8/7/2019 Selling 12,000 Excess Government Properties - Press Briefing by The White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and … http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selling-12000-excess-government-properties-press-briefing-by-the-white-house 1/16 The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release March 02, 2011 Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney and Federal Chief Performance Officer and the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget Jeff Zients, 3/2/2011 Selling 12,000 Excess Government Properties Prepared for Zimvi.com
Transcript
8/7/2019 Selling 12,000 Excess Government Properties - Press Briefing by The White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and …
In the White House Briefing Room today, I announced a new proposal to create a CivilianProperty Realignment Board to help the Federal government cut through red tape and politicsto sell property it no longer needs. The plan will save taxpayers $15 billion over the first threeyears the Board is fully up and running.
The Federal government owns 1.2 million properties across the country making it the biggestproperty owner in the United States, but billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted each year ongovernment properties that are no longer needed. This includes roughly 14,000 buildings andstructures currently designated as excess and thousands of others that are underutilized. Theseproperties range from sheds to under-utilized office buildings and empty warehouses. Nextmonth, the Administration will release detailed information on these excess properties so that thepublic can be better informed about this challenge
The proposal we announced today brings private-sector discipline to the management of Federalreal estate and applies tactics proven successful by the Defense Department's Base Realignmentand Closure Commission. It establishes an independent board of experts to expedite the disposalof unneeded properties and identifies opportunities to consolidate offices across and withinagencies. The board’s recommendations will be presented to Congress in a package to be votedon in an up-or-down manner and all properties will swiftly be disposed of or consolidated.
While this proposal is new, it builds on an effort the President announced last year to achieve $3billion in real estate savings for civilian property by the end of 2012. Federal agencies, workingclosely with the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration, aretaking the necessary steps to achieve this goal and are identifying further opportunities for real
estate savings that the new, independent Board can consider.
Our effort on real estate is one of many ways in which we have been executing on PresidentObama’s mandate to change how government works and deliver a government that is smarter,more effective, and more efficient. The President’s Accountable Government Initiative hascurbed uncontrolled growth in contract spending, actually decreasing contract spending for thefirst time in 13 years; saved billions of dollars by improving how the government buys andutilizes information technology; and reduced improper payments and other forms of waste bydeploying state-of-the-art fraud detection devices. More recently, the President asked me to leadan effort to reorganize federal programs and functions to improve our global competitiveness.
In his State of the Union address, the President said “We can’t win the future with thegovernment of the past.” Today we’re taking one more step in the right direction.
Jeffrey Zients is the Federal Chief Performance Officer and the Deputy Director for
Management at the Office of Management and Budget.
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before we get started on taking yourquestions on other subjects, I have with me today Jeff Zients, the Federal Chief PerformanceOfficer, as many of you know, and the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget. He is here today to brief you on our legislative proposal to change theway we manage federal properties so that we can save taxpayers billions of dollars. Jeff will givea short presentation on this proposal and then he is here to take your questions on it.
If you could reserve your questions on other issues so that he can address this particular one, andthen we can let him go. I will remain and take your questions on other issues.
With that, I will give you Jeff Zients.
MR. ZIENTS: Thanks, Jay. And thank you all for being here. Good afternoon. As the Presidentsaid in the State of the Union, we can't win the future with a government of the past. We're heretoday to talk about a major reform initiative that will modernize how the government manages itsreal estate. We will cut through red tape and sell property the federal government no longerneeds, returning at least $15 billion in taxpayer dollars. Before I give you the specifics on theproposal, let me put it into context. From the beginning of the administration we've beenexecuting on President Obama’s mandate to transform how government works and deliver agovernment that's smarter, more effective, and more efficient. This is our Accountable
Government Initiative.
Over the past two years, the Accountable Government Initiative has saved taxpayer dollars bycutting waste and increasing the efficiency of government operations. For example, we havecurbed uncontrolled growth in contract spending. Last year we actually decreased contractspending by $15 billion. This is the first year-over-year decrease in contracting in 13 years.
Likewise, we've saved billions of dollars by improving how government buys and utilizesinformation technology. We've scaled back and terminated poorly performing IT projects. We'vealso deployed state-of-the-art fraud detection tools to crack down on waste. Last year alone weavoided $4 billion in improper payments.
To build on these results, the President’s 2012 budget proposed more than 200 programterminations and other reductions. In total, this will save $33 billion. We are targeting areaswhere programs are duplicative, outdated, or simply ineffective. For example, the budgetconsolidates 38 K-12 education programs into 11 new programs that use competition andperformance to allocate the funds. The budget also calls for reduction, a 40 percent reduction, inthe more than 2,000 data centers maintained by federal agencies.
These kinds of measure are necessary and important.
Yesterday, the GAO issued a report highlighting opportunities for the government to save moneywith specific recommendations for eliminating duplication and increasing efficiencies. We’re onthe same page with GAO. There’s a tremendous overlap between GAO’s recommendations and
what we’re doing -- things like reducing improper payments, reforming contracting, savingmoney on information technology, and consolidating and eliminating programs.
The President recently took another important step in streamlining government. At his direction,I’m leading an effort to take a hard look at how federal programs and functions are organized andto make recommendations at how we might reorganize to improve our global competitiveness.
With that background, let me return to real estate. The federal government is far and away thelargest property owner in the country -- 1.2 million individual properties. These properties costover $20 billion a year to operate and maintain. The government doesn’t need all theseproperties. In fact, 14,000 of these properties have already been designated by agencies asexcess. You can see them here on this map.
There are unneeded properties throughout the country, from downtown city centers to suburbanshopping districts to rural locations. When you go property by property, you see the propertiesrange from empty warehouses to underutilized office buildings.
Let’s take a look at a couple of examples: Brooklyn, New York. This is a million-square-footwarehouse and a parking lot on six acres in Brooklyn, New York. It’s been sitting empty for thepast 10 years, costing the federal government hundreds of thousands of dollars in upkeep. Weexpect to sell it in the next few months, using an electronic auction to get the highest return fortaxpayers.
Fort Worth, Texas -- five buildings on 75 acres. The National Archives has been using it forrecord storage for the last 25 years. But the buildings had been increasingly underutilized, andtoday all five are sitting vacant. We expect to sell this property and return millions of dollars totaxpayers.
There are a lot more properties like these around the country, and we should be selling them assoon as possible. There are also properties that have little or no market value, things like surplussupply sheds and outdated FAA towers. We need to get rid of these properties, too, so we canstop wasting taxpayer dollars on maintenance and upkeep.
So why does the federal government continue to own and pay for properties it just doesn’t need?
Three main reasons. First: red tape. There are over 20 requirements to sell or get rid of a federalproperty, each with its own rules, guidelines and bureaucratic processes. It’s all well intentionedand, in some cases, it probably makes sense. But it doesn’t make sense to use the same procedurewhen you’re selling a small warehouse and when you’re selling a downtown office building.
Second reason: financial barriers. Ironically, agencies often don’t have the money they need tosell a property. They can’t cover the short-term costs, things like moving expenses and
transaction costs. This often prevents agencies from capturing the obvious ongoing savings fromgetting rid of a property they no longer need.
Third reason: political interests. While local politicians and leaders love to reside over ribbon-cutting ceremonies, getting rid of property can be a much less rewarding experience. Not
surprisingly, these same leaders are hard-pressed to support the elimination of federal propertiesin their local areas. Too often these political interests slow down or sometimes, in some cases,completely stop the effort to get rid of unnecessary property.
So red tape, financial barriers, political interests -- that’s why the government owns thousands of properties it doesn’t need and is wasting taxpayer dollars.
Beyond clearing out this backlog of properties the government doesn’t need, there areopportunities to make the federal government’s real estate footprint smaller. Companies in theprivate sector have made significant changes in how they manage their real estate portfolios,using strategies like telework and co-location, and leveraging the Internet and other technologies.For the most part, government agencies haven’t kept up and still manage their real estateportfolios the way they did in the pre-Internet era.
Last year, the President ordered agency leaders to take aggressive action to reduce their realestate footprint and save money. Agencies are making good progress. The legislative proposalwe’re talking about today will significantly expand these efforts. The President’s proposal toCongress will establish an independent board of experts that will expedite disposal of unneededproperties and identify opportunities to consolidate agency offices. The board will present toCongress recommendations on bundles of properties to be voted on in an up or down manner.
This is a proven approach. DOD’s Base Realignment and Closure Commission -- known asBRAC -- proves that having an independent board of experts can push through political gridlock
and help government realize savings for taxpayers. The proposed civilian property realignmentboard will do the same thing and will save at least $15 billion.
We look forward to working with Congress to make this common-sense reform a reality. Theproposed civilian property realignment board will finally bring 21st century managementpractices to federal real estate and will change the way Washington works by cutting red tape,getting rid of waste, and saving billions of dollars.
Questions?
Q Thank you. You said that 14,000 properties have already been designated by agencies. Can
you explain why the board is necessary if they’ve already been -- these properties have alreadybeen identified --
MR. ZIENTS: Identification is just the first step in the process. As I mentioned, there’s red tape --the 20 procedures that agencies have to work through; the lack of financial capabilities toactually sell properties; and then those political obstacles. So the identification is a good firststep, but it’s just the first step. And the board will expedite actually getting rid of these properties.
Q So what is the timeline that we're looking at before you can start realizing some of thesesavings? And secondly, so you’ve identified these properties -- is the hunt continuing to findadditional properties as well?
MR. ZIENTS: Good question. As you saw the two examples, we're doing this right now. So even
though we have the red tape and the other challenges, we're plowing forward and sellingproperties. Those two properties both will be sold in the next few months.
There are another 55,000 properties, beyond the 14,000, that have already been identified asexcess, meaning that -- or, sorry, underutilized, as opposed to excess -- meaning there’s potentialto consolidate those or sell those as well. So there are tens of thousands of properties that havealready been identified. Agencies, working with the board, will continue to identify propertiesand, most importantly, sell them or consolidate them in rational ways.
Q I just had a quick one. Do you need congressional approval for any of this?
MR. ZIENTS: Yes.
Q You do?
MR. ZIENTS: Yes. So this is a proposal that the President is making to Congress and we'rehoping that Congress will pass this legislation quickly so we can start implementing on theboard.
Q For the board?
MR. ZIENTS: For the board.
Q Which would then be empowered to make these decisions?
MR. ZIENTS: The board enables us to cut through the red tape, to cut through the politicalobstacles, and sell the properties much more quickly and save money much more rapidly. Whilewe're waiting for Congress to pass the legislation we're continuing to sell properties andconsolidate our real estate.
Q Are there any efforts underway to prevent the government from buying any new buildings? Isthere any freeze on buying new properties?
MR. ZIENTS: The folks at GSA are very carefully looking at any requests for additional space tosee if there’s a way to either not renew a lease or certainly not to build a new building. So the
case has to be very compelling and it has to be made in the context of the inventory that wealready have.
Q With your oversight -- with OMB’s oversight?
MR. ZIENTS: OMB works very closely with GSA.
Q Isn’t this a bad time in the economy to be selling buildings?
Q Isn't this a bad time in the economy to be selling buildings?
MR. ZIENTS: You know, the amount of property that we have and that we’ll be disposing of issignificant in terms of $15 billion, potential, across three years. At the same time, I don't thinkthis really moves the needle in any individual market. And furthermore, I don't think we’re
market timers, and we need to get rid of this real estate, stop paying for unnecessary upkeep, andbring the money back to the taxpayers.
Q How do you make sure you get the best price?
MR. ZIENTS: I mentioned one of the properties is being sold through an electronic auction thesame way you might sell something on eBay. That's been found to create a very efficient marketand maximize dollars.
Q You may have just answered -- the $15 billion is over three years?
MR. ZIENTS: Yes.
Q And does that include both the profits from -- expected profits from the sale as well as thesavings?
MR. ZIENTS: Yes, exactly. That $15 billion would be made up of money that we get from sales,avoided upkeep and other maintenance, and other savings by consolidating the footprint. Energysavings are significant, too.
Q I hate to be the cynic, but isn’t this a typical government response to streamlining government,creating another government agency?
MR. ZIENTS: There's no agency here. This is a --
Q What about another board?
MR. ZIENTS: The board -- the whole purpose of the board here is to streamline the process. Sothe same way BRAC has worked to create an up or down vote and tens of billions of dollars of savings, we envision this process breaking through political barriers and red tape and actuallystreamlining the process.
Q So the agencies cannot do it? The federal government today is incapable of doing this itself without a board --
MR. ZIENTS: It’s a very painful, slow process and oftentimes is actually blocked by politicalconsiderations. So this is a way to streamline that process and hopefully have very quick, rapidsavings.
Q Any way we’ll be able to see a full list of the 14,000 properties besides the two examples --
MR. ZIENTS: We’re going to make that public across the next month or so.
Q You mentioned briefly that you’re also working on a plan to reorganize the government. Whenis that proposal going to be ready?
MR. ZIENTS: We are at work now and across the next couple of weeks we’ll have an update onthat process.
Q Thanks. I haven’t done my homework on this, but you said that a lot of times local officialsoppose closing these buildings. Do you expect that you’ll have trouble in Congress because localfolks will lobby against this? Or do you think this is something Congress will do for you?
MR. ZIENTS: I think by bundling the properties and going above the local interests, we’ll have amuch better success rate on getting these properties to market.
MR. CARNEY: Yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Jay, and thank you, Mr. Director. Following up on Savannah’s question aboutlegislative approval, as I understand it, the House government reform committee has oversight
over public buildings. Have you reached out to Chairman Darrell Issa on this so far about thelegislative proposal?
MR. ZIENTS: This proposal is actually in the President’s fiscal ’12 budget, which went up a fewweeks ago and we are now starting to work with the Hill to get bipartisan support. I think there is-- this is a bipartisan issue. Everybody agrees that we shouldn’t have real estate that we don’thave the need for and that we can save energy and return taxpayer dollars. So we anticipateworking closely with both Democrats and Republicans to get this legislation done quickly.
Q And that includes Chairman Issa?
MR. ZIENTS: Sure.
(The President enters.)
MR. CARNEY: -- an honored guest.
THE PRESIDENT: Jeff is doing outstanding work and I hope you guys were taking extensivenotes. (Laughter.)
I want to take a brief moment just to say a few words about a tragic event that took place earliertoday in Frankfurt, Germany. I’m saddened and I am outraged by this attack that took the lives of two Americans and wounded two others. I think the American people are united in expressingour gratitude for the service of those who were lost. Michelle and I have their family and theirfriends in our thoughts and prayers, and we are praying for a speedy recovery for those who wereinjured.
I want everybody to understand that we will spare no effort in learning how this outrageous acttook place. And I’m working with German authorities to ensure that all of the perpetrators arebrought to justice. And we don’t have all the information yet and you’ll be fully briefed as we getmore information. But this is a stark reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices that our men and
women in uniform are making all around the world to keep us safe, and the dangers that theyface all around the globe.
So I think it’s fair to say that on behalf of the American people we want to extend our deepestcondolences to these families. And we will give you further updates as we get more information
about it.
Okay, thanks.
Q Anything on Libya?
Q A question on Libya, sir?
Q Fear of terrorism, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I will have a chance to take some questions tomorrow. President Calderónfrom Mexico will be here, and so I’ll give you guys a chance to ask a couple of questions on
some of these other pressing topics.
All right? Thank you.
(The President departs.)
MR. CARNEY: Well, you have your lead. (Laughter.) Does anyone have any more questions forJeff?
Q Is this something that you’re going to be seeking to fold into whatever budget agreement youhave on the continuing resolution or budget for the remainder of the year, part of theadministration’s idea of where the cost savings should come from?
MR. ZIENTS: I think that --
Q I think Jay might be better --
MR. CARNEY: You can defer to me on --
MR. ZIENTS: Yes, why don't I defer to Jay on the CR.
MR. CARNEY: On that stuff, I’ll take that. But if you have anything specifically for Jeff.
MR. ZIENTS: Sure.
Q Just a quick one. Commercial real estate brokers say that one thing sort of hindering deals nowis lack of financing. As you put all this inventory on the market, will the government assist infinancing and helping people kind of grease these deals?
MR. ZIENTS: I don’t believe we’ll be providing financing. But again, while $15 billion of realestate is a lot of money to return to taxpayers, it’s not a significant amount of money in thecontext of the overall commercial real estate market.
Q What’s to prevent Congress from blocking an entire bundle over opposition to one or two
properties within that bundle? Is that any concern that --
MR. ZIENTS: This all has to be done in a fast period of time. It’s 45 days from when the boardsubmits via OMB its recommendation, so the time is limited. If the Congress doesn’t act, thenthe board’s recommendations are considered done. So the bundle I think is proven in BRAC tobe a process -- a process of an up or down vote -- that is an effective process.
Q So if Congress doesn’t act, that consideration goes away?
MR. ZIENTS: Within 45 days, then it’s considered done.
MR. CARNEY: I think we should let Jeff get back. Is that okay? One more, yes, and then --
Q The two properties that you showed us, and you said you have many more -- is that puttingpeople out and unemployed?
MR. ZIENTS: No, both those buildings are vacant.
Q They are vacant?
MR. ZIENTS: Those are vacant buildings. And one of them has been vacant for over 10 years.
Q Oh, I see.
Q What about the underutilized? Do you have any estimates on --
MR. ZIENTS: When we have under-utilized space we’ll consolidate offices across the federalgovernment. Too often in the federal government we think bureau or program or agency asopposed to the federal government, so if we have space in one agency, let’s combine that withspace in another agency and save you the rental expense or be able to sell the building.
Q Do you have any specifically estimates on job losses?
MR. ZIENTS: There would be no job losses, in that what we’re doing here is consolidatingspace, the same way it’s happened in the private sector. Companies that employ lots of people
actually have less space now than they had when they employed fewer people because they’reusing telework and hoteling and just doing a more efficient job of using their space. Maintainingreal estate is very expensive.
MR. ZIENTS: Yes, in the inventory that we’ve describe we have identified overseas properties.In fact, of the 14,000, a couple thousand of those are overseas.
Q Do you know which countries?
MR. ZIENTS: We can follow up with the specific data.
Q Do you have the address of the Brooklyn property? (Laughter.)
MR. ZIENTS: We can get that for you. (Laughter.) If you’re -- you’re going to have toparticipate in an electronic auction. (Laughter.)
Thanks. Appreciate it.
MR. CARNEY: You can’t say we don't keep it interesting here.
Q Did you expect that?
MR. CARNEY: I did.
Q Is that in response to Ruth Marcus’s column?
MR. CARNEY: So I will take questions on -- I can continue talking about the billions of dollarswe will save from the sale of under-utilized or unused federal properties, or I can take questionson other issues, if you like.
Let me start. Yes, Matt.
Q Moving on to something different, first one on Libya, and another on spending bills. Now that
Qaddafi is stepping up air strikes in the eastern part of the country, is the U.S. and its allies, arethey getting any closer to a decision on whether to establish a no-fly zone? The African Union --sorry, the Arab League has said that it, in coordination with the African Union, could impose ano-fly zone. Would the U.S. support that as an option?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Matt, I would say what we’ve been saying, which is that the no-fly zone isan option that is being actively considered -- as are other options. We have acted very rapidly toimplement an unprecedented series of sanctions at the unilateral level and the multilateral level.We are also, as part of the -- or related to the effort -- or rather, the move by the United Nationsto refer what's happening in Libya to the ICC, we are closely using all of our resources tomonitor what is happening in Libya to make sure that perpetrators of human rights abuses and
atrocities against peaceful civilians are held accountable for their actions. Going forward, otheroptions remain on the table.
And I don't have a response to the specific idea that you mentioned, except that we continue toexamine the possibility of a no-fly zone, as we do other options.
Q The President welcomed the stopgap spending bill, and he said that he wants an agreement thatwould cut spending and reduce deficits without damaging economic growth. Where does the
administration see the potential for common ground that he is urging? And are there any specificcuts that the administration would be willing to contemplate?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I appreciate your question. I think that what's important to remember as westart this new process that the President referenced in his statement, that we have demonstrated,
the President has demonstrated his seriousness about reducing spending and his desire to findcommon ground.
If you take the approximately $100 billion in cuts that H.R. 1, the House proposal for the fullfiscal year -- or the remainder of the fiscal year, we have come almost halfway already. We havemet them halfway, which in many ways is a perfect definition of an attempt to compromise,when you combine the cuts that existed plus the $4 billion we agreed to in the CR that passed theSenate today -- and the $4 billion I think I mentioned yesterday that we have already identified asadditional cuts that we could support.
We can do more and we will look to these negotiations to find the common ground that webelieve exists. And we expect that those who are participating in the negotiations in Congresswill also demonstrate a willingness to find common ground by, again, moving towards themiddle.
Yes, Jake.
Q The oil prices and how they’ve been skyrocketing up -- what is the administration’s responseto Bernanke’s comments yesterday about concern that if they stay up there it could significantlydamage the economy? What is the administration doing about it and who is the point person inthe White House for the administration on this issue?
MR. CARNEY: We, as you know, are closely monitoring the situation. We are -- the President is
extremely aware of the impact that a spike in oil prices can have on gasoline prices and thereforeon the wallets and pocketbooks of average Americans, and we are monitoring that closely. I havetalked about the fact that we remain confident that the global system has the capacity to deal withmajor disruptions in oil supply. And we are obviously discussing -- having conversations withinternational organizations, the IEA, as well as oil-producing states about options related to thatcapacity.
In terms of who’s in charge of this issue, clearly, our NEC director, Gene Sperling, focuses onthis very closely. So does the Treasury Secretary and others. It’s something that, again, we aremonitoring very closely.
Q Can you just explain what some of those options might be? In the past we’ve seen Presidentsraise the issue of possibly opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves as a way of trying to exertsome leverage over OPEC countries to bring the prices down. We haven’t heard anything likethat from this administration. What exactly are you doing other than monitoring and discussingoptions? What options?
MR. CARNEY: Well, there are a variety of possibilities and options that are available to -- notjust at the national level, the level of the Unites States, but globally -- to deal with disruptions in
oil supplies. I’m not going to get into an analysis of the individual options that are being lookedat, except to say that we are monitoring the situation closely and evaluating the options that wehave.
Q One last question. The governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, recently -- I think it was today
even -- said that he thinks that this administration wants prices to go up because it willdiscourage energy consumption. And he pointed to a quote from your Secretary of Energy inwhich he talked about -- I realize this is before he was the Secretary of Energy -- but Steven Chuin 2008, I believe, talked about how the United States needed to have Europe-like gas prices. Isthere anything to that? Is there anything to the administration thinking that it is a long-term goodfor the administration -- I mean, for the country if prices are high?
MR. CARNEY: Jake, you made the point that that statement was made by Secretary Chu beforethis administration was ever in office.
Q It still represents his philosophy.
MR. CARNEY: And -- no, in fact, if you look at some of his testimony, I believe he’s addressedthis and renounced the notion that you put forward that somehow what Governor Barbour said isaccurate.
This President, this administration, is keenly aware of the impact of high gasoline prices onaverage Americans, especially in a still recovering economy. And we are monitoring gas prices,and we are also, as you have seen over the past two-plus years, very focused on the needprecisely to develop other energy sources so that we are not as dependent on foreign oil as wehave been in the past. That is right for economic reasons and right for national security reasons.
So beyond that, I would just say that those comments were clearly made in the context of 2012
presidential politics, so you have to take them, I think, understanding that.
Q Jay, can I follow up on the no-fly zone? You’ve repeatedly -- and Ambassador Rice, the daybefore yesterday -- spoke about active consideration being given to the no-fly zone. SecretaryGates has just been on the Hill saying there’s an awful lot of loose talk about the no-fly zone, andmake no mistake, a no-fly means an attack on Libya. Are we actively considering an attack onLibya?
MR. CARNEY: We are actively considering a variety of options. We have not ruled any optionsout. We selected a number of very tough options that include the sanctions I mentioned earlier,and the actions we’ve taken in concert with out international partners. Other options remain on
the table. The fact that the no-fly zone idea is complex does not mean it’s not on the table. Sothere is not a contradiction between what Secretary Clinton said and Secretary Gates said.
Q Let me ask the question in the -- is the Secretary, are some of the folks, the Joint Chiefs,elsewhere, giving you some pushback on this concept?
MR. CARNEY: Not at all. I think that what we have said is that we are actively considering it.We as an administration are actively considering options. We, with our international partners, are
actively considering other options in -- with regards with to how we deal with the situation inLibya, and we will continue to do so.
Q A question -- related question, actually. The no-fly zone would require attacking air defenses.Some of the opposition in Libya have asked for direct air strikes against Libya, against other
targets in Libya. Is that something that the administration is actively considering?
MR. CARNEY: I would just repeat what I said before, that we are looking at different options.We haven’t ruled anything out, but I have no announcements for options we may or may not takein the future.
Q Jay, there are reports that one of those options is formally cutting diplomatic ties to Libya. Isthat something that’s being considered?
MR. CARNEY: Without getting into specifics, we have not removed any option from the table.
Q Jay, as dangerous as the situation is in Libya, some people believe the situation in Yemen is
even more so. Today you had the powerful cleric al-Zindani say that he wants to see the countrymove toward become -- wants to see the country become an Islamic state. Is the administrationconcerned that Yemen is moving in that direction? It’s really the one country in that region that isreally in danger of moving toward being an Islamist state in the relatively near future. Is that atthe top of the list, even though Libya is getting all the attention now?
MR. CARNEY: Chip, I would say that the demonstrations we’ve seen in Yemen have largelyreflected the same kind of demands by the people of that country for more political participation,and they have not -- I will say that they have been about the legitimate demands for political andeconomic change in that country.
We have urged President Saleh to address the concerns of his people, and we have noted Ibelieve that he has taken some significant steps in doing that. Beyond that, I don't have commenton the particular --
Q What about al-Zindani’s claim today -- or his demand today that it become an Islamic state?Aren’t we moving into a new phase in Yemen where it’s not just about freedom?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the fact that one -- again, Chip, that one man has called for the kind of change that he is calling for is not necessarily reflective of the change that Yemenis more broadlyare demanding. And obviously, there are a lot of voices out there. But what has been true by andlarge in these demonstrations in a variety of countries in the region is that they have been broad-
based and secular and focused on the kind of democratic reforms that we support.
Q Can I ask you just one question on the budget? Today, the President said that those budgetnegotiations will be led by Vice President Biden. But on Capitol Hill, John Boehner was askedagain and again, will you commit to sitting down with Vice President Biden, and he would notdo it. He said that, I’m waiting for the Senate to come up with a proposal here. Is it yourunderstanding that he’s refusing to sit down with the Vice President until the Democrats have aproposal?
MR. CARNEY: Well, all I will say is that the President made clear that he has called onDemocratic and Republican leaders of Congress to begin meeting as soon as possible with theVice President, the Chief of Staff -- his Chief of Staff, and the Budget Director -- his BudgetDirector. So that call is out there. We believe and hope that a meeting -- an initial meeting willtake place very soon, and I have no further information on precisely when that will happen, but
we believe it will take place soon.
Q On President Calderón?
MR. CARNEY: Hold on one second. Yes, Mike.
Q Jay, Senator Reid talked about the President using the bully pulpit to talk about spending interms of this year, the way forward this year. Do we expect the President to actually weigh in onthis? Or is he allowing the Vice President to be his point man on this?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Mike, I would simply say that standing here at this podium yesterday, Iannounced the President had called Speaker Boehner. His engagement was evident in that and
it’s been evident in the way that he has spoken with and had his senior staff and CabinetSecretaries speak with members in Congress, leaders in Congress, to move this process alongand to find the common ground that we think exists so that we can cut spending in a responsibleand reasonable way that reduces the deficit, compels the federal government to live within itsmeans, even as we continue to invest in the critical areas that allow us to out-innovate, out-buildand out-educate the rest of the world and grow our economy and create jobs.
So will he address this again in the future publicly? I’m sure he will. But I don't have anannouncement on when that will be.
Q If the Republicans say, we’ve offered our plan, is a veto threat still out there on what the
Republicans have offered?
MR. CARNEY: The President’s statement of administration policy regarding H.R. 1 stands. Wecannot accept a proposal that does harm to our capacity to grow the economy and create jobs --precisely the things that we and leaders of both parties in Congress say that we need to do -- norcan we accept a proposal that potentially undermines our national security.
So there is room for compromise. As I said at the top of these questions, we have alreadydemonstrated, the President has already demonstrated his seriousness about spending cuts. Wehave -- if you combined the different proposals we have put out there that are on the table and the$4 billion that I mentioned yesterday that we have identified in additional cuts, we have met
them halfway already.
So we look forward to negotiations on a long-term deal, through the end of the fiscal year, so thatwe can do the country’s business efficiently and effectively -- because it is no way to run abusiness or a government to examine -- to wonder every two weeks if we're going to be able tokeep in operation the following week.
So the President very much looks forward to these negotiations beginning to take place towards along-term deal and he believes that common ground can be found.
Q Real quick, on the negotiations, is that just on the CR, or will they include things like thisproperty proposal, taxes, anything -- other things?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I believe that Jeff Zients said that the proposal was part of the 2012 budgetproposal. But beyond that, I would simply say that the focus of these negotiations -- the Presidenthas called on Democratic and Republican leaders to meet with his Vice President, his Chief of Staff, and his Budget Director to address specifically the issue of finding common ground so thatwe can pass funding for the government with substantial spending cuts that bring us through theend of this fiscal year.
That, of course, does not preclude that when these leaders get together in a room that other topicswon't come up. But the focus of the negotiations obviously has to be on the CR.
I'll take one more. Yes, sir, in the back.
Q In Pakistan a federal minister was shot down today. And in view of the Salman Taseer case,can you give us an assessment of what the President thinks about the situation in Pakistan? Andare you receiving cooperation from Pakistan --
MR. CARNEY: In answer to the last part of your question, yes, we continue to work with thePakistani government to deal with the issue of terrorism and insurgents. But the President feelsvery strongly that the assassination is a terrible thing and this minister represented the kind of values that we think are vital -- the belief in free speech and freedom of religion. And we expressour condolences to his family and our great regret at that tragedy.
