Title missing - issue sheet reads: "A Miracle of Wireless Telephony and Sound Recording. Hear Mr Soullin [sic] speaking from Australia." <br/> <br/>MS Mr James Henry Scullin, Australian Prime Minister. <br/> <br/>Shots unidentified building <br/> <br/>Good shots of men moving knobs and dials on radio telephone machinery to link London and Sidney. <br/> <br/>Voice of Mr Soullin. Heard over shots of radio masts and pylons. Shots of open skies. More shots of knobs and dials. <br/> <br/>Voice of J H (James Henry) Thomas saying goodbye to Mr Soullin.

B-ROLL FTG OF VIDEO TELEPHONY AS COMPONENT OF BROADBAND INTERNET TECHNOLOGY / PRE TEEN KIDS COMMUNICATING TO EACH OTHER THROUGH VIDEO TELEPHONY / BOY AND GIRL IN LIVING ROOM TALKING TO OTHER BOY THEY ARE VIEWING ON TELEVISION SET / JUDY MULLER CS

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) makes comments at a stakeout following a meeting with President Clinton on terrorism.

Opening scene shows Italian Leader, Benito Mussolini on horseback wearing a military uniform and accompanied by followers in military uniforms. They are riding into the center of a gathering of thousands of Italian youth (Boy Scouts, or Guides) wearing uniforms and bedrolls draped over their shoulders. The youth all stand by bicycles. Scene changes to a race track where a large group of the Italian youth ride bicycles on the track while others with their bicycles watch. There are many ordinary people in normal dress also watching the cyclists on the track. Next, Mussolini and his mounted military entourage are seen riding on the racetrack. Closeup of several in his entourage on a city street. Next, Mussolini and his entourage are seen riding triumphantly along the Via triumphalis, with the Arch of Constantine behind them and the Colosseum at their left rear. Spectators line the sidelines, including a group of youth holding flags. Mussolini raises his arm straight upward in salute and the youth do the same, as he rides past them. View of King Vittorio Emanuele III in a reviewing stand with Italian Generals and Admirals. Closeup of some civilian officials, including a woman standing near Field Marshal Luigi Cadorna as they listen to a speech by Mussolini. Complete change of scene shows an Australian pioneer in radio telephony and associate of David Sarnoff. He stands aboard the deck of a ship just arrived in America, next to his friend, Sarnoff, as he makes some remarks about his visit and recalls receiving the first radio telephone call in Australia, from Sarnoff in Italy. Scene shifts back, again, to Vittorio Emanuele III and others in reviewing stand, and then to Mussolini standing on a balcony giving a speech. Glimpse of Mussolini on horseback. Pope Pius XI making some remarks. . Location: Italy. Date: 1925.

INFORMATION OF VARIOUS ACTIVITIES AND INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ART OF TELEPHONY. COMMUNICATIONS

Telephone switchboard. Animated historical illustration of a front view of the wiring (bottom) and indicators (top) of a switchboard as used at a telephone exchange. The indicators have been triggered, indicating the switches that need connecting with a wire (as shown). These wires are used to re-route telephone calls to their destinations. The telephone was developed in the 1870s, with several inventors pioneering the technology. For the back of this switchboard, see image C024 6469. Artwork from 'Electricite' (1911) by Max de Nansouty, part of the 'Les merveilles de la science' series of 1867-1891 by Louis Figuier.

TOOLS OF TELEPHONY

INFORMATION OF VARIOUS ACTIVITIES AND INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ART OF TELEPHONY. COMMUNICATIONS 01:01:59 PAN WASHED OUT ROADS, BRIDGE, FROM 1938 DISASTER. 01:02:18 WORKERS IN OPEN-ENDED TENT, MEN ON TELEPHONES 01:02:49 WORKERS TALKS ON TELEPHONE HOOKED UP TO TELEPHONE POLE. MEN TALK ON TELEPHONE OUTSIDE. 01:02:54 WORKERS ASSEMBLING TELEPHONE CABLES, LINES, WIRES EMERGENCY INSTALLATION. 01:03:00 PAN WASHED OUT ROAD, BRIDGE 01:03:19 TAPE ENDS

B-ROLL FTG OF VIDEO TELEPHONY AS COMPONENT OF BROADBAND INTERNET TECHNOLOGY / PRE TEEN KIDS COMMUNICATING TO EACH OTHER THROUGH VIDEO TELEPHONY / BOY AND GIRL IN LIVING ROOM TALKING TO OTHER BOY THEY ARE VIEWING ON TELEVISION SET / JUDY MULLER CS

Story Without End (Frontiers of Science series)

Full titles read: "Teleprinter. As a result of the development of the teleprinter by the Post Office, instead of competing on somewhat unequal terms, telephony & telegraphy have emerged as complementary services." <br/> <br/>London. <br/> <br/>Various shots show an office in London where a secretary places a call to Edinburgh. In both offices the secretaries switch their phone lines from telephone to their teleprinter machines and a telegram is printed out. The London secretary types the message on her machine and it is printed out in Edinburgh; another copy is printed on the London machine.

Ader telephone station. Animated historical illustration of the wiring and apparatus used for a telephone station, as developed by French engineer Clement Ader (1841-1925). The design includes a transmitter (pad at centre), two receivers (earphones on hooks at left and right), batteries (lower centre), and an electric bell (top centre). The telephone was developed in the 1870s, with several inventors pioneering the technology. Artwork from 'Electricite' (1911) by Max de Nansouty, part of the 'Les merveilles de la science' series of 1867-1891 by Louis Figuier.

Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick holds a media availability. Topics include wire tapping of phones and Pan Am Flight 103.

San Donaldson@ABC.com show history for Friday July 21, 2000 Topic:Internet Telephony with Kathleen Earley, AT&T, President Data and Internet Services and Bruce Crair, eVoice

NAME: US APPLE 080905N TAPE: EF05/0803 IN_TIME: 10:07:01:16 DURATION: 00:01:56:23 SOURCES: VNR DATELINE: Various - 7 Sept 2005 RESTRICTIONS: Non APTN material SHOTLIST VNR - Cingular Handout Unknown Location 1. Medium interior Cingular store with iTunes+ cingular display 2. Tilt up phone brochure 3. Close-up phone colour skins, pan to phone in different colour skins 4. Computer screen with cursor dragging 'my phone' folder to iTunes 5. Phone screen 'all songs' with music loading VNR - Apple Computers Handout San Francisco, California 6. Various shots of the unveiling of the iPod Nano 7. SOUND UP: (English) Steve Jobs, Apple Computer Inc. Chief Executive: "The iPOD Nano is the biggest revolution since the original iPod and it is my privilege to show it to you now. A thousand songs in your pocket. Well now we know, this is the new iPod Nano." VNR - Cingular Handout Unknown Location 8. Mobile phone 9. Woman walking in street listening to iTunes music on phone 10. Woman opening mobile phone box 11. Close-up of phone 12. Woman with child listening to music on mobile phone 13. Mobile phone playing music 14. Man jogging with phone on his arm 15. Wide shot of man jogging with mobile phone on his arm VNR - Apple Computers Handout San Francisco, California 16. Various shots of limited edition iPod with Hogwarts crest 17. UPSOUND: (English) Steve Jobs, Apple Computer Inc. Chief Executive: "You can buy all six of these books with one click, its called the complete Harry Potter and if you want to you can even buy them with a collectible iPod, the Harry Potter collectible iPod, which has the Hogwarts crest laser engraved on the back." 18. Wide shot of stage STORYLINE Steve Jobs, the chief executive of Apple Computer Inc., introduced a music-playing phone on Wednesday that is capable of storing about 100 songs, as well as a pencil-thin version of the iPod digital music device. The phone, which is called the ROKR, will come loaded with iTunes software, store up to 100 songs and include a colour display screen and a built-in camera. The ROKR, made by Motorola Inc., is Apple's first foray into the mobile telephony market and will include built-in dual-stereo speakers as well as stereo headphones that also serve as a mobile headset. Users can transfer songs to the device from their PC or Macintosh computers and make calls through Cingular Wireless. "It's an iPod shuffle right on your phone," said Jobs, who noted that both the iPhone and iPod shuffle both randomly sort music, hold about the same number of songs and have display screens. Some analysts predict that music-playing mobile phones could emerge as a competitor to the iPod. By branching into phones, Apple would hope to secure its place as a major force in digital music regardless of what device is used to listen. The new iPod, called the Nano, replaces the iPod Mini. In contrast with the Mini, which is hard drive-based, the Nano relies on flash memory, making it lighter and more energy-efficient. One-third the size of the Mini, the Nano weighs about 1.5 ounces (45 grams) and looks and feels much like a cigarette lighter. Apple says it can store up to 1,000 songs or 25,000 photos. Shares of Apple rose 21 cents to $49.01 in afternoon trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-LA) holds a news conference to discuss a telecommunications bill aimed at raising more than $1.5 billion for improving education and fighting crime.

The Consumers Union held a press conference today announcing their opposition to the combined ownership interests between AT&T and the proposed AOL/Time Warner merger.

TAPE: EF02/0550 IN_TIME: 23:17:44 DURATION: 1:47 SOURCES: APTN/POOL RESTRICTIONS: DATELINE: Various, 28 June 2002 SHOTLIST: APTN Ashburn, Virginia - June 28, 2002 1. WorldCom sign outside Northern Virginia headquarters, pull out to wide shot of building 2. Cars leaving WorldCom, pull out to wide shot 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Kevin Clark, Former WorldCom Employee "I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel kind of bitter about it. I kind of feel betrayed, I think they betrayed the shareholders and the employees, so I really don't know who to point the finger at." 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Former WorldCom Employee (Reporter: Do you have any bad feelings about the people (who did this)?) "It depends on which people you're talking about. You know, if you're talking about Bernie and Scott, yeah, I hope they die and burn in hell, as you'd expect, because I feel a large reason why we're in this situation is because of their greed and because of the dumb bone-headed decisions that they made." APTN Washington DC - June 28, 2002 5. Various of subpoena sent to WorldCom CEOs by House Financial Services Committee POOL Washington DC - June 28, 2002 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) George W. Bush, US President "It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, that by far the vast majority of our leaders in the business community are honest and upright people. That's important for them to hear, and it's just as it's important for them to hear when we catch people doing wrong, there will be consequences for those who have done wrong." Ashburn, Virginia - June 28, 2002 APTN 7. Worldcom sign outside Northern Virginia headquarters STORYLINE: WorldCom Inc began laying off 17-thousand workers worldwide on Friday, at the end of a week that saw the telecommunications giant disclose a massive accounting scandal that could force it into bankruptcy. WorldCom revealed on Tuesday that its internal auditors had found that 3.8 (b) billion U-S dollars were wrongly listed on its books as capital expenses in 2001 and 2002. That means WorldCom may have lost millions of dollars when it reported profits. On Friday, the company cut about 13-hundred jobs in Virginia, one-thousand in Texas, nearly 700 in Maryland and 500 in Colorado. In other states, the numbers ranged from a few to a few hundred. The cuts account for about 20 percent of the work force of the Mississippi-based company, which operates in 65 countries. WorldCom had already seen its share price spiral in recent months because of concerns about large debts, large loans to former C-E-O Bernie Ebbers and a general malaise in the telecoms sector. Now the nation's Number 2 long-distance telephony company finds itself at the heart of one of the largest accounting scandals in U-S history. During a fundraising speech in Washington DC on Friday President Bush vowed that leaders in the business community caught doing wrong will face consequences. Meanwhile, subpoenas went out to top officials of WorldCom as Congress delves into the scandal. The House Financial Services Committee issued four subpoenas to compel testimony by three WorldCom officials and an influential Wall Street analyst who promoted the company's stock. The four, including former President-Chief Executive Officer Bernard Ebbers and current chief John Sidgmore, will be summoned to appear at a July 8 hearing.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the proposed AT&T-TCI merger.

INT BROLL SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY REMARKS Wednesday, November 20, 2013 TRANSCRIPT: Secretary of State John Kerry delivers remarks at the Overseas Security Advisory Council's 28th annual briefing DC Slug: 1100 KERRY OSAC RS20 76 AR: 16x9 Disc #947 11:13:58 KERRY: Thank you very much. Wow. Can't we find seats for you folks? I feel badly. (LAUGHTER) But thank you for being here in such numbers. 11:14:11 KERRY: I'm very, very pleased to be able to share a few thoughts with all of you. And I'm particularly glad to be here to emphasize this enormous agenda that we have and that we share together which Greg Starr (ph) heads up for us here at the department. He's, as I know you know, a very experienced traveler along the road of trying to provide security for American citizens and for our embassies and facilities around the world. 11:14:44 And for all of you, having served from Kinshasa to Dakar and Tunis to Tel Aviv, this is a man who understands the threats. I meet with him regularly every week. We are beginning our meetings thinking about and working on and analyzing the latest threats and the challenges that we face in a very complicated, volatile world today. 11:15:15 We saw that just yesterday with the tragic bombing in Beirut against the Iranian embassy. We may have our significant differences with Iran and be working hard to try to resolve them, but nothing excuses bombings of anybody, any person, anywhere. This violent taking of life has to end. And we all have a huge obligation to work together to try to find a way to deal with it. 11:15:48 KERRY: Greg works at that every single day. We're constantly reviewing whether it's Libya or Yemen or some part of the world. We're working hard at it. And we're very happy that he's back at Foggy Bottom where he graduated from G.W. many years ago. I won't say how many. In a way, you could say that Greg has come a long way, but not gone very far. (LAUGHTER) 11:16:21 You work that out, OK? (LAUGHTER) 11:16:25 I don't know if anybody recognizes you when you walk around the campus these days, Greg, but -- he's nodding his head, yes -- I'll share with you a quick story. I am now no longer in elected politics -- obviously -- but I'll tell you, when I was you'll understand why I'm thrilled with the job I have now. 11:16:45 I was walking through an airport not too many months before I was asked to take on this job. And, as I'm walking through the airport, you kind of have -- you know, you learn how to walk straight ahead, not get side tracked by somebody who wants to grab you on something. And this guy made himself very evident. He said, "Hey, hey, you, you. You, anybody ever tell you, you look like that Kerry guy we sent down to Washington?" (LAUGHTER) (OFF-MIKE) so I said, "Yeah they tell me that all the time." (LAUGHTER) He says, "Kind of makes you mad don't it?" (LAUGHTER) So I'm glad to be where I am. (LAUGHTER) It makes a difference. 11:17:29 The world, obviously, is getting smaller. And globalization is a force that no matter how you react to it nobody's ever gonna put a dock in the bottle. KERRY: I can remember when we re-wrote the telecommunications law back in 1995, '96. We were mostly focused, tragically, on telephony and that's what mostly had risen to the surface in our efforts to try to manage this new world we live in. Within six months of passing the bill, it was obsolete. Why? Because, of course, it didn't deal with data. It didn't deal with what was so much emerging only in 1995. Think about it. And that's the Internet, which wasn't designed for what it is. It was a -- you know, military, U.S. government-sponsored initiative to deal with communications in the event of nuclear war. 11:18:32 And then the commercial purposes evolved and came forward, and all of a sudden we had this totally connected, super-connected world, in which more information is coming a people than many people are able to process. And with the advent of, you know, facetime (ph) and FaceBook and tweeting and -- and -- and so forth, there's just never any absence of information. It also has created a new level of kind of citizen accountability and engagement. I recently learned about a fellow who showed up in the newspapers with a photograph of him that showed him -- it was -- it was a, you know, privately taken telephone photograph -- that showed him with a pale area around where he had been wearing a watch. And he was a public official. And so, people thought, that's sort of odd. Why is there no watch? And there's obviously a pale area there and he was wearing one. 11:19:38 So they went back and found other pictures of him which showed him with a different watch almost every single day. A very expensive watch. Way beyond his capacity to have that watch in the position that he held and the salary that he had. And, lo and behold, he was outed. He was caught. Entrapped for corruption and thrown out of office as a consequence. So there's a new policeman on the block. There's a new awareness of events and what's happening. 11:20:05 KERRY: You go anywhere in the world and something happens, and you'll see it on YouTube and you can check it out at any point in time. You don't even have to watch that night's news to get it. So this is the world that we are operating in. And there's a lot of benefit from them, there's also risk from them, because there is a clash in certain parts of the world between culture, tradition and history, current mores and the future, modernity. And as everybody in this room knows, some places are having a harder time managing that transition than others. That's what we see in some of this emotion, particularly around religious extremism, which we see expressed in many of these suicide -- individual suicide operations and other kinds of confrontations that take place. 11:21:07 The world is not gonna stop for that -- nor should it. But it remains a challenge for all of us going forward as to how we are going to be able to do business, go to school, travel, and engage in our normal lives as we go through this transition, and I'm confident, over time we will. I believe that. So this gathering, OSAC, and what you represent are a group of people who really understand these challenges and the opportunities that come at us from this interconnected world. I think there are 10,000 representatives from more than 4,600 American companies, educational institutions, religious groups, non-governmental organizations who are all part of this gathering. KERRY: And it's an important gathering. And that's why I'm currently meeting upstairs with the Australians. We have the defense minister and the foreign minister of Australia here. 11:22:04 But I wanted to interrupt my participation in that to come and share a few thoughts with you, because the role you play in fostering two-way communication between the private and the public sector in order to promote security and create understanding between people about what it is we're seeking to do and why people benefit from what we're seeking to do is critical. And it's even more important today than it was when Secretary George Shultz had the vision to found this organization nearly three decades ago. And Secretary Shultz said the following. He said, "Risk is not something that you take or not take. It is something you analyze to mitigate properly and understand." And I think he understood the risks that we face in the world. And it couldn't be any more real for him way back then when he had to console the families of American diplomats who died alongside U.S. Marines in Beirut 30 years ago, Khobar Towers. We all remember it too well. These risks aren't new. They've just grown to some degree in their intensity, and there are absolutely understandable reasons for that. 11:23:35 So make no mistake: The greatest danger to America, whether to our people or to our interests, doesn't come from a rising rival. It comes from the risks that would arise in a world where American leadership ceases to be a driving force in order to be able to help people, to be able to respond to this transition. It comes from the vacuum that the absent of leadership would create for autocrats and extremists to exploit. All of us know that these risks are real and they're unpredictable. Participating in OSAC, you all know them well, and that's why you're prepared against them. Just in the past year, there were 78 specific cases where the Department of State informed an American company or a faith-based group or a nonprofit overseas of a specific credible threat. And there are countless other times when larger information shared within OSAC, whether on the web portal or through the breakout sessions that you participate in today, has led to greater preparedness and awareness of the environment around you, the environment that you're operating in. 11:25:01 So some of OSAC's greatest work comes from the threats that we actually never see and that never have a chance to be able to materialize because the information that is shared allows our people to be more prepared and sometimes even to thwart the threat altogether. So everyone here understands the risks. You know, the dangers. That's why you're here. But you also know -- this is what's really important -- you know that we need to be out there. You can't retreat. There is no fortress. And nothing would work if we did, frankly, because now more than ever I believe we need to be engaged in the world to help move it forward in this transformation that is taking place. While there are instances, obviously, of this terrible violence, the blowing up of an embassy, the Westgate Mall that took place recently in Kenya, and you can run a list of these things, a subway in London, a subway in Tokyo. I mean, these things are not new, unfortunately. 11:26:06 KERRY: But I'll tell you this: Believe it or not, notwithstanding the prominence of these events and the way that they do exactly what they're meant to do -- send terror down the spines of people everywhere. The fact remains we lose far less lives today to conflict, and there is far less loss of life in war or violence anywhere in the world today than there was in the last century, even in the last half-century. That's a fact. We're not seeing the kinds of wars and confrontations where millions of people are thrown at each other across the trenches or there's fire-bombing of whole cities or engaged in these larger kinds of conflicts. It doesn't mean it isn't dangerous, obviously, but it means that there's a transformation taking place. More and more countries are gaining middle-class populations. More and more people are traveling, more and more tourists. More and more people going to school. More and more people engaged (ph). Not enough yet, and that's the great challenge that we all face. The fact is that in many parts of the world, our challenge is not the ideology per se. It's the fact that we have huge populations of young people, 65 percent of a nation in the Middle East under the age of 30; 50 percent under the age of 21; 40 percent under the age of 18. 11:27:37 And you can replicate that in country after country. And if they don't have jobs, they don't have an education, that's when they are prone to being seduced by one extreme ideology or another extreme religious theory. And that's really what's happened. It's a governance failure. It's an absence of sufficient recognition of -- of the challenge. It's an absence of opportunity. 11:28:10 KERRY: And where you have opportunity, where you have democracy, where you have education, where you have growth, where you have growth, where you have decisions making and full participation of citizens in a society you tend to have much greater stability and much greater chance of beating the odds against that kind of violence. And you can look at that and see it anywhere at this point in time. So the reasons we've gotta be out there ought to be clear -- nobody else in the world at this moment, I don't say this with any arrogance, I say it with pride and I say it as a matter of reality -- no one else comes close to what we are able to do to keep the peace or what we do to try to manage and tampen down old animosities, and keep them at bay. 11:29:00 I think we are the -- the -- the best antidote to extremism, as I said, is opportunity. That Tunis fruit vendor who self-immolated, and started a revolution in Tunisia, was no religion, nothing, no extremism and ideology behind that -- and he got slapped around by a police officer. He was tired of corruption. And, he wanted an opportunity to lead his life by being able to sell his wares. And those kids in Tahrir square, they were not motivated by any religion or ideology. They're (ph) motivated by what they saw through this interconnected world and they wanted a piece of the opportunity and a chance to get an education, have a job and have a future. And not have a corrupt government that's deprived them of all of that and more. And they Tweeted their ways, and, you know, Facetimed their ways and talked to each other and that's what drove that revolution. And then it got stolen by the one single most organized entity in the state, which was the Brotherhood. 11:29:59 KERRY: Same thing in Syria. Syria didn't start Sunni-Shia or anything else. It started with young people, who wanted reform. And, regrettably, Assad responded to their requests for reform with bullets and bombs and violence, and that's led to where we are today, to an increasingly sectarian struggle. So I say to you, it is vital, the antidote to extremism is opportunity. And nobody does more to promote education or entrepreneurship or public health around the world than the United States of America, proudly. 11:30:36 We also need to be out there because the example of our universities and of our culture of innovation is more than just soft power. We know that the world is more secure and more prosperous when we bring students, professors, researchers from abroad, and when we bring that strength to the world. And we also need to be out there because for every billion dollars in goods and services that we export, we create 5,000 jobs here at home. We also need to help countries stand on their own two feet. No country's done as much of that as we have. We create trading partners for your businesses. Eleven of 15 of our biggest trade partners used to be recipients of American foreign aid. Today, they're donor countries. Look at South Korea. Used to be, 10-15 years ago, it was receiving aid from the United States. Now, it's giving aid to other countries. Japan. You can go through a long list. 11:31:43 So now more than ever before, economic policy, I believe is foreign policy and foreign policy is economic policy. And we need to make sure that as we see the barriers coming down, we also do what we can to strengthen security. Security is not limited to a battlefield in today's world. KERRY: So if you look at the attacks of the last century -- the navel base at Pearl Harbor, the Marine barracks and embassy in Beirut, and our embassies in East Africa -- at the beginning of the new century, terrorists attacked the USS Cole, they attacked the Pentagon, but they also attacked two office buildings in the heart of America's financial capital, they attacked public transportation in London and Madrid. And just this fall they attacked a shopping mall in Nairobi. So when they don't see a difference between military, diplomatic or economic assets around the world -- if they don't see it, neither can we. And that's what this is all about. 11:32:57 As we work together to protect America's interests around the world, the importance of communicating across boundaries is more important than it ever was before. And here at the State Department, we have people in some of the most far-flung corners of the world. And some of your companies and organizations also have people in some of the most remote places on the planet, working in all kinds of fields -- building schools, building roads, supplying water, often in places that we can't reach. And if we don't share information and communicate with each other then none of us will have a complete picture of the risks that we face and that we take. 11:33:39 So the work of your organizations and the dedicated professionals here at the State Department is really essential in order to help us create shared prosperity. And we also have a shared responsibility to share that information and to communicate with one another. 11:33:55 KERRY: So I -- you know, the -- whatever else we do, the bottom line is the work of highly trained and highly dedicated professionals working in both the public and private sector is central to our success and to our safety going forward. And their work will do as much to shape American prosperity as anything else out there, folks, because if people feel they can't be safe, then we are deterred from being able to help these countries, whether it's in the pursuit of energy resources or helping people with respect to education and getting the information resources they need to buy in to this different future. You know, really in many ways, the men and women are on the front lines of this security initiative, of pioneers of this new global economy and the new global diplomacy. And we have to be able to meet that obligation. And Greg has dedicated to it. I'm dedicated to it. We'll do everything in our power to help you so that we can continue to transform this world that we live in. 11:35:10 And I -- I -- I know that every one of you believe that this genie of globalization, which I've heard many of my former colleagues in politics rail against, pretty easy applause lines. I remember the fights we had over NAFTA and over the free trade agreements and all the rest of it, but in every case, our GDP has grown, our opportunities have grown, our job base has grown, our tax base has grown. America's gotten stronger, and we continue to be the envy of the world -- believe me -- in the capacity of our economy, which now, thanks to our innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, will make the United States of America energy independent by about the year 2025 or so. A remarkable turn which will have a profound impact on our ability to have an impact elsewhere in the world. 11:36:05 So you can't put the genie of globalization back in the bottle. No demagogue, no politician, no opponent of this transformation can possibly do that. And all you have to do is look at what's happened in a place like Abu Dhabi or Dubai or, you know, any other number of places around the world that understand how rapidly some people are grabbing a hold of this thing and how inexorable it really is. So as the aspirations that we have really given birth to in so many places -- and we can take pride in that -- as those aspirations go global, with our work together and with good conferences like this and the good ideas that come forth at them, I am absolutely confident that we are going to be able to make the most of these opportunities and, in doing so, we are going to ensure greater prosperity for our country, greater safety for our citizens, and, frankly, a greater opportunity to share in both for the rest of the world. 11:37:15 And that is what it takes to meet our obligations as citizens, as well as individuals who care about our families and our children, our grandchildren, and their future. That's what we're building here. And every single one of you are front-line ambassadors in that effort. So thank you very, very much. Appreciate it. (APPLAUSE) Thank you all very much. END Secretary of State John Kerry will deliver remarks at the Overseas Security Advisory Council's 28th Annual Briefing, "Securing the Global and Virtual Organization," at 11 a.m. on November 20 at the Department of State. Secretary Kerry will focus on the critical role OSAC plays in an increasingly interconnected world where America's ability to seize opportunities abroad is more important than ever before. The Overseas Security Advisory Council is a public-private partnership that facilitates the two-way exchange of security information between the U.S. Government and nearly 4,700 U.S. private sector organizations operating abroad. The State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security administers the Council. More than 1,000 public and private security professionals from U.S. based businesses, academia, faith-based institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the federal government will participate in the day's program.

Town Hall Meeting Page I of 13 Town Hall Meeting Secretary Colin L. Powell Washington, DC January 25, 2001 Thanks very much, ladies and gentlemen, for that very warm welcome and a special welcome to those who are in the overflow conference rooms and a very, very special greeting and hello to the men and women of the State Department who are watching this at embassies all across the world. And I wanted to let them know here and now how much I appreciate, and President Bush appreciates, all that they are doing in the service of our nation, taking America's values and America's interests around the world. They truly are the leaders of the State Department, and our job here is of course to make sure that they get everything they need to do their job so very, very well. I have always had a bias in my military life that the commanders in the field are always right. (Laughter and applause.) Cheers are breaking out at embassies all across the world. (Laughter.) But my bias has always been, the people in the field are closest to the problem, closest to the situation, therefore that is where real wisdom is, and those of us back here exist not only to support the President, but to support the President's representatives, those ambassadors out there, the missions out there that are doing the work. And so for those of you at those embassies right now, you can be sure that that is always my bias. You are right, and those of us back here at C Street generally - are wrong. (Laughter.) However, if I find you are wrong, and you are picking on my staff back here, then I will come after you, Mr. Ambassador, Madame Ambassador. But it is all one big team that we have here, a great team, and we all exist for one purpose, and that is to present to the world the foreign policy of the American people as manifested and directed by the President of the United States. We all serve the President, and through the President we serve the American people, and through the American people we are true to our Constitution. And that is really the way I see this all the time: doing what is best for the American people to advance our values, to advance our interests, to help make the world a better place, to make the world a freer place, because freedom is what works. The President and I were having a conversation the other morning, and he and I were talking about this with Condee Rice, our new National Security Advisor, and a great professional who is going to be a dear friend of the State Department. But we were all in the Oval Office chatting, and we were talking about democracy. And the President made the point, let's really talk about not just democracy, but let's talk about freedom. Democracy can be interpreted in so many different ways; even the old Soviet Union used to call itself a great democracy. They could never really say they were free. So let's talk about freedom, let's talk about advancing freedom throughout the world. This is such an exciting time to take this message to the world. I have to pinch myself sometimes at the things that I have seen come about just in the last 1 0 years or 12 years since I left my office as National Security Advisor and then went into the Pentagon and then came out and have been in private life for the last seven years. And it is as if my whole life was divided into two very distinct segments that I used to love to talk to audiences about when I was on the circuit. The first phase of my adult life was the period of the Cold War, when the whole world was divided into that red and blue side of the map with the Iron Curtain separating it all. We had such clear rules as to how we would behave, clear rules that come with primary colors like red and blue. And it defined everything we did, it defined how we related with respect to trade and economic policy and monetary policy and travel and cultural exchanges and religion. Everything else was defined by the primary colors of the red and blue sides of the map. And then it all kind of came unstuck on us. And it came unstuck on me particularly on a day when I was in Moscow with Secretary of State George Shultz, a great friend and great American. And we went to see Gorbachev, which was 1988 at the height of the period of glasnost and perestroika and we were trying to understand this all. And Mr. Shultz and I went to see President Gorbachev. This was just before the summit in 1988, where Ronald Reagan was going to the "Evil Empire" for the first time. And George and I were there clearing the way for the hater of the Evil Empire to come visit the Evil Empire. Town Hall Meeting Page 2 of 13 (Laughter.) And so Mr. Shultz and I were in the Hall of St. Catherine, a place known to many of you, and we were sifting across the table from Gorbachev and he was mad. He had just been attacked again by the Russian press and the Russian apparatchiks for moving toward the West so aggressively; and he was also being attacked by the western press and by the Republican Party for not moving fast enough. So he was frustrated by all of this. And he was pounding away at us and shouting across the table at us, "What's wrong with you?" "Why don't you give me more cooperation, so I can show that there is change coming about." "It's going to be revolutionary and you attack me rather than supporting me at every opportunity." And he looked at that passive face that George Shultz had, that most of you know so well. (Laughter.) George, he just sat there with that Dutchman look on his face, staring right back. And then after he had tried to make that point to George that, "I'm telling you, the Cold War is over. I'm ending it, don't you understand?" And then he looked at me to get my reaction. And this old soldier was just looking back. (Laughter.) I ain't buying this. And then finally, Gorbachev looked to me and thought a little bit and I can almost see him to this day, sort of looking upward and reflecting on who this national security advisor was who was also a general, not a diplomat, not a politician, not a foreign policy expert, but a general. Ah hah, I know how to talk to him. And he looked back down and he turned to me again and he leaned forward and a smile came on his face and he said, "Ah hah, General, I'm very, very sorry. You'll have to find a new enemy." (Laughter and applause.) And I thought to myself, I don't want to. (Laughter.) I like this enemy very, very much. (Laughter.) We've got six percent of the gross national product, I've got 3 million people working for me, everything's nice, we understand it, you've got your place, I've got my place, they've got a great army along the intra-German border. Just because you're having a bad year, I don't want to change. (Laughter.) But change we did. Within a year after that conversation, I watched this soldier with all these -- I spent so much of my career ready to fight this enemy and, suddenly, it was gone. We watched the Iron Curtain come down; we watched as Germany unified itself almost overnight; we watched as all those Eastern European nations were told pursue your own destinies; and we watched as the Soviet Union ended. The world we knew just fundamentally went away at that point, and became a mosaic with changing bits and pieces every day -- almost a kaleidoscope. And we come in here to C Street every day, you twist that kaleidoscope and all the pieces change. But there are certain realities within all of these pieces changing in front of us every day, and the realities of that. We beat them on the field of ideas -- we contained them on the field of battle but we beat them on the field of ideas -- and those ideas are as powerful today as they were when they caused the Soviet Union to say, this doesn't work; we quit; and we are going to go our separate ways; let our republics separate off. The power of freedom for people, the power of individual liberty, which causes people to want to seek their own destiny and take risks on their own behalf. These are powerful forces that reshaped that Cold War world into the world we are in now. These are powerful forces that I believe to the depth of my heart are still at work. Even in places like Iraq and Iran and elsewhere, I believe these forces are irresistible. And more and more nations will come to the conclusion that they have to move in this direction if they really want to be successful. Because the other thing that happened with the end of the Cold War was the explosion of the information and technology revolution, where not only did you have this mosaic, this kaleidoscope, but you see it all being connected together through the power of the Internet, and fax machines, and satellites dishes, and cellular telephony, all allowing us to move information, knowledge, data, capital around the world at the speed of light. Anywhere in the world that you can get a satellite dish that can look up at a right angle, you have changed that part of the world, because knowledge and information and culture will come down. I am absolutely persuaded of the transforming nature of this new technology and what it is going to do to the world. Out on the speaking circuit I had a chance to talk to many companies who are going through this transformation. As Chairman, I helped destroy the defense industry in the early'90's, when we downsized because the Cold War went away. And within five years, all of those industries in California and Texas and Massachusetts and elsewhere that had been part of the great defense establishment had reshaped themselves into this new world of information and technology revolution, the Silicon Valley revolution. I am absolutely convinced that this is a powerful force. And I could see it, out on the speaking circuit talking to trade associations everywhere. One of my best clients were all these trade associations. I will never forget the day I spoke to Midas, Midas Muffler. (Laughter.) They've got an association. And I went there, and they said, "Well, it isn't Midas Muffler anymore." Well, what is it? "It is Midas International." Really? "Yes. We don't want to just focus on mufflers; we have got brakes, we've got a lot of other things." (Laughter.) I can handle that. But why Midas International? "Because we're international. We're everywhere. We just opened up our first franchise in an Eastern European country. And we just opened up another one down in Latin America. So we're going international." And I said, well, what caused you to do this? How did the markets change that suggested you should move in this direction? They said, "Well, in Eastern Europe, now that the Iron Curtain is gone and now that there is the beginning of wealth creation, and people have money, they want cars. They can't afford the new Mercedes yet, but they can afford used Mercedes." And guess what used Mercedes need? Mufflers. (Laughter.) In Latin America, we have seen this historic change from generals running countries and dictators to the explosion of democracy. Not perfect in all cases, and only Castro's Cuba remains outside, but they said when that happened and when development began to grab hold, and people started to generate wealth, they wanted new brakes for all those '57 Chevies that used to be down there. (Laughter.) And so you could start to see this spreading outward, the power of individual men and women pursuing their destiny, and the power of international economic and international trading system all being fueled by information and technology revolutions. This is exciting. This is transforming. It means that the "-isms" we used to fight and worry about don't really appeal to people anymore. Yes, there are Communist nations, but nobody starting out to become a Communist nation anymore. And those nations that still have Communist in their title or in their label or in their philosophy are realizing that wealth does not come from that; wealth comes from trade. Wealth comes from becoming a part of this new international system that is emerging, and that the center of that system is the United States of America. Not as an arrogant nation telling everybody else in the world what to do, but as a nation that conveys what is possible, what is possible when you move in this direction. We're not telling you to follow us. We're telling you to take a look at what we are doing, and the kind of success we have been able to achieve. Maybe you can find something that fits your culture, your society, your history and adopt it to your uses. And by the way, you better get on it quickly, because your kids are all watching MTV. (Laughter.) And so we convey this model to the rest of the world. But I haven't drifted off terra firma into some little funny land, dreamy land. I realize that there are dangers; I realize that there are still regimes that do not mean us well. We face new kinds of threats, transnational threats, cross-cufting threats, whether it's weapons of mass destruction, whether it's drugs, whether it's international crime, all sorts of things that are out there, regimes that haven't gotten the word. And they pursue these weapons of mass destruction as they are called, which at the end of the day will buy them nothing because they are not educating their kids while pursuing these sorts of technologies. The unique position that we are in is that we have this value system that people are looking to and trying to figure out how to take the parts that are most relevant to them. We have these dangerous regimes that are still out there. We have these challenges. But we can approach these challenges from a position of enormous strength, the strength of our political system, our democrp-fic system, shown once again in the past election. No tanks in the streets, great debate, a lot of disagreement. Then last Saturday, you saw the triumph of our system, when we inaugurated a new President and the whole nation came together again for that moment. And you also saw the magic of our system when, by Monday, they were starting to argue with each other already in the Congress. (Laughter.) That's what it is supposed to be; it's a noisy system. Anyone who says it is supposed to be -- oh, it's supposed to be sweet and nonpartisan. Nonsense. That isn't what the founding fathers intended; they wanted a clash of ideas, they wanted checks and balances. So ours is a noisy system. I've had so much fun explaining our noisy system to generals around the world. And I remember my Russian colleague at one point was saying, Powell, you know, you misled us. Why? You told us we were going to like democracy. He said, but now in the Duma, we have members of our parliament who shout and scream at the generals. (Laughter.) They don't know what they're talking about and they won't give us any money. I said, sounds like the United States; welcome to democracy. (Laughter.) And you're going to love it, you're going to love it. And so with this noise of democracy, underpinning it all, we have the strength of our political system as manifested in the recent election, as manifested last Saturday with the wonderful inauguration. We have the strength of our economic system which nobody can really explain. They really can't explain it, what's driving the ingenuity of Americans who are out there taking risks, losing money, making money, creating wealth. We have the power of our armed forces, the best on the face of the earth, and under the leadership of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, they will stay that way, with the support of the Congress and the support of the American people. We also have our diplomatic strength. In this new world, where we don't have the Red Army about to come across the Fulda Gap, those front line troops who used to be on the border are no longer soldiers, they are now our colleagues at the embassies. They are now our front line troops. They are the ones who are going to help us move the world in the direction that we think it is proper for the world to move in. We're going to do it from a position of humility, we're going to do it from the position of seeing no nation out there as an enemy unless that nation chooses to be an enemy, recognizing that we are part of the world because there is no nation that is not represented in the American rainbow. And so our diplomats, all of the men and women in our missions around the world, are now on the front line of the battle, the continuing battle to bring freedom to the world. I view it as my solemn obligation to make sure that they have and that you have all the resources you need to serve the American people. You heard me say this before this past Monday at the wonderful welcoming ceremony you provided for me, as well as in my confirmation hearing. You need the resources to do the job well, resources that will improve our facilities, resources that will provide adequate compensation, resources that will fix our infrastructure, resources that are necessary so that you can do your job well. I want everybody in the State Department, all the wonderful parts of the State Department, whether Foreign Service, Civil Service, or our Foreign Service Nationals, to have a chance to play their role within the Department to the best of their ability, and I will fight to get those resources. As I mentioned on Monday, I am not only a foreign policy advisor to the President. I believe that my charge is also to be the leader and the manager of the State Department. My leadership style will become known to you in due course. It is a very open, collegial kind of style. But don't mistake it. I'm still a general. (Laughter and applause.) So you will find an open style, you will find me bouncing in, you will find me wanting to talk to desk officers; I want to hear the rough edges of all arguments. I don't want to concur things to death and coordinate things to death so I get a round pebble instead of a stone that has edges on it. I'want to hear from you, I want to get all the great ideas that exist throughout the Department. And so you will find me trying to run a very open, loose style, but with high standards and with high expectations for performance. If you perform well, we are going to get along fine. (Laughter.) If you don't, you are going to give me push-ups. (Laughter.) So it's a high-standard organization, high-performing organization. I also believe, to the depth of my heart, that there is no job in the State Department that is unimportant. I believe that everybody has a vital role to play, and it is my job to communicate and convey down through every layer to the last person in the organization, the valuable role that they are performing and how what they do contributes to the mission. We have to be linked. There is a management theory that was captured by a man named Rensis Likert many, many years ago called, "Linking Pin Theory." And he said in any hierarchical organization there are leaders throughout that organization who serve as "linking pins" to connect the organization. I'm at the top, and we have Assistant Secretaries, Under Secretaries, and Office Directors and Bureau Chiefs and all kinds of people; each one of them is a "link pin" that connects the organization, and the role of a "linking pin," of a leader, is to make things happen and to connect people under that person with the next level up. So those of you who are leaders, I expect you to convey upward to me the problems in your organizations, the aspirations in your organization, the needs of your organization. I expect you to protect your people, to defend your people and fight for your people all the way up to me. And when I come back down with the answers and we have looked at all the rough edges and we have made a decision as to what we are going to do, then we are all going to move out in that decision and stick with it, with coherence and consistency over time, unless it has been proven that we should move in a different direction. Simple standards. I want everybody to be a part of it. I was watching a Discovery Channel show not too long ago about the Empire State Building It was a wonderful one-hour special on this marvelous building. And they took you up on the top floor where the leaders of the building and the owners of the building worked and lived, and they had marvelous offices and apartments. And then they took you into various parts of the building. And in the last five minutes of this one-hour special, they took you into the basement of the Empire State Building. And they took you into a huge room that was every bit as big as this auditorium. And it was full of garbage bags, those 30-gallon black garbage bags, representing all the refuse that had come out of the building that day. And there were five guys in maintenance uniforms who were going to empty all these bags, take them out of the building and put them in trash trucks and move it all out, in the certain knowledge that when they came back tomorrow, the room would be full of bags again. Horrible, horrible thought. And the camera focused on these five guys and went to the guy in the middle, who seemed to be the team leader, and asked him, what's your job? He said: "My job is to make sure this building shines every day, to make sure that the people from around the world come to this building, see a clean building, that they can be happy they have made the trip. That's my job." He was no trash collector. He understood that he was linked throughout that whole Empire State Building, so that he knew the mission and he knew the role that he played in the accomplishment of that mission. You will find that as I go about my work, I will be trying to make sure that that concept of mission and linking goes throughout the organization here in Washington, and all of our facilities around the world, and especially to make sure we are linked with all of those embassies who are in the front lines. I am going to start taking action as quickly as I can to make those organizational changes, and look at the various irritants that might exist in our family unit, and see what we can do to change things. I am going to be working on the personnel system, why does it take so long to get a youngster into the Foreign Service. There must be ways to cut through this very, very lengthy process. If we can get a young GI into a radar unit and trained up and deployed in nine months, I don't know why it takes 27 months from passage of the Foreign Service exam to access somebody into the Foreign Service. Surely we can do something about that. I am going to be very interested in diversity. I am very anxious that the State Department reflect America in every sense of that term. I am also going to be very interested in security. We have had security problems in the Department. I am going to put the burden for security on the individuals in the Department. If you know the rules, you will be expected to follow the rules. If you fail to follow the rules, you can expect to receive the consequences from failing to follow the rules. That is how we get security, by each of us doing our job individually. I don't want to, every time we have a problem or a little flap, put another layer of security on the whole building to the point where you are afraid to do your job, and security starts pulling the mission, rather than the mission pulling security. And so with Dave Carpenter, I will be reviewing a number of the things that have been done in recent months to make sure that we have put security on the backs of the people of the Department, and not so constrained our activities that it is affecting the work of the Department. I am going to fight for you. I am going to do everything I can to make your job easier. I want you all to have fun under my leadership. I like to have fun. I am going to go home as soon as no one's looking on the Seventh Floor. (Laughter and applause.) I am 63 going on 64. 1 don't have to prove to anybody that I can work 16 hours a day if I can get it done in eight. (Applause.) If I'm looking for you at 7:30 at night, 8:00 at night, and you are not in your office, I will consider you to be a very, very wise person. (Laughter.) If I need you, I will find you at home. Anybody who is logging hours to impress me, you are wasting your time. (Laughter and applause.) Do your work, get the work done, and then go home to your families, go to your soccer games. I have no intention -- unless the mission demands it-- I have no intention of being here on Saturday and Sunday. Do what you have to do to get the job done, but don't think that I am clocking anybody to see where you are on any particular hour of the day or day of the week. We are all professionals here and can take care of that. Have fun. Enjoy the work. (Applause.) I will start traveling in due course. For the first few weeks, since I am the only confirmed official in the State Department from the new Administration, I'm afraid to leave town. Al Larson might take over or do something -(inaudible). (Laughter.) So I am going to stick close to home until we get our sea legs, but then I will start traveling. And so for everybody watching around the world, I will be around to see you in due course. I am an easy visitor. We are going to try to make it very easy for me to visit. Just to save a lot of cable traffic, I have no food preferences, no drink preferences -- (laughter) -- a cheeseburger will be fine. I like Holiday Inns, I have no illusions. I don't want to be a burden when I corqe to visit. Don't do a lot of dumb things just because the Secretary is coming. Keep it easy, keep it light, keep it low. And if I find something I don't like, I'll let you know. (Laughter.) Let me just conclude by saying that I didn't know I would be coming back into government when I left the Army seven years ago and went into private life. I enjoyed private life enormously. I didn't think I would be coming back into government. But when Governor Bush asked me to consider it, I was ready for it. I was anxious to see if I could serve again. I think I have something to contribute still. And when he specifically said, I would like you to go to the State Department, it was almost as if I had been preparing for this in one way or another for many, many years. My work in the Pentagon, my work as a Deputy National Security Advisor, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and seven years in private life watching the world change, suggested to me this is something I should do. I was enormously impressed by the transition period, the terrific briefings I got, and I want to thank all who participated in those briefings. Secretary Albright and I had a splendid relationship and a splendid turnover. We had three lunches and the second day after my announcement, she and I spent three hours at her home, to make sure there was a smooth handoff. So I just want to let you know that I am proud to be your Secretary. I am proud to have been given this opportunity to serve the American people again. But, above all to serve with you. Thank you very much. (Applause.) SECRETARY POWELL: I think the plan now is to give you an opportunity to ask me a few questions. And I'm not sure I have been here long enough to know any of the answers -- (laughter) -- but that's the beauty of my job. You pick the question, I pick the answer. (Laughter.) Q: Good morning, Mr. Secretary. I'm Gary Galloway, Vice President of Local 1534 of AFGE and we appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again this morning. My question is one that I think many Civil Service and Foreign Service employees alike are concerned about, and it's actually two parts. One is, what are your thoughts about how we go about valuing good management in this Department? Secondly, what are your thoughts about how we bring our information technology and information systems into the 21 st century? I think that is something that interests us all. SECRETARY POWELL: I think you value good management by rewarding people who are good managers and making it an essential element of their performance evaluation. And I am more interested in leadership than I am management. Management is easy; leadership is motivating people, turning people on, getting 1 1 0 percent out of a personal relationship. Management is a science, leadership is an art, and I will be interested in identifying those people who are leaders, who really know how to turn people on. The only thing that accomplishes work are people. Plans don't accomplish work. Goal charts on walls don't accomplish work. Even talking papers don't accomplish work. It is people who get things done. And so I believe the answer to your first question is to make that an essential part of our recognition systems, and I think we can do more with our recognition systems. Since I can't really -- it's a little like the military -- I can't compensate you with money. So we have to have a recognition system that rewards people and compensates people for being good managers but, especially, for being good leaders. On information technology, I have read many reports about it and I was on the Stimson Center study a couple years ago, which also talked about information technology. I am going to be looking at this very carefully. I now have my computers all set up. They took away my Palm Pilot, though. (Laughter.) And I am probably going to bring in some of my colleagues, not to have another study, but I am probably going to bring in some of my colleagues from that world I was in for the last seven years, Steve Case, Michael Bell, Andy Grove, a few other people like that, who really know what they're talking about -- in fact, I talked to a couple of them last night -- to come in and find out what we can do. The trouble with technology, information technology, these days, is you can buy something today and it's gone. For years now, it's who bought that old piece of junk, because things are changing at such a rapid rate. So we have to find out a way to catch the curve but not get stuck, and then you can't invest five years from now when you need to invest. So I will be very interested in this, I will be working with information technology people. But we should have the ability at every Embassy to e-mail and speak securely via the net with every other Embassy and every office in Washington. There should be no place in the State Department where you don't have access to the Internet. I live on the Internet. (Applause.) I found in my own life, I had an office down town in Alexandria, but I could stay home most of the time. Between fax machines, e-mails, Internet, I really didn't have to leave "the bunker" as I call my home office. (Laughter.) And I have gotten rid of all of my encyclopedias, all of my dictionaries, everything else. It's all up there. And for those of you who really want to see the best site -- (laughter) -- you go to hftp:i/www.refdesk.com/. And it is always running behind my opening window. You want to find a newspaper anywhere in the world, you want a thesaurus, you want an encyclopedia, you want to find zip codes, you want the atomic clock time as of that second, refdesk has it all for you. It's run by Maft Drudge's father. (Laughter.) It's a great site. But there's a lot we can do and, in this world, you've got to have access to the Internet and you've got to be able to talk instantaneously to anybody else in the world. And AOL -- and I touched on this in my confirmation hearing -- but at AOL, when I was on the board of directors, we literally had almost 140 million people connected through ICQ, Net Center, Netscape, CompuServe and AOL. And these are 140 million people who could talk to each other instantaneously. Can you imagine, the historic dimensions of such a thing. And when you add in all of the other services as well, you get a sense of what is out there, and we should not be outside of that revolution. We have to be an essential part of this transformation of information technology. Thank you. (Applause.) Mr. Secretary, John Naland from the American Foreign Service Association. SECRETARY POWELL: How come you two guys got Q: We're the Helen Thomas of this. SECRETARY POWELL: I get it. Q: You just spoke about global change and you mentioned a '57 Chevy that needed a new muffler. And I wanted to ask you about change at Main State which is a '57 Chevy that needed a new muffler if I ever saw one. (Laughter.) As I am sure you appreciate more than many of us, every organization has a distinct organizational culture that shapes the work environment and mission accomplishments. Increasingly, in recent years, the State Department has been criticized both from without and from within for having an organizational culture and operational procedures that are ill suited for the conduct of 21 st century diplomacy. manager and you just spoke about it also. My question to you is, in addition to seeking more resources for this agency, do you also plan to lead the reform and revitalization of our organizational culture in operating procedures, in order to make us a more effective implementer of US diplomacy? SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. (Laughter and applause.) And, as I have said in a couple of venues, I am not going to bring a bunch of wise men in or wise ladies in, all of my old friends out there in think tank land, and spend the next six months. We're going to start to do things right away. It will manifest itself. I don't want to announce a bunch of them now because I'm not trying to show off. We are just going to start doing things that will be obvious to you. And I think you will see the transformation start to take place. I am only interested in transformations that go down to the depth of the organization. It's easy to come in and say, "Whee, we're going to reorganize." Reorganizations are something you do to somebody rather than for somebody, so you have to be careful with them. I don't want to throw all the pieces in the air, because I assume some very qualified people were here before I got here. And so I want to go from that known into new territory. But you will start to see changes in office structures, you will start to see some experimentation with layers. You will start to see some reallocation of resources. You will start to see efforts on my part to have more centralized direction of the financial systems within the Department, more in line with patterns of management and leadership that I am familiar with. You will start to see us identify specific problems that need to be worked on, whether it's personnel system, Foreign Buildings Office, how do we build our facilities around the world, and I hope that you will see that come about and it will not only flow from the top down, but I am looking for good ideas coming up from the bottom and we will act on them. As President Bush loves to say all the time, I'm a decider, I'm a decider. You bring me the options, I'll pick one. Well, I can do the same thing. I will look at the options and pick things that I think are sensible to do and we will move out quickly on that. But I hope as a result of that, the culture, the new culture will emerge. It's better if that culture sort of emerges rather than leaves you standing up here saying, well, here's my culture, you all fall in and this is it. It will emerge. And just start looking for these actions which will start in the next couple of days, a little bit at a time. Some of them are pretty simple, some of them will be a little more complex. For example -- (laughter) -- we're going to start a pilot spouse employment program test in Mexico, because that has been an irritant. So we are going to work on that. And let's see how it works in Mexico and then we will spread it through the rest of the world. I have approved some money to do that. There is a problem with child care at the Foreign Service Institute. We are going to deal with that. There are lots of issues with respect to security. Dave and I are going over all of that and we will start to see what's the sensible thing to do. And you will see the culture grow like coral coming up out of the ocean, we hope. (Applause.) Q: Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Let's try to have some fun. My name is Kenny Harris. I am an almost 27-year member of this Agency. I have seen quite a few of your predecessors say a lot of great things. I'm a financial management analyst. I work in the Bureau of Financial Management Policy. I am also a lifetime member of Blacks in Government and every now and then I'm even the Vice Chair of the Secretary's Open Forum. So I hope to get you -- Allen and I hope to get you to one of our forums in the future and to be an active participant with that. You touched on some things already and both the two persons who came before me asked some things I'm about to ask but I will try to get a little more specific. As far as diversity, you mentioned you were going to try to ensure that we have a State Department looking like America. Have you seen the demographics of diversity among the various grades in both services, have you seen that data? SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. Q: Okay. SECRETARY POWELL: I'm familiar with the -- Q: The balances and imbalances. So I am curious to find out how, you know, you are going to try to make things a little bit better there, as well as you talked about answering the fact that we don't have at our desktops an infrastructure -- the lady here mentioned PD-63, if I'm saying that correctly, and we don't have funding for that. So are you going to try to make sure that we get the funding and try to really improve our infrastructure? I'm just curious to see how you're going to do that. SECRETARY POWELL: On diversity, one of the important things we have to do is to expand our outreach into the communities which are under-represented. I have very relevant experience from the Army with respect to this kind of outreach and so I want to get out into the heart of it, even more so. A lot of work has been done and Dr. Albright, just before she left, signed an important agreement with Howard University. I want to do more and more of that. I want to get in the high schools. I want to start touching youngsters much earlier about the opportunities that are available in the State Department, either in the Foreign Service or in the Civil Service, and get them moving. If we don't do that, these kids won't know about us and you can't get into this track. We've got to get more minorities coming into the entry level. I used to lecture my commanders, if you want a general in 20 years, you've got to bring a kid in, a second lieutenant in now. And the Foreign Service is not different from that. So I don't have any snap answers for you. And I am not going to try to blow in your ear and tell you, I know the answer, here it is. It's going to be hard work. It's hard work. Many of our minority youngsters have so many other opportunities right now, we've got to make Foreign Service more attractive to them. I want those professionals in the Department who are minorities to get out and talk to high schools, to talk to elementary schools. We're going to bring a bunch of kids in here on groundhog job shadow day on the 2nd of February and show them what it's like to work in a place like this. I will have a kid with me all day long. I do it all the time. I will be looking at promotion rates. I will be looking at what happens as you go up the cone, to make sure that there are no vestiges of institutional discrimination of any kind, and it's performance that counts. But I'm also not going to blink if performance isn't there but a claim is made because of diversity you have to do this. Performance is going to count. So we have to make the pool big enough in the beginning so that performance can count as you move up. With respect to PD-63, I'm not sure what PD-63 is. Q: (Inaudible.) SECRETARY POWELL: Presidential directive? Q: (Inaudible.) SECRETARY POWELL: That's not unusual or unheard of -- yes. I'll have to look at what the requirements of the PD are and see whether that's where I want to put my resource money or what I can get. I have made a fairly healthy request to the White House already and we'll see. There are a lot of other requesters in the White House at the moment. And it isn't just a one-time shot. I will keep going back. As I can justify the request for more resources, I'll go back. And not one of the senators I have spoken to in the last three weeks has said, no, you guys have got all the money you're going to get. They all know we don't have enough, from the left to the right. Every senator I spoke to said to me, you come up and make the case, show that you're doing it efficiently and that you're transforming the State Department and we'll support you. Not one failed to give me that message. So I will take PD-63 and its requirements into account. Thank you. Q: Good morning, Mr. Secretary. SECRETARY POWELL: It makes me nervous when you've got the questions written out, my brother. (Laughter.) Q: I'm Sergeant Major Bruce, sir, of the United States Army, and I am extremely proud and honored to be part of an organization that has produced such a supreme strategist, a master humanitarian -- (laughter and applause) -- an intellectual genius -- (laughter and applause) -- and eloquent orator as yourself. SECRETARY POWELL: What did you say your name was, my friend? (Laughter and applause.) Q: Hopefully, sir, I speak for service members everywhere and my descendants and the future generation to come. I am significantly honored to be living during this time and working in Department of State in a time that will go down in history as perhaps the second most significant government appointment in American history, following Ms. Madeleine K. Albright, the first woman ever to be the Secretary of State, you being appointed as the first American of African descent. I am proud to be here, sir, to serve you. (Applause.) SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) Thank you. Another question? Q: Sir, I have two questions and two requests. (Laughter.) SECRETARY POWELL: That's called a wind-up. (Laughter.) Q: You have spoken about diversity, and I have been an advocate of diversity since being here in the Department. I have brainchilded two programs that recognize the contributions to this society and its mission of all its people. And I have a black history program coming in the month of February. Actually, I have several programs that I am a co-author, executioner, and implementer of. And I would like for you to perhaps speak on one of those programs in the month of February, depending upon your schedule. And on the 22nd of February, if that date is clear for you, we would like to have you. (Laughter.) SECRETARY POWELL: I will do what I can. (Laughter.) Q: Sir, I have done my graduate's work on the Department of State's minorities being appointed to senior level positions in the State Department, and I have a lot of research that I have done, and I have passed that on to Miss Madeleine K. Albright, the Secretary previously, and also to Miss Bonnie Cohen of management. And I think I have done a pretty thorough job in documenting the incidents and the situations that have led to us having not enough minorities in the pipeline, to be promoted to the senior and middle level management. And that simply means that if one of these senior level minority would retire today, there would be no other to replace them. So the issue here is what we are going to have to do in the future in order to get those people -- and you have already addressed that -- get those people in the pipeline. And I appreciate your initiative and your philosophy on this -- (laughter). SECRETARY POWELL: Have you got anything else, Sergeant Major? (Laughter.) Q: Yes, sir. SECRETARY POWELL: We've got to go on to someone else now. (Laughter.) Q: Yes, sir. I realize that you are on -- (laughter). Just one more. SECRETARY POWELL: You've got ten seconds. Q: Yes, sir. There are three groups here in the Department, three different societies, the Foreign Service, the Civil Service and you have your contractor labor force -- and most times they are a voiceless populous. And I hope that in your negotiation, that these people are considered, that someone represents them and speaks their issues. SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you, Sergeant Major. Q: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) Q: Sir, my name is Lee Reinier. I am with the Office of Acquisition Management. I don't really have a question for you. I do have a comment, and I guess you can tell that Sergeant Major is a sergeant major. (Laughter.) 1, too, am retired military, and I am sure there are many of us in here. And I would just like to thank you for stepping up to the plate. SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you. Q: Thank you. SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you very much. (Applause.) SECRETARY POWELL: We will have to be brief now, because I do have a foreign minister getting ready to come in. He can come in here and watch this if he wishes. (Laughter.) Q: Mr. Secretary, my name is Ted Strickler. When I am not busy handing out blue ribbons, I can be found in the Office of Foreign Missions. Traditionally we have attributed our difficulty in obtaining resources to a lack of a domestic constituency. During the last seven years, when you have been in the private sector, how do you view our ability to attract a constituency to support our programs? SECRETARY POWELL: I found in almost all the audiences I spoke to over the years that trade audiences, corporate audiences, Fortune 500 -- and a lot of just public gatherings, a lot of universities -- the American people are not indifferent. The American people are not isolationists. But they have to be spoken to. And so I want to do a better job in our public affairs operation to get you wonderful people out speaking to the American people and explaining to them why what we do in the State Department is important, and why it really is in the forefront of the new world, rather than an afterthought. And it is a very, very receptive community out there. Business people understand the nature of this changing world, sometimes better then political scientists do. American audiences that I have spoken to are working hard to get the skills they need to participate in this new economy, and they understand that we are not an island unto ourselves. I think we have to do a better job of taking this message out, and it can't just be the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary. I need all of you to go out and talk to Rotary Clubs, talk everywhere you can, on the role of the State Department and the importance of foreign policy to the welfare of the nation. (Applause.) Q: Good morning, Mr. Secretary. It's not actually outright pandering. I do wear it all the time. I want -- my name is Ellen Toomey, and I work in SA-44, which was formerly USIA. I would like to know if you could comment a little bit on how you see the integration of public diplomacy efforts into the overall work of the Department. And also, I would like to say that in my almost 35 years of service, I have never heard a speech that I found more useful and on target in the Department. SECRETARY POWELL: Well, thank you. Thank you very much. Q: Thank you. SECRETARY POWELL: I believe also that the world has changed in terms of the way we communicate ideas and thoughts -- 24-hour news cycles; the Internet is a source of communication and information -- and that we have to take advantage of these most modern tools. I think USIA, the old USIA now integrated in, has an important role to play. I'm looking for leaders in the public diplomacy and public affairs empire who are very much in tune with this new way of communicating with people, who understand how to take messages out in the 21 st century, who understand how to "brand" things in the 21 st century, because I believe it is essential for us to spread freedom, to be able to communicate it properly, and to be the example that I have spoken about, to be able to communicate that properly. So I think even more in this new world than the old world, the kind of work you have done and your colleagues in USIA have done, will be more important and more vital to our success. The little red wagon she is wearing -- and she says she wears it all the time; she is not pandering -- is the same as my little red wagon. For those of you who may have noticed it, this is what I did for the last three years as Chairman of America's Promise. And I took over the Chairmanship of America's Promise, really created it, because in all of the success that I saw, and all of the wonderful things that I talked about earlier, I saw lots of kids who were not sharing in that success. I saw kids who didn't believe in America. We are trying to export the American dream, and I found kids who didn't believe it here at home. And so with America's Promise, we were creating alliances with the private sector, the public sector, the religious, educational sectors, to give to these kids hope, to provide more mentors for them. To give them safe places, more boys' and girls' clubs and expanded scouting programs to protect them from the pathologies of our society. The third thing was to give kids the health care they deserved and needed. The fourth, make sure they were getting the skills they needed to participate in the kind of world we have been talking about. And fifth, give our kids a chance to serve, to give back. We don't draft them anymore, so let's ask them to do community service or service to community as their way of giving back. And the symbol for that effort, which I am very proud of, is this little red wagon. And we used it as an icon, really. Everybody had a little red wagon in their life at one point or another. Whenever you see it, you have this image of childhood. Either you pulled your kid brother or kid sister around and turned him over and dumped him out -(laughter) -- or you had a newspaper route and you delivered newspapers with the little red Radio Flyer wagon, or it was your rocket ship, or it was whatever your imagination made it that day, and to put your hopes and dreams in it. And the wheels on the wagon made the way of life a little easier for you, and it had a long black handle so that when the going got a little rough, an adult could reach down and help that wagon along the way to life. So we use this as a symbol of what we are trying to do for youngsters. The reason I continue to wear it is because I am proud of my association, past association and continuing founder association, with America's Promise, but also it has an international component. Ontario, Canada, started their Ontario Promise program, paralleling America's Promise, with the little red wagon and everything. Taiwan has a program. We have had interest from the Organization of American States. And I also want to explain it to the people who come to see me, to show that if you are really going to be successful, you have got to look after those who are not yet touched by this wonderful revolution. And if you have started to get up on that ladder of success and wealth, you have an obligation, not just to keep going up, but to reach down and help someone else. And that ought to be part of our culture. (Applause.) It ought to be part of our culture. Okay, last question. Q: Thank you for addressing us and these wonderful comments you are making back to us really helps to encourage us. I am Lorraine Flora, I am in SA-44 in the Exchange Visitor Program, and I came down because I like to see the full picture. And where do some of us go to, and in a sense, sign up, get contact with individuals who might be able to use our talents openly? SECRETARY POWELL: In America's Promise, or anything? Q: Well, that and even -- I work with congressionals and other paperwork, which we put faces on it and match with needs, and things are timely, and I would like to help streamline and assist in whatever way from a clerical support capacity that I might. SECRETARY POWELL: If you are interested in America's Promise, it is AmericasPromise.org, and a great website. Terrific website. If you want to do something that would help me to take the message out -- Q: Through the Department and assisting you -- SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, Bill Smullen, my Chief of Staff, is here, and he is up in my office, and just give Colonel Smullen a call. Q: Okay. SECRETARY POWELL: We've got lots of colonels around here now, you may have noticed. (Laughter.) Q: Good morning, Mr. Secretary. My name is Paula McClinton, and 1, too, work in the Bureau of Finance Management and Policy, and I just appreciate the fact that you do have an open-door policy. And I also want to bring to you some of the troubles that are in FMP. One thing that strikes my mind on top is the fact that we are slated to go to Charleston, South Carolina. Most of us don't want to go to South Carolina, so I'm going to ask you, in your travels, and visiting the different homes, that you do come to FMP and talk with the employees to get a better insight as to how we feel about the Department, its move, and other issues. SECRETARY POWELL: Okay. (Applause.) SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. I think -- I'm afraid -- let me just take these last two. I'm sorry, my dear. No, I can't do that to a lady. (Laughter.) I'll be very brief, I swear I'll be brief. Q: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I'm a consular officer, and my question relates to overseas security. As you know, no private American citizens were killed in the bombings in Kenya and Nairobi. My question is, do you think that the people in OMB, the new people in OMB, and the people on the Hill, understand that security overseas is something for all the American people, not just its public servants? SECRETARY POWELL: I think they understand that. It is difficult, sometimes, however to provide full security for all Americans who might be overseas in an Embassy situation, or just in other situations. But I think there is an understanding that it is a risk for all Americans, and not just those who happen to be in an embassy. So if we are strengthening embassies and making it secure, we have got to understand there are a lot of people outside that embassy who may not be secure. I think that is understood. Q: But there are also private Americans inside the embassy. SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. Yes, understood. Q: Thank you. SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you. Q: Mr. Secretary, my name is Bob Dubose. I am a retired Foreign Service Officer. And there are quite a few of us around the country, quite a few of us actually are almost as old as you are. (Laughter.) Of course, I can't speak for my colleagues, but in general, let us say we all believe that we can run this place better than all these young people. (Laughter.) But my question, sir, is we do recognize that you have a tremendous job ahead of you. We are very, very enthusiastic about your appointment, and as a retiree, I can speak for some of us, we stand ready to help you, and if you have any jobs for us, let us know. (Laughter.) SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you. (Applause.) Well, thank you. That's an important statement, because it touches on something I should have mentioned in my remarks, that the retired population is every bit an important component of our family as is the active part of our population, and I will be reaching out, wanting to be aware of your interests and your concerns, and doing everything I can to make sure you know that you and your colleagues are a part of the family, and welcome at all times. And are you looking for a job? (Laughter.) Call Bill. (Laughter.) Q: Of course, I must add we can't get in the building, as you probably know. (Laughter.) SECRETARY POWELL: That's what I thought you were going to ask. (Applause.) Q: Mr' Secretary, I am honored to have heard you speak, and to be able to speak to you. My name is Carolina Walkin. I work in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. I found many of the things that you had to say very inspiring, and I thank you for that, for all of those comments. @ Two things in particular struck me. One of them was that you felt that that everyone in the State Department should feel that they are making a contribution to the whole. And another comment that you made was that a lot of -- there are a lot of fixes, sometimes patchwork fixes, that are placed on fixing things that just sort of -- that are convenient for the moment. I am a Civil Service employee, and one of the things that -- one of the joys that I have had is to be able to participate in the Hard to Fill Program, opening up the Hard to Fill Program in the Foreign Service for Civil Service employees. And to be able to switch fields, to work in another area, and to work with other Foreign Service officers in the same kind of position. For Civil Service professionals in this building, as well as Civil Service clerical staff, it is very difficult for us to move around, to move to different positions, for the clerical staff to move up, and for professionals to move across different fields. Those opportunities do exist, as they should, in the Foreign Service, but the Civil Service in this building also works with the Foreign Service, and we were accustomed to change and to movement. And I think a lot of us would like the same kind of opportunities. I was just wondering what your thoughts are on just how some of this can be streamlined so that maybe all of the professionals in the State Department would have the same opportunities? SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, I am familiar with this problem you are identifying, and I am very familiar in how it manifested itself recently in a very difficult situation. And I have had some conversations with Mark Grossman already, and other Human Resource people as to how we can do a better job. I don't have an answer for you today, but I am very taken with the problem, the frustrations that you are reflecting on the part of your colleagues, and I will do everything I can to see if we can deal with those frustrations. But this is an area that I need to get a lot smarter on, and understand the history and the traditions and the other circumstances that existed before I got here. But it is on my agenda. Q: Thank you. SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you all very, very much. (Applause.) [Released by the Office of the Spokesman January 25, 2001] [End]

THE REGULAR WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JOSH EARNEST. STIX. HEADON White House Briefing with Josh Earnest DC Slugs: 1300 WH BRIEF STIX RS37 73 & 1300 WH BRIEF CUTS RS38 74 AR: 16x9 Disc #652 & 418 / 653 & 417 NYRS: WASH3 (4523) / WASH4 (4524) 13:12:30 EARNEST: Afternoon, everybody. Nice to see you. Very quiet and calm in here today. Why don't we see if we can keep it that way, huh? (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: Appreciate your reference. EARNEST: I will. I will reciprocate. Let me do one quick announcement and then we'll go to questions. The president earlier today spoke with Prime Minister Sushil Koirala of Nepal to convey the deep condolences of the American people for the loss of life and massive destruction caused by the April 25th earthquake in Nepal. They discussed the ongoing efforts by U.S. civilian and military personnel to assist the government of Nepal and international organizations in the disaster response efforts, including with rescue and logistics support. The president pledged that the United States will do all it can to help the people of Nepal in this time of need. So, with that, Nedra, let's go to your questions. QUESTION: I'd like to ask you about body cameras. Hillary Clinton gave a speech today responding to Baltimore in which she said she would go further than the president and not just give matching funds for body cameras. but that she'd like to see every police department in the country have body cameras. I know his request for funds were not granted by Congress, but would he also like to see every police department have body cameras? 13:13:48 EARNEST: Well, Nedra, the president does believe that there's a possibility that body-worn cameras by police officers could be a useful tool, both in protecting police officers and protecting members of the public. The Department of Justice later this week will be talking about a pilot body-worn camera grant program, and they'll have some more details on that soon. There was additional funds -- there were additional funds that were requested by the Obama administration in our budget proposal that was released earlier this year. The one thing that was included in the set of recommendations from the task force was a proposal for a $75 million investment in body-worn cameras over the next three years. This would assist local jurisdictions in the purchase of 50,000 body-worn cameras. The thing that we have said when discussing this issue is that there's not a strong body of evidence to this point about what impact body-worn cameras actually have. The little evidence that does exist does indicate that they could positively contribute to relations between police officers and the communities that they're sworn to serve and protect. I know of one particular study that indicated that police officers who were wearing body-worn cameras were much less likely to be involved in a confrontations with members of the community. And that -- so that's one preliminary piece of evidence that would indicate that body-worn cameras could be helpful in this regard. But the task force recommendations and some of the funds from the Department of Defense -- Justice will go toward actually studying the impact of body-worn cameras, and gathering more evidence to try to assess with more specificity what impact the use of body-worn cameras has on relations between law enforcement agencies and the communities they're sworn to serve and protect. QUESTION: So, given that lack of evidence, does the president believe it's premature right now to call for every department to have body cameras? 13:15:53 EARNEST: Well, what the president believes is that we should expand funding, and we should play -- the federal government should play a role in assisting local jurisdictions who are interested in making that kind of investment, making it more financially feasible for them to do so. We also believe that the use of body-worn cameras is something that merits additional study. And we're dedicating resources to doing that, as well. She also says funds for local law enforcement should be used to focus on best practices, instead of putting what she calls weapons of war onto the street. You here have said that the president doesn't want to push for repeal of the -- of the programs for military style equipment. So is -- is she wrong about that, to voice opposition to those programs? EARNEST: I'm detecting a little pattern in your questioning today. The -- probably not the first time that this line of questioning will be pursued. What we have said -- what the president has said about this is that there are some -- some situations in which the legitimate use of this kind of equipment can be valuable in assisting local law enforcement agencies in keeping the peace and responding to the needs of members of their community. There were -- the initial review of this program, that indicates there may be some situations in which law enforcement agencies didn't have sufficient training to use the equipment that they had received. And so this is something that we are -- that, again, is continuing to be reviewed here. QUESTION: I want to follow up on some of the hostage policy questions that we had earlier this week. EARNEST: OK. QUESTION: And just ask, would the president support or oppose changing the law so that families cannot be prosecuted for paying ransom? 13:17:40 EARNEST: Mm-hmm. Well, I don't have any specific policy announcements to make at this point. We've been very clear about what the official policy is of the United States government. Which is a policy that has been in place under both Democratic and Republican presidents. And that policy prohibits making concessions to terrorist organizations. And the concern is twofold. One is, making those kinds of concessions by paying ransom could only put additional American citizens at even greater risk. And the second is that we already know that there are terrorist organizations that essentially finance their terror activities through ransom payments. And so one way we can effectively shut off financing for extremist organizations is to make sure that they aren't getting ransom payments. And that is the policy of the U.S. government and one that this administration has enforced. As it relates to sort of the legal standing of efforts by families of hostages, I don't have any new position to announce at this point. Roberta? QUESTION: I want to ask about trade. The president was scheduled to have lunch today with Leader Pelosi. Did he plan to discuss trade legislation with her, and what other meetings with lawmakers is the president having this week on trade? 13:19:03 EARNEST: Well, I can tell you that the president's lunch with Leader Pelosi is ongoing right now. I don't anticipate that we're going to have a detailed readout of that lunch once it's concluded. It would be fair for you to assume that the president and the Democratic leader in the House are discussing array -- an array of legislative priorities for the president, and that certainly would include trade promotion authority legislation. But I don't anticipate that we'll have a readout of their lunch. There is one additional legislative engagement that I can tell you about at this point, that tomorrow, the president will be meeting with members of the New Democrat Coalition. These are Democrats in the House, many of whom are supporters of the president's efforts to reach a trade agreement. So I don't -- I don't know that we'll have a particularly detailed readout of that meeting, but we'll let you know. That's a meeting that's scheduled to take place tomorrow. QUESTION: Is it happening here? EARNEST: It's happening here at the White House. That's correct. QUESTION: And Senator Portman is expected to push for enforceable currency manipulation language against in the TPA when the bill comes up before the full Senate. And I'm wondering if you can say whether the president would veto a TPA bill that included that language. 13:20:25 EARNEST: Well, we have expressed our concerns about -- about a legislative approach similar to this, and our concern principally is that legislation like that could unfairly and unwisely bind the hands of our monetary policymakers in this country as they pursue a strategy that's consistent with the strength and growth of our economy. So what the president has said is that we're going to insist that other countries, when it comes to currency, that they play fairly. And we have addressed currency issues in a wide range of international meetings, including at the G-7, the G-20 and the IMF, and we've seen that some of those engagements have had a positive impact. So in particular, China's exchange rate is up nearly 30 percent on a real effective basis since 2010. So that is at least one specific measurable impact that we can point to when talking about the effective advocacy of the United States and insisting that other countries level the playing field when it comes to their currency. I think the other point that I would mention relates to our Japanese friends, who were just here at the White House yesterday, that the Japanese have not intervened in the foreign exchange market for more than three years. And there previously had been some concerns about the impact of the monetary approaches that they were pursuing. And again, I think that is another piece of evidence that I can point to that indicates that the administration, using effective tools and our international influence can go to great lengths to level the playing field for the American economy, for American workers and American businesses. Again, I think it's the view of the president that reaching a trade agreement, like the one that we are trying to hammer out with 10 or 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, would allow us to further level that playing field and remove tariff barriers, stronger intellectual property protections, raising standards for workers in an enforceable way, raising environmental standards in an enforceable way, that these are all elements of an agreement that would level the playing field for American businesses and American workers. And we -- the president continues to have full confidence that if we can level the playing field, that American businesses and American workers are going to be very well-positioned to win the long-term economic competition that's shaping up in this prosperous -- increasingly prosperous and dynamic region of the world. OK? Michelle? QUESTION: I guess really it surprised plenty of people I think when the president used the words "thugs and criminals" to describe some of the people in Baltimore. And since then there's been some sharp criticism from leaders in the black community of the president's use of that word. Some analysts saying that when it falls on black ears, it's just on the equivalent of using the "n" word. And we heard that on our air. But when the president did the interview with Steve Harvey that aired this morning, he -- it was almost a repeat of his press conference yesterday, except he left that word out. So is that an indication that the administration feels that maybe that wasn't the best use of terms yesterday? 13:23:59 EARNEST: No. I don't think the president would in any way revise the remarks that he shared with all of you in the Rose Garden. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of people who were expressing their concern about the treatment of Freddie Gray while he was in police custody have done so in a responsible way. These are individuals, black and white, I would point out, that have, in the mind of the president, legitimate concerns. After all, that is exactly why the Department of Justice is reviewing the facts of that situation, I know that local officials are engaged in a review as well to determine what exactly happened and whether or not any misconduct occurred and whether criminal charges are necessary. I wouldn't weigh in on that, that's obviously going to be a decision that's made by independent prosecutors, as it should be. But what's also true, and what did get the lion's share of the coverage out of Baltimore, were the actions of a small minority that were nothing short of criminal actions. And whether it's arson or, you know, the looting of a liquor store, that those were -- those were thuggish acts. And I think the president felt it was important, and continues to think it's important, to draw a clear distinction between those actions and the efforts of the vast majority of people in that community to draw attention to the legitimate concerns that they have about the treatment of Freddie Gray and, you know, what they perceive to be some broader problems that may exist, or, well, frankly, that do exist in the relationship between some communities in Baltimore and the Baltimore Police Department. QUESTION: Does the president, who used all the same phrases and virtually a recap of the -- of the press conference yesterday this morning, but to specifically leave out that word, you don't think that that was deliberate? EARNEST: I assure you that it was not. QUESTION: OK. And, also, on this move by Senator McConnell to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act without revising Section 215 on the mass collection of data, does the president want to change that? Would he support something like that? 13:26:13 EARNEST: Well, the president for more -- for almost a year-and- a-half now has been calling on Congress to enact important changes to the FISA Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that enhance privacy and better safeguard our civil liberties, while keeping our nation safe. And the president's been clear that he believes that we should end the section 215 bulk telephony metadata program as it currently exists by creating an alternative mechanism that would preserve the program's essential capabilities, without the government being responsible for holding the bulk data. Now, I can tell you that we are gratified that some of those reforms are included in a recent piece of legislation that has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. And we're going to continue to review the text of that bill before we render a final judgment on it, but it certainly is encouraging that Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate that share the president's commitment to those -- to implementing those kinds of reforms have codified that into a piece of legislation. Now, what's also true is that the deadline for renewing the PATRIOT Act is coming up in about a month. And we are hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can work together to implement the reforms that the president has articulated that he believes are necessary, while at the same time preserving the capability of our law enforcement officials and our intelligence professionals to take the steps that are necessary to keep the American people safe. And so, you know, we are hopeful and are going to be working closely with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to try to advance this bipartisan legislation that is clearly in the best interests of the country. QUESTION: But if this is fast-tracked without any reforms, would the president then veto that? EARNEST: Well, again, what we're most gratified by right now is the bipartisan progress that's made in pursuit of some reforms that includes the renewal of the PATRIOT Act. The proposal -- the clean renewal that's been put forward by Senator McConnell does not include those reforms. And the president was quite definitive about the need to make those kinds of reforms a top priority. QUESTION: So we shouldn't see that (inaudible)? (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: Well, I think at this point, you should see that as a -- as the president and the administration seeking to work in bipartisan fashion with members of the House and members of the Senate to incorporate reforms that protect the civil liberties of the American people, while ensuring that our intelligence and national security officials have the tools that they need to keep us safe. All right. Pamela? QUESTION: One of the recommendations of the policing task force was that police departments should not be investigating themselves. And that's apparently what's happening in Baltimore. Is there any concern here that the report that they come out with will not be viewed as legitimate by the community and could cause more problems? 13:29:22 EARNEST: Well, I don't want to pre-judge an ongoing investigation. So, we'll allow those individuals -- the investigators to do their work. Let me just point out two things. The first is that there's also a Department of Justice review of the facts that's underway as well. And that is a -- that is a review, an investigation that's being conducted by career prosecutors. And they have an important role in this. And we'll let them do their work, too, before we pre-judge the outcome. The second thing is, and the president I think was pretty direct about this in his robust answer in the Rose Garden yesterday, in making clear that he believes that the vast majority of police officers who go to work every day to try to keep the peace and in fact are willing to put their lives on the line to try to protect the communities that they serve are people who are in that line of work for the right reason. And, in fact, many times, they're doing heroic work. They're certainly doing the kind of work that is worthy of our honor and respect. And, as the president intimated yesterday in his answer, he believes that it's clearly in the interest of all law enforcement professionals to ensure that those agencies and those individual officers are keeping faith with the communities that they're sworn to serve and protect. And when there are individuals officers -- individual offices who fall short of that, it's important that that be acknowledged, and that the justice system be allowed to work the way that it as intended. QUESTION: But wouldn't it be better to have an independent person or police agency come in and look at it, rather than... EARNEST: The fact is, right now, there's still an ongoing investigation. And I wouldn't want to say anything that would get ahead of or even leave you with the appearance, or anyone with the appearance, that -- that we're trying to influence the outcome of that investigation one way or the other. So I'll reserve judgment on that. And I think -- the fact is, I think that that's something that can be more appropriately evaluated after that investigation has concluded. OK? Sheryl? QUESTION: Thanks, Josh. The White House yesterday started putting out veto threats on some of the appropriations bills. And you've often said you'd like to see Ryan-Murray-style negotiations going on. Do you see those actually coming together? And who -- who do you see in those roles? Who is Ryan and who is Murray... EARNEST: Yeah. QUESTION: ... this year? 13:31:51 EARNEST: Maybe we could feature Paul Ryan and -- and Patty Murray as themselves... QUESTION: Yeah. EARNEST: ... in this feature-length film. Well, I know that this is something -- this is a sentiment that even Speaker Boehner has expressed. And we certainly were gratified to see him say something along those lines at the end of last week, I believe that was. One of the reasons that that process succeeded, both in finding common ground, making smarter decisions, at least, about what the federal budget priorities should look like, and finding a compromise that the president could sign is that it involved Democrats and Republicans working together. And it involved Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate trying to find that common ground, and doing so with the full engagement and support of the administration. And I think that was the key to that success, was that essentially you had Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate that were committed to trying to find that common ground. And you had engagement from the administration that supported those ongoing efforts. So, you know, ultimately, members of Congress, and probably leaders in Congress from both parties, are going to have to decide who will play those important roles. But if they do begin to move down this road in a constructive fashion, they can anticipate the full engagement and support of the administration in pursuit of that bipartisan compromise. OK? Justin? QUESTION: I wanted to ask about GDP, the second straight quarter, where GDP growth has missed expectations, and today kind of dramatically so. I know that Jason obviously put a statement out earlier explaining some of it, attributing it to foreign demand and the weather. But is there any concern among the White House that the recovery is really slowing down at this point? 13:33:50 EARNEST: Well, Justin, I think the first thing that's worth pointing out is that we -- you know, when we get this kind of data, the thing that we are quick to review are the longer-term trends and what impact the immediate data has in the context of the broader trend. And even incorporating this latest data, the GDP has grown by 3 percent over the last year. And that does reflect the kind of economic strength that we see across a range of other economic metrics. And that GDP growth is actually 50 percent faster than have been some at some earlier stages of the ongoing economic recovery. And so, that's an indication that our economy continues to have some important momentum. At the same time, there clearly were some headwinds that our economy was dealing with. And I think the most significant of those, as Jason Furman pointed out in his blogpost -- Jason is the President's top economist -- he indicated that one of the contributors to the disappointing GDP number is the weak demand overseas for American goods. Some of that is, as -- again, as Jason pointed out, is a result of the strong dollar. But in the President's mind, it highlights the need for the United States to engage in the kinds of trade agreements that are going to open up American goods and services to more markets and allow American goods and services to more deeply penetrate in those markets and to take away some of the barriers and hurdles that you have to overcome in order to do business overseas. Ninety-five percent of the world's markets are beyond our borders. And that's why the President has been so tenacious in trying to pursue the kinds of agreement that are clearly in the best interest of American workers and American businesses. The legitimate concern that the President has is that the refusal on the part of the United States to engage in these kinds of talks and agreements only opens up an avenue for China to step in and write the rules of the road in a way that is disadvantageous to American businesses, American workers, and the broader American economy. So you know, for those sort of wondering, you know, why has the President made the Trans-Pacific Partnership such an economic priority, I think we'd point to the recent GDP numbers as an indication of why it's important for us to be vigilant about seeking out opportunities for American businesses overseas. QUESTION: Trailing off of that, I know that some of the big issues that President Obama and Prime Minister Abe were hoping to discuss yesterday was the differences that exist on TPP on -- specifically on (inaudible) rights. So I'm wondering if there were any breakthroughs or if you can report any progress on that? And then also, I know I asked you a couple days ago about whether the President would raise the issue of comfort woman and trying to sort of satisfy some of South Korea's concerns. I don't think the Prime Minister did that, but I'm wondering if President Obama ever raised the issue? 13:37:10 EARNEST: Well, Justin, I don't have a more detailed readout of the meeting between the two leaders, than you've already received. I can tell you that as they stated in the Rose Garden, that they did feel as if they had a productive discussion about some of the remaining issues that need to be negotiated, when it comes to the TPP. And they are hopeful that the kind of momentum that they are feeling at their back to resolve those issues can be carried over to the broader TPP negotiations. And that is the two largest economies that are involved in those talks, that they can push this agreement across the finish line. But there's still some important work to be done and I don't have any breakthroughs to report at this point. As it relates to the comfort women, I saw that the Prime Minister addressed this yesterday in the Rose Garden. I don't... QUESTION: Well, I'm asking if the President... EARNEST: Yeah. And I don't know frankly know whether it came up in their private conversation. OK. Tamara. QUESTION: Yeah. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the FBI facilitated a ransom payment to Al Qaida by Warren Weinstein's family. And I'm wondering how that sits with the U.S. policy? EARNEST: Well, Tamara, I haven't seen the -- I haven't seen the story that you're talking about. QUESTION: It just crossed. EARNEST: It just crossed. OK. All I'll say is, you know, we'll look into this for you a little bit further. It sounds like maybe you should have a conversation with the FBI about it, too, if they're so prominently featured in the story. But I'll tell you that the -- the policy of the -- that's been in place throughout the six years of the Obama administration and that was in place during the previous administration as well is one that continues to be in place right now, and that is specifically that the United States government will not make concessions to terrorists. To do so would only put American citizens at greater risk and would serve to allow terrorist organizations to better finance their ongoing violence. QUESTION: And I know we've been over this before, but are you drawing a distinction between the U.S. government and U.S. families of people held hostage? 13:39:10 EARNEST: Well, I mean, obviously, those are two different things. But there are, you know, relevant laws that apply to both. But our policy on this hasn't changed. OK? Kevin? QUESTION: Thank you, Josh. You guys are used to battling the opposition on a number of issues, and yet as it relates to trade now and even the -- the Iranian negotiations, you may have to do a bit jousting with Democrats, those that are usually on your side. Does the president look forward to that? 13:39:44 EARNEST: I think the president looks forward to trying to find common ground on a couple of really important issues facing the country. And certainly, the president relishes the opportunity to try to work with Democrats and Republicans to advance a trade promotion authority bill that would allow us to reach a Trans-Pacific Partnership deal that would clearly be in the best interest of American businesses and American workers. There's an opportunity for us to reach a trade agreement that would put in place enforceable labor provisions, enforceable environmental protections, significant provisions related to human rights, intellectual-property protections, other things that would level the playing field and allow American businesses the opportunity to do business in the Asia-Pacific region on a level playing field. And the president continues to be confident that if given that level playing field, that American businesses and American workers are well-positioned to do very well in that kind of international economy competition. QUESTION: But is a tougher sell to fellow Democrats to try to bring them on board for tough issues like the Iranian nuclear deal, for example, or even the trade deal? EARNEST: Well, we've been clear that there is historic reflexive opposition among many in the Democratic Party to these kinds of international trade agreements. But the president has a very persuasive case that he can make to Democrats who might be -- might have that reflexive reaction. The fact is those same Democrats also have significant -- significant concerns about the way -- about the impact that NAFTA had on communities all across the country. And the case that the president has made pretty bluntly is that both Canada and Mexico are in the TPP negotiations and that if we could reach an agreement through the TPP negotiations, it would include enforceable provisions that were not included in NAFTA, it would include enforceable environmental protections that were not included in NAFTA and that there is an opportunity for American businesses to have access to substantial economic market that could be very good for their bottom line. So the president's going to continue to make this case. EARNEST: And the other part of this argument is simply that those who are opposed to this kind of trade agreement are essentially suggesting that we should just lock in the status quo. And the president doesn't believe that that's at all in the best interest of our economy, and it's certainly not in the best interest of middle- class workers across the country. QUESTION: Last thing, on the Iranians intercepting the Tigris, how concerned is the White House about what the Iranian Navy has been up to? 13:42:28 EARNEST: Well, Kevin, as of this morning, it is our understanding that the Maersk Tigris remains in the custody of the IRGC Navy. And we're continuing to monitor the situation. We have not at this point received any reports of injuries to crew members. And, as we noted yesterday, according to information received from the vessel's operators, there are no Americans onboard. This is obviously a situation that we continue to monitor because we are committed to, as we discussed at some length last week, committed to ensuring freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce in international waters. So we're gonna continue to monitor the situation. QUESTION: Thank you. EARNEST: OK, Jon? 13:43:09 JON KARL QUESTION: Just to pick up on that, though, what does it say when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is seizing a U.S.-flagged ship when you're in the middle of, you know, what should be final stages on these nuclear negotiations? 13:43:16 EARNEST: Well, I believe it's a Marshall Islands-flagged ship, which is -- which is a protectorate of the -- of the United States. And, again, this is a situation that we're closely monitoring because we do have a vested interest and a vested economic interest in preserving the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce in this sensitive region of the world. JON KARL QUESTION: But, again, what -- I mean, isn't this a display of at the very least bad faith while thee negotiations are going on, to be seizing a -- clearly what is a commercial vessel? 13:43:47 EARNEST: Well, again, without speaking directly to this incident, we have in the past talked about the wide range of concerns that we have with Iranian behavior. And our view is that a nuclear- armed Iran only makes their bad behavior even more dangerous. And so, to bring it back to this particular example, if -- our concerns about the interference with the Maersk Tigris, would be even more acute if an Iranian-armed -- I'm sorry, a nuclear-armed Iranian Navy were conducting these kinds of intercepts. JON KARL QUESTION: They can do a lot of damage without nuclear weapons, can't they? In fact, they are throughout the region doing a lot of damage without nuclear weapons. 13:44:29 EARNEST: We have expressed a lot of concerns about the destabilizing activity of the Iranians. And whether that supporting the Houthis, whether that is continuing to prop up the Assad regime or engage in... (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: ... offering support for terror activities, you know, we've seen Iranian support for Hezbollah, of course, and the destabilizing impact that that has had on a variety of countries in the Middle East. We've got a lot of concerns with Iranian behavior. But, again, if Iran had a nuclear weapon and they were supporting the Assad regime, or if Iran had a nuclear weapon and they were supporting Hezbollah, our concerns about their support for, just to take those two entities, would be -- we'd be much more alarmed about that. JON KARL QUESTION: Would the administration be willing to impose sanctions on Iran for issues beyond the -- additional sanctions on Iran for issues beyond the nuclear program? So, in other words, you get the nuclear deal. You lift all the sanctions that have been imposed because of the nuclear program. Would the administration be open to imposing sanctions for activity like this in the -- in the Gulf of Hormuz, the Strait of Hormuz, for terror activity in Yemen, in Syria, in Lebanon... (CROSSTALK) 13:45:42 EARNEST: Well, as you point out -- as you point out, Jon, that the -- the nuclear deal that is under negotiation between Iran and the P-5-plus-1 contemplates a scenario where Iran would make serious commitments that would essentially shut down -- that would effectively shut down every path that Iran has to a nuclear weapon in exchange for offering phased sanctions relief that were put in place as a result of their nuclear program. What that means, is it means that sanctions that are already in place against Iran for other activities... JON KARL QUESTION: Yeah. EARNEST: ... you know, their weapons programs, violation of human rights, those sanctions remain in place. And even if we do reach a nuclear deal, those other sanctions that are in place because of Iran's other activities and Iran's behavior in a variety of other areas will remain in place. At this point, I'm not going to offer up any -- make any threats from here about the likelihood of imposing additional sanctions over this particular incident, but the -- our approach to this is consistent -- our approach to Iranian behavior is consistent with the approach that we've taken when it comes to sanctions, which is that we can have a conversation about their nuclear program, get them to make serious concessions when it comes to their nuclear program, in exchange for some sanctions relief for those concessions. But it would have no impact on our concerns about their behavior in a variety of other areas and would have no impact on the sanctions that are already in place against them as a result of their behavior in other areas. JON KARL QUESTION: But I'm asking a broader question. If the sanctions are lifted because of, you know, if sanctions related to the nuclear program are lifted, there's a lot of concern in the region from our allies -- you hear concern on Capitol Hill expressed about this -- that suddenly the Iranians have tens of billions, even hundreds of billions of additional revenue because of the lift -- the sanctions have been lifted, and are now able to do even more -- conduct -- I mean, do even more mischief in the region. Would the United States be willing to reimpose sanctions, not on the nuclear -- not for violations of the nuclear program, but because of what they're doing elsewhere in the region? 13:47:44 EARNEST: Well, I'll just say that, again, I'm not in a position to make additional threats about additional sanctions from here right now. But we are going to continue to monitor the Iranian activities that continue to be a source of significant concern on the part of the United States, but other countries in the region and around the world. And just because -- let me just say it this way. Just because we reach an agreement on the nuclear concerns, and we do reach an agreement that would shut down every pathway they have to a nuclear weapon, and we do offer some, say, sanctions relief in exchange, it would not in any way diminish the likelihood that if Iran were to engage in worsening behavior in other areas, we would not at all be reluctant to impose additional sanctions on those other areas if we concluded that that would be in our best interests. 13:48:33 JON KARL QUESTION: And then last question. The Senate, of course, is debating the Corker bill. Corker now says he has a veto-proof majority. He doesn't really need it because you've endorsed the compromise bill. But there are a whole series of amendments that are going to be voted on. You know, for instance, there's an amendment that says before any sanctions are lifted, Iran would have to release those three Americans known to be in Iranian prisons. What is the administration's view on these amendments? Are you saying that it is this deal or no deal? Would we go back to a veto threat situation if, in the specific instance I just mentioned, an amendment passed that says first Iran needs to release those Americans? Would you veto that bill? 13:49:12 EARNEST: Well, we certainly would -- the president would certainly veto any amendment or any bill with an amendment that -- that undermined the unanimous compromise that was reached in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or that interfered with the ongoing negotiations. And certainly a provision, an amendment that made this nuclear deal contingent on Iran's release of those three American citizens would fall I think frankly into both categories. It would directly undermine the unanimous compromise that was reached in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And it certainly would interfere with the ongoing negotiations between the international community and Iran on their nuclear program. JON KARL QUESTION: So the president would veto that. EARNEST: So those kinds of -- of amendments that are added to the bill that undermine the unanimous compromise or would interfere with the talks would earn a presidential veto. And I think that given, again, the unanimous vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you know, I'm confident that there would be strong support -- or I guess strong opposition to those kinds of amendments. And then that opposition would -- I would expect it to be bipartisan. But this is a process that will have to play out. OK? EARNEST: Zeke? QUESTION: Hey, Josh. EARNEST: Nice to see you today. QUESTION: Good seeing you. I was hoping you could give us an update on who at the administration -- who in the White House is keeping an eye on what's happening in Baltimore and in Maryland. EARNEST: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: You know, Valerie Jarrett was doing some of that yesterday, as the president reached out again to local leaders -- local community leaders. And is anyone going -- traveling, you know, the 40 some odd miles up there? 13:50:55 EARNEST: Yeah. There's no one from the White House that I know of that has travel plans for Baltimore at this point. As you point out, Valerie Jarrett, the president's senior adviser, has been in touch with state and local officials from Maryland. And you noted that late in the day yesterday, that she convened a conference call with the attorney general to discuss with local leaders in a variety of other communities our efforts to address the ongoing situation Baltimore. I don't have any new calls to read out at this point. The president hasn't made any new calls related to this. QUESTION: Governor Hogan said yesterday that he was expecting to speak with the president to (inaudible). EARNEST: I'm not aware that they -- that they connected. We can check on that. But, obviously, if Governor Hogan has an urgent need to speak to somebody here at the White House, he'll get a return phone call. I do want to point out that there have been senior Department of Justice officials, who do have a -- expertise in this particular area, did spend significant time in Baltimore yesterday. So this is -- Vanita Gupta, who's the head of the Civil Rights Division at Department of Justice. Ronald Davis, who's the director of the Community Oriented Policing Office, and Grande Lum, who's the director of Community Relations -- of the Community Relations Service at the Department of Justice, all spent time in Baltimore yesterday. And I know that they continue to be in close touch with Baltimore officials as they deal with this matter. QUESTION: Circling back to the earlier conversation about body cameras -- you said that there's a possibility that these could be useful in police-civilian interactions. So is -- are you saying that the expansion of that program nationally right now would be imprudent? Does the White House think that that would be a potential waste of money that needs more study before it would be rolled out nationally? 13:52:36 EARNEST: Well, I -- I wouldn't use that -- I wouldn't necessarily use that adjective. I think what I would say is that we have put forward a proposal to help local law enforcement agencies that make the decision to invest in body cameras -- make that more financially feasible for them. So we're talking about, you know, $20 million or so from the Department of Justice. You know, there's a three-year proposal that we have here. And at the same time, we believe that some of those resources should be dedicated to studying the impact that these cameras have on those -- on those kinds of interactions to determine exactly how effective they are in reducing violence and reducing the number of confrontations between police officers and members of the community. QUESTION: Do you think that -- is there -- the White House thinks there's a down side? What's -- what is the -- if there's even marginal benefit, why the delay? EARNEST: Well, again, I don't think it's a matter of delay, I think it's a matter of money. And we would need some congressional action to get the resources that are necessary to expand this program even further. And I noted that the president's budget proposal that he ruled out just a couple of months ago actually included a request for additional funds for this program. EARNEST: But at the same time, we feel like it's -- it -- it would be prudent, to use your word, to more carefully examine the impact that body cameras would have on policing and communities across the country. OK? Major? QUESTION: Well, on Tamara's question -- are you shocked by this revelation that the FBI apparently facilitated a ransom payment in the Weinstein case? Now, I know it just crossed, but my question is, would that shock you in any case? Would that constitute the FBI ignoring specific policy guidance from this White House on the question of any American hostage in any perilous situation? 13:54:28 EARNEST: Major, I'm going to reserve comment on this until I've had a chance to look at the story and until I've have a chance to hear from the FBI about -- about -- about their explanation for the... QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) to -- to conclude that caution that you believe it's possibly true? EARNEST: Well, I think that -- I think the caution is rooted in my reluctance to talk about something that I don't know about. So... QUESTION: Do you know about the specific guidance to every agency involved in this matter? EARNEST: I do not. I do not. QUESTION: There is no guidance about, don't facilitate... EARNEST: I don't know what the guidance is that -- that the FBI is supposed to implement. QUESTION: Yet you come with a binder. State Department people come with binders. When asked yesterday at the State Department, what is the situation with (inaudible), the State Department could not describe it. Can you describe it? Is it an act of piracy? Is it a legal seizure? Is it an illegal seizure? What is going on, in the opinion of the U.S. government, with this Marshall Islands flagged commercial vessel? EARNEST: Yeah. I think, Major, as we've discussed, I think it's hard to tell what's going on, and that's why we continue to monitor the situation closely to determine exactly why the -- you know, the IRGC took the steps that they took. And we obviously do have concerns about the impact that it could have on the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce in this region of the world. That's something that we have a vested interest in protecting. QUESTION: Right. Is there anything based on what this administration knows so far that suggests that what happened is consistent in any way with the free flow of commerce? EARNEST: Well, again, it's -- it's unclear, exactly, why the Iranians have taken the step that they -- steps that they have, and that's why we're closely monitoring the situation. And there are U.S. Naval assets in the region, and there're a variety of ways that we can keep tabs on the -- on the situation there. QUESTION: But you don't want to label it yet? You don't want to call it what you think... EARNEST: At this point, I think we need to gather some more information about what exactly happened and why it happened before we offer up a specific label. QUESTION: We had a discussion last week, and I asked you if, at that point, the administration was satisfied that Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state and the foundation head, complied with the Memorandum of Understanding and done everything in accordance with what the White House expectations were. You said it had. There's been another story: 1,100 donors to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative undisclosed. Richard Lugar, who the president has and I believe still does hold in high regard, said that he, looking at that, believes that this did not meet the spirit or the intent of the Memorandum of Understanding. So let me ask you again. Is the administration satisfied, is the president satisfied that everything that was done met the standards of the Memorandum of Understanding and all the disclosures that shouldn't been there were there. 13:57:25 EARNEST: Major, I think what I said last week is that the -- that there has been no evidence produced by even the secretary's most ardent, partisan critics that the decisions that she made as secretary of state were in any way influenced by anything that was done as the family's foundation. QUESTION: Yes, but we can revisit it. I asked you specifically about compliance that satisfies the president, and you've said the compliance did satisfy the president, the president was proud of her service and everything was done in accordance with his expectation. I'd like to ask you that question again. 13:58:05 EARNEST: And I think -- I think even last week, I was reluctant to talk about the specific compliance, because the White House is not in a position to enforce that compliance. So... QUESTION: It is in a position to render a judgment. EARNEST: That's the State Department's responsibility to -- to enforce and verify that compliance. So that's why I've referred questions to the State Department or to the -- family foundation, when it comes specifically to that aspect of this question. So what I can render judgment on is what I know about Secretary Clinton's service as Secretary of State. It was exemplary and the President's proud of her service. But when it comes to the specific memorandum in question, I'd refer you to the agency that was responsible for enforcing that memorandum and that's the State Department. QUESTION: One last thing. The President often has talked when issues of racial tension have come up about how he perceives things or tries to look at things as a father. Toya Graham is being talked about as sort of hero mom for her specific and videotaped interaction with her son in some of the more intense moments heard in Baltimore. I'm just curious, has the President seen any of that? Does he have any evaluation of it? Does he believe it is something that adds to our understanding about the role of parents in situations like that? 13:59:16 EARNEST: I haven't spoken to the President about this specific thing. I do feel confident in hazarding a guess that he has seen the video. And the President, as he alluded to in the Rose Garden yesterday, does believe that there is a role for parents to play here in terms of setting guidelines and doing right by their kids. He also pointed out there that are certain policies in certain situations where it's virtually impossible for parents to do right by their kids. And trying to confront those obstacles to responsible parenting is one thing that we all need to take responsibility for and not just, you know, pin that responsibility on police officers who already have a very difficult job. But you know, the President, even dating back to his first presidential campaign -- and you covered some of these events -- remember that the President in rather colorful fashion on occasion, talked about how important it is for parents... QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) EARNEST: It was. For parents to impose some guidelines and to impose some structure on their kids and that that was going to be critical to their success and that there is a lot -- there's a significant role for the government to play, in terms of putting in place policies like good schools, economic opportunity, early childhood education, even making sure that kids have good access to health care, I think are the -- are in line with the kinds of things that the government can do to try to address some of these endemic problems. But the President also believes that we should not overlook the critically important role that parents can play in setting some guidelines and setting some structure for their kids to give them a chance to succeed. QUESTION: Based on your memory and my memory of that particular speech and you, I am sure, have seen the video. You have a hunch the President's seen it. EARNEST: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: Without saying whether or not the President would have acted in a similar way or endorse Michelle acting in a similar way, do you think you would be generally OK with what he saw and its ultimate result, which was to discourage her son from participating further in the activity? 14:01:26 EARNEST: Well, I think what I -- why don't I just say it this way. I think what resonated with me is -- and he's got a lot more experience being a parent than I do -- but let me just say what resonated with me... QUESTION: As do I. EARNEST: As do you. So maybe we should hear what resonated with you. But let me just say that the thing that resonated with me is -- was her expression that she was concerned about her son facing the same fate as Freddie Gray. And while I'm sure that it was not the immediate reaction of her son to feel like she was looking out for his best interest. EARNEST: There is no doubting that her reaction was one that was rooted in her concern for his safety and his well-being and her love for her child. And I think that is a very powerful expression about the role that parents can play, that that expression of love was very conspicuous and one that I think will serve as a powerful influence on that young man's life. And that same kind of passion and concern for the -- and love for the well-being of one's child I do think is the kind of thing that can contribute to a young man or woman having the kind of opportunity to succeed that a lot of other kids don't get. OK? Jared? QUESTION: Josh, the president yesterday in his answer on Baltimore explained at length that his agenda has a lot in it that he doesn't expect Congress to pass. And in your answer to Zeke a few minutes ago, you also said that, you know, look, this is in the budget, but we don't know what, you know, is actually gonna get done. In terms of actual actions for the next two years, what should we expect to see the president doing? He was very eloquent yesterday, putting out this sense of deeper understanding of these issues, but yet, what about actual actions? Because there wasn't -- and maybe it wasn't the place for it -- a list of things that he'll be doing over the next two years. EARNEST: Well, Jared, there are at least a couple things that come to mind. The first is, the president takes very seriously the recommendations that we got from the policing task force. And the president is hopeful, and he's going to be counting on, the Department of Justice and members of the task force to follow through on these recommendations, both to ensure that they are adequately implemented for federal law enforcement agencies, but also to ensure that local law enforcement agencies have the support and advice and guidance that they need to fully implement these measures at the local level as well. So I think that's the -- that's one thing that can be done right away, and is being done, even as we speak. The second thing is, the president has talked a lot about his "My Brother's Keeper" initiative. This is an opportunity for the public and private sector to work together to try to -- to try to serve as a positive influence on young men of color. So many of the incidents that we've talked about that have gotten so much attention in the last several months are incidents involving young men of color. And it sort of highlights the special -- it's just one example, I guess, of the -- of the special challenges, unique challenges, that are faced by young men of color in this country. And this is an observation that not just the president has made based in part on his own experience, but also an observation that's been made by leaders in the private sector, leaders in academia, all of whom have articulated an interest in working with the federal government and in some cases state and local governments to implement programs that will benefit young men of color. That certainly would go to addressing some of the challenges that the president talked about yesterday. The third thing that is -- was a bit of a coincidence, but still is an appropriate one, is that across the administration, there is a discussion about Promise Zones, that there are a number of communities across the country that were established as Promise Zones. And these are areas where the efforts of the federal government will be integrated and focused on those communities that are in greatest need. And I think that is another example of how some common-sense steps can be taken to try to focus our efforts in particular on those communities that are in the greatest need. QUESTION: I know that's not necessarily an exhaustive or representative sample, it's just three off the top of your head, but is this kind of nibbling around the edges? Because the president identified a deeper societal problem, and of those three that you mentioned, only really Promise Zones goes to the socioeconomic inequality in a targeting at the source kind of way. With the Congress being the way it is for the next few years, do you see any opportunities to attack the deeper problem that the president described yesterday with legislation? 14:06:20 EARNEST: Yeah, well, Jared, I think the president was pretty candid about this in his answer yesterday, that there are limitations; that there's a majority in both houses of Congress right now that don't seem to share his passion for these kinds of issues. And there are some common sense things the Congress could do that would have a near-term impact. You know, and that's everything from raising the federal minimum wage to offering tax credits to make quality child care available to more families. The president has a proposal for a second-earner tax credit that, you know, certainly for those families where both mom and dad are working, giving them a special tax break makes a lot of sense. They probably have -- they likely have greater needs when it comes to child care because both of them have jobs. There are other things like free community college, expanding the earned income tax credit, and other things that the president has put on the table that doesn't have the support from Republicans who are in the majority in both the House and the Senate. And unfortunately, legislation is required to take action on those two things. The good news is that there are least a couple of things that I can think of off the top of my head where there might be common ground. There might be some bipartisan support in Congress for these initiatives. The first is infrastructure. We've talked about how investments in infrastructure can create jobs in the short term, while laying the long-term foundation for economic strength. 14:07:38 We know that in a lot of these communities where we've seen this kind of strife, these are communities that are in desperate need of upgraded infrastructure. So we're talking about improving the infrastructure in these communities and doing so in a way that we're creating good jobs. 14:07:59 There is bipartisan support in Congress for the concept of closing some tax loopholes and using the revenue to invest in infrastructure. That could be one thing. The second thing is there is bipartisan support, pretty broad bipartisan support, for criminal justice reform. And the president referred in his answer in the Rose Garden yesterday to the preponderance of minorities, many of them poor, who are serving long jail sentences for nonviolent drug crimes that they've committed. Reforming our criminal justice system could address some of the situations where you have kids that are being raised by one parent because the other parent is in prison. 14:08:41 The last example I can cite is there has been some progress recently on education reform and on school reform. We know that ensuring that our kids get a quality education can give them a good start and expand economic opportunities for them. And there does seem to be emerging bipartisan support around some reform proposals in Congress and we'll obviously be supportive of those ongoing efforts. So I guess the point, to go back to your question, yes, there is a lot that we could do and there's a lot that the president would like to do. And many of those things won't be done because Republicans in the Congress oppose them, despite the positive economic impact they would have on communities across the country, including in these communities that we know are in the greatest need. 14:09:21 That said, there are some common sense bipartisan opportunities for us to make progress on policies, again, that will benefit the entire country, but will also benefit these communities where we know a lot of work needs to get done. QUESTION: One last question, following up on Michelle's question earlier, you said that the president wouldn't revise his comments specifically with the use of the word "thugs" -- "criminals and thugs." And I just -- in the context of Mayor Stephanie Rawlings- Blake saying that she was basically walking back that use, saying she doesn't want to use loaded language. Does this White House not think that that is a loaded word? That that is something that should be used with care? Is that not something that's on this White House's radar? 14:10:04 EARNEST: Well, again, I'll let you guys sort of decide what sort of -- you know, how those words get interpreted. You know, I think the president was pretty clear that the vast majority of people who were publicly expressing their concerns about the treatment of Freddy Gray were doing so in a responsible way that merits the attention of the American public and our elected officials, that they have a significant concern about a persistent problem in their community, both as it relates to the treatment of this one individual, but about broader concerns that they have when it comes to their relationship with the local police department. At the same time, we saw a small minority of individuals engaged in other activity that was not responsible that is clearly a crime. And when you're looting up a convenience store or you're throwing a cinder block at a police officer, you're engaging in thuggish behavior and that's why the President used that word. All right. Chris. QUESTION: Again, I understand that you haven't seen The Wall Street Journal story. But what they say specifically is that the FBI, the way they facilitated ransom was to vet a Pakistani intermediary, a middle man, who was negotiating and brought a quarter of a million dollars. Generally, as you understand the policy, was facilitating even in that way, ransom violate. It's not the letter than the spirit of that policy? 14:11:27 EARNEST: Well, I don't want to speak on a hypothetical. And it may not be a hypothetical. But without having the read the story and without understanding exactly what the FBI has said about this, if anything, I just don't want to wade in at this point. Obviously, we're very clear about what our policy is about not offering concessions or making concessions to terrorist organizations. And we've also been clear about the lengths that the Federal Government has gone to communicate with these families that are in a very desperate situation. 14:11:56 There are some additional steps that we believe that we can take to streamline and make communication more effective and that's the subject of this ongoing policy review. But at this point, I'm not going to comment on the specific report from The Wall Street Journal that I just haven't read yet. QUESTION: Are you aware of reports -- just to keep with theme of things -- that you may not have seen before you came out here? EARNEST: Well, to be fair, some of them didn't actually get reported until I came out here. But... QUESTION: The Federal Reserve is concerned about the economy. In fact, it's downgrading its outlook on the economy and it going to keep interest rates low. Were you aware of that? And when you take that together with the GDP report today, is there a concern that the robust economy that you've talked about, that the President has talked about, has definitely slowed? 14:12:42 EARNEST: Well, I'm not going to comment on the independent decisions that are made by the Federal Reserve. Even if they were announced while I was already out here. But what I will say is I will go back to what we see as the longer-term trends, which is that there continues to be momentum in our economy. And again, over the last year, we've seen the GDP grow at a rate of 3 percent. Now the President believes that there's more that we can do to strengthen that economy even further. And I mentioned most prominently this example of trying to reach a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that would open up U.S. goods and services to a variety of markets in the Asia- Pacific region. The reason that this is particularly important, based on the data that we've seen today, is that one of the reasons -- one of the headwinds facing our economy is weakening demand for American goods around the globe. Not because there's a loss of confidence in those American goods, but because the economy and some other important markets is not as strong as we would like and there is, obviously a reaction that some of those consumers are having to the strong American dollar. 14:13:42 So were mindful of this, you know, very dynamic situation. And that's why the President believe that there is more that we can do to further strengthen our economy. And whether it's, you know, opening up access to overseas markets for American goods and services or investing in infrastructure or taking some other common- sense steps that we know would have a positive short-term and long- term impact on our economy, we're going to continue to advocate for those steps. And we hope that Congress will consider acting in a bipartisan fashion in pursuit of those policy priorities. QUESTION: Final question. Any reaction to the decision by the Saudi king to change the line of succession, what its implications might be? And as part of that decree, he also removed the most senior woman in the kingdom. And I wonder if there's any concern about that? 14:14:34 EARNEST: The decision that was announced by the Saudi king today is an internal Saudi government decision. Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner of the United States and a regional leader. And we're going to continue to enjoy close, productive relationships with the leaders of Saudi Arabia. We will do that because it's clearly in the best interests of the United States. It's clearly in the best interests of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And that's why we're confident that the U.S.-Saudi relationship will continue to be strong. QUESTION: But any movement reversing any of the progress that might have been made (inaudible) some of the repression within the kingdom and the removal of the senior-most woman? Any concern about that? 14:15:19 EARNEST: I don't have any specific comment on the personnel announcements that were issued by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia today. OK? Laura? QUESTION: (inaudible) story (inaudible) mentioned. Some French politicians from European (inaudible) are wondering why the president is not going to Baltimore? Did not go yet to (inaudible)? What's the reason? 14:15:42 EARNEST: Well, the president did talk about this with Steve Harvey this morning, or in the interview that aired this morning. He taped the interview yesterday. But the president was clear about -- about the situation in Baltimore is such that his presence in Baltimore would draw away police resources that are needed in other areas right now. So, the president in the context of that conversation didn't rule out a future visit to Baltimore, but at this point we're not contemplating doing that anytime soon. QUESTION: Yesterday, (inaudible) Baltimore charged a 16-year-old African American girl was (inaudible) in front of international reporters, "Nobody cares about us; we need help, but nobody cares about us." Do you agree with this statement? 14:16:25 EARNEST: I don't agree with that statement at all. And I think that there has been an aggressive effort by leaders in that community and members of the clergy in particular who have gone to great lengths to try to meet the needs of the community there. And that's a testament to I think the willingness of the people of Baltimore to invest in their own neighborhoods. And I don't think that we should allow the criminal actions of a few to overshadow the responsible and in some cases even generous acts of the vast majority of people in Baltimore in response to this particular situation. 14:17:12 That said, her sentiment is one that's understandable. She is growing up in an environment that is I think difficult for a lot of us to imagine. The kinds of challenges that she has to overcome on a daily basis are the kinds of things that could lead somebody, a reasonable person to draw that conclusion. And I think the president yesterday spoke to this most powerfully when he described the necessity of the leaders of this country, but also people in communities all across the country to consider children like this to be their own children and to assume the responsibility that we have as a nation to provide for the kids that are growing up here. 14:17:51 And that's -- that animates a lot of the priority that the president has placed on the My Brother's Keeper initiative and on the good work that's being done at the Council on Women and Girls here at the White House. It's also why he's pursued these policies that would strengthen our schools, offer free community college to hard-working students. These are the kinds of policies that would benefit -- that sounds like it would benefit the -- the young girl that you were just quoting. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Baltimore want to see the president in the streets? 14:18:21 EARNEST: I think that they -- they do. I think they can also understand that -- that the -- that police officers are needed elsewhere right now. But I'm confident that at some point, the president will have the opportunity to make another trip to Baltimore. OK? Todd? QUESTION: I have a question about (inaudible) Operation Jade Helm 15. This is a military exercise (inaudible). EARNEST: Yeah. I've read about this. QUESTION: OK. So 1,200 special operations forces over eight weeks, some of them traveling kind of incognito in these states. So the governor of Texas has ordered the National Guard to monitor this exercise to make sure that the civil liberties and constitutional rights of Texans are not going to be infringed. Is this paranoia? Is this concern justified? Has it been conveyed to the White House in any way? Can you explain what the purpose of the exercise is and why people should or shouldn't be concerned? EARNEST: Well, the -- I'll say a couple things. My understanding is that the -- that the individuals who are participating in the exercise won't be traveling incognito, that they'll be wearing arm bands. But what I would do is I would encourage you to check with the Department of Defense that's conducting the exercise, and they can explain to you what the goal of the exercise is, what sort of -- what practices and capabilities will be -- will be conducted in the conduct of this particular exercise. The thing that I will -- that I can say without having a lot of detailed knowledge about the particular exercise is that in no way will the constitutional rights or civil liberties of any American citizen be infringed upon while this exercise is being conducted. QUESTION: What do you think it says that the governor of a state as large as Texas would feel the need to not just order the Texas National Guard but announce that he has ordered the Texas National Guard to monitor federal troops to protect his citizens? What -- what does that say about relationships and mistrust of this administration? 14:20:27 EARNEST: I have no idea what he's thinking. I might have an idea of what he's thinking, but I'm not going to... (LAUGHTER) I appreciate the opportunity, though. But... QUESTION: Do you think it's helpful? 14:20:37 EARNEST: Well, I think it's -- I think what is clear is that -- that I feel confident in expressing to you without having a lot of detailed knowledge of the particular exercise is that the civil liberties and constitutional rights of American citizens will be in no way affected by this exercise. Chris? QUESTION: Josh, based on the (inaudible) argument yesterday, how confident is the Supreme -- how confident is the president that the Supreme Court will strike down the prohibition on same-sex marriage? 14:21:02 EARNEST: Chris, the president had the opportunity to be briefed on the arguments by Neil Eggleston, his counsel here at the White House, and by his senior advisors, Valerie -- senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, both of whom attended the arguments in person at the Supreme Court yesterday. I have previously warned against drawing conclusions about what the Supreme Court will decide based exclusively on the public arguments. That said, the -- the president is very proud of the way in which the solicitor general presented the viewpoint of the federal government, and we continue to be very confident in the strength of the legal arguments that he presented. But I'm not going to, at this point, prejudge the -- the outcome of the decision. QUESTION: The president's articulated vision of a ruling that strikes down all state prohibitions on same-sex marriage, that is still a possibility that he -- that he perceives? 14:22:02 EARNEST: Well, again, we're going to let the Supreme Court decide that -- Don Verrilli made a very cogent and persuasive argument about what he believes and what the federal government believes should be the outcome here. And I would hesi -- at this point, I'm not going to try to distill the arguments that he was making in this setting. I'll just say that we feel very confident in the strength of legal argument that he made. But we'll let the Supreme Court decide, as they should. OK? EARNEST: Sharishe? QUESTION: Thanks, Josh, on the dictatorships(inaudible), is the United States, through its tempered status of the Marshall (inaudible) -- is this the government that's on record as having to deal with Iran? Should this go beyond the -- the owner of the ship phase? 14:22:47 EARNEST: Well, the -- I don't know the legal question as it relates to what obligations the United States may have to the Marshall Islands in this particular matter. But regardless of which flag is waving from the top of that ship's mast, the United States is committed to ensuring the freedom of navigation, the free flow of commerce in that region of the world. There are U.S. naval assets in place to guarantee that there. And we're going to continue to monitor this situation. Because like I said, we do have a vested economic interest in ensuring that that free flow of commerce can continue unimpeded there. QUESTION: Just briefly, is -- we, the United States government, has not made an effort to find out as of yet what -- what this is about from the Iranian government? EARNEST: Well, I don't have any specific conversations to talk about form here. We're obviously closely monitoring the situation. And, again, we have a vested interest in the outcome here in a way that is consistent with and protects the free flow of commerce and the freedom of navigation in that region of the world. OK? Go ahead, John. I'll give you the last one. QUESTION: Thanks. You mentioned there are no Americans on board that Maris cargo ship. EARNEST: That's what we have learned from the ship's crew. And I think the company has verified that. That's not something we've been able to independently verify at this point. QUESTION: In regard to the crew that is on board, does the U.S. consider them to be hostages? 14:24:21 EARNEST: Again, we're still monitoring the situation to determine exactly what is -- what's happening here. And we're going to continue to monitor is. And as we have additional details, we'll let you know. OK? Thanks, everybody. QUESTION: Thank you.