Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is great to have you here today. As you
can tell, I have with me the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. This week, as I know
you know, President Obama is launching a concerted effort to get Congress to stop the interest
rate on student loans from doubling in July. Secretary Duncan is here to talk about that
issue with you, to take questions on that issue from you. He can also take questions
on other issues related to education.
You know, it's worth noting that Secretary Duncan oversees the implementation of the
President's education agenda, his vision for investment in education and education reform.
And that latter piece, the education reform, is something that, in a way that is often
unnoticed or unmentioned by folks in Washington, has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. This
is another issue that should enjoy broad bipartisan support, because you really have to have a
brick in your head not to understand that education is the cornerstone of our economic
future. Without it we cannot compete and win in the 21st century.
And with that, I give you Secretary Duncan.
SECRETARY DUNCAN: Thank you, Jay. And good afternoon.
Next week, President Obama is traveling to three states to talk about the fact that interest
rates for new subsidized student loans are set to increase on July 1 unless Congress
acts to change that law. The rates were set by Congress in 2007, and the current interest
rate is 3.4 percent, and it will double without Congress's action to 6.8 percent. Based on
the average loan amount, this will add more than $1,000 in costs over the life of that
loan.
For students who borrow heavily to go to college, it would obviously cost them even more. And
we estimate that this interest rate increase will affect more than 7 million families expected
to take out new loans this fall.
At a time when going to college has never been more important, it has also, unfortunately,
never been more expensive. Families and students are struggling to meet these costs, and there's
no reason why we should add to their burden. And I have to tell you, as I’ve traveled
throughout the country -- and I was just in Iowa and Wisconsin over the past two days
with Secretary Vilsack -- not just in disadvantaged communities, but more and more middle-class
families are starting to think college might not be for them, it’s for rich folks. There’s
a real problem with that when we know going to college is the path to the middle class.
Next week, President Obama will outline the administration’s proposal to work with Congress
to keep interest rates down and spare working Americans this added cost, this added burden.
And all of us share responsibility for the cost of college -- from federal and state
governments to educational institutions, students and their families.
And because this issue is so important to our economy and to our future, our administration
is doing more than ever before to address it and we have a number of proposals in our
2013 budget. With the support of Congress, we have doubled -- doubled -- Pell Grant funding
for low-income students, and nearly tripled tax credits for middle-class families. We’ve
lowered the cap on student loan payments to 15 percent of income, and we’re going to
lower it even further to 10 percent starting in 2014.
The President, Vice President Biden, and myself and so many others have held town halls all
across the country to talk about the cost of college. We’ve met with university presidents,
governors, state legislators and members of Congress. And next week, the President will
meet with students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of
Colorado at Boulder, and the University of Iowa in Iowa City. These three universities
are among the nation’s educational jewels, and we should do everything possible to ensure
that they remain affordable.
And we also know that 2012 marks the 150th anniversary of the Morrill Act, which was
signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln and created the first public universities.
I think we have an amazing opportunity to honor Lincoln’s vision and secure our economic
future by working together to ensure that college remains affordable for all Americans.
I’ll stop there. I’m happy to take any questions you may have. Yes, sir.
Q Mr. Secretary, this afternoon the White House is going to be screening a viewing of
the movie, Bully. One piece of legislation that will protect LGBT students against bullying
is called the Student Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit harassment and discrimination
against LGBT students in school. Is the administration prepared to endorse that legislation at this
time?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: Well, we have to continue to do everything we can to make sure that
there is zero tolerance for this. And I met with one of the young women in the movie this
morning with her father. This is very personal for me and for the President. We all have
children who are in school now.
And whenever children are going to school scared, when it’s hard to concentrate on
biology and algebra -- so as a country -- hopefully you’ve seen an unprecedented level of support
from our administration -- first-ever anti-bullying summit here in the White House. The President
has talked about his own experiences there. You’ve seen many states toughen laws to
try and protect students from bullying. Until our children are safe and secure at recess,
in the morning, after school -- and it’s not just physical bullying, it’s cyber bullying,
as you know.
And I'll tell you, some of my toughest meetings have been with parents who have lost their
children who have committed suicide due to the impact. So we all have to continue to
work together.
I think this movie is very tough, it's very hard-hitting, but it tells the truth, and
hopefully it will create a greater awareness around the country. This cannot be a normal
rite of passage; can't accept it.
Yes, ma'am.
Q And on the legislation?
Q Thank you. Is the President going to call next week for a one-year or temporary freeze
in the interest rate, or is he going to ask Congress to pass a permanent --
SECRETARY DUNCAN: Well, I think we need to fix it now. We have an immediate crisis, so
let's fix it right now. But let's think about the long term as well. And again, this has
always enjoyed bipartisan support. We have to educate our way to a better economy. We
know the jobs of the future are going to go to those folks with some higher education.
And so to not do this together just doesn't make sense to me.
Q So you would support a short-term -- such as a one-time freeze?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: Well, I think we need to get the immediate issue dealt with now. But
let's all work together as a country to work on the long-term issue as well.
Yes, sir.
Q Mr. Secretary, what do you say to Republicans who call this a created controversy, that
this is a deadline that comes out of Democratic legislation, that this is coming up right
before an election and that the President is taking it out on the campaign trail? How
do you respond to those criticisms?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: The facts are very, very simple. This passed in 2007 with broad bipartisan
support. It was signed by a Republican President. We all understand that if we want to keep
jobs in this country -- we're not competing in our little districts and in our states,
we're competing against India and China and Singapore and South Korea -- and if we want
to keep those good jobs here we have to have an educated workforce.
And I have lots of data -- you guys all know this, but over the past year if you have less
than a high school diploma, there's been a decrease of about 200,000 jobs in this country;
if you have some college or an associate's degree, an increase of about 750,000 jobs.
And if you have a bachelor's degree or more, we've had about 1.4 million new jobs created.
And we know those trends are only going to continue.
So we all have to -- again, this isn't a Republican or Democratic or -- I could care less about
politics and ideology. This is about we need an educated workforce. And it's fascinating
to me that in a really tough economic time like this, we have 2 million high-wage, high-skilled
jobs that are unfilled because we're not producing the employees with the skills that employers
are looking for. I can't tell you how many CEOs I've met with and the President has met
with who have said, we're trying to hire now; we're not trying to export jobs, but you're
not producing the workers.
We don't just have a jobs issue now; we have a skills crisis. We have a skills gap. We
have to close that skills gap. The only way we do that is to have a lot more young people
graduate from college and go on to -- graduate from high school and go on to college.
Q Just to be clear, you're saying that Republicans are wrong to suggest that this is being brought
up as a wedge issue?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: Absolutely. This was passed five years ago in a bipartisan way. No reason
it shouldn't pass again in a bipartisan way. It was signed by a Republican governor [sic].
We have to educate our way to a better economy. That is not a Republican or a Democrat or
any issue -- that's just a -- that's just reality.
Yes, sir.
Q Mr. Secretary, you said that it would increase the average loan by $1,000 over its life.
What is the life of an average loan?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: It depends, but the average is 12 years. It varies. And so for each year
this doesn't happen it would be an additional $1,000. So if it doesn't happen this year,
it's $1,000; another year, $2,000. And again, right now, we know debt from college exceeds
credit card debt in this country. Something is wrong with that picture. We don’t need
to increase that debt. We need to keep it where it is, at a minimum.
And obviously, we've done so much to try and make college more affordable -- we've talked
about Pell grants, Perkins loans increases. We're asking for the ability to double work-study
opportunities. College has to be affordable for the middle class and for folks aspiring
to go to the middle class. And unfortunately, many, many, many American families -- again,
all types of neighborhoods, all types of backgrounds -- are starting to think college isn't for
them. That’s a real problem.
Q Secretary Duncan, you have a lot of zest at the podium about this issue. Let me use
a term that’s familiar to you -- are you going to put some skin in the game -- going
on the Hill, you and the President, talking about this?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: I'll do whatever it takes. And I've been out traveling the country every
single week talking about this for a long time. I've done a number of town halls with
the Vice President. The President has been out there. He's going to three different universities
next week.
And this is, again, one where it just -- I know you guys love politics and love all that
stuff -- that’s zero of my interest. I'm not any good at it, don’t care about it.
We need a lot more young people to go to college and to graduate. That’s all this is about.
And when families start to think that they can't afford college, that is not good for
those families, for those communities, or for our country.
Q But are you willing to go to the Hill --
SECRETARY DUNCAN: Of course. Absolutely. Absolutely. Whatever it takes, we'll keep working it.
Yes, ma'am.
Q Secretary Duncan, I want to ask you a question about school safety. Today is the 13th anniversary
of Columbine. The fifth anniversary of Virginia Tech passed this week. Obviously a lot of
lessons have been learned, but from your perspective, what more needs to be done?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: It's a great question – they don’t have easy answers. I think we as a
nation have learned a tremendous amount about the warning signs and about acting very, very
quickly when there is an issue. But I just sort of take it right back to the bullying
issue, that when we have children or young adults or high school students who don’t
feel safe, who aren't secure, you can't begin to be as effective as you need to and concentrate
academically. And so creating a climate that is free of violence, free of fear, where young
people can concentrate on what's going on in class is desperately important.
So I think there's been a lot of progress. We've actually seen a reduction in violence,
which has been very encouraging. But one incident is obviously one incident way too many. And
I come at this more as a parent than anything else. I have a 10-year-old daughter and an
8-year-old son, and I don't want them or anyone else's children having to worry about this
going to school each day.
Q Can you also speak, aside from the bullying aspect, the mental health aspect -- because,
for instance, in both of those shootings, that may have played a bigger role than bullying
or an atmosphere of violence -- identifying --
SECRETARY DUNCAN: I think that's correct. And universities, peers, fellow students,
when we're seeing something that doesn’t feel right or doesn’t look right, raising
those alarms early and letting folks know that this is a student or a young person or
a young adult with some issues that are worrying -- we have to have those conversations.
And so often in these situations -- not always, but so often, there's some signs, there's
some indications that this person isn't stable. And I think we have to take those -- unfortunately,
we have to take those very, very seriously. It's not something we can sort of blow through.
Q Mr. Secretary, Congressman Kline’s office just issued a statement as you were coming
to the podium, basically saying that no one has offered a serious proposal, meaningful
proposal to pay for this $6 billion stopgap. What do you see as the way to pay for this
so that we are not borrowing more money, adding to --
SECRETARY DUNCAN: The President's budget contained a number of proposals to pay for it -- again,
something we want to work very closely with Congress to do. And we need to pay for it.
We're committed to paying for it. Lots of ideas out there -- the President will talk
more about them next week -- but absolutely want to work with Congress. I have tremendous
respect for Chairman Kline. We've had a very, very good working relationship. And again,
this is the right thing to do for the country and for his families in Minnesota.
Q Mr. Secretary, how would you go about balancing the reality of the cost of college with the
concerns up there that allowing more access to more credit would create possibly a student
loan bubble down the road and actually increase college tuition?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: So again, I think the most important thing we can do is to have young
people go to college and graduate. And that's the best investment we can make. And when
that debt is manageable -- obviously if you have no debt that's maybe the best situation,
but this is not bad debt to have. In fact, it's very good debt to have. And we have all
kinds of data not just around jobs but around how much your earning potential throughout
your lifetime goes up from high school graduate to two-years degree to four-year degree. So
this is the best long-term investment we can make.
But we are worried about debt going higher and higher. And so when we have an opportunity
to work together in a bipartisan way to prevent that escalation of debt, this is the right
thing to do. I expect folks will step up and do that.
Q Do you think there is a correlation between more access to student loans and the rise
in cost of tuition?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: I don't. We've looked at it really closely -- actually more on the
Pell Grant side. The data is very interesting. People say when you increase Pell grants,
tuition goes up. If you look over 30 years, over those 30 years, 19 of those years Pell
grants went up; 10 of those years Pell grants went down; one year it was stable -- and all
30 of those years tuition went up. So I don't think there's a correlation there.
But we are challenging -- this is about shared responsibility. As you know, we're challenging
states to continue to invest. We're trying to lead by example -- huge increases in Pell
Grants, the biggest since the GI Bill; Perkins loans, double work-study, make the ALTC permanent.
But states have to invest. We can't do this by ourselves. And universities have to keep
down their tuition and also build cultures around completion.
We're trying to do a lot to provide greater transparency and score cards so families can
make good choices about which university is going to provide a great education but also
be at a reasonable cost. I think that transparency, that shared responsibility is hugely important.
Q Mr. Secretary, thank you, sir. As far as President Obama and his initiative is concerned,
some education -- a delegation from India is in town and they are talking about they're
opening up 100 or more community colleges in India. So a high-level delegation is coming
for a conference in June in Washington, D.C. So where do we stand on this?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: I've met repeatedly with my counterpart, the education minister from
India. He's a remarkable man. And we think we have challenges here -- you're trying to
go to school at an amazingly rapid rate. I've said repeatedly, whatever we can do to be
helpful we want to do that.
My Under Secretary, Martha Kanter, is a former community college president. It’s the first
time anyone of that stature in our administration -- any administration -- has had that community
college background. And so whatever we can do to partner with the leaders from India,
we want to do that. It’s a very, very ambitious goal, and we want to see them achieve that.
Q Just to follow, once India was a house of knowledge and (inaudible) and today, India
also has hundreds of thousands of colleges and universities and schools and so forth.
So how U.S. can help Indian students and India can help --
SECRETARY DUNCAN: We’re all in this together. This is why I really believe a rising tide
lifts all boats, and the more we have an educated workforce here in America, the more we have
an educated workforce in India, the more we have that next generation of both employees
and consumers, that's great for the world.
And so we want to partner together. We have, I think, still the best system of higher education
in the world. We have amazing, amazing community colleges. I was at three over the past two
days in India -- not in India -- in Wisconsin and Iowa. And whatever best practices we can
share, whatever we can do to help India as they go on this very ambitious growth pattern,
growth trajectory, we want to do that.
Q Mr. Secretary, what’s so special about these three universities that the President
is going to visit besides the states they're in? Do they have a higher rate of students
using loans or something?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: Well, these are big flagship universities. And again, it’s not just the
private four-years, it’s the public four-years that folks are really having concerns about
paying for.
Q There are a lot of universities. Why these three?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: Again, these are big, major flagship universities with large student populations,
and these are the kinds of families -- middle-class families that are having a hard time paying
for this. And what we want is more and more young people going on to these type of universities
not feeling that college isn’t for them.
I’ll tell you, yesterday in Iowa I talked to a high school senior who happens to be
a twin -- talked to her -- her brother wasn’t there. But she said her family is thinking
they're going to have choose which one of them should go to college next year. It’s
a really deep conversation and no family should have to choose this child or that child.
Another young person is one of four in their family -- they're trying to figure out does
the older one not go, or does the younger one not go. These are the very real conversations
-- this is a high school student, East High School in Madison, Wisconsin. These are the
very real conversations that families are having. They should not have to have those
conversations. You shouldn’t have to sacrifice one twin for the other. You shouldn’t have
to sacrifice your eldest-born for you fourth-born or whatever it might be. This has to be an
affordable opportunity for hardworking Americans, and we need to make sure it stays that way.
Yes, sir.
Q You said there are a lot of ideas the President has and that the Hill has, Congress has for
paying for it, but do you guys have a preferred option? When you go to the Hill what are you
going to bring to the table?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: We’re open-minded. Again, there’s a number of ideas that the President
proposed in his budget. And we want to work hand-in-hand with Congress and we’re not
set in one idea. We absolutely want to pay for it. But again, the cost of inaction is
I think unacceptably high. This is one where we have to get our act together.
Congress is struggling these days -- there’s no question about that. And if there is going
to be one issue that folks can unite behind, I can’t think of a better one than around
education and educating our way to a better economy. So for all the past bitterness or
fighting or whatever it might be, why not come together and do that right thing for
the country? And I think this is a great opportunity for folks on both sides to do that.
Q And then, have you already started -- sorry -- have you already started I guess before
this announcement today going to the Hill and talking with lawmakers?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: We’ve talked to many, many lawmakers. I’ve testified two or three
times over the past couple of weeks. I’m testifying again next week. And this has been
at the heart of what we’re talking about. And again, I think people see both the opportunity
to do the right thing and the huge cost of inaction.
Q You’re talking about everything from the family side, paying whatever the colleges
ask. What are you doing to rein in the dramatic rise in tuition?
SECRETARY DUNCAN: So a couple of thoughts there. One big thing is we have proposed in
the President’s budget a billion-dollar Race to the Top for Higher Education that
we have put money behind, again, not just in those states that continue to invest and
in those institutions, those colleges -- it would do two things: keep their cost down,
and also create a culture around college completion. It can’t just be around access; it’s got
to be around completion.
The other big piece I think has been the lack of transparency. I think young people and
families are making these very complicated decisions, which have been very hard to figure
out what this university’s financial aid package is versus this university’s. So
we’re working to create much greater transparency. Young people want a great education, but they
want value for their money as well.
So we’ll put strong incentives out there, also move some resources potentially more
towards those universities who are doing things right and away from those that aren’t. And
again, we have the best system of higher education in the world. We have 6,000 options -- two-year,
four-year, public, private, big, small, whatever it might be. We want young people to make
the right choice for them.
Thank you.
MR. CARNEY: Thank you, Secretary Duncan. Thank you all for your questions.
Separate from the presentation that Secretary Duncan just gave, I do not have anything else
to begin with, so I’ll go straight to questions from Julie, the Associated Press.
Q Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on Secretary Clinton’s remarks yesterday at
the "Friends of Syria" meeting, which were happening during the briefing. She essentially
called for tougher U.N. Security Council action on Syria, but also acknowledged the likelihood
that anything put forward to the Security Council would be vetoed. So I’m wondering
if there’s a concern in the administration that continuing to focus on Security Council
action, which seems likely to be vetoed, is wasting time as the rebels seem to be losing
strength in this area.
MR. CARNEY: Well, a couple things. We remain horrified by the reports of significant violations
of the ceasefire by the Assad regime. Yet again, this regime has failed to keep its
word, has failed to, thus far, live up to the obligations it made to honor the Annan
plan.
Secondly, we are in consultation with Security Council members about next steps. It is absolutely
true, and we bemoaned the fact at the time, that an earlier resolution at the Security
Council was vetoed by the Russians and the Chinese. And we made clear our displeasure
over that, and we made clear our feeling that -- and a feeling that was broadly shared around
the world -- that it was an historic mistake to side with the Assad regime, a regime that
was, at the time and to this day, brutally killing its own people. I think in the interim,
the Assad regime's behavior has become all the more clear.
I don’t want to get ahead of anything the Security Council might do, the conversations
and deliberations that will take place there, but it is worth noting that we did have unified
support around the Annan plan and we do have that support on the Security Council. And
I think there is greater acknowledgment around the globe as well as within the United Nations
and the Security Council of the appalling behavior by the regime.
Q Do you think that that increases the likelihood that a tougher --
MR. CARNEY: I wouldn’t want to speculate about what next steps might look like. We
obviously remain supportive of the Annan plan. We remain supportive of the steps that are
being taken with monitors. But we are also clear-eyed about the failure of the Assad
regime to live up to its obligations so far, and we will, of course, engage with the Security
Council and, broadly, with members of the “Friends of Syria” on next steps as necessary.
Q Is the administration's position still that Assad's demise is inevitable? Or are you considering
options that would take into account Assad staying in power?
MR. CARNEY: We still believe that Assad's tenure, if you will, will come to an end.
It is obviously difficult to put a timeframe on that, an end date on that. But he has utterly
lost credibility with his own people, credibility with the nations and people of the region,
credibility with the nations of the world, credibility with international organizations
and regional organizations. His capacity to unflinchingly unleash brutality against his
own people in order to sustain his own rule has certainly prolonged his stay in power,
but it will not last forever.
Yes, Matt.
Q Is any consideration being given to naming a special outside counsel for the Secret Service
scandal, or is that an option that's being ruled out?
MR. CARNEY: That is the first I've heard that raised. I know of no consideration of that
nature.
Q Now that a couple of the names of a couple of the supervisor agents have come to light,
can you say at least whether -- does the President personally know either of those agents?
MR. CARNEY: I am not aware that he does. I don't know that he doesn't. I'm not even familiar
with the names, although I understand some names have been published.
The President has spoken about this, as you know, when he was asked in Colombia on Sunday.
He wants the investigation that the Secret Service is leading to come to completion.
Once that completion is reached, if the result is that the allegations that have been broadly
reported turn out to be true, he will be angry about it, as he made clear in Colombia. The
reason for that is that, as he said then, every member of the United States government
who travels to a foreign country on a presidential trip or a trip by a Cabinet member or the
Vice President is representing his or her country and every American in this country,
and therefore should conduct themselves appropriately at all times.
But as I said yesterday and I've said previously, the President does not want to, and I certainly
don't want to, get ahead of the conclusions of the investigation, make broader judgments
while the investigation is still underway.
Jake.
Q The director at Secret Service, in a meeting with congressional investigators, voiced concern
that these prostitutes were in a room or rooms that had confidential, secure -- security
information. I'm wondering, have steps been taken to make sure that if they were, travel
plans or whatever may have been on those computers or papers were no longer relevant?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'll say two things: One, I am certainly not privy to conversations
the director of the Secret Service may have had with members of Congress, or the conversations
that those members might have had with you about their conversations with the director.
I would say that the investigation is ongoing. Specifics like that are not things that I'm
in a position to answer questions on at this time. And matters of security in general,
presidential security, are handled by the Secret Service and are generally not things
that we discuss for reasons of security.
But I understand the question and I understand at least hypothetically what a concern like
that would be and why it might exist. But I would ask you to patiently wait for the
conclusions of the investigation before either the Secret Service or the White House addresses
those kinds of questions.
Q Jay, as I’m sure you know, it’s been reported I think by The Washington Post, to
begin with, that one of the agents in question or one of the officials from the Secret Service
in question had on his public Facebook page a picture of him with Governor Palin, with
an inappropriate remark about checking her out. This was before the incident this picture
had been posted. Does that cause the President or anybody in the White House to question
whether or not Director Sullivan’s oversight was sufficient? It would seem that that would
not be professional either and it would cause -- it might cause somebody to question whether
or not Sullivan was engaging in enough oversight and setting the right tone when it came to
the behavior of his agents and officers.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I did see the report that you mentioned. But that represents the entirety
of my knowledge about it. I have not had any conversations with the President or others
here about that specific report that I assume happened even prior to President Obama taking
office.
Stepping back, the broader question of behavior or culture of the institution I think is something
that I’m not prepared to address at this time while this investigation into this specific
matter and in this case, this specific person, is ongoing. Again, once the investigation
is concluded, I’m sure that the Secret Service will have more to say about it, and we may
as well.
Q Would information like that cause the President, in any way, to question whether his confidence
in Director Sullivan may be misplaced?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I haven’t had a conversation with the President about this
specific Facebook entry or even this agent that you referenced. The two things I would
say is that the Secret Service has stated quite clearly, and the President believes,
that his security and the overall security of the trip was never compromised in Colombia.
He has great faith in, broadly speaking, the Secret Service men and women who protect him
and his family, protect the Vice President and members of the traveling staff, protect
the grounds here.
Right now we want to wait for the conclusion of the investigation into this specific incident
before we look more broadly at -- if that's necessary -- more broadly at some of the issues
of culture or security.
But the President does, as I’ve said before, have faith in the Secret Service, and high
regard for the agency and the job that they do protecting him, his family, protecting
his predecessors. It is an enormously difficult job, as you can imagine. It involves putting
your life on the line regularly, being willing to sacrifice yourself for the sake not just
of an individual but for the trauma that any kind of harm that might come to a President
would cause a nation. That's a huge responsibility. And this incident, while it is obviously under
investigation and the allegations that are out there are very concerning, it is also
important not to forget what the job that the men and women of the Secret Service do
on a regular basis for Presidents of both parties.
Q One last question, Jay. Yesterday when Ann asked you whether the White House was confident
that nobody who was employed by the White House was engaged in any similar activities,
you said something along the lines of you weren’t aware of any evidence. Has anybody
in the White House looked into whether any of the traveling staff or the advance staff
or anyone at all had anything to do with any of this?
MR. CARNEY: Well, when I got that question yesterday, it was the first time I had heard
anything like that. I have no reason to believe -- I do not know otherwise that this did not
involve anything but the agents and the military personnel. We are in regular conversation
with -- senior members of the White House staff are in conversation with the Secret
Service, getting briefed on the progress of their investigation. I really don’t have
anything more for you on that.
Q But that’s the Secret Service investigation of the Secret Service. I'm wondering if anybody
in the White House has just made sure that none of this was done by anybody employed
by the White House.
MR. CARNEY: Not that I'm aware of. I am not -- my answer is the same as it was yesterday.
Bill.
Q Some Republicans, including Senator Sessions and Governor Palin, have begun to suggest
that this incident, coming on the heels of the report about the GSA party in Las Vegas
and the breakdown of command in Afghanistan where soldiers were displaying severed limbs,
suggests, in their words, a "breakdown in --"
MR. CARNEY: In whose words?
Q Senator Sessions and Governor Palin, among others -- a "breakdown in --"
MR. CARNEY: In case you didn’t hear that, that was Senator Sessions and Governor Palin.
(Laughter.)
Q -- "in White House oversight of the federal agencies." What's your response?
MR. CARNEY: We've been at war in Afghanistan for 10 years. We were at war in Iraq for nearly
nine, I believe. Incidents that have been of great concern have happened in those war
zones on, unfortunately, numerous occasions over the numbers of years that our forces
have been at war there.
The incident that you referred to is terrible. It does not represent the standards of the
U.S. military or the conduct with which the overwhelming majority of American men and
women in Afghanistan, and before that, in Iraq, conduct themselves.
Any assertion by those politicians that you mentioned should be -- of the nature that
you mentioned should be valued at the cost that you paid for it. It is preposterous to
politicize the Secret Service, to politicize the behavior of the terrible conduct of some
soldiers in Afghanistan in a war that’s been going on for 10 years.
Q What they’re doing is trying to criticize the President’s leadership.
MR. CARNEY: What they’re doing is trying to turn these incidents -- one that’s still
under investigation -- into political advantage. And obviously you recognize that; everyone
here recognizes that. I think on the face of it it’s a ridiculous assertion that trivializes
both the very serious nature of that endeavor that our military has engaged in in Afghanistan,
and the very serious nature both of the work that the Secret Service does, the apolitical
nature of the institution, and the seriousness of the investigation underway with regard
to the Secret Service and the military and the incident in Colombia.
Charles.
Q Just to follow quickly on Jake’s question about the White House advance staff. Is there
no process -- I mean, there’s not a concern of saying, hey --
MR. CARNEY: Here’s what I’m going to do --
Q -- no, I mean, I can tell you what our own news organization --
MR. CARNEY: -- what I’m not going to do is answer questions about random rumors that
--
Q It’s not just about rumors. Has there been some sort of just double-checking to
make sure White House advance staff weren’t involved in this business?
MR. CARNEY: We are -- from the beginning, from the moment that this was made public
and an investigation was launched, we have been in regular touch with the Secret Service
and obviously with the Pentagon about this incident. And I’m sure the discussion and
the briefing covers a variety of subjects, a variety of both facts and rumors. What I’m
not going to do, as I said yesterday, is give a play-by-play or speculate about every rumor
that you may have heard from either anonymous sources or just the Internet. So I just don’t
have anything more for you on the investigation itself.
Q But it could be sort of an internal investigation, if you will, and you don’t know it or you’re
not sharing?
MR. CARNEY: I have no reason, as I said yesterday, to believe that there is a need for that.
I just -- I’m not going to talk speculatively about where this investigation is going.
Q We know that Mark Sullivan has been briefing any member of Congress that has asked for
one. Who’s he briefing here at the White House? When you say senior officials, can
you elaborate?
MR. CARNEY: He has had conversations with the, I believe, the Chief of Staff, with Deputy
Chief of Staff, and maybe others. And there’s obviously been --
Q Has the President asked --
MR. CARNEY: -- communications with -- let me finish this part. There may be communications
at other -- with other individuals, with other members of the Secret Service. In fact, I’m
sure there are -- not just with the director. And they are -- it is a regular conversation
so that the White House can be kept abreast of the investigation and steps that are being
taken. The President has not had a conversation with
Director Sullivan. I wouldn’t rule out that he will. I'm sure he will be briefed at some
point by the Director about the investigation and where it stands and what we know about
what happened.
Q And the three universities that were picked next week, can you explain the criteria of
why the universities --
MR. CARNEY: I would just point you to --
Q -- North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa were picked?
MR. CARNEY: I would just point you to what the Secretary said. And I guess we can go
back to the conversation -- how many -- you would know probably quicker than anybody else
in this room, what was the margin in Iowa in 2008?
Q It was a large margin, sure.
MR. CARNEY: Substantial, right?
Q And you're behind now --
MR. CARNEY: So any state – actually, not the one I saw most recently. But any state
--
Q But you're not following --
MR. CARNEY: Any state by which we won by that margin, should we not travel there?
Q I guess what I'd ask is not the University of Texas --
MR. CARNEY: Great universities, great parts of the country. Also, as you know, Chuck --
Q Well, I mean --
MR. CARNEY: Let me just finish. As you know, Chuck, there are a lot of things that go into
decisions about travel. It is obviously easier to travel only half the country than the entire
length of the country. I would point out, as I did yesterday, that the President was
recently delivering remarks in Oklahoma, and while hope springs eternal, I am not prepared
at this moment to call that a battleground state. He gave a major speech late last year
-- I misspoke, I said Nebraska yesterday -- it was Kansas, as you know. Again, in either
case, although Nebraska apparently -- there was the Omaha bifurcation in 2008 -- generally
not viewed as up for grabs.
Q Where the First Lady is traveling next week --
MR. CARNEY: Generally not perceived to be up for grabs. But Kansas -- are you giving
us Kansas?
Q No.
MR. CARNEY: Is it in your battleground list? (Laughter.)
Q No, but in all seriousness, all of his travel next week is to three battleground states.
They're all official visits. You say -- it feeds the cynicism that this is all sort of
one entity here. Is it -- do you -- I mean, would -- Jay Carney the journalist would be
asking the same questions.
MR. CARNEY: The issue that this concerns the President's trip next week, education, is
-- as Secretary Duncan, who made clear he does not give a rip about politics, does not
believe that education should be a political or partisan issue, and largely unnoted by
NBC and other major outlets represented in this room, has not by and large been a partisan
issue in this administration -- is what the President is going to be talking about, and
the unbelievably important reality that on July 1st, rates for student loans are going
to double if we don't take action.
That is a policy issue that will matter greatly to the students of the very large universities
the President will be visiting.
To suggest -- again, it is simply not something we accept that the President should not be
able to travel all around the country, should not be able to travel to talk about his agenda
with the American people that he represents. And if you took seriously all the maps that
show states that are battleground states, and therefore would be somehow inappropriate
for a incumbent President to visit in a reelection year, he would be severely restricting his
ability to go to great big parts of the --
Q But he keeps going back to the same places. Knoller can tell you.
MR. CARNEY: -- big parts of the country. So I'm just going to give you guys this answer
because it's a fact. And I would point -- Jake and I were talking about this yesterday -- when
this story first came out, the Wall Street Journal ran this great graphic about how President
Obama had traveled to more battleground states at this stage in the reelection cycle than
his predecessor. But what they left out was that they did not consider in 2004 Virginia
to be a battleground state. It was solid Republican. But they did consider it for President Obama
because he won it against all expectations, right?
And as you know, Chuck, you’ve been around long enough, every President goes to Virginia
all the time because it’s an easy way to get out of Washington and get beyond the Beltway
and get out into the country. So there’s a lot of ways to make a lot more out of this
than there is --
Q I mean, does that mean he has no campaign events in North Carolina, Colorado or Iowa
next week?
MR. CARNEY: I don't have the full schedule, but these are official events where he’s
going to talk about the student loan issues.
Q Jay, a different subject, if I may. The first is --
MR. CARNEY: You sure you don't want to talk about that some more?
Q -- the election in France this weekend. I was wondering if the White House was closely
monitoring this election. And are you confident on the stability of the working relationship
with Paris, whoever ends up winning?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re certainly monitoring it in the sense that we follow the news, and
France is a great, great ally of the United States and will continue to be so.
Q May I follow up?
MR. CARNEY: Certainly.
Q What does the President hope will be achieved --
MR. CARNEY: Does SkyNews take issue with that? The U.S. -- the relationship between the U.S.
and France? (Laughter.)
Q We’re happy you opened this up, Jay.
MR. CARNEY: Okay.
Q We have 90 million subscribers worldwide that are very interested in what goes on in
this White House, especially.
MR. CARNEY: Okay, sure.
Q And one of the questions I have from SkyNews is, what does the President hope will be achieved
in solving the eurozone crisis as the IMF-World Bank meetings come to an end here in Washington
this weekend?
MR. CARNEY: Well, they're obviously looking at the eurozone crisis at the IMF. The measures
that European governments are taking with regard to the eurozone crisis obviously extend
beyond the IMF.
The IMF has an important role to play, as we've always said. It is an adjunct role,
it is not a principal role. European governments and banks are taking the lead in that. U.S.
contributions to the IMF will not be raised and will remain where they are. But the IMF
does have an important role to play. And the Europeans have taken some important steps
-- very important steps -- in terms of building a firewall, actions the ECB has taken, reforms
undertaken in Greece and Italy.
But there's more to be done. And we are always available and extremely engaged with our European
allies on this issue -- Secretary Geithner, in particular, Lael Brainard, also at the
Treasury Department, and others -- very engaged with our European allies in providing whatever
counsel we can to help them deal with this significant challenge.
Q Thank you, Jay.
MR. CARNEY: Wendell.
Q What does the GSA spending abuses say about the Vice President's effort to crack down
on waste in government spending?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say two things, Wendell. I appreciate the question. First,
with regards to conference spending in particular, which is the matter of concern with the GSA
that so outraged the President and led to the actions that have taken place there -- first
of all, in September of 2011, the President's Office of Management and Budget directed all
agency heads to conduct a thorough review of how they are spending taxpayer dollars
on conferences. Pending that review, conference-related activities and expenses were not permitted
to go forward without signoff by the deputy secretary or an equivalent chief operating
officer for each agency.
Each agency has established tough internal control and has certified those controls are
now in place. Federal agencies have identified and are currently executing on plans to achieve
traveling conference cost savings that total nearly $1.2 billion as a result of the President's
executive order. To date, they have achieved over $280 million in reduced costs in the
first quarter of fiscal year 2012, compared to the same period of time in fiscal year
2010.
Broadly, the administration's efforts to streamline federal spending on conferences is a part
of the President's broader campaign to cut waste initiative, which is led, as you noted,
by the Vice President, and which has already reduced costs by tens of billions of dollars
by eliminating inefficient or unnecessary spending. We've worked to cut excess real
estate costs by $1.5 billion; realized over $1.4 billion in cost reductions by slashing
spending in administrative areas such as travel, fleet and printing; avoided $4 billion in
costs by turning around, downsizing, or eliminating IT projects that were over budget or behind
schedule; saved millions in production costs by halting the minting of dollar coins that
are not needed -- and I’m sorry if you’re a collector -- prevented $20 billion in improper
payments, and put an end to skyrocketing contracting costs, exceeding the President’s goal to
reduce contract spending by $40 billion.
I’m so glad you asked, because the record is quite impressive.
Q You were looking for that one. On another matter, there's another bit of legislation
tied to the Keystone pipeline. The President --
MR. CARNEY: You mean the Keystone pipeline is yet again tied in a non-germane way to
another piece of legislation? Yes.
Q If that’s the way you want to look at it. Is there a veto threat out that --
MR. CARNEY: I think there’s no other way to look at it. Look, we -- I don’t know
if we have a SAP -- we do. Yes, we do. But let’s be clear. What Congress is asking
-- in this highly politicized, highly partisan way, attaching a provision on the Keystone
pipeline to a piece of legislation that has nothing to do with it, is basically asking
-- and the American people should be aware of this. The United States Congress -- very
important body, takes American security and sovereignty very seriously -- or should -- is
saying that we will, in advance, blind, approve a pipeline, a proposal for which does not
exist -- but we’ll approve it anyway -- a foreign pipeline built by a foreign company
emanating from foreign territory to cross U.S. borders.
Now, we love the Canadians. They are very close allies. But there is a process in place
for a reason, that is run through the State Department that requires this kind of project,
because it crosses U.S. border with a foreign country, to be reviewed and approved by the
State Department in a very deliberate way.
When this company -- if this company and when this company submits a new route, a new proposal
for the route of this pipeline, it will absolutely be given unbiased and appropriate consideration
in the proper way, in the way that it’s been done for decades under administrations
of both parties, and decided in the manner that it is always meant to be decided.
And partisan efforts to attach it to something and basically to say to the American people
it doesn’t matter, even though it’s coming from a foreign country, even though it’s
built by a foreign company and it’s crossing our borders, let’s approve it in advance
-- that’s unacceptable to this President.
And I would remind you that we are only in this situation because the Congress did this
once before already. And we only had concerns originally and delayed the process because,
or at least in part because of concerns raised about the original pipeline route by the governor
of Nebraska, who is a member of the very same party as those who support this noxious amendment.
Brianna.
Q On Keystone, by obviously keeping his options open on whether he ultimately will okay --
MR. CARNEY: He cannot okay and the State Department cannot okay --
Q I understand. In terms of --
MR. CARNEY: -- a pipeline proposal that does not exist.
Q Understood.
MR. CARNEY: It would be preemptively sacrificing American sovereignty.
Q Okay. But in terms -- sure.
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q He hasn’t indicated any willingness aside from you can’t okay a permit -- I’m not
talking about the permit, I'm --
MR. CARNEY: That doesn’t exist.
Q -- talking about rhetoric. He’s upset a number of groups from big oil to environmentalists,
parts of labor, Democrats on both sides of the issue, Canada.
MR. CARNEY: Are you making my case about why he’s just doing the right thing?
Q But it seems like the only folks who are happy with it are Republicans because they
can keep pounding him on the issue. Has it been a detriment to President Obama --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I will leave it --
Q -- this issue? Has this been a detriment?
MR. CARNEY: I will leave it to commentators, reporters and others, historians, eventually,
to decide that. What I know is that at the time that the delay was announced because
of the need to find an alternate route, it was done because there were great concerns
about the proposed route and the aquifer in Nebraska.
Q Which have been assuaged.
MR. CARNEY: Not at the time.
Q -- a route now.
MR. CARNEY: There is no -- what route?
Q The route that was submitted to Nebraska yesterday, it goes around the aquifer.
MR. CARNEY: Oh, well, but you just said -- I’m sorry, where has it been submitted?
Q Yes, like you said yesterday.
MR. CARNEY: Nebraska. Not to the U.S. State Department, which is where it has to be reviewed.
And maybe that will be submitted very soon. And once it is, a process will begin in accordance
with existing precedent -- decades of precedent, for administrations of both parties -- and
it will be reviewed appropriately.
But the route was changed for no small -- how do I say -- I’m getting tired here -- but
in large part because the Republican governor of Nebraska asked it to be changed, or asked
it not to go through the aquifer there and threaten potentially the water supply of that
state.
So does it hurt us politically? I just don’t know. I’m not a keen enough analyst to assess
that. What I do know is this is the kind of thing that has to be judged on its merits.
As the President said in Cushing, Oklahoma, the company is absolutely welcome to submit
a new pipeline proposal and the process will begin again.
Q On Syria, it seems the Annan plan right now isn’t working in terms of a ceasefire
or pulling back troops. There are some reports that you’re working on a plan B. There are
some reports there is no plan B. So which is it?
MR. CARNEY: As I said earlier when I was asked about Syria and the Secretary of State’s
remarks, we are very concerned about the blatant failure of the Assad regime to fulfill its
obligations under the Annan plan, the fact that the ceasefire is clearly not holding,
is far from complete. And we will -- if it does not succeed, if there is not a change
in behavior by the Assad regime, if the ceasefire does not take place and the other points of
the plan are not fulfilled, we will obviously continue to consult with our allies and partners
as well as other members of the U.N. Security Council about next steps.
Q So there is no plan B?
MR. CARNEY: Well, no, I didn’t say --
Q You will continue to consult --
MR. CARNEY: We’re continuing to consult and I’m sure that there --
Q You will continue to consult for next steps sounds like then there will be a plan B, which
would mean there isn’t a plan B right at this moment.
MR. CARNEY: It means that there is no need to announce -- we are not prepared to announce
an additional step or a new step to be taken either by the United States, by "Friends of
Syria," or the United Nations Security Council at this time. But you can be sure that we
are discussing next steps and options with our allies and partners.
Last one. Margaret.
Q Have you got a chance to see the latest from the Congressional Budget Office --
MR. CARNEY: I usually wait patiently for the latest, but I haven’t seen it.
Q I want to ask you about it, but I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing myself.
As we’ve been sitting here --
MR. CARNEY: This question is going nowhere, Margaret. (Laughter.)
Q Well, what it’s saying --
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t seen it. You haven’t seen it. (Laughter.)
Q Well, what it’s saying is that the President’s proposed budget would reduce economic output
by some percentage and the Speaker’s office is reacting to it and saying --
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t seen it. I have not heard this.
Q Do you expect you’d make any reaction later today?
MR. CARNEY: Let me see what it is you’re referring to. I’ll check my inbox.
Thanks, guys.
Q The week ahead?
MR. CARNEY: Oh, bless you. (Laughter.)
The schedule for the week of April 23rd, 2012 -- on Monday, at a time when Americans are
engaging in Holocaust Days of Remembrance, President Obama will deliver remarks at the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. The President will also tour
the museum with, and be introduced by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Holocaust survivor
Elie Wiesel.
On Tuesday morning, the President will honor the 2012 National Teacher of the Year and
finalists at the White House, thanking them for their hard work and dedication each and
every day in the classroom.
On Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday, the President will travel to North Carolina, Colorado, and
Iowa, to launch an effort to get Congress to prevent interest rates on student loans
from doubling in July.
On Tuesday, the President will visit the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University
of Colorado at Boulder. Also on Tuesday, the President will host an on-the-record conference
call with college and university student journalists.
On Wednesday, the President will visit the University of Iowa. At the event, he will
speak with students about the critical need for Congress to act.
On Thursday, the President will attend meetings at the White House. And on Friday, the President
and First Lady will meet with troops, veterans, and military families at Fort Stewart in Hinesville,
Georgia.
Thank you all very much. I hope you have a great weekend.