Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Carney: Good afternoon, everyone.
Thanks for being here.
Before I take your questions, I have a statement at the top.
For years, health care costs in America skyrocketed
with brutal consequences for our country.
Escalating costs hurt our economy,
eating into workers' wages and holding back hiring.
They contributed to our deficits
and crowded out crucial investments like education
and maintaining a world-class infrastructure.
And they've taken money directly out of consumers' pockets with
Americans paying far higher health care prices than others
around the world for no better outcomes.
The Affordable Care Act, for the first time in decades,
has helped to stop that trend.
New data released yesterday shows that in 2012 health care
spending as a share of the economy declined,
something that has happened only a handful of times
over the past several decades.
And the years 2009-2012 saw the slowest growth
in U.S. health care expenditures since the government
started collecting this information in the 1960s.
These trends have already begun to pay dividends in the form of
savings for American consumers, lower costs for businesses,
and our rapidly declining deficits.
We have already seen powerful examples of these trends at work
with hospitals and other providers making changes to
their practices to bring down costs following the enactment
of the health care law, prioritizing results
over the amount of treatment a patient receives.
As we bring millions more into the health insurance system,
we will be working to make sure these encouraging trends
continue to bring down health care costs for our economy,
for our businesses and for consumers.
After you absorb that, you can fire away.
Jim.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
Today's vote in the Senate advancing the jobless bill,
the President called it an "important step."
But some of the Republicans who voted for it still insist
that there should be some concessions,
whether they're reforms to the U.S. system
or ways to pay for the $6 billion-plus cost.
Yesterday, Gene Sperling, from the podium,
said that that was unnecessary, but given the numbers of the
vote and the necessary concessions that might be
required, does the President now think that there must be some
kind of pay-for, some way to accommodate those Republicans
to win a vote?
Mr. Carney: The President believes that this is an emergency situation
for 1.3 million Americans and their families.
Their benefits were cut off last week.
As Gene said yesterday, they expected a check this week
and haven't gotten it, and won't unless Congress acts.
Congress should follow the admirable lead of the Senate --
the House should -- and pass a bipartisan bill
that extends emergency insurance to the unemployed
for three months.
And as we said yesterday, Gene and I, once that happens --
to deal with that situation for those Americans
and their families -- we and Congress can continue
to talk about how to move forward
beyond that three-month period.
Think about the fact that, I think Gene said yesterday,
14 out of the last 17 times we have extended emergency
unemployment insurance benefits, they have been unpaid for
because this extension was viewed as an emergency.
That happened under Democratic Congresses and White Houses
and under Republican Congresses and White Houses.
It happened five times under the previous administration each
time when the unemployment rate was lower than it is today,
and each time when the long-term unemployment rate
was significantly lower than it is today.
And when it happened towards the end
of the previous administration, with bipartisan support,
our deficits were climbing rapidly.
Under President Obama, our deficits have been cut in half;
they are coming down at a rate faster
than we've seen since World War II.
I would also point you to the fact that yesterday there was
a great deal of skepticism in this room, understandably,
that today's vote would succeed.
Last month you couldn't find a Republican lawmaker,
until Senator Heller came forward,
who would go on the record supporting extension of
unemployment insurance benefits.
The Press: But it only succeeded because some of those
Republican senators believed
that they could still get these --
Mr. Carney: And they passed a bill that extends unemployment insurance.
They voted on cloture, and six supported it,
that extends -- that would extend, if passed,
emergency unemployment insurance benefits for three months
without a so-called pay-for.
That's what they voted to do.
There's been bipartisan action in the Senate.
We hope to see further bipartisan action in the Senate,
and we hope the House will follow suit.
And I understand that as there often is,
given Congress's track record, that there's skepticism
and doubt about the capacity for Republicans to join Democrats,
or Democrats to join Republicans to do the right thing
by the American people and by the American economy.
But they can and they have.
They just did when they passed not a grand bargain,
but a significant budget deal.
And they've done it again today in the Senate.
And we -- as the President noted earlier today,
it's not a huge amount or a huge accomplishment,
but it's reason to hope.
And I think the American people are looking to Washington in
this New Year to shed its habit of inaction and obstruction,
and instead to embrace common-sense solutions that help
the economy, help the middle class, continue this recovery.
And that's what this would do.
The Press: So would you at this point be willing to issue
a veto threat to anything that contains --
Mr. Carney: Here's what I won't do,
is speculate about things that don't exist,
because yesterday the informed conventional wisdom
said that this would not happen today, and it happened.
Yesterday, I think there were two Republicans on the record
who said they would support -- they would vote "yes" today.
I think we ended up with six.
Again, six weeks ago, five weeks ago there wasn't --
when the President was saying several times a week
that we needed to do this and insisted on this,
I think most of you were noting to us
that there wasn't any Republican support.
So we don't share the conviction that this can't happen.
We share the profound belief that it ought to and it will.
So we're going to press forward with this.
We commend the Senate on the action it took today.
And we need to get these benefits in the hands
of the American people because, as the President said,
this isn't just about helping these Americans,
these 1.3 Americans and their families.
This is, as independent economists have said again
and again and again, a boon for the economy.
This is a direct infusion.
I mean, when you talk about *** for your buck,
this is a direct infusion into the economy,
and helps -- economic growth helps job creation,
not just helps these individuals as they look for work,
but has a broader macro effect.
And the failure to extend them has the commensurate negative
impact on the economy and job creation.
And that's, if you can dispassionately look at it only
from a macro level as opposed to imagining what life is like in
those households where a parent has been looking for work
and has been relying to put food on the table on this assistance.
There's a long tradition, bipartisan tradition
throughout many, many years
and many administrations and Congresses
of extending these benefits when economic conditions
demand that we do it.
And we should do it again.
The Press: Quick question on immigration.
Some Democrats even in the House are suggesting that one way
to get this overhaul through the House would be to focus
on giving immigrants who are here illegally legal status,
and not go to the next step which is providing
a path to citizenship, and deal with that perhaps later.
Is that a step that the President would support?
Would that be considered?
Mr. Carney: The President's views have been clear,
and they have not changed.
This is a comprehensive problem
that needs a comprehensive solution.
The only way to advance this is to advance it all,
and that includes enhanced border security;
it includes measures to hold businesses accountable
so that everybody plays by the same set of rules;
it includes measures to deal with and provide a path
to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented people here;
and it includes the measures we need to take to enhance our
legal immigration system so that those who come here
to get educated stay here to create businesses.
So how the House gets there is obviously up to the House
and House leadership.
But in the end, we need comprehensive
immigration reform.
The President put forward principles;
he did not expect to get everything that he wanted
in terms of the line-by-line bill as he would write it,
but what the Senate passed in a bipartisan way adheres
to those principles.
And that reflects this broad bipartisan consensus
across the country.
This is a remarkable thing.
You know -- you've covered Washington for some time.
You don't get issues as significant as this very often
where this is this kind of coalition of Republicans
and Democrats, of business and labor, evangelicals.
This is an opportunity that should be seized,
and if it is seized, will do great benefit --
bring great benefit to our economy and our businesses,
which is, again, the focus of the President
and of so many members of both parties here in Washington.
Jeff.
The Press: Jay, on a completely different subject.
Mr. Carney: Okay.
The Press: What does the President think
about Dennis Rodman's trip to North Korea?
Mr. Carney: I have not discussed that with him,
but I can tell you a couple of things.
Mr. Rodman is on a private trip.
And our views about North Korea
and its failure to meet its obligations have not changed.
And our views about Kenneth Bae have not changed.
So I heard about --
I did not see --
some of the comments that Mr. Rodman made,
but I'm not going to dignify that outburst with a response.
I'm simply going to say that we remain gravely concerned
about Kenneth Bae's health and continue to urge DPRK
authorities to grant his amnesty and immediate release
on humanitarian grounds.
The Press: Was there any effort by the White House
or the State Department to discourage Rodman
from doing this trip?
Mr. Carney: This is travel that's private by nature,
and we do not vet private travel to North Korea.
We have not been contacted by Mr. Rodman about this trip
or his prior trip, and we do not --
the U.S. government does not vet
U.S. citizens' private travel to North Korea.
The Press: Is there any good that can come from something like this?
Mr. Carney: Well, look, sports exchanges can be valuable.
Sports diplomacy can be valuable.
And it's something that we pursue in many places
around the world, including through direct support.
But this is a private trip.
And our focus, when it comes to North Korea,
is on sharpening the choice that that regime faces between
further isolation, further economic deprivation
because of its insistence upon using its resources
to fund its military program and fund its nuclear ambitions,
or a decision to come in line with its international
obligations and taking advantage of the opportunity to rejoin
the community of nations,
to ease that and potentially end that isolation.
That's the very clear choice that the DPRK faces.
The Press: And just one other topic as well.
Senator Murkowski today gave a speech calling for changing
U.S. laws about the exportation of crude oil,
which is a big issue for lots of people in the energy industry,
as the U.S. energy situation changes.
What is the White House's thinking about that?
Mr. Carney: I didn't get a chance to review those.
I saw that there was a story about that,
but I don't have anything for you on that.
You might try the Department of Energy.
Let me move up and back.
Chris.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a stay
on same-sex marriages in Utah.
As the litigation that brought them there proceeds through
the courts, did the President express any disappointment
with that decision?
Mr. Carney: We have no comment on the specifics of this case,
because the United States government
is not a party to this litigation.
But speaking broadly, as you know,
the President's views on marriage equality
are well established.
He believes that loving, committed gay and lesbian
couples that want to get married and have access
to the full benefits, protections
and obligations that marriage brings
should be able to do so.
He has also long opposed divisive and discriminatory
efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.
And he believes strongly that protections should not be taken
away from committed gay and lesbian couples who want
to take care of their families.
So, again, I can't -- we're not party to this case.
For the sort of questions of legal nature about it,
you might try the Department of Justice.
But on the broader issues here,
the President has been very clear.
The Press: The thing I want to ask you, though,
is that there is a question about whether the federal
government will recognize the marriages that were
already performed in that state as legally valid.
Are there any conversations taking place
between the White House and DOJ about that?
Mr. Carney: I would refer you to the Department of Justice.
I'm not -- again, this is a matter that's in litigation now.
We're not a party to the litigation.
The views of the President are well known.
And when it comes to questions like that,
I think the Justice Department is the best place to ask them.
Jon.
The Press: The Speaker of the House says that a month ago
he told the President that any extension of unemployment
benefits would have to be paid for and have to include measures
to help people get back to work.
That was a month ago.
That was before this emergency situation
where they have expired.
Did the President in any way act on that or initiate any
discussions about coming up with a plan that would be acceptable
to House Republicans?
Mr. Carney: I thank you for the question, Jon.
As a rule, we don't read out conversations between
congressional leaders, the Speaker and the Chief of Staff,
which is the case here.
So I'm not going to get into greater detail about that.
I can tell you that our view is clear, as I just expressed,
which is that there is a bipartisan bill that has cleared
a significant hurdle in the Senate that extends these
benefits, these emergency benefits,
for three months to make these families, these Americans,
these 1.3 million Americans and their families whole
as they look for work.
And we are absolutely of the mind that the House
ought to follow suit.
They ought to take care of this.
And we can then continue to have conversations about how we move
forward beyond the three months, which is what we've been saying
for quite some time and what we said yesterday, again,
when I think the consensus view was that this vote would fail
this morning.
So we believe there's some momentum here and that there
ought to be a willingness, a bipartisan willingness by
members of both parties in both houses to do what they've done
before when the unemployment rate was lower and when the
long-term unemployment rate was significantly lower.
It can't have been the right thing then
and the wrong thing now.
And if the argument is solely a matter of fiscal probity,
why was, when deficits were climbing in 2008 exponentially,
it was the right thing then, but in a period of steep decline
in our deficits it's the wrong thing now.
So the premise is flawed.
But the fact is the Senate took an important step with
bipartisan support today and we believe that the House
ought to follow suit.
The Press: But, Jay, as you know,
it passed today with the votes of Republicans who said that
they would only support final passage if it is paid for.
So the question is -- it's really a direct one here --
is are you -- is the White House opposed to paying
for the extension of these unemployment benefits
with cuts to other programs?
Mr. Carney: The White House believes that we ought to do this
the way we've done it 14 out of the last 17 times.
The Press: So the answer is, yes, then you're opposed to doing it
in a way that is paid for with cuts --
Mr. Carney: Yes. We believe that Congress ought to act
on this short-term extension of these emergency benefits
right away so that those benefits begin flowing again
to these families who, by the way,
in addition to the other hardships they face
in many parts of the country, are contemplating
how they pay their heating bills.
Louisville, Kentucky, before I walked out here today,
was seven degrees Fahrenheit -- seven degrees.
That's what it was here this morning.
If you didn't get a check this week,
or you know you're not getting one this week,
and you know you've got a heating bill coming,
you might be wondering how you're going to pay it.
The Press: So there's no negotiating with the Republicans on this point?
Mr. Carney: Let me just -- all I would tell you is that
yesterday the same questions were asked on the premise that
this would fail in the Senate.
It has not failed; in fact, it picked up Republican support.
So we are absolutely unwilling to concede that there is not
support for doing what Congress has done in the past.
Yes.
The Press: You talk about what the House should do,
so is there some reason to doubt that it will do it?
Mr. Carney: It wouldn't be interesting if that weren't the case, Bill.
The Press: Why not admit that if you really want this to happen,
you're willing to talk to them about alternative plans?
Mr. Carney: Bill, I can only repeat what I've said in the past --
in the very recent past --
which is that Congress has done this before many, many times.
The previous President, a Republican, signed it into law,
unpaid for many times, bills that had bipartisan support,
bills that were passed by Congress when the unemployment
rate was lower and when the long-term unemployment rate
was significantly lower.
So again, the question you ought to be asking is
why was it the right thing to do --
The Press: Will you let it fail?
Mr. Carney: But, Bill, that premise is the same
you would have asked yesterday on the supposition
that it was going to fail today, and instead, it picked up votes.
And what we have seen steadily since December,
and what we saw this weekend on the Sunday shows,
and what we saw yesterday and what we saw today is that more
and more Republicans are supporting, publicly,
the idea that we need to do this in the way that we've done it
before, which is to set aside ideology and recognize that this
is the right thing to do for these families and the right
thing to do for our economy.
It's not that complicated.
So hopefully that's what will happen.
The Press: If it doesn't?
Mr. Carney: Well, that's the same question you could have
asked yesterday -- "Jay, it's not going to pass tomorrow
so what do you do then?"
So you're suggesting something with certitude
that you can't possibly know.
And, in fact, I think recent history suggests --
The Press: And so are you.
Mr. Carney: I would say that we have the momentum when it
comes to the building consensus that this is something that
ought to be done.
The Press: One more thing.
On the health care costs, declining health care costs,
aren't you giving the ACA more credit than it's due?
Health care costs have been declining between 2009 and 2012,
at a time when all consumer spending has declined.
So by piggybacking the ACA onto it,
aren't you giving it more credit than it deserves?
Mr. Carney: What I can tell you is that you can disagree
about the scale of impact of the ACA on the continued slowdown in
health care costs, but according to a range of experts from the
Congressional Budget Office to leading health economists,
the slowdown does go beyond the recession.
I would remind you that we are now obviously in 2014,
and the recession, as a technical matter,
is something that ended sometime ago.
The economy has been growing and creating jobs.
I would also remind you that a number of skeptics,
including the aforementioned Speaker of the House,
said in August of 2010, "Health care costs will skyrocket next
year thanks to Obamacare."
I think he missed on that prediction.
Paul Ryan: "Unless repealed, this law will exacerbate the
spiraling cost of health care."
That was in January of 2011.
The opposite happened.
The opposite happened.
And it reminds me -- Bill, it's good to do this because you
covered it, too -- remember 1993, the Clinton budget?
Remember?
And some of these members are still in the House and the
Senate -- profoundly confident predictions that if this budget
were to pass, we would -- the country would go into recession,
job growth would be decimated, terrible things would happen,
and instead, we saw the longest sustained period of economic
growth and job creation in half a century.
So I think we're a little bit better
about the prediction business.
Ed.
The Press: Jay, there have been some reports in talking
about the economy that the President may have some new
proposals this week, specifically the Promise Zones
that have been talked about before.
Whether you call it -- or confirm it now,
the idea that he has some tax incentives and some other things
to help areas of the country that have been historically
dealing with poverty, will he have something to say this week
on that, and on the anniversary of the War on Poverty?
Mr. Carney: I don't have any scheduling announcements to make.
I think the program that you cited has been discussed
in the past.
It's something that we think is a significant help economically,
and it's something this President supports.
But I don't have any scheduling announcements with regards to
the President or previews of policy proposals
he may make or remake.
The Press: When the President today in talking about
the unemployment benefit issue acknowledged,
as Gene Sperling did yesterday at the podium,
that long-term unemployment is still
a big problem in this country,
since he's now been in office for five years,
will he acknowledge that some of that is his responsibility?
It's not just policies from the Bush administration,
but he's now had five years.
Does he bear some responsibility for long-term unemployment?
Mr. Carney: The President believes
that everyone who is sent to Washington
by their representatives bears responsibility for taking action
to help the economy and help the American people.
And that's why economic growth, job creation,
middle-class security have been the cornerstones of his domestic
policy since the day he was sworn into office.
The problem that we've seen with both the reduction in mobility,
economic mobility has been one that's been obviously developing
for a number of years and decades.
When it comes to -- and he talked about that in his speech
here in Washington at the Center for American Progress,
so the event sponsored by CAP.
And when it comes to long-term unemployment,
this is obviously a situation that has been developing for
some time, and it was gravely exacerbated by the worst
recession since the Great Depression.
And the fact that it is a continuing problem and a problem
that calls out for creative solutions only reinforces what
the President has said about the need to take action,
and the need to do things legislatively and through other
means that help Americans out there who have been looking for
work for too long.
And you've heard the President talk about it a lot because it's
very much on his mind.
The Press: When you talk about the millions of jobs that
have been created and some of the recovery that we've seen
under the President you certainly take credit for that,
that his policies have worked in some ways.
Will you also take responsibility that when you
have a record number of people on food stamps; when you've got,
as he says and Gene Sperling said yesterday,
this long-term unemployment problem,
some of his policies have not worked.
Mr. Carney: Well, I'm not sure that's what he said.
He said that long-term unemployment continues to be a
persistent problem that we need to address.
And we look forward to collaboration and cooperation
from Congress on measures that will help the long-term
unemployed, that will help other unemployed Americans strengthen
the middle class, help our economy grow.
And the President has put forward a host of proposals that
are of the nature that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan
support, including his proposal to combine a simplification and
reduction in the corporate tax rate as part of a package of
investments that would help build our infrastructure and put
people back to work.
So this President is very eager to have conversations with
members of Congress about what we can do to further the
economic expansion, further the job creation that we've seen.
Because there's no question -- given that we started this
enterprise here, the President did,
when we were hemorrhaging jobs at 800,000 per month,
and that job loss was sustained and dramatic -- the work is not
yet finished, not even close to finished,
which is why it's the President's primary
preoccupation.
Tamara.
Welcome.
The Press: Thank you.
So it's not entirely unprecedented, though,
to pay for unemployment extension.
You said 14 out of 17, so that leaves three;
I think at least one of those times was under this presidency
when the unemployment rate was higher.
So does this -- it seems like both sides have something to say
here, and that -- is there a way out?
Mr. Carney: We'll take the 14 out of 17 as opposed to the 3
out of 17 in terms of the preponderance of evidence.
But I would simply argue that you have a situation where last
week 1.3 million Americans and their families were cut off.
You have areas of the country where the unemployment rate
is significantly higher than the national rate of 7 percent.
You have families who, in many cases,
are in very desperate circumstances in terms of
the prospect of trying to do without that assistance
as the individuals or the primary breadwinner
in the family searches for work.
And remember, as Gene said yesterday,
this assistance comes with the requirement
that you're looking for work.
So we're talking about a proposal that extends these
benefits for three months -- not a year -- three months.
And Congress ought to do what it has done the disproportionate
percentage of the time in the past,
including under Republican Congresses and Republican
Presidents, and extend these benefits so that these families
can live without some of the fear that they face during
a time of economic hardship and thereby create the time here
in Washington for further discussions about how to move
forward beyond the three months.
It doesn't seem, given the bipartisan nature of these kinds
of efforts in the past, given the pro-growth nature of
the extension of these kinds of benefits and pro-job creation
nature of it, it doesn't seem like it should be a huge
ideological disagreement.
In fact, what we've seen over the past several days
is that it's not.
And when you hear what Senator Heller says and what other
Republicans have said, including some Republicans not in Congress
but in the think-tank world, there is a positive economic
reason to do this.
There is obviously the moral reason to do this,
because we should be helping these Americans
as they search for work.
And that has held true in the past
and it ought to hold true now.
And we take great heart in the fact that what was largely
silence from one side of the aisle in December on this issue
has steadily grown when it comes to support
for moving forward on this.
So what we think is that the House ought to do what --
follow the Senate's lead.
The Senate ought to finish the work of passing this.
The House ought to pass it.
And then we can move forward with discussions
about how to move beyond the three-month period
that this extension would cover.
The Press: So is the hope that the Speaker just doesn't
really mean what he has been saying for a month?
Mr. Carney: Again, I would simply say that, in the past,
including under President George W. Bush,
these benefits have been extended more often than not,
considerably more often than not without pay-fors because
of the emergency nature of the assistance and the economic
benefit of the assistance at a macro level.
And what the bipartisan bill that has been
moving through the Senate represents is a compromise,
a three-month extension, not a year.
And if Congress acts on that, as it should right away,
then we can continue discussions about how to move forward.
That's the economically sensible thing to do.
It's the centrist thing to do.
It's certainly -- extending these benefits is not
a disservice to the families who are counting on them
and to the individuals who are looking for work.
So we remain hopeful that Congress will take action.
The Press: Can you say which lawmakers the President talked to
last night lobbying for this bill?
Mr. Carney: I can only tell you that the President has been in contact
with lawmakers on this issue,
but I'm not going to itemize a list.
The Press: And can I just jump back to the Murkowski question earlier?
One of the things she asked for specifically was to lift
the ban on crude oil exports.
It's not necessarily a new issue.
Is the President --
Mr. Carney: I certainly don't believe our position
on this has changed, but I saw the headline.
I just don't have anything more on it for you.
Energy might have something for you.
But I just, before I came out here, didn't look into it.
Peter.
The Press: Jay, the House has passed dozens of bills to create
jobs and for skills training for the long-term unemployed,
including the SKILLS Act dating back
to I think March of last year.
They are held up in the Senate right now.
What's wrong with those bills presently out there,
pushed by House Republicans admittedly,
that the President wouldn't be supporting them as a means
to try to help accommodate these people?
Mr. Carney: Well, you would have to be more specific than those bills.
The Press: The SKILLS Act, specifically.
Mr. Carney: I think a number of these bills have been scored
as terms of their job creation and their cost.
Obviously, what needs to happen is for a bill to move through
both houses of Congress in a bipartisan way.
I understand in the House --
I understand in the House you can pass something
with purely Republican support and check it off your list
as having done something.
But in the Senate, because of the circumstances there
and the rules there, you need what we saw today,
which was bipartisan action.
And the President has put forward a series of proposals
that represent what has traditionally been a bipartisan
approach to job creation and economic investment
and development.
Building our infrastructure is hardly a pursuit that Democrats
have engaged in alone over the years.
And making a more competitive and more fair corporate tax code
is not something you'd normally associate with Democrats alone.
So this is just one idea that we've put forward and Gene
repeated again over the weekend and this week
that we ought to be able to move on, like,
comprehensive immigration reform.
This is not some ideological pursuit.
It has the support of evangelicals.
It has the support of big business and small business.
It has the support of labor.
It has the support of Republicans across the country.
It has the support of Republicans on Capitol Hill.
So let's do it.
The Press: So why won't this hold the same fate
as immigration reform, given the intransigence?
Mr. Carney: We believe immigration reform is going to pass.
It's going to pass.
And it's up to the House to decide when,
but it's going to happen.
The Press: Just for better understanding,
Katherine Hackett was the woman who spoke before the President
today, and there was a group of those who have been impacted
by the cessation of their long-term unemployment benefits.
Who pays in situations like that for those individuals to come to
the White House, just curious?
Mr. Carney: I'll have to get that.
I don't have any background on the individuals.
The Press: Then, if I can, specific to the weather that you
addressed earlier today -- in Louisville, seven degrees here,
a record cold, the coldest in two decades
in large parts of America.
Can you give us a sense, given the breadth of this as a real
issue, what the President has been doing or what contacts he
has had today in terms of emergency management?
Mr. Carney: Well, the President is certainly aware of
the dramatic weather that parts of the country
have been experiencing.
And there have been no requests thus far for federal assistance.
But FEMA is monitoring the weather and in contact with
state, local and tribal partners through its regional offices.
We urge residents to be safe and to follow directions
from local officials.
If local officials say stay off the roads,
avoid travel unless it's an emergency.
Depending on the state, depending on the region,
local officials have the best insight when it comes to what's
the right thing and the safe thing to do.
We are confident that the team at FEMA is monitoring this
closely and if there is an issue that requires federal
assistance, they'll be on top of it.
The Press: After 43 years, the activists behind the theft
of an FBI office that exposed domestic spying have now come
forward, and the FBI spokesperson told NBC News that
a number of events during that era, including that burglary,
contributed to changes in how the FBI identified and addressed
domestic security threats, leading to reforms of the FBI's
intelligence policies and practices.
Do you see any relationship between what happened then and
the situation with Edward Snowden now,
that the two somehow correlate and the impact is the same,
that he should somehow be treated the same way those
individuals were?
Mr. Carney: Our view of Mr. Snowden has not changed.
He's been charged with felonies for the illegal leaking of
classified information.
And our intelligence community experts are better able to
address this, but there are dramatic negative impacts to
that kind of leaking when it comes to our national security.
The Press: Are there any positive impacts?
Anything of value?
Mr. Carney: I would simply -- the President was asked a
version of this at his press conference at the end of the
year and he said it better than I could in terms
of how he views these matters.
And you know from what he said then and what he's said in the
past that he takes these issues very seriously.
He has instituted a review about the NSA procedures and broader
issues that encompasses both the review group
as well as other elements.
And as we've said, you'll be hearing from the President
on these issues before the State of the Union.
The Press: The President brought the NSA advisory report
to Hawaii with him on vacation.
Can you tell us a little bit about how much time he spent
reviewing that on his vacation, and maybe tell us a little bit
whether he has -- has he come to sort of a decision
at this point, or close to a final decision?
Mr. Carney: He and his team are continuing to review the
review group's report, including sorting through which
recommendations we will implement
and which might require further study,
as well as those that we might not pursue.
As I mentioned earlier and as we said in December,
there are other pieces of the review beyond the review group's
work, which the group presented to the President in December.
We expect that -- in fact, we know with confidence
that the President will have made some decisions
about which recommendations he wants to implement,
which require further review, and which we will not implement,
and you will hear him discuss those issues later this month.
The Press: Can you talk a little bit, though,
about in terms of, for example, the last couple weeks in Hawaii,
the last couple days -- was he spending time each day on this
issue, the President himself and/or people around his --
Mr. Carney: I didn't travel with him to Hawaii,
but I can say with confidence that this is an issue that he
takes very seriously and he consumes vast quantities of
briefing materials, and I'm sure he gave and has given the report
from the review group a great deal of consideration.
Yes, Sam.
I'm sorry -- Brianna.
My peripheral is fading with my age.
Sorry.
The Press: It's the beard.
Mr. Carney: It's the beard that's growing up and blocking my view.
[laughter]
The Press: You're not going to blame the beard.
[laughter]
Mr. Carney: I might.
I mean, look what it's done to you.
[laughter]
The Press: Thank you.
The Press: Oooh --
Mr. Carney: Sorry.
I say that out of affection.
[laughter]
Go ahead.
The Press: On unemployment benefits,
you're citing momentum on that, which seems to be
based on the fact that the White House expected
the preliminary vote to fail.
Mr. Carney: We didn't; you guys did.
The Press: Well, some Senate Republicans were indicating they
had the votes as early as yesterday afternoon, and then --
Mr. Carney: Really?
I had one of your colleagues tell me an hour before it passed
right here in this room that we were three votes short --
two votes short.
The Press: We reported that Senate Republicans
were indicating -- some Senate Republicans --
Mr. Carney: Well, I think it was close, Brianna.
I think there were exactly zero Republicans
on the record for this.
Then there was Senator Heller, who, admirably,
co-sponsored this legislation, and then we ended up with six.
It's what makes these things worth covering,
is that none of this was baked in the cake.
The Press: Yes, it was going to be close, but as Jon noted,
the Republicans who voted for it,
they want conditions that obviously the White House
isn't advocating.
And this was a preliminary vote.
This was a vote to begin debate.
So is this really momentum in terms of a clean extension of
long-term unemployment benefits?
Mr. Carney: Yes.
The Press: Why is that, if that's not what Republicans
who voted, that's not what they want?
Mr. Carney: Because the operating rhetoric of the moment
in December when this was an issue the President was pushing
was that Republicans wouldn't support extension,
they weren't necessary -- the benefits weren't necessary
and, in fact, according to one top Republican,
they were a disservice to the recipients of the benefits.
So I think by anybody's analysis,
that view has evolved in a positive direction.
I think if you look at what senators who were out publicly
over the weekend said about this,
there has been significant and commendable movement in
the direction of moving forward with extending these emergency
benefits to the 1.3 Americans and their families --
I keep saying 1.3 --
I mean 1.3 million Americans and their families
who had this assistance cut off last week.
The Press: So the debate has moved from the need
for the benefits to the need for a pay-for.
You think you can push them beyond that,
including House Republicans, to a clean extension?
Mr. Carney: I think that there is growing bipartisan
support for extending emergency insurance to the unemployed.
I think that it's irrefutable that the direction of this
debate has moved in a favorable way since December.
I acknowledge that this is hard; unfortunately,
these kinds of things tend to be hard.
But we are hopeful, and we believe and know
that it's the right thing to do.
And we're not -- we don't have a corner on that faith and wisdom.
We know it's shared by Americans across the country and by
economists and by Republicans and Democrats alike.
So we're just going to keep pressing for Congress to do the
right thing, which is extend these benefits temporarily,
three months.
And then, as we've said quite clearly,
we should then have conversations about how to move
forward, which we're absolutely willing and interested in doing.
The Press: You cite this as an emergency, the time is now.
We know that the checks are not arriving, obviously.
But the issue of a pay-for, it's a traditional request
of Republicans.
It's not something you were blindsided by.
I guess I'm asking because the perception is that this
is a political fight.
So if it's not politics and the checks aren't arriving right
now, then why not try to find that middle ground on a pay-for,
middle ground that has been found before?
Mr. Carney: Well, on a relatively rare number of occasions.
What I would say is that the ideological fight,
if it were to be one, is around horse trading over what are
essentially emergency benefits for families in need --
individuals, 1.3 million of them,
who are looking for work actively,
and who have been suffering under circumstances of long-term
unemployment that are unique in our history,
and certainly our more recent history.
So this, again, is a short-term extension.
And we have made clear that we would look forward to
conversations about how to move forward after this three-month
extension is passed.
Again, this is -- I think those Americans who are watching these
kinds of debates, and especially those who are directly affected
by what Congress will decide to do here,
are only asking Washington to work for them
and not against them.
And this is a case where those who support this extension
aren't asking for anything extraordinary, right?
We've just cited how many times this has been done in the past
when the circumstances were not as dire for families like these.
So we ought to do that.
And there's an opportunity here I think that we saw at the end
of the year in December with success that Senator Murray and
Chairman Ryan had in working out a budget deal to return
to normal order a little bit, to obviously not end all division
that we have here or -- there's going to be areas no matter what
where we disagree and we can't move forward legislatively.
But this is the kind of thing where history shows us we should
be able to move forward, and there are a whole host of areas
where that opportunity exists.
And it doesn't make you less of a Republican or less of
a Democrat to find some common ground here and move forward.
And this President has demonstrated his willingness
to do that again and again, and he will continue to do so.
The Press: Last question, just on -- to follow on Dennis Rodman.
I don't know if you've seen the interview --
Mr. Carney: I haven't, no.
I heard about it, yes.
The Press: Okay.
It was rather testy.
He suggested that there's a valid reason for North --
for the North Korean government to be holding Kenneth Bae --
I assume you know that he suggested that.
Is it hurtful to the U.S.'s position
on North Korea and also relations with,
for instance, South Korea, when you have someone who has
a really rare access, who's freelancing
with these kind of opinions?
Mr. Carney: Well, again, we don't --
the United States government does not control or vet
the private travel of private citizens to the DPRK.
The interview that you mentioned --
I won't sort of dignify what I understand was an outburst
with a response.
The Press: But is it hurtful?
Mr. Carney: Look, our position on Mr. Bae is what it was,
and we want to see him released.
We remain gravely concerned about his health and continue to
urge North Korean authorities to grant him amnesty
and immediate release.
And that pursuit continues regardless
of what's happening with this visit.
The Press: But you won't say it's hurtful when this is --
I mean, this is the exposure to America that North Korea has.
Mr. Carney: I don't know whether I could assess
whether it's hurtful or not.
What I know is what our position is.
And I'm not going to address the assertions made in the interview
because they don't merit one, a response or a comment.
We believe he needs to be released and granted amnesty.
Jon.
The Press: Two things, Jay.
One, to follow up on Brianna, is there any concern on the White
House's part that Dennis Rodman could now be or in the future be
in violation of the Logan Act, preventing private citizens
from undermining U.S. foreign policy
by interacting with foreign leaders?
Mr. Carney: I haven't heard that discussed.
The Press: And then, the second thing is on unemployment insurance.
Is there a metric that the White House would use for when
emergency unemployment insurance is no longer necessary
in terms of unemployment --
Mr. Carney: That's a great question.
There's a mechanism built into these benefits, as Gene,
far more of an expert than I, discussed yesterday,
whereby already benefits are reduced the number of weeks
that they're extended or reduced
depending on the unemployment rate.
And that exists already.
There are only some areas of the country where the full benefits,
the full extension of benefits are delivered
because of the unemployment rate.
And as the unemployment rate comes down,
weeks are lopped off that time period.
So there is an already existing mechanism within the program
that accounts for a reduction in the unemployment rate.
Even though we've made substantial progress
in bringing down the unemployment rate
from its terrible highs from the Great Recession,
we still have a lot of work to do.
Seven percent is no one's idea here
of an acceptable unemployment rate.
So that work continues.
And while we have Americans out there actively seeking jobs who
depend on this assistance, we need to do the right thing
here in Washington to ensure that it continues.
Dan.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
So we now have these drones and the Hellfire missiles
flowing to Iraq.
Are there concerns about how the missiles in particular will be
used given the consideration about civilian casualties
in some of these areas?
You're talking about Fallujah, Ramadi.
And also, what about the suggestion we've heard by some
observers that just sending more weapons will just encourage
Prime Minister Maliki to believe that a political solution
is not the way to go?
Mr. Carney: Well, our policy is certainly not to simply send more weapons.
We continue to follow events in Iraq's Anbar Province
very closely as the situation remains, as you know, volatile.
Iraqi tribes, with support from Iraqi security forces,
continue successfully to confront Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant fighters in and around the city of Ramadi,
and to prepare to confront extremists
in the city of Fallujah.
We remain in close contact, as I said yesterday,
from here in Washington and from our embassy in Baghdad with all
of Iraq's political leaders at the highest levels about how we
can continue to support their efforts to defeat our common
enemy and about how there needs to be a united effort,
a unified effort to combat the ISIL
and the threat it poses in Anbar.
And as you may know, Vice President Biden spoke
with Prime Minister Maliki
and Speaker al-Nujaifi yesterday
to press for that unified effort.
And we have made clear --
and we believe that Iraq's leaders agree --
that the only way to fight ISIL is through strong
coordination between the government of Iraq and local
Sunni tribes and officials, who are essential in this effort.
Because I think there's no question,
despite the divisions in Iraq, that the vast,
vast majority of Iraq's citizens reject the extremism
that al Qaeda represents.
And that's why we're having the conversations at very high
levels with Iraq's leaders about the need to work together
to combat ISIL.
And we were pleased to see Prime Minister Maliki and Speaker
al-Nujaifi call on the residents of Anbar to rise up against
extremist elements, as well as their call on the Iraqi Army
to operate in a professional manner with the backing
of the local population.
This, as you know, is very key.
We were also encouraged by Grand Ayatollah Sistani's comments
that internally displaced Anbaris --
residents of Anbar Province --
are welcome in Najaf and Karbala,
which is Iraq's Shia heartland, and that they would be received
by a committee established to meet their needs.
And that kind of approach --
unified, in a spirit of reconciliation
and cooperation --
is one that we believe is essential to the effort here.
The Press: Since the Prime Minister was here in November,
is President Obama satisfied with the degree of cooperation
with what he's seen in terms of Maliki addressing the sectarian
issues and the political reconciliation issues?
Mr. Carney: Well, this is a matter that we have discussed
in conversations at the very highest levels with Iraqi
leaders ever since President Obama and Vice President Biden
took office in January 2009.
I know from my personal experience when I worked for the
Vice President, he's traveled many times to Iraq and spent --
and continues to spend a lot of time on the phone with Iraq's
leaders pressing this very issue,
as well as many other issues.
It's an important relationship that we have with the government
of Iraq, with the Iraqi people, and our commitment to assisting
them in this effort I think is represented both by the military
assistance that we're providing and speeding up,
but also by the kind of discourse that we have
with Iraq's leaders.
Jared.
The Press: Jay, yesterday you described -- you said that CMS
would be providing demographic data in its next report.
Will that be in the annual monthly report that we should be
getting in about a week?
Mr. Carney: I think I just said I knew it was coming soon.
I don't know in what form of report.
I don't think I said next report, because I don't know.
The Press: And why has the demographic and geographic
diversity, which you have said and which the White House has
said for weeks now is the crux of the solvency of the program
-- why has that been scrubbed out of the last two months of
reports of all of the data we've seen from CMS so far?
Mr. Carney: I have addressed these questions to CMS,
which has been providing briefings
and direct information.
This is a fairly complicated piece of business,
all this data coming in from a variety of sources.
It has to be scrubbed; it has to be made accurate.
Top-line numbers are a little simpler to come by than more
nuanced slices of the data.
But as I said yesterday and as I know CMS has said,
we will be providing that data once we're confident
that it's ready to be made public.
The Press: So it's not the White House's policy that age,
for example, has been removed from the data that's --
Mr. Carney: No, no. Look, I think, Jared,
if you've watched us since the rather difficult days
of October, our approach has been very clear.
We put out what we have; we acknowledge the wholly
unsatisfactory launch that healthcare.gov underwent
on October 1st and have made every effort,
with a team of folks working 24/7,
to fix the problems that caused that rocky start to the launch
of the website and other problems as they arise.
And there's no question, even as we've seen dramatic improvement
in the functionality of the website and dramatic
improvements -- or increases in the enrollments,
that we still have more work to do
and that we take nothing for granted.
So we're going to get that information to you when it's
ready, and my understanding is that will be soon.
The Press: You said you wouldn't lay out specific calls
with Republicans in the Senate, but I wonder if you could kind
of describe the outreach effort in the last day
or two leading up to the vote.
And also, looking past the three-month extension,
what does the White House see as the best path forward if you --
once you get a short-term extension passed?
Mr. Carney: On the second one,
I'll accept that challenge if and when it arrives.
I hope we get to have that conversation if Congress acts,
the House and the Senate, to extend benefits
for three months.
On the first one, I would simply say that it's been
a comprehensive effort here that has involved obviously
the President and others in conversations with members
of Congress, members of the Senate as well as the House.
And this will continue.
The arguments that are made in those conversations
are not unlike the ones we're making publicly.
They're similar -- they're the same,
which is that this is something that we've done in the past;
it's the right thing to do; it's good for the economy.
We have, unfortunately, a high number of long-term unemployed
Americans who need this assistance
and we ought to take action.
And we will absolutely want to have further conversations
about how we move forward beyond a three-month extension.
Last one.
Steve.
The Press: Thank you.
To follow up on Jared's question regarding
the demographic data --
so if the administration doesn't have the demographic
data and this is the most -- one of the most important factors
in determining the success of these exchanges,
does it then follow that the administration doesn't know
whether these exchanges will be successful or not?
Mr. Carney: I don't think we would make declarations
about where we're going to be on March 31st in October --
we can make projections about where we hope to be --
but October or November, December or January.
I'm not even sure I understand your question.
We are confident that we are making significant strides when
it comes to enrollees and that enrollees represent a lot
of Americans from different regions of the country,
age groups and circumstances.
But the issue here is -- I guess this is sort of --
this is the new thing where we're going to find
some problem in the system.
Well, first of all, we acknowledge problems when they
arise and when they need to be fixed.
We acknowledge that there needs to be the right mix for the
marketplaces to be maximally effective.
We believe we will achieve that mix.
But we're not going to even imagine or hope that you'll take
our word for it; you'll evaluate it as you see the proof of it,
as you have with the enrollment figures and the numbers
that were obviously terrible in October
and gradually improved after that.
So we're committed to getting the data to you
and you can judge it for yourselves.
Thanks.