PRESS GAGGLE WITH DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY JOSH EARNEST

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Press Gaggle with Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest en route Florida

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Florida

12:17 P.M. EST  

MR. EARNEST:  This afternoon, the President and First Lady are headed to Coral Reef High School to talk about ensuring that as many students as possible fill out the financial aid forms that open the door to a college education.  Never before has a college education been as important as it is now in expanding opportunity and ensuring economic stability in this global economy. 

The First Lady has previously talked about efforts the administration has taken to simplify the financial aid form.  Today, the President will talk about an executive action that he'll take to better track which students have completed the form, which will assist efforts to encourage the families of students to do so.

And I'll also point out that any time you're going to a school whose mascot is the barracuda you know it's going to be an interesting afternoon.  So it should be kind of fun. 

With that, why don't we take some questions?

Q    Quick question -- the readout this morning on the President’s call to the Japanese Prime Minister, he talked about they agreed to work with other G7 countries to put pressure on Russia.  Does that reference signal the U.S. no longer views the group as the G8?  And if that's the case, what’s the latest on the President going to the previously scheduled so-called G8 summit in Sochi?

MR. EARNEST:  Jeff, as you know, what we have done is we've suspended our participation in meetings to prepare for the G8 meeting in Sochi.  The reference to the G7 is simply an indication of how united those seven countries are in our resolve to stand up for principles relating to territorial integrity and individual state sovereignty.  You’ve heard these seven countries speak with one voice on this issue and you’ve seen these seven countries demonstrate their resolve in considering a range of options to demonstrate that there will be costs associated with violating principles like this. 

So you saw the readout from the call that the President had with Prime Minister Abe, and Prime Minister Abe was of one mind with the President and the other members of the international community and the other members of the G7 on this issue.

Q    So Sochi, on or off?  If it continues, will the President go?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don't have any announcements to make about the President’s travel in June.  But I can tell you that there had been meetings, as there always is, in advance of the big meeting in June among the countries to prepare for meetings like that.  Our participation in those meetings has been suspended, and I think it would be logical for anybody to conclude that it raises significant questions about whether or not we’d participate in the meeting in June.

Q    I wanted to ask you about Senator Gillibrand’s sexual assault bill -- military sexual assault bill.  I don't remember the President ever coming out and saying where he stood on that bill.  Did he have a position on it?  And was it getting blocked in the Senate, was that something that the White House thought was okay or --

MR. EARNEST:  I'm going to have to pull some additional information for you, which I could get this afternoon, related to this.  It has been the administration’s position and you’ve heard the President speak very forcefully as the Commander-in-Chief about taking the kinds of steps necessary to address what is a persistent problem in our armed forces.  But in terms of our position on specific proposals to reform that system, let me get back to you on that.

Q    A quick one on Ukraine again.  Republicans have been pushing this plan to increase exports of natural gas.  Does the administration see that as some type of realistic option when it comes to helping overseas?

MR. EARNEST:  Let me start by saying this:  There are six licenses that have been approved by the Department of Energy related to the export of about 8.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to a range of countries around the world.  What’s important for you to understand about those licenses that have already been issued is that the projects for delivering the product would not be completed until the end of next year.  So proposals to try to respond to the situation in Ukraine that are related to our policy on exporting natural gas would not have an immediate effect.

The other factor that’s important to understand about the situation is the current inventories of liquefied natural gas in Europe and in Ukraine are actually above traditional levels or above normal levels.  The reason for that is, unlike North America, they’ve had a relatively mild winter in Europe and the region.  So there is no indication currently that there’s much risk of a natural gas shortage in the region.

The other dynamic that factors into all this is that Russia prides itself on being a reliable supplier of natural gas to countries around the world -- I would say natural gas and other sources of energy to countries around the world.  Shutting off the natural gas would threaten that reputation -- it certainly would undermine it, not just in the eyes of Ukraine and Europe but in countries around the world.

Finally, it’s also important to recognize that Russia relies on revenue from exporting natural gas and other sources of energy.  Russia currently yields about $50 billion a year in revenue from exporting natural gas, so ending that kind of relationship with Europe would have significant financial consequences for Russia as well. 

So this is a complicated situation.  For a more detailed explanation of this complicated dynamic, I’d refer you to the Department of Energy.  But in terms of the top lines, the United States has a long relationship with Ukraine and has actually been talking about these energy issues for some time.  Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine in 2009, and one of the items at the top of the agenda was efforts by the United States to work with Ukraine to help them reduce their dependence on Russian sources of energy, to help them reform their energy sector, to improve efficiency, to improve energy security in Ukraine.  So this is a complicated issue, one that we’ve been coordinating with the Ukrainians on for quite some time.

So I think that mostly answers your question, but for a more detailed answer, I’d refer you to the Department of Energy.

Q    Just related to that, did this come up in the call last night with the Prime Minister?  Because I know that it’s been really important for Japan to build a strong relationship with Russia for natural gas.  Was the President able to give any assurances to the Prime Minister about this?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t want to get into a more detailed readout beyond what we issued last night and early this morning. But I will say that the executive order that the President issued yesterday put in place a structure where sanctions could be implemented.  As Jay discussed during the briefing, no specific organizations have been targeted at this point, but that process is underway.  So there’s no immediate impact from the sanctions that the President has considered in terms of interrupting anybody’s access to Russian sources of energy. 

What sanctions we’ll be focused on are individuals and entities that have interfered with or played a prominent role in interfering with the sovereignty of Ukraine.  And those are the individuals and entities that will be targeted.  And when we have additional announcements on that, we will.  Let me just end this answer by saying that, as I mentioned in my previous answer, that Prime Minister Abe is committed, or voiced to the President his commitment to closely coordinating with the international community and with the other countries in the G7 in standing up for the principle of respecting state sovereignty and the territorial integrity of independent nations.

Q    Josh, I’m wondering why the White House made the decision or the President made the decision to stick to the plan of spending the weekend in Key Largo, given obviously the pace of events overseas and the fact that the Vice President is also going to be out of the country?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Mark, as you’ve been covering the President this week, you know that he has had a very robust schedule of consulting with President Putin a couple of times this week, that he has had a number of conversations with Prime Minister Cameron, Chancellor Merkel, and other foreign leaders -- Prime Minister Abe just last night.  He has been able to do all of that without interrupting what has otherwise been a pretty busy schedule for him this week -- during a snow day in Washington, D.C., during the rollout of the President’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget.  Our ongoing efforts to monitor ongoing events in Ukraine and to stay in close contact with world leaders has not affected the other aspects of the President’s schedule. 

That’s true of the President’s schedule today.  The President and First Lady, as I mentioned at the top, are traveling to a high school to talk about this core component of the President’s domestic agenda.  Meanwhile, the President has been able to get updates from his national security team and I would anticipate that later today, the President will have at least one phone call to make with a world leader around the globe.  I do anticipate we’ll be able to get you a readout of that call, so we’ll keep you posted.

I think the point is that the President over the course of a very busy week has maintained his schedule and his ability to monitor ongoing events in Ukraine.  I would anticipate that he’ll do the same thing this weekend.  And the fact of the matter is what the President is doing this weekend in Florida is essentially what the President will be doing if he stayed back at the White House.  It’s just that the weather will be a little warmer.

Q    Well, what else will he be doing besides monitoring world events?  What else will he be planning to do on his vacation, if you can give us a little flavor?

MR. EARNEST:  The President is looking forward to spending some time with his wife and daughters, who are traveling down to Florida as well.  There are some recreational amenities on the property, including workout facilities, tennis courts, a couple of golf courses, as you’ve seen. 

So there is a -- many of the people that the people that the President has been talking to in terms of our allies in Europe and other world leaders -- there’s a six-hour time difference between here and there.  So if there is an opportunity for the President to enjoy some of those amenities, then he’ll do that.  But we’ll have to see.  What he will do and what he is looking forward to doing is getting a little bit of downtime in the warm weather with his wife and daughters.  

Q    Can I ask you was any of the President’s or the First Lady’s personal acquaintances or friends traveling on Air Force One who are not administration officials, do you know?  We saw someone boarding who happened to be well dressed with like a cowboy hat -- wasn’t sure who that was -- earlier before the President got there.  And I didn’t know if any other friends or acquaintances --

MR. EARNEST:  There are a couple members of the Florida congressional delegation onboard.  I saw Congresswoman Frederica Wilson and Congressman Joe Garcia is on board as well.  It may have been one of the two of them that you saw. 

Q    You don’t know if any other, like, friends?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t know of any other friends of the President or the First Lady that’s on board.

Q    Is there still a chance that he could go back to the White House tonight?  Or is the weekend here set pretty much?

MR. EARNEST:  There’s always a chance that the schedule could change, but I don’t anticipate any changes at this point.

Q    Josh, one more question on this.  You’ve obviously got the Vice President out of town, the Secretary of State is still out of town, the National Security Advisor is in the Persian Gulf, and the President is heading to Florida.  I’m just wondering that’s four senior national security officials not in Washington, including the President.  Is that an unusual set of circumstances?  And does that pose any issues in terms of how the government would respond should something sudden happen in Ukraine or Crimea?

MR. EARNEST:  It’s hard for me to speak to the travel habits of all of those officials.  Most of the people you described have as a part of their job description traveling overseas to represent the interest of the United States overseas.  So I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a fairly regular occurrence.  I mean, it’s not uncommon when the President is traveling overseas for the National Security Advisor or for the Secretary of State to be with him.  So it’s not uncommon.

I will say this:  The President is traveling this weekend with his Deputy National Security Advisor, Tony Blinken, who has played a very important role in handling this situation in Ukraine.  The President is traveling with the regular assortment of communications tools that will allow him to convene in a secure fashion meetings with his national security team, if necessary.  He, of course, has a telephone, so if he needs to make calls to world leaders, whether it’s President Putin or our allies, or other international leaders that are involved in this effort, he can stay in regular touch with them.  So we have complete confidence that the President can handle all the responsibilities that he has, based on the resources that we have with us on the flight.

Q    That said, you were quoted earlier this week I think by Politico saying that it was still up in the air, there was some debate or some internal deliberations about whether he would maintain a weekend schedule of staying down there.  The decision seems that he’s going to.  What was the debate about then if he can do that, and you know that?  Are you saying that the situation in the Ukraine is sort of calm enough that you can go reliably?  In other words, what was the debate or why did it come down on this side?

MR. EARNEST:  I wouldn’t characterize it as a debate.  I was quoted in Politico talking about the fact that the President’s schedule would be a little more fluid than usual because international events were a little more fluid than usual. 

I do think that what we have seen over the course of the last several days is the President has marshalled our allies to put in place a structure for responding to the situation that we’re seeing on the ground in Ukraine.  The President has had, again, multiple conversations with President Putin where he highlighted that there is an off-ramp here, that there is an opportunity for the Russians to sit down with the Ukrainians, facilitated by the international community, if necessary, to try to broker an agreement, to allow international inspectors into every corner of the nation of Ukraine to ensure that the rights of everybody, including the rights of ethnic Russians, are being protected.

We’ve described before that that is a legitimate interest of Russia and, frankly, it’s a legitimate interest of the international community to ensure that the rights of all the citizens of Ukraine are being respected.

There’s an opportunity for the Russians to live up to their basing agreement in Crimea, to return their soldiers and their troops to their bases, and for the international community to come together in support of the elections that are planned for May.  So there is a path to deescalate the situation.  And that is a path that has been set up by -- under the President’s leadership.  We have marshalled the international community behind -- or in support of this potential off-ramp.  And I think over the course of the next few days, we’ll get a better indication about whether or not the Russians are open to that off-ramp.

And one of the conclusions of the call that the President had with President Putin yesterday was that Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterpart, Foreign Minister Lavrov, should be in touch to talk about steps forward on that. 

So I think -- the President is hopeful that we’ll get a little greater clarity on the situation over the course of the next few days.  And if additional steps need to be taken next week, then we can take those steps.

Q    Can you characterize the tone of these lengthy conversations that the two leaders have had?  I mean, you said that next few days will tell the story, but it doesn't seem that so far that something has come out of it, that --

MR. EARNEST:  I don't want to set up a deadline over the next few days.  I think we’re hopeful that in the next few days, we’ll get greater clarity about whether or not the Russians are willing to take some concrete steps toward this off-ramp here.

But in terms of characterizing the calls, we have issued readouts and I wouldn’t want to get in front of those.  But I do think that it’s fair for you to -- fair for people to take away from these readouts that at least as it relates to the view of the situation -- the U.S. view of the situation versus the Russian view of the situation in Ukraine, and in Crimea in particular, there’s a pretty strong difference of opinion; that there is a disagreement about the facts related to what’s actually happening on the ground there.

The best example of this is you saw in the news conference that President Putin convened earlier this week that he basically denied that there were Russian troops on the ground in Crimea outside their bases.  All of the available evidence indicates that's not true. 

So we’re having robust, direct, candid conversations between President Obama and President Putin.  That means acknowledging that there are basic differences over what’s actually happening on the ground in Crimea. 

So the real test is whether or not the Russians are going to take advantage of this off-ramp that is available here.  And we’re hopeful that the Russians will take the steps necessary to deescalate the situation -- by observing the basing agreements, by supporting elections, by entering into talks, facilitated by the international community, if necessary, with the Ukrainians to try to resolve all this.  And again, that could also include putting international monitors all throughout Ukraine to ensure that the rights of everybody, including ethnic Russians, are being respected. 

President Putin has indicated that that's part of Russia’s interest in the region, and it’s part of the U.S. and the international community’s interest in the region.  So there is some common ground here.  But I don't want to paper over the differences that exist on some very basic facts on the ground.

Q    It sounds like you’re saying the White House is in kind of a wait-and-see mode for a few days on this?

MR. EARNEST:  I wouldn’t use those words, only because the President and senior members of our team remain very actively engaged in the situation.  The President will continue to consult very closely with our allies around the globe, particularly the G7 nations that Jeff mentioned.  Secretary Kerry will be in touch with his counterpart, having specific discussions about the way forward here.  So there’s still a lot of activity going on here even as we watch carefully to see what the Russian reaction might be.

Other questions?

Q    Will the President have a message today for voters in next week’s special congressional election? 

MR. EARNEST:  The White House is obviously aware that there is a special congressional election on the other side of the state of Florida.  I know that that race has gotten a lot of national attention, but I don’t anticipate that in his event today that the President will be talking about it.  He’ll be pretty focused today on this one core component of his domestic agenda, which is expanding the door -- expanding college education. 

Q    Is it a coincidence that he’s there a few days ahead of the election?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it’s in a different part of the state, so, yes, it is a coincidence.

Q    Do you have a week ahead?

MR. EARNEST:  I do have a very bare-bones week ahead.  At this point, we anticipate that the President and the First Family will return to Washington on Sunday.

On Monday, the President is really looking forward to welcoming the 2012 and 2013 Division I Men’s and Women’s NCAA National Champions at the White House.  As you know, the President traditionally welcomes the NCAA champion football and basketball teams.  This will be an opportunity for the President to welcome the NCAA champions in some sports that don’t get quite as much attention as those other more high-profile events.  So we’re looking forward to that.

On Tuesday, the President is planning to travel to New York City to participate in events to benefit the DNC and the DSCC.  At this point, on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, I don’t have any additional events to announce.  I anticipate the President will be at the White House and participating in meetings on those days.

Q    Thank you.

Q    I have one more -- sorry -- closer question to ask about this beer bet.  My editors asked me to ask specifically -- Prime Minister Harper said he hasn’t gotten his beer yet from the Olympic hockey bet.  What’s with the delay?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t know.  I’m not privy to the details of the international beer delivery, but I can tell you that the President is somebody who makes good on his bets.  So I’m confident that Prime Minister Harper and members of his team will soon be enjoying some delicious White House beer. 

All right.  Thanks.

END

WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ON EXECUTIVE ORDER ON UKRAINE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on Executive Order on Ukraine -- Via Conference Call

Via Conference Call

8:38 A.M. EST

MS. HAYDEN:  Thank you very much.  Good morning, everyone.  Thank you so much for joining.  This conference call is to discuss the visa restrictions and executive order that were released today in relation to Ukraine.  We have several speakers today, all of whom are senior administration officials.  The call is on background so they should be referred to and this attributed to senior administration officials.  There is no embargo on this call.

With that, I will turn it over to our first senior administration official.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, everybody, for joining the call.  I just want to give you a bit of an overview of where things stand and the actions we've taken today.

To begin with, since the Russian intervention in Ukraine you have seen us work on several lines of effort to mobilize international unity, to condemn the Russian intervention, to impose costs on Russia for that intervention so that they are isolated politically and economically, to provide additional support for the government in Kyiv.  And you’ve seen both the United States and the European Union make important announcements about our support for the Ukrainian people over the last several days while also, again, indicating that there is an opportunity for Russia to deescalate going forward.

In terms of how that's manifested, you have seen broad international unity in the condemnations out of the North Atlantic Council, out of our European allies, and out of the G7 countries.  We suspended preparatory meetings for the G8 in Sochi.  The United States has pulled down and cancelled discussions associated with keeping trade and commercial ties to Russia.  We've also cancelled military exercises and joint consultations with Russia on those specific issues, while providing additional reassurance to our European allies about our commitment to their security.

With today’s actions we have taken additional steps to impose costs on Russia and those who are responsible for the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  That includes an executive order that gives us a great deal of flexibility to target individuals and entities who are responsible for this violation of international law and of Georgian -- sorry -- Ukrainian sovereignty.  And we are also imposing visa restrictions, which further imposes a cost on individuals responsible for the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

So this should send a strong message that we intend to impose costs on Russia for this intervention.  It also gives us flexibility, however, to respond in the coming days based on Russia’s continued actions.  So, again, we already have grave concerns over the intervention in Crimea.  The situation, of course, could escalate further if we see actions into Eastern Ukraine, and we have the flexibility, therefore, to calibrate and escalate our own response if we see further Russian destabilizing actions, just as we are going to impose a cost for what has already taken place in Crimea.

At the same time, there continues to be a way to deescalate the situation, to allow international monitors into not just Eastern Ukraine but also Crimea to assure the protection of all Ukrainian citizens including ethnic Russians; to have immediate discussions between the Russian government and the government in Kyiv with the support of the international community; and to work towards the elections that the Ukrainian people will have in May to determine their next democratically elected government.

With that, I'll turn it over to my Treasury colleague to discuss the EO.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you.  Today the EO issued by the President allows the Secretary of the Treasury to impose powerful financial sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for an array of activities related to the situation developing in Ukraine. 

There’s four main criteria for designation:  First, it allows us to target those undermining democratic processes or   institutions in Ukraine; second, those threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine; third, those misappropriating state assets of Ukraine;  and fourth, those purporting to assert governmental authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the Ukrainian government in Kyiv.

In addition, we also are afforded in this executive order the authority to target derivatives -- in other words, those who are acting on behalf of, or providing material support to, or those who are under control by anyone listed.

This is a powerful and flexible tool that will allow us to target those who are most directly involved in destabilizing Ukraine, including the military intervention in Crimea.  It does not preclude further steps should the situation deteriorate. 

Finally, we have not listed specific individuals or entities today, but this authority is now in place and we will be looking to use it as appropriate in response to developments on the ground.

Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The State Department is putting in place visa restrictions on a number of officials and individuals, which reflects a policy decision to deny visas to officials or other persons who have been complicit in or responsible for supporting actions which threaten the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, including the Russian troop movements not authorized to or consented to by the government of Ukraine, and potentially, any other unauthorized actions by regional authorities in Ukraine.

So we have put this -- we have this authority, are implementing it, and we will be restricting visas as well as pulling a number of visas where people already have them.

Q    A couple quick questions.  I know you can’t give us the names of those on the visa ban.  Can you give us a sense of the scope of it, rough numbers of some sort?  And you mentioned that those who have visas will have them pulled.  Are they notified of that?  And then, secondly, why now, this morning, before the Lavrov talks, not after?  Did the Crimea referendum thing that they talked about today play a part?  And are we going to -- and are you saying you’re not going to do these other sanctions except in response to further actions by the Russians, or we’re going to take further actions even without further escalation?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll go first and then turn it over to my colleague.  First, on the why now, Peter, we’ve been preparing very quickly this executive order.  We believe that there need to be costs and consequences for Russia for what they’ve already done in Crimea.  That is a violation of international law, a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  So there will be individuals who are designated pursuant to what we’ve already seen in Crimea.

The point I was making is that we also have flexibility under this EO and any other additional sanctions we may impose should we see further escalatory behavior by the Russian Federation. 

We’ve been working on this in close consultation and coordination with our European allies.  They were aware that we are taking this step.  They have taken some steps related to the events in Ukraine -- they’ll make their own decisions, of course, going forward.  But it’s important to note that we have been closely coordinating with them in this effort.

Again, the Russian Federation continues to have the opportunity to deescalate the situation.  I know Secretary Kerry is meeting with Prime Minister Lavrov this morning to continue those discussions.  But we’re not going to put on hold our efforts to impose a cost for what has been a violation of international law already.

I’ll turn it over to my colleague for the visa question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, Peter, we would notify anyone who holds a U.S. visa that that visa had been revoked.  And we will do so as occasion arises.  The authority allows us to add people to the visa ban list, and we will be looking at additional names as more information unfolds.

Q    Can you just give us sort of the U.S. reaction to the announcement of the referendum today? And secondly, you’ve talked a lot about watching for other movement into Eastern Ukraine.  Is it still the U.S. assessment that you’re not seeing that kind of movement at this point?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure, thanks, Julie.  First of all, with respect to the referendum that was announced, it is the belief of the United States that decisions about Crimea or any part of Ukraine needs to be made with the government in Kyiv. This is a country with clearly defined international borders, and ultimately only the people of Ukraine can make determinations about their political future.  And the government in Kyiv has to be a part of any decisions that are made about the future of Crimea or any other region.

And I think you saw the Prime Minister make comments about their openness to discussions about various arrangements going forward.  They have to be at the table.  You can’t have a situation in which the legitimate government of the country is excluded from decision-making about different parts of that country.  That is clearly a violation of international law and of how these things are done. 

So we will continue to support the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Ukraine as a whole, and we will continue to insist that the government in Kyiv be engaged in any discussion about the future of any and all parts of Ukraine.

With respect to movements, what we have seen to date, of course, is a violation of Ukraine’s borders, its territorial integrity, and also the basing agreement that the Russians had with respect to their facility on the Black Sea.  We have not seen movements into Eastern Ukraine.  Were we to see that, we believe that would be a significant escalation of the situation, would further destabilize the situation, and would invite a further response from the United States and the international community.  So it’s something that we’re watching closely.

We’ve also said that international monitors are the best way to assure that the rights of all Ukrainians are being protected, including ethnic Russians.  And a monitoring team from the OSCE has arrived in Ukraine, has moved out to different parts of the country, has an important set of experiences and capabilities to ensure that basic rights are being protected.  We believe that that monitoring mission should expand into Crimea and can be the basis for a way of deescalating the crisis.

Q    For those of us who are here in Crimea, it’s very obvious kind of what’s going on -- law and order is increasingly being run by Russian soldiers and what is essentially their proxies, pro-Russian activists.  Do you have any notion that the sanctions today or the actions today will actually impact the people who are delivering orders to these soldiers on the ground, to these people who are doing things like detaining Robert Serry yesterday?  Do you have any sense of who the people are who are pulling strings in Crimea and whether there’s even a command structure that would allow you to target people who are making decisions here and who are increasingly targeting journalists and Westerners, not only including Serry but including OSCE members yesterday as well?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Nate.  I’ll make a couple comments and then my colleague may want to comment as well. 

We have seen, obviously in addition to the basic violation of Ukraine’s borders and the basing agreement in Crimea, we have seen those concerning reports that you mention.  I think we do have an ability to establish individuals or entities that we believe are responsible for supporting those actions.  Frankly, the very flexibility of this tool, the fact, frankly, that we have not yet designated individuals I think should be leading people in Russia, people in Crimea to be asking whether or not they’re going to see their name in a designation. 

So I think this is a very clear message that the United States is going to use the authorities that we have to target the assets, the travel of individuals who are responsible for that concerning behavior.  And the flexibility it affords us I think should lead some of those individuals to be questioning whether or not they’re going to find their name on a list.  But I turn it over to Treasury to say anything else.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Nothing to add.

Q    I want to return to Peter’s question about the connection and timing with the referendum announcement.  I hear what you’re saying on your concerns about the referendum.  Our guidance earlier this week from administration officials was that you would take the week to watch how things played out.  We were not expecting to see even the step towards sanctions this week.  Did something expedite your timeframe?  And also, can you talk about whether the concerns of countries like Moldova and former Soviet republics are considering -- are making the U.S. consider expanding its approach in doing any sort of preemptive assistance to any other countries besides Ukraine?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Margaret, no, the referendum announcement had nothing to do with the timing of this.  We were planning this action -- frankly, we had to prepare the EO, to get it ready.  We were also coordinating with our European allies.  And I believe what we said throughout the week was not that we were going to hold off on any action until the end of the week; it was that we were going to have to prepare our various tools and make decisions about the timing of implementing them.

And now that we have this EO ready to go, we felt it was appropriate to signal the types of tools that are available to the United States, the types of costs that we’re prepared to impose on Russia and those who are responsible for what we’re seeing in Crimea. 

So it wasn’t tied to the referendum; it was tied to basically the preparation of this tool, the consultations that we’ve had with European partners, and President Obama was able to discuss these issues with Chancellor Merkel, with Prime Minister Cameron.  I know Secretary Kerry has been in touch with the Foreign Ministers of Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, as well as Cathy Ashton.  And I think this sends a signal that Russia is not going to be able to avoid accountability for the types of actions that we’ve seen to date.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just to add something to the question about Moldova, the Moldovan Prime Minister was here early this week on the snow day.  The Georgian Prime Minister was here the last couple of weeks.  Secretary Kerry hosted a U.S-Georgia bilateral working group, and I believe the Vice President saw both of those leaders during their respective visits.  So we’ve had, because of earlier scheduled visits, good opportunities to see these leaders.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I should have added, Margaret -- that’s a good addition by my State colleague -- the President was able to see the Moldovan Prime Minister and the Georgian Prime Minister, along with the Vice President.  I think separate and apart from how we’re responding specifically to events in Ukraine with these types of actions, we’re also providing additional reassurance to our allies in Eastern Europe and partners like Moldova and Georgia. 

In addition to those meetings, you saw DOD, for instance, yesterday announce that they are going to be expanding their Baltic overflights, which provide additional reassurance to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.  They are going to be reinforcing our aviation detachment in Poland, and there is going to be a meeting of the Chiefs of Defense of Central and Eastern Europe with General Breedlove.  So we continue to reassure our Eastern European allies that at this very delicate and potentially destabilizing time, the United States is strongly committed to their security.

Q    I was hoping you might be able to just clarify something for me.  Have individuals been identified for the sanctions, on listing them?  Or now that the EO is in place, can you begin to identify people to take sanctions against?  And additionally, you mentioned that this is an attempt to impose a cost on the Russians.  If they do pull their troops back to their bases, will these be rolled back as well, or will these stay in place as sort of a punitive measure?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We can calibrate our sanctions and our actions based on what the Russians do.  And, obviously, were they to deescalate the situation, pull back into their base, that would very much affect our calculus as to how we move forward with these types of actions.  Like I said, we believe that there should be measures taken based on what’s already happened in Crimea.  We’ve already taken a number of those measures in our bilateral actions and statements out of the international community.  But we would certainly evaluate the situation if there were to be that type of constructive action taken by the Russians.

On individuals, Treasury can speak to the EO.  And as my State colleague said, we don’t publish the names of those who are affected by visa bans.  Suffice to say, that -- well, I’ll leave it to Treasury, actually, to describe their process for reviewing individuals. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So as I noted at the outset, the financial sanctions authority put in place today does not contain an annex.  So no individuals or companies have been blocked or designated for sanctions this morning.  What the authority does, though, is put in place a powerful tool that will allow us to target individuals and companies in the future that we see directly responsible for these destabilizing activities, as well as assets -- that we identified in the executive order today.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just to answer the questions about visas, just to clarify, there are individuals who have had their visas pulled or would be banned from visas.  And those individuals, while I won’t give names or numbers, this does include Russians and Ukrainians. 

Q    Well, you answered one of my questions here.  Thanks for doing the call.  I was going to ask about former President Yanukovych, because he has been targeted by the European Union, but I suppose you’re not willing to go that far.  But yesterday, the Russians were threatening retaliatory sanctions of their own and I’m just curious if that’s been taken into consideration here.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll take the first and if anybody wants to add on Yanukovych.  We’ve seen those comments by the Russians.  Frankly, that does not concern us or factor into our decision-making on this.  We believe, number one, that Russia has already paid a cost in terms of seeing its stock market contract, seeing significant instability with its currency.  I think they have a fragile economy.  And similarly, they also have a set of individuals who have been engaged in supporting corruption and supporting the destabilizing actions we’ve seen in Crimea.  So there are specific vulnerabilities there, given the nature of the Russian system and the Russian economy, that these types of sanctions can be brought to bear on.

In terms of individuals, we have a process of reviewing who could be designated.  That is underway so we have begun the process of identifying potential individuals.  I’ll send it over to my colleague to see if he has anything to add on that or Yanukovych.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Nothing to add in particular on Yanukovych.  I would just say that anybody who is involved or complicit in activities that are threatening the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or stability of Ukraine is as of this morning on notice that they may be targeted for U.S. sanctions.

Q    In the context of your last comment on the vulnerability of the Russian economy, one of the (inaudible) of Russia’s influence in the region is its supply of energy.  I’m wondering whether the administration is giving any thought to pressuring Russia through energy moves such as tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or through expediting approvals to export U.S. natural gas as a way to put pressure on Russia.  Thank you.  

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I wouldn’t want to speculate about some of the specific steps you mention.  We’re certainly aware of the Russian reliance on energy as a source of support for its economy.  I do know that this has been a subject that we and the Europeans have taken into account.  As I’ve said, you’ve already seen instability in the Russian economy based on their destabilizing actions.  Again, the further Russia escalates this, the more they’re going to face potential costs from the United States, Europe, and other countries around the world. 

So I don’t want to speculate on the specific actions associated with energy markets or U.S. tools in that regard.  But we are very aware of that dynamic.  It is something that we take into account as we make these decisions. 

And again, frankly, I think, over time, what you’re going to see is that if Russia continues to perpetuate this crisis, this violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, it is going to bring greater isolation to their economy.  It is going to, I think, carry with it not just the costs that are imposed through punitive actions like this, but the costs for having instability in the neighborhood.  And that is not something that they are going to be able to compensate for.

And so we believe that there is a significant vulnerability over time that should affect Russia’s calculus.  And that’s why we’re seeking through these types of punitive measures taken by the United States and through our coordination with other allies and partners to make clear that we’re not going to accept a status quo in which Russia can violate the sovereignty of its neighbors with some type of impunity.  And so today’s action builds on the steps we’ve already taken.  I think if the situation continues, you can see further steps that we would anticipate and that we would coordinate with our European allies on.

Anything my colleagues want to add before we wrap up the call?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Only to say that the State Department and the USG has been working on long-term efforts to help Europe diversify its gas sources.  This has been in motion for a number of years and is beginning to yield results.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, thanks everybody for joining the call.

MS. HAYDEN:  Just a reminder -- this is Caitlin -- that the call was on background.  These were senior administration officials and there’s no embargo.  So thanks for joining us.  Bye.

END
9:05 A.M. EST