of event.
MR. CARNEY: Chip.
Q Would plants in the United States be able to withstand a quake of this magnitude?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Again, I don’t want to speculate on anything like that at this point.
Q But are they planned to be able to -- I know they try to estimate what they would be able to withstand. I know in Japan, for example, this one I believe was only built to withstand a 7.9 or something like that. In the United States, are they built to withstand a quake of this magnitude, of an 8.9?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: At this point what I can say is we have a strong safety program in place to deal with seismic events that are likely to happen at any nuclear facility in this country. As we get past this immediate crisis where we continue to provide support to the Japanese, we’ll gather information about the specifics of the event. But I don’t want to speculate too much about what exactly were the relevant factors in Japan at this point.
Q And one other question. You said that there’s a “very low likelihood,” I believe were your words, of harmful radiation making it to Hawaii or the West Coast. Is that based on the condition of those plants right now, or is that based on a partial meltdown or, heaven forbid, a total meltdown? Could that change your assessment?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: The information about harmful -- the lack of any harmful impacts to the U.S. is simply based on the nature of these reactors and the large distances, obviously, between those and any U.S. territory. So you just aren’t going to have any radiological material that by the time it traveled those large distances could present any risk to the American public.
Q Even in a worst-case scenario, even with a meltdown, you’re not going to have harmful radiation reach Hawaii or the West Coast?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Again, I don’t want to speculate on various scenarios, but based on the design and the distances involved, it is very unlikely that there would be any harmful impacts.
MR. CARNEY: Mike.
Q Do you gentlemen worry about perhaps an overreaction in this country, seeing a nuclear problem in another country, in terms of policymakers running away from nuclear energy?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: I would defer to Dan.
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: I think you just heard very clearly from Chairman Jaczko that we place safety paramount when it comes to the regulation of our nuclear power plants, and we always will. That having been said, we have to have an energy policy and a direction in this country that’s driven by our overall assessment of our country’s best interest.
In that respect, we are going to continue to seek to diversify our energy supplies. We’re going to continue to make sure that each and every one of those sources is as safe as is humanly possible. And we will continue to take all learnings into account as we proceed from episodes that happened, from hypothetical that we might be able to come up with. It’s a matter -- it’s nothing new about it. It’s a matter of our continuous approach to our own development of our safety resources -- our energy resources to make sure that they’re done continuously and safely. Each event as it occurs is taken into account, but we don’t sort of change from day to day our overall approach to the desire to diversify our overall energy posture.
Q And nuclear is a key component in your interest in diversification, correct?
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: Nuclear power has been a critical component to the U.S. energy portfolio. We have 104 operating reactors -- that’s 20 percent of the electricity of this country; 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity in this country comes from nuclear power. So we do see nuclear power as continuing to play an important role in building a low-carbon future. But be assured that we will take the safety aspect of that as our paramount concern.
And under the independent regulatory authority, going back to 1974, the NRC, which is independent and is, therefore, at arms’ length, will ensure that we live up to exactly those kinds of high standards that the President expects us to use in operating those plants.
Q And quickly, it is critical to reaching your mission goals, correct -- nuclear energy?
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: We view nuclear energy as a very important component to the overall portfolio we’re trying to build for a clean energy future.
Q I want to follow up on a question and see if we can get Jay to answer on this -- the moratoria issue. I think it was Senator Lieberman said over the weekend that what’s gone on in Japan should cause us to put the brakes for the moment on nuclear power plant development in America. Does the administration agree with that?
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: I’m happy to start and others can supplement.
As I said, going back decades, every experience that we have with respect to our nuclear plants we take fully into account. Certainly back in March 1979 at the time of the Three Mile Island episode, there were a tremendous amount of learnings that we applied to the improvement of safety in our fleet. Our reactors are much safer today because of all those learnings that have been applied.
We continually hypothesize new scenarios of different types and never stop our efforts to continue to exercise our capabilities, to assess the possibilities, and to ensure that our reactors can operate as safely as possible. We’ll continue to do that. We’ll continue to seek to improve. We’ll certainly take the learnings out of this experience and apply those as well. And we know, because of the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that in terms of operating our reactors only if they can operated safely, that is a responsibility that is properly reposed in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Q So a pause isn’t necessary?
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: From a policy perspective, we will continue to operate our reactors and seek to operate them safely. We will continue to seek to build nuclear into a part of a responsible energy future, and we will repose our confidence in the NRC to make sure that we only do so to the extent that it can be done safely.
MR. CARNEY: Athena, I would just add that we have the plants that we have already in operation that provide 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. And information is still coming in from Japan, so as we evaluate that information, these gentlemen have made clear that they will incorporate that into how we view safety and security of nuclear energy as a resource.
But it remains a part of the President’s overall energy plan when he talks about reaching a clean energy standard it’s a vital part of that. And as we get more information about Japan and what happened there, that can be incorporated. But right now, we remain committed to the clean energy standard and the other aspects of the President’s energy plan.
Q Mr. Chairman, do you have NRC people in Japan now?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: We currently have two NRC technical experts in Japan. They are working to provide information to the U.S. embassy, as well as to interface with their colleagues in the Japan regulatory authority.
Q And from your understanding of the situation now with the Japanese reactors, is it as bad as it’s going to get, or might it get worse?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Again, I don’t want to speculate on how this may progress. I would say it is a serious situation, and we continue to provide whatever assistance is requested from us and is necessary -- assistance requested or necessary by the Japanese government. And I would it is a -- Japan is a technically advanced nuclear country and they possess significant technical resources and capability on their own.
Q Jay, so there’s nothing -- the President hasn’t seen anything in Japan that will lead him to change his position that the U.S. should continue to get power from nuclear sources and increase that amount in the future?
MR. CARNEY: Dan, from a policy point of view -- but again, this is a -- information is still coming in. I think these gentlemen have addressed the issues of safety and security of the American nuclear energy program. And as more information comes in, obviously it will be evaluated. But 20 percent of our electricity is generated by nuclear power. It is already a major component of our energy here I in the United States.
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: If I could add, just again to reiterate I think the point that’s been made, that we are an independent regulatory authority and we always keep focus on a day-to-day basis on the safety and security of nuclear reactors in this country. So if we do get information that would cause us to take action, we will take that action. But at this time, we don’t have any information that would cause us to do anything different with our approach with the current reactors. But we will review information as it becomes available.
MR. CARNEY: A couple of more.
Q Mr. Chairman, of those two technical advisors you have there, are they in Tokyo? Are they up near the facility? Are they getting information from the Japanese government? And how would you describe the Japanese government’s description of what’s going on? Are they being forthcoming with both the public and with you?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Well, our two experts are in Tokyo and they are providing assistance to both the U.S. embassy as well an interface with our Japanese counterparts. And we continue to work to provide resources and assistance as we can.
Q Are they getting information, technical information from the Japanese? Are they watching press reports about what they’re seeing going on? To what extent are they really hearing what’s going on?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Right now, they’re providing a very valuable resource to us to give us direct information from Japan about what’s going on. And that’s coming from a variety of sources, including interaction with counterparts in their regulatory --
Q Has the government of Japan been very cautious about what it’s putting out publicly? They didn’t have much urgency at the beginning and it’s gotten more and more urgent.
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Again, from what I’ve seen, we continue to see a very aggressive effort to deal with what is a very difficult situation in Japan right now.
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: Can I just supplement that by saying that we’ve been in consultation through Ambassador Roos. He’s been in continuous consultation with Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano. And we have two subject matter experts over there as well, and they are in communication with their counterparts.
Q Have you supplied any actual equipment to the Japanese? Have they requested anything?
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: Well, we are ready to provide equipment. We have talked to them about what they have. As of this morning, there may be some additional information that Chairman Jaczko may wish to comment on. But what we are making sure of is, A, of course they have a lot of equipment on their own, but, B, such equipment as we have -- and we have equipment that can do aerial monitoring of ground deposition -- that’s available. We have emergency response equipment. That’s available. We’re not starting from a blank slate, though, because the Japanese already have a lot of equipment, and we’re just making sure we’ve got what we need to supplement.
MR. CARNEY: Why don’t we -- one question from the Japanese media and then we’ll wrap this part up.
Q With the accident at the nuclear plant over the weekend, has there been any direct impact from that on the U.S. support teams that are already in the area? Have they had to alter their plans at all as a result?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: I would defer that question to AID, I believe. They have better information about the teams. The two NRC officials who are in Tokyo have not experienced any issues that I’m aware of. But, obviously, their safety -- their personal safety is important to us. But in Tokyo, there is no direct impact from the nuclear incident itself.
Q Can you talk then more generally about the logistical challenges of going into an area with such unprecedented damage?
CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Again, I would defer some of those broader questions to the folks at AID that we’ve been working with very closely to help provide that logistical support.
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: I would just add to that, our DOE people have not been impaired in their ability to reach out to their Japanese counterparts. And in fact, at the Ambassador’s request, we’re sending another technical expert to join the team so they’ve got more subject matter expertise there.
In the context of the coordination that Mr. Brennan has been doing from the homeland perspective, we are making sure and working very closely with our colleagues in the Pentagon to make sure that any assets from a U.S. government perspective that need to be brought in there, we make available whatever assets we have through them, working with AID, as well.
Q Can I ask about nuclear waste, please? It’s very important.
MR. CARNEY: I want to let these guys go for now.
Q Can we ask you about it?
MR. CARNEY: We’ll take one question on nuclear waste, Connie.
Q Thank you. Is the U.S. reviewing its policy now on nuclear waste? And what are the Japanese doing in the midst of this crisis with their nuclear waste?
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: I would segregate what they're doing in the middle of this crisis with respect to their nuclear waste. The first focus in the crisis, obviously, is getting the coolant to the cores of the affected reactors. And of course, there is spent fuel present at the reactors and making sure that that used fuel remains cooled properly and so forth.
From a U.S. perspective, we are still very closely evaluating our options. And the principal mechanism here, as you well know, is that President Obama asked Secretary Chu to convene a high-level panel of very distinguished Americans, chaired by Mr. Lee Hamilton, former congressman, and retired general Brent Scowcroft. And that group is going to be looking at all the options having to do with the back end of the fuel cycle for the United States of America, and by July will be coming back with some interim views on the options we ought to think about going forward. I’m sure they're going to be taking all of these experiences, data coming out of this experience into account.
Q Are you confident that Japanese nuclear waste is safe now?
DEPUTY SECRETARY PONEMAN: In terms of Japanese regulation of Japanese nuclear waste, I would refer you to the Japanese regulatory authorities.
MR. CARNEY: Thank you, gentlemen, very much. I appreciate it. We’ll move on to the rest of the briefing. Thank you for coming.
Thanks for holding in abeyance your questions on other issues. Ben.
Q Two quick ones, Jay. I know that the President’s concern first and foremost is about health and safety as it relates to this disaster. But is he also concerned about the impact the Japan natural disaster could have on the world economy?
MR. CARNEY: Ben, we have full confidence in the capacity of Japan to address the economic challenges during these exceptionally difficult times. We’re monitoring, as we do always, the global economic environment, but we stand ready to assist the Japanese who are our friends and allies in any way that we can. And it’s important to remember that the Japanese have demonstrated a great resiliency and ability to pull together during times of adversity, and we are confident that they will overcome this challenge and recover from this tragedy.
Q And on one other topic, on the meeting that the President is having with General Petraeus, could you just tell us a bit about why he’s here? And specifically, is this a meeting at which he -- the General plans to talk about troop withdrawal plans in Afghanistan?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the General, as you know, is here. He is testifying on the Hill this week, and he is here meeting with the President today -- well, they meet with some regularity -- but to brief him on the progress we’re making in Afghanistan. And as part of that discussion, yes, I believe they will discuss the President’s plan to being a transition process in July of 2011, which will begin a process that will lead to turning over the security lead to the Afghan security forces by the end of 2014.
Q Jay, I saw the statement this morning about Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and the other GCC countries, but if this is the case that you have Saudi Arabia sending its forces into Bahrain, isn’t that a gross violation of the sovereignty of another country?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re aware of those reports and that other GCC countries are considering doing that. We urge all of our GCC partners to show restraint and to respect the rights of the people of Bahrain, and to act in a way that supports dialogue instead of undermining it. The important factor here is that our overall principles apply to Bahrain and all the countries in the region, which is that we urge restraint. We urge nonviolence in response to nonviolent protesters; the respect for the universal rights of people in the region to gather peacefully, to voice their opinions, to have their grievances heard by their governments, and to have greater participation in the political process.
We have long believed and the President has expressed for a long time now that stability in the region will be brought about by dialogue and political reform. And it is counterproductive to that goal to in any way repress the expression of those desires that the people of Bahrain, in this case, and other countries, have.
Q Jay, that’s a very diplomatic way of saying that the U.S. is unhappy about what’s going on. But if another country, if Iran had decided to go into another country because they felt it was the right thing to do, what would the United States be saying? And I know it’s a hypothetical, but this appears to be pretty serious.
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I think you have to understand what -- I mean, we’ve seen the reports that you’re talking about. This is not an invasion of a country.
Q Right, but there are security forces.
MR. CARNEY: It is -- correct. And we urge the government of Bahrain, as we have repeatedly, as well as other GCC countries to exercise restraint, and not to meet the nonviolent protests of people legitimately expressing their concerns and asking to have their voices heard with any kind of physical violence. So we -- that -- we call on, again, the government of Bahrain as well as other countries in the region that -- to hear this message.
Steve.
Q Did you get any advance warning that this was going to happen, the Saudis moving in?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything on that for you, Steve. As far as --
Q As far as you know -- okay.
MR. CARNEY: I don’t know. I don’t have anything for you on that.
Q Are we calling on the Saudis to leave?
MR. CARNEY: We are calling on the Saudis, the other members of the GCC countries, as well as the Bahraini government, to show restraint; and that we believe that political dialogue is the way to address the unrest that has occurred in the region, in Bahrain and in other countries, and not to in any way suppress it.
Yes.
Q Over the weekend you sent out a statement responding to the Arab League’s endorsement of a no-fly zone, but you didn’t obviously indicate whether the United States supports that or not. Knowing that all options are still on the table, isn’t it approaching a situation where it might be too little, too late, in Libya to enact this no-fly zone?
MR. CARNEY: As you know, we have discussions going on at the United Nations in New York regarding various options, military options, as well as non-military, and specifically a no-fly zone option. We have, as you know, tomorrow and then Wednesday at NATO, a process by which the plans that were being reviewed and refined that address a no-fly option will be presented to the NAC on Wednesday. And so we are, as we have said, constantly reviewing our options, refining our options, and this process is moving along.
The situation in Libya -- we continue to condemn the use of violence against the Libyan people by the Qaddafi regime, and we are encouraged by the international condemnation of that and by the actions taken by the Arab League, for example, because we believe that whatever actions we do take should be international and especially should represent the will of the people in the region and the countries in the region. And that’s why the Arab League’s voice on this is so important.
Q Knowing that you are -- could potentially be -- could be moving forward on this this week, but doesn’t that -- there’s been some voiced concern from foreign counterparts that that might nullify the goal of a no-fly zone, to enact it a little too late. Is there no concern --
MR. CARNEY: Well, Sunlen, again, I would say that the -- to go back to things we’ve talked about last week, the speed of the international reaction here has been quite remarkable and we are not letting up on our pressure, as the President made clear on Friday. I would note that, as you probably know, Secretary Clinton is in Paris where she will meet with opposition leaders, Libyan opposition leaders, as well as G8 counterparts to discuss some of these issues.
So we are moving with a great deal of haste and in coordination with our international partners, again with the kind of deliberation and speed that the situation requires, mindful of the fact that the decisions we’re talking about here are significant ones and need to be made with everyone’s eyes open to what they mean and what the goals are -- and I mean that with regard to a variety of possible options.
Chip.
Q Jay, following up on the no-fly zone, my understanding is there are now about five ships off the coast of Libya, three U.S. submarines off the coast, presumably with cruise missiles, plus you’ve got plenty of NATO aircraft at bases in the vicinity. Is the hardware now in place where if the President and other leaders were to give the order, that they could pull the trigger on a no-fly zone right now?
MR. CARNEY: Chip, what I would say, first of all, for the technical requirements to impose a no-fly zone, I would refer you to NATO, to the Defense Department. But what I think Secretary Gates has made clear and others have made clear is that this has never been a case about what our capabilities are. Obviously the United States of America has the capacity with its international partners to engage -- activate a no-fly zone, as well as take a variety of other potential measures.
The issue is making sure that the policy decisions we make, we make collectively with our international partners, because it is very important that the response be an international one and not just an American one, and that we are cognizant of what the goals are and whether they’re achievable, and what the impacts of that decision will be.
Q But there’s no big lag period? If they decide Tuesday, Wednesday to --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have specifics on what technical requirements have to be met in order to begin to implement an option like that. I would refer you to NATO probably for that.
Q Just one more question. Following up on Ben’s when he asked you about the global economic impact here, you basically responded with your confidence in the resiliency of Japan. But even if Japan does respond as well as could possibly be expected, this could still have a significant effect on the global economy. In discussions back there that you’ve been a part of or are aware of, have you heard economic advisors for the administration suggest that what could happen here is the same thing that happened last year with the Greek crisis, delaying the economic recovery? Could this have that same kind of effect on the economic recovery again?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would just say, Chip, that these are still early days, but that we remain confident that Japan and, therefore, the world can deal with this crisis and respond and rebuild in a way that is good for Japan and good for the world. So we have that confidence and we therefore believe that -- the resiliency of the Japanese people, the resiliency of the Japanese economy are very important factors in the capacity of Japan to handle this, and therefore the world working with Japan to handle it as well.
Q The recovery is safe?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I would just refer you to what I said.
Q A quick one on the gun laws. President Obama wrote an op-ed over the weekend and he said, “None of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.” So the question is what is the administration prepared to do actively, to actively support legislation-wise? For instance, Representative McCarthy’s bill to ban high-round magazines -- is that something that the President or administration officials will come out in support for?
MR. CARNEY: Well, what I’ve said in the past still holds, which we will review proposed legislation as it comes up. I don’t have any announcements for what we would support. But I would also say that the Department of Justice has reached out to stakeholders on all sides of this issue and they’re going to be holding a series of discussions as a first step, and that some of those meetings are happening this week.
So we are -- the President made his views known in the op-ed that you referred to. And the Department of Justice is continuing this process by meeting with stakeholders on all sides of the issue to look at ways that we can find common ground to take some common-sense measures that respect Americans’ Second Amendment rights, but also deal in a common-sense way with Americans’ safety and security.
Q So the administration wouldn’t put forth legislation on its own or spearhead a plan?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t want to speculate about what we may or may not do legislatively, except to say that we are engaged in this process.
Yes, Carol.
Q Sort of on what Chip was talking about, is there -- how much aid is the United States willing to give to Japan? And have there been discussions in the administration about financial assistance and what that amount might look like? Have the Japanese made any specific requests?
MR. CARNEY: I think we are now in the phase of dealing with the immediate crisis, and we are offering any and all assistance that we can provide that the Japanese request and need to help them deal with it. They are a very close ally and we stand ready to assist them in any way that we can. Long term, obviously, we’ll have to evaluate what the needs are and how we can help. But we’re committed to helping Japan recover from this.
Q Have there been any discussions about that internally, in terms of what --
MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of, because we are literally dealing with the aftermath, the considerable aftermath of a terrible situation caused by this earthquake and tsunami.
Q Just one quick thing on education -- and obviously that’s an area where the White House sees room for compromise and bipartisanship -- would you consider Race to the Top an area where you have consensus? Or is that an area where the White House thinks that they might need to do some work in order to get consensus?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we are consulting with our partners on Capitol Hill of both parties on education reform regularly. And Race to the Top already has received a great deal of bipartisan support. We think it’s been a very effective program and a good model for education reform. And we expect that bipartisan support to continue -- which doesn’t mean we take it for granted. And in the process of improving the law, we’ll be working with Republicans and Democrats going forward, but we do expect it to happen this year.
Yes, sir.
Q Jay, on a funding bill, does it look to the White House as though you will get a three-week extension before the end of the week?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t want to put timing on it, Mark. But we -- the cuts that have been outlined in that temporary measure are ones that we have already identified as acceptable. So we believe that we should be able to get something done. But again, we are focused on the process of achieving a resolution for the full fiscal year. Those conversations and negotiations are ongoing and that is our primary focus.
As the President said on Friday, because of the time it took to allow the process in the Senate to take place where the Senate voted on the Republican measure that emerged from the House and the Senate Democratic measure, it became necessary to give us the breathing space to negotiate the final CR for the fiscal year. But that remains our focus. And we remain absolutely committed to the idea that we need to get this done, last year’s business done as soon as possible so we can focus on some of these other big challenges that we face.
Q And Vice President Biden will be taking the lead on that now that he’s back from Europe?
MR. CARNEY: Well, this is a team effort. Vice President Biden is back from his trip and I’m sure he will be very much engaged in that process going forward.
Peter.
Q Thank you, Jay. If the U.S. wants -- believes that the legitimate grievances of Bahraini people need to be met, why not call upon Saudi forces to withdraw?
MR. CARNEY: Peter, I don’t have anything more for you on that. We are calling on the countries in the region to show restraint and pointing to the fact that the dialogue that can bring about political reform is essential for the stability of the countries in the region and their continued economic prosperity. Because we believe, as the President has said going back to his speech in Cairo, that it is -- the unrest that we have seen is a result of the lack of dialogue and the lack of engagement with the peoples in the region in their governments and in the political process.
Q And also, you mentioned in Egypt that the -- Mubarak was on this wrong side of history. Is that Bahraini monarchy also on the wrong side of history?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we have called on the Bahraini government to -- as we have others in the region -- to have a dialogue with their people, to listen to their grievances, to adopt political reforms, to respect the universal rights of their people. And I think, broadly speaking, in the countries of the region, the leaders in the region will be judged by how they deal with this process. And we think it’s important for the future of the region, for the peoples in these countries, that their voices be heard and their legitimate aspirations be addressed.
April.
Q Going back to the op-ed of President Obama on gun control -- the President talked about the mental competency of the gunman in Arizona, how he could not get into the U.S. military, how he could not get into a college, but yet he still purchased a gun. Is that President looking at any -- what kind of ways does the President want there to be issues of judging mental competency in purchasing a gun? Or is that something that he’s looking for in anything -- any gun control measures that come along?
MR. CARNEY: That level of specificity, I don’t have, April. But I think that his point that he’s making is that we can honor our Second Amendment rights while still ensuring that, as you noted, that someone with a criminal record shouldn’t be able to check out a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able to buy a gun so easily. I mean, there is room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety, respect the Second Amendment, and that we should be able to find some common ground on some of those measures. I don’t want to detail what those measures are or what he has in mind, specifically. The conversations are beginning along those lines at the Department of Justice.
Q Do conversations include gun shows, purchases at gun shows?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have -- I don’t want to narrowly define specific measures that may or may not be proposed. We’re looking at possible legislation and we’re having conversations with stakeholders on all sides of the issue.
Chris.
Q Thanks, Jay. I have some questions for you on marriage. Last week, the Maryland statehouse recommitted a bill legalizing same-sex marriage to committee because proponents didn’t feel like they had enough votes for passage. The measure is effectively dead for this year even though Democrats have control of the chamber. By not supporting same-sex marriage, is the President, as head of the Democratic Party, giving cover to Democrats in that chamber who don’t support the bill?
MR. CARNEY: Chris, the President’s position on gay marriage is well known. He addressed this in December at the press conference and I don’t have anything new for you on that.
Q So is the President not concerned that this measure failed to progress in that chamber?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything for you on that either.
Q One last question, one last question. The proponents of this bill said they’re going to try again in 2012. You said he’s grappling with the issue of same-sex marriage. The President said he’s wrestling with it. Is he going to pin down support for marriage equality and make an announcement before next year in time for these efforts --
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any timing for you on that either.
Yes.
Q Moroccan King has delivered a speech in which the government will change the reform (inaudible) constitution to give more power for the prime minister and lose more freedom. So does the White House have any comments on Morocco speech?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not sure if we have anything specifically on that. We encourage political reforms that liberalize the governments there, that allow for greater participation and representative government, and that applies across the region.
Q Jay, I have two questions, one a follow-up. Is it safe to assume that the GCC countries have not coordinated or informed the United States about their move to enter Bahrain, considering that they’re close allies of the United States? And second, the Turkish Prime Minister said that it’s counterproductive to have military intervention in Libya by NATO or any other country. Does this complicate your effort or all-options-on-the-table kind of approach?
MR. CARNEY: Regarding the no-fly zone and other options, nothing has changed since I last addressed this question five minutes or so ago. So the -- and with regards to Bahrain, we’ve made clear that we call on the nations in the region to show restraint and to honor the peaceful protestors by not using force against them. We make that -- call on the Bahraini government and the GCC countries as well.
Q So they haven't informed you? You don’t know anything --
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything on that.
Yes.
Q Jay, last week, Robert Einhorn over at State had a comment on Iran’s nuclear program. He said that the U.S. believes that Iran intends to get to the brink of a nuclear capability but won’t go to breakout. Can you talk about the extent to which that's been the subject of the conversation here at the White House by the President?
MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything -- any new information on that since the last time we addressed -- Ron, if you can talk to State about those particular comments.
Q Is that going to change his calculus at all?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we’ve made very clear that we are very concerned about Iran’s pursuit. We and a lot of our international partners maintain that concern, so I think that still holds.
Yes.
Q Secretary Clinton last week told Congress that she wasn’t sure that a no-fly zone would actually be effective. She cited Iraq and Kosovo. Was she stating administration policy?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as I’ve made clear from this podium and others have made clear, too, that it is very important -- no matter what options we choose -- that we are aware of what is entailed in applying them, enforcing them, and that we are confident that the goals we set out for them are achievable.
The fact that, as Secretary Gates and others have said, that a no-fly zone is a serious matter and with costs associated and risks associated doesn’t mean that it’s off the table. It’s still very much on the table. I think the purpose of having Secretary Clinton or Secretary Gates or others make people aware of the seriousness of a measure like that is simply that; so that we all are aware going into this process should that decision be made -- or other decisions be made -- that we know what we’re talking about and what we would be pursuing.
Q But she said it doesn’t work. So why would it be on the table?
MR. CARNEY: No -- well, I don't want to parse her words. I think -- but what I have made clear and others have made clear is that we need to know -- we would in any process, any decision like this we would make, we would have a plan, which I think elements are being developed at NATO about what a no-fly zone plan would look like and its implementation would look like should that be chosen. And it would obviously include within it discussion about its presumed effectiveness, the impact it would have, the risks associated with it and the potential costs associated with it.
Q Have you run any numbers on that as to cost?
Q She said it didn't get rid of the leader --
MR. CARNEY: I don't have any -- no, I don't.
Q She said it didn't get rid of the leader. It didn't stop the violence. So what would be the point?
MR. CARNEY: Again, making -- she’s making an observation about a past exercise. Before we take any action, we would evaluate what that action would mean if it were applied in the specific case at hand.
Q Can I follow up, Jay?
MR. CARNEY: Yes.
Q Thanks, Jay. I don’t want to ask about what the U.S. is ready to do or not ready to do, and I have lot of sympathy towards caution, but my question is about what would the U.S. accept others to do? Would it be conceivable that somebody else who seems to be much more eager to call for a no-fly zone, like France, like Arabic states, could you accept that they are taking the lead and say, okay, if France want to do it, together with Egypt, it’s fine with us? Or would the U.S. prefer to be in control of the process because the consequences would also be consequences for the position of the U.S. in the region?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think I have made clear that we feel it’s very important that this -- the actions we take in response to the situation in Libya be international actions, that we work in concert with our international partners. So, quite the contrary; this is not about the United States dictating what happens working with our international partners. So the consultations continue with the French and the British and others about what other measures we can take together.
So I don’t -- I think we welcome the fact that there is so much international approbation and international unity in condemning what the Qaddafi regime is doing, and so much discussion with our international partners about all the different measures that we could do together to continue to put pressure on Qaddafi, to get him to cease and desist what he’s doing against his people, and ultimately to remove him from power.
Q Could it also happen without involvement of the United States?
MR. CARNEY: Well, right now we’re discussing at the United Nations, in Brussels at NATO, with our international partners what the various options are. We’re very engaged in that discussion and continue to have that specific option on that the table.
Q Just two questions, Jay.
MR. CARNEY: Okay, I’m going to wrap it up here. Thank you very much.
Q When does he fill out his bracket? When is the Andy Katz exclusive?
MR. CARNEY: Stay tuned.
END
1:58 P.M. EDT
As part of our Women's History Month Women in the Administration Series, meet Taryn Benarroch, Confidential Assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Education. In this post, you'll hear about Taryn's role models, her supportive family, her passion for education, and the TEACH initiative she helps run at the Department of Education.
Economic Development Administration (EDA) is kicking off i6 Green - a $12 million multi-agency competitive grant program designed to identify, support, and reward the nation's best ideas for technology commercialization in six different regions of the country.
Victoria Espinel, U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, announces the release of 20 legislative recommendations to Congress designed to improve intellectual property enforcement.
view all related blog posts
