White House Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 10/12/2010

8/8/2019 White House Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 10/12/2010

1/21

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate ReleaseOctober 12, 2010

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert

Gibbs, 10/12/2010

2:40 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Yes, maam.Q On the drilling moratorium announcement today, how much did pressure that you guys weregetting from the region play into the decision to make the announcement this early?

MR. GIBBS: This was part of a natural policy process. Secretary Salazar, Director Browmichhave been down in the region hosting public meetings, talking with stakeholders, talking with theindustry to ensure that we came up with the right set of rules and the right set of safetymechanisms to ensure that something that will obviously always carry some risk also has withinit a containment strategy that works for the American people.

So this was part of a very deliberative policy process that, quite frankly, just got done morequickly than the original timeline.

Q Has the White House reached out to Landrieu to ask her to drop the hold on Lewsnomination?

MR. GIBBS: Legislative Affairs was, through the normal course of this, going to do theircongressional notifications. I saw, I believe, a statement from her that said she was not droppingher hold on Jack Lew.

Prepared for Zimvi.com
http://zimvi.com/http://zimvi.com/


2/21

And our feeling on this is the nomination of Jack Lew is not in any way connected to andshouldnt be in any way connected to any facet of the moratorium. Jack didnt have anything todo with issuing the moratorium, doesnt currently have anything to do with the moratorium. Hepassed two Senate committees with more than 40 votes and only one dissenting vote, andobviously a budget director in a time of economic concern and concern about our long-term

fiscal picture is somebody that you need at work.

We have said from the beginning that the hold was unwarranted and outrageous. And thatcontinues to be our viewpoint, and we hope that as we work though the normal course of a policythat ensures that oil drilling is done in a safe way, certainly that Senator Landrieu would judgeJack Lew on the merits of being a budget director, not of playing politics and getting issues thatare ancillary to what he does involved in that equation.

Q And if we could just shift to the Presidents campaign schedule, is there any insight that youcan give us into how the decision was made to send him out to the specific states and for thespecific candidates that you announced earlier?

MR. GIBBS: Let me see if theres any information from Legislative Affairs. Obviously thoseare -- some of those states weve been to -- weve been to before, and -- look, some places,obviously, were going to raise money. Some places were going for different activities like thepast weekend in Philadelphia, to rally young people in Madison, Wisconsin, and other places likethat -- just where candidates and the team here feel like the President could be most useful.

Q Are there places youve specifically decided not to go?MR. GIBBS: Not that Im aware of.Q Robert, can we shift to the mortgage foreclosure? You said this morning that you oppose anational moratorium and that you want to take the just and necessary steps to ensure the processis moving forward legally. Could you say specifically what actions you plan on that?MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- give me one minute. Will you -- I thought I had my list of thedifferent agencies and what they were doing.

Q Back to the offshore drilling moratorium, environmental groups are saying this is purepolitics and very cynical. I mean, is there no political dimension to this?MR. GIBBS: How so?Q

Sort of currying favor with voters in the Gulf states?

The hold on Lew, no?

MR. GIBBS: I dont see any -- Im not entirely sure anybody could make -- I dont see howanybody could make that equation. I mean, this is -- again, this was a very deliberative policyprocess. And it puts in place, again, some important safety steps to ensure that when this is doneagain, its done safely.

An operator must certify that theyre meeting the requirements of ensuring that a worst-casescenario -- that they have the ability to address a worst-case scenario. Were asking the CEO to



3/21


4/21

Q Okay. This is the 10th anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole. After becomingPresident the President withdrew the prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri as you guys gotyour house in order as to what to do about the defendants and detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Since then the Pentagon prosecutors have been eager to go forward with the case and they havebeen stopped by the interagency process. Can you give us any update as to whats next for al-Nashiri, when that trial will go forward?

MR. GIBBS: The important -- one of the most important parts of that process, Jake, as you wellknow -- and I think you touched upon it -- is -- was working with a bipartisan coalition inCongress to review and reform the military commission system to ensure that that process wouldand should be used -- could be used to bring terror suspects to justice.

The Attorney General referred five cases, including al-Nashiri, to the Department of Defense,and as you said, there is an interagency process that is being worked through, and certainly ourhope is now that we have a reform commission system that its a process that can start soon.

Q Can you shed any light on what the holdup is? There are obviously families who aregrieving today, the 10th anniversary of the bombing. Theres a desire for information.MR. GIBBS: Well, I dont have an update on the timing. Obviously DOD and DOJ are workingthrough this.

Obviously our viewpoint is that somebody who did harm to American servicemen 10 years agowill be and should be brought to justice. That was our goal in reforming the military commissionsystem, and I believe in this case we will see justice done.

Q Lastly, as somebody -- there are a lot of us here who have covered the Presidents campaignand now his White House, and a lot of times you guys are subject to accusations that are baseless

and grounded in no more than, Well, it could be true; make them prove that its not true. Andthat seems to be the argument youre making towards the Chamber of Commerce when it comesto these foreign donations -- it could be true; have them prove that its not true. Dont you thinkthat the President -- there should be a higher bar for when the President levels or suggests orinsinuates a charge?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, what I would do is go back and look at what the President has saiddirectly on this. The President --Q Very careful with his language, absolutely. But the suggestion is it could be true; theyshould open their books.

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, the -- as we covered in this mornings briefing, or gaggle, that I getasked questions and others around this town get asked questions about people that have donatedto the campaigns that you mentioned that you follow because people that give in excess of $200are required to report who they are and who they work for. Simple disclosure.We know that -- we know, because the Chamber has said, that they take money from overseas.We do know that theyre spending $75 million to $80 million on ad campaigns -- with



5/21

anonymous donors. They know the identities, but the American people and the voters in theseindividual elections do not.

The best way to clear any of this stuff up would simply be to disclose the names, the identities ofthose donors. That goes for groups on any side of the political spectrum. When you have, in thecase of this election -- there are outside groups on the Republican side that are largelysupplanting the role of the national party, certainly to the extent to which they are participating asan active entity in this election. And no one knows where that money is coming from.This is an important election. And those groups owe it to the American people to tell us whothey are, to describe based on that identity what their agenda is, why are they so heavily involvedin these races.

It seems like a fairly simple thing to do. The President talked about this as early this year as theState of the Union. And we tried desperately to get a law passed that would require thoseidentities to be disclosed.

Q Robert, on the conference call earlier. Secretary Salazar was asked whether additionalinspectors have been brought in to carry out some of these new reforms, to make sure that theseoil companies are abiding by the guidelines, and the answer was, no, they dont have -- thenumbers have not been increased since prior to the accident. So how can the American peoplesort of be assured that these inspections will be able to be carried out when you dont have thepersonnel perhaps to do it?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Dan, let me go back and see what DOI was referring to in terms of -- whatthey were referring to in terms of additional inspections that meet the law.

In this process, applications for re-permitting of exploratory deepwater wells will be examined

and reviewed, and permits issued based on their ability to meet the requirements of a worst-casescenario.

Q But then inspectors would be following up to make sure that theyre abiding by whatever theguidelines are.

MR. GIBBS: Right. I would need to get more information, and I would have you ping also theDepartment of Interior. But what is crucial in this process is ensuring that -- and this is -- thiswould be through the signature of the chief executive officer of the operating company -- thatthey certify that they do indeed have all the resources readily available to respond to that worst-case scenario. That is what would now be in place in order to continue a deepwater drillingproject that is underway in the Gulf.

Q On the First Lady out on the campaign trail, were seeing more of that now. What are youhoping to accomplish by having her out there campaigning?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think she is an invaluable asset to this White House. I think she has -- asshe told during the 2008 election, shes got a story to tell about herself and her family, and I think



6/21

she will tell that story and what the administration and some of these candidates have been ableto do to help the families that they represent.

I think shell -- I think she will be -- she will go out and have a very affirmative case for comingout and participating in this very important election. I think shes -- like I said, shes aninvaluable asset, and my guess is well get good response out there on the campaign trail.

Q Part of her appeal has been that shes non-political, in terms of what she gets involved in.Any risk at all in sort of throwing her into this hand-to-hand campaign?

MR. GIBBS: No, again, I think youll see her make -- youll see her make a very positive casefor these candidates, not get involved in the back-and-forth of normal political campaigns.

Q Thank you.MR. GIBBS: Chip.Q Robert, at the gaggle, you suggested that the reason the President didnt bring up theChamber of Commerce issue was he was just giving an abbreviated version of his usual addressat fundraisers. But are you suggesting that hes not backing off this at all? When he holdsfundraiser for Coons on Friday and Patrick on Saturday, he goes to Cleveland in Columbus, areyou telling us this will be a major part of his address?

MR. GIBBS: Look, it will be -- it will definitely be part of his address, absolutely.Q Hes not backing off one iota.MR. GIBBS: Theres no reason to. Theres no reason to back off asking for the disclosure onthese --

Q Theres been a lot of criticism, I mean, from fact-checking organizations and fromnewspaper editorials, and a lot of people saying, this is the kind of --

MR. GIBBS: None of whom have seen --Q -- unsubstantiated, harsh attacks that he --MR. GIBBS: None of whom have seen the list of donors that is being protected and whoseidentities are being protected.

Chip, if there are organizations raising tens of millions of dollars who wont tell us who theirdonors are, my guess is theyre not telling us for a reason -- because they have something to hide.

Yet they spend -- they supplant an entire national political party, spend tens of millions of dollars,in the end, in total, probably hundreds of millions of dollars without knowing who they are, whattheir agenda is or who they represent. Thats not good for our democracy.Q How do you define Rove-ian trick?



7/21

MR. GIBBS: In this case, it was -- it was very much to try to take a similar example far out ofwhat the discussion point is in order to distract you all away from asking for their donor list.

Q And in other cases? I mean, is this something with a broader application? Rove-ian trick, isthat sort of --

MR. GIBBS: Likely. (Laughter.)Q Is that something were going to find in Websters in a --MR. GIBBS: Likely, yes, Im sure --Q -- Bill Safires dictionary?MR. GIBBS: Yes. (Laughter.) Look, again, I think its -- the question was, well, how come thisthink tank wont disclose its donors. Well, look, that might be an interesting debate to have, butits not the debate that were having about the fact that theres tens of millions of dollars on TV

for and against certain candidates.

If -- as I said this morning, if that was a group that was advertising on television, the Presidenthas not reserved his criticism for the masking of the identities of these political donors based onwho they are advertising for or against. He believes that whether you are supportive ofDemocratic candidates, Republican candidates, in some cases both, the identities of who fundsthose campaigns is pertinent to the debate.

Q Does the President approve of the DNC saying -- and believe, as the DNC ad says -- that theChamber of Commerce is apparently taking money, using money from foreign sources in itspolitical endeavors?

MR. GIBBS: I have not -- I dont know whether the President -- I have not talked to thePresident about that ad, so I dont --

Q You wont go -- you wont go that far?MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I have not talked to the President about that ad. I would point you towhat the President has said on this subject, which is to lay out that -- as the Chamber has said,they take money from overseas. We know theyre spending millions of dollars. Who is thatmoney coming from? And where is it coming from?Q The Chambers dues from foreign affiliates account for less than two-tenths of a percent ofthe $40 million plus -- $40 million to $50 million theyre spending on political endeavors thisyear.

MR. GIBBS: Have you seen the list of their donors?Q I have not.MR. GIBBS: Okay.



8/21

Q Is the bigger problem the legal use of money from domestic donors that may have anagenda? I mean, do you seriously think that the possibility of illegal use of foreign funds is asbig a threat?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the identity -- I think that a small number of people might write tensor hundreds of millions of dollars in checks to fund and bankroll a campaign or a series ofcampaign ads in order to defeat certain candidates because they have -- whether its -- its not apolitical ideology; its what business do they have in front of the federal government. Whatregulation are they trying to impact with -- by getting involved in certain Senate races? Whatstheir legislative agenda?

Easier to answer if you knew who we were talking about.

Q But thats not illegal. If theyre foreign its illegal. But if theyre domestic its not illegal.MR. GIBBS: Id say the biggest point in this is disclosure. The biggest point is knowing whatsout there. The biggest point is whos involved. Thats what the President mentioned, again, atthe State of the Union many, many months ago. And we had -- there was a bill to do just this,because the President warned that -- warned pretty clearly what might happen if those identitieswere shielded from the American people.

Chuck.

Q To follow up on -- actually, to follow up on the bill that you just brought up, Democrats onCapitol Hill mishandle that bill? Did they cut too many deals -- the exception for the NRA, theexception for labor unions -- and so politicized it?

MR. GIBBS: The biggest problem was 99 percent of Republicans voted against that bill.Q Well, they voted against the bill after the deals were cut. Were too many deals cut?MR. GIBBS: Look, I think it should be a simple deal, right?Q And it wasnt, correct? This bill -- could this bill have been simplified?MR. GIBBS: It should be who are your donors.Q But that was not what this bill said, right?MR. GIBBS: Youre probably following some aspects --Q I understand, but I mean --MR. GIBBS: -- more than I am. But --Q -- but it does sound like you feel like this bill wasnt simple enough. Could have beensimple, straightforward --



9/21

MR. GIBBS: Chuck, I think when people filibuster the bill because people dont want you toknow who their donors are, I think its pretty simple. Theres -- there was a ruling and acampaign put together in order to gather up tens of and hundreds of millions of dollars to affectan election, with the promise that your identity would never be known. Thats pretty simple.Thats whats gotten all that money rolling into TV stations.

Q Another housekeeping. One, whens the last time the President talked to the ChileanPresident?

MR. GIBBS: The Chilean President?Q Yes, about the miners.MR. GIBBS: Oh, I dont know the answer to that. I will check with NSC. Not in my recentmemory have I seen anything on that.

Q Second, on the drilling moratorium, by lifting this moratorium, does this mean the federalgovernment has a better -- do you feel like you guys have a better sense of what caused theDeepwater Horizon explosion; that this was a uniquely BP situation? Is that sort of how peopleshould interpret this moratorium?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think a couple of different ways, which is why I mentioned to -- I think itwas to Dans question, that there are still -- theres still an outstanding commission, theres stillan outstanding engineering report that may very well, depending on its findings, impact theprocess, which is important.

But we know that -- again, we know theres inherent risks in doing this at all. That weunderstand. But the belief of the Secretary, I think rightly so, is that each operator has to certifywhat the worst-case scenario is, and that they have the ability to meet that scenario.

It is -- its a very commonsense way of looking at how we go about this process, and one that wethink, based on the quality of permit applications, can be met by operators. It wont be --Q So you feel as if the industry, as a whole, does have a handle on how to keep this the safest.MR. GIBBS: I think that they understand now far better what has to be in place, and what theyrisk if something like this gets out of hand, which clearly it did in the Gulf with the DeepwaterHorizon.

Q And one campaign question. There were five Senate debates last night, three time zones, allover the country.

MR. GIBBS: I didnt see any of it.Q I understand that. But two big issues debated -- stimulus -- the Recovery Act and health careall came up in all of them. And it was -- it was all familiar. The Democratic candidate nevercheerleaded the bill. The Republican candidates, both said both were failures, both weremistakes, would repeal. But in each case the Democratic candidate said, well, it was okay, or the



10/21

health care bill -- well, it was a good start, it was a decent compromise. Do you feel as if youguys need to help these Democratic candidates essentially sell the -- I mean, because none ofthem were saying the Recovery Act was a success; all of the Republicans said it was a failure.None of them were saying that health care was a great piece of legislation.

MR. GIBBS:Lets look at the Recovery Act.

What we did was -- what that bill did was makesure that we didnt have a systemic economic meltdown that led to a Great Depression. Again,

thats --

Q And thats how it should be judged?MR. GIBBS: Thats known. Thats not me saying that. Thats not -- thats economists sayingthat it led to increased growth; that it created and saved jobs; that it turned our economy around. Now, are there people that will still deny it? Im sure. I dont -- I think if you --Q Democrats are having trouble sort of telling that story.MR. GIBBS: I dont think theyre having trouble telling that story. I think that we live in anenvironment where were not losing 800,000 jobs a month, were not losing 3 million jobs in sixmonths as we were at the end of 2008, but were climbing out of, very slowly, a hole that lost 8million jobs. Theres going to be economic frustration not just from the past two years, but builtup over many years, as wages failed to go up, as hours increased, as jobs were moved overseas,as businesses made a series of bad decisions that required the government to step in and ensurethat they didnt do irreparable harm to our economy.

Nobody likes doing that. Nobody sat in meetings here and said, boy, lets do this because thiswould be great and politically popular. But we know what happened -- what would havehappened if the financial sector would have melted down. How would the debates go in theMidwest if GM and Chrysler and the million or so people that were connected both workingdirectly for those auto companies and the auto parts suppliers, many of which, if you drive bysome of these auto plants, are built next to those factories -- where would we be if a million morepeople were out of work?

Well, you know, look, I think its up to Republicans to -- and Ive seen it. Ive watched them inMichigan say we shouldnt have done that to help Chrysler and GM. And I hope voters will takethem at their word that many of their friends and many of their neighbors would have been out ofwork, without the prospect of a lot of new jobs coming to town, manufacturing has taken abeating.

But, look, I understand that some legislative efforts in things like rescuing the economy -- we getthat the judgment on a political timeline might not always match up with I think how ultimatelythis will be viewed, as creating a new foundation that stimulated new industries to create the jobsof tomorrow, which prevented, as I said, a meltdown into a Great Depression. And we are allaware of the economic study that shows had some of these steps not been taken -- stabilized thefinancial system and in the Recovery Act -- that hole thats 8 million jobs deep would likely havebeen twice that. And that would be the Great Depression that we are thankful was warded off



11/21

because we didnt do necessarily what was popular, but we did what was right and what had tobe done at the moment.

Q Robert, may I --MR. GIBBS: I should run for something. (Laughter.)Q I guess you want to participate in these debates.MR. GIBBS: I was watching the Braves and the similar outcome. (Laughter.)Q On the moratorium -- the deepwater moratorium, the lifting of the moratorium has a lot ofcaveats. Theres the redesigned blowout preventers, more equipment on hand in case ofaccidents, things like that. How quickly does the President want to see these rigs back out doingexploratory drilling? And do you believe that these new regulations are going to chase away allthe small companies and leave only the mega oil companies out there?

MR. GIBBS: On that latter point, I dont believe its going to chase away -- I dont believe itsgoing to chase away those companies because, Jonathan, I think we want to ensure that whoeveris doing that exploratory drilling and participating in those activities has the ability to handlesomething if it goes catastrophically wrong. I dont think wed ever want to permit somethingthat we cant -- that we couldnt unwind, that we cant meet.

In terms of how quickly, I think Director Bromwich and others have said some of this is going todepend on the quality of the permit applications themselves. This is obviously not going tohappen overnight. Its probably going to take several weeks to ensure that everybody feelscomfortable that we have the appropriate plans in place to ensure that we meet those worst-casescenarios.

I think this is an important first step. It starts that process. It opens that process back up. And Ithink its an important day.

Q And has there been any contact, any outreach -- I know weve asked this -- but with MaryLandrieu and --

MR. GIBBS: Let me check. I would be shocked, quite honestly, if Legislative Affairs didntgive Senator Landrieu, Senator Vitter and all those along the Gulf Coast a heads-up on this. Idont -- let me check specifically on that reaction.

Mark.

Q Robert, if the law doesnt require political groups to disclose their donors, how can you saythat these groups owe it to the American people? I mean, theyre abiding by the law.MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the spirit of political disclosure is -- and remember, too, that the lawwas -- the last has just recently been struck down by the Court. The notion of disclosure wasstruck down by the Court. The notion of political donor anonymity was established, and I think



12/21

many in Congress believed that -- although not enough -- believed that understanding who thosepeople are is important to the process.

There are -- it is hard to understate, Mark, how much theyre impacting some of these elections.In some of these states, there are four, five, six of these groups up at a time.

Q Theyre just commercials.MR. GIBBS: Well, probably radio ads, TV ads. Thats -- I think most people would admit thatsthe way a bunch of people, most people, get the information that theyre going to -- how theydetermine whos going to vote -- who theyre going to vote for, excuse me. And I think itsimportant -- when you dont know who those people are, when you dont know what theiragenda is, I think, as the President has said, that is a threat very fundamentally to our democracy.There are people impacting those elections with which you have no identity.

Q Do you think the spirit of political openness ought to embrace the President when he doesclosed-door fundraisers?

MR. GIBBS: Well, just last night the President brought a print pool into --Q Yes, but for ones that were closed.MR. GIBBS: They were, but heres what you know, Mark. Every person that gives to an entitythat the President is raising money for -- the DCCC, the DSCC, the DNC, Obama for America in2007 and 2008 -- if you give in excess of $200 -- and I think in our case we actually disclosed alower amount -- but if you give in excess of $200, we know who you are -- not only we -- you,the FEC, its posted on the Internet -- who you are, who you work for, where you live. Thatsbasic disclosure. Thats how --Q But in the spirit of openness, if hes addressing big money donors, shouldnt that be open tocoverage?

MR. GIBBS: I will say this -- I will say this, Mark, I think we had one or two that werent --Q There was more than that.MR. GIBBS: Im sure you have the exact number.Q I do. (Laughter.)MR. GIBBS: I bet it was less than five.Q Its closer to 10.MR. GIBBS: How many have we done?Q Fifty something.



13/21

MR. GIBBS: Okay. Id put our openness, Mark, against anybodys. It was a policy that we hadduring the campaign. It wasnt something that we waited to institute when we got there. Andweve taken as many steps as weve can to ensure that when the President speaks to thesegroups, that you know.

Q

But why are there different rules for some of these things?Why do you say, well, print forthis? Whats the point of keeping TV cameras out?

MR. GIBBS: Because its -- its not the point of keeping TV cameras out, Chuck. I trust thatyour friends are -- that are doing pool reports are relaying what the President says quiteaccurately. But, Chuck, its -- no offense, but to take you, your producer, to take one other guy,to take a bunch of people --

Q I mean, thats why we have a pool. We have a very small group of people. Were talking --MR. GIBBS: Youre not a very small group of people, but some people have private homes thatwe dont -- we just -- you cant bring that many people into. But, Chuck, lets not get diverted

from the fact that you know exactly what the President said last night, you know exactly -- youwill know exactly who gave, youll know the amount they gave, you will know their name andwhere they work. You will not know any of that on these groups that sound like Mom andApple Pie that are running tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars of ads affectingbig parts of Senate races, big parts of House races, big parts of gubernatorial races. Obviously aseparate series of laws govern gubernatorial races.

But Id be happy, Mark, if the groups that have advertised in these races on either side met thetransparency standards that we have met and that federal candidates are required to meet,because youd know the identities of who gave that money.

Roger.

Q Will you have more closed fundraisers?MR. GIBBS: Not that -- every one I think we have is -- will be open, as far as I know. And Ithink all the ones that we announced today -- the DCCC, the DNC events -- I know are open.

Q Delaware?MR. GIBBS: I believe Delaware is open. I dont -- I will double-check on that when we get outof here.

Q Back to the oil moratorium, the Interior Department rules say that the new rules are going toadd about $183 million in annual costs. Thats about $500,000 a day. Jonathan asked you aboutchasing --

MR. GIBBS: Im sorry, tell me the figures again, where are they from?Q $183 million a year in annual costs under the new rules. Thats about $500,000 a day.



14/21

MR. GIBBS: $500,000 a day for the 30-some exploratory --Q -- spread out.MR. GIBBS: Okay.Q Jonathan asked about chasing away the independents, and I heard you say that you dontbelieve its going to chase them away. But do you know? Or is there any evidence? How doyou know --

MR. GIBBS: Ill go back and look -- Ill go back and ask, and you should ask DOI about whatcost-benefit analysis they have. But, I mean, Roger, the point is were not going to permit --large or small -- somebody that does not have the ability to certify accurately and adequately acontainment strategy if the well they are drilling cant be contained in a worst-case scenario.

That wouldnt make any sense regardless of the size of the operator. That wouldnt make anysense for those communities along the Gulf, whether theyre employing people that work on

those rigs, or you have a business like the seafood industry that might be affected by an accident.These rules are put in place to ensure that the standards that are in the law are adequately met,that that can be certified and signed off on by the chief executive officer, and that the steps to putin place those safety requirements are taken seriously.

Q Do you think theres any concern that when the Interior Department holds the next auctionfor leases that it will only be the Exxons and the Shells and even the BPs that will be able toafford it, and therefore the government would get fewer bids at lower prices?

MR. GIBBS: I dont because I think that is -- obviously oil is a fairly known commodity with aknown price.

Q One other -- something, separate subject. Senator Mitchell met with Biden this morning onthe Middle East -- or was to. Did that happen?MR. GIBBS: I dont have an update on that, but I can try to find one.Q Any update on resolving the impasse?MR. GIBBS: No, I dont have any update on that meeting, but Ill see if there is one.Q In New York, the first civilian trial for a Guantanamo detainee is underway. And I wonder ifyou could just reflect on what the stakes for the administration are in the outcome of this trial?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, obviously this is an individual who is on trial for and accused of hisrole in deadly embassy bombings that killed Americans. And we are serious about bringing tojustice those that have harmed or killed our citizens, be it the al-Nashiris of the world whovedone so by doing harm to our service members, killing civilians or government employees inembassies, and to bring to justice those that seek to do our citizens harm -- or have done themharm.



15/21

Q But is this a referendum on the ability of civilian courts to handle Guantanamo detainees?MR. GIBBS: I think -- look, I think this is an important trial in terms of bringing about justice.There have been cases where suspects -- last week there was a -- obviously the Times Squarebomber was sentenced to -- in an Article III court -- was sentenced to life in prison. So we knowthat these work.

We also know that we have a reformed military commission that can also bringthose at Guantanamo -- that were housed at Guantanamo to justice and will do so.

Q Robert, just two questions. The Los Angeles Times reported that Obama White House aidesowe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes. What will the President do about this?MR. GIBBS: I was going to check on that and I havent done so, so let me do so.Q Why did the President schedule a 12-day trip to the Far East, beginning on November 4th,instead of remaining home in the possibility of the need for a major Democrat rebuilding?

MR. GIBBS: Well, its a 10-day trip that starts the 5th.Q It said 12-day in the print.MR. GIBBS: Im pretty sure its -- I was in a meeting about it this morning.Q I wont disagree.MR. GIBBS: Lester, our --Q Many in this room get screwed with 12 days. (Laughter.) Thats why.MR. GIBBS: Oh, well, sorry. Ours is I guess a more direct flight.Look, our relationship with the world, Lester, is tremendously important. We cant grow oureconomy unless we can export our products overseas. Asia is the fastest-growing market in theworld --

Q But why not do that later, so that he can, if he needs, rebuild the party of which he is thehead?

MR. GIBBS: One, I dont think were going to need to do that, Lester. And two, this is animportant election, but theres also important work to be done with -- in countries like Korea, inJapan and in India, in ensuring that we have the type of relationships around the world and the

type of business relationships in the world that can buy and sell the products we make here andcreate jobs.

Jackie.

Q Robert, could you just spell out why you think its a good argument to be pushing this issueof the foreign money and whether it exists or not, is disclosed or not, at a time when were thisclose to the election and people are sort of looking for the closing argument?



16/21

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think people care about -- lets be clear, I think people care very muchabout who these people are and who these people are that they dont know. And understand thatwe dont know what their agenda is. We dont know whether theyre trying to elect a group ofsenators to roll back Wall Street reform. We dont know -- theres a whole lot of things we dontknow.

I think -- look, if you look at the Bloomberg poll today, it was one of the most -- it was one of themost likely -- if you look at the percentages of are you more likely to support or less likely tosupport somebody who has advertising in that race on their behalf, it was a pretty persuasiveconcern for voters.

Q Does that jibe with your own polls?MR. GIBBS: I have not seen anything in DNC polling on it that I can remember. I think peopleare very concerned about, again, not knowing the identities of these special interests, notknowing where theyre from, not knowing what their -- not knowing what they want fromgovernment, not knowing what they want from the senators that they seek or the House membersthat they seek to elect.

Q I wanted to follow on Chucks question about the stimulus. Even as Republicans are outcampaigning and calling the past stimulus or the existing stimulus a failure, you have a lot ofnonpartisan economists and analysts who have said that it did its job, it just maybe should havebeen larger, and that in fact part of our problem right now is that the stimulus is waning and thatthere arguably should be some more. Was that what was behind Secretary LaHood yesterdaysaying that youll push sooner rather than later for the $50 billion in transportation funding?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I will say, first and foremost, we have -- we met the goal of ensuring that 70percent of the money from the Recovery Act was spent by the end of the most recent fiscal year.We met that goal. But understand that thats a lot of funding to get into an economy in a veryshort period of time. So theres still some funding that continues, obviously, that has not -- thatsbeen obligated but -- and projects are underway, though the money, the check hasnt finally beenwritten -- the economic activity is happening.

Again, I think those statistics bear that we not just got what we could politically bear but we gotinto the economy what could be gotten into the economy in as quick a period of time, and to doso without waste, fraud and abuse.

In terms of infrastructure or expensing or some of the proposals that the administration continuesto have, some of them are built off of existing ideas that were in the Recovery Act that wed like

to see extended.

Infrastructure -- obviously there was major investments that were made as part of the recovery,but we also know that a great deal of the unemployed that were dealing with used to be in theconstruction industry as the housing market has waned, that have the skills that could be put touse in infrastructure. We know thats a good investment for long-term economic growth and wethink that puts people back to work.



17/21

So all of those go into what the economic team has proposed and what the President hasproposed to continue to see our economy strengthen.

Q But those arguments like he made yesterday suggest like acting sooner rather than later. Butare you going to try in a lame-duck Congress to get some sort of emergency spending, or are you

going to rule that out?

MR. GIBBS: I think that most of what the President has proposed is likely to be dealt with whenCongress comes back in January.

Q And one last thing on undisclosed money. Ginny Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court justiceClarence Thomas, has formed this group for which she solicited and accepted, as far as we know,unknown -- contributions from unknown sources of up to $500,000. Does the White Housethink thats an appropriate activity for the spouse of a Supreme Court justice?

MR. GIBBS: Let me take a look at that and get back to you on that. I just -- before I go --Q Yes, thanks, Robert. Just breaking news out of California, Judge Virginia Phillips just issuedan injunction of all dont ask, dont tell discharges, effective immediately.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I got this question right as I came out.Q You did? Okay.MR. GIBBS: I saw it literally as we were walking down, so let me point you initially to DOJ.Q Guess who I already have a question into?MR. GIBBS: Those good guys at DOJ, call her back.Q Yes. Im just wondering, do you know if theres been any discussion inside the White Houseof how to -- of what kind of steps might be taken to bring the Pentagon into compliance withsuch an injunction? I mean --MR. GIBBS: Let me check on that. Obviously, like I said, I learned of and havent been able totalk to as we were walking down here anybody in the counsels office who might have had anopportunity to read this more closely.

Obviously there have been a number of court cases that have ruled in favor of plaintiffs in thiscase. And the President will continue to work as hard as he can to change the law that hebelieves is fundamentally unfair.

Q And you dont have any idea of whether or not youre going to work for a stay?MR. GIBBS: I dont, but thats one of the questions that I had as I was walking in, and Ive gotto get somebody from counsel to help me with that.



18/21

Q A very small question left over from Sunday. Weve been asked whether the President sawthe streaker who was trying to win a million dollars at the rally. (Laughter.)MR. GIBBS: Whether the President saw the streaker?Q Does he know the name of the website? (Laughter.)Q Yes, come on. Poor guy needs a million bucks. (Laughter.) Stimulus.MR. GIBBS: I dont know if he did. I -- now youre going to ask me to walk into the OvalOffice and see if the President saw the streaker.

Q Others might.Q Next question is about Brett Favre.MR. GIBBS: I dont know the answer to the streaker question.Yes.

Q What about the book? Did he know about the book?Q Is it your view, Robert, that China is softening its stance on territorial claims in the SouthChina Sea this week, based on the release of the Vietnamese fishermen?

MR. GIBBS: Let me get some better guidance from NSC on that.Glenn.

Q Robert, you guys have complained for quite a while about sort of these unsubstantiatedRepublican charges about death panels and birth certificates and all that kind of thing. Does itfeel kind of good to hear them carping about the accuracy of your statements with regard to theChamber?

MR. GIBBS: Well, no, but lets take the example that you -- the example that you had of deathpanels, okay? That might seem -- might have seemed like a more plausible charge if he didnthave a piece of legislation in front of you. Remember -- are you going to read the bill, are yougoing to look at this section, are you going to go through this? You had the piece of legislation.So lets just have an analogous political argument, and that is lets put out the names, put it in the

list, put it in a form -- Im sure it would stack up quite high -- put out the names of the donorsand let people make a judgment based on the evidence.

Thats the one thing you could do with health care, right? You could -- you had a piece oflegislation that you could -- and why the myth was so thoroughly debunked, its because peopleread the legislation and said, well, thats not in there. But we dont have a list of whos givingsecret money to these secret groups.



19/21

Q Well, weve had like, I dont know, between this morning and now, weve had a dozenquestions about this, weve eaten a lot of clock. Isnt that to a certain extent one of the reasonswhy were talking about this, so that we dont have to talk about other things like the economy orother issues?

MR. GIBBS:No, I think this is very much part of the economy.

Understand this, Glenn, I dontknow the identities. I wish I did. I bet when we finally do find out who these people are, youre

going to find out their political agenda is to go back to the rules that we had governing WallStreet before we passed financial reform.

But, Glenn, all you got to do, if you walk right out that door, right up that nifty new set of steps,walk across that nifty park, theres a big building right over there. Right? Its a stones throw.Its a bad Sam Youngman golf shot. (Laughter.) I had you right up until that, right?But what Im saying -- what Im telling you -- what Im saying, Glenn, is its a short walk, right?Email the Chamber and tell them youll meet them over there in 10 minutes. Have the list. Putthe entire argument to rest with the list. Put the entire argument to rest with Karl Rove and EdGillespie by providing the list. Why perpetuate the argument? Why distract from all the otherthings we could be talking about by just simply providing the list? That seems easy. Simplydisclose the identities of who funds all these ads. No longer hide behind the shroud of secrecyand anonymity.

Simply tell us who you are. It will probably be pretty easy to figure out what your agenda is. Butgenerally people that are looking for that shroud of secrecy in keeping their names anonymoushave something to hide. It would be easy -- just walk right over there.Q Including environmental groups and all the others that also get money anonymously? All ofthem should disclose all of their donors?

MR. GIBBS: If youre running TV ads in this election --Q Thats the White House position?MR. GIBBS: It has been since the President stood in front of Congress in the State of the Union.Q Even groups that support this White House?MR. GIBBS: Even groups that support this White House.Q Are you calling on them now to do that?MR. GIBBS: Absolutely, absolutely.April.

Q But, Robert, listening to you in this briefing, again, they have the cover of the law behindthem.



20/21

MR. GIBBS: You got to get a shorter guy sitting in front of you.Q Sorry. (Laughter.)Q Okay, they have the cover of the law behind them. But just listening, its sounding like --and you tell me if Im wrong -- they have deeper pockets than we do, and were upset, and wewant them to disclose even though they have the cover behind it -- let me -- youre upset becausetheyre winning in the ad game.

MR. GIBBS: I am -- they have the ability to influence elections. They are supplanting the entireeffort of a national party to the tune of $150 million, $160 million, $180 million in a politicalcampaign. And you dont have the slightest idea who they are.You dont have -- you dont know who they represent. You dont know what their politicalagenda is. You dont know what theyre looking for in their next United States senator. Youdont know if were looking for somebody to walk down there the first day and sign on torepealing the laws that we have instituted to change the way Wall Street works.

But theyre going to impact this election. If it werent for the discussion were having now, thiswould likely be the biggest story after the election -- $200 million, $150 million -- some hugeamount of money that is playing out in races all over the country, and nobody knows who theyare. I think thats a threat to the democracy that we have this country. I think that is what isfundamental about who we are and whats at stake in this election.

Q On another --Q I know its very far back -- but some of your deputies say there may be something happeningoutside that people are interested in.

MR. GIBBS: Oh.Q Oh, yes.Q Thank you.MR. GIBBS: Does somebody want to go see George Clooney? Sam, do you have somethingyou want to -- (laughter.)

Q Im still reeling from that sucker punch. Per our agreement from last week, the AuburnUniversity Tigers are a superior football program to the University of Kentucky Wildcats.

MR. GIBBS: Nobody will argue about basketball so I appreciate it.Thank you, guys.

Q But what about the book? What about the book, Robert, the book that was thrown? Did thePresident know about it, and what was the end result about the book?



21/21

MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to him about it --Q What was the book? What was the book?Q A million dollars. Stimulus, man.END3:39 P.M. EDT


White House Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 10/12/2010

Documents

Transcript of White House Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 10/12/2010