Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> Mr. Carney: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I hope you had a fine weekend.
Before I take your questions,
I have a couple of things to announce.
First, tomorrow, Maria Shriver will present the President
with a copy of the latest Shriver report,
"A Woman's Nation Pushes Back from the Brink."
The report focuses on the millions of women
who are working hard but are consistently on the brink
of poverty, and highlights the need for the nation to address
women's role -- dual roles as caregivers and breadwinners,
and the specific challenges they face.
As the President knows well, investing in and supporting
women over their lifetimes is one of the best ways to tackle
income inequality and achieve greater social mobility,
and he looks forward to learning about the findings
of the report.
The second topper is that the President is looking forward to
traveling to Toluca, Mexico on February 19th to participate
in the North American Leaders Summit.
At the summit, the President looks forward to discussing with
Mexican President Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Harper
a range of issues important to the daily lives
of all of North America's people,
including economic competitiveness,
entrepreneurship, trade and investment,
and citizen security.
>> The Press: Overnight?
>> Mr. Carney: What I have here is that he will be traveling
to Toluca, Mexico on February 19.
We'll have more details for you later.
Questions -- Nedra.
>> The Press: Thanks, Jay.
I wanted to ask you on the Iran nuclear agreement if you're
at all concerned that Congress could hurt this deal in any way.
Have you been hearing from lawmakers that the deal
has encouraged skeptics to stop their push for new sanctions or
have any impact on that debate?
>> Mr. Carney: I appreciate the question, Nedra.
As you know, the administration, the White House,
from the highest levels, have been engaged with Congress
on this issue for some time.
And it is always important to note that the Congress has
been a strong partner with the administration in implementing
and enforcing the most effective sanctions regime against Iran
that's ever been created, that was built up for the purpose
of testing whether Iran's behavior would change,
testing whether Iran could be compelled through effective
comprehensive sanctions to come to the table
and negotiate in good faith.
And what the agreement on the implementation phase
of the Joint Plan of Action tells us is that Iran
has responded to that pressure,
to that effective and comprehensive sanctions regime
in the way that we had hoped.
Now, this is the first stage and it requires Iran
to take significant steps in terms of halting progress
on its program and even rolling back its program in some areas,
and in return, the P5-plus-1 provides moderate relief.
On the matter of further congressional action
at this time, we have made our case clear both in public
and in conversations with lawmakers on this issue,
and we believe that we have the opportunity to test
whether or not this can be resolved
between the international community and Iran peacefully,
which is the preferred way that it would be resolved.
What Congress has always done effectively has been to act
on new sanctions when doing so would have an impact,
and in this case a positive impact,
which is what Congress could do if it holds in abeyance any
further action if Iran were to fail to fulfill its obligations
under the agreement on the Joint Plan of Action
or implementation of it,
or fail to reach a comprehensive resolution
with the P5-plus-1 in the coming months.
So our views on further action right now and on legislation
that has been considered are well known.
We're constantly consulting with members of Congress
on this matter.
We think that the fact that we are now at the implementation
stage of the Joint Plan of Action demonstrates that,
at the very least, testing whether or not Iran is serious
is the right thing to do.
>> The Press: But does this agreement seem to be changing
any minds, or are your critics still dug in --
>> Mr. Carney: Well, I wouldn't want to speak for any members.
I think that some have spoken on this and others obviously
will choose to or not.
We think it makes clearer why it's so important to refrain
from taking action on further sanctions now and to rather hold
in abeyance that action if and when it's necessary
and can be very effective.
>> The Press: On one other topic,
Senator Ayotte is saying that the Pentagon has told her that
last month's budget agreement will cut the cost of living
increases for survivor benefits.
So I'm wondering if it's acceptable to the President that
this agreement could affect war widows this way
or military widows.
>> Mr. Carney: I'm not familiar with that specific item in the
agreement so I'll have to take the question
and get back to you.
Yes.
>> The Press: Thanks, Jay.
On the Iran issue, why doesn't the President release the text
of the agreement?
Members of Congress are eager to see it.
>> Mr. Carney: Well, I'll say a couple of things.
First of all, it's an agreement not just involving the United
States but the P5-plus-1.
And the technical understandings reached as part of the
implementation plan are being transmitted to the IAEA.
In tandem with this action, we are working with the P5-plus-1,
the EU and the IAEA on releasing as much information to the
public as we can about the technical arrangements.
We fully expect to be able to share the text of the plan with
Congress and are working with our international partners on
how much and when we can share the information publicly
and in what format.
So we'll continue that effort, but I just wanted to make clear
from the outset that we will absolutely be able
to share the text with Congress.
>> The Press: On a different topic,
the Supreme Court is today hearing arguments on recess
appointments, and early indications are that a number
of Justices are skeptical of the administration's case on that.
Why wouldn't the Senate be the place to determine whether
they're in recess or not?
And more broadly, what's at stake in this matter?
>> Mr. Carney: Well, we are confident that the President's
authority to make recess appointments
will be upheld by the courts.
And when it comes to our legal arguments,
rather than reciting them today, I would refer you back to a blog
in which we laid them out -- a blog item on whitehouse.gov --
and we can, if you are interested,
we can make sure we recirculate that.
But in our view, we're confident that the courts will uphold
the President's authority and look forward to resolution
of this matter.
>> The Press: On a separate topic,
Governor Christie is apparently facing some investigation
about whether he misused some $2 million
in Superstorm Sandy relief funds.
His office is apparently saying that
that "Stronger than the Storm" ad
was part of an action plan approved by the administration.
Is that accurate?
Can you comment on that?
>> Mr. Carney: My understanding is this is something that was
under review by the HUD IG and I would refer you HUD for
information on that.
>> The Press: And lastly, can you provide any details about
the President's meeting with Senate Democrats
later this afternoon?
What are the topics?
>> Mr. Carney: I believe it's Wednesday evening,
and I can confirm that he will meet with Senate Democrats
to discuss their shared priorities for 2014.
Major.
>> The Press: Jay, where are we on unemployment insurance
extension negotiations?
Are you still looking for the three-month or are you willing
to skip over that and just go straight to a year-long
extension if there is a pay-for that can be resolved
with the amendment process or private negotiations?
>> Mr. Carney: Well, we want action as soon as possible,
because the 1.3 million Americans and their families
who have been without benefits now for many days need
that assistance as soon as possible.
We strongly supported and support action
on the three-month extension.
We have noted that the Majority Leader has taken considerable
actions to accommodate the concerns of Senate Republicans
when it came to -- when it comes to offsets,
and as I understand it, following it from here,
when it comes to the issue of amendments.
So I would point you to the Senate Majority Leader's office
on next steps, but we certainly look forward to speedy action
by the Senate on this important issue and hope that they move
quickly so that the benefits can begin flowing
to those families who need them.
>> The Press: And working out the details for --
starting the time clock January 20th on the six-month deal,
what has the President learned about Iran's ability and
willingness to fulfill what it notionally committed
to a couple of months ago and now apparently has put to paper?
>> Mr. Carney: I'm not quite sure I get what you're asking,
except to say that the President's approach through
all of this has been to not take Iran's word on any matter,
but to verify and to engage in negotiation on agreements
that require verification from Iran as to its compliance.
And that's what the Joint Plan of Action,
and that's what any comprehensive resolution
of this matter would require.
There would have to be transparent,
verifiable compliance by Iran in keeping with its stated
decision, if it comes to that, and there is an agreement
on a comprehensive resolution to forsake
its nuclear weapons program.
>> The Press: I guess what I'm driving at is does this process
of getting from the verbal agreement to something that's on
paper give the President any more confidence that a final
deal can be reached?
>> Mr. Carney: I think we have always said that each stage of this
would be difficult; if it weren't,
it would have been resolved a long time ago.
We obviously are gratified by the progress that's been made
by the P5-plus-1 thus far on this matter with Iran,
but there's no question, and others have spoken to this,
that reaching a comprehensive resolution will not be easy.
But it is absolutely the right thing to do to pursue one,
and for two basic reasons.
One, peaceful resolution to conflict,
verifiable by the international community,
is always preferable to military resolution,
and that's doubly the case here because we can be more sure that
Iran is free of nuclear weapons if it chooses to be free
of nuclear weapons through a comprehensive resolution
to this problem.
So throughout this process, the President has made clear
that he leaves all options on the table.
But the purpose of the sanctions regime,
the purpose of the approach the President took
when he took office in 2009,
was to make clear that the onus was on Iran
to come clean and to come into compliance with its
international obligations.
And we are taking steps now, with our partners,
to test whether in fact Iran is willing to do that.
>> The Press: The Vice President is in Israel,
and this might just be -- I'm sure it's coincidental.
I'm just curious if in his meetings with Prime Minister
Netanyahu and Shimon Peres he is giving any updates on this
particular agenda item for both governments,
the United States and Israel, the --
>> Mr. Carney: Well, as you know, Vice President Biden
is in Israel leading a high-level U.S. delegation
to attend the state funeral
for former Prime Minister Sharon.
He has also, as you noted,
he has met with President Shimon Peres
and will be attending a working dinner
with Prime Minister Netanyahu where, in each case,
I'm sure the range of issues that are frequently discussed
between our two countries at high levels will be discussed.
I don't have a specific readout of the meeting with President
Peres, or I can't anticipate, beyond what you would expect,
what the contents of the conversation would be
over the working dinner.
>> The Press: In our conversations last week about Iraq,
I was sort of asking about the al Qaeda element.
I wanted to see if I can engage you a little bit in a more
nuanced sense of what responsibility
does the United States government believe
Prime Minister Maliki has for fomenting some of the violence.
There's a good deal of analysis that his government has been far
more repressive than the United States would prefer in the last
two years, and that some of the Sunni violence is not altogether
driven by al Qaeda; though he labels it as such,
it may be legitimate political resistance to what they perceive
to be either repressive tactics or the manipulation of security
forces and the denial of their political rights
within Iraq itself.
>> Mr. Carney: Well, our position is that it is incumbent
upon the leaders of Iraq, including the Prime Minister and
others representing different parties and different factions,
to pursue resolution of their differences through political
negotiation rather than violence.
It is not an acceptable alternative
to resort to violence.
>> The Press: How would you rate Maliki on it?
>> Mr. Carney: And I would say that we have conversations with
the Prime Minister and other Iraqi leaders about the need
to pursue peaceful political reconciliation.
And throughout its very difficult history in the last
several years, leaders in Iraq have taken that path and have
made that choice, and they need to return to that approach
for the sake of all of Iraq's citizens
and the country's future.
And that is the context of some of the conversations that
our leaders have had with Iraqi leaders over the last several
weeks and months, as you've seen an increase in violence
in the Anbar Province.
And it's why it's so important --
>> The Press: And not all that violence is al Qaeda-driven.
Some of it could be of another --
>> Mr. Carney: Well, I wouldn't analyze the specific violence
from here except to say that obviously al Qaeda
has been driving a great deal of it, if not all of it.
And certainly al Qaeda has a history of,
in Iraq and elsewhere, trying to take advantage of sectarian
differences through violence, to inflame passions
and foster further violence and instability.
And that is certainly I believe what is occurring in Anbar,
in Iraq, and has been for some time now.
So what is positive, in our view,
about this is the steps that Iraqi leaders have taken and
pledged themselves to take a unified approach to the need
to expel al Qaeda from other regions because Iraqi citizens
regardless of their background or their political allegiance
overwhelmingly reject al Qaeda.
So that work is ongoing.
Ed.
>> The Press: Jay, on Iran, I just want to follow.
If the conditions are met that you were talking about
with Major, what safeguards do you have in place for --
when money starts flowing back to the central bank of Iran,
what safeguards will be in place to make sure that money
is not funneled to terror groups by Iran?
>> Mr. Carney: Well, in terms of the nature of the relief
and how it is released and the steps taken,
I would refer you to the Treasury Department.
I think it's important to note, Ed, as a general matter,
rather than in response to that specific question,
that we have a series of concerns about Iranian behavior.
And these negotiations have to do with their nuclear program.
We continue to press on other issues when it relates
to support for Hezbollah or other organizations,
and pursue our national security interests with regards to those
issues as strongly today as we always have and will --
which is to say that we have a specific interest
with our P5-plus-1 partners
in testing whether or not Iran is serious about coming
into compliance with its international obligations,
forsaking its nuclear weapons program,
and that is what we are pursuing.
>> The Press: Second and last topic: Gates book.
Last week, when you were being hit with questions on this,
obviously -- in fairness, the excerpts were being released;
you said you had just gotten a copy of it.
I have a specific question, but I wanted to ask you more
generally -- have you had a chance and others around here
to read the book?
And do you have a fuller reaction now that you've been
able perhaps to see it in context?
>> Mr. Carney: Well, Ed, I confess that I think it will be
a long time before I have a chance to read an 800-page book,
so I have not read it.
I think others have done their best to look at it,
and our reaction to it has not changed.
>> The Press: Okay, specific thing then as a last question.
Secretary Gates in the book and then elaborated on CBS yesterday
that he's charging that he saw a deep passion, he put it,
in the President in terms of -- for military matters.
He said, other than leaks to the media,
the only deep passion he saw was for repealing
"don't ask, don't tell" --
this is Secretary Gates's claim -- and suggested that
there was not a deep passion to actually fulfill
the mission in Afghanistan and win the war.
How do you react to that?
>> Mr. Carney: Well, I think the same way I reacted last week,
which is that the commitment the President has
to our men and women in uniform is profound and deep.
I think that was reflected by Secretary Gates.
And his commitment to the mission that he has asked them
to perform, and which they have performed and are performing
admirably and heroically in Afghanistan,
is passionate and deep.
And that doesn't mean it's not difficult.
That doesn't mean that we haven't encountered setbacks
and challenges in the implementation of that policy.
But the fact of the matter is, since he adopted it and moved
forward and our troops and civilian personnel have been
executing that mission, we have made enormous progress towards
the very clear objectives that the President laid out and which
were very much at the heart and very much for the purpose
of refining a mission and strategy in Afghanistan.
And, first and foremost, the objective was to disrupt,
dismantle, and ultimately to defeat core al Qaeda
in the Af-Pak region.
And that work continues, but significant progress has been
made thanks to the extraordinary service of our men and women
in uniform as well as others.
Chuck.
>> The Press: Jay, you guys just issued a travel warning in Mexico,
not far from where the President is going to be,
about an hour or so drive.
Did that impact at all the President's decision?
Or was there any hesitance about going with the safety concerns,
considering the drug war that's going on down there
and in that particular region of the country?
>> Mr. Carney: Chuck, I have not had a conversation of that
nature, so when it comes to travel advisories I'd refer you
to the State Department.
I know the President looks forward to his trip.
>> The Press: On NSA, can you say how much of what the President
is going to announce is going to need congressional
action and how much of it is going to be stuff
he can do independently?
>> Mr. Carney: I think you can expect that the President will
make decisions about and report on the outcome
of his team's work that reflect, broadly speaking,
the areas that were reviewed by the review group,
reflected in their report, and some of the recommendations,
as I understand it, from what I remember having looked at it,
some of the actions that were recommended there
required legislative or congressional activity
and some of them did not.
So I think it's fair to say that that frame applies
to the approach the President is taking,
but that's as far as I'll go in terms of previewing --
>> The Press: It's possible he could ask Congress to send him
some of this -- some reforms he'll announce that you guys
are independent -- you're doing independently?
>> Mr. Carney: I think it's a fair assumption to make
based on the recommendations that were released publicly
by the review group that some of these reforms and changes
would require congressional action.
But I think it -- I'm saying that it's simply safe
to assume that.
I wouldn't -- that the universe looks like that
as we're moving forward,
but I don't want to anticipate what the breakdown
will be in terms of what the President announces on Friday.
Jon.
>> The Press: Jay, just a follow-up on Iran.
As you know, the sanctions bill the President has threatened
to veto would impose those sanctions six months from now,
which is that period for the interim agreement.
Can you just remind us -- what happens at the end
of that six months?
What does the administration do if Iran has not been able
to come to an agreement, a long-term agreement?
>> Mr. Carney: That's an excellent question,
and I think the answer is reflected in how we explain our
views on potential congressional action now with regards
to sanctions, and that is that further congressional action
and further international action when it came to adding
new sanctions and more sanctions would best wait, in our view,
if and until Iran fails to meet its obligations or fails
to reach a comprehensive resolution with the P5-plus-1.
That is when it could be most effective and would I think
reflect the result of Iran's failure
to make progress on this issue.
So one of the things I've said in the past,
and it applies today when we talk about potential legislation
on sanctions in Congress that would not be triggered until six
months down the road, is that it would have the negative effect
of imposing sanctions now and it would be wholly unnecessary
because obviously if Iran violated the terms of the
agreement or failed to reach a resolution with the P5-plus-1
over the six-month period, Congress, we're confident,
could act very quickly in response to that and pass new
sanctions at that time that could be implemented
very quickly.
>> The Press: I guess another way I'm going to ask is how determined --
>> Mr. Carney: I don't think Iran -- if I could just add --
I don't think Tehran doubts that.
We're very confident Tehran understands that failure
to abide by its commitments in the implementation agreement or
failure to reach comprehensive resolution would result in
action by the United States and by the international community.
And the second part is important,
because one of the reasons not to take action now,
here in the United States through Congress,
is that it could threaten to do harm to the international
consensus that we have built, and that international consensus
is one of the foundations behind the comprehensiveness and
effectiveness of the sanctions regime.
The United States acting alone can only do so much when it
comes to sanctions.
Working in consensus with the international community,
we can have quite an impact.
>> The Press: Under this agreement,
of course the clock starts ticking a week from today --
another way, I guess, of saying what I'm asking is,
how determined is the administration to imposing a new
round of sanctions or taking other measures if Iran fails to
come to a long-term agreement at the end of that six months?
I mean, is there a real hammer at the end of this thing?
If this deal is not done within six months is this
administration going to take strong action against Iran?
>> Mr. Carney: I think the best way to answer that
is to point at past actions.
And the President's seriousness about this matter can be
measured by the fact that he led the effort to build the most
comprehensive and punitive regime in history when it comes
to sanctions, and that that effort has resulted in forcing,
compelling Iran to negotiate
with the international community.
That was the purpose of the sanctions regime;
it remains the purpose of the sanctions regime.
And it's important to note in reporting on this issue that
even the implementation of the Joint Plan of Action and the
modest sanctions relief that comes in stages with
Iranian compliance in no way affects the enforcement
of the existing sanctions regime.
That remains very important and I think that you've seen
that we're serious about that as well.
So I think there can be no doubt about the seriousness with which
the President would approach a decision by Iran to either
not comply with its agreements and its obligations under the
implementation agreement or to walk away from negotiations
with the P5-plus-1.
>> The Press: And that would be more actions --
>> Mr. Carney: I think that we would, as we always have,
retain every option on the table,
and one of those options has been and certainly would
likely be further sanctions action.
>> The Press: Okay, a quick follow-up on Chris Christie
and the HUD IG report.
I know you don't manage that, but what do you say to those
who look at the timing of this?
I mean, here you have this investigation of Christie
just announced kind of kicking the guy while he's down.
Suddenly just as this bridge scandal has erupted,
the headlines out of Washington is:
Federal Investigation Into Sandy Funds.
Suspicious at all?
I mean, any kind of --
>> Mr. Carney: Again, Jon, I would refer you to the IG.
We do not involve ourselves in IG reports by the agencies.
Brianna.
>> The Press: Thanks, Jay.
Are the President's decisions on the NSA reforms that he'll
be outlining on Friday, where is he at in that process?
Are those decisions complete?
>> Mr. Carney: They are near completion.
He is finishing his work and will be doing so
for the next several days in anticipation of speaking
about that work on Friday.
So we're not quite concluded yet in that process,
but coming close.
>> The Press: Any more meetings?
>> Mr. Carney: I have none to preview for you.
I certainly expect that over the course of the next several days
he'll be finalizing his work and the decisions he'll make.
But I don't have any meetings of the nature that you saw
in recent days to predict or preview for you.
>> The Press: Any further word on the venue?
>> Mr. Carney: I believe it's been reported,
and I can confirm that it will take place
at the Department of Justice.
>> The Press: And President Obama's meeting with the King of Spain --
or with the leader of Spain today,
Spain is one of several European countries outraged by reports
that the NSA monitored phone call activities of its citizens,
as well as its leaders.
As President Obama prepares to detail changes on Friday,
what assurances is he giving President Brey?
>> Mr. Carney: The President and other high-level officials
in the administration have maintained regular dialogue with
leaders of those nations where the disclosures
have been an issue, and that has been true
with regards to a number of countries,
including Mexico -- including Spain --
obviously including Mexico as well, and Germany and others.
And those conversations continue and we engage
through normal diplomatic channels on these issues.
I don't have any conversations with the president
of the government of Spain, President Rajoy,
to read out to you or preview.
As you know, the bilateral meeting
is taking place this afternoon.
>> The Press: And just last question on aid to Egypt.
Is the White House pushing for language that would give --
in this omnibus spending bill that would give the President
the tools that would allow him to restore aid to Egypt?
>> Mr. Carney: When it comes to some of the nitty-gritty of the omnibus,
I would have to urge you to wait --
or either take those questions to the Hill
or wait for the progress that has been made thus far
to come to completion.
I just don't have an answer for you on that specific question.
>> The Press: We have talked to some of those sources.
They say that the administration helped
draft the language to do this.
>> Mr. Carney: I'm not aware of that.
I'm not saying one way or the other
because I just don't know.
Mara.
>> The Press: Just to follow up on the NSA,
where does the White House or the President feel the public is
on these issues now?
I mean, they haven't been in the news for a while.
>> Mr. Carney: Look, I think this is an important issue
and I think that,
as the President has said on a number of occasions,
that this is an important debate in which entirely valid
and worthwhile questions have been asked
and are being examined and answered by the administration,
by Congress, and by others.
The public, in the President's view, should hope for,
and he hopes will get, steps from the government that makes
our signals intelligence gathering more transparent
in the programs that represent that effort,
and reforms that give them more confidence --
give members of the public more confidence in the programs
and the fact that they are pursued in a way
that meets the standard the President set,
which is that we do what we should do in order to keep
the American people safe and the country safe
and our allies safe,
not just what we can do
because we have the capacity to do it.
So that is a layman's way of looking at the approach
that the President has taken as he's looked at the various
recommendations and carefully considered the options available
to him when it comes to making changes and making reforms.
>> The Press: But why should intelligence be transparent?
Isn't the whole idea that it shouldn't be transparent?
>> Mr. Carney: Well, it's an excellent question because
obviously there's a balance that has to be achieved here.
Transparent to the extent it can be and as much as possible,
but we are talking about intelligence-gathering and there
are, almost by definition,
aspects of it that have to remain secret
in order to be effective.
But there should be, in the President's view,
steps that we can take to build confidence about the way these
programs are administered, and he looks forward to speaking
about these issues on Friday.
Carol.
>> The Press: I just want to clarify something on Iran.
Is it the White House's position that any action from Congress
would be harmful to the interim agreement even if the President
is successfully able to veto it?
>> Mr. Carney: I mean, that's a series of hypotheticals.
I think that we've made clear that we would veto legislation
if it were to pass, but --
>> The Press: Right, but are you guys saying --
is your argument that even if he could veto something,
that even the act of Congress voting --
>> Mr. Carney: Well, I don't think we take an approach
in opposition to specific legislation on the theory
that just because he can veto it, we shouldn't oppose it.
I think that the point of the matter is,
is that Congress has been a very effective partner
with the administration
in helping build this sanctions regime,
helping enforce it and implement it,
and the President wants to and looks forward to working
with Congress to take further action should it be required in
response to failure by Iran to comply with its obligations
or to reach an agreement -- a comprehensive resolution
in this six-month period.
Our view is that trying to impose new sanctions now,
even if they have a delayed trigger or some other mechanism,
could do harm to the effort that's underway to try
to resolve this conflict between Iran and the international
community peacefully.
And we share -- again, this is not about supporting
or not supporting sanctions.
This President has led an effort to build the most punitive,
comprehensive sanctions regime against Iran in history.
It's merely a question of timing and using Congress's authority
and power here most effectively.
>> The Press: So just to be clear,
so as long as the President can stop sanctions that Congress
would pass from going into effect,
then it's not harmful to the agreement?
>> Mr. Carney: No, I think our point is that passing new
sanctions now is counterproductive.
>> The Press: Are you guys worried that the new sanctions
legislation is gaining enough support in Congress that it
could override the President's -- a presidential veto?
>> Mr. Carney: Again, we remain of the view that it's important
for Congress to reserve action on new sanctions for the
appropriate time if that time arrives.
And we're not gaming this out in the way that you described it.
Our position is our position because we think it has merit.
>> The Press: Isn't that your goal,
to game that out in the way I described it?
>> Mr. Carney: Well, I'm just saying that our position is our
position because our position has merit.
Congress has been an excellent partner in building this
sanctions regime.
Congress, in our view, should hold in abeyance action on
further sanctions pending progress or the lack of progress
in the implementation of the joint plan
or in the negotiations for a comprehensive resolution,
because in that way they can be most effective towards achieving
the goal that we all share, which is to deprive Iran
of a nuclear weapon.
And that's the goal.
And the President takes nothing off the table when it comes
to achieving that goal, but achieving that goal peacefully
or at least attempting to achieve it peacefully
is absolutely the right thing to do.
And one of the arguments in favor of the initial agreement
is that it essentially puts time on the clock by halting progress
on the program and rolling back aspects of it while the
P5-plus-1 tests whether or not Iran is serious about reaching
a comprehensive resolution.
>> The Press: And then, just quickly, on the NSA,
can you describe the thinking behind choosing
to do this speech at the Justice Department,
which you know the President gave a speech at the State
Department and that was intentionally designed
to send the message that the administration wanted to move
away from military conflict and talk more about diplomacy,
and so in choosing the Justice Department
as the venue for this speech,
what should people take away from that?
>> Mr. Carney: Well, I think that we obviously look at a variety
of options when it comes to venues.
I wouldn't read too much into the choice here except
that it's an appropriate choice, given the matters
that the President will be discussing.
Mark.
>> The Press: On Iran, if I could,
there have been a couple of reports in the last few days
assessing the state of the Iranian economy.
There's been some reports about a decline in the inflation rate;
the economy, which contracted by 6 percent in 2012,
may actually grow by 1 or 1.5 percent this year.
And it has been, as I'm sure you know,
an argument of critics of the administration on sanctions
relief that merely extending the offer of sanctions relief
is enough to cause a fairly perceptible shift in the economy
because of expectations that there's more where
that came from.
Are you looking at these numbers?
Do you agree with the contention that there is actually
an improvement in the Iranian economy?
And does it worry you that even if the sanctions relief --
and this plan is, in fact, modest --
that there's sort of a disproportionate effect
on people's feelings and sentiment in Iran
that could lift the pressure on the regime
by a good bit more?
>> Mr. Carney: These are all excellent questions.
I haven't seen in-house or administration analysis
of Iranian economic growth or contraction.
I think as a general fact it's been established
that the Iranian economy
has suffered under the sanctions regime
and that includes the currency.
The test here is not whether Iranian leaders
would be satisfied with 1 percent growth and whether
that would relieve enough pressure on them
for them to decide not to pursue resolution
with the international community.
The question is do they resolve their differences
with the international community?
And if they do it in a transparent, verifiable way,
that would be good for the international community,
for regional stability.
If they do not, as has been the case leading up to this point,
there will be consequences because Iran needs to abide by
its international obligations.
And you're talking about a window here of six months.
And should there not be compliance
with the interim agreement,
should there not be resolution,
then I'm sure that not just the United States but many of our
allies and partners in this effort will judge what actions
are necessary to take because the objective will not
have been achieved, which is to ensure that Iran
does not acquire a nuclear weapon.
But all of this is anticipating a negative outcome --
and that could be what happens.
It is the President's responsibility,
in keeping with the whole purpose of building
the sanctions regime, to test whether or not Iran will reach
an agreement with the international community that's
transparent and verifiable and that will result in Iran coming
into compliance with its international obligations.
If they decide not to, for whatever reason,
that decision will not be met kindly by the United States
or any of our allies and partners in this endeavor.
And what is unique I think about what that populace looks like is
that it is broad because of the steps that President Obama took
in 2009 to make clear that the obstacle to progress on this
issue was not the United States,
it was not U.S. allies, it was Iran.
And we are now where we are because of that regime and its
effectiveness, and we will test whether or not
a resolution is possible.
Olivier.
>> The Press: Jay, staying on Iran,
I just want to be clear about something.
The interim agreement allows for the talks to be extended
by mutual consent.
Are you saying that you guys would drop your opposition
to new sanctions at the six-month mark --
>> Mr. Carney: No, no, no --
>> The Press: -- or is it over the life of the --
I just want to be clear because you mentioned
the six-month mark a couple times --
over the life of the negotiations, right?
>> Mr. Carney: I'm not going to anticipate how these
negotiations play out, they haven't even begun yet.
What I will -- on the six-month piece.
What I will say is that if Iran fails to reach an agreement --
and when that happens is hard to predict if it does happen --
obviously, we'd prefer and our partners prefer
that this is resolved peacefully.
What I was saying and will repeat is that failure
to comply with its obligations will, I think,
be met by a reaction from the United States and our partners.
I'm not predicting that.
I'm simply making the point that when it comes
to congressional action -- as we've said in the past --
passing legislation that would impose new sanctions
would best wait for,
as a matter of timing, a failure by Iran to either comply with
its agreements under the Joint Plan of Action or a failure
to come to resolution with the international community
on the comprehensive agreement.
>> The Press: But it's the second part of that --
obviously, if they violate the interim agreement
then you've got one cause for action. But --
>> Mr. Carney: You're asking me what would constitute a failure?
I think that that obviously will have to wait
for the negotiations.
>> The Press: No, I'm asking for the timetable,
not what would constitute --
>> Mr. Carney: Well, I would point you to the agreement
as you described it.
Mike.
>> The Press: Is there sort of -- on Iran -- a good cop,
bad cop dynamic going on here
with the administration and Congress?
I mean, the President had phone calls, he had meetings,
putting pressure on members of Congress not to go forward
with sanctions, and yet at least 59 of them are signing
on to a sanctions resolution.
Is it useful as a saber to rattle
when you sit down with Iran?
>> Mr. Carney: Look, I think that -- I wouldn't analyze it that way.
I think that our view -- I mean, we're being pretty clear,
I think, in our view that further sanctions legislation
now would potentially result in the opposite of the desired
impact; that it could undermine the existing sanctions regime,
it could undermine the consensus that we've built,
and it could undermine the progress that's been made
through the P5-plus-1 in negotiations with Iran.
Better for Congress, in our view,
to wait to take action until it's necessary,
if it's necessary, because of Iran's failure
to comply if that comes about.
Jared.
>> The Press: Jay, without getting into the content
of the Health and Human Services conference call,
which is still under embargo for another 87 minutes or so --
[laughter]
-- what's the President's reaction to the December report?
Is he happy?
Is he sad?
Is he angry?
>> The Press: Gleeful?
>> Mr. Carney: You can come back to me later in the day.
Thanks very much.
>> The Press: Will you get back to us, though?
>> Mr. Carney: You know my number.