Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Carney: Good afternoon,
ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for being here on this bright
and sunny Monday.
I have no announcements to make
so I'll go straight to your questions.
Julie.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
I have a couple questions on Ukraine.
First, just as a practical matter,
who does the U.S. consider to be the leader
of Ukraine at this point?
Mr. Carney: Well, as you know, Mr. Yanukovych
has left Kyiv in an orderly fashion --
packed up his things and left, and his whereabouts
are not known to us in a confirmable way.
And certainly, while he was a democratically
elected leader, his actions have undermined
his legitimacy and he is not actively leading
the country at present.
We do believe that parliament has lawfully
elected its new speaker and we support getting the
situation under control in terms of law and order
and in ensuring that the institutions
of government are working.
We note that recent parliamentary votes have
been passed by overwhelming majorities
that include members of Yanukovych's own party.
We believe that working pursuant to Ukraine's
constitution and through its institutions
of government is the most promising path toward the
de-escalation of violence, a multiparty coalition
government and early elections, all things that
we have long supported.
It will be critical, in our view,
in the coming days for Ukraine's leadership to focus
on its pressing financial challenges, and we stand
ready to support them as they make needed reforms.
The Press: So just to be clear, the U.S.
sees the speaker of the parliament as the current
acting leader of Ukraine, not Yanukovych?
Mr. Carney: Well, we believe
he is the lawfully elected speaker of parliament.
Mr. Yanukovych left Kyiv and packed up his
belongings and left, and his whereabouts are not
known, so he's certainly not actively leading
the country at present.
We encourage the Ukrainian parliament and others
to take actions that help continue a path toward
de-escalation of violence, embrace constitutional
change and move toward a coalition government --
a multiparty coalition government,
as well as early elections.
The people of Ukraine are being heard --
their voices are being heard, and we have a real
opportunity here -- or rather, they do -- to move
beyond the current crisis in order to pursue the
more democratic future the people
of their country deserve.
The Press: Russian officials are questioning
the legitimacy of the
acting government in Ukraine.
How concerned is the U.S.
that Russia may try to wield some kind of
influence or take steps to install a government
in Ukraine that is perhaps more favorable
to the Russians?
Mr. Carney: Well, as I think you heard the
President's National Security Advisor say
yesterday, Russia and the United States
have a shared interest in restoring Ukraine
to stability, in de-escalating violence and
supporting the formation of a technical government
with broad-based support across Ukraine.
And it's certainly not in Russia's interest
to have tens of thousands of people in the street,
deeply discontent with a government that
they were closely backing.
And instability and violence in Ukraine
is certainly not -- should not be seen
as in Russia's interest.
So we are focused on working with Ukraine, and
also our European partners as well as Russia, towards
promoting a process that is nonviolent, that
focuses on addressing the many challenges that
Ukraine faces, including the need to set
up a multiparty coalition government --
a technocratic government that can help Ukraine make
some of the important decisions that need
to be made, especially in the economic and financial
sphere, while they move towards early elections.
The Press: But I guess how concerning
is it to the U.S.
that the Russians are not recognizing
this acting government?
Because it seems like you can't get to the scenario
that you're talking about if you don't have
that basic recognition.
Mr. Carney: Well, the future of Ukraine should
be and must be decided by the Ukrainian people,
not by outside entities -- not the United States,
not Europe, not Russia.
So the issue here is for the people of Ukraine
to move forward towards a process that leads
to the creation of a coalition government, a government
that has within it representatives of all
sectors of Ukraine and Ukrainian society, that's
focused on the technical work that needs to be done
to stabilize the country as it moves towards
free and fair democratic elections.
It's in nobody's interest to see further violence
and instability in Ukraine --
certainly not in the interest of the Ukrainian people,
not in the interest of Russia, Europe,
or the United States.
And our view -- and I think we've been stating
this quite clearly -- that this is not a competition
between East and West, this is not a restoration
of the Cold War.
This is about the Ukrainian people
and their future.
And there is no contradiction in Ukraine
and Ukraine's people deciding to move forward
with further integration with Europe while Ukraine
and the Ukrainian people maintain their strong
historic, cultural and economic ties to Russia.
We believe that's entirely appropriate.
The Press: And just finally on this topic,
some of the opposition leaders are calling
for Yanukovych to go on trial.
Does the U.S.
have any view on that proposal?
Mr. Carney: These are the kinds of decisions
that would have to be up to the Ukrainian people.
Our focus right now is on encouraging steps that
lead to the formation, as I said,
of a multiparty unity government that speaks
for all the Ukrainian people.
And when we say multiparty, we obviously
mean by that inclusion of Yanukovych's party.
There needs to be a government
that represents everyone.
And, as I noted earlier, the measures that have
been passed by the parliament in the past
several days have included large majorities that
include votes from members of Yanukovych's party,
which is worth noting.
Steve.
The Press: But do you believe he should
be granted due process, or arrested,
or -- do you have a position on that?
Mr. Carney: Again, these aren't positions
for us to take.
We are for a de-escalation of violence, for the
establishment of a coalition government
that's representative of all sectors of Ukrainian
society, and a focus on the steps that need
to be taken to stabilize Ukraine
and move towards early elections.
We are for the territorial integrity and independence
and unity of Ukraine.
And we with other partners are standing ready to
assist Ukraine moving forward as it deals with
the challenges that the country faces.
The Press: Are you saying that you're
confident that the Russians are going to
stand aside and let events unfold in Ukraine?
Mr. Carney: We have obviously been in regular
contact with many nations who are concerned about
and have an interest in the developments
in Ukraine, and that includes with Russian government
officials all the way up to President Putin.
As you know, President Obama spoke at length with
President Putin on Friday about Ukraine.
And Secretary Kerry spoke with Foreign Minister
Lavrov, I think yesterday, and Ambassador McFaul has
also had conversations with government officials.
And I think the conversations that we've
been having reinforce what we're saying about views
in terms of the need for the Ukrainian people
to decide their future, the need for a de-escalation
in violence and a return to stability as that
process moves forward, and our view that it is
certainly not in Russia's interest for there to be
violence and instability in Ukraine and for what
we saw in the past weeks and months with tens
of thousands of people, of Ukrainians, or more,
demonstrating, and then being engulfed in violence
over their opposition to a government that was
closely allied with Russia.
So we're having those conversations
all the time.
And again, we believe it's in everyone's interest --
most importantly, the Ukrainian people's
interest -- that this process be allowed to move
forward in a peaceful way so that they can get about
the business of establishing a coalition
government and addressing some of the many pressing
issues that they face, and having early elections.
The Press: It's estimated that Ukraine
needs $35 billion in assistance
by the end of 2015.
Should that be done strictly through the IMF,
or can the United States give some money
on its own?
Mr. Carney: The United States, working with
partners around the world, stands ready to provide
support for Ukraine as it takes
the reforms it needs to get back to economic stability.
This support can complement an IMF program
by helping to make reforms easier and by putting
Ukraine in a position to invest more in health
and education, to help develop Ukraine's human capital
and strengthen its social safety net.
So we would be working with international
partners to complement an IMF program going forward.
Let me start over here with Chuck.
I'll go right to left.
The Press: Why, in all this talk about --
there was some talks about sanctions and certain
things going a certain way with Ukraine.
Why is there never talk of punishing Russia for all
of the disputes?
Has there ever been a discussion about this?
Is this something -- between all of the
problems we're dealing with the Russians and the
United Nations, Ukraine, Syria --
that never comes up?
I mean, is that just something that's off the
table?
Is there any way in dealing with the Russians?
Mr. Carney: Well, I'm not sure what that means.
We have a law on the book that deals with
accountability in a particular case in Russia,
so I don't think that's broadly the case.
I terms of Syria, we have made quite clear and quite
public our disappointment in the past
with Russia's blocking of
United Nations Security Council resolutions.
I would note that the U.N.
Security Council passed unanimously, with full
support among the permanent members,
including Russia, a resolution with regards to
Syria for the first time just the other day.
And that is designed to force corridors to be open
so that humanitarian aid can flow into Syria, and
that's a significant step forward.
On the matter of Ukraine, we did take action in the
realm of banning visas for specific individuals that --
The Press: Targeting
Ukrainians and targeting Ukraine.
Mr. Carney: -- who were, in our view,
directly responsible for the violence
that occurred and the death that occurred.
And we remain prepared and have on the table
additional sanctions should developments
in Ukraine merit that.
The Press: But again, targeting Ukraine, not --
Mr. Carney: I'm not sure targeting --
it depends on what -- targeting other countries
for what action?
The Press: Well, if Russia is the one behind
propping Yanukovych in this instance --
Mr. Carney: But the sanctions were designed,
or the contemplated sanctions were designed
and the visa bans were specifically designed in
response to acts of violence against innocent
and peaceful civilians.
The support for a government obviously
is a different proposition.
The Press: But I guess
I go back to this criticism --
Mr. Carney: And what I would say is that
in the President's conversation with President Putin,
as we read out, it was our view that President Putin,
and Russia generally, agrees with the
proposition that we need to see a Ukraine where
there is not violence and where
stability is returned.
Because that's in Russia's interest,
it's in Ukraine's interest, and it's in Europe and the
United States' interest.
The Press: But the criticism you're getting
mostly from John McCain but from some others on
the tack that the administration is taking
with Russia is that it is too passive, too agreeable
with Russia, not taking a hard enough line.
What do you say to that?
How do you respond to Senator McCain?
Mr. Carney: Our approach to our relations
with Russia has been extremely clear-eyed.
It has not been driven by hope or romanticism about
what Russia might do, but very specifically driven
by what we can get done cooperatively with Russia
in some areas, even as make abundantly clear both
in public and in private, where we profoundly
disagree with Russia.
And that approach, as I know the President
and Ambassador Rice and Secretary Kerry and others
have said, has resulted in tangible benefits
for the United States and our national security when it
comes to the cooperation we've gotten from Russia
in resupplying our troops in Afghanistan; when it
comes to the joint efforts and cooperation we've had
with Russia on the Security Council; when it
comes to Iran.
And it's also been clear in the very clear approach
we've taken when we've disagreed -- whether it's
on missile defense or, profoundly, on Syria, or
on other matters.
So I think instead of --
The Press: There is no
carrot-and-stick approach here.
It's almost all carrots with Russia.
What's been the stick?
The President cancelling his --
Mr. Carney: I think that that whole argument
is premised on the idea that somehow the fact that
Russia's client state in Syria engulfed in a civil
war is good for Russia; or that the government in
Ukraine, a large nation on Russia's border, has been
under constant protest by the people of Ukraine and
that government obviously was allied with Moscow --
I don't see how that can possibly be viewed as good
for Russia, or demonstrative of Russia
somehow getting the better of the West.
I think that, again, is an antiquated view
of a dynamic that doesn't exist anymore and that doesn't
reflect what's actually happening, which is, on
the ground in Syria, as horrific as the events
there have been, we have seen the Syrian people
come out and demonstrate that they want a better
future for themselves that does not include
a dictator who has been propped up by Moscow,
in part, and in the people of Ukraine feeling similarly
when it comes to wanting a government that reflects
their aspirations and their demands and their
hopes for the future, which they were not
feeling they were getting from a government
that was supported by Moscow.
The Press: I understand that.
But yesterday Susan Rice and the President himself
last week consistently have said this is not
a Cold War, this is not a Cold War chessboard,
we're not going back to the Cold War.
Mr. Carney: Right.
The Press: But Putin seems to think we're back
in the Cold War.
Is he not dealing with this
in Cold War mentality?
Mr. Carney: Again, I think that he --
The Press: So what do you do?
I understand what you want to do.
What do you do when the other side doesn't want to
have that conversation?
Mr. Carney: But it doesn't -- whatever others
believe -- and I'm not sure that we, you or I,
can speak for President Putin's approach and what
it's motivated by.
The fact is we called for and the West called for,
and most importantly, the Ukrainian people called
for a change in Ukraine that included early
elections and a constitutional change, and
a coalition government, and a government that's
responsive to the wishes of the majority
of the Ukrainian people.
And obviously it's a very fluid situation there,
but we have -- they have, rather -- taken steps
to move in that direction.
And, again, when it comes to Syria, we make our
profound differences with Russia very clear when it
comes to Syria, as have
our international partners.
And where we can cooperate -- when it comes
to Russia's role in getting the Assad regime to admit
that it held one of the largest stockpiles
of chemical weapons, for example, and committing
itself to ridding itself of those weapons,
or when it comes to passing the resolution just
on Saturday to allow for humanitarian relief
to flow to the Syrian people -- again, something that
has been blocked by the Assad regime but has now
been voted for by all the members of the United
Nations Security Council, including Russia.
Let me -- Chuck, I feel like I've got
to move around here.
Margaret.
The Press: Thank you.
Could you bring us up to the state of play
on the El Chapo situation?
Has the U.S.
made a formal request for extradition?
And I know there's ongoing discussions with the
Mexican government, but how important is this to
you to be able to do what we need
to do through this partner?
Mr. Carney: Well, you've answered part
of your question when it comes
to the issues of extradition.
As the Department of Justice has said, the
decision whether to pursue extradition will
be the subject of further discussion between the
United States and Mexico, so those
conversations are ongoing.
The Press: Does that mean that you're not going
to formally ask unless they're going to say yes?
I mean, I read a report either yesterday or this
morning from a U.S. attorney
somewhere saying that the U.S.
did want to extradite him.
So I know what you're saying, that this still
has to be worked out, but what's the U.S.' s
starting position?
Do you want to go through the whole process of a
trial in the U.S.?
Mr. Carney: The answers to all of those questions
would have to come from the Department of Justice,
which handles issues of extradition.
The Press: Does the President
have a preference?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a Presidential view
to read out on this.
We're obviously appreciative of the fact
that Joaquin Guzmán Loera, known as "El Chapo,"
the alleged leader of the Sinaloa cartel,
was captured, and we congratulate the Mexico
government on that fact.
And this is a significant achievement in our shared
fight against transnational organized
crime, violence and drug trafficking.
The U.S. and Mexico
have a strong security partnership,
and we will continue to support Mexico
in its efforts to ensure that cartel leaders
are put out of business.
On matters of -- judicial matters and legal matters
like extradition, I would just have to refer
you to the Department of Justice, except to say that that
matter will be the subject of discussions
between the U.S.
and Mexico.
The Press: Is it all right to say that
the U.S. hasn't yet decided, or --
Mr. Carney: I just wouldn't have more
of a characterization of our approach, except to tell
you that Justice is handling it.
The Press: Can I ask you another
Eric Holder question then?
(laughter)
Mr. Carney: Sure.
The Press: He's been urging Congress to require
companies to alert consumers on data
breaches, but I haven't heard
any more specifics on that.
Is the White House or the Justice Department --
or, in concert, the White House and the
Justice Department -- are you giving Democrats
any guidance on specifics for data breach legislation
that you want Congress to pursue?
Mr. Carney: I don't have an answer to that.
I'll have to take the question.
Jon.
The Press: The Defense Secretary is talking today
about reducing the size of the army
to its lowest level since before World War II.
And what I'm wondering is, from the President's point
of view, is this decision to reduce the army fairly
dramatically a reflection of budgetary realities,
or a belief that the threat environment around the
world is at its lowest point since
before World War II?
Mr. Carney: Well, Jon, I know as a student
of history you understand that there's
a lot more complexity to that.
Obviously, the run-up in World War II was quite
substantial because we were fighting
a two-pronged world war, and then obviously there was
a huge increase in forces during Vietnam.
The fact, as you said, is that Secretary Hagel and
Chairman Dempsey are speaking to the press
right now to preview the key decisions they have
recommended to the President
for the Defense Department's fiscal year
2015 budget and beyond.
Since they are delivering this information,
I'm not going to be in a position to discuss
details at this stage.
But I would just make clear that we appreciate
the thoughtful approach they've taken that will
reposition the military after the longest conflict
in our nation's history, focusing on the strategic
challenges and opportunities ahead.
For the first time, the Defense Department's
submission will now specifically show what DOD
must do if Congress cannot reach additional
compromise on deficit spending and
sequestration-level cuts return in fiscal year 2016
and beyond.
The Pentagon also worked with the White House on a
five-year plan that comes in above sequestration but
below the President's submission last year.
This plan is responsible, it's realistic, and it
supports the President's defense strategy.
So, again, I urge you to look at what Secretary
Hagel and Chairman Dempsey provide today and they'll
have more detail for you after that.
The Press: So the President, obviously he
has to make a decision, you're saying, on whether
or not to accept the recommendations?
Mr. Carney: Well, these are the decisions that
they're recommending to the President as part
of his fiscal year 2015 budget and beyond.
It is our view that the recommendations fit and
represent a responsible, realistic approach
to supporting the President's defense strategy.
But for more detail, I would encourage
you to wait for the presentation from Secretary Hagel.
The Press: And if I can just get I guess to the
general principle of a smaller standing army.
In the President's view, is that, again, drivel
largely for budget reasons, or is it because
the nature of the threat has changed?
Mr. Carney: Again, I think for defense
strategy, I would refer you
to the Defense Department.
What I can tell you, obviously, is that the
President, when he took office, became
Commander-In-Chief at a time when we were still
fighting two wars -- one in Iraq and one if
Afghanistan.
And he pledged during his campaign that he would end
both, and he has done that in Iraq and he is doing
that in Afghanistan.
So obviously, we are in, as the President spoke at
length about at National Defense University, in a
different footing -- on a different footing, and we
were transitioning away from the permanent war
footing that we experienced
in the wake of the September 11th attacks.
Obviously, that doesn't lessen the fact that
we have to maintain extreme vigilance -- and we do --
when it comes to the threats
against our nation.
And we have to deploy a strategy that is
responsive to those threats and anticipates
the kinds of conflicts that we are most likely
to see in the future.
Major, then Chris.
The Press: Beneath Yanukovych, does the
United States government feel it has a functional
relationship at the ministerial level
with key aspects of what remains of Ukraine's government,
specifically the military and otherwise?
It was made clear to us on Friday that Defense
Secretary Hagel finally got through
to his defense counterpart.
I'm just curious -- over the weekend and in
intervening days ahead, is there a concern that
absent Yanukovych the entire government itself
could fall apart and that could create a power
vacuum that any party could exploit
or create more turbulence?
Mr. Carney: I think your question reflects the
fluidity of the situation.
It's also worth noting that President Yanukovych
was not the only senior member of his government
to pack up and leave Kyiv not long after he had
signed an agreement with the opposition that would
have created the coalition government that
we and many view as still the
right approach moving forward.
So in terms of our interactions with
ministries at a lower level, I can't really
speak to that.
Our embassy and the State Department I'm sure could.
We would note some of the statements that have
come out from the defense ministry there,
and others, about the approach that they're taking and
the nonviolence that we would like to see there,
and the de-escalation that
we've seen and hope continues.
But I think your question goes to our insistence or
urging that steps be taken very quickly to establish
a technocratic unity government that is
multiparty in nature so it is reflective of all
sectors of Ukraine, and it is focused primarily on
stabilizing the country and stabilizing the
economic situation in an atmosphere of peace and
nonviolence so that that stability can then help
the country move forward towards early elections,
free and democratic elections, that would
result in a government that reflects the will of
the majority of the Ukrainian people.
The Press: Is one of the fears the
administration has that this talk of partition
could take on greater significance if, in fact,
that technocratic government doesn't take
place and a sense of order isn't established?
Mr. Carney: Well, when it comes to that question,
I would note that we have been very clear that we
support an independent and unified Ukraine, and that
the idea of separation or partition or division is
not in the interest of the Ukrainian people, of the
Ukrainian nation, of Europe, or Russia,
or the United States.
What I think is in everyone's interest
is a unified Ukraine and a stable Ukraine,
and a Ukrainian government that reflects the will of the
Ukrainian people and that allows for steps
to be taken if the Ukrainian people so desire towards
greater integration with Europe, but that, of
course, allows also for the historic, cultural,
and economic ties that have long been in
existence between Ukraine and Russia to continue.
And I think that the two should
not be seen as contradictory.
The Press: Caracas has seen a lot of violence.
Twelve people have died.
There are protestors in the street.
There is no sense that the government is going to
fall, but there are issues related to the release
of the Leopoldo Lopez and other issues.
What is the administration's position
on what's happening in Venezuela?
And how concerned is it about what it's seeing
playing out in Caracas?
Mr. Carney: Well, we are concerned, and we made
clear, that with our OAS and regional partners --
the Organization of American States and our
regional partners -- we are working to urge calm
and encourage a genuine dialogue
among all Venezuelans.
As President Obama said in Mexico last week, rather
than trying to distract from its own failings
by making up false accusations against the
United States, which the government there has, the
Venezuelan government ought to focus
on addressing the legitimate grievances
of the Venezuelan people.
Another way of putting this is that when
President Maduro calls for a dialogue with the U.S.
President and an exchange of ambassadors, he should
focus instead on the dialogue with the
Venezuelan people because that is what
is at issue here.
This is not about the United States.
The government of Venezuela needs to release
detained protesters immediately.
It also needs to stop impeding the work of
independent journalists and restricting
information-sharing via television, radio
and the Internet.
Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are
universal human rights.
They are essential to a functioning democracy.
And the Venezuelan government
has an obligation to
protect these fundamental freedoms.
The Press: Lastly, on Syria, did the U.N.
resolution this weekend pave the way for deeper
consideration of military action if those corridors
are not opened?
Ambassador Power said this is not going to happen
just by magic; there needs to be compliance.
And this is a specific expression of the U.N.'
s will and desire for absolute things to happen
-- open up those corridors for the humanitarian
relief to get in, and there's
a clock ticking on this.
Does this pave the way for military action
if Syria's not compliant?
Mr. Carney: Well, the resolution contains within
it not just a commitment by -- not just a
requirement that Syria open up access
to humanitarian provisions, but a commitment by the
Security Council to take action in the event
of noncompliance with its demands.
The Press: Unspecified action, right?
Mr. Carney: Well, because this resolution
is specific about that, and because the Security
Council for the first time committed to take action
if there is noncompliance, this resolution
is a significant tool.
So there are steps along the way, but it is notable
that the resulting resolution included within
it that commitment, made by all the members
who voted for it, which was all the members.
So that's a significant step.
Now, we obviously hope that the result of the
resolution will be Syria's decision to allow for the
provision of and free flow of humanitarian assistance
to take place because that
is our primary interest here.
The Press: But if it doesn't, the reading
of that resolution is, if there isn't compliance,
the military option now comes more directly
into this equation.
Mr. Carney: Well, the resolution
itself contains a commitment by the Security Council to take
further action in the event of noncompliance.
The Press: It doesn't say what kind of action.
It says nothing about what kind of action.
Mr. Carney: That's correct, but it does
commit the Security Council
to take that action.
The Press: Does this administration interpret
that as military?
Mr. Carney: I would simply that say
we interpret it as a commitment by all members
of the Security Council -- all of them, including the
Permanent Five -- to take action
if there is noncompliance.
Our focus at the moment is on compliance because
we hope very much that the resolution and the fact
that it passed with unanimous
support should --
The Press: Shouldn't Assad fear something
if he doesn't comply?
Mr. Carney: Well, I would just point
you to the resolution.
I mean it's -- that's a significant tool,
and it's important.
Jim.
The Press: After the meeting with the
governors, Governor Fallin came out to the mics out
there at the stakeout and said that the President
was within a couple of months
of making a decision on the Keystone pipeline.
Is that accurate?
Mr. Carney: Well, I don't have
a conversation of the President's to read out to you.
What I can tell you is that this process is with
the State Department.
There are steps in that process
that have taken place.
There are more steps that need to take place
in keeping with the kind of timetable that's been
existent in reviews like these for many
administrations of both parties.
So you know that after the release of --
or the publishing of the environmental impact
statement, there's a period that allows for
input from other agencies, input from the public,
and that's the process we're in now.
So I don't have anything else to add to that,
and I don't have a conversation to read out.
The Press: So by the middle of the year you'll
think we'll have a decision?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a timetable to give
to you.
I would refer you to the State Department.
The Press: And I'm just curious,
does the President have a take on this legislation that
apparently had been passed but not signed in Arizona
that would allow businesses to deny service
to gays based on the religious beliefs
of the business owners?
Mr. Carney: I haven't spoken with
the President about that.
I don't have an official position.
It certainly doesn't sound particularly tolerant, but
I don't have a position at this time on it.
The Press: And getting back to the governors --
I should have done the second -- but Governor
Jindal, when he came out, there was a bit of a
back-and-forth between him and Governor Malloy over
the President's push for a minimum wage increase.
And Governor Jindal said that this was basically
the President waving the white flag of surrender
and trying to create a minimum wage economy.
Your response?
Mr. Carney: I saw that.
The President is trying to create a national economy
where the minimum wage is $10.10 an hour.
Perhaps Governor Jindal prefers a Governor Jindal
economy at $7.25 an hour,
but the President certainly doesn't;
the American people certainly don't.
Because that wage, a minimum wage that is far
behind the times, both economically and
otherwise, leaves hardworking Americans who
work full-time in poverty.
And it is a fundamental principle that this
President embraces that if you work full-time, if you
work hard, if you are responsible for yourself,
if you're responsible for your family, your reward
should not be poverty.
It should be a living wage.
So that's the approach the President is taking.
And that's the approach that governors across the
country have been taking.
It's the approach that millions of Americans,
a majority of Americans, by far, support.
And it's an approach that would be good
for our middle class and good for our economy.
The Press: And just very quickly, on the
President's phone call with President Putin --
did they have any common ground that they found
during that phone call when it came to Ukraine?
Mr. Carney: I think what we said, and what I
repeated today, is that President Obama and
President Putin both agreed that it was in
everyone's interest to see the violence deescalate
and for stability to be restored in Ukraine.
I think it's pretty clear, as I was saying earlier,
that it is not -- in our view --
in anyone's interest or any country's interest
to see continued violence and bloodshed in Ukraine,
to see instability in Ukraine.
It is not in the West's interest, it's not in
Russia's interest, it's certainly not in the
interest of the people of Ukraine.
And so we note that there has been a de-escalation
in violence, and we note that there has been
movement towards a coalition government.
There has been constitutional change,
there has been movement towards early elections,
and those are all positive developments.
Now they need to continue on that path and make sure
that a transitional government, a unity
government that is multi-party and reflects
input from all sectors of Ukraine is established
so that Ukraine can begin to deal with some
of the many challenges it faces.
Chris.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
As you know, Ugandan President,
Yoweri Museveni, signed today an anti-gay bill that
in some cases would penalize homosexual acts
with life imprisonment.
I saw your statement, but my question is,
what details do you have about the impact of signing
that bill on U.S.-Uganda relations?
The President earlier said signing
that bill would complicate the relationship.
Will that affect the $400 million a year
the United States gives to Uganda in foreign aid?
Mr. Carney: I think I would point you to our
statement, which I believe reflects our strong
disagreement with the decision
to sign that legislation.
It's a sad day for Uganda.
Instead of standing on the side of freedom, justice,
and equal rights for its people, today,
regrettably, Ugandan President
took Uganda a step backward by signing
into law legislation criminalizing homosexuality.
As President Obama has said,
this law is more than an affront and a danger to the gay
community in Uganda; it reflects poorly on the
country's commitment to protecting the human
rights of its people and will undermine public
health, including efforts to fight ***/AIDS.
We will continue to urge the government of Uganda
to repeal this abhorrent law and to advocate for
the protection of the universal human rights of
LGBT persons in Uganda and around the world.
What I can tell you about steps the United States
might take in response is that we are undertaking
a review of our relationship with Uganda in light
of this decision.
The Press: When will that review come
to an end?
Mr. Carney: I'm sorry?
The Press: When will that review be complete?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a timetable for you,
but we are undertaking a review.
The Press: And National Security Advisor Susan
Rice -- you tweeted out last week I think
that she had a conversation with President Museveni
about the bill.
I was wondering, were there any conversations
with her and President Museveni?
Or between President Obama and President Museveni,
either immediately prior to or after
the signing of that bill?
Mr. Carney: Well, I think that in that
conversation, Ambassador Rice made clear our very
strong view on this matter, and unfortunately
and regrettably the President signed into law
this legislation, which has caused the reaction
that we gave today.
Yes, Wendell.
The Press: A couple of different issues,
and one on Ukraine.
A couple of Republicans in the House are calling
for hearings or an investigation of problems
Maryland and Oregon have had in their
implementation of state exchanges
for the Affordable Care Act, which
they say indicates that federal money was wasted or worse.
Do you have any reaction to this?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a reaction to that
specific report, Wendell.
I'd simply say that the administration, HHS and
CMS are focused on implementation of the
Affordable Care Act, focused on making sure
that the exchanges run at the federal level and
those run at the state level are functioning
effectively on behalf of the millions and millions
of Americans who have or want to avail themselves
of the opportunity to acquire affordable,
quality health insurance.
And we have seen, in the wake of the very
problematic rollout of healthcare.gov
and the fixes made to that
website, sustained, substantial interest in
making that acquisition -- getting the affordable,
quality health insurance that is available now
to millions of Americans, many of whom have never
had that availability before or haven't
had it for a long time.
So that's our focus.
Obviously, the states that have run exchanges have
had different experiences,
many of them very positive.
I would note that California I think last
week said very, very early in the open enrollment
period that they had surpassed their goal
in terms of signups.
And obviously, there are many other states where
implementation has been very effective and robust.
The Press: Out at stakeout, there was
a fairly sharp exchange between a couple
of the governors over the Keystone XL pipeline.
I wonder if that's reflected in the
President's talks with the governors -- because we
don't see much of opposition on
environmental grounds to the Keystone XL Pipeline,
but it was very obvious outside.
Is that the case in the President's
talks with governors?
Mr. Carney: I think the President had
conversations with governors around a whole
host of issues, including the goal of raising the
minimum wage nationally, but also the efforts
undertaken by states to raise the minimum wage in
those states and a whole host of
other economic issues.
I think that -- I mean, I don't have a specific
conversation related to the pipeline to read out
to you except to say what I said in answer to Jim,
that that process continues as it is
supposed to over at the --
The Press: Why are you so reluctant to deal with
specifics on that when Governor Fallin said very
clearly the President promised a decision
in a couple of months?
Mr. Carney: Because this process --
first of all, I don't have a private conversation
to read out to you.
I don't know if --
The Press: Were you involved in the talks
with the governors?
Mr. Carney: Was I talking with
Governor Fallin and --
The Press: Were you listening when the
President -- were you in the room when the
President was talking?
Mr. Carney: -- I wasn't in the room
for that, and I'm --
The Press: You were not?
Mr. Carney: -- so I'm not going to -- well,
for that conversation I didn't hear it, so I can't -- and
even if I did I don't read out private conversations
that the President has.
What I can tell you is what he would tell
you if he was standing --
The Press: A private conversation with
all the nation's governors?
Mr. Carney: You're telling me Governor Fallin
said that he told her -- I don't know --
The Press: This happened at the Q&A.
She said it happened at the Q&A.
Mr. Carney: What I'm saying is I don't
have a readout of that conversation.
What I can tell you is that the --
The Press: Can you get back to us?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a readout and won't
have a readout of that conversation.
What I can tell you is that there is a process
being run by the State Department --
I know this is very upsetting to Republicans,
but it was done this way under Republican
administrations, more than one,
and it's being run that way under this administration,
which has run --
The Press: Jay, I'm not asking about the process
and I'm not asking about what's
upsetting to Republicans.
I specifically asked you whether or not Democrats
have deep environmental concerns about Keystone
that they express in talks with the President.
Mr. Carney: Again, I don't have readouts
of those conversations.
I'm sure anybody, Democrat or Republican
or independent, who has concerns about Keystone on
either issue can and has expressed them publicly
to the press.
And obviously this is an issue where
there are strongly felt opinions on all sides.
But what I can tell you is that there's a process
in place that has associated with it some timelines
that include a period of 90 days -- up to 90 days
where agencies have input and the public has input,
and that's the process we're
in now. You guys can figure it out from there,
and you can figure it out by talking to the State Department.
The Press: Jay, just one other Keystone
question in regards to the process.
What's interesting about the two-month timeline
that, again, the Governor mentioned in the context
of this large discussion is that obviously
a Nebraska court has thrown out the route through
Nebraska, and clearly it's going to take some time
for it to be resolved what route
at all would happen in that case.
Can you say just broadly speaking how that would
affect the review process?
Mr. Carney: I can't, because that again would
be something that the State Department would
have to assess.
And obviously a local court decision in a state
would be something that -- and its impact on the
decision-making process and the review here would
have to be assessed by the State Department,
which is overseeing the review.
So I think -- I don't have any insight
into the decision or its effect.
Jared.
The Press: Thanks.
Several of the Republican governors not here at the
stakeout, but at their own press conference
said they complained to the President about
how some of the defense cuts were affecting
the National Guard.
And they said the President was dismissive
in some ways of their complaints; said something
to the effect -- I think Governor Haley said the
President said something to the effect of, well,
you've asked for spending cuts, now you've got them.
Mr. Carney: Again, I don't have a -- I'm not
going to read out pieces of the conversation the
President had with governors,
because as these questions themselves demonstrate,
there were a lot of issues covered.
And there are, when it comes to the defense
budget, that's being addressed right now by the
Secretary of Defense and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
And they will have a great deal of detail about the
recommendations they're making as part of the
budgetary process, and I'm sure we'll have more
to say about that after the budget comes out.
Dan and then April.
The Press: Thanks.
Just a follow-up on the Uganda question.
I've been checking through my email trying to find
what the reaction was.
I know Kerry last year reacted
to the Nigeria gay law ban.
Was there ever to your memory
a review of aid issues for Nigeria after that was --
Mr. Carney: I'll have to refer
you to the State Department or USAID.
The Press: And in President Museveni's
statement, quoted by AP, saying he wishes they
would just just leave us alone where
the gay law is a concern.
Mr. Carney: Again, we're -- in light of this
decision, the United States will undertake
a review of its relationship with Uganda.
But I don't have any outcomes to predict
to you because we're undertaking the review now.
April.
The Press: I want to follow up on --
I have two topics on Jon and Jared's question.
What assurances to the American public and to the
military that with this latest round of cuts,
this recommendation of cuts, that there will not
be vulnerabilities for the American public as well
as for the military?
Mr. Carney: Again, April, this is being
addressed I think in great detail by the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman.
And upon release of the full budget, there will
be a lot of charts and tables and numbers
for people to review.
But the overall approach taken fits into and
reflects the President's defense strategy.
For more details, I'd refer you to the
Department of Defense, and understanding that when
the full budget is released there will
be more again at that time.
The Press: Okay.
But since it fits into a strategy, does that mean,
do I look into that as saying that there will
not be vulnerabilities or there could be some?
I mean, the definitive --
will there be vulnerabilities --
Mr. Carney: Well, I think the
Secretary of Defense is giving a definitive speech
about it today.
The Press: And then on the other topic,
on Uganda, you said that this administration
is reassessing its relationship with Uganda.
Well, is it reassessing its relationship
with the other African nations, many that have
bans on homosexuality?
There are 31 Sub-Saharan African nations that have
-- it's against the law for same-sex acts
in those countries.
And you have Senegal and Tanzania,
where the President visited, that
have bans on homosexuality.
And you have Nigeria and Uganda
at the topping of that list.
So are you guys reassessing your
relationships with all of these countries as well?
Mr. Carney: I would have to refer you to the
State Department on how those laws have affected
our policy approaches and either
led to reviews either underway or completed.
What I can tell you is that the law in Uganda was
signed, and our reaction I think is reflected
in the statement we put out and in the fact that we're
reviewing our relationship with Uganda
in light of that decision.
Alexis.
The Press: Jay, this is a wonky budgety question
that you probably don't
have the answer to but --
(laughter) --
Mr. Carney: I can try.
The Press: The President
is doing an event tomorrow --
Mr. Carney: I usually go to Cheryl
for that stuff.
The Press: I've got another one.
(laughter)
The Press: So the President is doing
an event tomorrow to focus on the hubs, and he would
like to expand the number of hubs, and will in his
budget propose that they include 45 of those he
wants to include in the $56 billion
of additional spending -- so the rationale
for expanding those hubs.
Can we find out how much of that $56 billion he's
thinking that is needed -- he would ask Congress
for to expand those hubs, so we can build that
into our stories?
Mr. Carney: I'll have to take the question.
I don't know the answer to it.
I think that I appreciate the question about
tomorrow's event, because President Obama
will announce new steps in partnership with the
private sector to boost advanced manufacturing,
strengthen our capabilities for defense,
and attract the types of high-quality jobs
that a growing middle class requires.
As you know, the President will announce two new
manufacturing innovation institutes led
by the Department of Defense, supported
by a $140-million federal commitment, combined with
more than $140 million in non-federal resources.
Number one, a Detroit-area headquarter consortium
of businesses and universities, with a focus
on light-weight and modern metals manufacturing.
And two, a Chicago headquarter consortium
of businesses and universities that will
concentrate on digital manufacturing
and design technologies.
Tomorrow's announcement is another step forward
towards fulfilling the President's vision
for a full national network, which you mention,
of up to 45 manufacturing innovation institutes,
which will also require legislation from Congress.
The President will continue to work with
Congress to get legislation passed while
also continuing to make progress where
he can to put boost these partnerships that are
important to revitalizing our manufacturing sector.
The Press: Can you maybe by tomorrow --
Mr. Carney: I think we have given some preview,
but on the specifics of the budget -- the budget
is coming out in just a couple of weeks --
I'm sure you'll be able to pore over that
in a race with Cheryl to get all the details into print.
Cheryl, what do you have?
The Press: Well, I'll try another little one,
which you may or may not know.
But the President today -- been talking about his
budget to the Governor, said that he was going
to be proposing a new way to pay for -- I'm not sure
exactly how this works -- wildfire suppression.
Do you have any more details on that?
Mr. Carney: I think there's been some
reporting on it, but I can tell you this: Population
growth near forest and rangelands,
past management practices and a change in climate have
dramatically increased wildfire risk
and the resulting cost.
Unfortunately, the current way that the government
pays for fire suppression and preparedness costs
is ill-suited to the increasing
severity and cost of fires.
In recent years, including both of the last two
years, the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior have been forced to rely
on short-sighted transfers from non-suppression
programs in order to fund excess fire suppression
activities.
What that means is this undermines other important
functions, including critical forest management
and fire risk reduction activities.
In other words, you're taking from funding that
would help manage forests and reduce fires in the
future in order to suppress existing fires.
So the President is calling for a fundamental
change in how wildfire suppression is funded.
The President's budget will support bipartisan
congressional proposals to treat suppression of the
most severe fire activity, including large fires that
require emergency response, are near urban
areas, or for abnormally active fire seasons as
extraordinary costs that would be funded outside
the discretionary budget caps much like we fund
response to other natural disasters.
So the answer is, yes, he is looking at a whole new
way of making sure that we have the funding necessary
to deal with these major fires.
Thanks very much, everybody.
The Press: Hey, Jay, is that what they're going
to talk about with the western governors today?
Mr. Carney: I think there's a discussion about
drought in general.
I don't think it's specific to that.