Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Carney: Good afternoon,
ladies and gentlemen.
I hope you had a terrific weekend,
and I welcome you here back at the White House.
Before I take your questions, I wanted
to highlight something that's happening in the
House of Representatives, where instead of ensuring that
our bills are paid and obligations met
and that we do not default, and instead of helping achieve
opportunity for all Americans by extending
emergency unemployment insurance or by raising
the minimum wage, creating new jobs and promoting
growth, this week, House Republicans are trying to
move a bill that would weaken the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau and hurt consumers
who finally have a watchdog looking
out for them.
THE CFPB's sole mission is to protect consumers from
the abuses of the past and to help people not get
cheated on their finances, on their credit cards,
on their student loans, and on their car loans.
Since its creation, the CFPB has put in place
safer national mortgage standards to protect
borrowers; begun to implement protections
governing non-mortgage products; improved
disclosure requirements so that consumers are better
informed; created a national consumer
complaint center that has handled nearly 270,000
consumer complaints to date; secured more than
$3 billion in relief for nearly 10 million
consumers through enforcement actions
against bad actors who violated the law;
and established federal oversight of important
financial industries for the first time, including
non-bank mortgage lenders, payday lenders,
debt collectors, and credit-reporting agencies.
Now, what we're seeing in the House is part
of an ongoing tired and partisan Republican agenda
to unwind the protections that were put in place
to protect our economy and consumers
from another economic crisis.
And of course, if the President were
to see this bill come to his desk, he would veto it.
We should be working together to continue the
progress that we've made.
Right now, we could be working together
to help create more good manufacturing jobs.
We could be working together to help
our economy by passing patent reform, by passing housing
finance reform -- not by engaging
in the same old tired debates that do nothing
to build on that progress.
The CFPB was and is an extremely important piece
of the Wall Street reform agenda the President
pressed hard for against some very powerful vested
interests, and it is vital that Republicans
in Congress keep in mind the consumers
out there who need what the CFPB provides,
which is protection.
With that, I take your questions.
Julie.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
A couple different topics.
U.S. officials have told the AP that
the administration is at least
considering using a drone strike
to take out an American al Qaeda operative overseas.
Has the President been involved
in these discussions?
And what would the legal rationale
for taking that action be?
Mr. Carney: Well, Julie, as you know,
I would not comment on something like that --
an alleged specific operation.
And I would not discuss particular targets
that may or may not be under consideration.
I would, of course, be able to point you
to what the President said about the issue of the
government taking lethal action against an American
citizen in his speech in May of 2013 at NDU.
In that speech, he said that he does not believe
it would be constitutional for the government
to target and kill any U.S.
citizen without due process,
nor should any President deploy armed
drones over U.S. soil.
But he also said that when a U.S. citizen
goes abroad to wage war against
the United States, and is actively plotting
to kill U.S. citizens,
and when neither the United States nor our
partners are in a position to capture him before
he carries out a plot, his citizenship should
not serve as a shield.
But beyond that I'm not going to comment
on alleged specific plans or operations.
The Press: Can you say whether
he has been involved in the discussions?
Mr. Carney: Well, that would be commenting
on an alleged specific plan or operation.
The Press: On a separate topic, Michael Sam,
who is an all-American college
football player, announced over the
weekend that he's gay.
The First Lady and the Vice President
I think have both commented on Twitter.
Does the President have any response?
Mr. Carney: Well, I have nothing specifically
from the President at this time except to say that
he shares the sentiments expressed by the First Lady
and the Vice President and so many
others in marveling at his courage and congratulating
him on the decision he made, on the support
he's had from his team, and wishing him well
in the future, including in professional football.
The Press: There's been a lot of discussion that
this could affect his standing in the NFL draft,
which is coming up in the next couple of months.
I don't know if you've talked to the
President about this, but do you know if he would think
that this announcement should affect his standing
in the draft and how NFL teams might look at him?
Mr. Carney: Well, without having this
be a reflection of a conversation with the
President, I can tell you that in general that
it is his view that it should not have an effect.
I mean, any athlete's abilities should be
measured by what -- in the traditional way, in terms
of how he or she performs in the sport and on the
field, in this case.
And in this case, his performance
has been exceptional.
So I think that would be the President's view,
but I haven't talked to him about it.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
The Republicans are meeting to talk about how
to proceed on the debt ceiling.
Apparently one of the plans is to link raising
the debt ceiling to restoration of retired
military personnel benefits that were cut.
How does the President feel about that?
Would he sign such an increase?
Mr. Carney: Our position on the
responsibility of Congress to ensure that our debts
are paid, that the bills that Congress racked
up are paid has not changed.
We're not going to pay a ransom of any kind
in return for Congress doing its job.
So we'll take Republican leaders at their word when
they say that they won't let the United States
default, and they will not play the kind
of brinksmanship that led to a shutdown last fall
and to doubts about whether or not we might default.
That did great harm to the economy,
to the middle class, and to the Republican Party.
So we're confident that Republicans will
be true to their word here and simply take care of their
business, do the right thing and ensure
that that ceiling is lifted.
The Press: But does that mean that
he would not sign a bill --
Mr. Carney: You're speculating --
I'm not going to get into a "what if this were the bill
or that were the bill."
Our position has not changed.
It hasn't changed for a long, long time.
We're not negotiating over Congress's responsibility
to pay its bills.
The Press: On immigration, Senator
Schumer said over the weekend, or suggested
that perhaps one way to get the bill done would be to put
off the affected implementation date
of any immigration reform until after the 2016 election.
Would that be acceptable to the President?
Mr. Carney: We've put out our principles.
The President has strongly supported a bipartisan
bill that passed the Senate
that reflects those principles.
We're now at a stage of waiting to see what
the House can produce.
There's been significant progress.
Amid a lot of other discussion and debate,
the fact is House Republicans and House Republican
leaders have made progress on this issue.
They've put forward standards and principles
of their own, and those principles contrast pretty
significantly with the de facto position held
by Republicans as recently of last year,
which was self-deportation.
So we will wait to see what the House produces.
The need for comprehensive immigration reform
is stronger every day.
The benefit that it would provide to our economy,
to our middle class, to the security of our borders,
and to our capacity to be a magnet for innovative
entrepreneurs is as great today --
and greater today -- as it has ever been.
So we believe the consensus here
is significant and growing that the House will act
and do the right thing, not because the President
says it should, but because so many voices
out there are joined in unison calling
on Congress to act.
If there's anything that the American people want
and agree on when it comes to Washington
it's action as opposed to obstruction or inertia.
And here's an opportunity for a bipartisan effort
that by every outside economic analysis would
do enormous good to our economy, for our middle
class and for our businesses,
as well as our security.
So there are solid reasons for Republicans as well
as Democrats to move forward on this,
and we look forward to that happening.
The Press: If I could ask one last
question on Cuba.
The European Union has apparently agreed
to launch negotiations with Cuba to increase trade,
investment, and dialogue on human rights.
How does the United States feel about
this warming of ties?
Has the United States consulted with
the E.U., or vice versa, on this matter?
Mr. Carney: I'm not aware of that report.
I would refer you to the State Department.
Move around -- yes, ma'am.
The Press: Thank you, Jay.
I have a few questions.
Does the President have any schedule
to visit South Korea on his upcoming trip
to Asia in April?
Mr. Carney: I don't have any scheduling
announcements to make today beyond those
that we've already made for upcoming travel.
The Press: One more question.
Last week at the National Prayer Breakfast,
President Obama mentioned about that he was working
on the release of Kenneth Bae from North Korea.
Do you have any specific plan to do?
Mr. Carney: Well, I can tell you that we are
deeply disappointed by the DPRK decision
for a second time to rescind its invitation
for Ambassador King to travel to Pyongyang to discuss
Kenneth Bae's release.
The DPRK announced publicly in May of 2013
that it would not use the fate of Kenneth Bae
as a political bargaining chip.
We remind the DPRK that the U.S.-ROK military
exercises are transparent, regularly scheduled
and defense-oriented.
These exercises are in no way linked
to Mr. Bae's case, and we believe they know that.
We, again, call on the DPRK to grant Mr. Bae
special amnesty and immediate release
as a humanitarian gesture so that he may reunite with
his family and seek medical care.
We will continue to work actively to secure
Mr. Bae's release.
Per our longstanding offer, we remain prepared
to send Ambassador King to North Korea
in support of that effort.
The Press: Yesterday, North Korean government
announced that they cancelled
the Robert King visit to North Korea.
How did you respond to that?
Mr. Carney: Yes, I just said that we are deeply
disappointed by that decision and would point
to what the DPRK said in May of 2013 that
it would not use the fate of Kenneth Bae
as a political bargaining chip.
And we are very disappointed
by the cancellation of the invitation
to Ambassador King on this issue and we stand ready per our
longstanding offer to dispatch Ambassador King
to North Korea
to help secure Kenneth Bae's release.
Ann.
The Press: Thank you very much.
Following on Julie's question on the drones,
the President clearly feels very deeply about
the drone policy.
Is this the kind of decision that would need
to rise to the level of his desk?
Mr. Carney: I appreciate the effort
to ask the same question about a specific
particular alleged reported action,
but I'm not going to be able to discuss
that kind of activity.
I can point you to what the President said and
I think he spoke quite forthrightly
about these issues in May of 2013 at NDU.
The Press: At the University of Arkansas,
archives have opened up records of a good friend,
close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton's -- Diane Blair.
And it talks a lot about her personal notes,
considerable notes about her discussions and
friendship with them, and what they said during
the times they were in the White House.
I don't know that you've discussed that with the
President, some of the interesting comments.
Mr. Carney: No, I have not.
The Press: But at the time that those documents
-- the information was not accessible
was during the 2008 campaign.
And Senator Obama held Hillary Clinton
to account, saying that the very time she was using
those records as a basis to demonstrate
her own experience for office that they weren't accessible,
and he said, and "I think, Hillary,
that's a problem."
Does the President have a different perspective
now that perhaps now that he's been in office that
private records and rememberances
for a political figure, especially a candidate,
ought to be kept private?
Mr. Carney: That's a long windup to a question
I'm not sure I understand.
You're saying, does the President have
a view on Diane Blair's personal reminiscences?
I have not discussed that with him
or how it would apply to him.
But I'm sure that I would point you to what he's
said in the past.
The Press: Have you seen the information that --
Mr. Carney: I have not, no.
Major.
The Press: Jay, I know you can't and don't want
to talk about the AP story on an operational basis
or even to confirm it.
But is there a protocol established since
the President's speech that establishes
a due process review within the various agencies involved --
Defense, CIA, the White House, NSC --
on cases like this where there's an ongoing war on terrorism
or effort to deal with a potential
terrorist threat that does involve an American?
And how does that process -- can you give
us any idea about how that process works
and how it changed after the marker the President
laid down in that National Defense University speech?
Mr. Carney: Well, what I can tell you
is the President laid out in pretty explicit detail his
approach to these issues at that speech.
I can tell you that the targeting
of any American raises constitutional issues that are
not present in other strikes.
But the high threshold that we have set for
taking lethal action applies to all potential
terrorist targets, regardless of whether
or not they are American citizens.
And I would remind you that we take extraordinary
care to make sure that our counterterrorism actions
are in accordance with all applicable domestic
and international law, and that
they are consistent with
U.S. values and policy.
Of particular note, before we take any
counterterrorism strike outside areas of active
hostilities there must be near certainty that
no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest
standard we can set.
So, again, I can't talk about specific alleged
or possible operations.
I can point you to what the President said in,
I think, fairly deep granularity back in May
of 2013 about the approach he takes and the
administration takes and the changes that
he's made in policy.
The Press: On immigration, I want
to give you a chance to respond to something that
is becoming a bit more thematic for Republicans
in the House as they approach this issue
and as they deal with their own internal divisions
about it, this question of trust.
The Speaker said on Friday that, if the President
uses executive orders that could be a deterrent
for House Republicans to press forward in the sense
that this administration to the minds of House Republicans
enforces law in a bit of an arbitrary fashion.
I want you to address that, take that head
on, and respond to that in the context
not of how this administration views its actions,
but whether or not it should be linked in any way
to this immigration debate.
And does it pressurize the President
to change behavior?
Mr. Carney: Major, I appreciate the question
and I am glad to answer it.
First of all, the struggles the Republican
Party has with this issue have nothing
to do with the President.
This is a tough issue for Republicans,
as Republicans themselves acknowledge on the record
all the time.
It's certainly -- those troubles --
I don't think it stands up to scrutiny to suggest
that the troubles Republicans have on this issue are the
President's fault, nor could they be attributed
to a lack of trust.
After all, when comprehensive immigration
reform came up as an issue in 2006,
when President George W. Bush
was in office, Republicans killed
it because of their internal divisions.
Do you know how we know that?
Because John Boehner said so on the record.
So, again, we understand and are even sympathetic
to the fact that this is a tough
issue for Republicans.
But nobody buys that Republican reluctance
to deal with and pass comprehensive immigration
reform has to do with the issues that you lay out.
It wasn't the case in 2006;
it's not the case now.
The reason -- we need to get this done
legislatively in a bipartisan way because
of all the benefits that passing comprehensive
immigration reform would provide to our economy,
to our border security and to our businesses.
And as I said earlier, we're confident this
is going to happen.
We remain optimistic that 2014 is the year that
it will happen, but not because I'm saying it
should happen or the President says it should
happen, but because there are so many voices in this
coalition and in this consensus that are making
clear that it's the right thing to do, and including
voices that not just Democrats but Republicans
tend to listen to.
The Press: So what does it tell this White House
when Charles Schumer, who is an ally of this
White House, who works very *** this issue,
has had negotiations with House Republicans behind the
scenes, wants to get this done, suggests a way
to take open this pressure valve would be not
to implement some of it until after this
President has left office?
What does that tell you?
Mr. Carney: I'm not going to speak
for any individual lawmaker.
I think that the issue itself --
The Press: Does that say that a Democrat who
wants this to happen sees this as a problem also?
Mr. Carney: No, I think that that discussion
highlights the fact that that excuse is bogus
and that the issues here have to do with longstanding
tension within the Republican Party about the
need for immigration reform --
tensions that predate this President's arrival
in office by quite some time.
Brianna.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
On the debt ceiling, if House Republicans were
to wrap the increase in with some other measures that
both Democrats and Republicans are amenable
to, is there really a problem with that
from the White House's perspective?
Mr. Carney: That's a whole bunch of "ifs."
Our position has not changed --
The Press: Is that an issue, though,
if it's kind of squished together with things that the
White House doesn't oppose?
Mr. Carney: I would suggest that you look
at previous instances that the debt ceiling has been
raised where there hasn't been brinksmanship
or the threat of default, and note that Republicans were
able to do it in the past and they should
be able to do it this time.
Republican leaders have said they will do it.
So I'm not going to speculate about how that
process works except to say that we're not going
to pay ransom on behalf of the American people
to Republicans in Congress so that Republicans
in Congress fulfill
their constitutional responsibilities.
This one is easy because our position is clear
and it has not and will not change.
And it is simply not necessarily a pleasant
responsibility but one that Congress has to own,
and that Republicans in Congress have to accept.
They appropriate, they pass bills that require
funding, they need to pay those bills.
And that's what raising the debt ceiling is about.
It's not about new spending; it's about the
money you put on a credit card and the bill that
comes every month.
And this is basic stuff.
The Press: If I can ask you about something that
some are saying should be discussed
by President Obama and President Hollande --
there's a rail company that is owned primarily
by the French government owned -- its parent company SNCF.
It's bidding on the Purple Line project in Maryland,
huge transportation contract with the state.
And historians say that SNCF carried Jews and
other Nazi prisoners to the French-German border
on the way to concentration camps,
and now there's critics -- Democrats and Republicans
in Congress in the state of Maryland as well
who say that the rail company under this company --
I know it's somewhat convoluted --
should be paying restitution to the victims if it's going
to be allowed to bid on a contract because
it's U.S. taxpayer money.
Is this something that President Obama will
address with President Hollande?
Mr. Carney: I'll have to take the question.
Generally, and when it comes to the specific
question about what they're going to discuss,
I would wait for both Presidents to read out
their discussions to you.
So I don't have a preview.
Obviously, we have a broad and deep relationship with
our oldest ally, and there will be many issues
that the two leaders will discuss.
On the broader question, it sounds like maybe
Department of Transportation and others
may be of more help to you,
but I'll have to look into it.
The Press: I mean, it's actually
a state issue, but now --
Mr. Carney: I just -- Brianna, I just confess
I'm not familiar with the details of it so I would
hesitate to provide an answer,
and I'll take the question.
Ed.
The Press: Jay, in the op-ed today
the two Presidents start off by talking about Iran
and they hail success in what they call rolling back
elements of Iran's nuclear program.
But today there are reports about
Iranian warships moving closer
to U.S. borders.
There's also reports where Iran is claiming
that they successfully tested two missiles.
I wonder if you could react to those
reports and answer whether or not that casts more doubt
on Iran's intentions in these talks.
Mr. Carney: Well, first of all,
there was an Iranian announcement
that they are moving ships
close to the United States and we have no evidence
that Iran is, in fact, sending ships
close to the U.S. border.
On the second issue, I don't have anything
specific on that, but I can tell you that we have
been clear that even as we work with the P5-plus-1
to test the hypothesis that Iran is ready
to meet its obligations to the international community
with regards to its nuclear program,
that we are at odds with Iran on a number of issues
and we continue to press hard both directly
as the United States and with our international partners
on those issues.
And that includes matters regarding missiles.
But I don't have a specific response to that.
Maybe State does.
The Press: But you don't have any --
you're raising doubt about whether they're moving
warships closer to the U.S.
Do you have any reason to believe --
Mr. Carney: Is FOX reporting that
they're moving warships closer to the U.S.?
The Press: It was reported over the weekend
that, as you say, they claim that.
They also claimed today -- and it's reported by AFP
and many other wires -- that they
say they successfully tested missiles.
Do you believe them or do you --
Mr. Carney: Again, I don't have a specific
answer to that report.
I'm sure we can get it to you and I'm sure
State has it.
What I can tell you is that we continue to have
major disagreements with Iran and we press
very hard -- whether it's their support for international
terrorism, for Hezbollah, or whether it's
enforcement of existing sanctions,
we are not letting up on Iran on a wide variety of issues
where we are profoundly in disagreement with them,
and have rallied an international
consensus around that fact.
The Press: Can you also comment on -- you spoke
earlier about Michael Sam's announcement.
Eric Holder, the Attorney General,
made a substantive policy announcement over
the weekend about making sure all employees
of the Justice Department, anyone representing
the U.S. government in court, other arenas, are making sure
that same-sex marriage benefits go to as many
people as possible.
How far-reaching do you think this will be?
Mr. Carney: I would refer you to the
Department of Justice for specifics about
the Attorney General.
The Press: I mean, well, sorry, I don't want
to get into every count of it, but it would seem
to be this is a pretty important policy
pronouncement from the President's
administration, beyond just what Justice
is technically going to do.
I guess I'm trying to get at how important
is this to the President.
Mr. Carney: That American citizens
enjoy equal rights?
Pretty important; profoundly so.
Chuck.
The Press: Jay, going back to this AP drone
story, I guess the part I'm confused about
is the President laid out that he wanted to shift the
decision-making process from the CIA
to the Defense Department.
In the budget agreement that the House
and Senate came up -- it specifically blocked money
from being used to do just that.
What is the status of the drone?
Can you at least say who's running
America's drone wars?
Is it the CIA or is it the Defense Department?
Mr. Carney: Again, I think I would point
you to what the President actually said,
and repeat what I said earlier about the President's views
on how we reach near certainty when it comes
to civilian casualties not occurring in targeted
strikes, and his views and our views on matters
surrounding American citizens who may have
taken up arms against the United States
and who pose a direct threat to U.S. citizens.
On the issues that you raise I would refer you
to the content of the speech.
I don't have anything more for you.
The Press: Well, I know the content of the speech
said that, but then there was what Congress passed
in the budget bill, which was, among other things,
also had Gitmo not being allowed any -- does this
mean the change happened or didn't happen?
Mr. Carney: I just don't have anything more
for you on it, Chuck.
The Press: Second, Senator Menendez is being
investigated about whether he has intervened
on behalf of these fugitive brothers from Ecuador,
the Isaias brothers.
He told a colleague of mine on Friday that
because the White House -- because the Obama
administration has not pursued extradition
of these brothers back to Ecuador that it means
the Obama administration agrees with Senator
Menendez and that the White House agrees
with Senator Menendez that they should not be extradited.
Do you have any way that you can characterize this?
Mr. Carney: No.
(laughter)
Does anyone else?
No, I mean, on issues of extradition
I would refer you to State and Justice,
but I don't have any -
The Press: Do you have any specific information
on the Isaias brothers?
Mr. Carney: I don't.
I do not.
The Press: Speaking of Attorney General Holder,
he told The New Yorker today he is going
to step down sometime this year.
What's the President's reaction to that?
Mr. Carney: I haven't spoken to the President
about that report.
The Press: Does the White House or the
administration have a position on whether
it was rebels or Syrian government that
was behind the attacks this week
on U.N. envoys?
Mr. Carney: That's a good question.
What I can tell you is that
we're following developments and
reports from Homs extremely closely.
And we are aware of the conflicting reporting,
but we're not -- in terms of who is responsible,
we're not in a position to confirm or corroborate
these reports at this time.
We are looking for further clarity and additional
information as well.
However, it does appear that whoever targeted
the humanitarian aid convoys deliberately
did not want the food and other assistance
to get into Homs.
What does that tell you?
Based off of past words and actions,
we all know which side in this conflict was in the past
opposed to getting aid into Homs.
So, again, we're investigating conflicting
reports, so we cannot confirm one way
or the other at this time, but there is some past
practice here and past rhetoric here that
suggests who might be responsible.
The Press: And there's some discussion
of a potential U.N. resolution
to make sure the aid does
get into Homs.
Is that something the U.S. would support?
Mr. Carney: We support a humanitarian resolution
in principle, as do other U.N.
Security Council member states.
The Security Council must actively support the
principle that all barriers preventing
humanitarian access to all parts of the country and
all civilians be removed immediately.
The United States has worked with our partners
on the U.N.
Security Council to develop a draft resolution
that we feel includes provisions that
go beyond the October 2nd Security Council Presidential
statement to address the need
for greater humanitarian access.
So we're continuing to work with Security Council
member states on this issue.
The Press: Thanks.
Mr. Carney: Leslie.
The Press: Jay, going back to Eric Holder --
a public advocacy group today filed a lawsuit
in D.C. seeking to block the agreement between Justice
and JPMorgan Chase, saying that it was an overreach
of executive power.
Given the President was a constitutional scholar,
would he agree that this case didn't go before
a court or a judge --
Mr. Carney: I think I would refer
you to the Justice Department for that kind of ruling.
Andrei.
The Press: Thank you, Jay.
Obviously the Olympics -- what can you tell us about
the President following the Olympics
or not following the Olympics?
Did he watch the opening ceremony?
What did he think?
Any other highlights you want to share?
(laughter)
Mr. Carney: Well, I can tell you that the
President is very excited by the fact that
the games are underway.
And there's been some terrific competition
already, some amazing performances
including by some American snowboarders.
But I have not gotten a detailed readout from
the President yet as to which events he was able to
catch and which he has just caught up on.
But I think everyone here is thrilled that
the games are underway and that the competition
has been exciting thus far.
The Press: Thank you.
And on the other issue, the history --
May was before Snowden came out, right?
And basically my question is if Snowden
is an American citizen free from the threat of physical
harm from his government?
Mr. Carney: The position of the
administration is that Mr. Snowden has been
charged with felony offenses and ought
to be returned to the United States where he will
be accorded the full rights and benefits
and due process of those who are accused
in our system of justice.
Chris.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
Three topics, one question each.
You've said before, the White House expects --
Mr. Carney: At least he's honest
about it, right?
(laughter)
The Press: You said before the White House
expects Russia to conduct the Olympics
in a way that welcomes everyone.
According to The New York Times over the weekend,
at least 61 protestors were arrested nationwide,
some over LGBT rights.
Is that in line with the President's
view for welcoming --
Mr. Carney: I think broadly speaking, in terms
of the matter of LGBT rights in Russia,
the President has been very clear, and I think he was
clear in his interview with Bob Costas of NBC
on the evening of the opening ceremonies.
So we strongly express our views when it comes
to any crackdown on those who are expressing
their opinions peacefully.
But I don't have anything specific with regards
to the games themselves on these matters.
But our views on them haven't changed.
The Press: And on Michael Sam, I gather from
what you said that the President hasn't reached
out to him in the wake
of his announcement last night.
Mr. Carney: I just don't have any updates
for you on the President.
The Press: I'm just wondering because
Jason Collins -- he called Jason Collins when
he came out last year.
I'm just wondering why he didn't
do the same thing for Michael.
Mr. Carney: Again, I don't have anything
on the President's schedule right now.
The Press: Also, Eric Holder's announcement over
the weekend regarding the extension of same-sex
rights -- there was a lot of media attention
and sort of reaction to that over the weekend
for an announcement that basically amounted
to complying with a court order so that a spouse
wouldn't be forced to testify against their
spouse in federal court.
I'm just wondering if you were surprised
by the reaction about that over the weekend.
Mr. Carney: I mean, I don't have
a characterization to make about the coverage
or the reaction except to say that the President
believes every American ought
to be afforded equal rights.
And he certainly supports that instance of his view
-- or actions taken that reflect
his view in this case.
The Press: As you know, the second round
of the Geneva talks started today.
The expectation is pretty low.
How do you expect it to be different from
the first round?
And also, it was reported over the weekend
that Iran has been supporting ISIS-al Qaeda in northern
Syria, and they give some details of names
and operatives and some kind of evidence.
Can you share some information
with us on that?
Mr. Carney: I'm going to ask you to repeat
the second question in a minute.
I can tell you that the second round
of discussions did begin today in Geneva and Joint
Special Representative Brahimi
met with the two sides separately
to discuss the agenda of the second round.
And we are pleased that these talks will continue,
but there is obviously a lot of work ahead.
We recognize that this will be a long
and difficult process.
I don't have any more detail about the agenda.
We obviously are pressing, together with our partners
on this issue, for a negotiated political
settlement to the conflict.
It's the only way to end this conflict.
And it is certainly a good thing that
the two sides are sitting down together in Geneva.
And the second question?
The Press: First on the first one --
so the success to you is basically both sides
are staying in the same room and negotiating?
Mr. Carney: I didn't say that.
I said progress.
It is important that they are sitting down
and together, but there is a long way to go.
There is no alternative to a negotiated political
settlement in this case.
And that is what the Geneva process
is all about, is trying to reach that negotiated political
settlement on behalf of the Syrian people.
The Press: Second question is, there were
reports that Iran has been supporting ISIS
in northern Syria and al Qaeda and they have some
detailed information about
operatives' names, et cetera.
Can you shed some information, how does this
affect the relationship with Iran and the nuclear
five, or even separately?
Mr. Carney: What I can tell you is that
on all the broader issues that we have with Iran we maintain
the exact posture that we did in the past,
and that includes Iran's support for its destabilizing
efforts in the region, its support for Hezbollah
and terrorism and terrorist organizations in general,
and it also includes the enforcement of existing
sanctions when it comes to its nuclear program.
So we're very clear-eyed about Iranian behavior.
We are also working with our international
partners, the so-called P5-plus-1, to see whether
or not we can resolve this major challenge to the
international community and to the safety and
security of the people in the region and the world,
and that's Iran's nuclear weapons program,
through peaceful diplomacy because it is in everyone's
interests to see whether or not it can
be resolved through diplomacy.
But we're very clear-eyed about that process and
certainly about the broader issues
we have with Iran's conduct around the region and the world.
The Press: My question is if there is clear
evidence that actually they are supporting
al Qaeda and ISIS, would there
be consequences for it?
I'm not talking about --
Mr. Carney: First of all,
you're saying "if, if."
What I can say is that our support for a very tough
approach to Iran when it supports terrorist
organizations will not and has not changed.
And separately, we are pursuing with
our P5-plus-1 partners the potential for a negotiated
resolution to the issue and the challenges posed
by Iran's nuclear program, a verifiable resolution
that would reassure the international community
that Iran does not and will not obtain --
does not have and will not obtain a nuclear weapon.
The Press: Jay.
Mr. Carney: Yes, Goyal.
The Press: Thanks very much.
Two questions.
One, India is going through major national
elections in the next few months, and the ruling
party may not be very favorable in the future,
but the major candidate is Mr. Narenda Modi,
who is a very famous from the BJP party.
But his visa has been a problem for the U.S.
He is not getting a visa to visit the U.S., even
though he's President and other party leaders --
Mr. Carney: Do you have a question, Goyal?
The Press: My question is that, the President
has been briefed on this because since
he may be the next Prime Minister of India?
Mr. Carney: I would refer questions about
visas to the State Department.
The Press: Second, as far as immigration
is concerned, millions of people are living -- are
underpaid and living under sweatshops and all that,
and they are paying taxes.
And they're asking if they are eligible
for the Obama -- this health care program.
And also what message the President has for those
people who have been paying taxes and living
really under the sweatshops
and so forth?
Mr. Carney: I'm sorry?
Are you speaking about the United States?
The Press: Here, yes, in the U.S.
-- illegal immigrants.
They're paying taxes and also --
Mr. Carney: The Affordable Care Act does
not extend benefits to non-U.S.
citizens undocumented immigrants.
The Press: So what they're asking really that
they've been hoping that the President will come
out and support this immigration issue,
and they're relying on him for the last five plus years.
Mr. Carney: Well, the President believes
strongly that working with Democrats
and Republicans in Congress,
we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
But the Affordable Care Act
is very clear on this issue.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
Mr. Carney: Thanks, everybody.