POST-WAR JAPAN

INTV/W BANK OF AMERICA ECONOMIST JOHN WILSON ABOUT THE 1987 STOCK MARKET CRASH. 01:00:29:09 two shot of wilson with the reporter. 01:01:06:19 mcu of wilson describing the build up of financial pressure before the collapse and the forces which acted together to precipitate the crash. he says a split in the perception of the us economy between the government and the financial industry created tension which depressed the market. he discusses the corrosion of faith in the us economy created by the trade and budget deficits. he discusses the probability of a 1988 recession. he describes corporate reactions to the market crash. 01:18:48:12 reversals. CI: PERSONALITIES: WILSON, JOHN. FINANCE: STOCK MARKET, CRASH.

Universal Newsreel

TAPE_NUMBER: EF00/1027 IN_TIME: 07:19:17 - 09:16:52 LENGTH: 03:15 SOURCES: APTN RESTRICTIONS: FEED: VARIOUS (THE ABOVE TIME-CODE IS TIME-OF-DAY) SCRIPT: English/Nat XFA Protesters targeting the World Economic Forum have taken their anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation messages into the streets of Melbourne for a third day. Targeting stores such as Nike and McDonalds, the protesters - demonstrating under the S11 banner - conducted a peaceful march. Their decision to parade through Melbourne's Central business district appears to have come after unsuccessful attempts on Wednesday morning to prevent WEF delegates from entering the Crown Casino complex - the venue of the World Economic Forum. A heavy police presence on Tuesday night has made it difficult for the protesters to significantly disrupt the conference. Violence erupted early on Wednesday when protesters again tried to prevent busloads of W-E-F delegates from entering the complex which has been behind barricades and police lines since Monday. The violent clashes between protesters and police seems to have split public opinion. SOUNDBITE: (English) "I thinks its embarrassing Victorians it's just disgusting. That these people have taken over the streets and the way they are treating the police force. Haven't they anything else to do with their time. It's just appalling." SUPER CAPTION: Voxpop Aside from claims about heavy-handed tactics by the Victorian police force, the S11 protesters have declared their three day campaign a success - with many planning to quit the blockade on a high note with celebrations outside the Casino planned for Wednesday afternoon. Already protester numbers are significantly down from earlier in the week, with only around a thousand people in attendance today. SHOTLIST: Melbourne, Australia - 13 September 2000 1. Mid shot protesters marching with linked arms 2. Riot police line 3. Busload of delegates arrive 4. Reverse shot protesters with banners 5. Close up people inside the Crown Casino watching protesters 6. Police walking 7. Protesters walking up against police line 8. Close up protesters pushing with police 9. Crowd of protester 10. Protesters pushing police 11. Wide shot protesters walk past casino towards Melbourne's city centre 12. Police on horseback leading protesters 13. Close up protesters 14. Nike store sign 15. Protesters walking past Nike entrance 16. Horses getting into position outside Nike 17. Protesters outside McDonalds 18. SOUNDBITE: (English) Voxpop 19. Wide shot protesters outside Stock Exchange 20. Melbourne Stock Exchange 21. Wide shot protesters 22. Man with orange flare 23. Police in front of entrance to Stock Exchange 24. Wide shot protesters ?

NAME: EUR MARKETS 20080930Ix TAPE: EF08/0993 IN_TIME: 10:04:59:12 DURATION: 00:05:15:11 SOURCES: AP Television/London Stock Exchange/RTE DATELINE: Various - 30 Sept 2008 RESTRICTIONS: See Script SHOTLIST: AP Television Brussels, Belgium - 30 September 2008 1. Pan down of Dexia building 2. Mid of Dexia entrance 3. Tilt down from Dexia sign to entrance 4. Mid of Dexia lobby shot through glass doors and windows 5. People walking outside Dexia 6. Mid of Dexia signs 7. People walking outside Dexia 8. Belgium Prime Minister Yves Leterme and Belgian Finance Minister Didier Reynders 9. Wide of reporters 10. SOUNDBITE: (French) Didier Reynders, Belgian Finance Minister: "We said already on Friday, following a ministers' meeting where we were discussing the situation, that the first objective is to preserve the savings, to preserve the customers in all of our banking institutions. That means to preserve them 100 percent. In other words to leave nobody in difficulty. The best way to preserve the customers 100 percent is to allow, of course, the activities of the institutions to continue in the best possible conditions." 11. Mid of reporters AP Television Moscow, Russia - September 30 2008 12. Exterior of Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange (MICEX) 13. Interior of Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange (MICEX) 14. Tilt down from clocks to traders 15. Woman speaking on telephone 16. Man on phone 17. Mid of bell above trading floor 18. Various of traders talking 19. Trader talking on mobile phone London Stock Exchange London, UK - 30 September 2008 20. Various of traders being photographed AP Television Paris, France - 30 September 2008 21. Interior of Richelieu Finance investment house 22. Pull out of Herald Tribune front page with headline reading (English): "Frantic effort to save bailout", pan to employee on phone 23. Woman on phone 24. Mid of screen 25. SOUNDBITE: (French) Nathalie Pelras, Head of Equity Management, Richelieu Finance: "The French markets like the European markets had already anticipated this and fell yesterday, with the (CAC 40) closing down as much as five percent. So at the opening the market has adjusted itself and although the market lost three percent this morning now as I'm talking it is down less than one percent showing quite a strong recovery from the financial stocks which are falling less than they are gaining. We are still in a period of uncertainty but we expect that perhaps the problems will remain within the United States and in Europe and mainly in France measures will be taken as we have seen with Dexia (Franco-Belgian bank) or as with the other banks in order to avoid this spreading even more." 26. Mid of screen showing major European indexes AP Television Frankfurt, Germany - 30 September 2008 27. Wide of Frankfurt Stock Exchange 28. Various of traders 29. Mid of board 30. SOUNDBITE: (German) Oliver Roth, Director Equities Trading Close Brothers Seydler AG: "Should the bailout deal not go through it will have a massive influence on the world economy. The fear is that many banks will not survive this crisis and that also will have repercussions on the continental european economy and banking systems." 31. Various of traders RTE - No Access Sky TV and Ireland Dublin, Ireland - 30 September 2008 32. Pan across NCB Stockbrokers Trading Room 33. Various of traders 34. Computer screens 35. SOUNDBITE: (English) Brian Lenihan, Irish Finance Minister: "We are not talking about the mistakes here, we are talking about the basic capacity to access funds in the world market that is now drying up of funds which are available for the use by banks and I can tell you if funds are not secured by the Irish banks it would be a very, very serious matter for economic life in this country." 36. Exterior of AIB Headquarters 37. Various of exteriors of Bank of Ireland STORYLINE: European markets opened sharply lower on Tuesday, following the rejection by the US Congress of a plan to help resolve the financial crisis but then recovered, trading flat. By midmorning London's FTSE 100 was up 0.35 percent to 4,835.77, and the CAC 40 in Paris was 0.3 percent higher to 3,964.24 but the DAX was off 0.7 percent to 5,764.13. "The French markets like the European markets had already anticipated this and fell yesterday, with the (CAC 40) closing down as much as five percent," said Nathalie Pelras, the head of Equity Management of Richelieu Finance. "We are still in a period of uncertainty but we expect that perhaps the problems will remain within the United States and in Europe and mainly in France measures will be taken as we have seen with Dexia (Franco-Belgian bank) or as with the other banks in order to avoid this spreading even more," she added. Also on Tuesday, Dexia became the second Belgian bank this week to secure a government and shareholder bailout when Belgium, France and Luxembourg said they would inject almost 6.4 (b) billion euros (9.2 (b) billion US Dollars) to keep the business afloat. Dexia, a French-Belgian specialist in lending to local governments that ran up huge losses in its US operations, closed nearly 30 percent lower on Monday - triggering emergency talks with government officials. Belgian authorities and Belgian shareholders said in a statement that they would invest three (b) billion euros (4.3 (b) billion US Dollars) in the bank, while the French government - via its investment arm CDC which holds just over 10 percent in Dexia - will invest another 3 (b) billion euros (4.3 (b) billion US Dollars). Luxembourg will add 376 (m) million euros (539.7 (m) US Dollars). Dexia CEO Axel Miller and chairman Pierre Richard resigned after "drawing conclusions from the current financial crisis and its impact on the Dexia group," the company said. They will stay until successors are appointed. For Dexia, the Belgian and French investments come in the form of a capital increase that will issue new shares at 9.90 US Dollars (6.87 euros) per share, while the Luxembourg government will get newly issued convertible bonds. In return the bank promised to improve the way it is run. Belgium is splitting its share between the federal and regional governments, with 1 (b) billion euros (1.43 (b) billion US Dollars) each from the federal state, the three Belgian regions combined and shareholders Gemeentelijke Holding NV, Arcofin CV and Ethias. Belgian Finance Minister Didier Reynders told a parliamentary committee that "the first objective is to preserve the savings, to preserve the customers in all of our banking institutions." The French government will invest one (b) billion euros (1.43 (b) billion US Dollars), with its state investment arm Caisse des Depots et Consignations injecting 2 (b) billion euros (2.87 (b) billion dollars.) This will give France a 25 percent stake in Dexia, the Elysee palace said in a statement. Dexia was one of several European banks to see its stock price drop sharply on Monday on fears that they would find it hard to cover potential losses as credit conditions tighten. Trading in Dexia shares was suspended in Paris and Brussels on Tuesday after closing 28.5 percent lower at 7.20 euros (10.3 US Dollars) a day earlier. Banking stocks across the board were trading lower, even those largely unaffected by worries over their ability to raise debt. Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg moved to save Belgian-Dutch bank Fortis on Sunday, pumping 11.2 (b) billion euros (16.4 billion (b) US Dollars) after its shares shrank by a fifth on Friday. Traders saw the bank as overleveraged and lost confidence in its ability to pay for its expensive purchase of Dutch bank ABN Amro. Meanwhile, Russian stock indexes sank on Tuesday despite the federal market regulator ordering a two-hour trading halt in anticipation of massive fallout from the rejection of the bank bailout in the US Congress. The ruble-denominated MICEX exchange, which fell 1 percent in 15 minutes of trading before the suspension, fell sharply after reopening at 12:30 p.m. (8:30 GMT). By 1:10 p.m. (0910 GMT), it had dropped 6.9 percent from the previous day's close. The dollar-denominated RTS, which first opened for trading only at 12:30 p.m., sank by 2.9 percent to 1,159.4 points. State-owned oil major Rosneft plunged 8.2 percent and oil firm Lukoil lost 7.2 percent as oil prices dropped overnight to fall back below US$100 a barrel. Mining company Norilsk Nickel shed 8.6 percent while state-controlled VTB bank declined by 5.5 percent. The US House of Representatives narrowly voted against a massive 700 (b) billion US dollar bailout plan for financial institutions on Monday in the United States, triggering a stock selloff in the United States and Asia. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 777 points on Monday, its biggest-ever one-day fall. Russia's stock market, which earlier this year was one of the world's most robust and lucrative, has been in a steep decline for weeks, reflecting not only the turmoil in international markets but fears sparked by high-profile corporate conflicts and Russia's war with Georgia in August. A sharp fall on domestic exchanges earlier this month, resulting in a two-day shut down of trading, led to a major loss of confidence among lenders. Since then, the Russian government has poured in (b) billions of dollars into the banking system in an effort to ease liquidity concerns. Meanwhile, shares in Irish banks surged on Tuesday after the government issued a sweeping guarantee to insure deposits and bank borrowings against a potential collapse. The government unveiled an unlimited guarantee on deposits at six banks one day after the Irish Stock Exchange suffered its greatest fall in history, and rumours spread that millionaire depositors were withdrawing their savings from Irish institutions. Investors embraced the government's dramatic intervention, initially reversing Monday's stunning stock falls in full within minutes of the start of Tuesday trading. Those gains quickly moderated, however, amid profit-taking and greater uncertainty in other European markets. Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said all deposits in Ireland's six domestically owned banks would be guaranteed by the taxpayer in the event that any bank neared insolvency. "If funds are not secured by the Irish banks it would be a very, very serious matter for economic life in this country," Lenihan said. The guarantee does not apply to foreign-owned banks operating in Ireland, because those banks are subject to their own parent nation's regulations. The guaranteed financial institutions are Allied Irish Banks, Bank of Ireland, Anglo-Irish Bank Corp., Irish Life & Permanent, Irish Nationwide Building Society and the Educational Building Society. Monday's 493-point drop to 3,292 shattered the previous worst day in Irish trading: Oct. 28, 1987, when the Dublin market fell 8.8 percent in the wake of Black Monday. Ireland's four publicly listed banks, Allied Irish, Bank of Ireland, Irish Life & Permanent and Anglo-Irish, spearheaded the drop. Those four stocks initially recovered all of Monday's losses within minutes on Tuesday, but retained only some gains by midmorning. Allied Irish was up 10 percent at 7.92 US dollars, Bank of Ireland up 5.4 percent at 4.95 US dollars, IL&P up 19 percent at 6.12 US dollars, and Anglo-Irish up 18 percent at 3.91 US dollars. Overall, the Irish Stock Exchange was up 2.4 percent at 3,371.

MISC. EARLY COMEDIES #21

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN REMARKS ON THE US POLICY IN IRAQ AT THE NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY AT FORT MCNAIR IN WASHINGTON, DC In advance of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's visit to Washington, D.C. next week, the Vice President will discuss Iraq's political and military progress, and the work that lies ahead to defeat ISIL and forge a more inclusive Iraq (APPLAUSE) BIDEN: General Padilla, thank you very much for the introduction. And it's -- it is genuinely an honor to be here before such an incredibly distinguished audience. Ambassador Nesbitt, thank you. She is a senior vice president. I am just a vice president. (LAUGHTER) These days I don't like the word "senior" associated with my name. (LAUGHTER) Provost Yeager. And finally, I'd like to say to Ambassador Faily, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, it's an honor to have you here as well today. Military officers, men and women, and Brian McEwan (ph). How are you doing, Brian? Brian didn't want to tell anybody he's in the Defense Department now but he worked for me since he got out of the University of Notre Dame, and that was 412 years ago. (LAUGHTER) And -- but any rate, it's good to see you, Brian. Next week Prime Minister Abadi will make his first visit to Washington, D.C., and this provides us with an opportunity to take stock of where things stand right now. And that's going to be the focus, with your permission, of my remarks today. Critics have made a number of claims regarding our policy in Iraq in the state of affairs in Iraq today. They say that Iraq's fight against ISIL under the command of the Iraqi Government, backed by American international coalition, has stalled, has been stalemated. We read that ISIL remains in a commanding position inside of Iraq, that Iran and its proxies are leading the fight against ISIL and that they are dominating Iraq and that Iraq itself is likely to be a thing of the past, doomed to split apart because of sectarian violence. There's just one problem with these critiques. The claims do not reflect the circumstances on the ground. The claims do not respect and represent the circumstances on the ground. They don't reflect Iraq's progress against ISIL, incomplete, but significant and growing. Iraq's resilience and unity in confronting the crisis many predicted would split them apart. Or Iraq's resolve to uphold their sovereignty and their independence, even as they look to their neighbors in all directions for assistance. The jury is still out. That's the truth. It's not over yet. But the momentum is in the right direction. I'd like to speak about that for a few moments today. It is true that when ISIL swept into Nineveh last summer and took its capital, Mosul, we saw the collapse of the Iraqi army, we saw it melt away. The horrific slaughter of innocent civilians and the enslavement of women, ethnic cleansing of minority groups, including Christians who had lived in Mosul over a thousand years. ISIL gained significant amounts of money from the banks that they robbed, significant sophisticated military equipment left behind by Iraqi forces and manpower from brutal conscription and foreign fighters. And maybe, most dangerously, a sense of momentum, even a sense of inevitability, which seemed to attract more foreign fighters. That's why, when Mosul fell, President Obama responded decisively. Within hours, he took steps, with all of you -- the military -- to make sure that all our people in our embassy were secure. Within days we put special forces into the field temporarily to better understand the battle space. We surged intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and we set up a joint operation center in both Baghdad and in Irbil, all to prepare to help the Iraqis fight back. We knew, though, that the first order of business was to make sure that Iraq had a functioning, inclusive government. For all the years I spent in dealing with Iraqi public officials in the Iraqi Government, we knew for certain without a united Iraqi Government, there was no possibility, none, of defeating ISIL. When Mosul fell, Iraq had just held their national election. Fourteen million -- roughly 14 million Iraqis had showed up at the polls, but now they had to form a government in the middle of this chaos. And having been deeply, deeply involved, as Brian McEwan (ph) will tell you, because he was with me and trying to help form the first government and being engaged, we knew this could be extremely difficult and was likely to be difficult. During the term of the last government, distrust had deepened so profoundly between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, creating serious obstacles to a unified effort against ISIL, and a question of willingness of whether they were willing to literally stay together. But the irony, the irony of all ironies, is that Iraq was -- actually helped to form its government because of ISIL. ISIL, the very outfit that intended to tear Iraq apart and establish a caliphate, it actually united the Iraqis. The Sunnis realized they preferred a united federal Iraq under a new government to being at the mercy -- the mercy of ISIL -- or dependent upon the other Sunni states. The Kurds realize that withdrawing from Iraq was not a viable option and they did not want a terrorist state on their doorstep. I don't know how many conversations I had with President Barzani relating to this. And the Shia, they realized they didn't want to take on ISIL alone or become a vassal of a neighboring state. Consequently, they each concluded they were better off if they were in this together. And to quote a famous American politician in an earlier war of ours: We either hang together or hang separately. The Iraqis themselves recognized how badly the trust had been broken among them. Nothing less than a comprehensive change could deliver a united Iraqi Government that could effectively take on ISIL. And many Iraqi leaders believed that the only way to do this, as I believed, was a wholesale change in leadership, that every interest in Iraq had defined different leaders this time to occupy the seats of power. I remember speaking with Usama Nujayfi, a proud son of Mosul, who had been the speaker of Iraqi's Parliament, and him deciding that in order to make way for a new wave of leaders, it was very important, which he thought was important as well, that he would have to step down as speaker. And so there was a need from the speaker to the prime minister to the president to find new leaders. And the result was another widely respected Sunni, Salim Jabouri, became the new parliamentary speaker. And Iraq chose Fuad Masum, a well-respected Kurdish senior statesman, to be the new president. And he stuck to his convictions under enormous pressure. Because you know how the process works. He, the president, was the one that then turns to one of the factions to form a government. There was an enormous amount of pressure, but he stuck to his guns and he named Haider al-Abadi the prime minister, a Shia leader who had built up majority support within the Shia national alliance, which won a majority of the votes. There was a consensus among these leaders that Iraq would need a much greater measure of functioning federalism, which is called for in the constitution. They all agreed to that. That common understanding, backed by genuine acts of statesmanship, has led to significant progress and the chance -- the chance -- of a long-term unity government here. In just eight months, Prime Minister Abadi and other Iraqi leaders have formed an inclusive government, in record time arrived at a national budget with equitable revenue sharing, forged an oil deal between Baghdad and Irbil. I don't know how many times Brian and I sat there after the 23 visits into Iraq, being told there's an oil deal just over the horizon. Never occurred. But in the face of this crisis, they've pulled that together. They built a consensus, began to mobilize thousands of Sunni fighters to fight against ISIL. And just this past week Prime Minister Abadi visited Irbil and met with President Barzani to discuss cooperation with the peshmerga forces in a plan coordinated by General Austin, in part, to help liberate Mosul. Yesterday he was in Anbar province, announcing the delivery of over a thousand weapons for Sunni tribes in preparation for the liberation of Anbar, in part, as part of his commitment that he made to Sunni leaders in the formation of the government. More efforts to organize, arm and integrate the Sunnis willing to fight ISIL are going to be needed in the months ahead to liberate Anbar and Mosul. And the prime minister has also tried to improve relations with his Arab neighbors and Turkey. He's visited Amman, Cairo, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Ankara. And for the first time since the 1990s, Saudi Arabia has agreed to open an embassy in Baghdad, at the invitation of a Shia Iraqi president. These are only initial but these are very -- I promise you, having done this for the last 12 years -- very promising, promising steps. Obviously, a great deal of work remains, including moving forward on the National Guard legislation, legislation designed to advance national reconciliation, including de-Baathification, continuing to mobilize and integrate and arm and pay Sunni forces, further integrate the pesh into the Iraqi national security force. Bringing volunteer forces under the command and control of elected Iraqi governments. Empowering local governance and planning for reconstruction in the liberated areas consistent with their notion of federalism. All of which, all of which we will be discussing with Prime Minister Abadi. Not that we haven't discussed it a lot. He and I have probably spent more time on the phone than we have -- I have with my wife. (LAUGHTER) The entire region -- entire world, but the entire region is watching this closely, and Iraqi leaders can't afford to lose that sense of political urgency that brought them to this point, and much hinges on the prime minister, but not the prime minister alone. Ultimately, this is about all the Iraqi leaders pulling together, and they must continue to compromise, and it is hard. It is hard. Thousands of bodies have been strewn and lost in the interim. But they're doing it. We knew that in addition to forming a united Iraqi Government the next challenge would be to help them put back together an ability to be able to position itself and succeed on the battlefield. That started with helping Iraqis reorganize and reconstitute the security forces. For years, in the face of terrorism and insurgency, many Iraqis had fought bravely and given their lives. Thousands have given their lives in the fight against ISIL. That would challenge any army. But as we saw last summer, some units, including those in Mosul, have been hollowed out with corruption, questionable leadership appointments, lack of discipline, sectarian infighting, and the collapse helped make the fall of Mosul possible. So we began to help Iraqi leaders rebuild their forces with hires based on competence, not on ethnicity. Abadi appointed a number of former military officers -- excuse me, relieved a number of former military officers and appointed new officers. He appointed a Sunni from Mosul as defense minister, he replaced 36 commanders in November, and he continues to reform Iraqi's military leadership. We spent [sic] our special forces to assess which Iraqi units could actually be salvaged. And under the leadership of General Austin we began working with the Iraqi military to reconstitute their divisions. We are now training and have continued to train Iraqi forces at four different sites across the country. Six thousand have already graduated, thousands more are in the pipeline and we're supplying weapons and critical equipment. Since the fall of 2014, the United States has delivered over 100 million rounds of ammunition, 62,000 small arms systems, 1,700 Hellfire missiles, 250 mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, MRAPs, were delivered in December that are now protecting Iraqi forces and pesh forces from mines and homemade bombs. And 50 additional MRAPs with mine rollers began to transfer to Iraq this week. At El Assad Air Force Base, that many of you served in and were part of securing, we're training and advising and assisting Iraqi army forces who, in turn, are training and mobilizing Sunni fighters. Iraqi national security forces training Sunni tribesmen. We also brought Iraqi pilots to the United States who are in advanced stages of flight training in Arizona, to enhance their capacity to defend their country in the air. And we're not doing it alone. We led and mobilized a massive international coalition, over 60 partners, NATO allies, Arab nations and many others, to help take on ISIL. It's not just a military coalition. It's a global effort to weaken ISIS across the board, from undercutting its messaging to tracking its foreign fighters. And several nations are providing significant support in Iraq. Eight coalition partners have launched over 500 airstrikes in Iraq. The Spaniards, Australians, Danes and others have provided trainers and advisers inside Iraq. The French, the Dutch, the U.K., Canada, Germany, Italy and others are working with us to train and resupply the Kurdish peshmerga, who have reclaimed a significant portion of the territory initially gained by ISIL. And several countries, including Japan and Saudi Arabia, have also made significant nonmilitary contributions in areas such as development assistance and humanitarian aid. A majority within each of the Iraqi constituencies and communities supports this U.S. effort and these coalition efforts. Leaders from across the Iraqi political spectrum have publicly asked for our help and our continued help. And we're providing that help in a smarter way. Small numbers of advisers backed by a large coalition. And this large coalition is backed up by the most capable Air Force in the world. We are pounding ISIL from the sky -- nearly 1,300 U.S. airstrikes alone. Thus far, thankfully, we have not lost -- knock on wood -- a single, solitary U.S. serviceman to enemy fire, not one. But this is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous place. With our assistance, Iraqis have made significant progress on the battlefield. Eight months ago ISIL was on the offensive everywhere in Iraq. No force in Iraq or Syria had proven capable of defeating ISIL head-on, but today in Iraq ISIL has lost large areas it used to dominate, from Babil (ph) to Diyala to Nineveh, to Saladin, Kirkuk -- excuse me -- Kirkuk Province. ISIL has been defeated at Mosul Dam, Mount Sinjar, and now Tikrit. ISIL's momentum in Iraq has halted, and in many places has been flat out reversed. Thousands of ISIL fighters have been removed from the battlefield. Their ability to mass and maneuver has been greatly degraded. Leaders have been eliminated, supply lines have been severed, weapons, checkpoints, fighting positions, IED factories, safe houses have been destroyed. And reports of demoralization within ISIL ranks are rife. And some ISIL fighters refusing to fight, foreign fighters being killed by ISIL because they want to return home. There's still a long fight ahead. I don't want to paint an overly rosy picture here. But ISIL's aura of invincibility has been pierced and that's important. Let me give you one recent example where Iraq's military capability was tested as well as, quite frankly, its political leadership was tested. Three weeks ago in every newspaper in the West, and here in the United States, in the news the speculation was the United States, the coalition and Iraqi's elected leaders had been sidelined in the fight against ISIL, particularly in Tikrit. Military forces, backed primarily by Iran, were running the show. And you saw pictures and they made it clear -- Suleimani made it clear that everybody see where he was there, the implication being we now own Iraq. Then something changed. The attack stalled and Prime Minister Abadi stepped up. He courageously stepped in, making it absolutely clear that the Iraqi Government, him, as commander-in-chief, was in charge of this operation. When I spoke with him, he made it clear to me that he wanted the United States and the coalition to engage all over Iraq, was his phrase, and explicitly he wanted us engaged and requested support in Tikrit. His call was joined by that of Sunni leaders, as well as the most senior religious leader in the country, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who declared that the Iraqi Government had to be in the lead, that the units had to be directly under the command, all units under the command of the Iraqi Government, and that Sunnis had to be included in the liberation of their own communities. And we made clear, General Austin, that we were prepared to help in the battle, with volunteers, both Shia and Sunni, fighting alongside Iraqi forces, but only if all elements in the fight operated strictly under the chain of command of the Iraqi military. Because that's the only way we can ensure the safety of those on the ground and minimize the risk of friendly fire. Today, Iraq's national flag, not ISIL's, hangs over the city of Tikrit. But success brings new challenges. Holding liberated areas, policing them with forces that are trusted by the community, in the community that they're returning home to. Transiting governing authority back to local officials, as envisioned in their federal system, restoring vital public services. And in the face of reports relating to Tikrit, that there was mass looting and burning of homes, the prime minister stepped up, took swift action. He condemned the abuses, ordering the militia out of the city, ensuring regular forces are patrolling those streets. And frankly acknowledged the degree of loss that had occurred, hiding nothing. Once inside Tikrit, Iraqi soldiers uncovered execution grounds where ISIL murdered as many as 1,700 young men last summer and poured them into mass graves. And as I speak, mass graves are still being found, a stark reminder of the brutality of ISIL and the need for its defeat. While this battle continues inside Iraq, we are also taking the fight to ISIL in Syria. The international coalition has now launched over 1,300 airstrikes against ISIL and other terrorists inside of Syria. Bombed refineries that had been taken over by ISIL, the oil, both refined and crude, being used to fund their operations, eliminating that as a source of revenue. We've embarked on a Train and Equip Program under the Defense Department to take on ISIL and protect Syrian communities. In Khobani, killing thousands of its fighters and proving ISIL can be beaten inside of Syria as well. However, the regional challenge for Iraq extends beyond Syria. For years now Iraq has risked being pulled apart by a wide range of sectarian competition, internally and externally. But the reality is that Iraqis do not want to be drawn into regional conflicts. They don't want to be owned by anybody. Everybody forgets there was a war, not but a decade before, where over a hundred thousand were killed, a war with Iran, their neighbor. They don't want to be puppets dangling on a string of anyone's puppeteering in the region. Don't underestimate the power of Iraqi national pride, independence and sovereignty. It's only natural Iraq will have relations with all of its neighbors, including Iran. The history is too long, the border is too long, and it's a difficult neighborhood. But Iraq must be free to make its own sovereign choices under the authority of elected representatives of an Iraqi Government. We want what Iraqis want, a united federal and democratic Iraq as defined by its own constitution, where power is shared among all Iraqi communities, where a sovereign government exercises command and control over the forces in the field. That's overwhelmingly what the Iraqis want. So I go back to the focus on, Mr. Ambassador, on the Iraqi Government, when the three major constituencies -- Sunni, Shia and Kurd -- are united in wanting a whole and prosperous Iraq, the likelihood of being pulled into the orbit of any single nation in the region is diminished expidentially [sic] because this would represent the only, the only government in the region that actually is not based on sectarian dominance. This is going to be a long haul. The ultimate success or failure is in the hands of the Iraqis. But as they stand up and stand together, this administration, this country is committed to stand with them. I need not tell this audience, since 2003 more than 1-1/2 million American women and men, including my son, have spent significant amounts of time on Iraqi soil. Every single morning since I have been vice president and before, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, we contact the Defense Department and I ask the same question: Give me the exact number of Americans who've given their lives on Iraqi soil and Afghan soil. Give me the exact number. Not a generalization; exact number of those who've been wounded and are lost in Afghanistan. Because no audience knows more than this, every one of those lives, every one of those brave women and men represents a community, represents a family and a larger family. Only 1 percent of all Americans have waged these fights for us, but 99 percent of all America owes them support and recognition. Four thousand four hundred and eighty-one Americans have given their lives on Iraqi soil, including many who served alongside the people in this room. I'll bet everyone of you in uniform knows somebody who was lost or wounded. And although our mission is significantly different today -- you may ask, why am I focusing on this -- although our mission is significantly different today than it was during that period, there are still men and women in uniform in Iraq, making sacrifices as I speak, from protecting our embassy to training and equipping Iraqis to flying sorties. And all of you who wear the uniform know that one of the loneliest feelings for your family, particularly if they don't live on a base, is while every other kid in school, while every other family at church or every other family and neighbor thinks everything is fine, dad or mom is not home for that birthday. They're missing a graduation. They're not there for Christmas or to make a Thanksgiving toast. We have an obligation. We have an obligation that just because we no longer have 160,000 troops there, it's an obligation that's intense and as real as it was when we had 160,000 troops there. They warrant our support. Their families warrant our deep gratitude. And so, folks, as a country, our one shared obligation is to give them what they need on the battlefield and care for them when they come home. Their blood and toil helped give Iraq another chance. Our mission now is to help the Iraqis themselves make the most of this. Thank you all for listening, but most of all, thank you for your service. May God bless the United States of America and may God protect our troops. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) END

VSNVS0299B OCCUPY WALL STREET - PART 2 PATHFIRE NNS STORIES 1. 02:00:31 - 02:02:45 New York - Protest by Occupy Wall Street, arrests10/14/2011 (APTN) VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST: 1. Close of police officer pushing back crowd with baton 2. Mid of protester and police officer staring each other down 3. Wide of protesters behind line of NYPD (New York Police Department) scooters 4. Close up of woman restrained and arrested 5. Various of arrested protesters being lined up against vehicle Deleted section 7. Various of people marching down Broadway chanting UPSOUND: (English) "Who 's streets? Our streets." 8. Mid of people marching down Broadway with brooms in hand 9. SOUNDBITE: (English) Bill Dobbs, Occupy Wall Street organiser: "There's been a lot of tension, a big fight to have this protest and to continue it. And this morning something really interesting and suspiring happened: somebody blinked. The mayor was ready to use the NYPD to come in here, people were very sceptical that it was about cleaning, they thought he wanted to clear the plaza, and this morning they put out a statement that said, well we're postponing everything." 10. Man lying on ground in Zuccotti Park 11. Pan right of cleaning materials in Zuccotti Park 12. SOUNDBITE: (English) Lindsey Anderson, 29-year-old protestor from Brooklyn: "We'll see what happens. I think today was certainly a victory for the movement. We all showed up this morning expecting to be arrested and cleared out and it didn't happen, so..." 13. Crowd marching down Broadway LENGTH: 02:09 2. 02:03:03 - 02:04:10 New York, NY: Occupy Wall Street moves to Occupy Times Square, Washington Square, and Chase Bank. (WABC) 10/14/2011 The Occupy Wall Street protesters were on the move down New York CityStreet marching and signs in Times Square LENGTH: 1:10 3. 02:04:26 - 02:06:14 Cleveland, OH: Wall Street Protest, Occupy Cleveland Sound 10/14/20111 - 16x9 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST: SOT Jonathan Bowen "I've been sleeping here since Thursday of last week." WS of protestors in front of tent. SOT Johnathan Bowen 5/8 "We had 34 people the fist day, next day we had about 50 and it just keeps on growing everyday. Last night the official head count was 65-visible people...not including people who wen to bed early or were in tents." WS of police cruiser in front of tents and WS of Public Square SOT Bowen: "We have three guidelines. One there's no drugs or alcohol. Number two we are non-violent no mater what and three if you do join the occupation we ask that you help out." WS of tents in front of Public Square SOT Nebelski: "Something that I would like to hear more of is the 99% taking responsibility for our own personal lack of education, our own personal lack of motivation for the past few decades." MS of Pedestrians SOT MOS: "More power to 'em. I wouldn't do it, but more power to 'em." WS of Protestors. SOT Victoria Leath: "I can see them protecting. Thank God I have a job but I can see why they're out there. I hope that they make some changes here." SOT Williams: "It's bringing attention to their position, yeah, that much it is doing but it's still more important to vote than to do what they're doing" SOTGargas : "I can see their side and I'm both for it and against it. I work for a big major bank so I'm kind of split." SUPERS: Cleveland, OH Johnathan Bowen | Protestor Daniel Nebelski | Protestor MOS Victoria Leath | Cleveland Resident Tony Williams | Cleveland Resident Lisa Gargas | Cleveland Resident/Bank EmployeeLength: 2:00 4. 02:06:38 - 02:09:30 S an Francisco - News Corp. CEO heckled by Occupy Wall St protesters (APTN)October 14, 2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:1. Wide of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Rupert Murdoch shaking hands as Murdoch walks to podium2. Wide of room3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation CEO:"So let me come right to the point. We need to tear down an education system designed for the 19th century and replace it with one suited for the 21st."4. Cutaway of audience member5. SOUNDBITE: (English) Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation CEO:"You don't get change by plugging in computers to schools designed for theindustrial age. You get it by developing technology that rewrites the rulesof the game by centring learning around the learner."6. Female heckler with Sesame Street's Elmo mask being escorted out of room7. Male heckler dressed as the Sesame Street Count being escorted out ofroom8. SOUNDBITE: (English) Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation CEO:"It's okay. A little controversy makes everything more interesting." (audience laughs and applauds)9. Wide of audience10. Protester shouting in front of Murdoch and being escorted out of theroom11. Wide of Murdoch on stage as audience applauds at end of his speech12. Mid of Murdoch walking off stage13. Wide of activists protesting outside Palace Hotel, where educationsummit was held14. Protesters dressed in Sesame Street character costumes chanting: (English) "Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Sesame Street."15. Mid of activist Joe Hill in Sesame Street costume16. SOUNDBITE: (English) Joe Hill, Activist:"Today was a very symbolic day to protest. Rupert Murdoch and Jeb Bush gottogether to talk about No Child Left Behind and how to use the economiccrisis to further privatise education and divert more public funds intoprivate corporate interests."17. Close up of protester with cardboard sign reading (English) "Anotherstep toward a more corrupted curriculum"18. SOUNDBITE: (English) Christie Hakim, Activist:"Murdoch is all set up to make lots of money off digital learning. Myfeeling is that we should keep the schools open, fund them and we need totax people like Murdoch in order to keep the schools supported."19. Mid of protesters in Sesame Street costumesLENGTH: 02:50 5. 02:09:50 - 02:10:57 Occupy Wall Street - Los Angeles - 10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:MS protestor enters tent. WS community of tents.SOT MOS 1:"I'm here because there is a lot of injustice going on in Americaand the world and this seems like the most realistic way that I can makechange happen at this point."MS protestor in tent.SOT MOS 1:"If you want change to happen you have to be a part of thesolution and when you stay home you are agreeing to the problems that are occurring right now unless you get out and are passionate and doing something in a positive way nothing will ever change." PAN occupied tents. CU Corp Greed sign. SOT MOS 2:"This is really probably the most historical movement in the sense that...I don't think it's going to be a mass rally, I think if you take all three thousand , 5 thousand events there will be millions...if not hundreds of millions perhaps billions of people uniting for one particular cause and that cause is economic justice."Length: 0:57 6. 02:11:24 - 02:13:25 Occupy Wall Street - San Diego - (this story has no sound) 10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:'Various shots of protesters and police clashing. SOT MOS Man 1: "I'd like the police to know that we are on the same side."Various shots of protesters and police.SOT MOS Man 2: "We're done complying."Various shots of police and tents.MOS Police: "We're not here to arrest you...the only thing we want is thetents taken down."Various shots of police with protesters.SOT MOS Woman: "They were holding me up by my neck...my feet were off theground and they were still pushing our bodies together."MS protester being handcuffed.SOT Lansdowne: "We have gone way out of our way to make sure that peoplehave the right to protest...but we also have people in the city of San Diego that need to work. " Various shots of protesters. SOT MOS Woman 2: "That tent is not necessarily because we need to sleep in it...but it is to show that we are here to stay." Various shots of protesters. SOT MOS man 3: "One little tent." Various shots of protesters and police.Length: 2:00 7. 02:13:49 - 02:18:29 Occupy Wall Street - Asia 10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST: Tokyo, Japan 1. Wide of "Occupy Tokyo" rally with banner reading: (English) "Occupy Tokyo !"2. Various of people participating in the rally3. SOUNDBITE: (Japanese) Satoshi Shiroda, 46, protester:"We're among the 99 percent of the people that are not being heard despitethis supposedly democratic country."4. Mid of the rally as a stream of protesters walk past camera5. Wide pan of the rally Manila, Philippines6. Various of protesters holding banners reading: (English) "Solidarityaction for Occupy Wall Street"; marching and chanting (Tagalog) "USimperialist, number one terrorist."7. Wide of police line stopping protesters8. Man holding placard reading (English) "Filipino workers support theOccupy Wall Street."9. Women holding placards reading (English) "Stop raping our motherland!"and "No to 100 percent foreign ownership of our land and industries!"10. Wide of protest leader Jom Salvador giving speech11. Close of placard (English) "Philippines not for sale!"12. SOUNDBITE: (English) Jom Salvador, protest leader:"Like the people of the Philippines, the American people and the peoples ofthe other parts of the world, are tremendously affected by the crisis ofcapitalism, and all over the world, people are rising up including women, to fight for our rights to fight for the future of our children, to fight forthe future of the peoples of the world."13. Protesters holding placard reading: (English) "Genuine People'sDemocracy lives in the Streets!" Taipei, Taiwan14. People gathered outside the Taipei 101 building15. Mid of two protesters speaking in Mandarin through a megaphone16. Close of a protester17. Mid of three protesters seated18. Tilt up from a placard reading: (Chinese and English) "Greed has ruinedmy country. Don't let it ruin yours." to two women19. SOUNDBITE: (English) Robin (no family name given), Canadian Englishlanguage teacher:"I'm from Canada. I came to Taiwan because I couldn't get a job in Canada,and right now we are here to support Occupy Wall Street because they aregetting really bad press in America. And we want to show that all over theworld, we are thinking about them. And we want them to know that everyone is in the same boat and we are going to support them."20. Tilt up from a small sign reading (English) "Occupy Taipei Concert" to a man singing John Lennnon's song, 'Imagine' deleted section Length: 5:00 8. 02:18:48 - 02:19:58 Occupy Wall Street - Hong Kong - 10/15/2011 SHOTLIST1. Tilt down from exterior of Hong Kong Stock Exchange to protesters2. Wide of protesters sitting in front stock exchange with a red bannerreading (Cantonese) "Against Capitalism, Occupy Central"3. Speaker addressing protesters4. Close up of a man with several US dollar bills stuck to his face andslogan reading (English) "Dirty Money"5. Wide of protesters holding placards6. SOUNDBITE (Cantonese) Vox pop,Chester Chan, 19, student:"I hope the government can help those small enterprises whose business areaffected by the monopoly, and help the poor."7. Wide of police guarding building8. Wide of placards in shape of smart phones, with slogans reading (English/Cantonese) "Remedy for Workers" and "Raise unit price"9. Various of protesters in masks and dark clothes lying on ground10. Protester attaching a sign reading (English) "We are 99 percent" to theback of another protester11. Wide of protesters outside Hong Kong Stock Exchange LENGTH: 01:00 9. 02:20:16 - 02:24:22 Europe: Protests across Europe march against greed,inequality. (APTN) 10/15/2011 SHOTLIST: Athens, Greece1. Various of protesters marching and playing drums2. Various of protesters holding banner chanting slogans3. Wide of protesters in front of Parliament4. Mid of protesters whistling5. Wide of protesters marching6. Close up of protesters shouting slogans7. Mid of protesters with banners8. Wide of protesters in front of Parliament building Frankfurt, Germany9. Pull out from Deutsche Bank logo to protesters10. Wide of protest with large banners11. Mid of protesters, some wearing masks12. Policeman next to motorbike watching protest passing by13. Wide of protest14. Low angle shot of man playing drum15. Wide of protest, man with drum in foreground16. Back shot of protest, skyscrapers in background17. Wide of European Central Bank (ECB) building18. Close of banner19. Low angle shot of Euro sign20. Pan over protesters21. Mid of protesters applauding22. SOUNDBITE (German) No name given, Protester:"We always have to take the blame for what the financial markets are doing.It can't go on like this."23. SOUNDBITE (German) No name given, Protester:"In all times there have been revolutions, it is time for one now."24. SOUNDBITE (German) No name given, Protester:"We are the people, we are the 99 percent. We are here for our freedom. Wecan't let ourselves be treated as the slaves of the powers any longer. Wedon't want that any longer."25. Low angle shot of Euro sign26. Mid of protesters applauding27. Wide of Euro sign with protesters Berlin, Germany28. Wide pan over hundreds of protesters gathering29. Wide of fountain surrounded by protesters30. Various of protesters gathered, holding banners31. Pan high shot of gathering, man talking on microphone, protesters cheering32. Mid of large banner reading (German) "In favour of the social revolution worldwide"33. Mid of protesters marching with drums34. Mid of protesters chanting slogans35. Mid of truck with music36. Mid of protester with mask holding sign reading (English) "We are the 99 percent"37. Mid of protesters wrapped with Greek, German and Irish flags38. Mid of protesters holding large banner reading (English) "GlobalDemocracy Now" marching by, wide of protestLength: 4:00 10. 02:24:40 - 02:26:00 South Korea: Protest against free trade agreement. (APTN)LENGTH: 1:17SHOTLIST++DUSK TO NIGHT SHOTS++1. Mid of riot police blocking protesters from getting into Seoul City HallSquare2. Mid of protesters holding signs in Korean saying 'No to Korea - US FTA"and 'Judgement to President Lee Myung-bak'3. Mid of riot police4. Wide of protesters holding candles, chanting5. Mid of protesters, chanting6. Close-up of sign in Korean, saying 'Stop Korea - US FTA'7. SOUNDBITE: (Korean) Hyun-sook Song, 33, activist:"If rice markets are liberalised our farmers will not be capable ofcompeting. Therefore, I recognise that this kind of phenomenon wherepowerful countries take over weaker countries under the good name of theneo-liberalism, must be stopped."8. Close of candles9. Wide of protesters10. Close of protester holding sign in Korean, reading 'Capitalism is broken11. Close of candle waving12. Mid of protesters13. Wide pan of protestersLength: 1:17 11. 02:26:28 - 02:30:31 Europe: Protesters march against greed, inequality, Berlin scufflesl; UK, Italy demos. (APTN) SHOTLIST Rome, Italy1. Wide of thousands of protesters with flags, Colosseum in the background2. Crowd of protesters filling road leading to Colosseum, fire burning onone side3. Wide of thousands of protesters with flags, Colosseum in the background4. Crowd of protesters filling road leading to Colosseum, smoke rising fromfire, one of the banners reads "Berlusconi pussy, go away"5. Pan of protesters6. Pan from fire burning to crowd of protesters to Colosseum7. Mid of fire burning8. Decorated truck with protesters on it, followed by crowd of otherprotesters near the main Termini train station9. Wide of large banner reading (Italian) "we're not asking for a future, we're taking our present back"10. SOUNDBITE (Italian) Monica, no last name given, protester"This is the revolution that we are about to fight in this country, we can't stand anymore that politics has been taken over by economy first, then byfinance, which is something invisible that suffocates the life of people ina very visible way."11. Wide of protest12. Wide of pope John Paul II statue Berlin, Germany13. Wide of group of demonstrators breaking out and running towards theparliament building, or Reichstag14. Protesters arriving at security barrier15. Various of police and demonstrators scuffling over the broken securitybarrier, protesters pulling fences away, policemen pulling them back London, UK16. Various of scuffles between demonstrators and police trying to push them back Paris, France17. Protesters gathered in central Paris as man hands out protest leaflets18. Close-up leaflet19. Close up of woman protester20. Banner reading (French) "Sharing will save the world"21. Police officer standing as demonstrators file past22. Demonstrators chanting (French) "Rebel, rebel!"23. Wide of protesters marching LENGTH: 4:05 12. 02:30:42 - 02:34:43 Italy: Wrap, Violence at anti capitalism demo, cars burning, clashes. (APTN)10/15/2011 SHOTLIST1. Various of police riot vans moving on streets, protesters throwingobjects at them, smoke, tear gas, all around AUDIO: sirens, explosion2. Protesters throwing objects at the police3. Various of wounded policeman on the ground being helped by colleagues4. Policemen in anti-riot gear, police vehicles5. Fire burning AUDIO: explosion6. Policemen in riot gear, smoke7. Rioters smashing windows UPSOUND (Italian) protester off camera: "Journalists are shit" ++VIDEO AS INCOMING++8. Mid of protest, smoke9. Smashed window10. Zoom out of red smoke bomb going off near window11. Smashed bank window, fire burning inside bank AUDIO: explosion12. Various protesters running, chased by police AUDIO: sirens, explosion13. Riot police vehicle moving, including water cannon14. Mid of car burning15. Smashed bank windows16. Protesters, Roman Forum in the background, car on fire17. Black smoke in the air18. Smoke billowing from burnt car19. Firemen dousing car on fire20. Crowd of protesters filling road leading to Colosseum, fire burning on one side21. Wide of thousands of protesters with flags, Colosseum in the background22. Mid of fire burning23. Decorated truck with protesters on it, followed by crowd of other protesters near the main Termini train station24. SOUNDBITE (Italian) Monica, no last name given, protester"This is the revolution that we are about to fight in this country, we can't stand any more that politics has been taken over by economy first, then by finance, which is something invisible that suffocates the life of people in a very visible way."25. Wide of protest LENGTH: 3:50 13. 02:35:00 - 02:36:40 Germany: Scuffles at Berlin "Occupy" protest; London: arrests in LondonOct. 15, 2011VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST: London, United Kingdom++DAY SHOTS++ 1. Tilt up from protesters being held down by police officers to media being pushed back2. Mid of police holding back media3. Pan of man being led away by police officers4. Mid of woman being held by police, UPSOUND (English) unidentified woman:"Let go. Let go."5. Low wide of woman being held against police vehicle, UPSOUND (English)unidentified woman: "Let me go. Let me go."++NIGHT SHOT++6. Mid of police officer falling down steps of St Paul's Cathedral, helpedup by other officers, scuffles Berlin, Germany++NIGHT SHOTS++7. Pan from poster reading (English): "Capitalism is organised crime" towide of German parliament building8. Scuffles between police and protesters, AUDIO: jeering and shouting9. Mid of protesters10. Mid of police officers walking through crowds11. Wide of German parliament buildingLENGTH:2:30 14. 02:36:55 - 02:38:14 Philadelphia, PA: Protesters attend "Occupy Philadelphia" 10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:Various WS protestors. LS of protestor with "Stop Corporate Feudalism" inbackground. LS police officers with bikes PAN to protestors. CU femaleprotestor. Various LS marching protestors.SOT MOS:"What would happen from this? None of us know. I think we need anational dialogue. Maybe even a national strike. And I think there needs tobe more...grass roots representation in government."LENGTH: 1:07 15. 02:38:40 - 02:40:44 New York, NY: Protesters attend "Occupy New York - Times Square" 10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST: WSs, MSs CUs Occupy Wall Street protesters in Times Square with signs,chanting.SOT MOS 1: "I think the significance is that people have felt powerless and apathetic for a long time and it's finally starting to feel to people like we can do something about our situation."SOT MOS 2: "It's going to continue. There should be a million people here Not 100,000, you know, so this will continue to grow.WSs, MSs CUs Occupy Wall Street protesters in Times Square with signs,chanting.LENGTH: 1:26 16. 02:41:09 - 02:42:33 Sacramento Co., CA: Protesters attend "Occupy Sacramento" VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST: MS of crowd in park listening to performer. NATS. WS of crowd listening to a protestor. MS of another speaker as crowd listens. CU of group listening andclapping. MS of man speaking in megaphone. MS of woman being loudly clapped and hugged by another woman with megaphone. MS PAN of clapping and cheering crowd as woman can be heard speaking. CU of woman speaking NATS.Cindy Sheehan speaking at street rally LENGTH: 1:08 17. 02:42:52 - 02:44:58 Oakland, CA: Protesters attend "Occupy Oakland" (KGO)10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:Aerials of protesters LENGTH: 2:00 18. 02:45:14 - 02:46:40 Miami, FL: Protesters attend "Occupy Miami" (WPLG)10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:various of people protesting- signs LENGTH: 1:40 19. 02:47:03 - 02:48:10 Duluth, MN: Protesters attend "Occupy Duluth" (KDLH-CBS)10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:CU of protestors holding signs. MS of protestors holding signs andchanting.'occupy the streets' CU of man holding sign. CUof man holding signstanding on side of highay and wavign to passing cars. MS of people holdingbanner and flags.MS of cars passing by.SOT-Andrews: "I love it I think it's very energizing. It has grown so quicklyI feel people should not just write us off as some lazy movement. I believe that people want to be heard and this is a big deal."CU of banner on awning saying welcome to the people's power plaza. MS ofwomen holding signs by the roadside. MS of two men holding signs. CU of protestorsholding banner.LENGTH: 56 20. 02:48:39 - 02:51:00 Milwaukee, WI: Protesters attend "Occupy Milwaukee" 10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:SOT MOS 1:"And so if the people are here addressing their concerns thepeople who represent them should be here as well." SOT MOS 1:"Well it shows that people are fed up with the way things areoperating now, and that there has to be a way with the way that politicsworks."SOT MOS 2:"I don't think that the process belong to the people they way itshould, in a healthy Democracy, I think it belongs to rich people and Ithink we need to take it back, now is the time." SOT MOS 2:"The process is broken and we have got to fix it."SOT MOS 3:"You know these are intelligent people educated people, teachers,union members, these are working people, this is America here." SOT MOS 3:"These are people who are outraged at the cuts for the rich andmaking the poor pay for it."MOS 3:"There's too many people that are not making any money and there isone percent that are."MOS 3:"Were not just going to sit back and take it anymore."MOS 4:"We are tired of the lies we are tired of the sham, I hope more and morepeople wake up and start thinking for themselves."NAT SOUND MS: Poster board with a 99 percent on it.MS: woman screaming intomega phone, crowd chanting, we are the 99 percent. WS: Large Crowd sittingin open area.NAT SOUND: WS Crowd listing to speaker, VARIOUS MS of people holding upsigns in protest. MS: Police officers standing around talking, WS: Occupy WallStreet sign, WS: People in crowd chanting, Police officers talking to crowdprotesting, MS American flag with a peace sign on it.Length: 2:50 21. 02:51:30 - 02:52:28 Phoenix, AZ: Protesters attend "Occupy Phoenix" 10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST: Various aerial shot of protestors. Aerial shot of protestors holding signs.LENGTH: 44 22. 02:52:50 - 02:54:10 Denver, CO: Protesters attend "Occupy Denver" 10/15/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:WS, protest / protesters coverage LENGTH: 1:20 23. 02:54:46 - 02:56:18 Los Angeles, CA: Protesters attend "Occupy Los Angeles" VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:NAT SOUND MS: crowd marching in a line chanting and marching holding signs,Occupy the USA. to EWS: Crowd marching down the street, MS: People marching.SOT Mando Arellano:"Today was supposed to be one of the biggest worldwideshowings, so we thought we'd come out here and show our support for the 99per centers, which is us."SOT Karen Keating Overmyer:"I said when their marching in the streets I'mgoing to be there and I can't wait and today is the day."MSs: Crowd with signs protesting.SOT Karen Keating Overmyer:"I have family in Europe and my daughter gotbetter healthcare having a baby over their then she would here it's pathetic."NAT SOUND WS: People marching, carrying signsSOT Kristen Stiles:"I feel lucky that I have a job and I can support my kidsbarely."MS: Woman and children sitting by tree,SOT Kristen Stiles:"I thought it was so important to come out here and benot like the face but at least like show that there are real families working Hard trying to get by and it just not fair." ."(Covered by MSs of people marchingcarrying signs.)SOT Mando Arellano:"We hope Washington will get the message because this hasbeen going on for about two months or so we thought by now Washington wouldget the message."(Covered by MSs of people marching carrying signs.)LENGTH: 1:23 24. 02:56:37 - 02:59:31 Occupy Wall Street - Denver, Colorado - 10/16/2011 Various shots of protesters clashing with police.LENGTH:3:00 25. 02:59:50 -03:03:15 New York, NY - Times Square 10/16/2011 VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST:1. Mid of protesters walking towards Times Square holding signs and placards2. Wide of protesters3. Mid of protesters marching4. Close of protester chanting: (English) "We are the 99 per cent" andholding sign reading: (English) "Taxidermy the rich"5. Mid of police officer telling protesters to stop obstructing pedestriantraffic6. Mid pan of protester walking and giving out a "The Occupied Wall StreetJournal" newspaper7. Close of father holding daughter and chanting: (English) "We got sold out, banks got bailed out"8. Reverse shot of protesters9. Mid pan of cars stuck in traffic jam caused by demonstration10. Protester being arrested11. Wide of police officers arresting protesters12. Mid of protesters in handcuffs being escorted to police van13. Police officers putting handcuffed protesters in van14. Wide of protesters in Times Square15. Mid of protesters holding signs reading: (English) "You are the 99percent"; pan to wide of protesters16. Mid of protesters17. Close pan of three protesters holding signs18. SOUNDBITE: (English) Anneliese Trainer, Protester:"We are out here as citizens, we are out here as women, and we are here totalk with, to learn more from other people who are frustrated with thesystem, with this system that's imposing on us, we're here with people whoknow that they're frustrated, they are suffering and like want to havesomething done about it."19. Mid of protesters chanting and holding signs20. Wide of Times Square as police officers try to direct traffic throughand move people on21. Close of police officers trying to control crowd22. SOUNDBITE:(English) Sydney Guzman, Protester:"I believe in the 99 percent, I believe in solidarity. Even if people can'tagree, there's an American solidarity that's to be set on demonstrating andactivating and using our constitutional rights."23. Mid pan of protester making sign24. SOUNDBITE: (English) Hector Santana, Protester"The rich are getting richer while the poor are sitting down, and what I'mgoing to do is write "occupying" over it, because the poor can't do anything but go and talk about their views, they don't have any money, the banks have taken it from them, somebody has taken it from them."25. Mid of protester standing on traffic light above crowd26. Mid of protesters chanting: (English) "The whole world is watching"27. Mid of protesters in centre of Times Square chanting: (English) "We have the right to peacefully assemble"28. Mid of police officers on horseback keeping eye on protesters29. Mid of protesters with mounted police in background

TVU 28 TOM STEYER GREENVILLE SC TOWN HALL ABC UNI 021720 2020 FROM GREENVILLE ONLINE: With the South Carolina Democratic Primary next Saturday, Tom Steyer made a stop in Greenville Monday evening to discuss climate change, the importance of diversity in South Carolina and beating President Donald Trump. Steyer said he understands the importance of South Carolina's early primary and that the results will make a "statement about what kind of person can lead this party and lead this country." The West End Community Development Center was filled with about 500 according to Tiffany Vaughn Jones who works for Steyer's campaign. Some were Steyer supporters and some were still undecided. Greenville resident of 76 years Rhunnetta Young said she came to the event because she's still not sure who she's voting for - but Steyer has stood out to her so far. "I just wanted to hear what he's saying 'cause I've been looking at him on TV and I just wanted to know." Steyer has invested millions into South Carolina in billboards, mailers, video and television ads - and that's how Upstate voters like Simpsonville resident Nicholas Neil discovered him. "I'm kind of feeling it out... I'm not very political," Neil said. "I've heard a lot of ads about him. I feel like I don't know a lot about him. I came over here to see what his forte is." The billionaire former hedge fund investor from New York has become one of the most visible candidates in the state because of his investment in advertisements. "I know that people talk about me as being a rich person," Steyer said. "And I don't think about myself that way at all." Steyer said voters criticizing him for having an unfair funding advantage should look at what he's done, rather than his bank account. "I started the Need to Impeach movement because there was something dramatically wrong in Washington, D.C.," Steyer said. "Someone had to do it and I went after it, heart, soul and money. There's something really wrong here and I'm doing every single thing I can to right it. So if that's the worst thing they have to say about me, I can deal with it." Steyer began the evening with a 15-minute introduction on himself and his policies, focusing on the importance of getting Trump out of office "This is why South Carolina matters so much in 2020," Steyer said. "Whoever is the Democratic nominee has to be able to talk to the glorious diversity that is America and that is South Carolina and that is the Democratic party. If we do not have that, we are not gonna win." To many in South Carolina, like attendee Karine Debaty, getting Trump out of office is their priority going into the Democratic Primary. "I really hate Trump," the Greenville resident said. "I really like many of the Democratic candidates, but Steyer maybe will be more able to talk against Trump and fight and win over Trump." After his introduction, he spent the majority of time answering questions from those in attendance about many topics, including climate change and education. Steyer is known for his focus on climate change - the topic of many of his ads - and has pledged to declare climate change as a state of emergency if he becomes president. He's also pledged to dedicate over $100 million to historically black colleges and universities, raise the collective third-grade reading level nationwide and address the student loan crisis partly by forgiving debt after 10 years in a job that services the community. TVU 28 TOM STEYER GREENVILLE SC TOWN HALL ABC UNI 021720 2020 [18:25:18] So you guys, Doctors Field and Shondra Dillard. Wow. Wow. [18:25:27] Really? Let me say how great it is to be here with you tonight. It is so great to be here in South Carolina. Let me just say, I'm not sure what's going on with this state that my wife has moved here. [18:25:45] Is there something I don't know about South Carolina? [18:25:53] So let me say this, I am going to take as many questions tonight as I can. That's what I really want to do is hear from you what's on your mind and whatever it is. I will try and answer as honestly as possible. I want to do very quick statement for those of you who don't know me well, a little bit about who I am and a little bit about why I'm running for president and how I can kick Donald Trump's ass. [18:26:27] So let me say this. I know people talk about me as being a rich person and I don't think about myself that way at all. Just so you know. Look, my mom was a teacher in New York public schools. And when she retired from him being a teacher in the public schools, she taught prisoners at the Brooklyn House of Detention. You know, I grew up in the middle of the civil rights movement, and that was my mom's way of participating in civil rights with my going into the public schools and teaching kids and then teaching prisoners. [18:26:58] My dad was a he's the first generation in his family to go to college. My grad my father graduated from college at 18. He graduated to law school at 21. My my grandfather was a plumber and my father left the law after after Pearl Harbor to go to the Navy in World War 2 because he felt like when the meet when the United States needs you, then you have to show up. My my parents were Depression era World War 2 babies who felt like you have to show up when the chips are down. [18:27:30] And after the war, because he already had a law degree, they made him the assistant to the chief prosecutor of the Nazi war criminals. I did not ever trust. So my parents. My parents were both people who had incredibly strong moral compasses. My father, when I was growing up, he told my two big brothers and me, when you see something really wrong in the world, then it's your job to make sure that you fight against him, that you go early and you go hard because the Germans didn't do that. [18:28:05] And it ended up in a place that was almost beyond imagining. And I was growing up. I was born in 1957. I was growing up during civil rights. And there were people going very hard at what was wrong without knowing how I would turn out. [18:28:20] And that's why I didn't need to impeach. I said that was. There was something wrong. [18:28:27] At the heart of American society. And when you see something really wrong, then you organize and go against it as hard as you can. And somebody asked me, 8 1/2 million people signed that petition. And they also called their Congress people. They wrote their Congress people. They e-mail their congresspeople and said, do the right thing. This is right and wrong. [18:28:47] This is the United States of America. And they drag the Congress into impeachment. And people asked me, do you feel bad that the president has been exonerated? [18:28:58] He hasn't been exonerated. There was no trial. There was a cover up, a deliberate cover up by Republicans. [18:29:09] Why? [18:29:10] That Republicans broke their oath of office, said, we don't need to see evidence, we don't care about evidence, is it? Is it? And we will not let the American people see the truth. [18:29:21] No, I don't feel bad that they did something wrong. As far as I'm concerned, that's the reason we did it in the first place, is to try and stand up for what's right. And here we are. [18:29:32] Look, now we know where we are for 2020. We get one more shot to get rid of this incompetent criminal president. [18:29:44] That's a pretty important factor, isn't it? I started the business. I started. I never inherited literally a dime for my parents. I started a business. I built a business over 27 years. Turned out to be a multi-billion dollar international business. I walked away from it. I took a pledge to give the bulk of my money to good charities while I'm alive. And then for the last 10 years, I've been organizing people exactly like you guys, American citizens, to fight back against the corporations who fought our government and control our country. [18:30:25] And let me say that we have never lost. [18:30:30] I have never lost to those corporations. You know, the first fight I had was in my home state of California, where two oil companies were trying to repeal the most progressive energy laws in the world. And no, the way I got the job of fighting them was it was like a reverse IQ test. If you're stupid enough to take the job, it's yours out of 40 million people. There was only one person stupid enough to take that job. [18:30:57] But let me say that we got 70 percent of the vote. And before it was over, the presidents of one of those oil companies at lunch said to a friend of mine, I had no idea that Tom Steyer was sent me like home run. Look, I've taken on tobacco companies and made them pay three to four billion dollars a year to the health care system for the lowest income Californians. I closed a billion dollar tax corporate tax loophole in our state and gave the money to the public schools. We have never lost. [18:31:34] I've also filled one of the biggest grass roots organizations in the country called NexGen America, which did the largest youth voter mobilization in American history in twenty eighteen. We went into thirty eight Republican districts. We more than doubled the turnout of young people. We focus on people 18 to 35. More than doubled the turnout of young people. Thirty three of the 38 districts flipped to Democratic. [18:32:04] That's when we are not going to win by convincing Republican voters that we are Republicans with a slightly nicer heart. [18:32:16] It's not going to happen anyway. We're Democrats. I don't want to pretend I'm a republic. Slightly nicer Republican. There are tens of millions of Americans who don't vote and they don't vote because they think both parties lie. Nobody cares about them. The system is broken. Why would I vote? They tend to be young. They tend to be black people. They tend to be Latinos. And they're all Democrats. We don't have to convince them about what's right and wrong. They know what's right and wrong just the way we do. We have to convince them that their vote really matters. [18:32:59] And when they show up, we're going to wave everything that was twenty eighteen. And let me say this. [18:33:06] This is why South Carolina matters so much in 2020. Because if we're going to beat Donald Trump and beat his whole gang, then we have to show up. [18:33:21] And that means all of us. [18:33:25] However, would it be the Democratic nominee has to be able to talk to the glorious diversity that is America and that is South Carolina. And it is the Democratic Party. We don't have that. We are not going to win. [18:33:43] You know, the old saying we must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately. Yeah. [18:33:51] So we're going to have to have a candidate who can get everybody going. And that means we're gonna have to talk explicitly about race. We're gonna have to talk explicitly about ethnicity. We're going to actually have to talk to people about what's going on in this society and tell the truth and promise. We're going to deal with those issues directly on the first day. [18:34:16] We are also going to have to take down Mr. Trump on the economy. [18:34:21] You know, he's running on the economy. He says it every day. [18:34:24] He literally said to a group of Americans in December, he said, You don't like me and I don't like you, but you all are going to vote for me, because if Democrats get control of this economy, they're going to destroy it in 15 minutes. That's his campaign. You're nice. He literally that is literally what he said. [18:34:48] Let me explain what I think he really meant, what he really was saying. No kidding. Is I'm a criminal. You guys know I'm a criminal and I despise 80 percent of you and you despise me. If I came to Greenville, South Carolina, you wouldn't let me in the front door of your house and you wouldn't let me have dinner with your family. [18:35:10] But you're going to vote for me because the Democrats are a bunch of socialists who don't know anything about job creation, growth and prosperity. You hate me and you're gonna vote for me. And here's the truth. [18:35:23] He's a big liar about that. As as he is about everything else, he stinks on the economy for the American people. And we've got to make that case. [18:35:34] Look what I did build a business. That business could never have succeeded if I didn't understand growth, job creation and prosperity. So when he says the country's growing, I can legitimately say, no, it is. And all of the money is going to your friends at the Mar a Lago Country Club. [18:35:54] Well, these days, unemployment is low, which it is. [18:35:59] I think it is low, and you can't live on the jobs that this economy creates. $7 and 25 cent minimum wage is an insult to working people. [18:36:09] It doesn't work for a. [18:36:14] And when he says he loves to talk about the stock market, when he says the stock market is up, it is up. It's up in large part because he gave the biggest tax break in history to rich people and the corporations that trade on the stock market. But you know something? The stock market is a really big deal at the Mar a Lago Country Club, but it's not a really big deal for most Americans because most Americans don't own stocks. [18:36:40] So really, what we have is an economy that works for his friends at Mar a Lago and rich people. And does it work and has it worked for 40 years for working Americans? There has been a war against working Americans by the Republican Party for 40 years. And if they have been winning that war and this election is in large part about turning that around and standing up for working Americans against the corporations that have been crushing us for 40 years. So when you look at what we're fighting for re affordable healthcare, that is a right, a constitutional right for every American. [18:37:20] And the 1 percent, that's not a conversation. [18:37:26] Look, these people despise education. They view education as an expense for corporations. Education is an investment in the future of American prosperity. [18:37:38] It's also investing in the future of American justice. [18:37:43] You can't have a just society unless everybody gets a chance to get ahead. And that means investing in low income communities, black communities, brown communities to make sure those kids specifically get a chance to get ahead. And you get them really early and you support them all the way so that they get a chance to move off for mobility, injustice in our society. [18:38:05] That education, a child will never get anywhere in America. People have a right to breathe air without getting sick and drink water without getting sick and dying. [18:38:21] And they think that poison is just the cost of doing business. [18:38:26] And Americans should just get over the idea that they have a right to clean air and clean water. That's ridiculous. If you think about it from a justice standpoint, someone honestly wants to make money by poisoning your family and yourself. And they think they can get away with it and they can get away with it. [18:38:43] So we're gonna be huge, vibrant people and we're going to have to beat them. And whoever is the nominee has to be able every time Mr. Trump opens his mouth to say your line. Donnie, it's another lie. So I'm ready to take questions, I do want to say this, you guys. South Carolina is going to have it met. You guys matter. [18:39:11] Just because American votes matter, you're one of the four early primary states. But it is actually much more significant than that this year. This state is going to be making a statement about what kind of person can lead this party and lead this country. [18:39:28] There is a gigantic burden on you all to participate and be wise. And I am really asking you to support me in this. [18:39:38] I really want to go and take this guy down because what he's been doing, he's incompetent. I'm going to make the case that he's an incompetent guy, terrible at his job. But it's worse than that. He's he's a he's a bad man. [18:39:55] And they've done bad things. And they've been hurting Americans for a long time. And it is time to turn the page and tell a different story about what America stands for and who we are. And we need to sweep these guys into the dustbin of history where they belong. So I see a question right there in the front row. We have some mike runners and what I would ask you to do right there. Yes. And please state your name. So every no. [18:40:44] No. Who's asking the question? Hi, my name is Amelia. And the question on my house. Sounds like a joke, but it's very. [18:40:56] You win. How do we know that he will actually lead? Right. [18:41:05] I am really not. And here's let me answer that again. It's a serious. I know. So let me say this. [18:41:13] Over a year ago, I did, too, need to impeach town halls in South Carolina. I don't sit my way. South Carolina participated way over the north in the need to impeach me. You should know there are some people here who are not scared of Donald Trump and we're more than ready. [18:41:37] I've always wondered if Hillary was. [18:41:40] But at one of those town halls in South Carolina in January, I think of twenty nineteen in the question part of the town hall, a gentleman stood up and said, I'm a 22 year Marine veteran. And you should know that if Mr. Trump refuses to if he loses the election, but refuses to leave the White House, that everybody in the armed services took an oath to the country, not to the president. [18:42:12] And we will stand by this country under all circumstances. And let me say this was I glad that a 22 year Marine veteran stood up and said a wholly patriotic thing in front of him. Sure I was. [18:42:29] But was I saddened that he felt he had to say that? [18:42:34] Yes. And that's a statement about where we are politically. We have a president who we think would not obey the will of the American people who would try and break the law because he's scared about what will happen to him after he it to the White House. [18:43:02] Oh, hey, I want to start with you. Let me go ahead. [18:43:07] I wanted to talk about that actual number of unemployment. So when we say that it's less than 1 percent. The reality is that in the workforce, many have already left. And if they are on unemployment, that is the number that they are using to base that on. So when someone is not eligible for benefits or someone loses benefits or their benefits run out, they don't count anymore. So that number is not a true number. [18:43:40] So when I look at this and we look at the economy, you see poverty today, many that are not working and they are they are lucky if they can get a job. I think knows. So I'm asking, what are we going to do? First of all, to make that a real number. And secondly, how are we going to get people back to work in a real job with real income? [18:44:03] So let me say this. I completely agree with the idea that we have a terribly skewed sharing of economic prosperity in this country. [18:44:15] And I'll just give you one statistic to drive home. In 1980, 40 years ago, the CEO of a big company could expect to make 40 times as much as the average worker in a company in his company. It was mostly his. To be fair. Today, that number is 400 times. The disparity has grown ten times in the last 40 years. So the question is, how are we going to get it? Let me say this $7 and 25 set minimum wage. I said it's an insult to working people. [18:44:50] If you took the 1980 minimum wage and inflation adjusted it, so it's the same amount of money. But in our dollars 20, 20 dollars, it would be eleven dollars, not seven or twenty five. And if you included the increase in productivity that American workers have achieved over the last 40 years, could we get a lot more work done in that hour than people did 40 years ago? And you split it the way it's traditionally split between employers and working people. [18:45:17] The minimum wage will be 22 bucks. That's what's happened over the last 40 years. So what can we do about it, really? I have a tax plan that basically goes back to a progressive tax rates. Richer people pay higher percentage of their income. Right now, it's the other way rich people pay a lower percentage of their income than working people. I have a wealth tax. I take away big tax giveaways to rich people and corporations. [18:45:45] And I would treat investment income the way I treat earned income. Why should I pay a lower rate on investment than someone who goes to work at 8:00 in the morning and works? And then I would give a 10 percent tax cut to every American who makes less than two hundred and fifty thousand bucks. Easy to do. We'd have a ton of money left over. If we go back to a progressive tax system. Part of it should be a 10 percent tax cut for everybody with less who makes less than 250 grand. [18:46:16] So let me say another thing. I'm a climate, but we have to deal with our climate problem on one. But people act like act like this is going to be an economic cost to America. No. We are going to create the biggest job program and we have to rebuild America. Think about it. We have to rebuild the roads. We have to rebuild the electrical system. We have to rebuild the buildings. We have to build public transportation. Big is union job program in American history. How are we going to get jobs? These are millions of jobs every single year for as far as the eye can see. How are we gonna do it? [18:46:59] We're way overdue on this. I don't mean to be rude, but the roads and bridges in this country are way overdue. There's a. We have spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't feel that's actual money. That is money we did not spend rebuilding the United States of America. We are going to have to have different parties. [18:47:28] So that's the second thing is there are three things are if we move the minimum wage to at least fifteen bucks, tens of millions of Americans get a dramatic raise in their income. [18:47:40] If we change the tax system so that it's regressive again and give a tax cut to 95 percent of Americans, people who make less than 250 grand, get to take more home, more money, and we have a lot more money to pay for health care, education and every kind of support we can talk about, including specifically Social Security. [18:48:05] Let me say this is the last thing I'll say. People, you know, there, Trump said. He said, I'm going to cut these taxes for rich people and corporations and he's going to meet me, get more tax money and gives me such a big boom in the economy that the actual tax dollars are going to go up even though the tax rate goes down. That was a lie. [18:48:26] We have a huge deficit and he has said that after the election he is going to cure the deficit by cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's not it's terrible. It's not even. I don't disagree. That isn't a moral thing to do. And people ask me, under what circumstances would you allow a cut to Social Security? And just so you know, set over 70 percent of the people who get Social Security. It's their number one source of income. [18:49:03] And for over 40 percent, it's their only source of income. [18:49:08] So here's my answer. I would allow Social Security to be cut. Over my dead body. [18:49:23] In a tax cut to rich people and corporations and then cut people's health care and social, that is wrong. [18:49:30] That's who we're talking about. So in answer your question, we are going to go back to an economy that we shared, the wealth that we move up together. [18:49:39] What we have is a banana republic. It's never worked. It never will work. And we're going to stop it as fast as possible. [18:50:03] All right. Let's do it. We said we do this. You. [18:50:08] Sorry, sir. No, don't be sorry. Just go it. I agree with everything you say. The place, your nature, George born. I'm a 28 year Air Force veteran. I love my country. I'm not sure how much how many questions you get about about the military. [18:50:35] But while I agree with everything you said, I think we need to be able to do it all and absolutely trump this guy to be the most dishonorable commander in chief. I hesitate to use the commander in chief, right quote. But we have to still be engaged in the world with all of our instruments and power. The last resort of which military. My question to you, sir, is where do you stand on funding the military? I'm not talking about veterans like me, V.A., etc, etc.. Are you necessarily personnel? I'm talking about strategy, modernization, et cetera. [18:51:19] So, George, let me say this. I don't want to not talk about veterans, the V.A., etc. because to me, if someone has risked everything for this country, we have to be all in for that. [18:51:34] Not my wife, and I believe I believe we've been reckless with the lives of military personnel. Now, I think there's been a sense that people come home in one piece. Physically, they're fine and we all know that's not true. And then there hasn't been the kind of support that's necessary. And a lot of people have come home and are suffering really dramatically. [18:51:58] And it's been true for either one of my best friends as a Vietnam vet who was diagnosed with PTSD. And yet you're 65. So people have been suffering for a long time and we have a responsibility to deal with that and to spend the money on mental health and care so that those people are taken care of. [18:52:17] So what? [18:52:18] Let's talk for a second about obviously the first job of the president is to care for the safety of the American people. Number one job. You can not miss it. You cannot compromise on it. It's absolutely critical. But when I think about how we're safest, I honestly believe that Mr. Trump's way of going about it is completely wrong, because my experience of when we've been safe, this is when we've stood up for what's right, along with our traditional freedom and democracy loving allies. [18:52:54] You know, we have allies around the world with whom who have stood with us and who we've stood by for generations. And America is a value driven country. Freedom, justice, equality around the world. That's what we stand for. And we have done that. You know, our NATO allies. That is a serious bond around the world for what we stand for. And the idea that we would go to America first. You know, no allies, no values. You can't trust us. [18:53:28] We can take advantage of you. We will. But it's not us. I mean, think about what we've stood for in the Second World War, in the Marshall Plan. What President Obama did, putting together a coalition to push the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear ambitions, to make us all safe, to stay, but also to show what America stands for. [18:53:51] I believe. Look, we have to fund our military. We have to be safe. But it's a last resort. And I think we you know, if you look at the last 20 years, I think we've been reckless with the lives of our service people. And we've jumped into wars that have not worked and we've jumped in on false pretenses. [18:54:14] And then we've stayed when we know it's not working. And that means we're sacrificing the lives of our service people. We're sacrificing the lives of people in those countries. And we're telling people that we're not the country we want to be. And so do I honor the people doing the service? Yes. Do I know we have to have the ability to protect ourselves 100 percent, but we're gutting the State Department. We're gutting diplomacy. [18:54:41] We have no strategy. We have no partners in that. You know, Mr. Trump does not understand that doing the right thing and standing for what's right has ramifications that go on and on and on and on. General, good. And being a bully and breaking the law and being untrustworthy and lying has ramifications are bad to go on and on and on and on. And that's not true. So. [18:55:14] I really would. I enjoy it. I really have to separate. [18:55:18] The biggest thing we have to separate is the skill, professionalism and dedication of the service people in all of the branches of service. [18:55:30] And then the need both to protect them and to be aware that as a country, military action is our last resort. The very last thing we should go to after we've done everything we can to work through diplomacy, our allies, building cooperative things. We should not be the trigger happy policemen of the world having. [18:56:02] Go ahead. [18:56:04] Well, we have completed this. If she goes in, then you're OK. [18:56:07] Go ahead. Hi, my name is Kay. And I'm curious how you would go about persuading some friends on the other side of the aisle to make your plans real ones here. [18:56:22] So, OK. People ask me that question a lot. And I think everyone in this country is sick to death of the kind of possible partisanship that we've seen for the last 20 years. I know that. And the problem is everyone ask Democrats what they're going to do to get along with Mitch McConnell. [18:56:44] But nobody ever asked Mitch McConnell what he's going to do to get along them. [18:56:52] I try look. I am the world's softest doctor. If you tell the truth and put the country first, we can disagree on everything. Literally everything. I'm cool. If you just tell the truth and you think there's a better way to get just serve the American people. I'm fine. Disagree. Big government. Small government. Let's have the conversation. But if you don't tell the truth and you put yourself ahead of the American people, my temper goes off like that. And that's what I've been seeing. Obviously. [18:57:26] I don't really have a card. It literally just said we don't care about the evidence. He's innocent and we're going to cover up the evidence so no one else can find it. We haven't. [18:57:37] Look, Mr. Trump has been a racist from the get go. [18:57:43] What do you do in the middle of that? They are literally denying science. What do we do? Agree with half of science? [18:57:53] We honestly were in a place of extreme partisanship, but not equal partisanship. If you look eight years, the Republicans never did a single compromise with President Obama. He went to work in good faith over and over. He never got a single compromise. Not one time. If you look, the Democrats have compromised already with Mr. Trump on the crime bill, on the Mexico, Canada, USMC. Democrats have been willing to do what's right for the country, even though it's good for Mr. Trump. [18:58:34] Prevented him from appointing judges to the federal bench. He's more than enough to make a Supreme Court judge. There's something wrong here, so that's why I keep saying I'm not a meat in the middle guy. I have made tens of millions of Americans need to show up who haven't shown up before. And we have to be telling the truth and we have to say, look, we're doing this or dying, trying because there's something wrong here and we all need to show up because there is no meeting in the middle with these guys. [18:59:10] And everyone wants to believe there is. But look, honestly. It is really we're at a pretty pass when we have a party that has gone to where they've gone. And so from my standpoint, you can look they go into rooms and conspire how to take away voting rights from African-Americans. Where do you meet? There is. That is really wrong, you know. And so we're going to have to actually win. That's the one thing these guys will understand is winning. And so I look at 20/20 as we have to tell the truth. Organize like heck at the grass roots, show up and win in places that they don't even think we're going to be competitive. [19:00:02] That's actually the. [19:00:11] Meninges Quadrio Fairborn was the chairman of the Democratic Black Caucus Economic Development, you called for heavy investment in job training in certain communities. How are you going to make sure that communities that are traditionally. [19:01:18] To talk about the history of the last 400 plus years of African-Americans in the United States, because I believe that policy falls out of narrative and we have to tell the truth about what's happened over the last 400 plus years so that we can come to the right policy solutions. And so I want to talk about not just legalized institutional discrimination, racism and cruelty. I also want to talk about the contributions of the African-American community to America in terms of building the country, but also the moral leadership. [19:02:00] I think people don't know. Long before Dr. King and after Dr. King, the African-American community had been providing the moral leadership in this country consistently. [19:02:11] It's got to be said because it's going to bring us to a different place. [19:02:15] I don't know if you know this, but my wife and I did start a community bank specifically to deal with some of these issues, specifically to support economic justice, environmental sustainability. And businesses owned by black people, Latinos and women, because the financial industry is still discriminatory where they were going to red line. We wanted to go. And in fact, part of that, we've supported over 80, 500 affordable housing units in the last three years that are getting. [19:02:48] Every single question is this big? It's fifteen years old. It's about over a billion one. We'll never get it. The idea is it's a nonprofit. Banks will never get the money back. It's just mission driven. But we also know we're a billion dollar bank from nothing. Their trillion dollar banks out there, we have to change the system. So let's talk to one second about housing. We are 7 million affordable housing units short in this country. [19:03:19] We have a dramatic affordable housing shortage and crisis. And why is that true? It's true because America under Ronald Reagan decided that the market would provide that the market is just fair and will provide affordable housing. And 40 years later, we know for a fact that won't. So part of my climate plan involves hundreds of billions of dollars to renovate existing affordable housing. I've been to and which definitely needs a dramatic upgrade, but also to build millions of new units because the market is not going to provide. [19:03:56] And we're seeing not just a shortage. We're seeing gentrification. People forced out of their communities by rising rents and by people building expensive condos that people can't afford. So what is that going to look like? It is going to look like the government stepping in and building those units. That's part of the millions of jobs that we're going to create is we're going to have to build millions of units. And that is the government's job. Look, I worked in the private sector for 30 years. I know whether markets are just efficient and fair. They're not. That's a myth. And housing is a result of that. [19:04:36] We are going to have to have, you know, see stands for the Community Reinvestment Act. It's a way of trying to force banks to invest in low income neighborhoods. I just use you use the terms. I just want everyone to know it's. It's really banks try and jimmy it so they can make their numbers without actually doing the real work. The reason our bank. [19:04:59] We had to develop actual metrics for every loan to see the community impact because no one has done that. It is an incredible bang for the buck. If the government will support the kind of credit unions and banks that we're talking about that we will do because, you know, I would say money in a low income community is like water in a desert. [19:05:26] I don't know if you guys have ever worked on a farm, but I have. And if you ever really dry field and you have an irrigation ditch and you let the water just go over that field and you come back the next day, the fields green, it is like magic. [19:05:40] And that's what happens in low income areas. You need money for people to build businesses. People need, you know, mortgages so they can buy houses and build their family wealth. People need support with financial systems. And there has been discrimination in this for decades and generations. [19:05:59] And part of reparations is figuring out how to undo that. Because black wealth is much less than white wealth, largely due to extremely straightforward discrimination and prevention from not having success. [19:06:19] Hi, my name is Sandra. I'm a transplant here from Iowa and I've been your South Carolina public schools for 20 years. [19:06:28] I want to know everybody talks about preschool education and getting much better grades in college. There's still twelve years, is it? Yes. And I want to know what you mean for those two years. Kids, especially in space, South Carolina, I mean, Brown versus Board of Education past. And it's been a long or how many years have you lost? So it. Yes, but it has not solved the problem. I mean, I taught 20 years in classes for 94 percent. [19:08:04] And so that I really there is so many things that we need to do with really young kids to put them on the right path. [19:08:14] And. [19:08:18] I said my mom was a teacher. My uncle was a teacher. My grandfather was a teacher. And my brother Jim has spent his life being an advocate for at risk kids. And he's told me for 35 years that if you don't get home by 3:00, you're probably too late. If you don't get it by 5:00, you're definitely too late. So when I think about what we're doing in this society, you know, the old saying from the Bible, where by treasurer is there is die heart also over not spending nearly enough money on education and kids. And so what does it look like? [19:08:55] One of the things the federal government does is called Title 1. I'm sure you've heard of it. And Title One is basically to try and equalize the amount of money spent for low income kids. As for rich kids in the public schools, I would triple title one. Look, you can't have a just society if kids don't have a chance to move up in society, if they can't get the educational support that they need to live up to all of their ambitions and dreams. So when you talk about what I would do, I am a huge believer in paying teachers a lot more money. For starters, is dramatically underpaid. [19:09:39] But I'm also somebody who really believes in supporting teachers completely differently in terms of having mental health people in schools, nurses and schools, librarians in school, giving them continuing education. Teachers get paid dramatically less than other professionals with similar educational backgrounds trip. And there's an obvious reason why our district is traditional teachers were women and so automatically they get paid less. So when I think about this, I mean, in every single level of education, this is the engine of American prosperity. [19:10:15] This is the engine of American mobility. And this is if we don't use it as the engine of American justice, that means we are legislating inequality for another generation. And you can't think about it without talking about race. So in all of this, just so you know, we spent over 700 million bucks a year on defense. [19:10:38] We spent 70 billion dollars a year on education with a ten x. [19:10:45] Trump's budget has increased the defense budget by over $100 billion since he's been there. That's more than we spend on the kids in this school, at the federal level, in this country, at the federal level. So in answer to your question, I would really, really change our priorities. And do I care about K-12? I care like heck about K-12. Every single level of the educational process is incredibly important. [19:11:11] But to be fair, I think that early education, getting kids on that right path is almost infinitely valuable because when you're on the wrong path, that's life. And it's, you know, having a kid on the right path and third grade is so great for him or her and their family and their community and everybody else in the United States of America. [19:11:49] Yola Robert Robinson Simpson right here. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. Does everybody know it? [19:12:06] Good question, doctor. Jonathan wants me to keep down the questions. We'll try. [19:12:21] Hi, my name is Millions. And I'm just wondering. I've been watching a commercial for two years and believe me, you have my vote. But I'm have to educate all of the people that I know in Louisiana and Texas. We really have not heard a lot from you and hear a lot from your opposers. [19:12:38] . But they're saying, well, we don't we don't have to lie in these commercials here. Me say so. Could you share some insight on that? And another thing to add, you haven't thought about going on with maybe grow Mark with somebody who has a huge following. [19:12:53] Right. I've been on with Roland Martin. I love Roland Martin. [19:13:00] I have. You know how we are starting to move in, Chief. We are in the Super Tuesday states. The real goal is to build up a really good Nevada, have a really good South Carolina, and have people realize, wow, this is how we're going to beat Trump. This is the coalition that's going to beat Trump. These are the people that are going to be Trump. [19:13:20] . And this is the candidate who's gonna beat Trump. So it really has got to be you've got to have momentum coming out of Nevada. Huge momentum coming out of South Carolina and basically be making a statement to everybody on Super Tuesday. Here we come. We are there. We are on the ground and we are advertising. But that's the plan. So. [19:13:43] OK. Go ahead. This is the last question. That's the last question. [19:13:51] Jonathan Metcalf is top of my head. No pressure there. Last question, right? I was. I don't want this to sound like a silly joke to you. And most of Washington, you guys know what the price of milk is in a loaf of bread. Groceries. You know how much you want to go shopping? Yes, I do. [19:14:16] So what about Pinterest? Listen. One of the things that is true about the last 10 years for me is I have been on the road doing town halls, registering voters, going on to campuses, talking to people and talking to activists all over this country full time. So when people I can understand how people think that I'm a rich person would be removed. [19:14:47] But actually, I have spent all of my time listening and talking to people from around this country about what really matters. And so am I in touch with the cost of things? I really am. And in fact, you should I also raise cattle, chickens and pigs. [19:15:08] So I really know the cost of not only the cost of the supermarket, I know the cost of a bushel of corn and what you get for selling heifer. So there. But the question is a real question. And the question is this are you in touch with the reality of people's lives? That is the real question. And I believe I mean, let me say one more thing. [19:15:34] We're talking about food. So someone asked me in a town hall if I believe in God and I do believe in God. [19:15:47] And I actually put a cross on my hand in the morning every day to remind myself about doing the right thing no matter what. But my wife and I also started a program in California. It's farm to table in the public schools because we could see of kids school. The food they get in school is the food they get. And they were eating some of the worst food. You know, they're eating a lot of packaged food. [19:16:19] They're leaving a lot of junk food. It's very bad for their health. It's also very bad for their attention at school, because as any parent knows, Cheetos and Coke does not prepare you to study in the afternoon. So we started doing it near our farm. We said we'll take over the public school food system and we'll do farm to table. You don't have to subsidize it. We'll do it. We can do it for the same price. We are now those schools that serve 300 million meals a year. [19:16:47] I started by saying, do I believe in God? [19:16:52] And I said to the person, the closest I've ever been to God is watching an 8 year old little boy in San Isidro, California. Eat a fish taco farm to table in his public school on a sunny day. A really poor kid with a really big spark. [19:17:11] And that is the actual value to me. [19:17:15] That program of letting a really poor kid eat really healthy food and enjoy it on a sunny day. That is about as close as we all will ever get to go. [19:17:34] So, guys, I don't know what Jonathan Metcalf Jonathan is reminding me. We need your vote. We do. Listen, you guys. I have a very straightforward attitude about this. [19:17:48] I played sports my whole life. I played team sports my whole life. And I have an attitude about people on my team. If you're my teammate, you're my friend, you're my equal. You're my partner. I love you. And nobody runs down the field and kicks my teammate in. The face cannot happen. Can't happen. And I view you and I viewed the American people as my team. And I've been watching people run down the field and kick you in the face. [19:18:16] And whether that's trying to take away your Social Security or deny you health care or not, letting you afford the drugs or saying we're not going to have adequate education for kids. I do. That is we're rich enough. [19:18:29] That's completely unnecessary. We're the richest country in the history of the world. We can take care of each other and a completely different level. We can share the wealth in a completely different level. That's how we'll actually be prosperous and grow together. And so I am willing to do anything to stand up for my teammates, literally. [19:18:54] And I want you to stand up for me because we're going to take these guys down and there's no two ways around it. So let's win. Let's go win. Let's show them what we're going to do with.

1200 DOD BUDGET BRIEFING FS22 77 1355 DOD BUDGET BRIEFING FS22 72 DEFENSE DEPARTMENT NEWS BRIEFING ON THE F.Y. 2019 DEFENSE BUDGET FEBRUARY 12, 2018 SPEAKERS: UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) DAVID L. NORQUIST DIRECTOR, FORCE STRUCTURE, RESOURCES AND ASSESSMENT, JOINT STAFF, LIEUTENANT GENERAL ANTHONY R. IERARDI [*] STAFF: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for coming. This is the rollout of the F.Y. '19 budget. It's my pleasure to introduce Under Secretary Of Defense Comptroller David Norquist and U.S. Army Lieutenant General Anthony Ierardi. They will provide an overview of the F.Y. '19 defense budget, followed by your questions. After this briefing, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Missile Defense Agency will follow. And so, with that, I will turn it over to David. NORQUIST: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name's David Norquist. I'm the CFO and comptroller here at the Department of Defense, and I'm joined by General Ierardi from the Joint Staff. Thank you for being here to discuss the F.Y. 2019 budget request for the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense's enduring mission is to provide combat-ready military forces to deter war and reinforce America's traditional tools of diplomacy. The size and type of force we need depends on our nation's strategy, which is described in two documents: The National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy. Next slide, please. The National Security Strategy explains how the president intends to put his national security vision into practice. It describes the challenges our nation needs to respond to, and identifies our four vital national interests. From this, the department creates a National Defense Strategy. Secretary Mattis issued the National Defense Strategy last month and had several classified briefings with Congress last week, where he explained the strategy in detail. An unclassified version of the NDS is available on the <DOD> website, and a summary is included in your budget overview book. To give a brief description, consistent with the National Security Strategy, the U.S. next slide, please. Consistent with the National Security Strategy, the U.S. must be prepared to compete, deter war and, if necessary, fight and win, expanding the competitive space by leveraging all elements of national power. Great power competition, not terrorism, has emerged as the central challenge to U.S. security and prosperity. It is increasingly apparent that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian values and, in the process, replace the free and open order that has enabled global security and prosperity since World War II. Our nation's strategy seeks areas of cooperation with competitors from a position of strength. But we recognize that, if unaddressed, the eroding U.S. military advantage versus China and Russia could undermine our ability to deter aggression and coercion in key strategic regions. Secretary Mattis has set out three lines of effort necessary to sustain U.S. influence and preserve peace through strength. These lines of effort include: build a more lethal, resilient, agile and joint force -- and ready joint force; strengthen alliances and attract new partners; and reform the department's business practices for greater performance and affordability. Next slide, please. The National Defense Strategy guided the process we used to build the budget. It determined the issues we examined, the decisions we made and the level of funding that was required. Last week, Congress voted to raise the caps on defense spending to a level that would support the strategy and allow us to restore and rebuild our military. Let me briefly walk through the numbers. The overall number you often hear is $716 billion. That is the amount of funding for what is called national defense, the accounting code is 050, and includes more than simply the Department of Defense. It includes, for example, Department of Energy and others. That large a number, if you back out the $30 billion for non-defense agencies, you get to $686 billion. That is the funding for the Department of Defense, split between $617 billion in base and $69 billion in overseas contingency. For those of you who have a copy of our budget overview, that was printed before the budget deal. It was part of a reassembly, you see a slight difference in mix between base and OCO; the top line the same, all the initiatives and programs are in the same, but during the process of rebuilding this, some of those items were in OCO, and with the increase that came from the congressional action, those items will move to base. This increase is $74 billion, or it's 10 percent real growth over the levels set in this C.R. It is 5 percent real growth over the president's budget. We are appreciative of Congress raising the caps and ending the destructive effects of sequestration-level funding. And we are committed to the reforms necessary to be good stewards of taxpayers' money. Next slide. While a $74 billion increase is large, it is important to put it in its historical context. Even with this budget agreement, defense outlays will remain near historical lows as a share of the U.S. economy. In 2010, <DOD was 4.5 percent of GDP. But, even with the budget agreement, we will average approximately 3.1 percent for the next several years. It is also important to understand the hole we are climbing out of. Next slide, please. Many of you heard Secretary Mattis' comments about the damaging effect of sequestration. So let me put that into numbers for you. Imagine if, starting in 2011, the year before sequestration, the defense budget grew by just inflation -- not as fast as the economy, not with requirements, but just inflation. That is the black line shown at the top. The red line shows the actual funding, as modified by various bipartisan budget agreements. So, over a five-year period, our forces have endured over $400 billion in lost readiness, maintenance and modernization. With the bipartisan budget agreement, that hemorrhaging stops. It is a sign of how deep the hole is that we are in, that it takes this big of an increase just to get the department's budget back to where inflation alone would have put us. Next slide. Looking forward, after 2019 the Defense topline grows by inflation through F.Y. '23. In addition, starting in F.Y. '20, per OMB's direction, we will look to shift the enduring costs of our overseas contingency operations into base on a one-for-one basis, reducing the size of OCO while staying within the same topline. The number in '18, here, represents the C.R. level, which is where we are held flat at F.Y. '17 levels of funding during the continuing resolution plus the missile defense and defeat funding that Congress adopted in December. Next slide. In 2016, our military was the smallest it had been since before World War II. So the National Security Strategy directed, quote, "The U.S. must reverse recent decisions to reduce the size of the joint force and grow the force while modernizing and ensuring readiness." Consistent with that guidance, we are proposing to increase the force by 25,900 above the F.Y. '18 president's budget, and an increase of 56,600 by 2023. This allows us to fill in units and provide key skills related to recruiting pilots, maintainers and cybersecurity experts. It also allows us to add units related to reinforcing the National Defense Strategy, such as with the Army, the security force assistance brigades, the Multiple Launch Rocket System battalion, and their shorehead battalions. Next slide. To support a more lethal force, we have a number of investments in major acquisition programs. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would increase from 70 to 77 aircraft. The F-18 Super Hornet would go from 14 to 24 aircraft to help us address an operational shortfall in Navy TACAIR. The Navy's purchase for its battle force ships is 10, with 54 ships over the next five years. This increases the size of the Navy from 2018 of 289 ships to 326 by F.Y. '23. Among the increases in the ships that you see listed there, is the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer goes from two to three, each of those destroyers equipped with the air and missile defense radar, reflecting the changing threats that we face. Next slide. The National Defense Strategy also directed that we be able to strike diverse targets inside adversaries' air and missile defense network, to destroy mobile power projection platforms. This required us to make a significant investment in the capacity and the production of munitions, so you'll see some quantity increases in the budget related to munitions. The Joint Direct Attack Munition goes from 35,000 to 44,000. The Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System used by the Army, production quantities go from 6,000 to near-10,000. For those who aren't familiar, this is a long-range missile about 40 miles in range, useful for the high-end fight, when you're dealing not with the assumption of air superiority, but when you're trying to suppress the enemy's defenses. You need to be able to reach them from a distance. Also consistent with the challenges of the high-end fight, you'll see the additional investment in the Army's M1 Abrams tank modernization and upgrade program. We go from upgrading 56 tanks in a year to 135. Next slide. The National Defense Strategy called for the modernization of the nuclear triad. It also directed that we focus on a layered missile defense and disruptive capabilities for both theater, missile threats and the North Korean ballistic missile threat. NORQUIST: With that guidance, we invested in a nuclear deterrent modernization program for the triad, as well as increased funding for Missile Defense Agency and the larger missile defense program. If you compare '17 to '19, the missile defense goes from $8.5 billion to $9.9 billion. Part of the reason the '17 to '19 is there was a missile defense amendment in '18 that began a series of initiatives. This budget continues those initiatives adopted by Congress in December. For the ground-based midcourse defense, we're on path to procure 20 additional missiles, to bring that capacity from 44 to 64 by 2023. Part of the nature of the changing environment is the importance of staying in front of the technology changes and the evolving threats as it expands across a number of different domains. And so our research program reflects that. We have investments in critical areas, such as hypersonic technology. NORQUIST: Next chart -- sorry. Thank you. Hypersonic technology, such as high-speed strike weapons; investments in autonomy -- think of swarming tactics of UAVs, unmanned aerial systems -- cyber-integrated defense; defensive and offensive operations; space resilience; directed energy, such as high-energy lasers; electronic warfare; and artificial intelligence. This spread shows how the domains that we are operating in, and that our enemies are attempting to operate in and challenge, has expanded, and we need to be able to address those. Next slide. Now I'll turn it over to General Ierardi. IERARDI: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Lieutenant General Tony Ierardi of Joint Staff G-8. A major thrust of the National Defense Strategy oriented on great power competition: specifically, Russia and China. And, in this respect, our investments to support activities, both capability and posture, in Asia and Europe are an important aspect of this budget. Just a highlight here on this chart: Some of the key enhancements with regard to Asia including continued investment in air and space superiority; procurement of additional weapons systems, including the Virginia payload module for our Navy submarines; procurement of additional P-8As, three additional in this budget; and work to increase naval presence appropriately as this strategy is implemented in the Pacific, to include infrastructure investments. In Europe, we continue robust increases in our investments to enhance Army pre-positioning stocks and responsiveness from Europe, including the enhancement of a second armored brigade combat team's worth of equipment in an Army pre-positioned set; replenishment of wartime stocks, including preferred and advanced munitions and increased lethality of each; and expansion and enhancement of air bases to support our operations, as appropriate, in Europe. Next chart, please. IERARDI: Warfighting readiness continues to be an emphasis that Secretary Mattis makes from his arrival in the department, last year, and continues with this budget, with a robust budget to support full-spectrum readiness recovery across the board in the joint force , advances the department's multi-pronged, multi-year approach to enhance readiness, and to do so in a way that orients on major competitors, and have a full-spectrum capability would include enhancements at the individual level, as well as collective level, in our joint force units, and would support combatant command exercises and enhancements to support joint training capabilities, reassuring allies and providing for our presence abroad. Next chart, please. The services will all come and talk to their programs to you. Each of the services have plans in place to leverage this budget and to enhance readiness, to support the joint force. The Army will increase home-station training and high-end training at its combat training centers and will grow end strength -- continued growth from '17 to '18 and '18 to '19, to avail a larger number of soldiers in both the active and reserve components to fill critical personnel gaps and to grow appropriate structure. The Navy will orient their efforts on maintenance and depot-level repair of ships and fighter aircraft and to work to build depth in that enterprise, to enhance the overall readiness of the Navy. The Marine Corps continues focusing on training and expeditionary operations and will enhance the force by including an additional 1,100 Marines, with the associated enablers, to build additional training readiness and capability in the Marine Corps, as well as enhancing long-range precision fires, air defense and enhanced maneuver capabilities. The Air Force will grow the force to have appropriate and adequate levels of pilot, cyber, specialists, maintainers and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance specialists to support operations in the Air Force, as well as supporting weapons systems sustainment and lethality in the force. United States Special Operations Command, our Special Operations Forces -- investments will continue to be made to enhance intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as the mission training and support to the deployed special operators and those in training for future missions. I'll turn it back over to Mr. Norquist. NORQUIST: Thank you. Next slide, please. The budget provides a competitive compensation package that reflects the unique demands and sacrifices of U.S. service members. The F.Y. '19 military pay raise request is 2.6 percent, which is higher than '18 and the largest pay raise in nine years. It is linked to the employment cost index. For an E6 for example, an Army staff sergeant -- that would represent an annual increase of $1,169. Of significance: The 2019 budget request does not include any health care cost-sharing reforms, as requested in previous years. I will talk about this more later. But, when you hear this administration talk about reform, we are referring to changing the way that Defense's business operations function to make them less expensive and more efficient. We are not talking about the types of reforms that were done in the past, with shifting co-pays. We also invest $8 billion to sustain family support initiatives, including educating 78,000 students and operating 2,837 commissaries. One of the challenges of being under sequestration for a long period of time is the effect it has Next slide. On facilities. It's one of the first things, maintenance, that gets affected when money is tight. And so that was one of the areas we wanted to address in this budget. NORQUIST: We are committed to giving our warfighters the facilities and training areas they need. So we've increased the facility investment by 7 percent over the 2018 base budget request, for a total of $10.5 billion, ensuring they have the facilities they need to be successful. This includes operational and training facilities, such as airfield improvements, training ranges, maintenance and production facilities, such as hangars, missile-assembly buildings, high-explosive magazines, all related to readiness, investments in recapitalization of poor or failing condition buildings and facilities, and improving the quality of life for service members through additional investments in schools, barracks, and medical facilities. Next slide. I'm going to take this slide from the bottom up. But this relates to the secretary's third line of effort, reform. So there's a series of congressionally directed reforms. Those are all being implemented including the chief management officer, the reorganization of AT&L. We continue to reduce headquarter staff consistent with the 2016 NDA to come down 25 percent. But we also have a series of initiatives going forward, led by the deputy secretary of defense, Secretary Shanahan, whose focus is on our business operations. And those reforms -- and it's a series of areas that they are examining -- those savings will be reinvested in the out years by the services to improve the lethality of the force. So that will become one of our major focuses going forward. Next slide. The OCO budget supports the needs of U.S. military forces to continue to execute operations around the globe, particularly Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. And it also includes funding for increased support to the European Deterrence Initiative. It allows us to enhance partner-nation capabilities through training and equipping, and allowing U.S. forces to be available to be moved to other operations. This is again the chart where the numbers in your book are right. The total for OCO and the total for base is different in the handout you have. The slides are right. The slides match the deal that was done by the Hill on Thursday. But the budget material you have has a different mix because it was sent to the printers before an agreement was reached. So about a $20 billion-dollar difference moving from OCO to base. Next slide. In conclusion, this is a strategy-based budget. The strategy determined what we looked at. It determined the choices that the department made, and it determined the level of funding requested and required. Congress' action last week was an essential step in restoring and rebuilding our military. We look forward to working with Congress this year to put the budget process back on a normal schedule, and to avoid disruptive continuing resolutions in F.Y. '19. I look forward to taking your questions. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Comptroller. Some OCO whiplash here. So right now we're looking at an OCO account that is smaller than what you initially had planned for in these books that we have. But the books show that the department was going to use the OCO account to finance this buildup. It's a $90 billion OCO account. Now we see it, it adheres to the bipartisan deal, but you also said that come F.Y. '20, you're going to start phasing OCO out altogether. Could you talk a little bit more about what that effort's going to look like? Because you were going to use the account to finance a buildup, now we're hearing in '20 it's going to be phased out. NORQUIST: So originally then the budget was being built, it was not clear where the Hill was going to come up on its negotiations. And the direction we had was to assemble the budget with this piece of OCO that was labelled -- in fact, it's labelled in your books "OCO for base." That had been done in '17. In fact, under the '18 C.R. that's what we had, and the numbers are about the same. What the Hill did was a step in the right direction, was to say no, no, that belongs in base. And so their funding has the correct split between OCO and base. And we'll adjust our tables to match. But in some cases we've already indicated what that mix would be. NORQUIST: What OMB has suggested going forward is once you get to '20 and out, that we look at moving even more of OCO to base, that you look at some of those enduring costs that were created as part of OCO, but we'd keep, almost under any circumstance, going forward, and reduce the size of OCO to much more of the incremental costs. So we will look at what the guidelines and rules would be for that, but that's not in the '19. That would be in '20. But OMB -- and we want to make sure people are aware that that's the direction we were headed. QUESTION: But the BCA cap will still exist in F.Y. '20. Isn't that a haircut for the department, if you start moving OCO into your base? NORQUIST: My understanding is the BCA cap in '20 is actually down to sequestration levels. So there will need to be an addressing of '20 or '21. And what OMB is suggesting is we should look at the OCO to base mix when Congress looks at that change. But that doesn't affect the current deal on -- from last week. QUESTION: Just for those listening and for those who will read your highlights book, this glossy, thick book -- the 597 base is wrong? That's in the glossy highlights book? NORQUIST: The budget overview book? Correct, it has the wrong mix of base to OCO. The numbers in your slides are correct. QUESTION: Are you going to correct that on the website? NORQUIST: Yes. QUESTION: Because this is a piece of record now. NORQUIST: Correct. QUESTION: I know you did a good job of laying out percentage of GDP. Under this agreement, what percentage of the overall federal government budget is 050 these days? And, conversely, what is the discretionary share? Is it like 7 percent, 13 -- 30 percent? That... NORQUIST: I'll get you those. I don't have -- I didn't bring those numbers with me. But it's been declining over the past few years under sequestration. But I'll get you the table of what it would look like after the adjustment for the deal. QUESTION: I'm looking at the F-35. You say you're growing the program. The last Obama plan had 80 jets for '19. You're down to 77, so you're kind of -- it's a decrease, versus an increase from the last Obama plan. I just wanted to address why that is. Why didn't you bankroll for 80 jets? NORQUIST: I know they had, we had a program in the out years that went up to those numbers, but I don't think it was a change in '19. We'll double check. QUESTION: Eighty is in the SAR for '19; the last SAR... NORQUIST: OK. QUESTION: ... about 77, so you can't really say it's increased. NORQUIST: It's increased from the '18 request. We went from 70 to 77. IERARDI: (off mic) increased it from '18 to '19 (inaudible) request. QUESTION: For the general, the European Deterrence Initiative -- could you flesh that out a little bit in terms of the types of equipment that will be pre-positioned in Europe under this new funding scheme? IERARDI: It's combat equipment for Army combat units, ground -- including air defense, multiple launch rocket systems, combat brigades, armored brigade combat teams, those both to sustain exercises with our allies, as well as pre-positioning equipment for a unit to fall in on and operate either an exercise or in a contingency with on a short-notice basis. NORQUIST: Two questions -- let me just keep moving. Yes, sir? QUESTION: You said the government's focusing a lot on cyber. Could you give us a sense of what the cyber budget is and what the U.S. Cyber Command -- what your request is for your Cyber Command, or sort of an overall picture of how much money you foresee going into cyber? NORQUIST: So the overall cyber effort's spread into a lot of -- a number of different areas. There's about $8.6 billion. Cyber Command is now a unified command under STRATCOM, and this funding includes support for 133 Cyber Mission Force, which is part of the units there. So that gives you some of the idea of the scale. Yes? QUESTION: Thank you very much, sir. Two-part question, sir, on South Asia: One, as far as this new budget is concerned, how are you going to stop China's military buildup in the area? And it's threatening the regional nations -- because of China's expansion. QUESTION: And also, at the same time, as far as the -- Afghanistan is concerned, the ongoing, longest war, Afghanistan people are now asking, maybe in this new budget they will see a new light in the dark tunnel, and this will be end of the terrorism or Al Qaida and Talibans for the people of Afghanistan. IERARDI: What I'd say is in, with respect to the Asia question, it's enhancing both capability and posture of the Department of Defense, of the joint force, to contend with China. With respect to Afghanistan, it's continuation of rather adequate and appropriate resources to support the strategy in Afghanistan that has been adopted, and to work with Afghanistan forces in countering the violent extremism there in Afghanistan. STAFF: So on this side. Yes, sir. QUESTION: Thank you. The budget calls for adding 24,100 personnel. Is it the Defense Department's position that at current manning levels, the Defense Department cannot meet all the tasks required of it and win wars? NORQUIST: Well, the increase was designed to address a couple things. One is readiness issues, by adding pilots and people with skills in cyber areas. And also allowed the capacity to add the types of units related to the emerging threats and challenges that we see. So I think part of what this strategy did is it looked over time, and said, "Where do we need to be?" Adding personnel takes time, but it also is something that if you need to know where you're headed, and what you're trying to accomplish. And so that's what those additional forces are for. And the services, I think, can talk to some detail. IERARDI: And I would just add that this strategy requires enhancements in capability, capacity and readiness. And we, indeed, are focused on achieving all of those to execute the strategy. STAFF: Next question. QUESTION: Let me follow on (inaudible)'s question -- Military Times. The Marine Corps has a relatively modest gain in personnel compared to the other services. Is that reflective of the strategy, or do you think you'll be leaning on the Marine Corps less, and going to more of a conventional warfare approach? IERARDI: The Marines will continue to focus on the missions that they're being assigned, to have an expeditionary capability, and to be trained and ready to accomplish those tasks. It was the judgment of the department, and the judgment of the Marine Corps, that the additional 1,100 Marines was appropriate, given the enhancements that were required in the overall warfighting elements of the Marine Corps. NORQUIST: Each of the services took a different look at what it takes to improve their readiness and their capability. And in some cases, it's additional end-strength, and in some cases, it's additional training, in other cases, it's moving more things to maintenance for readiness. So you'll see some variation between them. It's not a matter of emphasis of one service over the other. It's a recognition on their part of what they need to be effective. Yes? QUESTION: On AFRICOM, as we shift to this great power focus with the military, (inaudible) AFRICOM's funding and troop levels and support, such as for personnel recovery? Are they still going to be asked to do, you know, more with less? IERARDI: We're certainly committed to developing capabilities to support AFRICOM, including personnel recovery. As the National Defense Strategy is implemented, resources will be allocated appropriately to meet the missions of the combatant commanders and the National Defense Strategy. So there's a determination yet to follow on the breakdown between commands, but it'll be a very dynamic and fluid way in which that proceeds, based on the situation that we find ourselves in. STAFF: Next question. QUESTION: Thanks. (inaudible) with Jane's. Can you give us a sense of how or if interest on the national debt factors into your future budget planning? Because CBO, I think, last year, projected somewhere in the next 30 years, it would become about a third of federal spending. So does that start to squeeze out your discretionary funding anytime soon? NORQUIST: So let's go back to the chart that had the percent of GDP on it. Because I think this is a useful one to go. Slide four. So one of the things, while they're bringing the slide up, is to understand that when you look at the effect on spending and the national debt, defense has gone down consistently as a percent of GDP. And even after this increase, when you look at the out-years, we're only growing at the rate of inflation. Which means as the economy grows, it will continue to grow faster than the Department of Defense. So our share of the economy, our share of that process will continue to go down. And so it -- we think this strikes an appropriate balance between security and solvency. It's necessary to implement the National Defense Strategy. But the National Defense Strategy -- while it was not resource-constrained, it was resource-informed -- recognizes that the long-term competition requires the United States to be effective across a number of areas, economic growth and solvency. And so this is part of that, and I think the chart reflects how that is balanced. QUESTION: Any time in the next -- within this budget at least, that is not something you're concerned about? QUESTION: (inaudible) discretionary fund? NORQUIST: The thing I'm most concerned about is economic growth. And when you look at long-range competition, a growing economy is a significant differentiator. Yes, sir? QUESTION: (inaudible) with (inaudible) Agency, sir. I want -- I have a question about the counter-ISIS training program. There is a detail for Syria, the activity training activities in Syria, you have stated, $300 million. And also there is a $250 million for border security requirements related to the counter-ISIS mission. First, as the ISIS operations, anti-ISIS operations, are being folded up or kind of fading away, what are the details of this $300 million? How are you going to use the $300 million? And this $250 million for border security requirements, can you explain, what is it? Is it the one that formerly disclosed that it was -- if the U.S. is going to build up at 30,000 kind of border security force in northern Syria, or what is the detail of this $250 million? NORQUIST: I need to get back to you on the specifics of those programs. We have a series of train and equip initiatives inside the budget to enhance our ability to cooperate and work through and alongside our allies in that particular one. And the specifics of it, let's just take your question for the record and we'll get back to you with an answer, sir. STAFF: Yes, in the back. QUESTION: Joe Gould from Defense News. Forgive me if it was in there, but I didn't see a request for a BRAC round. Is that -- does that reflect some change in the current thinking, here, around viability of asking Congress for BRAC? NORQUIST: So you are correct. Very observant. You get the gold star. We did not ask for that in this budget. We've asked for it for a number of times in the past without much success. And so I think we're looking at doing two things, going forward. One is, working with Congress to find common areas where we can make reforms and changes that don't create the same types of obstacles. The other is that we are undergoing a financial-statement audit that includes a look at property, and assets and investments and improving the accuracy of the data behind it. And as a view of being able to take advantage of the data coming out of that process, to help us make better decision-making on real property. But, yes, you are correct, there is not request for another BRAC round in this budget. QUESTION: And do you have a sense of, overall, you know, in terms of quantifying the kinds of savings that you might reap from some of the reform efforts that -- that are detailed here, do you have a -- kind of a ballpark as to how much you might get back in investing in lethality? NORQUIST: I don't have a ballpark at this point. One of the things we've tried to be cautious about is, in past, people have often put in wedges, and then they've lost interest in the reform because they've assigned the piece. NORQUIST: And so we've tried to be very careful about working with the services, that as we see those savings captured, and are credible, then they can reinvest them. But we'll try to avoid some of the previous mistakes of how that's been handled. STAFF: We have time for just a few more questions, about five minutes. NORQUIST: OK, yes, sir? QUESTION: This budget sort of asks for more than $2 billion more in Iraq and Syria. I'm just curious why that is, given the talk of the drawdown and sort of the same amount of U.S. troops as the last budget. So I'm just curious why that might be as we're talking drawdown and a move towards ... NORQUIST: Are you talking about the change in OCO? QUESTION: Yes. NORQUIST: OK, so I think in the change in OCO, one of the things we actually -- EDI, in the European Deterrence Initiative. QUESTION: Specifically for Iraq and Syria. I think it was $15.3 billion as opposed to $13. NORQUIST: Right, there was a billion-dollar amendment I think we sent up in the fall. We laid it to the additional force presence that was there. If there's other differences in there, I'll have to check. They may be within some of the train-and-equip lines that are there as well. But we can get you a breakdown. Is there a particular program within that, or just sort of the delta between one year and the next? QUESTION: A breakdown, because I -- my understanding and from the previous question is that the train and equip is actually falling by 300. IERARDI: Yes. Could be, I'll go back and look at the specifics for you, but naturally because some of the achievement of some of the objectives that had originally been set ahead of schedule that may have adjusted some of the need for the resources. NORQUIST: Yes? QUESTION: Interestingly, your F&T account hasn't gone up all that much. I think its $13.7 billion. Last year it was like $13.3 billion. That is where a lot of the investments we keep hearing about typically live, the artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. Why isn't that account increasing to accommodate this new focus on great power competition? NORQUIST: So I believe it is increasing. I think your question is, is it increasing as fast? And I -- a lot of those technologies, there's a range from 61 up to, you know, 63, 64, where depending on the maturity of the technology where it's going into. But from hypersonics to autonomous to cyber, you'll see initiatives across those areas. Yes, sir? QUESTION: Mr. Comptroller, you've often compared the defense budget with the role of U.S. GDP. Do you think a country's defense budget should reflect a country's GDP growth? NORQUIST: Well, I don't think there's a requirement that the change in the budget reflect the change in the GDP growth. I think that's -- but that, what it shows you, is that as an economy is growing, the amount of it costs to support its defense, its other spending is affected. The economy is growing faster than as a share of a budget, you're going down, and there's additional resources for deficit reduction or other items. And so knowing whether you're trending above or below that in the long term makes a difference. QUESTION: And also what's your prediction of the Congress reaction to this proposal? Where do you think they might take away something and add a little something? And what do you think the final budget would look like? NORQUIST: So I believe that Congress is likely to act consistent with the legislation they just passed last week. So I expect them to function at the national security level at $700 billion in '18 and $716 billion in '19. They, of course, are free to make their own independent decisions on the programs. They do so every year, and we look forward to working with them on that process. QUESTION: Quick one. Were any programs terminated in this "let the good times roll" budget? IERARDI: I'm aware of the Air Force will have a proposal to terminate the recapitalization of JSTARS. QUESTION: I'm talking about a legacy program that's being bankrolled now versus something that they were going to bankroll. And anything, Mr. Norquist, that you can point to? NORQUIST: So there's been a shift -- I don't know that we have a major termination to announce. That wasn't, you know, part of the strategy. Part of it was relating to the new technologies and the areas of threats, and some of those will phase out as others come in. But there's not a dramatic one like that that I know of, instead of what he's just mentioned. Yes? QUESTION: Hi, Federal Computer Week. I just wanted to follow up on S&T comments. What's the DIUX investment look like? IERARDI: I think I have that. Give me one second. The DIUX is in '19 at $71 million. STAFF: Time for one more. NORQUIST: All right. Yes, ma'am. QUESTION: Sir, is there any chance that you'll end up in another C.R. if Congress can't come to terms on the spending lines even though they have the overall 700 and 716? NORQUIST: I have great confidence in the Congress' ability to move forward with this. I think that they're reached a tremendous bipartisan agreement. I think the Appropriations Committees are in position to move forward. The C.R. gives them a period of time to put that together. It's not easy to pull all the different pieces of the appropriation bills together, so I know it's a heavy lift. But I also know the staff there is very dedicated and I look forward to working with them to make this possible. And thank you, everybody. I appreciate you taking the time. We'll now be followed by the services. So I think there's a short break and then you'll get to ask specific service questions. END DEFENSE DEPARTMENT NEWS BRIEFING ON THE F.Y. 2019 ARMY BUDGET FEBRUARY 12, 2018 SPEAKERS: DIRECTOR, ARMY BUDGET, MAJOR GENERAL PAUL A. CHAMBERLAIN AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARMY BUDGET, DAVIS S. WELCH LIEUTENANT COLONEL JASON BROWN, CHIEF OF MEDIA RELATIONS, ARMY PUBLIC AFFAIRS [*] QUESTION: We're just sitting here quietly. Can I ask you a quick question about the book? (UNKNOWN): No. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: Is that green book -- the Army green books that were printed -- are those the correct numbers? Because the glossy <DOD overview is incorrect as far as OCO and base split (ph). (UNKNOWN): The green numbers. QUESTION: Those are right? (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Thank you. (UNKNOWN): Interesting. (LAUGHTER) (UNKNOWN): And it starts (ph). BROWN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Lieutenant Colonel Jason Brown. I'm the chief of media relations at Army Public Affairs. With me today is Major General Paul Chamberlain, the director of the Army budget, and Mr. Davis Welch is principal deputy. For about the next 30 minutes, we'll be briefing the Army 2019 budget overview. Afterwards, upon completion, we'll have about 10 minutes for questions. General Chamberlain, sir? CHAMBERLAIN: Good afternoon. I'm Major General Paul Chamberlain, the director of the Army budget. And, this afternoon, Mr. Davis Welch and I will present to you an overview of the Army's 2019 budget, which, when funded, will support the -- the National Defense Strategy. I will provide you an overview of the Army today, beginning with the global environment, followed by their -- by how this request supports the administration's strategic objectives and Army leadership priorities. We will then spend some time providing a by-appropriation (ph) view of the Army's request, highlighting key areas. America's Army must remain the world's preeminent ground force, capable to compete, deter and win decisively. To this end, the Army must be equipped, trained and ready to meet the ever-changing character of today's multi-domain battlefield. CHAMBERLAIN: Today, the Army has over 180,000 soldiers supporting the combatant commands worldwide. But more than 99,000 soldiers overseas in over 140 countries, supporting various types of missions, ranging from combat operations, partnering exercises and humanitarian assistance. The Army supports the 2018 National Defense Strategy by providing a combat-credible war-fighting force, postured and capable of deterring global competitors, preventing conflict and shaping the global security environment. The revisionist powers of China and Russia, the rogue regimes, such as Iran and North Korea, along with transnational threat organizations, particularly terrorist groups, pose a broad range of very real threats to U.S. interests. Our regional competitors in the Pacific and in Europe have been studying our strengths and our vulnerabilities for more than a decade. Their modernization efforts are slowly eroding our competitive advantage, and this budget request addresses that, by providing the necessary resources to ensure the Army's superiority. The Army must be able to, if necessary, win in a multi-domain battlefield, a battlefield that requires integrated capabilities in fire, cyber, electronic warfare and space, and be capable of striking the enemy and improving -- and improving friendly survivability against a sophisticated enemy in a contested environment. The Army's role and the nation's ability to maintain peace through strength requires us to refocus and strengthen our force-on-force decisive action capability, maintain our counterinsurgency competencies for the current fight, and develop superior capabilities for warfare in all domains. Attaining a level of overmatch underpins the nation's diplomacy Overmatch deters aggression. It helps to shape the international environment, and protect our nation's interests. The secretary of the Army, and the chief of staff of the Army are committed to providing the nation a lethal, agile, and capable ground force, both now and into the future. Key to this effort is predictable, consistent funding from year to year, every year, commensurate with our requirements. So let's look at the Army's budget over time. As you can clearly see from the chart, the -- the Army's budget -- total budget declined from fiscal year '12 to fiscal year '16. During the same time period, inflation averaged 1 one to 2.5 percent a year, which further reduced the Army's buying power. The enactment of the F.Y. '17 Consolidated Appropriations Act significantly increased funding levels, to begin halting the Army's readiness decline. The F.Y. '18 budget request, assuming full enactment, will continue to improve readiness. Likewise, the fiscal year '19 request also continues improving readiness, as well as restoring end strength, and investing appreciably in the Army's modernization efforts, providing an army with -- our Army with technological overmatch. Specific to the base budget, which is depicted in blue, the Army sustained a level of decisive action readiness, while it conducted counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. As base funding declined due to fiscal pressures like the debt ceiling and the Budget Control Act, the Army had to manage more risk in force-on-force war-fighting competencies, and modernization investments. The two bipartisan budget agreements provided the necessary flexibility by enacting overseas contingency operations funding to mitigate some of the impacts of these fiscal constraints, and avoiding even more reduction to the Army's current and future readiness. The funding the Army received for overseas contingency operations also trended downward over the same timeframe. This decline correlates the drawdown of force manning levels in Iraq and Afghanistan during those years. However, the fiscal year '17 OCO funding increased, as manning requirements in Iraq and Syria grew, and the enemy threat increased, requiring the Army to invest in technological advancements to improve soldier lethality and survivability. The combined view of base and OCO funding shows the F.Y. '19 budget request as a continuation of the enacted F.Y. '17 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the F.Y. '18 budget request, to rebuild warfighting readiness. CHAMBERLAIN: However, sequestration remains a threat, and long-term legislative relief from it, in conjunction with timely enactment of increased funding over multiple years, will ensure the Army is able to remain the preeminent ground-fighting force in the world, and fulfill its obligations to the National Defense Strategy. With this budget submission, the Army continues its efforts to become more lethal, resilient and ready in order to face current and future threats. The budget themes listed represent the framework in -- from which the Army will provide the combatant commands the best trained and ready land forces in the world. This budget request funds ongoing counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations around the globe. It also funds counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency training, ensuring the competencies mastered over the past decade and a half of fighting are sustained. The resources applied in this budget for additional end strength will increase unit readiness levels and support the creation of select units to acquire necessary capabilities, taking significant steps towards increasing Army's warfighting readiness and increasing the Army's capacity for force-on-force decisive action. This budget request funds modernization reform initiatives that will increase the Army's agility and lethality, providing for more timely, efficient and cost-conscious modernization of critical platforms and infrastructure. In fiscal year '19, the Army will continue to empower cross-functional teams to champion the six modernization priorities: long-range decision fires, next generation combat vehicles, future vertical lift, the Army network, air and missile defense and soldier lethality, in order to bring new and emerging technology to the battlefield sooner. Ultimately, these modernization efforts will allow the Army to expand technological overmatch and competitive advantage against near-peer competitors and prepare for other emerging threats, resulting in a more lethal combined arms force that is capable of responding rapidly to a global crisis. The fiscal year '19 budget invests in infrastructure upgrades that will increase the capacity of our organic industrial base. It also improves the condition of training facilities and provides for more realistic training environment, which also improves readiness. This budget also invests in our power-projection infrastructure, which is critical to ensuring the Army remains rapidly deployable. It also resources emergency deployment readiness exercises by land and by sea, known as EDREs and SEDREs, to improve our global responsiveness. In addition to these exercises, this budget funds joint interoperability and international partnership exercises that demonstrate the Army's power-projection capability, both unilaterally and with our partners, providing confidence to our allies and serving as a deterrent to our adversaries. As the Army increases its warfighting readiness, we remain committed to achieving the highest levels of accountability and stewardship, by meeting (ph) statutory requirements to develop and maintain a culture that supports auditable records at all levels of the Army, as required by the 2010 NDAA. Tied closely to audit readiness is process reform, which will improve the way we do business. These budget themes, framed by the secretary of the Army's priorities of readiness, modernization and reform, demonstrate the Army's unwavering commitment and investment in its soldiers, civilians and families. This budget will help to further the goal of building a more lethal, agile and capable Army. The Army's base budget request of $148.4 billion, a growth of almost $9.5 billion over the F.Y. '18 request. These funding totals reflect the combined resources -- resource requirement for all three components: the regular Army, the National Guard and the Army Reserve. And as you can see, it is broken out into the major appropriation categories. I will point out specific budget information by component and by appropriation in greater detail later in this briefing. However, I will now describe the aggregate level where the growth has occurred and how the growth supports improved readiness and modernization. The growth in the operation and maintenance accounts, the military pay accounts, of $3.1 billion and $2.6 billion, directly improve total -- the total Army's readiness. CHAMBERLAIN: This growth supports the pay for the increased end strength, to improve unit manning levels and the additional training required to achieve the highest levels of readiness. The majority of the growth in the investment accounts are in areas that will increase warfighter readiness, soldier lethality and force-on-force capability. The Army's request for procurement in RDT&E grew approximately $4 billion from last year's request. Further details on each of these appropriations will be discussed later in the briefing. The Army's total end strength at the end of Fiscal Year '12 was over 1,131,000 soldiers, and was declining steadily from year to year, with a planned decrease to as low as 990,000 soldiers by the end of fiscal year '17. During this time, the Army took steps to reduce end strength across all three components, yet remain responsive to the combatant command requirements. Army senior leaders made specific force-structure decisions about unit end strength and Army capabilities, accepting risk in certain areas to maintain the level of readiness necessary to address the threat, while avoiding a hollow force. The 2017 NDAA authorized a total end strength of 1,018,000 soldiers, reversing the plan drawdown. This authorized end strength increase address unit personnel requirements necessary to arrest the Army's readiness decline. Congress has since authorized an additional 8,500 end strength increase in the 2018 NDAA. If funded, these additional soldiers will continue to fill units, as well as reconstitute lost capability that resulted from a smaller force designed to face a different threat. The end strength in fiscal year '18 will build select capability, that increases warfighter readiness and fills capability gaps associated with the multi-domain fight. The Army requests in end strength of -- end strength increase of over -- of 4,000 in fiscal year '19, building upon the authorized F.Y. '18 growth. These forces will be used to increase the Army's lethality and capacity, by resourcing specific units such as fires, air defense, logistics and others. The military personnel accounts for the largest portion of the Army's base budget. The fiscal year '19 request of $60.6 billion is an increase of $2.6 billion from F.Y. '18. The increased funding fully compensates the 1,030,500 soldier Army, and represents a 4.5 percent growth in the Army's military pay accounts. This growth not only supports the additional end strength, but also covers the 2.6 percent pay raise and increased allowances for housing and subsistence, of 2.9 and 3.4 percent respectively. The military personnel accounts also include funding for recruiting and retention incentives, education benefits, permanent change-of-station moves and training days in the Reserve components. In order to obtain the higher end strength in F.Y. '19, the Army requires timely funding within the military personnel accounts and the operation and maintenance accounts, to support advertising, recruiting and retention efforts. The active Army's Operation and Maintenance Account, OMA, represents the second largest appropriation within the Army and provides for the day-to-day requirements, which is -- which includes, but is not limited to, training, equipment maintenance, transportation and facility sustainment. The fiscal year '19 request for OMA is approximately $3 billion over the F.Y. '18 request. This funding continues to restore the Army's core decisive action capability, through home-station training and exercises. It further resources 20 decisive action combat training center exercises in Fiscal Year '19. Four of these exercises are specifically for the Army National Guard, emphasizing the interoperability between the active component and Reserve components, while also ensuring the Army's brigade combat teams are trained and ready to face near-peer competitors. The OMA request also increases the availability of armor and infantry brigade combat teams, referred to as BCTs. It also supports the security force assistance brigades, known as SFABs. SFABs are designed to conduct advise and assist missions with our partners and allies, thus reducing the demand for armor and infantry brigades that conduct those missions now. CHAMBERLAIN: This will ultimately increase our capacity two-fold; first, by increasing the availability of our decisive action BCTs, which would otherwise be called upon to conduct advise-and-assist missions; and secondly, by increasing our allies' combat effectiveness. This request for OMA will then -- will help to ensure the arm -- active Army's equipment is at the highest possible state of readiness. The request invests in the organic and industrial base and the Army's ammunition management programs, improving the Army's overall warfighting readiness. Within the fiscal year '19 request, the Army improves it's global posture and rapid response capability by investing in and modernizing its pre-positioned stocks and by conducting joint interoperability exercises with partners and allies in the European and Pacific theaters. Specific to the reserve components, the Army's 2019 budget request supports a $10.3 billion O&M requirement for the Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve. For the Army National Guard, its 2019 O&M request is aligned with its 2018 request. Consistent with the regular Army, it seeks to continue restoring readiness and base operation support, as well as providing funding to continue supporting family and soldier programs that promote the wellbeing of the Army's most valuable asset, our people. With an end strength of 343,500, the Army National Guard focuses on mission-specific unit training in order to increase unit proficiency. For the U.S. Army Reserve, their $2.9 billion O&M budget request supports 79 functional brigades, its (ph) three installations and over 700 reserve centers, as well as the professional education and specialized skills training for 199,500 soldiers. Now that we've spent the past two minutes discussing the Army's increase in capacity and warfighter readiness, I will transition to Mr. Davis Welch, who will help present the Army's fiscal year 2019 investment in modernization priorities. Davis? WELCH: Thank you. Good afternoon. It's my pleasure to come before you to discuss the F.Y. '19 president's budget submission with respect to the Army's investment counts (ph). The technical overmatch the United States Army enjoyed over the last several decades has enabled our Army to defeat potential enemy formations, but it has eroded. While we focused our resources to defeat an adaptive enemy in counterinsurgency war and saw incremental improvements to exist in -- existing, proven platforms, our competitors and potential adversaries acquired technologically advanced weaponry and improved their warfighting capabilities. The result is the Army will be tested in every domain of warfare: space, cyber, maritime, air and land. The Army is at an inflection point. We can no longer afford to defer maintenance. We must expand capabilities, and we must develop new ones. In response to the challenge, and in support of the National Defense Strategy, the Army developed its modernization strategy with a focus of making soldiers and units more lethal to fight and win our nation's wars. With increased procurement funding requested in F.Y. '19, the Army addresses capability gaps by increasing investments to improve mobility, survivability and lethality in combat, and combat service support vehicles and aircraft. Requested ammunition and missile procurements addressed the needs of the combatant commanders and the renewed emphasis (ph) of decisive action in the training base. The upper right of this chart reflects the Army's six modernization priorities. Our modernization strategy involves institutional reforms to consolidate Army modernization end to end. It requires a culture of innovation and accountability. It requires improving the Army's requirements, research, experimentation, capability development, procurement and fielding processes. With this president's budget request, the Army realigned science and technology efforts to its modernization priorities and significantly expanded prototyping. WELCH: The lower-right pie chart shows the Army's capability portfolios. In the next two slides on procurement, I will highlight how our budget request supports those priorities. For the procurement appropriations, our F.Y. '19 request is $3.3 billion over our F.Y. '18 request. And, as you can see, the increases are in the weapons and tracked combat vehicles and other procurement Army appropriations. Over the past several years, under constrained budgets, the Army endeavored to balance, but ended up prioritizing near-term readiness over modernization. With our F.Y. '19 request in procurement funds, the Army more robustly addresses its modernization needs, strengthening our formations with superior capabilities. To highlight these efforts, I'll focus procurement in four capability portfolios. Within the aviation portfolio, the Army continues incremental modernization of existing fleets to provide the most capable rotary-winged (ph) aircraft to the operational force. Through a combination of new build and remanufacturing older Apache aircraft, this request delivers Model E (ph) aircraft with the ability for manned and unmanned teaming. Apache pilots can remotely fly a Gray Eagle and shadow unmanned aerial vehicles and control their payloads. With multi-year new build contract represents -- the multi-year new build contract represents a cost avoidance of $425 million between F.Y.s '17 through '22. This request replaces older Black Hawk helicopters with the latest M model, delivering an advanced digital (ph) avionic suite for improved situational awareness, improved rotor blades and engine for better performance and lower operating costs, and integrated vehicle health maintenance -- health management system for more reliable combat aircraft. The new multi-year build contract represents a cost avoidance of over $500 million between F.Y. '17 through '21. Additionally, this request procures special operations Chinook aircraft. The G Model Chinook features more sophisticated avionics than earlier models and includes a digital common (ph) avionics -- avionics architecture system. In the ground maneuver portfolio, we seek to accelerate the speed with which we are modernizing our brigade combat teams through a combination of incremental improvements and proven platforms and new equipment fielding to increase capabilities in mobility, survivability and lethality. We are requesting funds to improve Abrams tanks. Enhancements will incorporate a second-generation forward-looking infrared radar in the gunner's primary site and a commander's independent thermal viewer. It'll provide an upgraded armor package, as well as improved engine and transmission. Funds requested to expand Bradley Fighting Vehicle capabilities will procure a newer, larger engine and a new transmission and a smart power management system for better electrical power distribution. We will -- we will procure armored multi-purpose vehicles, or M.V.s (ph), replacing Vietnam area (ph) -- era personnel carriers in our armored combat brigade formations, fulfilling the Army strategy of protection, mobility, lethality and interoperability. Requested funds procure Paladin Integrated Management sets comprised of self-propelled howitzer and a tracked ammunition carrier, providing greater lethality, survivability and a commonality with existing systems in the ABCTs. WELCH: When combined with our European Deterrence Initiative funding, this president's budget request equates to modernizing 1-1/2 armored brigade combat teams. With respect to the air and missile defense portfolio, and consistent with our focus on competitors and near-peer threats, the F.Y. '19 request provides critical munitions for combatant commanders. We are replenishing wartime stockpiles of preferred and advanced munitions to increase lethality. Our P.B. request increases procurement of GMLRS rockets, as well as funds the facilitization to increase the production rate. This request represents a 62 percent increase over F.Y. '18 in the ATACMS service life extension program. This request, in addition to procuring Patriot MSC missiles, procures Patriot launcher modification kits. The MSC missiles provide performance enhancements that counter new and evolving threats, while the modification kits allow the launchers to fire both the PAC-2 and the MSC missile. In the mission command portfolio, the F.Y. '19 requests (ph) continues the Army's initiative to deliver a survivable, secure, mobile and expeditionary network capable of providing situational awareness and joint interoperability, enabling the Army to fight tonight. The Army restructured mission command, focusing on programs that met mission requirements and added capability. Requested funds continue fielding Increment 2 of Warfighter Information Network, or WIN-T, to all active components, infantry and Stryker BCTs. Funding requests supports the fielding of six IBCTs and one Stryker BCT from items that were procured with F.Y. '18 funds. The Joint Battle Command-Platform is the Army's next-generation friendly force tracking system, equipping soldiers with a faster satellite network, secure data encryption and advanced logistics. JBC-P is accelerated to baseline all Army formations and fill that critical capability gap of mounted mission command. This chart lists selected procurement programs and the requested quantities. To provide a complete picture of the procurement program, this chart reflects both -- both base and OCO requests in munitions and EDI replenishments. We seek Congressional support in our president's budget request for these programs, as the Army must modernize to revitalize capabilities, providing overmatch, and to support the rest of the joint force. Turning towards research, development, test and evaluation, the Army's request is $700 million more than its F.Y. '18 request. Funding accelerates incremental upgrades to existing systems, delivering greater capabilities to our soldiers sooner, and advances cutting-edge technologies to gain and retain overmatch against competitors and potential adversaries. The Army established its modernization priorities last fall, and our then-acting secretary directed a comprehensive review of science and technology portfolio to ensure proper alignment of S&T funds against those priorities. The review also determined what efforts to accelerate to retain or extend overmatch capabilities. While much of the RDT&E budget request already supported the Army's priorities, this review resulted in $234 million being redirected in the S&T portfolio. I will now highlight initial efforts in each of the six priorities. WELCH: Long-range precision fires: S&T investments focus on critical technological areas of propulsion for extended-range missiles and extended cannon artillery. In F.Y. '19, we'll conduct a concept development for a land-based anti-ship missile, a single multi-mission attack missile and extended-range cannon artillery. Next generation combat vehicle requested S&T funds, we'll explore combat vehicle design, innovative vehicle protection concepts and advanced-power generation and distribution technologies. Concept-development efforts included active protection systems and a robotic combat vehicle. Future vertical lift S&T funds emphasizes critical technology and aviation protection and aircraft survivability, improves situational awareness and advanced power systems. Concept development efforts include next-generation tactical unmanned aerial system, degraded visual environment sensors and advanced engines and drivetrains. In addition, we will continue flight demonstrations of the two joint multi-role technology demonstrator aircraft. Network S&T funding supports advancing cyber electromagnetic -- magnetic activities and mission-command applications. Funds emphasize concept development and fiber operations and modular radio-frequency communications, as well as developing precision positioning, navigation and timing, and a global positioning system denied battle space. Air and missile defense-requested S&T funds will access technologies and high energy lasers and advance seekers and advance propulsion. Concept development includes multi mission high-energy laser and a high-energy laser tactical vehicle demonstrator. Supporting soldier lethality requested S&T funds support technology areas of soldier and squad weapons, training and prolonged field medical care. Concept development includes hostile-fire locator system and advanced fire-control technologies. As these S&T funds mature, they will provide technology options to the cross-functional teams or CFTs. Each modernization priority is supported by one or more CFT, organized to exploit key provisions of the acquisition reforms enabled by Congress. CFT objectives are to narrow existing and projected capability gaps, develop requirements, inform broader development of the capability areas within the modernization priorities, execute technical demonstrations and rapidly transition leader-approved capabilities to programs of record and enter the Army's acquisition process. To jumpstart the CFTs -- the CFT efforts and to facilitate the initial capability development, this budget request of $38 million for experimentation, prototyping and technical demonstrations. I will now highlight several areas outside the S&T there are of significance. Long-range precision fires is being developed as a replacement for (inaudible) missiles. The long-range precision fires will have increased range, lethality and an open-systems architecture. F.Y. '19 funding supports two-technology maturation and risk-reduction competitive prototyping flight demonstration agreements. Mobile protective firepower provides protected long-range precision direct-fire capability for infantry brigade combat teams. F.Y. '19 funding enabled a Milestone B decision, followed by an engineering and manufacturing development contract award for up to two vendors to provide prototypes, ballistic hulls and test articles. WELCH: Combat-vehicle prototyping focuses on the development of the next-generation combat vehicle, integrating new and emerging technologies in its design, improving lethality and protection, while reducing weight and power requirements. Requested funds support concept development, trade studies, technology maturation, testing, prototyping and demonstration of combat vehicles, both manned and unmanned. Requested funds for short-range air defense address the Army's critical shortfall defending maneuver formations and other tactical echelons from low-altitude, fixed-wing, rotary-wing, unmanned aerial systems, rocket artillery and mortar threats. F.Y. '19 funds complete fabrication production representative -- fabrication of production representative articles, and begins testing to achieve an urgent material release toward solutions to mitigate this capability gap. In summary, Army RDT&E investments implement the Army's modernization priorities through early integration of concepts, prototyping and testing, to ensure future generations of soldiers continue to be the most lethal fighting force in the world. One facet of readiness is the Army's infrastructure, providing first-rate facilities on our installations where soldiers and civilians work, train and live. We require ready and resilient installations that serve as power projection platforms to shape the global security environment. This chart represents new construction and is a companion effort to the dollars spent in operations in maintenance appropriations for facility sustainment, restoration and modernization. The military construction budget of $1.25 billion is across all three components: regular Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserves. Construction projects are in 21 states, Germany, Honduras, Korea and Kuwait, And the Army family housing account totaling just over $700 million, which supports the day-to-day operation and maintenance of existing units worldwide, as well as six new construction projects in Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, Germany, Italy and Korea. The Army's BRAC funding request supports environmental clean-up, restoration and conveyance of excess properties at locations designated under previous BRAC rounds. CHAMBERLAIN: Thank you, Davis. Also within the Army's budget request are several other base requirements that are funded separately outside the main appropriations we've addressed. This year's requests include $71 million for the Arlington National Cemetery to fund the day-to-day operations for the final resting place for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. The Army is also requesting $994 million for the congressionally mandated chemical de-militarization program that demonstrates the Army's environmental responsibility. Fiscal year '19 funding supports continued plant operations at the Pueblo, Colorado, and Bluegrass, Kentucky, chemical agent destruction pilot plants, as well as the -- the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Project, supporting both sites and their surrounding communities. The Army has been managing large overseas contingency operations budgets since 2001. Funding in this account increases and decreases as contingency operations expand and contract. The Army's 2019 OCO budget request represents requirements in military personnel, operations and maintenance, research and development and acquisition. This year's multi-component OCO request totals $33.7 billion. The 2019 OCO request supports Operation Freedom Sentinel, Operation Spartan Shield, and Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq. It also supports the European Deterrence Initiative and counter-terrorism operations around the globe. CHAMBERLAIN: The request includes approximately $5.2 billion for the Afghan Security Forces fund and $1.4 billion for the counter-ISIS train and equip requirement. The $3.2 billion of MILPERS portion of this OCO request primarily supports mobilized reserve component soldiers and maintains the current end strength levels in Afghanistan and Iraq. The O&M represents almost two-thirds of the Army's OCO request, which includes the pass-through accounts. The funding supports theater operations, such as mobilization, transportation, force protection, base operation and equipment reset. The procurement accounts provide funding for replacement of battle loss, ammunition consumption and pre-positioned stocks in Europe. As I recap, I must highlight the Army's 2019 budget is a strategy-based request aimed at achieving a broad range of requirements that will help to ensure the Army is able to compete against China and Russia, deter Iran and North Korea and respond to any threat around the globe. Specifically, this budget builds capacity for decisive action, providing the nation with a more lethal ground force. It improves interoperability with our allies, the reserve components and our sister services. Further, this budget demonstrates our stewardship and responsibility to the American taxpayer through reform initiatives and audit readiness, improving our ability to deliver high states of readiness affordably and efficiently. Ladies and gentlemen, outlined by the National Defense Strategy, the Army's F.Y. '19 budget request resources the path the secretary of the Army and the chief of staff of the Army established for expanding the Army's overmatch, ensuring we are a combat-credible warfighting force postured to deter global competitors, prevent conflict and protect the national security interests of our country. The Army stands ready to compete, deter and win. Thank you for your attention, and we're now ready to take some questions. STAFF: Ladies and gentlemen, we have about five minutes for questions, so -- yes, guys -- yeah, sorry -- so, when called on, please state your name and organization, and then we'll -- please limit yourself to one follow-up, OK? All right. And, Jen? QUESTION: Hi. Jen Judson with Defense News. I wanted to ask a little bit more about the European deterrence initiative. It looks like the entire account (ph) is up at $6.5 billion this year, from $4.8 billion last year. What's the Army's portion of that? And can you elaborate or break down what exactly the Army's portion will be going towards this year -- just a little more granularity on that? And it's my understanding that there will be a troop increase this year, any (ph) increase in force presence, but that that may happen in 2020. So can you talk about what you're doing to prepare for that? CHAMBERLAIN: So, as you stated, it is up. A majority of it is on the investment side, and I'll allow Mr. Welch to address some of the investment pieces. WELCH: Within the EDI for 2019, it's a quantity of 40 Abrams for $455 million; 61 MSE missiles for $260 million; 66 AMPVs, armored multi-purpose vehicles, for $230 million; 61 Bradleys for $205 million; and HIMARS rockets, $171 million. That's the bulk of the increase. We're still doing the heel-to-toes and that sort of thing. But this is -- this is getting at combatant commanders' requirements, stockpiling munitions, and it's also getting to the modernization of brigade combat teams. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) as well, those -- or are those separate -- addition to the ones that (inaudible) on the table? WELCH: The -- the chart that listed the selected equipment -- that was both based on OCO combined. QUESTION: Just to follow up... (CROSSTALK) CHAMBERLAIN: So, for the -- for the personnel -- so we'll have to get the -- get back to you on that with the numbers. So -- and Jason will take care of that for us (ph). QUESTION: Do you have (ph) a breakdown of what the total Army section of the EDI (inaudible)... CHAMBERLAIN: We'll -- we'll make sure that we get you that. OK. QUESTION: I may have read the slide wrong, but, on 155-millimeter shells, it said it was going up from $16 million to $145 million. Is that meant to replenish wartime stocks, or is this something new? WELCH: It's a replenishment of wartime stocks, and also, building stockage in -- in theaters' requirements, for -- for mission requirements. The one -- the... BROWN: (inaudible) Sorry. WELCH: I have to go back through and double-check the number. The number that -- $1.5 million seems a bit high. BROWN: $140,000. WELCH: $140,000? BROWN: No, around (ph). WELCH: Oh, thank you. BROWN: (OFF-MIKE) QUESTION: Hi, Lauren Williams (ph), Federal Computer Week. I just wanted to ask, what's the Army's planned DIUx investment would be, and the use of other transaction authorities to modernize. WELCH: I'm sorry, I missed... BROWN: DIUx. QUESTION: DIUx investment, and the use -- the planned use of other transaction authorities to help modernize. WELCH: The Army continues to use other transaction authority to help modernize. I don't have the -- the amounts handy, but we can provide what was done with -- with this past fiscal year to -- to be able to demonstrate that our -- our commitment to use that as -- as an opportunity, or an -- an option. QUESTION: And that would be kind of like a -- a blueprint for F.Y. '19 and beyond, what was done last year? WELCH: We -- we'll explore all options of -- of trying to accelerate the modernization, to bring things on quicker, and -- and other transaction authority, and DIUx is -- is one option to be able to do that. QUESTION: Hi, James Drew from Aviation Week. Could you say if there's been any rephasing in the future political procurement plan, or acquisition plan? I think it's jumped to number three Army modernization priority, so could you say if there's been any major change to that program? CHAMBERLAIN: On future vertical lift, there's several efforts that are ongoing there to try to accelerate the technologies, but any change to the rephasing, we'll have to get back to you on that. I'm not familiar with the change of the rephasing, unless you have something on that, Davis. WELCH: I'm not familiar with that either. QUESTION: If -- if there has been any acceleration of that program, given that we've got one prototype flying now, and has there been any increase in Army push for that program to come online sooner? CHAMBERLAIN: The -- the push is to bring as many technologies forward, as fast as we can. Specific to the future vertical lift, anything that is available, and that we can accelerate, that's what we're going to go after. BROWN: Folks, we've got time for about just one more question. QUESTION: Can you clarify, the answer to Jen's (ph) question? The Abrams and Bradleys that you're adding for the EDI, is that all for the Third Brigade -- Armored Brigade that is supposed to be in Europe, or is this something in addition to that? WELCH: (Inaudible) more towards completion of the Second Armored Brigade combat team, pre-position (inaudible). QUESTION: The second pre-position (inaudible). OK, thank you. WELCH: These are all pre-position equipment. It's all for pre-positioned equipment. (UNKNOWN): Yeah, yes. QUESTION: Like the 48 -- these would be modified Abrams that would be earmarked to be pre-positioned in Europe? (UNKNOWN): Yes. QUESTION: Gotcha. Thanks. BROWN: Sir, we've got -- we've got to make way for the Navy. I'm sorry we cut you off, but thank you all for coming. Major General Scanlan will be hosting a media roundtable tomorrow to answer more of your questions, from 9:30 to 10:00 A.M. For follow-up questions and details in attending the roundtable, please contact Wayne Hall (ph) (inaudible), and his number is (703) 693-7589. Again, Wayne Hall (ph) at (703) 693-7589. Thank you. END DEFENSE DEPARTMENT NEWS BRIEFING ON THE F.Y. 2019 NAVY BUDGET FEBRUARY 12, 2018 SPEAKERS: DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR BUDGET REAR ADMIRAL BRIAN E. LUTHER [*] STAFF: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here. I would like to introduce Rear Admiral Brian E. Luther, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget. After (inaudible) the Navy's P.B. '19 budget, time permitting, he'll be available to answer questions. Without further ado, Admiral Luther. LUTHER: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to brief the Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2019 president's budget request. This brief address is the third step of the Department of Defense's multi-year effort that increases funds to build capability and capacity. The first step began in February 2017, with our request for additional appropriations to address immediate warfighting needs. The second followed closely in May, with our fiscal year '18 request which, when enacted, will address multiple holes or programmatic deficits caused by the Budget Control Act, or BCA, and numerous continuing resolutions, or C.R.s. Next slide, please. The agenda for the brief is listed here. The funding priorities set by Secretary Mattis in January 2017 remain and I will briefly touch on the new National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy which, going forward, I will refer to as the NDS. The NDS calls for sustained and predictable funding. I will discuss how the increased funding of the recent Bipartisan Budget Act, or BBA, completes the third step, in alignment with the NDS. I will close the brief with topics of reform and audit, as the department understands and appreciates the responsibility associated with the stewardship of the trust and treasure of our nation. The next slide begins with the recently published National Security Strategy, which identifies four vital national interests: protect the American people, homeland and way of life; promote American prosperity; preserve peace through strength; and advance American influence. In alignment with the National Security Strategy, the NDS directs the department to compete, deter and win in a strategic environment described as an "ever-more lethal and disruptive battlefield, combined across domains and conducted at increasing speed and reach." It also identifies the long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities for the department, which require both increased and sustained investment. Concurrently, Navy and Marine Corps forces will be tasked to deter and counter aggressive rogue nations like North Korea and Iran, and defeat terrorist threats to the United States. The NDS has three lines of effort: rebuild military readiness as we build a more lethal joint force; to strengthen alliances as we attract new partners; and reform the department's business practices for greater performance and affordability. The Department of the Navy component of the NDS will be addressed through the secretary of the Navy's priorities of people, capability and processes; the Navy's overarching plan, known as The Navy The Nation Needs; and the Marine Corps operating concept which will generate the force of choice. The NDS lays out threats facing our country in the next slide, which shows how operations are contested in every domain by great power competitors, unconventional forces, by state and non-state actors, all of which who -- seek to challenge the rules-based global order and threaten the global security environment. The global employment of naval forces remains extensive, as shown on the next slide. At this moment, over 100,000 sailors and Marines are forward base-deployed around the world. A few examples from the last year are: in November, seven of the fleet's 11 aircraft carriers were operating under way at the same time. Three, the USS Ronald Reagan, Nimitz and Theodore Roosevelt, were on deployment. The USS Carl Vinson and John C. Stennis were training in the Pacific. And the Abraham Lincoln and the Gerald R. Ford were operating in the Atlantic. The Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group, with other ships, was deployed for more than two months to support multiple hurricane relief efforts after Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria caused damage across Texas, Florida, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. LUTHER: And as a testament to our ship depot maintenance efforts, the 220-year-old Constitution left dry dock after a two-year restoration. This slide shows the hotspots and choke points of today, many of which the sailors and Marines aboard a newly commissioned Constitution would recognize. The next slide represents the environments for today's sailors and Marines. Next slide, please. The NDS describes growing competition in general, and this slide shows the specific importance of the maritime domain, displayed in why this shipping traffic, which represents 90 percent of global trade. Under the sea is an area of increasing importance as well. The tan lines represent undersea cables, over which 99 percent of all international data is carried. Not only are those cables eight times faster, but only 3 percent of that data could be reconstituted using satellites. The red circles show conflict zones or hot spots, where transits through the sea could be easily impeded. The green circles represent major shipping ports. Blue cloudy areas to the north are ice caps for emerging shipping lanes. Purple areas are oil and natural gas resources. And diamonds are mineral deposits. Trade, information, resources and free access to all are critically important to the continued prosperity of the global economy. Next slide, please. The NDS has stated that we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. That erosion is displayed on this slide as the gray area, and is the difference between the black line, which represents the 2012 budget, the last instance where strategy and budget were aligned, and the purple line which represents inactive budget values. The areas founded in time at F.Y. '17 as the increases in fiscal year '18 were provided to address these readiness shortfalls. The gray area then represents the deficits accrued across all capabilities that create our military advantage and sets the recovery challenge before us. As this erosion accrue over time, it will take time to restore it. The final requirement for the restoration of readiness is the stability of both time and resources. Assuming the BBA in enacted in late March, the first 18 months of F.Y. '17 and '18 will include the longest C.R. in DOD history, the fourth longest C.R. in DOD history, five months of enacted budget authorities across two fiscal years, and two government shutdowns. When this brief was built, we were executing fiscal year '18 under three possible funding levels, which is displayed on the slide: a C.R. funding, president's budget submitted, or possible congressional action. The BBA has already provided needed predictability by clarifying the funding levels for '18 and '19. The 2012 NDS saw the nation at a period of transition as Al Qaida was on the path to defeat. After the passage of the then BCA, it directed a smaller, leaner force with a global presence and the ability to defeat and deter adversaries. The current NDS states interstate strategic competition and not terrorism is now the primary concern in U.S. national security, and directs departments to build a lethal joint force sufficient to sustain American influence and ensure favorable balances of power that safeguard the free and open international order. As mentioned earlier, long-term strategic competition are the principle priorities for the department, and require both increase in sustained investment. This concern was addressed by BBA, as shown on the next slide. While the final enacted numbers of F.Y. '18 are being worked, we now know the DOD top lines for '18 and '19. The need for stable and predictable funding is highlighted here, as well. Stable and predictable funding restores time to the services to execute the plans that were deliberately created to build the lethal joint force required by the NDS. The Marine Corps' overarching plans to support this strategy is referred to as the Marine Operating Concept, which generates the force of choice. The Navy's overarching plans to support this strategy is referred to as the Navy the Nation Needs. The pillars common to these plans are readiness, capability, capacity, manning, network and operating concepts. LUTHER: The department is grateful for the increased funding and has worked diligently in this request to ensure the funding provides and protects and sustains the readiness gains of '18 and creates a balanced warfighting force with the capabilities needed for the fight and the capacity to win the fight. Next slide. After two congressional emergency budget amendments, the F.Y. '18 request totals $181.4 billion; $172.8 on base, and $8.6 billion in OCO. This request increases $12.6 billion, to a total of $194.1 billion; $179.1 billion in base, and $15 billion in OCO. The final split between base and OCO is being worked as part of the BBA. As the split may change, the accounts (ph) have been totaled, with the current split provided parenthetically. Operations and maintenance increased $800 million, to $63.4 billion; military personnel increased $2.1 billion, to $50.2 billion; procurement accounts increased $8 billion, to $58.5 billion; research and development increased $800 million, to $18.6 billion; infrastructure increased $900 million, to a total of $3.4 billion. The next section of slides provide a detailed overview of how the department's (ph) balanced funding increases the pillars to generate lethal naval and Marine Corps elements of the joint force. Our ability to complete our mission rests on the entire Navy-Marine Corps team, sailors and Marines, active duty and reserves, our civilian teammates and all of our families. In this request, the active Navy force will increase 7,500 billets, to a total of 30 -- 335,400. This growth will eliminate gaps of T (ph), as well as grow the force to match additional force structure. This growth will be -- will use a balanced approach of retention and accessions. We are beginning to see the impacts of an improving economy on our recruiting and retention, as we increasingly compete with the civilian sector for the same talent. To better compete, this request funds a pay raise of 2.6 percent and substantially increased both enlistment and retention bonuses. Specific growth in this request includes funding our total ownership cost, strength increases for four C.G.s, completing phase modernization, and to support Special Operation Force growth. In this request, the Navy Reserve force will increase 100 billets to support operational requirements. Next slide. In this request, the active Marine Corps force will increase 1,100 billets, to 186,100. The increased number of Marines is informed by the Marine operating concept, and is balanced across the pillars to provide a more experiences, a better trained and more capable force with the special skills required for special operations, intelligence operations, electronic, information and cyber warfare. In this request, the Marine Corps Reserve remains at 38,500. The Marine Corps Reserve maintains a ready, relevant, responsive force to fill combatant commander and service rotational and emergency requirements. Next slide. In civilian personnel, this request funds the additional workforce necessary to sustain readiness and support the increasing capability and capacity required to support the Navy and Marine Corps. To accomplish this, the department budgeted an additional 3,187 full-time equivalents to sustain readiness improvements, for example, in our ship depot maintenance efforts; in efforts at our warfare centers with focus on (ph) increasing our air, surface and undersea capabilities. The department maintains its progress towards major headquarters activities reduction and, in this request, reflects a decrease of 97 FTE from fiscal year '98 (ph). Next slide. Ship depot maintenance is funded as max executable, or 96 percent of the requirement (ph). This request increases slightly from fiscal year '18. LUTHER: The blue hatched area denotes $673 million provided by Congress for the repairs of the Fitzgerald and McCain, the bulk of which will be conducted in the shipbuilder yard. This request funds 57 maintenance availabilities across public and private shipyards: eight carrier availabilities, eight submarine availabilities and overalls, 40 surface availabilities, and one service craft overhaul. Ship operations is funded to 100 percent of the requirement, and as with last year's request, it funds 58 days underway per quarter when deployed, and 24 days underway when not deployed. The ship operations growth from '18 to '19 is comprised of higher fuel costs and the addition of nine new warships and two ships in our MSC (ph) charter fleet. Next slide. In aviation readiness, our aircraft depot maintenance is funded to max executable capacity, which, this year, increases to 92 percent of the requirement. This request increases slightly from fiscal year '18, and our increased capacity is largely due to investing in people, yet we remain limited by space and overtooling, in which we continue to invest. Flying hour program is funded to a maximum executable level of 95 percent of the requirement. This request decreases slightly from fiscal year '18 as a result of lower cost per hour and the Navy's divestiture of legacy Hornets. This request continues to build on our '18 request, and adds additional funds to critical aviation logistics and maintenance accounts, such as aviation logistics, aviation support and aviation spares, which are funded in APM. The aviation logistics account increased 11 percent, to a high of 98 percent of the requirement. The $173 million increase provides for maintenance costs associated with more F-35s, KC-130-Js and MB-22 aircraft entering the fleet. Additionally, this request continues to invest in aviation support accounts (ph) to improve aircraft availability, and also includes an increase to support air crew systems, physiological episode mitigation efforts. Program-related engineering and logistics is funded to 100 percent of the requirement. This account also funds critical train (ph) initiatives to improve depot throughput and increased hiring of planning, engineering and maintenance support main (ph) -- manpower to align the workforce to the projected workload. Our aviation spare funding increases from 91 percent to 95 percent of the requirement. Given that our aviation support and our naval accounts (ph) have all increased, it's important to note the true output metric is flying hours. Flying hours are flown daily, and are significantly impacted by C.R. levels on funding. On-time and active budgets are critical to our readiness recovery. Next slide, please. Navy and Marine Corps installations enable fleet operations, equipment reconstitution, material sustainment, total force training, unit recovery and quality-of-life programs. This request increases sustainment funding to 80 percent of the requirement for the Marine (ph) Corps, and the department is on track to increase those levels to 85 percent of the requirement by the end of the FYDP. The blue hatched area indicates the additional $262 million provided by Congress to address hurricane damages. $153 million was added in this request for demolition to remove excess infrastructure. The request includes a 12.7 percent capital investment in shipyard depot maintenance, exceeding the 6 percent legislative requirement, which demonstrates the department's commitment to capital investment at our shipyards, fleet readiness centers and Marine Corps depots. The department continues to take risks in funding installations, but mitigates this risk by focusing investments on critical components that directly support warfighting operations and ensure the health and safety of sailors and Marines. Next slide. Marine Corps ground equipment is funded to depot execution levels, which increased -- 82 percent of the requirement. LUTHER: Reset is 99 percent complete, with an estimated completion date of third quarter '99 (ph). Funding for operational force readiness declined slightly as a result of business reforms that allowed reinvestment in critical modernization efforts. This reduced request does not result in reduced readiness, and provides investments in the following programs: long-range precision fires; High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS; air defense; the Ground/Air Task Operated, or G/ATOR, Radar; Ground-Based Air Defense Future Weapon Systems; C2 in a degraded environment; Network On-The-Move tactical communication modernization, and projected enhanced maneuver Amphibious Combat Vehicles, ACBs, or Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, JLTVs. Next slide. The department appreciates the strong support -- Congress for naval shipbuilding. New construction totals have increased since last year's plan, with three additional ships added in this request: one DDG 51, one expeditionary sea base and one fleet oiler, for a total of 10 battle force ships in fiscal year '19. Throughout the FYDP, the department added a total of 11 ships in the battle force count. The department expects to be at 326 ships by fiscal year '23, and 355 by the 2050s. Specific key efforts for this request include continuing the Columbia-class program in its third year of advance procurement, and it remains on schedule (ph) for its first deployment. The USS Enterprise is in its second year of funding, and the delivery date remains September of 2027. Continued procurement of two of our Virginia-class submarines in the Block V multi-year contract -- all future Virginia-class will have the acoustic superiority upgrade, and the second ship of this year begins incorporation of the Virginia Payload Module; an increase of one Flight III destroyer in each year of '19, '21, '22, and '23, for a total of four additional DDG 51s in the FYDP. The remaining LCS completes the program and supports the transition to the FFGX in fiscal year '20. One ESB was added in '19 and one programmed in '20, for a total of ESBs -- two ESBs added in the FYDP; an increase of one oil (ph) in fiscal years '19, '21, and '23, for an increase of three in the FYDP; an increase of one T-ATS (ph) towing rescue salvage ship in '20 and one TAGO ship in fiscal year '23. Other ship construction includes request for two LCUs in '19 and five ship-to-shore connectors requested in '19, increasing to eight ships a year, '20 to '23, for a total of 12 additional ships in the FYDP. There's additional information available on the 30-year ship acquisition plan, which has been released today and can be found on our website. Next slide, please. The department appreciates continuous support by Congress for naval aviation. All major aviation acquisition program remain consistent or increase from '18 to '19. There's a net increase of 29 aircraft from the president (ph) budget '18 submission. In this request, there's an increase of five F-35Cs 10 F-18s, three P-8s, two C-40s, four 53Ks, one Navy MV-22, and three Zulu Cobras and six presidential helos. There is reduction of -- reduction of one E2D and four Sutas (ph). Specifically, the F-35 increased four to nine aircraft, as schedule (ph) in the second year of their Block V. The F-18s were increased by 10, for a total of 24, to support a follow-on multi-year procurement, beginning in '19, which will include the Block III upgrade. Additionally, there's an increase of 34 aircraft programs across the FYDP. The E2D was reduced five to four aircraft to support a follow-on multi-year profile, beginning in '19, with a total procurement of 24 aircraft. This will complete the program of record with 75 aircraft. The P-8s increased three aircraft in '19, bringing procurement from 7 to 10, and has an additional three aircraft programmed in (ph) '20. An increase of six would complete the program of record at 117 aircraft. LUTHER: The C4A increased two aircraft in '19. The CH-53K increased from four to eight aircraft, as low-rate initial production, or LRIP, begins and keeps the schedule on track from initial operating capability, or IOC, of fiscal year '20. The Zulu Cobras increased from 22 to 25. This completes the program of record at 342 aircraft. The VH-92A, or Presidential Helo, increased zero to six aircraft, as scheduled for its LRIP. This program is a new start in '19, will IOC in '20, and will complete in fiscal year '21. The CMV-22 increased six to seven aircraft to meet its IOC in fiscal year '21. And the RQ-21 (inaudible) end of procurement profile was reduced from four to zero systems. Next slide. All major weapons acquisition programs remain consistent or increase '18 to '19 and support the department's goal of increased capability and/or increased capacity. The tactical Tomahawk includes the A2AD upgrade with its recertification and the maritime-strike Tomahawk starts in fiscal year '20. The SM-6 quantity increased 25 in order to support a five-year multi year. Multiple programs to include the RAM Block 3, Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo, LCS over the rise (ph) missiles, the standoff precision guided munition or Griffin (ph), AIM-9X Sidewinder, Argon (ph) Block 1 JAGM and small-diameter bombs were increased to meet capacity requirements. The Mark 54 Lightweight Torpedo reduced quantity in order to fund lethality improvements in shallow-water capability and counter measure effectiveness. CL surface-to-surface mission module decreased to align with program capacity. The AIM-120 AMRAAM production is set at capacity due to a parts-ops license issue that we are working to correct. And the Hellfire and (inaudible) procurements were reduced to reflect reduced OCO requirement. Next slide. This request includes key investments in cyber, C4I, and electronic warfare. Cybersecurity and its ability to ensure the resiliency of our networks and operational technologies is a department priority. Programs providing increased capacity and capability in this domain include CANES, the consolidated float networks and enterprise services program, which provides the infrastructure and services required for the Navy to dominate the cyber-warfare domain. The Navy multiband terminal system will ensure survival of communications during all levels of conflict. Various communication enhancements to meet emerging communications threats, such as the assured command-and-control upgrade, which allows the fleet to operate contested and denied environments. This request also increases surface electronic warfare improvement program block 2 units by six to a total of 16, and CWHIT (ph) block 3 units by two for a total of four. In addition to the efforts already mentioned, the department is investing in other modernization programs. The DDG modernization program includes all improvements in integrated air and missile defense, the Navy Integrated Fire Control counter Air, NIFC-CA, and cooperative engagement capability. The Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical System provides hardware and software upgrades to submarines' sonar, fire control, imaging, electronic warfare systems for SSNs, SSGNs and SSBNs. The Naval shipyard monetization funding is increased 46 million to a total of 197 million in this request, to recapitalize industrial plant equipment, weight handling equipment and nuclear support equipment infrastructure. The improved maintenance capabilities provided by the service life extensions for 25-ton portal cranes, 175 ton heavy-lift cranes, 60 ton dock cranes, and improved shipyard systems such as flush systems and (inaudible) will contribute to decreasing availability costs, reduce schedules, and so return ship mission days to the fleets. Next slide, please. The Marine Corps continues to bounce ground equipment procurement and future development to support the current fight, while modernizing to dominate the future fight. The procurement Marine Corps request funds major programs including initial procurement of 30 ACVs, six G/ATOR systems, and 1,642 JLTVs. LUTHER: All major acquisition programs remain consistent or increase, with a few exceptions. ACVs increase procurement by four vehicles, plus the procurement of the related support items. The estimated approved acquisition objective of 204 vehicles will be achieved in fiscal year '21. G/ATOR procurement increased three to six systems as part of its first year of full-rate production. JLTV increased 1,115 vehicles with this request. This request also supports the reactivation of the 5th Battalion, 10th Marine Regiment as a HIMARS rocket battalion and supports procurement of HIMARS systems and support equipment for the new battalion and an (ph) associated increase of the total munitions requirement for rockets. For procurement of ammunition Navy-Marine Corps, it buys vital munitions and related weaponry for the warfighter and replenishes weapons expended in ongoing contingency operations. This request provides for munitions such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance systems and Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System rockets used to combat ISIS, five-inch 54 rounds for cruises and destroyers, and 155-millimeter precision-guided artillery used by the Marine Corps. Next slide. In the research development appropriation, this request provides for science and technology funding consistent with our '18 levels; decreased funding for the Columbia-class submarine as the program moves from contract design to detail design, which is SCN-funded; continued support for the FFTX (ph) development; increased funding for the Navy laser family of systems, which is a designated Rapid Prototyping Experimentation and Demonstration initiative, or RPED, to provide near-term ship-based laser weapon capabilities. And it provides for increased funding in our unmanned undersea vehicle, which will accelerate future capability and support steady growth in a fleet's family of systems; increased funding for unmanned aerial vehicles, which will support acceleration of vital UAV fleet capabilities; increase for the MQ-25 Stingray to meet a fleet IOC (ph) of 2026.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA delivers remarks to members of the Business Roundtable and answer questions. Business Roundtable Headquarters, Washington, DC. ABC POOL LIVE Part 1 Wednesday, September 16, 2015 President Barack Obama remarks & Q&A at Business Roundtable Headquarters DC Slug: W0007-403 OBAMA RT 1 1 & W0007-297 OBAMA RT 2 1 AR: 16x9 NYRS: WASH5 (4525) 10:40:07 OBAMA: Thank you so much. Thank you everybody. Please have a seat. Thank you, Randall, and thank you to everybody here at the Business Roundtable for having me today. I'm just going to say a few words and then hopefully spend a lot of time taking your questions. Seven years ago today was one of the worst days in the history of our economy. If you picked up the Wall Street Journal that morning, you read that the shocks from AIG and Lehman were spreading worldwide. The day before, stocks had suffered their worst loss since 9/11. In the months after, businesses would go bankrupt, millions of Americans would lose their jobs and their homes, and our economy would reach the brink of collapse. That's where we were when I became chief executive. Here's where we are today: Businesses like yours have created more than 13 million new jobs over the past 66 months -- the longest streak of job growth on record. The unemployment rate is lower than it's been in over seven years. There are more job openings right now than at any time in our history. Housing has bounced back. Household wealth is higher than it was before the recession. We have made enormous strides in both traditional energy sources and clean energy sources while reducing our carbon emissions. And our education system is actually making significant progress with significant gains in reducing the dropout rate, reading scores increasing, math scores increasing. And, by the way, more than 16 million people have health insurance that didn't have it before. 10:41:56 So this progress is a testament to American business and innovation. It's a testament to the workers that you employ. But I'm going to take a little credit, too. It's a testament to some good policy decisions. Soon after we took office, we passed the Recovery Act, rescued our auto industry, worked to rebuild our economy on a stronger foundation for growth. Other countries in some cases embraced austerity as an ideology without looking at the data and the facts, tried to cut their way out of recession. The results speak for themselves. America has come back from crisis faster than almost every other advanced nation on Earth. And at a time of significant global volatility, we remain the world's safest, smartest investment. Of course, I will not be satisfied -- and we as a country shouldn't be satisfied -- until more working families are feeling the recovery in their own lives. But the fact is that what I've called middle-class economics has been good for business. Corporate profits have hit an all-time high. Slowing health care prices and plummeting energy costs have helped your bottom lines. Manufacturing is growing at the fastest clip in about two decades. Our workforce is more educated than ever before. The stock market has more than doubled since 2009, and 2015 is on pace to be the year with the highest consumer confidence since 2004. And America's technological entrepreneurs have continued to make incredible products that are changing our lives rapidly. Now, you wouldn't know any of this if you were listening to the folks who are seeking this office that I occupy. (Laughter.) In the echo chamber that is presidential politics, everything is dark and everything is terrible. They don't seem to offer many solutions for the disasters that they perceive -- but they're quick to tell you who to blame. I'm here to say that there's nothing particularly patriotic or American about talking down America, especially when we stand as one of the few sources of economic strength in the world. Right now, we've got the chance to build on progress that we have made and that is acknowledged worldwide. We have a chance to grow the economy even faster, create jobs even faster, lift people's incomes and prospects even faster. We just have to make some sensible choices. And I'm going to focus on one particular example. America's next fiscal year is almost upon us, which means that Congress has about two weeks to pass a budget. If they don't, they will shut down America's government for the second time in two years. 10:45:07 Democrats are ready to sit down and negotiate with Republicans right now, today, as we speak. But it should be over legitimate questions of spending and revenue -- not unrelated ideological issues. You'll recall that two years ago Republicans shut down the government because they didn't like Obamacare. Today, some are suggesting the government should be shut down because they don't like Planned Parenthood. That's not good sense and it's not good business. The notion that we'd play chicken with an $18 trillion economy and global markets that are already skittish all because of an issue around a women's health provider that receives less than 20 cents out of every thousand dollars in the federal budget, that's not good policymaking. The last time Republicans shut down the government, it cost our economy billions of dollars; consumer confidence plummeted. I don't think anybody here thinks that's going to be good for your business. I've always believed what our first Republican President, a guy from my home state named Abraham Lincoln, believed -- that through government we should do together those things that we can't do as well by ourselves. Funding infrastructure projects. Educating the best workforce in the world. Investing in cutting-edge research and development so that businesses can take that research and take some risks to create new products and new services. Setting basic rules for the marketplace that encourage innovation and fair competition that help a market-based economy thrive. Creating a safety net that not only helps the most vulnerable in our society but also frees all of us to take risks and protect against life's uncertainties. And welcoming, rather than disparaging, the striving immigrants that have always been the source of continued renewal, economic vibrancy and dynamism in our economy. So my hope is that Congress aims a little higher than just not shutting the government down. That's a good start, we'd like them to achieve that, but I think we can do better. We can actually do some things to help the economy grow. After the last shutdown, both parties came together and unwound some of the irrational cuts to our economy and military readiness that's known as sequester. That agreement expires in two weeks as well. And for those of you who are not steeped in federal budget terminology, sequester basically are automatic topline cuts that don't discriminate, don't think through what are good investments and what is waste. And if we don't reverse the cuts that are currently in place, a lot of the drivers of growth that your companies depends on -- research, job training, infrastructure, education for our workforce -- they are going to be reduced effectively at a time when other countries around the world are racing to get ahead of us. On the other hand, if Congress does reverse dome of these cuts, then our own budget office estimates it would add about half a million jobs to our economy next year alone, about 0.4 percent to GDP. And keep in mind that we can afford it right now -- all the things I said at the front in terms of the recovery that we've made. We've also reduced the deficit by two-thirds. Right now it's about 2.8 percent of GDP. We've reduced our deficit faster than some of those countries that pursued strict austerity policies and weren't thinking about how to grow the economy. And so we are well positioned without adding to the deficit. I want to repeat -- since I took office, we've cut the deficit by more than two-thirds. And the good news is we might actually be moving beyond some of the stale debates we've been having about spending and revenue over the past several years if what economists and people who are knowledgeable about the federal budget are listened to as opposed by this being driven by short-term politics. People in both parties, including some of the leading Republican candidates for President, have been putting out proposals. Some I agree with, some I don't. I'll give you one example, though. You've got two leading candidates on the Republican side who have said that we should eliminate the carried interest loophole. Now, there's disagreement in this room around that. But I will tell you that keeping this tax loophole, which leads to folks who are doing very well paying lower rates than their secretaries, is not in any demonstrable way improving our economy. On the other hand, if we close the tax loophole, we could double the number of workers in America's job training programs. We could help another 4 million students afford college. These are sensible choices that if you were running your business and you took a look at it, you'd make that decision. Well, America should too. And this is an example of how we can maintain fiscal responsibility while at the same time making the investments that we need to grow. So the bottom line is this: Seven years ago, if we had listened to some politicians who said we could only cut our way to prosperity, the fact is we'd be worse off today. If we listen to them now, then we're going to be worse off tomorrow. I hope that you will talk to your friends in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike. As Congress flirts with another shutdown, remind them of what is at stake. We will have some disagreements sometimes. I do not expect to get 100 percent of what I want in any conversation, including with my wife. But I do expect us to stay focused on why we're here, which is to help the American people and businesses like yours and your workers do better. That's our job. We're not supposed to be impeding progress. We're supposed to be advancing progress, accelerating it. 10:52:00 And if our leaders can put common sense over ideology and the good of the country before the good of the party, then we'll do just fine. Despite the perennial doom and gloom that I guess is inevitably part of a presidential campaign, America is winning right now. America is great right now. We can do even better. But the reason that I'm so confident about our future is not because of our government or the size of our GDP or our military, but because everybody in this country that I meet -- regardless of their station in life, their race, their religion, the region they live in -- they do believe in a common creed that if people work hard in this country, they should be able to get ahead. And I know that's what you believe. That's the values that you try to instill in our companies, as well. My hope is, is that that decency, that hard work, that common sense is going to be reflected here in Washington. So with that, let me take some questions. And I'm going to start with Randall, because since he volunteered for what I'm sure is a thankless job of being head of the -- (laughter). QUESTION: I'll get it going here. I know there are a lot of other questions for you. But Leader McConnell was just here a little earlier, and he gave us all a cause to exhale, talking about the budget and seemed confident that we would get a place where we would have a budget. And in the context of that he spoke about how split government can actually provide opportunities for getting big things done that might be hard to get done otherwise. And he caused a head- snapper with all of us when he gave you a very strong compliment over -- OBAMA: My head is snapping. (Laughter.) What did I do? QUESTION: Trade Promotion Authority, and how you worked that and you worked it very aggressively. And, by the way, all of us in here -- Mike Froman, I don't know if he's here, and Jeff Zients are very complimentary of the work that was done there. So now you have the authority to get a trade deal done. It's going to have to come back to Congress, and so forth. Talk to us a little bit about your view of the opportunity to get the Trans-Pacific deal done. 10:54:25 OBAMA: I am confident that we can get it done, and I believe we can get it done this year. The trade ministers should be meeting again sometime in the next several weeks. They have the opportunity to close the deal. Most chapters have been completed at this point. And I'm confident that it will, in fact, accomplish our central goal, which is to make sure that we've got a level playing field for American businesses and American workers in the fastest-growing region of the world. There are going to be unprecedented protections for labor standards and environmental standards, but also for IP protection, also for making sure that when any company here makes an investment, that they're not being disadvantaged but are instead being treated like domestic companies for commercial purposes. And so the notion here is, is that we've got 11 nations who represent the fastest-growing, most populous part of the world buying into a high-standards trade deal that allows us and your companies on a consistent basis to compete. And the good news is, is that with a lot of tough negotiating and a lot of pushing and pulling -- mainly by Mr. Froman, but occasionally I get called in to lob a call into one of my counterparts -- I think that we're going to get this done. Now, the key then, once we close the negotiations and we have an agreement, is to get TPP through Congress. We got it through. I will return the compliment of Mitch McConnell worked very hard and very creatively to get it done. We should not assume, though, that because the authority was done, that we automatically are going to be able to get TPP done. And I'll be honest with you, the reason is that the politics around trade are tough. And I said this even in the run-up to getting TPA authority. A lot of Americans, when they think of trade, think of plants in their hometown or nearby shutting down and moving to Mexico or China, and American manufacturing and good-paying jobs being lost. That's the image of trade. 10:57:28 And the argument that I have made consistently to Democrats has been that there may have been some mistakes made in past trade agreements in not, for example, having enforceable labor and environmental provisions that put American companies that are doing the right thing at a disadvantage; that there weren't enough safeguards for intellectual property and the abuses of state-owned enterprises and subsidies that companies may have been involved with. 10:58:14 But that's the status quo now. And if you want to correct those things, we've got to raise the bar. I didn't fully persuade all my Democratic colleagues, because the politics are tough. And I was willing to take my case to the Democratic caucus and to talk to my friends in organized labor and say that we can't look backwards, we've got to look forward. We're going to have to compete in these areas. Here's the concern politically, is that I think within the Republican Party some of the same impulses that are anti-immigration reform, some of the same impulses that see the entire world as a threat and we've got to wall ourselves off, some of those same impulses also start creeping into the trade debate. And a party that traditionally was pro free trade now has a substantial element that may feel differently. 10:59:15 And so the BRT, I think -- you know, you got to put Engler to work over there. To their credit, both Mitch McConnell and John Boehner I think are on the right program here, but they're going to need some help potentially with their membership, because the closer we get to political season, the tighter some of these votes get. I will tell you this, though: I am confident that if I'm presenting an agreement to Congress, that it will meet the commitment that I made that this would be the highest standard, most progressive trade deal in American history. It will be good for American business and American workers. QUESTION: Hi, Mr. President. Thank you for being with us. I wanted to ask you about cybersecurity. You put an executive order in place earlier this week because of the issues we have with information-sharing and with liabilities. And we at the BRT are very supportive of the legislation that has passed the House and is now in progress in the Senate. And I wanted to just get your thoughts on how you're thinking about this, and also with the upcoming visit of the President of China about cybersecurity and our relationship with China. 11:00:34 OBAMA: This is an issue that is not going away. It is going to be more and more important, and it is going to be very challenging. It's challenging in part because the Internet itself, the architecture of it was not intended to carry trillions of dollars of transactions and everybody's personal information. It was designed for a couple of professors to trade academic papers. And so the kind of security that we were looking for was not embedded into the DNA of the Internet. And the vulnerabilities are significant and they are being exploited by not just state actors, but also non-state actors and criminal gangs at an accelerating pace. So this is something that from a national security perspective and from a business perspective we're going to have to continue to concentrate on. 11:01:47 One of the big issues that you mentioned, Maggie, that we're focused on, is this encryption issue. And there is a legitimate tension around this issue. On the one hand, the stronger the encryption, the better we can potentially protect our data. And so there's an argument that says we want to turbocharge our encryption so that nobody can crack it. On the other hand, if you have encryption that doesn't have any way to get in there, we are now empowering ISIL, child pornographers, others to essentially be able to operate within a black box in ways that we've never experienced before during the telecommunications age. And I'm not talking, by the way, about some of the controversies around NSA; I'm talking about the traditional FBI going to a judge, getting a warrant, showing probable cause, but still can't get in. So we've created a process around which to see if we can square the circle here and reconcile the need for greater and greater encryption and the legitimate needs of national security and law enforcement. And I won't say that we've cracked the code yet, but we've got some of the smartest folks not just in government but also in the private sector working together to try to resolve it. And what's interesting is even in the private sector, even in the tech community, people are on different sides of this thing. 11:03:48 With respect to China, this will probably be one of the biggest topics that I discuss with President Xi. We have repeatedly said to the Chinese government that we understand traditional intelligence- gathering functions that all states, including us, engage in. And we will do everything we can to stop you from getting state secrets or transcripts of a meeting that I've had, but we understand you're going to be trying to do that. That is fundamentally different from your government or its proxies engaging directly in industrial espionage and stealing trade secrets, stealing proprietary information from companies. That we consider an act of aggression that has to stop. And we are preparing a number of measures that will indicate to the Chinese that this is not just a matter of us being mildly upset, but is something that will put significant strains on the bilateral relationship if not resolved, and that we are prepared to some countervailing actions in order to get their attention. My hope is, is that it gets resolved short of that, and ultimately the goal should be to have some basic international framework that won't be perfect because there's still going to be a lot of non-state actors and hackers who are very good, and we're still going to have to have good defense and still have to be able to find the fingerprints of those and apprehend them, and stop networks that are engaged in cybercrime. But among states, there has to be a framework that is analogous to what we've done with nuclear power because nobody stands to gain. And, frankly, although the Chinese and Russians are close, we're still the best at this. And if we wanted to go on offense, a whole bunch of countries would have some significant problems. And we don't want to see the Internet weaponized in that way. That requires I think some tough negotiations. That won't be a one-year process, but we'd like to see if we can -- if we and the Chinese are able to coalesce around a process for negotiations, then I think we can bring a lot of other countries along. QUESTION: And we will work with you on that too. OBAMA: Good. QUESTION: Thank you. OBAMA: Ursula. QUESTION: Thank you for being here. It's also good to be reminded occasionally of some of the progress that we've made in like a complete sentence. So I think thank you for that, as well. And some recent ones -- TPA is good; even the Iran deal, really good. Health care standing up. All good. The place that we haven't made a lot of progress but that's really important for business and business progress is on tax and tax reform. And what we're getting to now is I think almost kind of like being backed in the corner. So since you can't get a grand deal, we're starting to talk about sub-deals. And the sub-deals in and of themselves are destructive, in the Business Roundtable's view, to the grand deal, which is total tax reform or comprehensive tax reform. So can you help us think about how we should negotiate this duality that we're in right now? And where do you think we're going to end up? 11:07:47 OBAMA: We put forward a proposal early on that I'm confident I could sell to this group. Not everybody would be thrilled but I think I could argue that over time would be good for business, because essentially what we proposed was the traditional framework for tax reform: close loopholes, lower rates. We'd address international taxation in ways that currently put American businesses at a disadvantage and would allow for a repatriation, but would not simply empty out the Treasury and would generate enough revenue that we could actually also pay for some infrastructure. And our hope was that we'd get some nibbles on the other side. To his credit, Paul Ryan expressed real interest in discussions and negotiations. But your previous speaker, Mitch McConnell, has said that he is not interested in getting tax reform -- comprehensive tax reform of that sort done. So there's still work being done. We're still in conversations with Mr. Ryan. And I know that Senator Schumer and others have still been working on the possibilities of a fairly robust package. But ultimately you're going to have to have the leader of the Senate majority party bought in to try to get this done. I understand why tax reform is elusive -- because those of us who believe in a simpler, fairer, more competitive tax framework in the abstract sometimes look at our bottom lines and say, I don't know, that deduction is helping us pretty good here. And even if this organization has been supportive, there are other business organizations in town that have some pretty strong influence over the Republican Party that haven't been as wild on it, partly because their view is, is that the only kind of tax reform that's acceptable is one that would also lower all rates, regardless of its effect on the deficit. That's just not something that is viable. So we're going to keep on working on it. My suggestion would be that the BRT continue to encourage Speaker Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell to come up with an ambitious package. And what I can assure you is, is that the White House will take it seriously. We don't expect that everything in our original package would go forward. But the one thing that we couldn't do -- and I get concerned sometimes that what is labeled as tax reform ends up just being cuts, you're not closing the loopholes, and as a consequence it's a huge drain on the Treasury. We then suddenly are accused of running up the deficit to help your tax rates, and we're not doing enough to help grow the economy and help ordinary workers. So that's the one direction we can't go in. Yes, Tom. QUESTION: Thank you for being here. I'd love to hear your thoughts on energy policy. I know we talk a lot about all of the above, but I think what's really changing kind of in an unprecedented way here recently are technology revolutions that are occurring either in the production of energy, or perhaps, more importantly, in the use of energy, that gives Americans I think a way to play offense in what has been a set of unprecedented challenges. What's your thoughts on that? 11:12:19 OBAMA: Tom, I think you described it well. I am much more optimistic about our ability to get a handle around energy that is good for our economy, good for business, good for consumers, good for job creation, and maybe saves the planet in the process. I'm much more optimistic about that now than I was when I started as President. And a good example is just when you look at what's happened with solar. I mean, we're not quite at Moore's law yet, but the pace at which the unit costs for solar energy have gone down is stunning. We've seen not quite the same pace, but similar progress around wind. Our natural gas production is unprecedented. And I have been very supportive of our natural gas production as being not only important to our economy but also geopolitically. It's a huge recipe for energy independence as long as we get it -- the methane discharge issues -- right. And I think there are ways of doing that with sound science. So that's on the production side. And, as you said, on the utilization side, all of you are -- there's not a company here that is not producing significantly more product with less energy than you were just 10 years ago, and certainly than you were 20 years ago. Everybody here has seen the power of tracking utilization, identifying waste, and timing issues around when is energy expensive, when is energy cheap. So there's enormous progress on the commercial side. And then individual households now with things like Nest or the equivalence, we're able to fine-tune our energy usage in ways that we just haven't seen before. And then you've got the whole transportation sector in which we've continued to make significant progress in Detroit as well as upstarts like Tesla. There are still some distribution network issues around the transportation revolution, although companies like UPS are doing a great job I think already experimenting with their fleets. So that's all good news. I would say that the big challenge now, if we're going to realize all the potential here, is to work with utilities so that they have a business model in which they're making money while seeing this change in distribution patterns and grid, because I think that there's still some legitimate economic issues there that have to be sorted through. And it's tricky because it's a patchwork system; we don't have one national grid, obviously. The second thing is, investment in basic research needs to continue. Battery technology is greatly improved, but we still haven't seen all the breakthroughs that I think that we can make with battery technology that would make a huge difference in storage. And that's an exciting area for development. And then I would urge the BRT and some of you individually, as companies have already done this, view the issue of climate change and the Paris Conference that's going to be coming up at the end of this year as an opportunity rather than as a problem. Because this is coming; it's coming generationally. If you talk to your kids or my kids, they are much more attuned to this issue. Consumers are going to be caring about it more and more. The environmental effects that we're seeing -- I'm going to be calling Jerry Brown later today just to talk about California wildfires. Some of you may have read the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada -- lowest it's been in 200 years. The flooding problems that we're already seeing in places like South Florida; it's just during high tide. Suddenly billions of dollars of property is under water. So this is coming. And for us to be out ahead of it and to think about how our ingenuity and our science can solve these problems is going to give us a jump on everybody else. So there is a pledge that some members of the BRT have organized around supporting a strong Paris agreement. I would encourage you to sign up on that and look for opportunities on this. And that includes companies that have been in the traditional fossil fuel area. Because if you know how to do oil and gas well, you can figure out how to do solar well, you can figure out to make money doing it. You can figure out how to create efficiencies that help your bottom line. And what we've tried to do with the Clean Power Plan is to give states flexibility, understanding everybody has got a different energy mix. So, down south, we approved the first nuclear plant in a generation, basically, because we think nuclear needs to be part of that package. I'm a big believer that there are going to be different ways to skin the cat on this thing. We just have to set a baseline in which all of us understand the direction we need to go. Instead of us spending a lot of time fighting science, let's go with science. We usually do better when we're on the side of facts and evidence and science. Just as a general rule, that's proved to be our strength as Americans. Jim. QUESTION: If I could just turn back to China for a second. There are a lot of issues we've got to sort out, and you mentioned a couple of them -- cybersecurity, their feelings about TPP, their own economy. Their inward turn in the name of creating a consumer economy has had some protectionist elements that we don't like. I think, though -- I think many in this room would like to see some kind of positive outcome from this summit, as well, that underlines our mutual benefit if we can figure out some of these things and find a way for the world's two biggest economies to see a path forward as well as all the issues we've got. Do you have a comment on the tone you're going to try to set with the President, and roles that we could play in supporting both the -- managing our relationship as well as finding a future for it? 11:20:32 OBAMA: My tone with respect to China has been pretty consistent. It doesn't jump up and down depending on where the polls are. My view is that China should be and will continue to be an economic competitor; that we need to make sure that we are reaching an understanding with them about our presence as a Pacific power, but that it is in our interest for China to continue what has been dubbed a "peaceful, orderly rise." I think that's good for the world. China is a big place with a lot of people. And we're better off if those people are eating and have shelter and are buying consumer goods, rather than starving and writhing on the streets. And so what I've consistently communicated, first to President Hu when I came into office, now President Xi, is our goal is to have them as a partner in helping to maintain a set of international rules and norms that benefit everybody; that in fact, we're what facilitated China's rise. They were essentially riding on our backs for the last 30 years because we were underwriting peace, security, the free flow of commerce, international rules in the financial sector. And as they have matured, what we've said to them is, with power comes responsibility, so now you've got to step up. You can't act as if you are a third-world country and pursue protectionist policies, or engage in dumping, or not protect intellectual property at a time when we're now -- when you're now the second and, eventually, probably the first-largest economy in the world. You can't simply pursue an export-driven strategy, because you're too big. You're not going to be able to grow your economy at the same pace over the next 20 years that you did in the last 20 years. Once your economy reaches a certain size, there's not enough global market to absorb that, which means that you've got to start thinking about transparency within your own economy, and how are you setting up a safety net so that workers have some cushion, and in turn, are willing to spend money as opposed to stuffing it in a mattress. You've got to be concerned about environmental issues, because you can't breathe in Beijing. And that spills over for all of us. And as a large country with a powerful military, you can't go around pushing your little neighbors around just because you're bigger, but you have to start abiding by a basic code of conduct and a set of rules, because ultimately, you will be advantaged by everybody following the rules. And I think in some areas, the Chinese understand this; I think in other areas, they don't. I think in other areas, they still see themselves as the poor country that shouldn't have any obligations internationally. And in some cases, they still feel that when we call them on issues like their behavior in the South China Sea, or on intellectual property theft, that we are trying to contain them as opposed to us just wanting them to abide by the same rules that helped create an environment in which they can rise. 11:25:07 The good news is that our fates are sufficiently intertwined, that -- and in many ways, they still need us a lot more than we need them; that I think that there are going to be continuing areas in which they move, as long as we don't resort to the kind of loose talk and name-calling that I notice some of our presidential candidates engage in -- people you know. (Laughter.) It tends not to be constructive. So bottom line, though, is, Jim, I think this summit will be useful. I think there are going to be a lot of outcomes around things like energy and climate change, around improvements in how they deal with investors that will show constructive progress. I think our military-to-military conversations have been much better than they were when I began office. 11:26:28 The one thing I would suggest that the BRT can do -- two things. Number one -- and I think I've said this to some of you in the past -- when your companies have a problem in China and you want us to help, you have to let us help. Don't tell us on the side, we've got this problem, you need to look into it, but then -- but leave our names out of it because we want to be punished kind of thing. Typically, we are not effective with the Chinese unless we are able to present facts and evidence of a problem. Otherwise, they'll just stonewall and slow-walk issues. So if we're seeing problems in terms of the competitive environment there, in terms of protecting your IP, in terms of unfair competition that runs afoul of understanding the principles that have already been established, you've got to let us know and let us be your advocates. That's important. The second thing I think everybody here should do is not fall into the same trap that we fell into around Japan in the 1980s, which is somehow China is taking over just like Japan was taking over, and we're in inevitable decline. This whole argument -- I'm just going to go on a quick rant here for a second -- (laughter) -- this whole notion that somehow we're getting out-competed, out-dealt, out-this, out-that, we're losing, we're in -- nobody outside the United States understands what we're talking about. (Laughter.) I mean we've got problems. We've got issues. Our biggest problem is gridlock in Washington and that's just not making some sensible policies. But overall, our cards are so much better than everybody else's. Our pool of quality businesses and talent, and our institutions, and our rule of law, and how we manage and adapt to new and changing circumstances, and our dominance in knowledge-based industries -- nobody matches us. And we attract -- the best talent around the world still wants to come here if we'd just let them come. So I think it's important for business voices to point out every once in a while America is in the driver's seat if we make some smart decisions. And that's not a partisan comment, that is just the facts. There is not a country out there, including China, that wouldn't look at us with envy right now. And so our problem is not that China is going to out-negotiate us, or that Mr. Putin is sort of out-strategizing us. Anybody taken a look at the Russian economy lately? That's not our problem. Our problem is us, typically. We engage in -- and I'm being generous when I say "we," -- (laughter) -- but we engage in self-inflicted wounds like this potential government shutdown. It's unnecessary. I've got time for a couple more questions. Good to see you. How you doing? How you doing, Ed? How is everybody back home? QUESTION: Very good. OBAMA: Good. QUESTION: Along that, in that same vein, looking earlier this summer, the expiration of the Ex-Im Bank authorization. OBAMA: Speaking of self-inflicted wounds. QUESTION: Understand. And part of the ongoing discussion, debate here in Washington, the Senate has attached a reauthorization, as you know, to the transportation bill, which is now down at the House. And on Monday the Roundtable sent a letter to the leadership on both sides in Congress pointing out really the benefits of reauthorization, that some of those get lost in this debate. Because really, it's been characterized as only benefiting a few companies, which ignores the thousands of people who are basically employed by our suppliers across the country, and the impact -- positive impact that has, as well as it's a net generator revenue for the governor -- for the government. And we have plans to have further discussions later today and this week with leadership in the House. Do you have any -- we had a good discussion with your team this morning. Do you have any insights that you could share with us that would help us in getting that reauthorization? OBAMA: It is mind-boggling that this wasn't reauthorized a year ago. And it is this weird reversal in which the principle opponents are the tea party caucus in the Republican Party. Somehow, Ex-Im Bank has become this cause celebre of what some of the presidential candidates called "crony capitalism." And what's ironic is obvious -- I think some of you know the backstory. There was I think a member of this organization that kind of started this whole thing because they were upset about some planes being sold to a competitor on a route, and suddenly this caught fire in the right wing Internet. And it's just hard to explain. Look, Ed, I had a group of small businesses, ranging from, what, four people to a couple of hundred people, talking about how they use Ex-Im. This is the only way that they can get into these markets. And as you said, Ex-Im doesn't cost the government. This is not a money loser for us. And I don't have to tell Emil or Jim how important it is. I keep on telling them I expect a gold watch from them because it seems like every time I take a foreign trip I've got to sell some turbine or plane. (Laughter.) And I was concerned about Jeff's announcement that jobs that were here in the United States are now going to be overseas because we don't get this done. But that's true for the supply chain; it's also true for some smaller companies that use Ex-Im directly. It's not just that they're part of the GE or Boeing supply chain, it's that they're selling tea to a country and this is the only mechanism they have to be able to make those sales. The good news is McConnell and Boehner both say they want to get it done. As you said, we've already shown there are sufficient votes for it in the Senate, and we actually think there are sufficient votes for it in the House. I would concentrate your attention on House Republican caucus members. And I think you have to flood the zone and let them know this is important. And that includes, by the way, talking to individual members who, in their districts, potentially have companies that are being adversely affected as long as Ex-Im is frozen. But my expectation is it gets done during the course of these budget negotiations. And we're going to push as hard as we can to get it, though. QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you for being here today. One of the issues that we deal with and we talked about last time you were here was regulations. And one of the areas that the Business Roundtable is very focused on these days is the ozone rule, which October 1, your administration will be coming out with a recommendation associated with that. The Business Roundtable position is that we need to maintain the 75 parts-per-billion. To lower that standard when technology doesn't exist and when communities are already advancing toward the 75 goal -- if you lower it to 70, it's going to introduce another 200 counties in this country into non-attainment, which basically is a "we're not open for business." And that's our concern. Do you have any thoughts on that, or what the administration's plans are in that regard? 11:36:06 OBAMA: There's a lot of complicated technical issues involved in this, but I'll try to simplify it as much as possible. Number one, we're under a court order to do this. So I think there may be a misperception that the EPA can do whatever it wants here. There were lawsuits brought under the previous administration that continued into my administration. We went before a judge. We actually, I think properly, got some additional time, because there was the notion that we were going to lower standards a few years ago, and then immediately get new data and force everybody to lower them all over again. And we said, let's just do this one time in a sensible way so that people can plan. But we've got some legal constraints. This is not something that just popped out of my head full blown. And so I always enjoy seeing the advertising for "Obama's ozone plan." The ozone rules date back to when I was I think still in law school, before I had any gray hair. And there are some fairly stringent statutory guidelines by which the EPA is supposed to evaluate the standards. So the EPA is following the science and the statutes as best as it can. We are mindful that in some cases, because of the nature of where pollutants are generated, where they blow, that this can create a really complicated situation for certain local jurisdictions and local communities, and some states and counties end up being hit worse than others. And we're trying to work with those states and those communities as best we can taking in their concerns into account. So I guess the bottom line is this is -- you can legitimately go after me on the clean power plant rule because we -- that was hatched by us, and I believe that we need to deal with climate change and -- so we can have a lengthy debate about that. And on ozone, this is an existing statute and an existing mechanism, and we are charged with implementing it based on the science that's presented to us. And that's what we're trying to do, but we're taking this input into account. I recognize some of the concerns. 11:39:15 I will say this -- last point I'll make on this. Even with the costs associated with implementing the ozone rule, when you do a cost- benefit, the amount of lives saved, asthma averted and so forth is still substantially higher than the costs. Now, that doesn't necessarily resolve all the concerns that people may have about local costs being borne, whereas the savings are spread out more broadly. And those are legitimate economic issues that have to be considered. And the EPA has been listening to I think every stakeholder there. But I think what you'll see in the analysis overall is -- we don't issue a regulation where the costs are not lower than the benefits. And if you look at the regulations we've generally put forward, the costs are substantially lower than the benefits that are generated. Okay. QUESTION: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Many of us are interested in Cuba. And the opening there has been positive. There is a lot of issues to get to full normal relations. Just how do you see that path happening? And what's the future of that in your opinion? Thank you. OBAMA: I don't think it's going to be an overnight transformation, but I am convinced that by re-engaging Cuba, re- engaging the Cuban people, that we are creating the environment in which a generational change and transition will take place in that country. And already you're seeing conversations taking place about how is Cuba going to accommodate an influx of tourists, and how do they think about the Internet and open communications in order to be able to participate in the modern economy? And that inevitably then leads to questions about can you hire -- can a company hire a Cuban directly, a foreign investor, as opposed to going through the government? And over time, that creates space for personal freedom and I think a long-term political transition. For now, what we've said is that we will step by step look for areas and opportunities within our authorities. As long as Congress still has the embargo in place, there are certain things we can't do. But there are certain things we can do, for example, on telecommunications, and we're looking for opportunities there. And we will also continue to press the Cuban government around issues of political freedom. And when His Holiness the Pope comes, he's going to be visiting Cuba. That I think is going to be an opportunity for more interesting conversations inside of Cuba. 11:42:57 My biggest suggestion would be for the BRT just to start having a conversation on a bipartisan basis about lifting the embargo. It doesn't necessarily have to happen -- or even should happen all in one fell swoop. But I think if you look at the economic opportunities that are presented, they're significant. And it doesn't make much sense that a country 90 miles off the shore of Florida that is not at this point a significant threat to us, and that has shown itself willing to at least look beyond its borders for the first time -- even if it's still scared of what it might bring -- it doesn't make sense for us to keep sticking to the old ways of doing business. I'll actually take one more question, and then I'll come around and say hi to everybody. So anybody else? Yes, go ahead. QUESTION: Mr. President, again, thank you. And I know a topic near to your heart has been education for young folks, and you've spent a lot of time on this. And many of us have done things private- public partnerships. And you recently made a comment about computer science for all high school kids, which I think is an important point, because technology is such a broad topic. It will infiltrate all jobs in the future. So maybe a chance to make some comments about how you envision something like that actually taking root over the long term that we could make some progress with it -- on scale.

AP-APTN-2330 Americas L Prime News-Final Friday, 7 May 2010 Americas L Prime News US Oil 2 02:46 Part NAmerica/ Internet REPLAY Latest on efforts to contain leaks, briefing, underwater footage US Markets 01:54 AP Clients Only REPLAY Obama, trader, analyst on sudden market plunge ++UK Talks 02:30 Part UK/CNNi/RTE/Al Jazeera English NEW LibDems and Tories in talks, Clegg, reax, protest, papers MidEast US 2 02:53 AP Clients Only REPLAY US Mideast envoy, Mitchell meets Abbas, West Bank clashes Europe Ash 02:22 Part No Iceland REPLAY Irish airports reopen despite ash cloud, Eurocontrol reax Nepal Protest 01:30 AP Clients Only REPLAY 20-thousand gather in Katmandu against Maoist strike India Dalai Lama 01:45 AP Clients Only REPLAY Tibetan leader says exiles must press forward with China talks ++EU Finance 02:30 AP Clients Only NEW Leaders announce mechanism to preserve financial stability B-u-l-l-e-t-i-n begins at 2330 GMT. APEX 05-07-10 1956EDT -----------End of rundown----------- AP-APTN-2330: US Oil 2 Friday, 7 May 2010 STORY:US Oil 2- REPLAY Latest on efforts to contain leaks, briefing, underwater footage LENGTH: 02:46 FIRST RUN: 2130 RESTRICTIONS: Part NAmerica/ Internet TYPE: English/Nat/Mute SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/ABC/BP/COAST GUARD STORY NUMBER: 645064 DATELINE: Various - 7 May 2010 LENGTH: 02:46 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY ABC - NO ACCESS NORTH AMERICA/INTERNET BP HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY COAST GUARD HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: BP HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY Off Louisiana Coast - 04-05 May 2010 1. Various of Deepwater Horizon Response remotely operated vehicle conducting sub-sea operations ++MUTE++ COAST GUARD HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY Gulf of Mexico - 21 April, 2010 2. Aerial of ships trying to put out fire on oil rig ABC - NO ACCESS NORTH AMERICA/INTERNET Recent - Exact Date and Location Unknown 3. SOUNDBITE (English) Dwayne Martinez, Rescued Oil Rig Worker: (clients please note soundbite begins on shot 2) "Everybody was scared to death. Nothing went as planned like it was supposed to." COAST GUARD HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY Gulf of Mexico - 21 April, 2010 4. Aerial of ships trying to put out fire on oil rig ABC - NO ACCESS NORTH AMERICA/INTERNET Recent - Exact Date and Location Unknown 5. SOUNDBITE (English) Micah Sandell, Rescued Oil Rig Worker: (clients please note soundbite begins on shot 4) "There was people screaming and hollering. There was people jumping off the side. I've never seen nothing like that. Never." 6. SOUNDBITE (English) Dwayne Martinez, Rescued Oil Rig Worker: "No kind of alarms. We didn't hear any kind of alarms until there was one explosion." COAST GUARD HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY Gulf of Mexico - 21 April, 2010 7. Aerial of ships trying to put out fire on oil rig ABC - NO ACCESS NORTH AMERICA/INTERNET Recent - Exact Date and Location Unknown 8. SOUNDBITE (English) Micah Sandell, Rescued Oil Rig Worker: (clients please note soundbite begins on shot 7) "They always tell us that we have safety devices and warnings, and they got ways of shutting it in, and it don't seem like they had nothing." AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Shell Beach, Louisiana - 07 May 2010 9. Fishermen and other workers building booms against oil spill 10. Workers handling boom 11. Wide of unidentified BP official speaking to fishermen 12. SOUNDBITE (English) BP Official, Name Not Known: "BP can't pay you to do work then deduct that from a settlement. That's called unjust enrichment, that's right, and you'd basically be working for free. So that's not going to impact your claim, whatever that claim might be." 13. Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter talking to fisherman 14. SOUNDBITE (English) Lester Ansardi, Commercial Fisherman: "I got to work somewhere. Of course we haven't got paid yet. Don't know exactly what we're going to get paid or when we're going to get paid. But if I sit home, I know I'm not going to get paid." AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Gulf of Mexico - 06 May 2010 ++NIGHT SHOTS++ 15. Wide of containment box being lowered into water, ABC - NO ACCESS NORTH AMERICA/INTERNET Robert, Louisiana - 07 May 2010 16. SOUNDBITE (English) Mary Landry, US Coast Guard Rear Admiral: "I have to continue to manage your expectations. This is not the final solution on securing the source, the final solution absolutely is cementing and closing off this well. I also have to manage your expectations because this is the first time this has been tried in this depth of water and there's lots of firsts we are seeing here and we have to allow it to... There is a lot of steps before it actually can be activated, so, I want to let you know that this is going to take a few days. This is not going to be something instantaneous." AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Gulf of Mexico - 06 May 2010 ++NIGHT SHOTS++ 17. Close of containment box in water ABC - NO ACCESS NORTH AMERICA/INTERNET Robert, Louisiana - 07 May 2010 18. SOUNDBITE (English) Doug Suttles, BP Chief Operating Officer: "So that activity should be complete by the end of today and then over the next two days, over the weekend, we expect to connect that dome to the drill ship Enterprise, at which time, hopefully at the beginning of next week, we'll begin to start to evacuate the oil from the sea bed up to the surface. As Admiral Landry stated, we should recognise this hasn't been done before, and we should expect it will undoubtedly have some complications, but we are committed to trying to make this work." AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Gulf of Mexico - 06 May 2010 ++NIGHT SHOTS++ 19. Wide of most of the containment box underwater STORYLINE: BP lowered a 100-ton concrete-and-steel vault onto a ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico on Friday, an important step in a delicate and unprecedented attempt to stop most of the gushing crude fouling the sea. Underwater robots guided the 40-foot (12-metre) tall box into place. Now that the contraption is on the seafloor, workers will need at least 12 hours to let it settle and make sure it's stable before the robots can hook up a pipe and hose that will funnel the oil up to a tanker. By Sunday, the box the size of a house could be capturing up to 85 percent of the oil. So far about 3 (m) million gallons (11 (m) million litres) have leaked in an environmental crisis that has been unfolding since a deepwater drilling platform exploded April 20, sending toxic oil toward a shoreline of marshes, shipping channels, fishing grounds and beaches. Eleven workers were killed in the accident. Some of those who survived told US network ABC their accounts of what happened aboard the rig. "Everybody was scared to death," said Dwayne Martinez, an oil worker who was aboard the rig when the explosion occurred. "Nothing went as planned like it was supposed to." "There was people screaming and hollering. There was people jumping off the side. I've never seen nothing like that," said Micah Sandell, another worker who survived the blast. Martinez and Sandell said there were no alarms to warn them of a possible fire or explosion and there appeared to be no functioning safety devices or procedures in place to bring the situation under control. The lowering of the containment device was a slow-moving drama playing out 50 miles (80 kilometres) from Louisiana's coast, requiring great precision and attention to detail. It took about two weeks to build the box, and the effort to lower it by crane and cable to the seafloor began late Thursday night. After it hit the bottom on Friday afternoon, the crane gradually eased off to allow it to settle. The task became increasingly urgent as toxic oil crept deeper into the bays and marshes of the Mississippi Delta. A sheen of oil began arriving on land last week, and crews have been putting out floating barriers, spraying chemical dispersants and setting fire to the slick to try to keep it from coming ashore. But now the slick is drawing ever closer to Louisiana's coastal communities. In Shell Beach, Louisiana, a coast usually full of fishermen has been replaced by one full of law enforcement vessels, dealing with the massive oil spill. Many of the fishermen are now working for BP to help deploy the barriers against the oil. "I got to work somewhere. Of course we haven't got paid yet. Don't know exactly what we're going to get paid or when we're going to get paid. But if I sit home I know I'm not going to get paid," said Lester Ansardi, a commercial fisherman. BP representatives assured the fishermen that they would be paid soon and tried to put an end to rumours that the money they make now could affect any settlements with the company down the road. Authorities are warning there are still untold risks and unknowns with the containment box. The approach has never been tried at such depths, where the water pressure is enough to crush a submarine, and any wrong move could damage the leaking pipe and make the problem worse. "We should expect it will undoubtedly have some complications, but we are committed to trying to make this work," BP Chief Operating Officer, Doug Suttles, said on Friday. The seafloor is pitch black and the water murky, though lights on the robots illuminate the area where they are working. If the box works, another one will be dropped onto a second, smaller leak at the bottom of the Gulf. An estimated 200-thousand gallons (757,060 litres) a day have been spewing ever since in the nation's biggest oil spill since the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1989. The containment device will not solve the problem altogether. Crews are still drilling a relief well and working on other methods to stop the well from leaking. The quest took on added urgency as oil reached several barrier islands off the Louisiana coast, many of them fragile animal habitats. Several birds were spotted diving into the oily, pinkish-brown water, and dead jellyfish washed up on the uninhabited islands. Seas were calm Friday, and the Coast Guard hoped to continue skimming oil from the ocean surface, burning it at sea and dropping chemicals from the air to break it up. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-07-10 1932EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: US Markets Friday, 7 May 2010 STORY:US Markets- REPLAY Obama, trader, analyst on sudden market plunge LENGTH: 01:54 FIRST RUN: 2130 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/NYSE/POOL STORY NUMBER: 645072 DATELINE: New York/Washington DC - 7 May 2010 LENGTH: 01:54 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY NYSE - AP CLIENTS ONLY POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: POOL Washington, D.C. 1. US President Barack Obama walking up to podium 2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Barack Obama, US President: "The regulatory authorities are evaluating this closely with a concern for protecting investors and preventing this from happening again, and they will make findings of their review public along with recommendations for appropriate action." NYSE New York City 3. Various shots of New York Stock Exchange trading floor AP TELEVISION New York City 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Teddy Weisberg, Seaport Securities, New York: "It's become more electronic because that's what the government and the exchanges wanted so we have much more volatility in the markets. Yesterday was interesting and disturbing but quite frankly I think it is a sign of what's to come in terms of volatility. I mean there are fundamental reasons for the market weakness yesterday but there are also technical reasons, and it's hard to know what played a bigger role. But the combination of the two clearly resulted in a very unusual day." NYSE New York City 5. Close of monitor in New York Stock Exchange AP TELEVISION New York City 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Professor John Coffeey Adolph A Burley, Professor of Law at Columbia Law School: "Well, it depends on each trader, what kind of trigger he puts into his own trading mechanism. He may instruct that all of his stocks are to be sold at a specific percentage decline, or he may put in different triggers for different stocks, or he may have an overall instruction if the market declines a certain level. But the net impact of this is that the first triggers that are activated may in turn trigger later, more conservative triggers." NYSE New York City 7. Trader on the phone AP TELEVISION New York City 8. SOUNDBITE: (English) Beth Ann Bovino, Senior Economist at Standard &amp;amp; Poors: "I think a lot of things moved the markets today. Predominantly what dominated the market moves was, of course, the fear over what's happening in Europe, whether the Greece crisis will spread into its neighbours and how that will affect the United States. There seems to be a lot of concern about that, people are worried that what happened just a few months ago will tip us back right into another plunge for the real economy." NYSE New York City 9. Wide shot of trading floor STORYLINE US markets experienced a second volatile day in trading on Friday, with the Dow Jones closing with a loss of about 140 points, a day after a brief plunge of nearly 1,000 points, the biggest one-day drop in the Dow's history. A computerised sell-off mixed with fears that the European debt crisis would spread sent the Dow Jones industrial average plummeting by almost 1,000 points within a half-hour on Thursday afternoon. The market regained two-thirds of the loss before the end of trading. On Friday the Dow closed with a loss of about 140 points, having been down almost 280 earlier. US President Barack Obama said that regulatory authorities were evaluating the "unusual market activity" on Wall Street this week in hopes of keeping such a sudden, violent drop from happening again. "The regulatory authorities are evaluating this closely with a concern for protecting investors and preventing this from happening again," he said. Obama said regulators would make public their findings and recommendations about the stock market. Teddy Weisberg, of Seaport Securities, said Thursday's trading was disturbing, but a sign of things to come. "It's become more electronic because that's what the government and the exchanges wanted so we have much more volatility in the markets," he said. Investors are also reacting to Greece's debt crisis, as European leaders attempt to persuade world markets that the spiralling contagion from Greece would not spread to other countries with vulnerable state finances such as Portugal and Spain and derail Europe's economic recovery. Obama said he and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed on the importance of a strong policy response by the affected countries as well as a strong financial response from the international community, including the US. The German government on Friday approved its contribution of more than 28 (b) billion US dollars to the rescue package. The White House said Obama is getting regular updates on the situation in Greece. The IMF board of directors planned to meet Sunday in Washington to approve a 40 (b) billion US dollar loan to Greece as part of the rescue package. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-07-10 1932EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: ++UK Talks Friday, 7 May 2010 STORY:++UK Talks- NEW LibDems and Tories in talks, Clegg, reax, protest, papers LENGTH: 02:30 FIRST RUN: 2330 RESTRICTIONS: Part UK/CNNi/RTE/Al Jazeera English TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: VARIOUS STORY NUMBER: 645084 DATELINE: London - 7 May 2010 LENGTH: 02:30 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SKY - NO ACCESS UK/CNNi/RTE/AL JAZEERA ENGLISH BIGPICTURETV.CO.UK - AP CLIENTS ONLY/MANDATORY ON SCREEN COURTESY SHOTLIST SKY - NO ACCESS UK/CNNi/RTE/Al Jazeera English 1. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg leaving party offices with media scrum around him asking about his party's negotiations with the Conservative party 2. Car leaving 3. Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, Simon Hughes, coming out of offices, UPSOUND (English) Reporter: "Can you tell us about the meeting?" 4. SOUNDBITE (English) Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament: "I won't add anything. There's been a simple statement. There have been talks, and there will be more, that's all. You'll have to wait. You can be patient." (Reporter: What are your red lines, can you tell us that? ) "I don't want to add to it any more. You're just going to have to be patient. That's sorting things out sort things out, it takes a bit of time, but that's (inaudible)." (Reporter asking question about electoral reform) "There will be talks. There have to be talks. There will be no more statements for the time being. I'm sorry about that but the process has to take its time. And it's going, as you'd expect, properly, carefully, and respectfully, respecting the views of the British people." (Reporter asking about the duration of time it will take before the Liberal Democrats make a decision about potential coalition) "I'm not going to speculate, I am not going to speculate. You good people will be told in due course, I promise." 5. Hughes leaving 6. SOUNDBITE (English) William Hague, Conservative party Member of Parliament: "Any negotiation will be a very difficult process. But we think it is right to start in the spirit that David Cameron set out in his speech. That open generous spirit in which he set out, because that gives the maximum chance of success." 7. Exterior of Number 10 Downing Street, the British prime minister's residence AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY 8. Various of British newspaper headlines carrying front page stories about the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in negotiation talks BIGPICTURETV.CO.UK - AP CLIENTS ONLY/MANDATORY ON SCREEN COURTESY 9. Various of man demonstrating outside Number 10 Downing Street gates about Britain lacking a leader, police ushering him away STORYLINE Britain's inconclusive election turned into high political drama on Friday, with the Conservatives and Labour Party wooing a potential ally, as a public accustomed to clearer outcomes watched transfixed. Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg held telephone talks on Friday, kicking off a furious round of negotiations. Clegg was later seen leaving his party's headquarters near Parliament, while Conservative lawmaker William Hague and George Osborne, another senior Tory figure, were both seen leaving a meeting at the Cabinet office. All declined to comment on the prospects of any potential deal. Simon Hughes, a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, refused to speculate on any deal and did not comment on the talks. "There have been talks, and there will be more, that's all," he told reporters who doorstepped him at the party's headquarters. "It's going, as you'd expect, properly, carefully, and respectfully, respecting the views of the British people," he added. Cameron, ahead but shy of a majority, seized the initiative earlier in the day with an offer to the ideologically dissimilar but possibly willing Liberal Democrats. Hague told British broadcaster Sky News that any negotiation would be "difficult," but said that the spirit in which Cameron set out his offer gave the talks the "maximum chance of success." Labour incumbent Gordon Brown, beaten but still battling, dangled before the Liberal Democrats their dream of major electoral reform. A weekend of frantic negotiations loomed, but momentum seemed to be with the youthful Cameron. Clegg did not immediately respond in public to his opponents' overtures, but said earlier that the party that had gained the most seats and the most votes, the Conservatives, should have the first right to try to govern. Ideologically, the centre-left Clegg has more in common with Brown. Both oppose the immediate cuts Cameron says are needed to begin rebalancing Britain's debt-burdened economy and both have attacked his Tories as the party of privilege. Clegg has clashed with Brown and Cameron over Britain's expensive submarine-launched nuclear deterrent, which the Liberal Democrat leader has indicated he may want to scrap. But the Conservatives have held out the tantalising prospect of Liberal Democrat seats in a Tory government, with Hague saying Cabinet posts were not off the table. Cameron also left open the option of trying to form a minority government if the Liberal Democrats turned him down. Brown, too, appealed to the Liberal Democrats to make a deal, and went farther than Cameron by promising quick legislation on electoral reform. Even a deal with the Liberal Democrats would leave Labour a few seats short of a majority, meaning they would have to turn to Scottish and Welsh nationalists for further support. Final results in Thursday's election gave the Conservatives 306 seats in the 650 seat House of Commons. Labour won 258 seats, the Liberal Democrats 57, and smaller parties 28. Voting in one constituency was postponed until later this month because of the death of a candidate. Thursday's closely fought election was the first since 1974 to produce a "hung Parliament," in which no party has overall control. The prospect of days, and possibly weeks, of political horse-trading unsettled the financial markets. As the pound and the FTSE-100 index fell sharply, pressure mounted for a quick solution. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-07-10 2021EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: MidEast US 2 Friday, 7 May 2010 STORY:MidEast US 2- REPLAY US Mideast envoy, Mitchell meets Abbas, West Bank clashes LENGTH: 02:53 FIRST RUN: 1630 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 645063 DATELINE: Various - 7 May 2010 LENGTH: 02:53 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY ++QUALITY AS INCOMING++ SHOTLIST Ramallah, West Bank 1. Wide of Palestinian presidential compound with convoy of US Middle East envoy George Mitchell arriving 2. Mitchell greeting officials, waving 3. Interior, various of Mitchell and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in meeting 4. Abbas and Mitchell shaking hands Nabi Saleh, northern West Bank 5. Wide of protesters marching, chanting slogans 6. Various of protesters chanting, waving Palestinian flags 7. Wide of protesters running away as Israeli border policemen fire tear gas 8. Israeli border policeman firing tear gas 9. Close up of border policeman in full riot gear and a gas mask looking over fence 10. Palestinian protestors running behind house as tear gas thrown; zoom out to wide of scene with tear gas spreading 11. Fumes of tear gas in streets 12. Close up of empty tear gas canisters and used tear gas grenades hanging on electric wire 13. Protestors on street, tear gas spreading next to them 14. Photographers in riot gear 15. More of protesters on street 16. Israeli border policemen running forward, firing tear gas towards protestors 17. Israeli policemen standing next to jeep 18. Protestors hurling rocks at Israeli police and army jeeps 19. Protestors throwing stones at jeep as they drive away, Halamish settlement in background STORYLINE U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday, part of a trip to the region to get peace talks up and running between Israel and the Palestinians. Mitchell was in the West Bank to secure Palestinian agreement on indirect peace talks with Israel, and to try and bridge their vast differences on what a future Palestinian state should look like. The two met at the Palestinian presidential compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Abbas had agreed to indirect peace talks, but said he still required the formal backing of Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) leaders who will meet on Saturday. The Palestinians refuse to enter direct negotiations unless Israel halts all settlement construction in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Meanwhile on Friday, approximately 50 protesters, including Palestinians, Israelis and foreigners, clashed with Israeli soldiers and border policemen near the west bank village of Nabi Saleh. The clashes erupted during a weekly protest over a spring claimed by both Palestinians and Jewish settlers. The protestors hurled rocks towards the soldiers and policemen and the soldiers fired tear gas in retaliation. The Palestinians claim the settlers took over the spring, and that since then they have not been able to access it. An Israeli army spokesperson said that Israeli forces broken up the demonstration but made no comment on the status of the spring and access to it. Earlier on Friday Mitchell had met Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem. Peres declared Israel was ready to reach an agreement on Palestinian statehood, but first wanted its security concerns addressed. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-07-10 1932EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: Europe Ash Friday, 7 May 2010 STORY:Europe Ash- REPLAY Irish airports reopen despite ash cloud, Eurocontrol reax LENGTH: 02:22 FIRST RUN: 1330 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Iceland TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/RUV STORY NUMBER: 645035 DATELINE: Various - 5/7 May 2010 LENGTH: 02:22 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY RUV - NO ACCES ICELAND SHOTLIST Brussels - 7 May 2010 1. Wide exterior of the headquarters of Eurocontrol, the European Air Traffic navigation and safety organisation 2. Close of Eurocontrol logo on building 3. Wide of Eurocontrol Deputy Head of Operations Brian Flynn 4. Cutaway workers in headquarters at computer terminals 5. SOUNDBITE: (English) Brian Flynn, Eurocontrol's Deputy Head of Operations: "The disruption will mean that there will be some delays on the departures of the transatlantic flights because they all have to route down through Spain and Portugal out onto the ocean, so there will be some congestion in the Spanish and the Portuguese airspace so there may be some delays on the departures of flights. But all of the transatlantic flights will be able to operate today." 6. Cutaway Brian Flynn's hands 7. SOUNDBITE: (English) Brian Flynn, Eurocontrol's Deputy Head of Operations: "The outlook over the next 48 hours is fairly similar. First of all from a good point of view the volcano is now erupting only to about 20-thousand (6000 metres) feet whereas it was going up to 30-thousand (9000 metres) over the last 48 hours. So that will be somewhat we hope less ash but of course we don't know exactly what will happen. The weather prospect is that it is not expected that the potential ash cloud will come onto the European mainland to any significant extent. There is a slight possibility that it could touch the extreme west of Spain and Portugal but that is a slight risk at this time. " 8. Various of staff at work at Eurocontrol headquarters, computer screens RUV - NO ACCES ICELAND Near Eyjafjallajokul - 5 May 2010 9. Various aerials of grey and white smoke plumes rising from the volcano 10. Aerial zoom in to volcano crater, plumes of ash rising ++MUTE++ STORYLINE Ash from the Eyjafjallajokul volcano will probably not affect European flights, but it might cause some disruptions on transatlantic ones, officials said on Friday. "There will be some congestion in the Spanish and the Portuguese airspace so there may be some delays on the departures of flights but all of the transatlantic flights will be able to operate today," said Brian Flynn, the Deputy Head of operations at Eurocontrol, a Brussels agency that determines the air routes that airliners use across the continent. Eurocontrol said that as the ash cloud has expanded southward, it has squeezed the air space available to trans-Atlantic flights, creating a traffic jam in Spanish air space. The agency warned airliners detouring along the southern edge of the spreading cloud to expect delays of up to 100 minutes. Ireland reopened its western airports on Friday but warned that a 1,000-mile-long (1,600-kilometre-long) cloud of volcanic ash from Iceland was still lurking offshore. The Irish Aviation Authority, which ordered a half-dozen airports shut overnight, quickly reopened them once it became clear that the cloud was staying sufficiently far from Ireland's Atlantic coast, at least until the winds shift once again. Until Iceland's Eyjafjallajokul volcano stops its emissions, the key to the future course of Europe's ash crisis will be the prevailing Atlantic winds. When the winds blow to the northeast toward the unpopulated Arctic, typical in springtime, the danger to aircraft is minimised. But when they shift southward, as happened both this week and in mid-April, airlines' ability to land and depart safely can be jeopardised. The glacier-capped volcano, about 900 miles (1,500 kilometres) northwest of Ireland, has shown no signs of stopping since it began belching ash on April 13. It last erupted from 1821 to 1823. In Iceland, a civil protection official Agust Gunnar Gylfason said the eruption intensified on Wednesday and the volcano continued to emit a higher volume of ash on Thursday. He said the ash plume's maximum altitude was oscillating between 20-thousand and 30-thousand feet (6,000 and 9,000 metres). Until recent days, the ash had remained below 20-thousand feet (6,000 metres) Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-07-10 1933EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: Nepal Protest Friday, 7 May 2010 STORY:Nepal Protest- REPLAY 20-thousand gather in Katmandu against Maoist strike LENGTH: 01:30 FIRST RUN: 1030 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 645020 DATELINE: Katmandu - 7 May 2010 LENGTH: 01:30 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST 1. Various top shots of protesters in rally against Maoist-imposed strike 2. Protesters running past camera 3. Various of anti-riot police holding shields and wooden sticks chasing protesters 4. Police firing tear gas shells 5. Police holding sticks and shields, with tear gas fumes rising in background 6. Wide of tear gas fumes in street 7. Police hitting a closed door with protesters hiding behind it 8. Wooden sticks, flags and protesters' belongings scattered on road 9. Reverse shot of anti-riot police firing tear gas towards protesters 10. Police forces washing eyes with water after firing tear gas 11. Paramedics taking away an injured protester STORYLINE Police fired warning shots on Friday as thousands of protesters gathered in Nepal's capital to demand an end to a crippling general strike imposed by former communist guerrillas seeking the government's resignation. The estimated crowd of 20-thousand, including doctors, lawyers, business executives, singers, teachers, and daily wage labourers, demanded a halt to the six-day strike that has shut down transportation, businesses and schools in Katmandu and other cities. It was the largest protest against the Maoist-imposed strike since it began on Sunday. The Maoists want Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal to resign and hand power over to a Maoist-led administration. The government has said it won't bow to the demands. The Maoists traditionally back their strike calls with the threat of violence against those who defy them, and their supporters went into Katmandu neighbourhoods on Friday to try to forcibly shut shops that owners opened for business. Thousands of police in riot gear guarded the capital's streets to prevent violence. Police reported at least two clashes on Friday and officers shot weapons into the air and fired tear gas cannisters to bring the situation under control. No information on casualties was immediately available. The unrest has raised fears of renewed bloodshed in Nepal, where the Maoists ended their decade-old insurgency, which left an estimated 13-thousand people dead, and joined a peace process in 2006. The communists won elections in 2008 and briefly led a coalition government. A dispute over the army chief's firing, however, split the coalition, leading to the formation of the current administration that the Maoists are trying to topple. Residents opposed to the strike began lashing out on Thursday, assaulting strike supporters and setting a car on fire in scattered clashes in the capital and other towns. The unrest comes as Nepal's Constituent Assembly, elected to draw up a new constitution, struggles to draft the charter before its term expires May 28. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-07-10 1933EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: India Dalai Lama Friday, 7 May 2010 STORY:India Dalai Lama- REPLAY Tibetan leader says exiles must press forward with China talks LENGTH: 01:45 FIRST RUN: 1230 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 645030 DATELINE: Dharmasala - 7 May 2010 LENGTH: 01:45 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST 1. Wide of Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama getting out of car and walking up steps 2. Wide of Dalai Lama talking to devotee 3. Close of Dalai Lama holding devotee's hands 4. SOUNDBITE (English): Dalai Lama, Tibetan Spiritual Leader: "Now we must find solution through dialogue, in the spirit of reconciliation. That's the only way." (Reporter: But your dialogue is failing. It's not working with Beijing.) "So including our own case also there must be spirit of reconciliation and through dialogue. So that I already mentioned to you. So far dialogue failed, but that does not mean in future no possibility, I don't think. See, we wait now 51 years. Now another 10, 20 years we can wait." 5. Cutaway of Dalai Lama's hand 6. SOUNDBITE (English): Dalai Lama, Tibetan Spiritual Leader: "Now whole world knows we are not seeking independence, but then it is Chinese officials who always repeat, we are splittist (laughing). So these are the causes of frustration. But that frustration does not mean we completely lost our hope." 7. Dalai Lama handing over prayer beads to a little girl, laughing 8. Devotee taking photograph 9. Pan of Dalai Lama walking down corridor STORYLINE The Tibetan exile movement must press forward with its talks with the Chinese government despite almost no progress from years of negotiations, the Dalai Lama said on Friday. In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, the exiled spiritual leader warned that it could be decades before any benefits of such talks with China are obvious. "So far, dialogue failed, but that does not mean in future no possibility," the Dalai Lama said in his private compound in Dharmsala, the Indian hill town where he has lived since fleeing Tibet more than five decades ago. He said Tibetans were prepared to keep waiting for an improvement in their relationship with Beijing. "We wait now 51 years. Now another 10, 20 years we can wait," he said. The Dalai Lama has said he hopes talks will bring some form of autonomy for Tibet within China that would allow the Tibetan culture, language and religion to thrive. But Beijing frequently accuses the Nobel Peace laureate of seeking independence for Tibet. "Now, whole world knows we are not seeking independence, but then it is Chinese officials who always repeat, we are splittist," the Dalai Lama said. But he added that increasing sympathy for the Tibetan cause among Chinese intellectuals indicates that Beijing's policies could change. He also said there had been vague signs from Beijing that some of the top Chinese leadership might be ready to moderate its stand on Tibet. Talks between China and the Dalai Lama's envoys resumed in January for the first time in 15 months but made no apparent progress on the Tibetans' proposal for more autonomy in the region. Beijing refused to even talk about granting Tibet more latitude, limiting those discussions to the future of the exiled spiritual leader. The Dalai Lama fled his homeland in 1959, nine years after Communist troops marched into the Himalayan region. Beijing claims Tibet has been a Chinese territory for centuries, but many Tibetans say they were effectively independent for most of that time and that migration to the region and restrictions on Buddhism are threatening their cultural heritage. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-07-10 1936EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: ++EU Finance Friday, 7 May 2010 STORY:++EU Finance- NEW Leaders announce mechanism to preserve financial stability LENGTH: 02:30 FIRST RUN: 2330 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/French/Nat SOURCE: EBS STORY NUMBER: 645083 DATELINE: Brussels - 8 May 2010 LENGTH: 02:30 EBS - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST 1. Wide of news conference 2. European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at news conference 3. SOUNDBITE (English) Herman Van Rompuy, European Council President: "All heads of state and of government of the Euro area are fully aware that we face a serious situation in the Euro zone. It is about responsibility and it is about solidarity, we will face this situation together." 4. Cutaway of media 5. SOUNDBITE (English) Jose Manuel Barroso, European Commission President: "We will do whatever it takes to safeguard financial stability, not only of Greece but of all the Euro area. What you can see tonight is the eurozone united around its currency, the euro." 6. Wide end of news conference 7. SOUNDBITE (French) Nicolas Sarkozy, French President: "We have decided to put into place a European intervention mechanism to preserve financial stability in Europe. The Spanish presidency (Spain currently holds the rotating EU presidency) will call a meeting of the finance ministers of the 27 EU member states on Sunday 9 May to finalise during the course of the day the technical rules of these community mechanisms. Now speculators have to know that they will get nothing for their efforts." 8. Various of Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou leaving meeting STORYLINE: French President Nicolas Sarkozy said EU leaders have agreed to a European intervention mechanism to calm markets that have been rattled by the Greek debt crisis. Sarkozy spoke early on Saturday following an emergency summit in Brussels of eurozone nations that are worried the problems in Greece could spread to other countries, including Spain and Portugal. Sarkozy also said European finance ministers will hold an emergency meeting Sunday to work out a plan to fight speculation against their joint currency, the euro. "We face a serious situation in the Euro zone," European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said at a news conference after the meeting early Saturday. "It is about responsibility and it is about solidarity, we will face this situation together." "We will do whatever it takes to safeguard financial stability, not only of Greece but of all the Euro area," European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso added. European leaders also agreed to consolidate public finances and bring in the European Central Bank to ensure eurozone stability. The summit, originally called to sign off on a bailout plan for Greece and draw lessons for the future, turned into one of crisis management amid market turmoil. Financial markets have continued to sell off the euro and Greek bonds even as EU leaders have insisted for days that the Greek financial implosion is a unique combination of bad management, free spending and statistical cheating that doesn't apply to other euro-zone nations. Opening the evening summit among visibly tense dinner partners, Sarkozy and Barroso insisted the crisis now had gone beyond Greece itself and affected the very roots of the currency. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-07-10 2030EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM -------------------

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer The James S. Brady Briefing Room 1:07 P.M. EST MR. FLEISCHER: Thanks for spending your early afternoon with me. A few notices here. The President has invited Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien to meet with him at the White House on February 5th. President Bush looks forward to a meeting and working dinner with the Prime Minister. This will be an opportunity for the two leaders to review the scope of this exceptionally close and important bilateral relationship and discuss its course in the coming years. The second item -- and then I'll be happy to take questions -- is there was some very important testimony delivered on Capitol Hill this morning by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who talked about the fact that, in his judgment, the economy can benefit from a tax cut. As you know, President Bush, throughout the campaign when he announced this tax cut, said that this tax cut will also, in addition to other reasons, serve as an insurance policy against any future economic downturns. We're very heartened to see that Chairman Greenspan has weighed in on the importance of cutting taxes to protect the economy, and we hope that the Congress will join President Bush and Chairman Greenspan in cutting taxes, in passing the Bush tax, cut so we can protect the strength of our economy. Q Almost everyone agrees that a tax cut would help; even the Democrats are willing to go along with it if it appears somewhere in the range of $800 billion to $900 billion. The question is, how much? And do you read anything into Greenspan's comments about whether or not the size of your tax cut is the one he thinks would be appropriate? MR. FLEISCHER: I think what is most important is to protect the economy. There are certain tax cuts that we need to do because they are simply the right thing in terms of values. There is no reason that people should pay a tax upon death; the death tax should be abolished. There is no reason that married people should pay higher taxes simply because they say "I do." We should reduce the marriage penalty. But the most effective tax cut you can make to protect the economy, in President Bush's opinion, is a marginal, across-the-board income tax rate cut. Q Maybe I missed it, but where in his testimony did Chairman Greenspan say -- talk about the importance of cutting taxes to help the economy? I thought he was saying there was room -- MR. FLEISCHER: He is talking about in the soft economy -- Q He was saying there was room in the surplus for cutting taxes. MR. FLEISCHER: But he also talked about an economic softness. Q But did he link the economic softness to the need for tax cuts? MR. FLEISCHER: I think he referred to the fact that in a time of economic softness, tax cuts could be helpful. Q But isn't the opposite true, didn't he make the opposite -- MR. FLEISCHER: I saw that, actually, in an AP wire story. Q But I'm looking at his testimony, Ari. And in fact, he makes the point that -- as the President said, the President said more, as you know, than that we need this as an insurance policy. He says we need a tax cut now more than ever as a stimulus. And what Greenspan is saying today, "Such tax initiatives, however, historically have proved difficult to implement in the time frame in which recessions have developed and ended." So how does that square with what the President thinks is necessary? MR. FLEISCHER: He also said -- and again, there are a series of reasons -- let me repeat the three reasons President Bush believes we should cut taxes -- Q But can you skip to this issue -- MR. FLEISCHER: I will. I'm getting there. The President believes we should cut taxes because, one, it's the people's money, they paid it into the government, they deserve it back. Two, and Chairman Greenspan would agree with this, that if you don't cut taxes, the politicians will have more money to spend. And Chairman Greenspan did weigh in today about making certain that we don't spend the surplus. And the President believes that we need to cut taxes to help protect the economy. The Chairman, in his remarks, did talk about softness in the economy, and the Chairman in his remarks did talk about -- and this is one of the Chairman's reasons for cutting taxes, he did talk about the fact that there is room in the surplus. So the Chairman did say that, indeed. Q Wait, you didn't answer the question, though. He's saying that -- the President has said that the tax cut is necessary now, as a stimulus to the economy. Greenspan is saying, usually it doesn't work out when you try to provide a stimulus, because it takes too long both to phase in, according to the President's plan, and by the time Congress gets done with it, especially in this kind of economy that's gyrating the way it is, that it really won't work to provide that kind of stimulus. MR. FLEISCHER: We've talked about this before. Economists do differ about the speed of which a tax cut can impact an economy, although I do believe Chairman Greenspan also did talk about accelerating the tax cut, if I read that -- I read it quickly on my way in here. But there are a variety of reasons to cut taxes, and I've walked you through some of the President's reasons. And we're heartened to see -- Q But, Ari, the question is, does the President disagree with Greenspan on the ability of his tax cut to stimulate the economy in the short term? MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's plenty of room for agreement among economists or slight disagreement among economists about the speed at which a tax cut can help the economy. But clearly, Chairman Greenspan came out today and advocated that there is room for tax cuts, and the Congress can cut taxes, given the budget restraints that we're all operating under, which are now an era of large surpluses. There was a final very interesting note in the testimony as well, which is an intriguing new reason that taxes need to be cut, and that is, if you don't cut taxes, and if these surpluses continue to mount the way they will, the government will sit on excess accumulated cash. And in the previous administrations, they were looking to use that to buy stock, as a government ownership of stock. Chairman Greenspan has warned against excessive buildups of this type of cash. Either it gets spent, or it gets used to cut taxes, and clearly nobody wants to spend that money on bigger government. Q Something else the Chairman said was that he urged that a mechanism be devised to suspend the tax cut if the surplus projections do not come to pass, and also suggested that any talk of front-loading the tax cut should be put on the shelf, because he was saying that it needs to be phased in slowly. And I know that your plan is phased in at this point, but you've been talking about whether or not to front-load it. I'm wondering where you stand on those two ideas. MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of a trigger, President Bush believes what's important is to enact the tax cut. We need to get it enacted, we need to get it on the books, we need to make it a permanent law of the land. And then, as of any tax cut proposal and a spending proposal, every year Congress and the President will go back and review. And so, from the President's point of view, what's important is that Congress enact it. Q You're talking about doing something that Congress has never been able to do, which is to undo tax cuts once they're in there. I mean, isn't that Greenspan's fear, that you're going to pass -- MR. FLEISCHER: Congress has nothing but a history of undoing tax cuts once they're in there. Congress has often raised taxes. Let me remind you that it was in 1993 that Congress raised taxes to 36 percent, and to 39.6 percent. Those were increases from the rate which was established in 1986. The issue that Congress is never able to do is undo spending increases. Spending increases, once enacted, seem to never get taken back. The problem with Washington is that once Congress and Washington spend the money, they don't stop spending it. The other problem with Washington is they try to keep raising taxes as a solution to problems. That's another reason we need to cut taxes. It's just the opposite. Q Where are you on the second part of my question, though, about the idea that you would give up any talk of front-loading this tax cut? MR. FLEISCHER: We're still looking at the exact speed at which it will be phased in and the exact dates at which it will be phased in, the rates, et cetera, and the question of retroactivity; we're still looking at it. Q And based upon Mr. Greenspan's comments, would you be disinclined to do that? MR. FLEISCHER: No, we're still looking at that. It remains an option. Q Ari, a question for you. When the Federal Reserve announced the rate hike a while ago, the President commented -- MR. FLEISCHER: Rate cut. Q Rate cut, excuse me -- he commented after, saying that he decided he was not going to comment anymore. I'm wondering -- you view the Federal Reserve as an independent body -- do you not feel that you should not comment even on comments that the Federal Reserve Chairman makes on tax cuts or any type of -- MR. FLEISCHER: No. I think that when it comes to public testimony in a question and answer session with people on Capitol Hill, it's appropriate to mark it and to note it. The President agrees. Q You're planning on unveiling this tax cut proposal with all its details the week after next? MR. FLEISCHER: We'll keep you advised on the exact date. But it's coming up. Q But that's been the impression that you've created, that it's going to be the week after next. MR. FLEISCHER: I always like to leave a little flexibility in terms of the exact dates or weeks of an announcement, but it's coming up. Q Democrats have been laying out the cost of your plan. On the Hill today, for instance, in the Greenspan hearing, Senator Conrad laid out his version, which is the same that Daschle laid out yesterday, which is $1.6 trillion, plus $400 billion in lost interest savings, plus $200 billion to fix the alternative minimum tax. Do you accept all of that as being the cost of the Bush tax cut? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I can't help but notice this funny new standard that is trying to emerge from those who have historically been resistant to tax cuts, and that is for the first time they're attaching the cost of interest expenses to the proposal without analyzing it as part of interest costs as opposed to tax cuts. For years people made spending proposals and never attached interest costs to it. Many of the same people today who said you have to attach interest costs to tax cuts have never attached interest costs to spending increases, for which they were generally known. So it is a separate budgetary item -- it is a legitimate item. Of course, there are interest expenses that are incurred as a result of any decision, whether it's a spending increase or whether it's a tax cut. But to attach it to the cost of tax cuts is not valid, not valid at all, because what they're suggesting is that the tax cut is -- and then they give a number. That's not the cost of the tax cut. Q Did President Bush, when he was campaigning, call for a fix in the alternative minimum tax, and is $200 billion the figure you would accept for the cost of that? MR. FLEISCHER: In the President's tax plan, he addresses the complication created by the alternative minimum tax on the tax credit provisions that are part of his legislation. Under current law, and this was something that was really exasperated in 1993 under the tax plan that was passed when the alternative minimum tax rates were increased and it was not indexed for inflation. The result of that was it has put millions of middle-income Americans at risk of paying the alternative minimum tax. As a result of that action in 1993, we have protected the child credit doubling, from $500 to $1,000, from the impact of the alternative minimum tax. So the new credits in the President's proposal are protected from the AMT. There is an additional AMT problem that is widely recognized that affects individuals. There is corporate AMT, as well. And that is a worthy area to discuss with the Congress. Q Can I ask you a question about hiring practices? This administration's policy that it is appropriate or inappropriate to ask a perspective employee his or her sexual orientation? And if it is inappropriate, would a department head who asked such a question face any sanctions? MR. FLEISCHER: That is not a question that we ask, and I'm not aware of anyone who has done such a thing. Q Do you know if it is appropriate or inappropriate to ask such a question? MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to the law, and we do not ask that. Q But, Ari, there is an allegation in the Washington Post today from a man who was interviewed by John Aschcroft who says that he asked that very question, and this is, in fact, corroborated by a contemporaneous witness. So there is someone who in the administration, or perspective administration -- MR. FLEISCHER: And Mr. Ashcroft has said that he does not recall saying that or asking that. Q Well, he doesn't rule out the possibility that it might have happened. MR. FLEISCHER: I refer you to what he said. Q Ari, as we all know, the President Clinton pardons are quite controversial. Without addressing the specifics, is President Bush committed to following the established procedures, pardon procedures, including notifying the Justice Department? MR. FLEISCHER: I've not been part of any discussions on pardons after three days or four days. I'm not aware that the President is moving to pardon anybody. But I'm not aware of any procedures. I think I'd refer you to Department of Justice on that, and then check back later. Q Ari, as you know, on January 4th, President Clinton renominated Roger Gregory for the 4th Circuit. Today two Republican senators -- said that he should be confirmed. Does the administration favor a confirmation hearing, or are you going to withdraw that nomination? MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard us weigh in on that. Q Senator Daschle says he was mis-quoted here yesterday when you indicated to us that he had told the President that all of his nominees would be confirmed. What exactly is the truth here? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President received -- one of the reasons the President thought he had such good meetings yesterday, among a number of reasons, was he did receive assurances that all his nominees would be confirmed. Q He says you misquoted him. MR. FLEISCHER: I would differ. Q He said that what he told the President was that there wouldn't be any parliamentary moves by Democrats to block the nominees. He said you have to be a clairvoyant to know exactly what the outcome was going to be. MR. FLEISCHER: I stand by what I said. Q Do you disagree with him? Q And he also talked about energy supply. What do you read from what he said about the need to increase energy supplies, and also the risk to the national economy from what is happening in California? MR. FLEISCHER: Let me remind you that the looming energy problem that our nation faces have been long in the making, back to last fall, of course, when the previous administration thought the problems were so serious that they decided to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There were warnings at that time from President Clinton that the energy problems could cause a recession. So that is a very serious ongoing problem that we need to face. I think there are two issues involved here -- one is the nation's need to enact a long-term, comprehensive energy plan, which President Bush has proposed. The other is helping California with its energy problem, which is of a different nature. I think that it's safe to say even if there was no national energy problem, California would still be going through what it's going through. Q Let me just follow up on that if I could. Did you read anything into what he was saying about drilling for more natural gas and the need to increase supplies? Do you draw any interpretations from that with regard to your policies? MR. FLEISCHER: The President does believe, as you've heard in the testimony, as well, that we need to increase America's energy supplies, that we need to address the fundamental supply and demand and balance by increasing America's supply. Q But is there any role for federal coordination -- Q The Utah legislature has reversed itself with regard to the electricity deregulation. And this measure was also given the okay by the Republican governor of Utah. Do you think that in light of what's going on in California, there's a backlash against electricity deregulation and move towards -- MR. FLEISCHER: I have no information on Utah specifics, but obviously some states have moved ahead with it and are pleased with how it's worked. Other states enacted it differently and are not pleased with how it works. Q Ari, does the administration have any specific ideas about how to help California, helping California with its problems? MR. FLEISCHER: We're reviewing a number of options that may be helpful to California, and as events warrant, we have may have something to add. Q Can you be more specific about -- MR. FLEISCHER: Not until -- they're not announceable yet. Q I have two questions about the Andy Card memo of January 20th on regulations. Number one, one of the provisions in there talks about postponing the 60 days regulations that have already been published. I'd like to know what the legal authority is to allow the administration to do that. And my second question deals with Andy Card and Congress. Do you know of any moves to go to Congress to ask Congress to pass any legislation to actually rescind regulations, which Congress is allowed to do? MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of the legal authority, of course, they're all done with the concurrence of White House legal counsel; they wouldn't be done otherwise. On the question of legislation, that is always possible, and often it does take legislation to undo a regulation. You can also undo regulations through the regulatory process, but it is time-consuming. So, too, is, of course, the legislative process. Q Well, as a follow-up, are you saying that if a lawyer advises a client, in this case the President, that you can do something, that that's your legal authority rather than pointing to something by statute? I'm asking you what statute -- not whether a lawyer tells his client you can do it. MR. FLEISCHER: I refer you to legal counsel. I'm not a lawyer. We check these things thoroughly with legal counsel. Legal counsel reviewed it, and it's in full and proper keeping with legal counsel. Q Could I use your name when I call them up as a reference? MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, let me know if you get your call returned. Q Is the President committed to doing the radio address every Saturday, and if so, how does he plan to use it, what does he hope to get out of it? MR. FLEISCHER: The President will begin the first radio address this Saturday. I do anticipate they will be weekly events. The President views the radio address as another helpful way to talk to the American people. I think what you'll find is there will be occasions where he uses them to give broad speeches or broad approaches to his policies. There may be other times where he chooses to use those radio addresses to make very specific announcements about administration initiatives. Q Do you know the topic for this week? MR. FLEISCHER: I'll deal with that tomorrow. Q Ari, on the vandalism issue, you made light of that the other day, but is this now the subject of a more serious investigation, internally? MR. FLEISCHER: There is no investigation. What we are doing is cataloging that which took place. And that's the status. Q We know about the W's, graffiti in the bathrooms. Can you describe what else was done? MR. FLEISCHER: David, I choose not to. I choose not to describe what acts were done that we found upon arrival because I think that's part of changing the tone in Washington. I think it would be easy for us to reflect and to discuss these things and to be -- Q It is government property. MR. FLEISCHER: -- and to be critical. Q This is taxpayer funded property. MR. FLEISCHER: President Bush chooses to set a different tone, and that -- Q How is this a tonal issue? This is about government property, as you said the other day, that has to be replaced at taxpayer money. Were there telephone wires cut, was there graffiti, were there keyboards that had to be replaced because they were vandalized property? MR. FLEISCHER: The President understands that transitions can be times of difficulty and strong emotion, and he's going to approach it in that vein. Q What's the purpose of cataloging it? Q Why give them -- if you're going to give them a pass, why bother to catalogue it? MR. FLEISCHER: We'll just make sure we figured out what happened. Q What's the purpose of that? MR. FLEISCHER: Just to figure out what took place. Q Is there a dollar figure? Q If you're not going to report it to the people who are paying for it, why -- MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry? Q Is there an estimate on how much this damage has done? MR. FLEISCHER: There is no estimate. Q Is strong emotion a defense against a criminal charge? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are no criminal charges to be made. Q I'm upset right now. (Laughter.) Q -- in Washington it's necessary always to blame somebody? MR. FLEISCHER: I think what everybody did is they took Tom Herman off their speed dial. (Laughter.) Q You've got to blame somebody in this town, Ari. MR. FLEISCHER: But you know -- the question is, do you have to blame somebody in this town? And bear with us. President Bush is not going to come to Washington for the point of blaming somebody in this town. And it's a different way of governing, it's a different way of leading. Q It's not about blame, Ari, it's just about what happened. MR. FLEISCHER: But it attaches itself to blame, and that's a road that President Bush is choosing not to go. Q Has anyone from the Clinton administration called to apologize? MR. FLEISCHER: There was a phone call made to the office of the Vice President. Q By who? MR. FLEISCHER: I'll leave it as a private conversation. Q Did Vice President Gore call Vice President Cheney? MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have any information on that. Q Did Mrs. Gore called Mrs. Cheney? MR. FLEISCHER: I really -- I know that a phone call was made to the Vice President's office, but I don't recall who made it. Q To the Vice President himself? MR. FLEISCHER: To the office. Q And was that where most of the damage was, Ari? MR. FLEISCHER: I really stopped paying attention to all the different places. Q There is a report that you have someone investigating this now. MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's not right. I've noted that report, I've looked at it; that's not accurate. Q Was the nature of the call apologetic? Was it an apology? MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't get a read on the call. Q Staff to staff, or was it a principal -- MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know. Q On reconciliation, is there any word on President Clinton's involvement in foreign affairs? MR. FLEISCHER: In which affairs? Q In foreign affairs. MR. FLEISCHER: President Clinton's involvement? Q Is there any word on President Clinton's possible future role in any capacity in foreign affairs? MR. FLEISCHER: No, I have no word for you on that. Q Did you find the flak jacket since Monday? MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the flak jacket has been found and duly reported here. Q Where was it? Q Does President Bush have any plans to close or alter the White House Office of National AIDS Policy? MR. FLEISCHER: We're reviewing all the offices that are set to expire by previous agreement, and he will, as events warrant, have something to add to that or say on that. There are many office that have a term to expire here. Q On that particular one, people in the health care community are saying they're hearing the plan is to close it. Is that the case? MR. FLEISCHER: No decision has been made. We're still reviewing all those offices and finding out where the most appropriate place is to put any missions that have been underway. Q Ari, a follow-up to that. President Bush said when he went to the NAACP that civil rights would be a cornerstone of his administration. And there is an office under the Clinton administration called The President's One America. MR. FLEISCHER: Right. Q Is he planning on keeping that or something similar to that? MR. FLEISCHER: Same answer. Q Basically, it's going to go -- MR. FLEISCHER: Same answer. We have made no decision on those. We're taking a look at those offices and determining whether or not there are other appropriate venues or places for them. The missions are important missions and we're just dealing with what exactly is the best place, and we have made no decisions about any of those yet. Q On the civil rights front, has he made an appointment with Reverend Jackson as of yet to come here? MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing that I'm aware of. Q But he still wants to meet with him? MR. FLEISCHER: That's what he said to Reverend Jackson. Nothing's changed since then. Q Ari, on Greenspan, one of the things that Greenspan said in addition to endorsing tax cuts is that the economy is probably at a near standstill right now. I think he said the words, probably near zero growth. Are there additional steps that the administration wants or needs to take to address that more quickly than cutting taxes? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's important to focus on a couple items, but they're long-term in nature. One of them is education. That is a key part of the economy -- making sure we have a work force that is able to be entered into, particularly the high-tech community, to have America's work force be job-ready. And the second is energy policy does impact the economy. That, too, is a vital part of keeping the economy strong. And that's, again, why President Bush believes that the Congress will need to pass his energy policies. Q It looks like from what he's saying that we're on the cusp of going into negative growth in the next quarter. MR. FLEISCHER: And we're going to continue to monitor it and see what the economy does. I would remind you that Vice President Cheney warned about this; many other people in our administration have been warning about this, and people said to us that we were not giving accurate information. With every passing day, it looks like President Bush's admonitions about the strength of the economy are increasingly true. Q Ari, what can you tell us about tomorrow, how the President plans to round out Education Week, what he's got planned? And also, you sort of said this at the gaggle. I wonder just in a sense of how you all are feeling with almost the first official week of business coming to an end? MR. FLEISCHER: We'll have information out on tomorrow's meetings a little bit later today, so let me suspend on that. But I do want to say, this is our fourth day in office, and I think it's fair to say that this administration is off to a very strong and fast start, particularly given the fact that we had a shortened transition due to the Florida recount. So we're all very heartened by it and very encouraged. I think it's a sign of a strong leader. I think it's a sign of growing bipartisanship in Washington that has allowed us -- and thanks to the Senate, both to Leader Lott and to Senator Daschle -- for allowing us to be able to have this fast start. The Senate has been very cooperative. Q So we're going to see week to week -- this week, education, and then faith-based will be sort of the week theme of next week? Is that the plan? MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. The prescription drug language, the prescription drug proposal the President has to help seniors get prescription drugs will also be sent to the Hill. And we'll have more on that -- Q Next week? MR. FLEISCHER: -- we'll have more on that. And there will be some weeks where you're going to see a strong focus on one issue -- not exclusive; there was no intention to have an exclusive focus on one issue. But there will be weeks where we have a strong focus on an issue. There will be other weeks where there will be several issues discussed at any one time. Q So, as I understand, faith-based and prescription drugs, both proposals going to the Hill next week? MR. FLEISCHER: Next week. Q On that subject, Ari, will the proposals that the President sends to the Hill next week track very closely with his campaign proposals in those two areas, or will there be differences? MR. FLEISCHER: They will. The President made a series of promises during the campaign and he's going to honor them. Q No substantial differences? MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. Q We should expect the helping hand proposal? MR. FLEISCHER: Indeed, you should. Q -- explain the criticism it's gotten of people objecting to going through the states -- MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. The President ran on it, he believes in it, he will submit it. We're also heartened to see the very strong support there is now for bipartisan broad Medicare reform. That, too, is an important issue. The Medicare system was set up in 1965 in world where we really had hospitals and you had doctors and the two didn't really commingle unless you have to go visit the hospital because your doctor sent you there. We live now in a totally new era of health care delivery, and the Medicare system is a 1965 system. And in his talks with Senator Breaux, in his talks with Congressman Thomas, in his talks with a variety of people on the Hill, we're heartened to see we really may be able to make broad, comprehensive progress on reforming Medicare, too. Q But next week you're just talking about helping hand, you're not talking about the longer-range larger prescription drug program for Medicare, are you? MR. FLEISCHER: Correct. Q Just the first part? MR. FLEISCHER: Correct. Q When do you anticipate doing the second part? MR. FLEISCHER: We're still working through the time on all the legislative initiatives. Q Ari, any new communication with foreign leaders? MR. FLEISCHER: I think we're going to have something for you on that in a little bit. There were a couple more calls the President made -- Mary Ellen will give you a read on it. I know he talked to the President of South Korea last night, and the President of Poland. Q What was the purpose, what was the substance of the conversation with the President of South Korea, and did North Korea and its missile program come up? MR. FLEISCHER: It was an introductory courtesy call. He talked about the importance of the alliance we have with South Korea. Q Can I just follow up on John Roberts' question from earlier? He asked you if someone asked a perspective employee about their sexual orientation would that be okay. You said, they need to follow the law. As I understand it, the law doesn't provide any protection, or federal law provides no protection on grounds of sexual orientation. So does that mean it's okay for perspective employees to be asked questions like that? MR. FLEISCHER: In all cases, people have to follow the law. But it is President Bush's position that -- he hires people on the basis of their ability to do the job. That's the sole criteria he uses. This was discussed extensively during the campaign, and he'll hire people, regardless of their background, so long as they're qualified to do a job. Q So everyone in the government shouldn't be asking questions of that sort, regardless of what the law -- MR. FLEISCHER: That's the President's position. Q On first strike, is there any plan for the administration to request the fast track authority through Congress, taking the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada is one of the strongest -- solution for the free trade of the Americas, and he's going to meet President Bush soon? MR. FLEISCHER: Fast track is a priority and it is something the President discussed throughout the campaign, but there's no date set. Q Can I follow on that, Ari? On the Canadian Prime Minister visit, he's a pretty strong opponent of ANWR oil drilling up there, and skeptical -- is there any particular pitch the President is going to make to him on either one of those -- MR. FLEISCHER: Let's wait a little bit closer to the meeting and maybe I'll have more to share. Q Will it be on the agenda? MR. FLEISCHER: The meeting was just announced today. Q Ari, after the Israeli elections do you expect to become more involved in the Israeli-Palestinian situation? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that the President is going to continue to work to make certain that any agreement by both parties, if both parties enter into an agreement, the position of our government will be to support it. Q After a year, though, of the White House being very directly engaged in those talks, there's a sense of you guys disengaging, pulling back, of it being left to ambassadors in the area and the State Department's responsibility. Is that the way the Mideast peace process is going to work? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, actually, the talks that are underway in Egypt right now, of course, are bilateral talks, by design and by the two parties. Q But will the White House be as directly engaged in the process, do you think, as the previous administration? MR. FLEISCHER: We'll advise you. Q Ari, what about President Putin? He said that he wants more interaction with the new administration. Are you planning any overtures? MR. FLEISCHER: Let me ask you on this, please refer those to Mary Ellen, and she'll be happy to answer them. Q Ari, is Steve Goldsmith working in the White House or for the White House now? MR. FLEISCHER: As far as personnel announcements to go, we'll, of course, keep you filled in as we have them to make. Q -- as opposed to a present tense? MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. Q Let me answer this question. It's kind of offensive, but it was made by the President of Cuba. He said on Sunday that -- MR. FLEISCHER: I thought you were professing yours. (Laughter.) I appreciated the warning. Q He hopes that President Bush has proved that he's not stupid, as many people call him. Do you have any reaction to that kind of comment by the President of Cuba? MR. FLEISCHER: No, there is no reaction to that. (Laughter.) Q Oh, yes, there is. Q Ari, a question on taxes? Q You might want to answer that. MR. FLEISCHER: Bob Davis. Q Do you want to answer about the stupid question? MR. FLEISCHER: You're not allowed to comment on my noodling. Q A couple on taxes. Am I to read you right when you are talking about what is included and what isn't, I get the sense that there is nothing -- we shouldn't expect anything about a trigger mechanism, and we shouldn't expect anything about business taxes. It should be all individual? MR. FLEISCHER: The plan that the President submits to the Congress will be the plan on which he campaigned. Q It had neither of those elements that I just mentioned. MR. FLEISCHER: Except for the fact that when you lower marginal income tax rates for unincorporated businesses, which are millions of small businesses, they stand to benefit as a result of those marginal income tax rate cuts. That is a business income tax cut. Q But not being business specific -- MR. FLEISCHER: Well, beyond what I just said, I'd have to review some of the more specific items on there. Certainly the abolition of the death tax is very helpful to businesses. Again, usually you're talking now about small businesses, you're talking about farms. So those would be covered under business. I'm just thinking through some of the other major provisions we had in there. But if your question is about capital gains, if your question is about corporate AMT, depreciation, no, those were not part of it -- R&D -- I'm sorry, the R&D -- the President did propose a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit. That will be part of his tax plan. Q You had said earlier that the effective dates would be the one big change in the proposal, from the campaign proposals. MR. FLEISCHER: No, what I said was we're reviewing effective dates. We're reviewing the question of retroactivity, and we're reviewing the question of effective dates, which are phase-in dates, as well. Q They will not necessarily change in this proposal? MR. FLEISCHER: That's all under review. We have acknowledged that we're taking a look at that, with the possibility of acceleration. But we've made no decisions. Q We're assuming today's event was one in a series of events to highlight his education package, and he'll take up different aspects of it? And secondly, do you have an out of District trip next week? MR. FLEISCHER: Out of District? Well, I think he's leaving the District tonight, actually, for his dinner. Q Is he getting on a plane at all next week? Q Or even a long car ride? MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't looked that detailed at the schedule for next week. I don't think so. Let me -- Q Is this part of an education roll-out? MR. FLEISCHER: Tomorrow we'll give a look ahead; every Friday I'm going to give a look ahead. Q And is today a part of a bigger education roll-out? MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Today is a continuation of developing reasons for the Congress to pass the President's education plan, which was submitted to the Hill this week. Q Ari, one more question about the tax cut. Throughout the campaign it was always discussed as this kind of monolith, this $1.3 trillion or $1.6 trillion tax cut, but there's a lot of talk on Capitol Hill about breaking that up into bite-sized chunks and even the President is potentially amenable to that. But would he accept anything less than even the sum of those parts remaining at $1.6 trillion? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's too soon to start discussing what he would accept or not accept. He is going to fight for all of it. And he's very optimistic that he's going to get all of it or virtually all of it. And that's why the process is just beginning. You have to allow the House to take the first action on tax cuts. And, of course, this is one of the decisions as far as the timing of what will move that will play itself out, frankly, over a considerable period of time, in most likelihood, while we can submit it in one comprehensive form. Of course, the House will make its determinations about what they choose to do with it. So, too, the Senate. And in the past, the House has, indeed, split it into smaller pieces; the Senate has combined it. So the House and the Senate have different rules for consideration of tax cuts. It's much harder to do the split approach in the Senate than it is the House, but those are House and Senate questions. Q Are you saying that his strategy on all of his programs is to introduce exactly what he campaigned for, rather than talk behind the scenes with members of Congress and figure out what is likely to pass and then propose that? MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not prepared, Jim, to say that for all, that's too all encompassing. But he's going to submit what he ran on. Now, there may be some modifications, for example, on the education plan. He heard some very good suggestions from some Democrats about moving up the funding, increasing the funding for schools that are failing, to help them to do a better job educating their children. That was a modification from the campaign proposal. But I think everyone would agree, the plan he sent up there was the campaign plan with that modification. So he's going to continue in the course of the meetings to listen to people, and when he hears good ideas, there will be some flexibility. But for the most part, what you're going to see is what you heard. Q Ari, has the President talked to John Ashcroft at all in the last week? And how optimistic is he about the nomination, at this point? MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't asked him that question, so I don't know. Q Optimistic? MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, yes. We think we're going to get every single person the President named. And, again, I think it's a sign of the good bipartisan spirit that has been created in the wake of this election. And we're very pleased by it. Q Ari, does the cataloging of some of what's missing or been vandalized, does that extend to Air Force One? Because, apparently, according to Air Force officials, there are members of the Clinton party who actually made off with some glasses etched with the Air Force One symbol, hand towels and other products off of Air Force One on the final trip up to New York; estimated value not a great deal, a little over $100. Is that part of the cataloging? MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't looked at the cataloging, so whatever took place, we'll know it took place and we're going to leave it at that. Q The President didn't have any reaction to that? You told him about all this stuff and he just said, well, let's just change the tone? MR. FLEISCHER: We're just not reacting to it. Q But, Ari, a couple questions. You're telling us here, publicly, that you are creating a catalogue of what was done, but you can't tell us why you're creating that catalogue or what you're going to do with it or what the purpose is? And then my follow-up would be, were all staffers in the entire complex asked to tell somebody what they found? MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's very informal. It's just a question of if you saw something that came to your attention, we're going to note it and that's that. And I don't think anything will ever come of it. Q For what purpose, though? MR. FLEISCHER: I just think people are just getting a sense of what happened. Q Just curious or is there some greater scheme here? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it may even fade away. So we're just taking a look at what was done, and that's that. Q But does the President consider this conduct consistent with the high standards of high office? MR. FLEISCHER: Again, we're just not going to look back. Q You are looking back. MR. FLEISCHER: We're not looking back to place blame; we're not looking back to ascribe motive. Again, transitions can be difficult times. -MORE- Q Then why catalogue? MR. FLEISCHER: We're just noting what took place. Q Did you ever give us an estimate on the cost to taxpayers of what took place? MR. FLEISCHER: If one arises, we may decide. I don't know yet. Q Ari, can you tell us if there have been any ways in which the White House was unable to function or staffers weren't able to do their jobs or anything along those lines as a result of -- MR. FLEISCHER: No. Obviously everybody -- the whole move into the White House, of course, took some time and there are just things in terms of the carpeting that was pulled up and the wires that had to get moved around just in the normal course of business that were part of the transition that slowed everybody down on our first couple days. But everybody's moved forward since then. There may be some other things that relate more just to all these new people showing up. Q I mean, specific to vandalism that you believe was done, not to the general -- MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have any more updates on that. Q Ari, if there was all this renovation that went on, how do we know, or how do you know if phone lines were cut or if things were damaged that it couldn't be a by-product of tearing up rugs and carpets and repainting and moving furniture around? MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think that the people who are professionals who make it their business to go in and prepare a White House for new arrivals would cut wires. Q So there is a Clinton carpet scandal? MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry? Q There's a Clinton carpet scandal. THE PRESS: Thank you. END 1:45 P.M. EST President | Vice President | First Lady | Mrs. Cheney | News & Policies | History & Tours | Kids | Your Government | Appointments | Jobs | Contact | Text only Accessibility | Search | Privacy Policy | Help