Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Carney: Good afternoon, everyone.
Thank you for being here.
I appreciate your patience.
A lot of meetings today, including the President's
Cabinet meeting, which was substantive
and ran a little long.
I just want to mention at the top,
for those of you Miami Heat fans who are planning on being
at the event, I think the call time is 2:25 p.m.
No problem here if you get up and leave
and we're still taking questions.
That is okay with me.
In the interest of keeping it tight,
I'll go straight to questions.
Jim.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
On Iran, today President Rouhani said that the Geneva agreement
means "the surrender of the big powers
before the great Iranian nation."
I'm wondering if you have any reaction to that statement,
and do you find it helpful?
Mr. Carney: Jim, it's not surprising to us,
nor should it be to you, that the Iranians are describing
the agreement in a certain way for their domestic audience.
They did the same thing following the agreement
of the Joint Plan of Action in November,
and we certainly expected they would
do the same thing this time.
The fact is the agreement marks the first time in a decade
that Iran has agreed to specific actions that halt progress
on its nuclear program and roll back key aspects of the program,
stopping the advance of the program and introducing
unprecedented transparency into Iran's nuclear activities
while we negotiate a long-term comprehensive solution.
So, again, as I said yesterday, it doesn't matter what they say;
it matters what they do.
And the Joint Plan of Action and the implementation agreement are
concrete documents that commit Iran to take specific steps
in a verifiable, transparent way.
And the coinciding moderate relief comes in tranches,
specifically as the adherence to its commitments --
Iran's adherence to its commitments is verified
along the way over the course of the six months.
So, again, I think the issue here is the agreements
that Iran has made,
the fact that it has committed itself to halting
progress on its nuclear program, rolling back key aspects of it,
and engaging in further negotiations in pursuit
of a comprehensive solution to this problem.
The Press: So you reject his statement that this agreement
is an admission by the world of Iran's peaceful nuclear program?
Mr. Carney: Well, again, I would just point you
to what I said before,
which is that we fully expected Iranian leaders
to describe the agreement in ways --
in a certain way for their domestic audience.
They did that in November.
What matters to us, to the P5-plus-1,
to the international community, is what Iranian leaders do,
what Iran does in keeping its commitments in this agreement.
The Press: On another subject, on unemployment insurance.
As of last night, some Republicans were talking about
a three-month extension that was paid for,
but also included -- eliminated a cut on benefits to veterans.
Is that an argument or a position
that the President would support?
Mr. Carney: Our position on this has been clear from the beginning.
Senator Reid has taken steps to try to address the concerns of
Republicans who have said they want to extend unemployment
insurance benefits to the 1.3 million Americans and their
families who need them now and we support rapid action.
I'm not going to assess each floated proposal
on how to do that.
What the Senate should do and then the House should do
is pass an extension of benefits right away.
There is an existing bill, has made some progress in the Senate
that would do that immediately without offsets
for just a short duration,
three months, in the manner that was done
under President George W. Bush five times.
And we certainly support that.
We also have said that we would entertain discussions
with Congress about how to move forward
for a longer-term extension.
But I don't have a view on or a characterization of other
proposals that are popping up.
We simply want the Senate and then the House to act.
The Press: And as a general matter,
would the White House prefer that the full COLA increases
for veterans be instated?
Mr. Carney: What I would simply say on that again,
when it comes to the UI extension, we want it done.
I'm not going to -- associating specific ideas with this and
asking for our view on it kind of takes away
from the urgent need for the Senate to act
and the House to act.
Senate leaders are working on this as we speak.
We hope to see progress.
We hope to see resolution.
And if we have more specifics on individual proposals
that are actually serious and are going to get to the floor,
we'll let you know.
The Press: Are there any changes to plans for the
upcoming state visit of French President Hollande
and his partner?
Mr. Carney: There are no changes.
The President looks forward to seeing President Hollande
for the state visit in February.
On issues of the delegation that the French come with,
I would refer you to the French government.
The Press: And Secretary of State Kerry said
that the President is going to visit the Vatican.
Can you tell us anything about this trip --
when it would happen, and moreover, what the purpose
of such a visit would be?
Mr. Carney: The President looks forward to a meeting
with the Pope in the near future.
I do not have any more details for you on that timing
or location except to say that the President
very much looks forward to a meeting.
The Press: And lastly, on Secretary of State Kerry,
Israel's Defense Minister said that his quest
for Middle East peace is obsessive.
How does the White House respond to that?
Mr. Carney: I think you're referring to comments that were reported
out of a private meeting as I understand it.
So what I can tell you is that the remarks of the Israeli
Defense Minister, if accurate, are offensive and inappropriate,
especially in light of everything
that the United States is doing
to support Israel's security needs.
Secretary Kerry and his team have been working nonstop
in their efforts to promote a secure peace for Israel
because of the deep concern the United States has and the deep
commitment the United States has for and to Israel's future
and the Israeli people.
To question Secretary Kerry's motives and distort his
proposals is not something we would expect
from the defense minister of a close ally.
Again, that's if those remarks are accurate as reported.
The Press: Do you know if this was discussed in last
night's dinner with the Vice President and Netanyahu?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a readout beyond what's been reported on,
on that dinner.
I can tell you that we are --
as we always make clear --
committed to Israel's security.
We are committed to the Middle East peace process
in a way that secures Israel.
And as you know, Secretary Kerry met in Paris on Sunday with the
Arab Peace Initiative follow-up committee as part of a regular
process of the negotiation consultations on the final
negotiation process between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The API follow-up committee has been enormously helpful
and constructive in this effort.
The Arab Foreign Ministers made clear to Secretary Kerry that
they support Israeli and Palestinian leaders' efforts
to take the next bold, courageous steps of agreeing
to a framework for permanent status negotiations.
I would also note that President Abbas and Prime Minister
Netanyahu have both demonstrated courageous and determined
leadership over the last five months.
They've made tough choices and they are contemplating
even tougher choices in the weeks ahead.
We have made progress with both parties and narrowed some
of the gaps, and we will continue
to seek to narrow the gaps.
So we're pressing forward with both the Israelis
and the Palestinians on this process
and hope that it bears fruit.
Brianna.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
White House officials including yourself have likened a vote
in Congress to adopt new sanctions against Iran
to "a march to war."
And you now have Democrats pushing back against that.
You've seen that from the Senate Foreign Relations Chairman,
and just a short time ago, Steny Hoyer said that it's
"an irresponsible assertion and ought to be clarified
and retracted."
What is your response to that?
Mr. Carney: Brianna, I think I took questions on this
for the last couple of days.
Our view is that Congress has --
The Press: He just said this today so I'm asking you
specifically to refer to Hoyer's comment.
Mr. Carney: Well, as I will now,
as I have referred to others and I'm happy to do so again,
the President believes that Congress has been an excellent
partner in the effort to construct the most
comprehensive, effective sanctions regime in history,
a sanctions regime that was designed specifically to try
to change Iranian behavior, to try to compel Iran
to the negotiating table.
And what we have seen in the last several months
is that that effort has produced progress.
It helped lead Iran to the negotiating table.
It helped the P5-plus-1 reach the Joint Plan of Action
agreement and the implementation agreement.
And now we will see whether or not Iran is serious about
reaching a comprehensive resolution so that we can,
in a verifiable, transparent way,
be confident that Iran is not pursuing and will not obtain
a nuclear weapon, and to do that peacefully.
That is certainly the President's
preferred course of action.
Our view is simply that Congress ought not pass new sanctions now
because doing so could inadvertently, no doubt,
actually compromise the potential
to reach the shared goal that we have by,
instead of strengthening the sanctions regime, weakening it;
instead of bolstering the P5-plus-1's position
in negotiations with Iran,
fraying the unity that has been established and the consensus
that has been established around the world as regards Iran's need
to uphold its international obligations
and to come into compliance with international obligations.
So our view is not one that says sanctions are bad.
Quite the contrary.
This President has led the way in constructing
the most comprehensive and effective and punitive
sanctions regime in history.
And he has done so because he has rallied the international
community behind a consensus view on the need to prohibit
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
So our view is simply that Congress ought to hold in
abeyance any action on further sanctions pending action
by Iran, progress or the lack of progress by Iran
in the negotiations.
And I think to the point you made in the beginning,
the issue here isn't motive or intent.
It's that the consequence potentially of sanctions
legislation, which would have the negative,
unintended effect of destabilizing the sanctions
regime or fraying the consensus, would be that it might limit the
options available to the President in achieving his
commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
So I know that was a long answer,
but I think it gives the full view of how we are looking at
this and how we are having these conversations with lawmakers
about our shared view that we need to take the necessary
steps, at the right time, to achieve our objective.
The Press: Is that the clarification, then, on "a march to war"?
Mr. Carney: Well, it's the answer I've been giving for several days,
and it is consistent with what we said in the past.
The Press: But do you stand by that or --
Mr. Carney: I'm not sure to what you are specifically referring.
I know others have characterized what we said in that regard,
and I would simply say that --
The Press: You said in I believe November,
"Americans don't want a march to war."
Mr. Carney: I don't think Americans want a march to war.
What I'm saying about actions in Congress
or potential actions in Congress
is that we share the objectives that leaders
on this issue have in Congress.
We certainly share a commitment to the efficacy
and effectiveness of sanctions.
Our position has simply been that now is not the time
to potentially and inadvertently fray the coalition
that has assembled behind a position that has forced Iran
to the negotiating table or undermine
the actual sanctions regime that has been so effective thus far.
Surely nobody in Congress wants that as an objective,
and we share the desire to make sure
that Iran is held to account.
But we need to do so in a way that allows maximum flexibility
to achieve a resolution here peacefully.
The Press: On the President's speech tomorrow in North
Carolina, Senator Kay Hagan will not be attending.
It's obviously her home state.
Is the President worried that he is a drag on some vulnerable
Democrats in this key election year?
Mr. Carney: Brianna, I think Senator Hagan's offices addressed that.
I think she's here working on important business.
The President looks forward to his visit
to North Carolina -- A.
B, we're certainly not looking at a visit designed to highlight
the need to continue the progress we've made with
advanced manufacturing as an issue of electoral politics.
The fact is, thanks to the grit and determination of the
American people, thanks to the quality of the American
workforce, and thanks to the policies pursued by this
administration, we have seen a rebound in manufacturing
in the United States.
Many people and experts viewed the decline in manufacturing
in this country that we had experienced over a number
of years to be something that was irreversible,
but this nation has proved and the American people
have proved otherwise.
And the fact is we've created more than 500,000
new manufacturing jobs.
And the more of them that are created in the advanced
manufacturing space, the more high-paying those jobs are,
the more those jobs bring economic security and stability
to middle-class families across the country.
So that's what the President wants to highlight tomorrow.
The Press: And my point -- and I know you're saying
that her office has addressed this, that she's here,
the Senate is in session.
But I mean, it's kind of the -- I think people take that
as the congressional equivalent of,
"I can't go, I'm washing my hair."
So do you --
Mr. Carney: You think voting on potentially --
The Press: No, I don't, I don't --
Mr. Carney: -- budget resolutions, or omnibus resolutions, or --
The Press: -- but I think there's a way to --
I think there's a way to thread the needle.
Mr. Carney: -- extending unemployment insurance --
The Press: No, but I think --
Mr. Carney: -- I think that most senators would disagree with that.
The Press: I think there's a way to thread the needle
and some -- try to maybe fit both things in.
And she said that she welcomes campaigning with the President,
but it doesn't seem that she jumped at this opportunity.
Mr. Carney: This isn't a campaign event, Brianna.
I understand, having been there, the urgent desire --
The Press: But it's a campaign year for her.
Mr. Carney: -- to turn every story 10 months out into an election story.
The Press: Does the President --
Mr. Carney: I promise you this is not one.
The Press: My question is just does the President worry
that he is a drag at this point in a time where he needs to
maintain the Senate so that he can push his --
Mr. Carney: All I can tell you is that the President is traveling
to North Carolina tomorrow.
Jon.
The Press: Coming back to Iran,
the President has been very clear, you've been very clear,
there have been multiple veto threats,
you've said over and over again that this sanctions bill
would derail these talks.
Why, then, are so many Democrats willing
to defy the President on this?
Mr. Carney: I would say that the President shares with every
member of Congress who has made this issue one of special
attention and focus the same commitment to depriving Iran
from acquiring a nuclear weapon, the same commitment to building
a comprehensive and effective sanctions regime,
which includes sanctions levied --
leveled by the United States through legislation
passed by Congress.
We have worked very closely with Congress and Congress
has been an excellent partner in that effort,
and the senators who have been discussing action
in the current time period have been leaders on this issue.
So we have shared their objectives.
We have shared their commitment.
Our view -- very strong view is that passing new sanctions now
would be counterproductive.
It would actually undermine the goals that we share potentially.
The Press: And I feel like you've been crystal-clear on that point.
But ever since the White House issued that first veto threat
and said it in exactly those terms we've had more Democratic
co-sponsors of this bill.
So I'm just wondering, this is a top --
correct me if I'm wrong --
this is a top foreign policy priority for the President
if not the first this year, and yet you have had several top
Democrats simply say, no way, we're going ahead anyway.
Mr. Carney: Look, I think that you also have --
The Press: I mean, why aren't they giving the White House
the benefit of the doubt?
Mr. Carney: -- and there have been a number of Democratic senators
who have come out strongly today urging this bill
not to be voted on, urging this bill not to --
senators, their colleagues, not to support this legislation
now precisely for the reasons that the President has said.
So you'll have to interview and talk with each individual member
to learn from them their reasoning behind their actions
here and what they support.
Our point is that we actually share the same views on these
matters with those who have been pushing further sanctions.
We simply think, as a matter of maximizing the potential
for resolving this conflict with Iran peacefully,
Congress should not pass legislation that introduces
new sanctions at this time.
Now is not the time to do that.
There may be the time, and if and when that time arises,
Congress can be most effective by holding in abeyance
new sanctions until then.
And so we will work with Congress
if that time does arrive.
I don't think anyone doubts, given the shared views on this,
the commitment that Congress has demonstrated,
the support for depriving Iran of obtaining a nuclear weapon,
the support for the security of our allies in the region,
that if Iran were to fail to meet its commitments,
if it were to violate the terms of the agreement,
the Joint Plan of Action, or if it were to scuttle or walk away
from the negotiations over a comprehensive resolution,
Congress could and would act very quickly
to impose new sanctions.
And even better, given that that would have been triggered by
Iranian behavior, our partners around the world would be
much more likely to follow suit.
And building that international consensus has been what allowed
us -- has to this point been what has allowed us to make this
sanctions regime so effective, because unilateral sanctions
imposed by the United States can achieve only so much,
as you know.
And it has been the broad international consensus that has
been constructed here with the leadership of the United States
that has made this sanctions regime so effective,
having the impact it has had on the Iranian economy,
on the views of the Iranian people,
which in turn have led to the moment where Iran decided that
they ought to get serious apparently about negotiating
with the P5-plus-1 over the disposition
of its nuclear program.
Yes, Nadia.
The Press: Two questions on Syria and Egypt.
On Syria first.
This administration seems to be threatening
the Syrian opposition of cutting aid to them
if they don't show up at Geneva II.
Can you verify this?
And also, what's the chances of giving them incentives
like releasing political prisoners or a ceasefire --
limited ceasefire, an accord that could be achieved
before Geneva II?
Mr. Carney: Well, I would simply say that we expect the Syrian opposition
to come to Geneva and we expect they will.
We recognize that there are current divisions
among the opposition,
and that the path to Geneva is a difficult one.
But we expect that members of the opposition will attend.
We are focused on moving the parties
to the Geneva II conference
because there is no military solution
to the crisis in Syria, as we've said.
A negotiated, political transition
is the best opportunity
to end the violence and the suffering of the Syrian
people, and to begin a process of ending the conflict through
the full implementation of the Geneva Communique.
In Paris this weekend, Secretary Kerry engaged
in an intensive round of diplomacy regarding Syria,
including meeting with the ministers of the London 11,
Syrian Opposition Coalition President Jarba,
and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
and Joint Special Representative Brahimi.
So we continue to move forward
towards the Geneva II conference.
We expect the opposition to attend.
And we expect that because we are absolutely confident
that there is no way to resolve this crisis except
through a political negotiated resolution.
The Press: So will you resume the aid
even if they don't show up in Geneva?
Mr. Carney: I think you're mistaking --
or you're misstating our position.
We didn't cut off all aid.
We cut off -- we halted some aid
because of the need to verify the security
of the aid that was delivered.
I think I announced earlier this week that we were resuming
some of the aid that we've been providing and that we remain
committed to the SMC as well as to the broad Syrian opposition,
as well as through our humanitarian aid which has
continued to flow to the Syrian people who have suffered so much
because of President Assad.
The Press: I was stating a specific incident.
I'm talking about something else.
But regardless.
Mr. Carney: You said we cut off aid, and we haven't.
The Press: No, I said, are you threatening to cut off
more aid if they don't show up in Geneva --
that was my question.
Mr. Carney: That is not my understanding, no.
The Press: On Egypt, do you feel --
does the administration feel victory that actually
the spending bill now is passing without any --
giving you basically --
without researching, giving you a waiver regarding the aid --
Mr. Carney: What I can tell you is that on the omnibus legislation
is that Congress has laid down parameters
and conditions for continuation of assistance to Egypt,
and pending passage of the bill --
it has not yet passed --
we will determine whether those conditions are being met.
Our view is that this does not imply any immediate changes
with regard to our October 9 assistance decision,
which I know you recall.
So we will evaluate it upon passage,
but our view is that it doesn't imply any immediate changes.
April.
The Press: Jay, I have a couple of questions and I want to start
with a papal visit -- a future papal visit.
Has the President been influenced -- and if so,
how and why -- by the Pope and some of his initiatives,
particularly when it comes to poverty,
those who are not in the middle class -- things of that nature?
Mr. Carney: The President, I believe in his remarks in Anacostia
late last year, referred to the Pope and what he has said
and what he is doing about the problem of inequality,
about the problem of economic mobility around the world.
So I think that you can take from that that the President
is certainly aware of and paying attention to the work being done
by the Pope and the Vatican.
Beyond that, with regards to a meeting the President
is looking forward to,
I just don't have any more details about
when that will happen or where.
The Press: And as you talk about -- you talk about inequality
and poverty and things of that nature.
Could you give us the mindset as we're going into January 28th,
the mindset around this White House?
What is the state of this union?
As you're talking about unemployment insurance,
bringing more people into the middle class, fixing inequality,
what is the mindset of what the state of the union should be
when the President says --
Mr. Carney: That the American people
and our economy have come a long way from the depths
of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
We've come a long way from the time when we were hemorrhaging
jobs at 800,000 jobs per month, when the economy was shrinking
at something like 7 percent annualized in a given quarter to
a situation where we have been steadily creating jobs --
8.2 million, if I'm not mistaken,
private-sector jobs --
where we have been growing steadily.
But we have much more work to do.
We are not where we need to be.
And that is why the President is so committed to working with
everyone in Congress and outside of Congress who shares
his interest in advancing the country economically
in addressing the need for creating
more advanced manufacturing jobs,
the need for providing greater educational
opportunities to our children, the need to make work pay,
which is what raising the minimum wage would do,
the need to increase our investments
in our infrastructure,
creating jobs now and creating the potential
for economic growth later.
And I think you heard the President mention at the top of
the Cabinet meeting today that he wants action this year,
and he believes that he has two unique powers as President --
the power of the pen and the power of the telephone --
to try to instigate action.
He can sign bills.
He can sign executive orders.
And he can get on the phone as President of the United States
with unique abilities to rally support behind ideas
that can promote growth, promote education reform,
promote job creation.
So that's what he's going to do.
And we're going to do it every day of the year with the aim
of continually improving the state of the union,
and improving it for the middle class and for those Americans
who were working hard every day, playing by the rules and trying
to save for their retirement,
trying to pay for college and trying to get by.
And we're trying to make it a little easier for them.
The Press: And anything new on Southern Sudan,
any movement from the White House on that?
Mr. Carney: I don't have any updates on South Sudan at this time.
The Press: Jay, what --
Mr. Carney: Wait. Should we sing "Happy Birthday" or not?
[laughter]
Mr. Plante: Spare me.
[laughter]
Mr. Carney: Just from all of us, Bill, it's happy birthday.
And also just having somebody with the amount of experience
you've had around here I think is a help
to all your colleagues.
It's a help to us and we're glad you're here.
(Applause.)
Mr. Plante: Thank you.
You're very gracious.
And now, I have a question.
[laughter]
Does the President's expressed willingness today to use
his powers to create action by executive action and order
indicate that he doesn't believe that he'll be able
to work with this Congress?
Mr. Carney: No, it indicates that he will use every
opportunity available to him to move the ball down
the field with Congress.
And wherever there's an opportunity to do that
he will seize it.
But he will not limit himself because he certainly doesn't
think the American people would want him to limit himself
just to what he can do legislatively with Congress,
because as President, there is a lot more he can do.
And he's demonstrated that throughout his term in office,
and he will continue to do that with renewed vigor this year
because there is much to be done and there is great opportunity
to get it done using every means available to him.
The Press: What kinds of executive actions and order would he take?
What could he do that he can't accomplish
with the help of Congress?
Mr. Carney: Well, I think you've seen over the course of
his presidency actions that he's taken through his executive
authority to accomplish remarkable things,
including the fuel efficiency standards that, alone,
will achieve more to reduce carbon pollution in this country
than almost any legislative initiative you could imagine
passing through Congress.
It's not an either/or proposition.
It's a both/and proposition.
So I won't get ahead of him in talking about what other actions
he might be able to take using his executive authority,
and I wouldn't see it even narrowly through that prism
alone in terms of executive orders and pieces of paper
the President can sign to create action.
Part of the authority the President referred to today
is an authority related to the influence of the office,
to the capacity of a President to rally people around a cause,
create public-private partnerships when it comes
to hiring veterans or investing in education and communities so
that you have public sector and private sector partnerships to
make sure that folks -- young people in those cities and towns
and communities are getting the skills they need for the jobs
available in their communities, jobs available
at private sector businesses.
So those are just a couple of examples of the kinds of things
that we can do that are beyond legislation
and beyond even executive orders.
Ed.
The Press: Just a couple of topics.
First, Iran.
Is it still the administration's position that Iran should not
enjoy a right to enrich uranium --
Mr. Carney: -- that has never been what we've said.
It's not enshrined in the agreement.
In fact, it's explicitly stated otherwise.
So I think that's important to note.
The Press: So during these negotiations, they can enrich?
Mr. Carney: I would point you to the agreement and what
commitments Iran makes in terms of the level of enrichment
they're allowed to meet.
But the assertion, often misstated in various quarters,
that the agreement recognizes a "right to enrich" is false.
The Press: On the deal in general,
you've said several times earlier that the importance
of this deal is that it's verifiable and it's transparent.
In the interest of transparency, why didn't the State Department
this weekend, why didn't you yesterday and today as you
discussed this talk about what's now reported
to be a secret side agreement,
a 30-page secret annex dealing with this agreement
that the Iranian side has revealed.
Is that true?
Mr. Carney: No, and it's another indication of reporting
that's not accurate.
There is no secret agreement.
The documentation associated with the implementation
arrangements tracks completely with what we have described,
which are technical plans submitted to the IAEA.
The technical understandings clarify how the provisions of
the Joint Plan of Action --
the publicly-released Joint Plan of Action --
will be implemented and verified in the timing
of implementation of its provisions.
Now, I remind you, this is not solely a U.S. process.
This is not an agreement negotiated solely
between the United States and Iran.
These are understandings that were reached
with our P5-plus-1 partners,
the European Union, the IAEA and Iran.
And we will make the text available
to the Congress and the public,
but we must work with the parties on when
and in what format the information will be released.
And we hope to do that soon.
The Press: So why would the Iranian side be out there
suggesting there's a side agreement?
Is it just --
Mr. Carney: I think -- well, again, what Iranian leaders say
for their domestic audience purposes is far less meaningful
than what they do and what the agreements commit them to.
So I would point you to that, and point you to the fact
that we will be making the text available both
to Congress and the public.
The Press: Okay. Two other quick things on Benghazi.
There were newly declassified documents released
by Republicans on the Hill yesterday.
They show that in private testimony to a House panel,
some of the President's top military advisors at the time --
General Ham, General Dempsey and others --
believed within minutes of the attack in Benghazi
that it was an attack,
probably a terror attack.
And yet you know -- we've talked about this before --
for many days after, the President,
but you specifically at that podium,
said we did not know whether it was a terror attack.
Why -- if these military leaders testified to Capitol Hill
that they knew it was an attack almost immediately,
why did you continue to --
Mr. Carney: Well, I'd say one thing -- two things.
First of all, of course it was an attack.
The facility was attacked.
The Press: Right, but you said it was a demonstration.
Mr. Carney: There was never any doubt about -- come on, Ed.
I mean, I know there's a desire here to --
The Press: But that's what you said.
It's in the transcript.
Mr. Carney: -- color outside the lines, but this is just not factual.
Of course it was an attack.
It was an attack that led to the deaths of four Americans.
And there has been a significant amount of investigation to find
out what went wrong when it came to security and to recommend
steps that should be taken, and which we are taking,
to do everything we can to ensure it doesn't happen again.
So I think there has been a lot of reporting on this,
and there has been a lot of inaccurate reporting on it --
generally speaking, not just this particular case of House
Republicans selectively releasing more testimony to
outlets so that they can use it for political purposes --
The Press: They were releasing it to the public --
Mr. Carney: -- but the idea that we were somehow
saying it wasn't an attack?
I mean, the sky is blue.
Up is not down, down is not up.
Of course it was an attack.
The Press: Okay. And they also explored,
this House panel, a September 10th,
2012 conference call the President had with military
and security officials about the 9/11 anniversary of 2012.
You remember -- you've talked about it before,
you put out a press release at the time --
about the force posture and how this administration
was making sure that you were prepared around the world
for the anniversary.
In this testimony, General Dempsey privately told this
House panel that, A, Libya did not come up on that conference
call with the President, and B, that after the call,
there was not a single directive issued by any military leaders
to change our force posture,
Libya or anywhere around the world.
So my question is, in that press release where you said
that the President had had this call, this meeting,
and was preparing the posture, was that an exaggeration
when there were no military directives after changing
our posture in any way?
Mr. Carney: Ed, a couple of things.
One, our military and our other services devoted to our national
security don't wait till September 10th to prepare for
contingencies on an anniversary like September 11th of any year.
Secondly, I don't know specifically whether Libya
or other areas of the world were discussed.
What was the case, as I think you remember,
is that there was a lot of unrest in the region
and that was certainly an issue of concern
in terms of the security of our embassies and our American
personnel around the world.
But any -- I mean, again, I'm not really sure what --
you can address questions about force posture
to the Department of Defense.
If the suggestion is there was not adequate security
to protect the lives of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya,
I think that's obvious, as we have made clear,
and that should not have been the case.
And that's why we have had the investigations we've had.
That's why the State Department and others have acted on the
many positive recommendations of the Accountability Review Board,
and why we have taken the steps that we've taken to make sure
that we're doing everything we can to protect Americans,
our civilian Americans serving abroad,
often in very difficult and dangerous circumstances.
The Press: Jay, first, I just want to get a sense if the President
was updated at any point today about the shooting
that took place in Roswell, New Mexico --
a 14-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl
in critical condition --
or the shooting that took place late yesterday, I think,
in Florida at a movie theater
where a man was apparently shot for texting.
Mr. Carney: I will have to take the question about
the shooting from yesterday.
I can tell you that the White House is in close touch
with our federal partners, including the FBI,
with regards to the shooting in Roswell.
The New Mexico State Police is on scene,
so I'd refer you to them for any specifics about the shooting.
Our understanding is this is not an active shooter situation.
The President's team is monitoring the situation
and is in close touch with our federal partners.
For more information about some of the details you mentioned
with regards to this shooting,
I'd refer you to the New Mexico State Police.
The Press: The President punctuated his last
State of the Union address with that emotional refrain --
he said, "They deserve a vote,"
naming off the cities that have now become synonymous
with mass violence, mass gun violence.
The President got that vote.
It failed.
Now what?
What does the White House do now as we visit, in some ways,
the one-year anniversary of that emotional refrain?
Mr. Carney: I think this goes a little bit to the point I was making
earlier about using every resource available to him
to advance an agenda that he believes is in the interest
of the American people.
And you've seen action that he has taken,
executive action that he's taken that was part of the commitment
he made after the task force delivered its recommendations.
And we have acted on every one of those executive actions,
and he will continue to take steps.
The Press: So what will he do?
Mr. Carney: Well, I don't want to preview everything
that we will do or can do.
We will continue to urge action by Congress.
But there is no question that Congress,
the Senate made a decision against the will of the
overwhelming majority of the American people when it failed
to pass legislation that would have simply expanded
our background check system, legislation that would have
in no way impinged upon the Second Amendment rights
of the American people.
But that doesn't mean we stand still.
We move forward.
We look where we can take steps.
And I think there was not long ago --
I know there was --
action taken with regards to mental health,
which is an important aspect of this problem --
executive action.
And we'll continue to look for ways to advance an agenda
that will help the safety of the United States,
help our children in particular in their safety
without in any way infringing upon the Second Amendment rights
of the American people.
The Press: I guess, very simply,
acknowledging -- following up on some of the questions
from the row before me,
the gist is you've already completed all those
executive actions that you committed to successfully,
so the question is, is this an example where after those
executive actions are completed, if Congress doesn't act,
at some point your hands are tied
and there's no further you can go?
Mr. Carney: Well, no. I think that we're always looking
for ways and will continue to look for ways
that we can move forward on this issue and many others.
The fact that we've already taken actions certainly doesn't
mean that there aren't more actions we can take,
or that we can't use the pen or the phone to try to rally
support behind actions in communities or states
when it comes to this issue, but again, so many other issues.
So, no, I don't think that the fact that we've actually
taken action suggests we can't take more.
The Press: Tomorrow there's another deadline -- not as
significant as passed deadlines we've covered when it comes to
the Affordable Care Act -- it's the last day to sign up for
coverage beginning February 1st.
Yesterday we got our first real look at the numbers
through the end of 2013 in terms of enrollments.
The mix remains to be seen, what it will look like by the end
of March, as you'll surely communicate to me in a moment.
But I want to get a sense from you about what the real concerns
are right now -- given the President's recent visit with
young people for lunch not far from here -- what the real
concerns are about getting to the numbers that you need
to achieve in time for that deadline.
Mr. Carney: I think, as you saw yesterday in the data that
was released by CMS, an enormous amount of progress made,
especially in December, in terms of a sharp surge in enrollments
overall, and an even sharper surge in the enrollment
of young Americans under 35.
And we are working very aggressively with all
stakeholders to ensure that that progress continues.
We got off to a very shaky start, and that was on us.
And it's on us to make up for the deficit
that we created for ourselves.
But nobody contests anymore whether or not there is a huge
appetite for this product.
Nobody contests anymore whether or not Americans are enrolling
and signing up for health care through the exchanges
at a very healthy clip.
And what I think we saw in the data yesterday is something
that reflects very much the experience that Massachusetts
had, specifically with regards to young adults
and young people overall.
In Massachusetts, over the first three months of enrollment,
when they had the closest thing to the antecedent to the
Affordable Care Act, you saw percentages that were 15,
23 and 23 percent in the first three months.
Yesterday, CMS announced that we were in the 24 percent range,
and 30 percent if you take all young Americans under 35.
And when you talk about actuarial tables that counts --
going from zero to 34.
It's also, I think for anybody who has been young --
and I assume that includes everybody --
a statement of the obvious that young people are going to be,
by and large, late to the party when it comes to signing up.
When you're talking about young people who are not insured,
as opposed to the population of people who have purchased
insurance on the individual market in the past who
are middle-aged, who may have health conditions and they need
insurance, they've had insurance or they need insurance
and haven't had insurance, they are much more likely
to sign up early.
And that's reflected in the data.
What we saw in Massachusetts, what we've seen in every other
comparable past experience, is that young people will sign up
late and in large numbers.
And that's what we expect.
It's what we saw for the January 1st deadline,
which for a lot of young people
wasn't even the motivating deadline.
The motivating deadline will be March 31st.
So we're confident that come March 31st, we will have,
as you stated, a different demographic picture.
But the demographic picture we have today is certainly
solid evidence that we're making a lot of progress.
The Press: Thank you, Stuart Smalley.
[laughter]
Mr. Carney: Roger.
The Press: Thanks.
I want to talk to you about the omnibus bill,
the agreement reached yesterday.
It's got some new requirements
for the National Security Agency.
They would be required to turn over data about the collection
of bulk phone records, including how many Americans have had
calls intercepted by the agency.
How would you respond?
Mr. Carney: I'm not aware of that item in the omnibus,
so I'll have to take the question.
George, and then Mark.
The Press: Congressman Bill Owens has said he's not going to run
for reelection, in just the latest of --
Mr. Carney: Is this an election year question?
Come on, there's 10 months, 11 months.
The Press: Yes, but he just announced
that he's not running for reelection.
He's the latest of many moderates running for the exits.
So what does it say about the state of Washington
that so many moderates feel unwelcome?
Mr. Carney: Well, I don't write political analysis anymore,
so I won't deliver the piece I might have written
verbally from the podium.
I'll simply say that the American people who send elected
representatives to Washington expect them
not to follow the party line,
not to respond to interest groups,
but to deliver for them in each of these districts.
And no matter how red or how blue a district is,
by and large, the values and the desires and goals of the people
in those districts are similar across the country.
And what they expect out of Washington when it comes to
common-sense progress on behalf of the middle class
is pretty similar, which suggests to me
that there is room to move forward here,
there is room for compromise.
And we saw it in the budget agreement reached
by a Republican chairman in the House
and a Democratic chairman in the Senate.
We saw it in the omnibus legislation that was filed.
It was nobody's idea of a perfect document --
not the President's, not Democratic leaders,
not Republican leaders -- but it represents compromise
that we think each side can live with so that we can make
the right investments in our economy and in our people
and we can do what's necessary to protect the United States,
our armed forces, our civilians and our allies.
So I think -- I know that doesn't answer your question
with regards to specific retirements.
I think there are retirements every cycle.
But that's what I think --
I believe that about most people who send --
go to the ballot box and send folks to Washington,
and it's certainly I think what motivates us here.
Marc.
The Press: Jay, there's been some reports in the last few days
that the Russians are negotiating an oil-for-goods
swap with the Iranians.
Your colleague said yesterday that Secretary Kerry
had raised this issue with the Russian Foreign Minister.
I'm wondering whether you've gotten an explanation
from the Iranians and the Russians about what this is,
and whether you're satisfied with it,
or whether you're worried that it, in fact,
raises questions about whether it's at odds
with the terms of the interim nuclear deal.
Mr. Carney: We remain very concerned about these reports,
as Secretary Kerry expressed directly
to his Russian counterpart.
And if the reports are true, such a deal would raise serious
concerns as it would be inconsistent with the terms
of the P5-plus-1 agreement with Iran
and could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions.
Again, this is about action, not about words;
not about how things are characterized,
but how things are done.
And that last statement I think reflects our views.
It could potentially, if true as reported, trigger U.S.
sanctions because it would not be consistent with the agreement
negotiated between the P5-plus-1 and Iran.
So we're concerned.
We're continuing to look into this
and we're expressing those concerns.
The Press: And the format we're expressing those concerns?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a specific
additional readout on that meeting
except to confirm that our serious concerns were raised.
The Press: Just one thing.
You've talked a lot about the unity of the partners
in dealing with Iran.
Wouldn't one of the key partners negotiating a deal
with the Iranians that would be serious enough
to warrant sanctioning represent
a splintering of the coalition you described?
Mr. Carney: Again, I think that if the reports are true
that it would be a serious concern because of the fact that
it would be inconsistent with the very agreement negotiated
by the P5-plus-1 with Iran,
so one of the P5-plus-1 plus Iran,
if this is true, would be working on a deal
that would be inconsistent with that agreement.
Jared.
The Press: I want to follow up on Peter's question
about gun violence and some anniversaries last week.
It was three years since the shooting that killed six
and injured Congresswoman Giffords.
When was the last time the President spoke
with the former congresswoman?
Mr. Carney: We can get that for you.
The President has spoken with her on a number of occasions,
and I believe on that anniversary,
the Vice President spoke with her.
The Press: And you mentioned at the top, Jay,
that the Cabinet meeting went a little long.
Did the President have any guidance or suggestions
for people who might be in the future wanting to write a memoir
or any other comments about --
Mr. Carney: Well, I won't read out with any more specificity
the Cabinet meeting,
except to say that that issue did not come up.
Laura.
The Press: A French question -- what do you expect from --
Mr. Carney: Oh, I thought I was going to have to answer in French,
which would have been pretty entertaining.
[laughter]
The Press: What do you expect from the state visit in February?
Because President Hollande just finished his press conference.
He was talking a lot about his arrival on February 11.
And do you expect the French First Lady to come with him?
Mr. Carney: The President looks forward to seeing President Hollande
for the State visit in February.
In terms of that question that you asked,
I'd refer you to the French government.
We look forward to hosting the President of France
here in February.
This is our longest, most enduring alliance
and an important and valued relationship at every level.
So the President is very much looking forward to the event
and to his discussions with President Hollande.
The Press: Has there been a state visit where there was just one person?
Mr. Carney: I think Mark Knoller is the right person
to ask historical questions.
I have no idea.
Yes, Alexis.
The Press: Two questions.
Following up on Marc's question, can you just explain,
was this question about the oil for goods,
this was not ironed out before the interim agreement
was announced and described?
In other words, it didn't come up as a potential wrinkle?
Mr. Carney: The implementation agreement is a very --
were specific negotiations about the technical aspects
and instructions provided to the IAEA
for the implementation of a Joint Plan for Action.
So I'm not -- I don't know the specific contents of every
conversation that took place around those negotiations.
But the United States Secretary of State raised this issue
directly with the Foreign Minister of Russia and expressed
our concern, and I think you just heard me say what our view
is on this matter if the reports are true.
The Press: Second question.
The President, all Presidents have the pen and the podium
and the telephone, and the President has used that,
as we've already discussed, and he had
a whole initiative called We Can't Wait.
Looking ahead at his agenda this year,
is there something different about the agenda items the
President wants to tackle this year that makes
this executive initiative new or distinct or different
than what we've seen him do in the past?
Mr. Carney: At one level, Alexis,
I'd have to say wait to see what initiatives the President
discusses in his State of the Union address
and moving forward.
To your point, there's no question
that throughout his presidency,
President Obama has worked with Congress
to pass legislation --
major legislation and smaller legislation --
all of it meaningful.
He has also used his executive authority to advance important
aspects of his agenda, including on matters of reducing
carbon pollution, for example, and a host of others.
So what I think we're talking about here is a renewed effort,
a renewed focus on using all of the tools available
to the President, acknowledging that we're not likely
to get everything we would want legislatively done through
Congress, but not acknowledging that there aren't significant
things that we can do legislatively
through a Congress.
We believe we can, but we're not putting all our eggs in any
single basket when it comes to advancing an agenda that grows
the economy, creates more security for the middle class,
opens up opportunity for all Americans,
improving economic mobility.
We're going to do everything we can across the board.
And whether it's year five or year six,
or whether you're looking at the entire eight years of a two-term
presidency, there's a lot of time to advance an important
agenda for the American people, and there are always new ideas
that creative thinkers produce for moving forward on an agenda,
and there is always the potential for new energy behind
older ideas so that they can move forward.
And that's the kind of energy and enthusiasm that I think is
imbuing this place right now, as we look forward towards 2014 and
look forward across not just the next three years
but into the future beyond that.
Because the kinds of steps the President has always been
focused on have been, when it comes to the economy,
ones that would produce dividends for the middle class
and dividends for the American economy well into the future
beyond his time in office.
The Press: On immigration, last year,
the White House was pretty clear that the President did not
believe he had additional room to use his executive authority,
as some advocates on immigration reform had urged him to do.
Going into this year, does that continue to be the case,
the President's view?
Mr. Carney: Our position hasn't changed.
The way to address all of these issues is through comprehensive
immigration reform.
The Senate did extraordinary work in passing a bipartisan
comprehensive immigration reform bill that enhanced border
security beyond even what we've done in the first five years;
that levels the playing field when it comes to our businesses,
making sure everybody is playing by the same rules;
that enhances our legal immigration system so that
engineers and software designers and super-smart people from
around the world who study in our universities stay here to
create jobs and businesses; and that creates a system where the
11 million undocumented people in this country can go
to the back of the line and engage in a process that,
if all the steps are taken, results in citizenship.
And that was a bipartisan effort supported by a remarkable
coalition of conservatives and liberals and business and labor
and law enforcement and church groups, faith groups.
So we're optimistic that further progress can be made in 2014
on this major piece of action that
has so many economic benefits associated with it.
So our views have not changed.
And we look forward to working with Congress,
working with the House to advance that very important item
on the agenda.
The Press: Can I ask just ask a quick one?
Mr. Carney: Sure.
The Press: About the Iran-Russia potential oil deal.
You said that there's basically a threat of sanctions
if it turns out this report is true.
Is that sanctions against Russia, or Iran, or both?
Mr. Carney: I think we're talking about U.S. sanctions in the context
of the sanctions regime with Iran.
And again, that's if reports are true.
So there's conditions here.
Such a deal would raise serious concerns,
as it would be inconsistent with the terms
of the P5-plus-1 agreement with Iran.
So this is -- but I think that is meant
to convey the seriousness of the matter and how we view it.
Thank you very much.