Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Carney: I don't have any specific announcements to make,
but I can -- as you know, the President
met with Speaker of the House John Boehner here earlier.
They had a good and constructive meeting
of about an hour where they discussed
a range of issues.
You also saw I think a readout of a conversation
the President had earlier with President Karzai of
Afghanistan, which I don't have a duration on that
call, but it was a fairly substantive call,
as described in the readout.
Beyond that, I have no other announcements.
So I'll go to Jim Kuhnhenn.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
So I wanted to ask you about
those two conversations.
With Karzai, he hasn't spoken
to him since June, I believe.
Should we read some kind of significance to the
call coming at this particular time?
And given that the discussion centered
a little bit on giving some space for signing of the
BSA after the elections, is there a tipping point
where it becomes impossible
to make any kind of commitment about U.S.
troops on the ground?
Mr. Carney: On the first part of your
question, the answer is yes.
The President called President Karzai
today in order to discuss preparations for
Afghanistan's upcoming elections,
the Afghan-led peace and reconciliation efforts,
and specifically, the bilateral security agreement.
And as you know, we have been calling
on the Afghan government to complete that process,
to sign that agreement, which was negotiated in good faith,
and to do so promptly.
President Obama told President Karzai
that because he has demonstrated --
he, being President Karzai -- that it is unlikely that
he will sign the BSA, the United States
is moving forward with additional contingency planning.
So in terms of the timing of the call,
I think you can look at it in that context.
When it comes to the potential
for a post-2014 troop presence, two things are happening.
One, as we made clear would be the case, the
President has tasked the Pentagon with preparing
for the contingency that there
will be no troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014.
But we are also remaining open to the possibility
of a post-2014 troop presence should a bilateral
security agreement be signed -- or the bilateral
security agreement be signed later in the year.
But the longer we go without a BSA --
and we've been making this clear -- the more challenging
it will be to plan and to execute
any U.S. mission.
Furthermore, the longer we go without a signed BSA
the more likely it will be that any post-2014
U.S. mission will be smaller in scale and ambition.
So I don't have a specific point
to identify for you, except to say that the further
we go without a signed BSA, any contemplative post-2014
mission would be necessarily limited
in scale and ambition because of the requirements
of planning for that troop presence.
The Press: Did the President provide
any kind of timeframe to Karzai as to when --
Mr. Carney: He provided the timeframe
I just read out to you, which is --
The Press: Any specific time when by -- need
something by the spring, need something by the fall
-- and that would result in what difference?
Mr. Carney: I think -- or I know that the
President was very explicit about what we've
just read out, which is that the fact that
President Karzai has indicated that
it is unlikely he will sign the BSA means that if he
doesn't sign it, it is at least possible that
a successor Afghan government might sign it,
but that pushes us later into the year.
And the longer we go without a signed BSA,
by necessity, the more narrow in size and ambition
the mission for a post-2014 force would be.
So this is about essentially planning
for a post-2014 mission.
And there are a lot of complexities involved
in asking the Defense Department to plan
for a zero option -- that is a full withdrawal, in
keeping with the President's promise to end
the war in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, and he
will keep that promise -- and then,
also to plan for a contingency
of a post-2014 smaller troop presence.
And in the President's view, it is necessary
to plan for that force against the clock here,
in the sense that the longer we go without a BSA the
smaller in scale and ambition the mission would
have to be.
The Press: In a conversation with the
Speaker, it's been since December of 2012
that they had a face-to-face alone session.
Why has it taken so long?
I mean, this is the leader of the congressional
opposition; he is the President
of the United States.
Mr. Carney: Well, I'd say a couple of things,
Jim.
The President has conversations with leaders
of Congress, not all of which
are read out to the press -- one.
Two, today's meeting was good and constructive.
It covered a range of issues and it was,
in the President's view, a useful conversation.
Three, I think you recall the Speaker of the House
as reported having said that he would not ever
negotiate with the
President of the United States again.
So the point is that the President's position
on these issues and his communication with
Congress I think has been robust.
And we're looking for ways to move an agenda forward
that expands opportunity and rewards hard work
and responsibility for the American people.
We are looking for a partner in Congress
to advance part of that agenda.
But the President won't stand still just because
Congress is standing still, if Congress decides
or if Republicans decide not to take action.
So that's been our explicit approach this
year, and that's the approach the President has
been taking thus far and will take
for the rest of the year.
The Press: Any softening on point three
that he won't negotiate with the President?
Mr. Carney: Again, I think it was a good
and constructive meeting.
I'm not going to read out any more detail beyond
sort of the general topic areas that included the
ACA, Afghanistan, appropriations,
manufacturing, trade, the drought in California,
wildfire suppression -- which we talked about
yesterday -- other issues, infrastructure
and highway funding.
But that's just a partial list.
So I think we're talking about a range of topics
that reflect the things that we in Washington are
working on both here at the White House
and in the administration, and hopefully
and potentially in Congress as well.
Jeff.
The Press: Following up on that meeting as well,
the Speaker's office mentioned that trade
was one of the issues that they discussed.
Speaker Boehner has said before that it's up to the
President to work on getting his own party
behind supporting Trade Promotion Authority.
Did the President make any commitments about that
or did they discuss strategy for doing
that in their meeting?
Mr. Carney: Trade was one of the many topics
that were discussed.
I don't have a further readout
on the conversation.
I wouldn't expect a more detailed readout
on the conversation.
The President's views on why it is good for the
American economy and good for American workers
to negotiate trade agreements that expand American
exports are well known.
And he has expressed them, I have expressed them,
others have expressed them, and he has made
clear that moving forward on those trade
agreements is a priority for him.
It is also the case that this is an ongoing
conversation that we're having with members
of Congress in both parties.
The difference of opinion that exists in both
parties on these issues is not something that
suddenly sprang up in 2014.
These are issues that have long fostered different
views, and that's something
we take into account.
But we believe very strongly, as the President
said just last week in Mexico, that having
agreements that expand trade and, in particular,
when we are talking about the Pacific region, the
fastest-growing emerging economies in the world,
opening those markets to American goods is good for
the economy, and doing so in a way that
protects American workers and protects the environment
is good for the United States and the world.
So that's why we're continuing to negotiate
agreements, and we will work with Congress
to try to bring those agreements into effect.
The Press: You referenced the Speaker's
comments about not negotiating with the
President, but isn't it also the President's job
to build that relationship and
to create meetings like --
Mr. Carney: Absolutely, and he has.
Again, you are under --
The Press: But wouldn't you agree that a
year is a long time not to have a one-on-one meeting with
the Speaker of the House?
Mr. Carney: I would simply say that
we do not read out every conversation and meeting
that the President has with members of Congress.
The Press: Are you implying with that there
have been other one-on-ones?
Mr. Carney: I would simply say that we do not
read out every conversation and meeting
that the President, the Vice President,
or other senior members of the White House
has with Congress.
The Press: Let me ask you one other question.
Reuters reported yesterday that Iran signed
a deal to sell Iraq arms and ammunition
worth $195 million.
Has Iran informed the United States about that?
And does the White House have a problem
with that contract?
Mr. Carney: We raised our concerns about this
matter at the highest levels with the government
of Iraq and reiterated that any transfer or sale
of arms from Iran is in direct violation
of the United Nations Security Council resolutions.
The government of Iraq assured us that it would
look into the matter.
Today, we have seen the press release issued
by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense denying that any
contracts for military equipment
were signed with Iran.
We will follow up with the government
of Iraq on that matter.
Jim.
The Press: Getting back to the President's meeting
with the Speaker, it's been reported and I think
it's a general feeling here in Washington
that the Speaker has been standing
up to conservative groups, whether
it be on the budget or the debt ceiling.
Did the President thank the Speaker for that when
they met for sticking his neck out for him?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a more detailed
readout for you, Jim.
I can tell you that the President has noted
generally, as have I and others, that despite the
differences that exist in Washington,
we have managed to move forward when it comes to the
budget agreement and the regular order established
by it, first negotiated by Senator Murray
and Chairman Ryan, and then passed, and then followed
through on with the funding
bill that was passed.
That's a positive development.
The fact that Republicans decided not to put the
full faith and credit of the United States
to the test again with the brinksmanship over the
necessity of paying the bills that Congress racks
up, that was a good thing.
And that's good for the economy.
It's good for the middle class.
It's not about winners and losers here in Washington.
It's simply a fact that when the opposite approach
has been taken in the past it's done harm
to the American people, harm to job creation.
So those are positives.
I just don't -- again, I'm not going to get into 20
questions about, was this said, and was that asked.
The Press: You would hope that perhaps
a breakthrough has been made in this relationship
between the President and the Speaker, and that
perhaps more meetings like this might take place that
could be made public.
Mr. Carney: I think it's a press misconception
that success or failure of legislation in Congress
depends on the relationship between
a President and a Speaker, or a President and
a leader in Congress.
The President's relationship with the
Speaker, as the Speaker has said
and the President has said, has always been solid.
And the problem we've had in the past here
in Washington has been often the dictation
that has been provided by a segment of the House Republican
Congress over what the House of Representatives
would or would not do.
And that hasn't necessarily been a
reflection of what the Speaker would hope
for in a perfect world, but what he is able
to get his conference to do.
So again -- and I think going back to the broader
implication from Jeff's question and some
of the other questions, you saw last year coming
out of the 2012 elections, the President and his team
very aggressively engage with Congress, including
Republicans in Congress, in an effort
to try to move forward on some of the issues that have
divided Washington, most especially the possibility
of a broader budget agreement that would
require compromise from both sides but would move
the country forward by making necessary
investments and reducing the deficit
and debt for the medium and long term.
The President put forward a good-faith offer that
everyone on both sides recognized
as a compromise, and despite all the meetings
and dinners and coffees and engagements, we could not
get a similar counteroffer from the Republicans.
So we're going to continue to engage with Congress,
with Republicans, in an effort to see where we can
find common ground to move the ball forward
for the American people.
Where Congress refuses to act,
the President is going to use every authority available to him
to advance an agenda that expands opportunity
and rewards hard work.
The Press: And I just want to get back
to the President's call to President Karzai.
It is a fact that if this bilateral security
agreement is not signed that there
will be no troops?
Mr. Carney: Yes, correct.
The Press: By December 31st, they'll all be gone?
Mr. Carney: Absolutely.
The Press: No wavering on that?
Mr. Carney: Absent a BSA,
there will not be any U.S.
troops on the ground beyond
the end of the year.
The Press: And did the President --
his instructions to the Defense Secretary
to initiate contingency planning,
that started today?
Mr. Carney: No, no, no --
The Press: -- or had that already
been looked at previously?
Mr. Carney: What we had been saying for some time
now is that we wanted to see the BSA signed;
that it was negotiated in good faith by both sides;
it was endorsed by the loya jirga in Afghanistan;
the end-of-the-year deadline was one
that was agreed to by both sides.
Afghanistan failed to -- the Afghan government
failed to meet that deadline.
And we have been pressing in the early part of this
year for President Karzai to take action so that
that BSA can be completed.
He has indicated that he's not likely to sign the
BSA, and so we have to reevaluate where we are.
As we've been saying since the beginning of the year,
the longer we wait the more likely the
possibility is that we end up a zero option with no
troops at all beyond 2014 because
we cannot and will not have U.S.
troops on the ground without a signed BSA.
The Press: A former Guantanamo detainee has
been arrested in Britain on suspicion
of terror offenses in Syria.
When you see these incidences pop
up does it give the White House any pause
on a policy for closing Guantanamo?
Mr. Carney: I haven't seen that specific report.
What I can tell you is that there is a thorough
review process on every individual,
every detainee who's being considered for transfer
that takes all of these issues into account.
Margaret.
The Press: Did the President,
in his instructions to the Pentagon, give them
a timeline to provide him with a zero option?
I know it's been under discussion for a while,
but now he's saying, do this;
tell me how it would work.
When do you expect to get that from them,
even if you don't need to use it until August or September?
And I also wanted to ask you, when the President
and Speaker Boehner spoke about Afghanistan,
as the readout reflects, can you give us some
kind of a sense about whether Boehner will support
Obama on this BSA thing?
It seems to me like you see a lot of calls from
Republican leadership or committee leadership,
like the President really needs to get onboard
and get serious about the BSA.
But it seems like from the White House's perspective,
you guys are saying, look, we're doing this;
it's the Afghan government that's not signing it.
Did the President and the Speaker sort of get square
on that, or are you still concerned that you have
political undercurrents on the Republican side
that are hurting you in your posture on Afghanistan?
Mr. Carney: Let me take a crack
at the second part there.
It's inconceivable, I think, to us that leaders
in Congress would allow for a U.S.
troop presence without a signed bilateral security
agreement in Afghanistan.
It is a simple fact that the bilateral security
agreement was negotiated over a prolonged period of
time in good faith.
The agreement was reached.
It was endorsed by the representatives
of the Afghan people.
It is not subject to renegotiation.
I'm not sure I've heard members of Congress
suggest that it should be.
What I think has been amply demonstrated is that
we've been pressing very hard for the Karzai
government to complete the process by signing the
BSA.
Since it is now unlikely, it has been indicated that
it is unlikely by President Karzai that he
will sign it, the President made clear in
his call today that we are preparing for the
possibility of no troops in Afghanistan beyond the
end of the year, and that any -- we are open to the
signing of a bilateral security agreement later
in the year, but the longer it takes to get
there, by necessity because of the planning,
the smaller the mission will be beyond 2014 both
in size and ambition.
And the mission, in any case, as you know -- to
clarify since I haven't said it today --
will be focused solely on counterterrorism and the
training and support of Afghan security forces.
The war ends this year, at the end of this year,
regardless, as the President and NATO decided
some time ago.
The Press: But did the President ask Speaker
Boehner, hey, can you please support me on this
BSA stuff rather than have Republican members
in your caucus making it sound like I'm not pushing hard
enough to get the BSA signed?
Did this come up as a part of their conversations?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a more detailed
readout to provide to you.
What I can tell you is that that was a subject
of -- a conversation that included
many subjects and that --
The Press: Afghanistan or --
Mr. Carney: Afghanistan.
And I think -- the BSA is part of Afghanistan --
that is certainly the focus at this time.
The President had, just prior to meeting with
Speaker Boehner, had spoken with President
Karzai, so this was certainly a fresh
development to discuss with the Speaker.
But I'm not -- maybe I'm missing something.
I'm not aware of to any great degree the critique
about pushing for the signing of the BSA because
I think we have been quite aggressive in doing that.
The Press: And on the question of -- I know you
don't have more to read out than what's in the
readout, but is the Pentagon going to present
now the President with a plan that they have not
yet presented him with, which is, this is how zero
option would work?
And when do you expect him to get that plan?
Mr. Carney: Look, I think that the answer
to that question is I don't have a specific
date for you.
The fact is it has always been envisioned
by the U.S.
and our NATO allies that we would draw down to zero
by the end of this year.
The prospect of a force beyond 2014 has always
been a goal, a policy goal dependent
upon a BSA being signed.
And what I think the conversation today and the
message conveyed today by the President
to President Karzai was about is the acknowledgement that
President Karzai, despite our efforts, has indicated
he is unlikely to sign the BSA, and the consequences
of that in terms of planning going forward on,
with each passing day, more realistically, on the
prospect of a full withdrawal, and the
acknowledgment that we're making today and the
President made to President Karzai that we
would be open to the BSA being signed later in the
year, but that as time passes, by necessity
because of the complexities of planning
withdrawal -- and it's not just troops, we're talking
about equipment and closing of bases -- that
the mission beyond 2014 should a BSA be signed
would, by necessity, if it happens late in the year,
be smaller in scale and ambition.
Does that make sense?
Jon.
The Press: On the meeting with Speaker
Boehner, in the readout that the Speaker's office
provided is a long, long list of topics --
droughts, floods, fires, Afghanistan --
no mention of long-term budget, entitlements, tax reform.
So what I'm wondering, given that and given the
fact that the entitlement reforms were taken out of
the President's budget, or are going to be taken out
of the President's budget, could we now put the last
nail in the coffin of the idea of a grand bargain?
Mr. Carney: I'd say two things.
First of all, the list that I've seen from the
Speaker's office and the one that I've provided
more or less off the cuff just now I don't think
represents a complete --
The Press: But they weren't bangings
out a grand bargain, is that right?
Mr. Carney: Well, I don't think we suggested
that they were or that that was even possible
in the time that they met.
What remains absolutely the case is that the
President is ready and willing to negotiate a
balanced deficit reduction deal, long-term deficit
reduction deal, if Republicans are willing
to meet him halfway and are willing
to commit to balance.
That's what the inclusion of so-called chained
CPI in his budget last year was about.
It was the exception to the rule, when it comes
to the presentation by Presidents of their
budgets, in that it included not a priority
for him, but a priority for Republicans, because
that was an effort to make clear in the presentation
of his budget that the offer he had made to the
Speaker of the House in negotiations at the end
of the previous year was still on the table and
that it was a good-faith offer,
and that he believed, based on those negotiations, there was
the possibility that Republicans might be
willing to meet him halfway in achieving that
grand bargain, if you will, or even a mid-sized
bargain that was based on a balanced approach to
dealing with our deficit challenge -- an approach
that allowed us, because of the balance, to make
sure that we weren't achieving that deficit
reduction solely on the backs of the middle class,
that we are asking everybody to participate,
and that we would be able to make the necessary
investments in our economy in innovation and job
creation that would secure the foundation
for growth in the future.
So that's a long way of saying the offer, as I
said last week, is on the table, but we have not,
despite our, I think, persistent efforts last
year -- all the meetings and coffees and dinners
and the like to try to test the theory that
Republicans were willing to have discussions about
this -- despite those efforts producing nothing
out of the Republicans.
The Press: So whoever's fault it is,
has the President come to terms with the likelihood, maybe
even certainty, that he will leave office having
been unable to achieve an agreement that will even
address the long-term challenges facing Social
Security and Medicare?
That is just something that he will have left and
left the problem for his successors to deal with?
Mr. Carney: The President has nearly three
years remaining in his term.
And he believes that there's enormous
opportunity for progress in a range of areas with
Congress and through the use
of his executive authority.
And he would not say that there's no chance of that
effort being rewarded with success, but it requires a
willingness by Republicans to compromise, to agree to
the basic principle that if we're going to tackle
our longer-term deficit and debt challenges, that
we have to do it in a balanced way.
And you've seen kind of the schizophrenia among
Republicans on this issue where they criticize the
President for taking CPI out when they refuse to
deal in good faith on a compromise --
a negotiation built around compromise last year when
the President explicitly made clear
it was on the table and put it in his budget.
You see it where they try to hammer Democrats over
savings and entitlements that have been in the
Republican budget for three straight years.
I think it doesn't reflect well on their seriousness
when it comes to trying to reach a compromise
bipartisan long-term deficit reduction plan.
I would also say that the President remains hopeful
that that can be achieved during his time in office.
He will, regardless, based on projections and based
on where we are now, have presided
over the steepest deficit reduction since World War II.
He will have presided over deficit reduction that
brings in the next 10-year window, based on our
projections, the deficit-to-GDP below
2 percent, which is significantly lower than
the projections under the much celebrated
Simpson-Bowles goal.
And he will have done that having inherited the
largest deficits in history when he took
office in January of 2009.
The Press: And then quickly on Afghanistan.
Obviously, this is a big deal --
I mean, the frustration of not being able to get the BSA
signed; enormous consequences if the United
States has to pull out every last troop
at the end of the year.
And yet, the President hasn't had a conversation
with President Karzai since July until today.
I mean, why that level of detachment?
With the stakes so high, why did the President
go so long without picking up the phone and talking
to Karzai and personally urging him
to sign this agreement?
Mr. Carney: Jon, I think it's a preposterous
suggestion that when you have prolonged negotiation
with the Afghan government that produces the
Bilateral Security Agreement, you have the
commitment through the loya jirga
of the Afghan people to support it, you have a deadline set
by both the U.S.
and Afghan government that it should be signed
by the end of the year, and you have all of the
interlocutors that we have on the U.S.
side engaging with the Afghan government,
including with the President on a regular
basis, that the message that it needs to be signed
was not abundantly clear to President Karzai.
The decision of President Karzai to indicate that it
is unlikely that he'll sign the BSA that his
government negotiated is obviously his decision,
but it's not because we haven't made clear
that it ought to be signed.
The Press: I mean, what do you make -- again,
you've got many -- you've got
the Secretary of State, you've got many people
raising this issue.
But this is the President of the United States.
This is a high-stakes situation.
And he decided obviously it was important
to make the call today.
I'm just wondering why not as the deadline
approached, or as the deadline passed?
I mean, why --
Mr. Carney: Jon, I just think that it has been
communicated directly and indirectly --
The Press: But not by the President himself.
You know how --
Mr. Carney: Well, no, the President has stood
up and said it publicly many times.
I think it's sort of a preposterous notion that
somehow President Karzai until today didn't know
that it was absolutely our view that he ought to sign
the BSA quickly.
Steve.
The Press: Does the White House have any
assurances or reason to believe that some
or all of the Presidential candidates in Afghanistan
would sign the BSA if they were elected?
Mr. Carney: I don't think we would,
given the experience we've had, predict with any great
certainty what might happen.
I would note that those who cover these issues
have reported that candidates have suggested
they support it.
But we will obviously wait to see what happens.
And mindful of the fact that the longer
we go without a signed BSA the more likely a zero option
becomes, and the more -- even if a BSA is signed,
the smaller the mission will have to be,
by necessity, in scale and ambition.
And by necessity, I mean in the President's
view when it comes to the planning involved and the
safety and security of our troops,
that we have to have a sort of sliding scale as the year
progresses when it comes to what that post-2014
mission would look like in terms
of size and ambition.
Peter.
The Press: Jay, if I can, Jan Brewer is
expected by the end of this week to weigh
in on a controversial measure in her state, SB 1062.
We asked you about this yesterday
and you didn't have an official statement then,
but this would allow businesses to refuse service to gays and
lesbians because of religious beliefs.
And we've now heard from the NFL, Apple,
both senators from that state.
Does the President have any thoughts on this?
Mr. Carney: Well, my suggestion
yesterday that it sounded like a pretty intolerant proposed law
I think reflects our views.
As a practice, we don't generally weigh
in on every piece of legislation under consideration
in the states.
But I think the President's position
on equality for LGBT Americans and opportunity
for all is very well known and he believes that all
of us, regardless of *** orientation
or gender identity, should be treated fairly
and equally with dignity and respect.
And that view would govern our disposition
toward a state law under consideration.
The Press: When Jan Brewer was in Washington,
the President didn't have any exchange
with her on this topic?
Mr. Carney: Not that I'm aware of.
The Press: President Clinton right now
is campaigning in the state of Kentucky
for Alison Lumdergan Grimes.
I'm curious if the President has plans or has
spoken to her about plans to come out to Kentucky on
her behalf as well.
Mr. Carney: I don't have any scheduling
announcements to make involving the President.
The Press: In terms of your schedule, later today
the President has two OFA events.
The DNC is the only major political entity that has
not outraised its Republican counterparts.
Some Democrats have been critical,
complaining that the OFA is diverting funds away
from the DNC.
Because you speak on behalf of the President
and it's his schedule, any
thoughts on that complaint?
Mr. Carney: I think you can expect, as you've seen
already, the President to be very engaged
in an effort to support Democratic candidates in
the Democratic Party through the course of this
year, and I think that will be seen
in the schedule as it is unveiled.
The Press: Jay, following on what
you told Peter about the Arizona law, you said you don't
weigh in on every state law.
Why then is the Attorney General telling state
attorneys general today, you do not have to defend
laws banning same-sex
marriage in individual states.
If those laws are onerous, discriminatory, you don't
like them, why don't you work to overturn them?
Why is the Attorney General telling other
attorneys general, don't defend the law?
Mr. Carney: Well, two things.
The Attorney General was clear that any decision
not to defend individual laws must be "exceedingly
rare," in his quotes, and be based
on "firm constitutional grounds".
As you know -- and I think this goes to the first
part of your question -- prior to the Supreme Court
on DOMA, the President determined that
Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and that
his administration would no longer defend equal
protection challenges against it in the courts.
So the Attorney General's views --
The Press: So can't individual states decide
whether they think it's
constitutional or unconstitutional?
Mr. Carney: I'm not aware that -- while I'm
not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that states decide
what's constitutional.
The Press: Can I ask you about health care?
Secretary Sebelius was on HuffPost Live today, was
asked about the original goal of 7 million new
enrollees by the end of March, would you still hit
that, and she said, "Certainly hope so."
So I wonder -- she wouldn't give
a specific number.
But she said I hope we hit that target.
Is 7 million still the goal, or the 5 million,
6 million goal that the Vice President said?
Mr. Carney: I'd say a couple of things, Ed.
I think what Secretary Sebelius was reflecting
is that we don't have a specific numerical
goal in the sense that --
The Press: You did months ago.
Mr. Carney: Well, I'm happy
to go through
that again, but the --
The Press: And you put out a --
Mr. Carney: Hold on, hold on, Ed, let me get through
my sentence.
That there's not a specific number that we
hit and suddenly it's a success,
and below that by one or five or 20 and it doesn't work.
The important factors here are that there's
a substantial number of people,
in the millions, who enroll.
We are very confident we will reach that goal.
Also important is that there's a good mix
demographically who have enrolled, and we believe
based on the data we've seen thus far, and based
on the experience that Massachusetts had, the
closest thing to a model and precursor to the
Affordable Care Act at a state level, that we will
achieve that necessary demographic mix for the
exchanges to work effectively.
When it comes to the 7 million target that CBO
simply said was what they believed based on their
analysis we would reach, and that it's true other
administration officials then said we hoped
we would achieve that, I think what
the Vice President said reflects our basic view
that we're going to get a lot of folks
by the March 31st deadline.
You won't hear me or the Secretary or anybody else
say it's going to be this number
or over that number.
We're confident that the website has been working
effectively for the vast majority of the American
people who want to avail themselves of it in order
to purchase insurance, and that the numbers
that we've seen put us on track,
as long as we do our jobs well, to achieve the goal
of a substantial number in the millions of Americans.
The Press: Last one: CMS had a report from the
administration in the last few days about the impact
on small businesses of the health care law, and they
pointed out that the impact on large companies
will be negligible, there will not be a huge impact.
But on small businesses, they said nearly
two-thirds of them will pay more for coverage.
Since this is the administration saying
this, is that not concerning?
Mr. Carney: Well, of course, the truth about
what the CMS evaluated was one provision
or one of three -- they looked at three provisions within
the law, just three, not the rest.
And only one of them has a measurable
impact on premiums.
So they didn't look at the whole impact
of the law and on the one provision,
they showed the result that you just mentioned.
But this is another Republicans cherry-picking
data to tell half the story
about the Affordable Care Act.
The Press: But it's an administration report.
Why wouldn't they look at the whole law?
Mr. Carney: Well, I think
it was an administration report requested and now
highlighted by Republicans, again
narrowly looking at one provision,
which was the requirement that insurance companies no longer,
in terms of setting their premiums, advantage
seniors over young people and the like.
So the fact is the net impact, we believe,
will be positive.
And the report itself clearly states several
times that its results are incomplete and overstated,
only looks at the impact of certain parts
of the law, not the law as a whole.
Other studies that did look at the impact
of the law as a whole found that the impact on premiums
would be minimal and the benefits to employers
and to workers would be significant -- here are
some examples of provisions in the ACA that
help to lower costs.
In other words, I mean, the point is they looked
at one thing that in isolation would have
the effect of raising premiums for some individuals
without looking at all the other aspects
of the law that would actually produce a downward effect
on premiums -- tax credits for small businesses,
the medical loss ratio, rate review, more purchasing
power, more competition between insurers -- all of
those elements of the law have the opposite effect.
So again, when looked at in whole,
which is how we tend to do it, as opposed to those who want
to repeal the law or sabotage it or undermine it --
looked at a whole, we believe the impact on
premiums would be minimal and the benefits to
employers would be and will be significant.
The Press: You just told Ed that the ACA was
achieving a good demographic mix, which
runs counter to everything we've heard -- skewing
older, we understand.
And you've got people out there pushing very hard to
get younger people in is because they're
underrepresented.
Mr. Carney: Well, actually that's a
misrepresentation of the facts so far.
Where we are in terms of -- based on the data
that's come out in terms of young Americans, young
people signing up for ACA, is consistent with where
Massachusetts was, A.
B, consistent with where Massachusetts was, young
people tend to be late signers-up,
they tend to come at this very late.
And hence, as we telegraphed way
in advance, there is an enormous effort
aimed at reaching young people to make sure they are aware
of all the options available to them,
make sure they are aware of the wisdom of having health
insurance and aware of the fact that they're not
invincible just because they sometimes feel like
they are because they're young and they don't have
the aches and pains that you and I have some days.
They're going to need health insurance and some
of them will need it right away.
So that campaign is underway.
But we feel, based on the data that we've seen and
has been released, that we are on track
to have the demographic mix that we need.
The Press: That means you don't have it yet.
Mr. Carney: Well, no.
It's February and the deadline is March 31st.
The Press: Young people are all going
to sign up later?
Mr. Carney: I think that it is -- I can say
with great confidence, based on an enormous body
of evidence when it comes to deadlines of this
nature and open enrollment periods for a general
population, that people tend to sign up in surges
towards the end of open enrollment periods.
That's just a fact.
We saw that at the end of December.
And young people in particular are more prone
to wait until the last minute.
I think you don't have to be a sociologist
to know that.
You just have to be a parent.
The Press: Chairman Camp either has or is
about to release his tax program, which, as we've
heard, two brackets, 10 and 25 percent,
with a 10 percent surtax on large earners.
Is this something that the White House has seen,
is interested in, could get behind?
Mr. Carney: Well, we haven't seen the proposal.
We've certainly seen a couple of news articles
about it or reports about it.
So I don't have a comment on something
we haven't seen.
But what I can say is that the President has been
clear about his principles.
He fought to keep taxes low
for 98 percent of Americans.
He fought and succeeded in making permanent a tax cut
for middle-class Americans.
He fought and succeeded to return marginal rates for
millionaires and billionaires back to what
they were under President Clinton, and he succeeded
in doing that.
He laid out a corporate tax reform plan that would
close loopholes to make our businesses more
competitive and use savings through the
process of closing loopholes to modernize our
infrastructure and invest in what we need to grow.
He will continue to take steps to promote economic
security for the middle class and opportunity for
all.
That's the President's approach.
I don't have a response to a tax proposal
that we haven't seen.
Alexis.
The Press: Jay, last year the President was
sensitive publicly to Speaker Boehner's --
I guess, the pressure on him
if the two of them met publicly or were seen publicly.
The President actually even joked about it and he
wanted to give the Speaker some running room
especially on immigration reform.
The fact that the two of them met today,
does it signal that the President believes the Speaker
is in a stronger place to work together on legislation,
or that immigration reform is going to have
to wait for a new Congress?
Mr. Carney: I would say, Alexis, that the
President asked for the meeting with the Speaker
and was glad to have the meeting with the Speaker.
It was a good and constructive meeting in
which they discussed a range of topics,
focused on those areas where here in Washington we either
need to take action or where we should take
action in order to expand opportunity
and reward hard work for middle-class Americans.
I don't think the more nuanced analysis
of that played into the meeting.
It was just a meeting.
And I think there is -- going to my response
to a question earlier, whether it's the Speaker
or another Republican leader, there has not been a lack
of conversations and meetings between the
President and Republican leaders, or senior members
of the President's team and Republican leaders
that is the cause for our failure to achieve
everything we need to achieve
here in Washington.
I think as many of you in this room have amply
documented in your reporting, there has been
enormous resistance to compromise, largely driven
by one faction of one House -- of one party in
one House of Congress.
But even when it comes to the so-called grand
bargain that Jon was asking about earlier, the
President -- we spend a lot of time meeting with
Republican senators -- so not even in the House, but
Republican senators -- that we and you had hoped
would be open to taking a compromise approach, and
all those efforts resulted
in not a single proposal from Republicans.
So the President's good-faith proposal
remains on the table on that broader issue.
And meanwhile, we're just going to continue to work
with Congress to get the things done that we can
get done.
And when Congress won't, or where the President has
unique powers or authority to advance an agenda using
his pen or his phone, he's going to do that.
The Press: Can I just follow up and ask you,
in all seriousness, when you say it was just
a meeting but you also say it was a very useful conversation,
what was particularly useful about
the two of them meeting face to face?
Mr. Carney: Alexis, I would simply
say two things.
As I noted earlier, we don't read out every
meeting and conversation that the President has.
And two, this particular meeting was
good and constructive and it, as I think both sides have
said, covered a range of topics.
The Press: Were there other people
in the meeting?
Who else was in the meeting?
Where did they get together?
Mr. Carney: I believe Katie Beirne Fallon,
our Legislative Affairs Director,
was in the meeting.
I'm not sure if anybody else was.
But we'll get that for you.
The Press: In the Oval?
Mr. Carney: In the Oval, yes.
The Press: Jay, a couple questions.
On demographics for young people, I just wanted to
get a sense.
So right now, according to the most recent stats, I
think we stand around 27 percent of the enrollees.
General experts have talked about needing
40 percent of enrollees to be young people.
Could you just define success?
Mr. Carney: No, I think that the general experts
have said that 40 percent of people
who are uninsured are young people.
That's a little different from what you would need
for the exchanges to have the demographic
mix that's necessary for them to function effectively.
So if you look at the Massachusetts experience,
the fact that 27 percent, as you identify,
is roughly where we are now, that is entirely
consistent with where Massachusetts was.
And we remain --
The Press: At the end of the process or at this
point in the process?
Mr. Carney: At this point in the process.
And we remain hopeful and optimistic that, not least
because of the efforts that are being undertaken
to reach out to folks around the country,
that come March 31st, we will have a demographic mix
that will meet the criteria necessary
to have effective exchanges.
The Press: And then on wildfires, I was just
wondering, given that you have a new budgetary
proposal and that came up at the meeting
with the Speaker, can you describe to what extent
he seemed open to that proposal, which obviously would
require action by Congress?
Mr. Carney: I wouldn't characterize on behalf of
the Speaker his views.
I would simply concur that it came up in the meeting.
I laid out in some detail yesterday in the briefing
what the President's approach is, essentially
acknowledging that these severe wildfires create
extraordinary emergencies and that we have been
in funding suppression efforts --
basically stealing from one fund in order to deal
with suppression -- and therefore leaving us short
in a fund that is meant
to provide mitigation efforts.
So because of that, the President is taking the
approach that he is taking.
Yes, Peter.
The Press: Back on Afghanistan
and the call today.
To what extent was it timed to allow Defense
Secretary Hagel to put the zero option more fully on
the table when he meets with his fellow NATO
colleagues in Brussels?
Mr. Carney: Well, I think part of that
sentence reflects the timing.
One of the reasons for the call earlier this week
is because Secretary Hagel will be participating
in the NATO Defense Ministerial later this
week, and obviously planning for a potential
post-2014 force is something that
will be on the agenda at that NATO Defense Ministerial.
So that relates to the timing.
Again, the prospect of no troops beyond the end of
this year has been on the table in the sense that
for these past weeks President Karzai
has been indicating that he's unlikely to sign the BSA,
and absent a signed BSA, we cannot
and will not have U.S.
or NATO troops in Afghanistan and the longer
we go without the BSA being signed the more real
that prospect becomes.
The planning for that contingency is underway,
and I think that was one of the messages
the President sought to convey today to President Karzai.
The Press: Did he also send him a message
about U.S. aid,
the future of U.S.
aid being contingent on signing a BSA, as some in
Congress have demanded?
Mr. Carney: We gave a fairly strong readout
and full readout of the call.
I think that we have made clear that our commitment
to Afghanistan separate from a potential troop
presence beyond 2014 is in our national security
interests and continues.
So I don't have anything further
as it relates to non-military aid or funding that isn't
related to a military presence.
Jon-Christopher.
The Press: Jay, what is the White House anxiety
level when it comes to the next move
that President Putin may take regarding Ukraine?
Mr. Carney: Jon-Christopher, our views
on this remain what they have been, which is that
we strongly believe that it is in both Russia's and
Europe's interest that there be a de-escalation
of violence in Ukraine; that there be stability
restored in Ukraine; that there be steps taken
to establish a unity government, a multiparty
government, a technocratic government that reflects
all sectors of Ukrainian society; and that there
be early elections, which would allow the country
to have a government that broadly reflects
the will of the Ukrainian people.
In the meantime, obviously, decisions need
to be made to ensure that the economic piece
of that stability is achieved.
And we are, as I said yesterday, working with
our partners and allies to look at ways that we could
complement a potential IMF effort along those lines.
When it comes to Russia, as I said, we don't view
this as a binary proposition.
The fact is Ukrainians have expressed very
clearly over the past weeks and months
that they desire greater integration with Europe.
And if that is what they desire, no other entity
should deny them that opportunity -- no state or
other entity should deny them that opportunity.
But it is not a contradiction to say that
Ukraine can achieve that further integration with
Europe that the Ukrainian people desire while still
maintaining close, historic and cultural and
economic ties to Russia.
We believe both are possible and both reflect
Ukraine's history and the desires today
of Ukraine's people.
The Press: Jay, as you know --
you've spent a lot of time in this region -- the Ukrainian
people are not solidified on exactly which
way they want to go.
So where does the White House --
Mr. Carney: Well, I'm not sure --
The Press: There's the East and there's
the West concept.
Mr. Carney: Sure.
I would say a couple of things.
One, we strongly believe, and believe that Europe
and Ukraine and Russia do or ought
to share the view that Ukraine's independence and
territorial integrity and unity
needs to be preserved.
I would note that in the actions taken
by parliament in the last several days, the
substantial majorities have included votes from
parliamentarians of President Yanukovych's
party.
And that's not an insignificant development.
So what is important going forward is that Ukraine
take steps both in the establishment
of a technocratic unity government and then
through the process of free and fair elections
that ensure that the government of Ukraine in
the future reflects the will of all the Ukrainian
people and allows for the voices of all the people
of Ukraine to be heard.
Jessica.
The Press: The State Department has confirmed
that the United States has expelled three Venezuelan
diplomats to the embassy here.
President Maduro says he plans to nominate a new
ambassador to Washington and improve the American
perception of him.
Does the White House welcome that, especially
given the enormous oil trade relationship?
And of course, with all the protests there,
does the U.S.
want the relationship diplomatically?
Mr. Carney: Well, I appreciate the question.
I'd say a couple of things.
One, the United States did declare three Venezuelan
diplomats PNG yesterday evening.
That was a reciprocal move.
This action was taken, as I said, based on
reciprocity for the February 17 expulsion of
three U.S.
consular officials from Venezuela.
On the broader matter, I would simply say that
President Maduro needs to focus on addressing the
legitimate grievances of the Venezuelan people
through meaningful dialogue with them,
not through dialogue with the United States.
Despite what the Venezuelan government
would like to lead people to believe,
this is not a U.S.-Venezuela issue.
It is an issue between Venezuela and its people.
We've been clear all along that the future
of Venezuela is for the Venezuelan
people to decide.
And we have indicated our readiness
to develop a more constructive relationship with
Venezuela.
As we said many months ago,
that could include an exchange of ambassadors.
Venezuela, however, needs to show seriousness
for us to be able to move forward.
Recent actions, including expelling
three of our diplomats, continue to make that difficult.
So I think the issues right now for the
Venezuelan government have to do with establishing
a dialogue with the Venezuelan people.
This is not a U.S.-Venezuelan issue.
I'll do that last one.
Dan, did you have any?
The Press: Yes, on Iran.
I just wanted to ask you about a couple statements
by Netanyahu before the Merkel visit
and during the Merkel visit.
Before it, he said -- again, he said this before
that he believes Iran has set out
to become a threshold power with
continuing enrichment capabilities.
And today I believe he said that he's spoken
to -- all Middle East leaders he's spoken to agree that
it was a mistake to go on the course that the
P5-plus-1 have gone on.
Does the U.S.
disagree with that, that Middle East leaders think
it was a mistake?
Has there been any headway in some of the concerns
that the Gulf and Saudis have,
with the Saudi Arabia trip coming up?
Mr. Carney: I hadn't taken a survey
of Middle East opinion or the opinion
of all Middle Eastern leaders.
I would say that, first, the Joint Plan of Action
is an interim agreement reached
by the P5-plus-1 that commits Iran to freeze or roll back
aspects of its program that allows
over a six-month period for the negotiations towards
a comprehensive solution to take place.
Getting that comprehensive solution will surely
be difficult and it is far from a guarantee,
but is absolutely the right thing to do,
especially given the commitments Iran had to make as part of the
Joint Plan of Action to test whether or not Iran
is now ready to get right with the international
community, comply with the United Nations Security
Council resolutions, and take steps to,
in a transparent and verifiable way,
make clear to the world that it is not pursuing
a nuclear weapon.
Our bottom-line proposal, our position
is that Iran cannot have -- cannot acquire a nuclear weapon.
So the best way to achieve that for the long term is
for Iran itself to give up the effort.
But the President takes no options off the table.
He simply believes that given the commitments that
Iran has made and the enforcement mechanisms and
verification mechanisms in place that
we need to test whether or not a comprehensive
solution is possible.
Because obviously achieving
a nuclear-weapon-free Iran through diplomatic
agreement that is verifiable and transparent
is a far better outcome than alternatives.
Thanks, all