FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Press Gaggle en route Toluca, Mexico
PRESS GAGGLE BY
PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY
AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS BEN RHODES
Aboard Air Force One
En Route Toluca, Mexico
9:50 A.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Good morning. Thank you for joining us on our early start this morning. We are making our way to Mexico for the North American Leaders Summit. And I have with me today Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who can assist on questions you may have about national security and foreign affairs.
Let me just start by saying, as I think you know, later on this flight, the President will sign an executive order on streamlining the export-import process for America’s businesses. In his State of the Union address, President Obama set an ambitious agenda to make 2014 a “Year of Action,” using his pen and his phone to take steps to expand opportunity for America’s middle class, including helping small, American businesses compete in a global economy.
Today, as I said, aboard Air Force One, the President will sign a new executive order on streamlining the export-import process for America’s businesses, specifically the executive order that cuts processing and approval times from days to minutes for small businesses that export American-made goods and services by completing the International Trade Data System by December 2016.
Today, businesses must submit information to dozens of government agencies, often on paper forms -- sometimes waiting on process for days to move goods across the border. The ITDS will allow businesses to electronically transmit through a single window the data required by the U.S. government to import or export cargo. This new electronic system will speed up the shipment of American-made goods overseas, eliminate often duplicative and burdensome paperwork, and make our government more efficient.
I have no other announcements to make, so if you have questions on domestic matters, why don't you fire away? And then we'll turn it over to Ben.
Q Ben, can you talk about -- (laughter.) Sorry, Jay, I’ll get back to you. Can you comment on the U.S. response to what’s going on in Ukraine, the violence there? Have there been conversations with both President Putin and with Ukrainian leadership?
MR. RHODES: Well, I think the scenes that we saw in Kyiv yesterday were completely outrageous and have no place in the 21st century. The fact of the matter is we have made it very clear to the Ukrainian government that it is their responsibility to allow for peaceful protest. We consistently oppose any use of violence by all sides, but the responsibility is on the government to pull back its riot police, to call a truce and to engage in a meaningful discussion with the opposition about the way forward.
Clearly, the people of Ukraine feel that their legitimate aspirations are not being met in the current political context, and it's incumbent on the Ukrainian government to reach out to the opposition and to find a way forward that can unify the country.
We have also made clear that Ukraine has a future that is a part of the Atlantic community, that Ukraine’s orientation towards Europe and the Transatlantic community is an important priority of U.S. foreign policy; that it is not a zero-sum game with Russia. We understand that Ukraine is a neighbor of Russia, has historic ties to Russia, but that that need not preclude Ukraine from, again, continuing to pursue a European path as well.
So Vice President Biden communicated our position to President Yanukovych yesterday. I know that Secretary Kerry, Victoria Nuland are working this with their counterparts, particularly as the EU prepares for a meeting. The only additional thing I'd say is that we continue to watch events very closely, including who we believe is responsible for violence, and we've made clear that we would consider taking action against individuals who are responsible for acts of violence within Ukraine. And we have a tool kit for doing that that includes sanctions.
Q Can you say whether the United States would consider following the European Union’s lead if they impose sanctions against the Ukraine as an institution?
MR. RHODES: Well, I think as a general matter we aim to be coordinated with the European Union and we have generally had a common position and spoken with a similar voice on issues related to Ukraine because we both have an interest in seeing an end to the violence and seeing the unity of Ukraine upheld and seeing Ukraine on a European orientation. So I think we are in consultation with the European Union on the questions like which individuals should be held responsible for the violence, and in consideration of issues like imposing sanctions related to the ongoing violence.
Q You guys have been talking about sanctions now for a while. What would it actually take to pull the trigger?
MR. RHODES: Well, I think the events that we saw yesterday are certainly heightening our focus on this issue and I think we'll be reviewing this, as we have been, on a near daily basis. And we also will be talking to the Europeans as they have their meeting of the EU foreign ministers, and we'll make a determination both on our own and, again, in consultation with the European Union about the next steps.
Q Is that near-term thing, though? I mean, would there be a determination like this within days, weeks?
MR. RHODES: Well, obviously, the situation is very fluid, so I don’t want to put a timeline on it or get ahead of any particular announcement. I will say that events like what we saw yesterday are clearly going to impact our decision-making. On the other hand, if the government takes the appropriate steps of pulling back riot police, of respecting the right of peaceful protest, releasing prisoners and pursuing serious dialogue with the opposition about how to pursue a more unified government and way forward, that would obviously factor into our calculus as well.
But, clearly, the United States and the European Union believe that the events of yesterday were unacceptable. And I think that’s why you see renewed diplomatic activity this week.
Q To what extent does Russia have a role in either reducing the violence or creating additional disturbances?
MR. RHODES: Well, I think the message that we delivered to the Russians is that, again, we are not in some competition for the future of Ukraine. Frankly, our interest is that the people of Ukraine are able to determine their future, not any external actor. Clearly, we believe that a significant number of Ukrainians believe very deeply in the importance of Ukraine pursuing a European orientation, even as they maintain relations with Russia as a neighbor.
And so the role we would like to see Russia play is of constructive support for reducing these tensions and allowing the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, and that we don’t think that there should be, again, a situation where Russia is viewing this as some competition with the European Union or the United States; rather, we all have an interest in a Ukraine that is stable. And, clearly, the status quo is not a recipe for stability, because too many Ukrainians are feeling like their own aspirations are not being met in this government and in this plan that turns away from Europe. So that’s the message we delivered to the Ukrainian government and the Russian government as well.
Q So far, Vice President Biden has been your main interlocutor on this. Is there a point at which the President gets to follow up directly?
MR. RHODES: Yes, I would expect the President -- he’s been involved in the sense that he’s followed the situation very closely. He’s discussed it with counterparts in the past; with President Hollande this was a subject of discussion. And I’d expect the President to be involved in the days to come as well.
Again, he has pressed us to make sure we’re doing everything we can to try to reduce tensions and to try to stabilize the situation and support the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people for a more unified government and a government that has the ability to pursue a European orientation as well as good relations with Russia.
So I’d expect him to be involved. I’d expect it to come up today, frankly. It’s a pressing global issue and I’m sure he’ll be discussing this with President Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Harper.
Q Is he watching any of the television footage from Kyiv or anything?
MR. RHODES: I don’t know if he’s -- we’d have to ask him that. I’m not aware that he’s seen particular footage, but he has been getting very regular updates on the situation in Ukraine.
Q Do you expect the President to say anything publicly today or for it to be more in the meetings with the other leaders?
MR. RHODES: I mean, obviously, it’s not the focus of these meetings. The focus of these meetings is our North American partnership, trade and commerce, and increasing economic competitiveness in the North American region, security issues.
However, it being a significant global issue, I’d anticipate that he will have some public comment on it, as well as comment with the other leaders.
Q Jay, can you talk about the executive order a little bit? This system has been in the works for a while. Why was an executive order necessary?
MR. CARNEY: Because the President has the authority through an executive order to streamline the process on behalf of American businesses, in particular small businesses. And, as you know, while he has taken an approach since he took office that includes not just acting legislatively, but using his executive authority where he can on behalf of the American people, he has tasked his team with finding opportunities for him to use that authority in a way that benefits the American economy and the American people. This is an example of that.
Q Jay, you said numerous times in recent days that it's no surprise that Democrats as well as Republicans have their problems with trade-expanding agreements. But the enthusiasm among Democrats seems particularly slight this time around compared to last -- past rounds of big trade deals. What can the President say to reassure Peña Nieto and Harper that there’s any hope whatsoever for accomplishing trade deals this year?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as you know, Mark, the President has made clear that expanding American exports and trade, especially in the Pacific region, is a priority. And the reason for that is that there’s enormous growth and opportunity in that region, and absent an agreement that allows for expansion we would cede that territory to our competitors, which would be detrimental to our economy, to our middle class. He is pursuing an agreement, the TPP, that explicitly protects American workers and the environment, and that he believes would be highly beneficial to our economy and the middle class. So it’s a conversation he has and others have with lawmakers of both parties.
I think it’s worth noting that this is an issue around which there is not a uniform point of view in either party. And the President has long understood that. And I think it is worth noting that this is nothing new, especially for those of us who have been around Washington for more than 20 years.
But that doesn’t mean that there’s not a reason to make it a priority. The President believes it's a priority and he’ll continue to have those conversations. And I’m sure he'll make his views known in his conversations with the other two leaders today.
MR. RHODES: One thing to add is that this has been an ongoing negotiation for several years, so there’s been a very sustained effort over a period of years, precisely because this represents an agreement that would encompass 40 percent of the global economy and have huge opportunity for the United States and the countries involved. That’s part of the reason why Canada and Mexico came into this process.
What I’d say also, though, is that, first of all, we see this as an opportunity to introduce elevated standards on issues like labor and the environment that were not in NAFTA. So, in many respects, it’s an opportunity to, again, elevate the standards that were absent from the NAFTA agreement so that we are dealing with issues like labor and environmental standards that are important to 21st century trade.
The other thing I’d say, though, is that as you get further along in a trade negotiation, there are sensitive issues in every country. Trade is not simply an issue that has a significant range of opinions in the United States. Every country in a negotiation always has constituencies that have a divergence of views on issues in a trade agreement.
So I think these leaders, like all leaders involved in the agreement, understand and appreciate that. As you continue towards the end of a negotiation, you get into sensitive issues and you will have an effort undertaken to build support for an agreement. And so I think the leaders know exactly where things are in the negotiation and appreciate that.
Q Can you explain the decision to make this such a short trip? Any concern at all that this could be viewed as a bit of a snub by Mexico?
MR. RHODES: No, I don’t think so. This is our second visit to Mexico since President Peña Nieto became President. We had a full bilateral summit in Mexico City and had two days of good meetings and a dinner with the President the last time we were here. So this is not the first time the President has been to Mexico since President Peña Nieto took office.
I think if you look at the history of the North American Leaders Summit, it’s generally a one-day meeting, so this is consistent with summits that have been held in the past, including summits in the United States.
Q Jay, on Keystone, Harper told reporters yesterday his message to our President will be the same as he said publicly. What will President Obama’s message be back to Harper on that discussion today?
MR. CARNEY: He will say the same thing that he and I and others have said publicly, which is this a process that is run out of the State Department in keeping with past practice of administrations of both parties. We have reached a stage in that process with the release of the environmental impact statement. We’re now in a phase where there is input from agencies -- others agencies and from the public, and that that process needs to be insulated from politics -- that’s the President’s view -- and that he will explain that to both leaders. I’m sure they’re fully aware of that dynamic.
Q Do you think you can say the timeline of a likely decision, though, without commenting on the substance of it?
MR. CARNEY: The timeline is as I just relayed to you and we’ve discussed publicly, and it’s something that is institutionalized by the State Department. And we’re now in a phase of input from agencies and the public, and the process will move forward. But we’re not going to alter the process; we’re going to let it proceed the way it should, because these are issues, as the President said, that have to be determined based on what is viewed as in the best national interest of the United States.
Q Immigration is a big issue in Mexico. In his bilat with President Peña Nieto, what will be the President’s assessment of the best chances on the timing of passage of immigration reform?
MR. CARNEY: The President continues to believe that 2014 presents the best opportunity we’ve had to see comprehensive immigration reform become law. We obviously have a ways to go, but the Senate has passed a bill with bipartisan support and a large majority. The House, through its leadership, has taken steps by putting forth standards and principles. That’s a new development this year that represents progress and demonstrates that Republican leaders recognize the value of immigration reform and the benefit that it would provide to our economy, to our border security, to our middle class, and to innovation for our businesses.
So I’m sure the President will update both leaders on where that stands, and his hope and belief that the question around comprehensive immigration reform is not if but when, and we hope it’s this year.
Q Are you guys having any kind of communiqué or deliverable-specific tangible things you’re planning to announce as a result of today? Or is it mainly a matter of catching up and sort of updating each other on where things stand?
MR. RHODES: I’d expect there to be a leaders’ statement at the conclusion of the summit that addresses the agenda that we will have worked on. And again, I think if you look at the North American Leaders Summit, it’s been a venue for us to do two things: in the near term, to work through specific issues related to trade and commerce. That gets at cross-border trade, customs issues, supporting the free flow of commerce, but also secure borders, efforts to promote security in North America more broadly. We have energy cooperation and cooperation on climate change. So there’s a range of near-term steps that they’ll be discussing today and I think we’ll be able to address at the conclusion of the summit.
At the same time, we’re also looking to what is our vision for North America more broadly going forward. It’s a huge asset of the United States, frankly, to have such close relationships with our two neighbors, two significant trading partners. And we cooperate on issues that run the gamut from trade to the environment, to energy and climate change, to security. And so what is the vision of a stable, secure, prosperous North America looking ahead, I think they’ll also be addressing that as well.
Q Obviously, going at a time when we’re marking the 20th anniversary of NAFTA, a lot of debate -- good, bad. What is the President’s assessment of NAFTA? Even though he’s had some issues with it, was it overall a success? Was it something that he wishes didn’t happen? What is his view of that?
MR. RHODES: Well, I think, on the one hand, NAFTA supports a huge amount of trade that supports a significant number of U.S. jobs. If you look at the trade between the United States and Mexico and Canada, millions of U.S. jobs are associated with that. I think it has led to a more prosperous and competitive North America as a whole within the global economy. So there has been progress that is rooted in the trade relationship between the United States, Canada and Mexico.
At the same time, there are issues that were not addressed in NAFTA, like the labor and environmental standards that the President has spoken about in the past and that, frankly, are a part of the TPP agreement.
So we see NAFTA as providing, clearly, a foundation for trade in North America that can be improved and enhanced by elevating the standards of trade to include the issues that are of increasing attention to us. And if you look at TPP, that’s labor and the environment, but also issues related to intellectual property and state-owned enterprises, access to the Pacific markets.
So what you really want, Peter, is a dynamic where the North American competitiveness allows us to be drivers in terms of getting into the fastest emerging markets in the world, which are in this Asia Pacific region. And so we’re in a good position to do that given our own trade relationship, but we also can, frankly, go back and elevate some of the issues that were not a part of the original agreement through the TPP.
Q Ben, last year when we were in Mexico, one of the issues that hung over at those meetings was the level of cooperation taking place between the new Peña Nieto administration and the U.S. over security. What’s the status of that? Has the Peña Nieto administration made inroads on the security issue to the satisfaction of the U.S.? What’s the U.S. view of security?
MR. RHODES: We have maintained our security cooperation with Mexico. We are very pleased with the level of cooperation that we have with the Mexican government in addressing the narcotrafficking issue. President Peña Nieto is focused on reducing the levels of violence, broadly. We continue to provide whatever support the Mexican government asks us for and requires as they deal with huge border security -- huge issues of violence around the border, and because of the narcotrafficking issue. At the same time, we’ve continued to make clear our own responsibilities to crack down, for instance, on the flow of guns southward, which has been an element of the violence there.
So the cooperation has continued. It’s certainly been good from our perspective, and I’m sure that they’ll address it in their bilateral meeting, as well as in the trilat.
MR. CARNEY: Can I just say, since nobody asked -- hey, Christi, did you have a question?
Q No.
MR. CARNEY: Well, so a couple of things have happened this week related to the President’s primary focus on growing the economy and expanding opportunity that are rather remarkable. First of all, you see Republicans lining up en masse against raising the minimum wage, which is a remarkable development if you think about it. You have Americans across the country working full-time and yet being paid a wage that keeps them in poverty. That’s not something that should happen in this country. And the American people, including Republicans’ constituents, overwhelmingly support lifting the minimum wage. As the CBO report demonstrated, that would lift something on the order of 900,000 Americans out of poverty and raise the wages for 16 million-plus Americans across the country. And as Jason Furman said, the substantial consensus among economists is that it would not have a negative impact on jobs.
The second thing that happened was the five-year anniversary of the Recovery Act. And as a point of personal privilege as somebody who was covering these matters back in the early ‘90s, I find it remarkable that Speaker Boehner attacks the President for the Recovery Act. I remember when Speaker Boehner powerfully argued against President Clinton’s economic agenda, said that it would lead to stagnation and job loss. He could not have been more wrong then. We saw record job creation. Speaker Boehner was wrong.
Speaker Boehner argued powerfully against the Recovery Act and President Obama’s economic agenda. In the wake of the worst recession since the Great Depression, we've seen the creation of 8.5 million private sector jobs. Speaker Boehner could not have been more wrong. In between, Speaker Boehner supported economic policies that helped to precipitate the worst financial crisis and economic crisis in our lifetimes and, by the way, led to record deficits, which were handed over to President Obama when he took office.
It's very important to have the long view here. And what we know about the Recovery Act is that it delivered tax cuts, it delivered investments in clean energy, it delivered an infusion in an economy that was teetering on the brink of collapse. And the alternative at the time, as you remember if you saw the headlines, was the potential for depression, some predicting 20 to 25 percent unemployment. Republicans refused to support a plan that saved the country from that kind of disaster and set us on the course towards job creation and economic growth.
This is not a project that's anywhere near done. That's why the President remains focused principally on growing the economy, helping the middle class. And certainly raising the minimum wage is a way to do that.
Q Jay, since you brought it up, on the CBO, it’s been remarkable cherry-picking of the results of the conclusions of that report by both sides. How can it be that those economists can be right on one issue from your side, the raising people out of poverty, but so wrong on the job costs of that report? And is there a danger in going after what is usually considered a fairly neutral arbiter of economic issues and budget issues?
MR. CARNEY: Jim, we're not going after anyone. As Jason Furman, the President’s chief economist, said yesterday, we respectfully disagree with that particular conclusion and point to the deep and wide body of academic research on this that supports our view. But it’s not about -- obviously we have enormous respect for the CBO, and I think that’s reflected in the fact that we point to some of the other conclusions in that report.
It’s just demonstrated by history and, again, by the work of many experts in the field that there’s likely to have no negative impact in terms of job creation by raising the minimum wage, which spurs economic activity, lifts people out of poverty, and raises the wages for Americans across the country, including middle-class Americans. But again, that’s a respectful disagreement on a particular finding in which the experts in the field have expressed a different view.
Q But you must have felt that that report was damaging to your efforts to get support for raising the minimum wage.
MR. CARNEY: Look, I think that Republicans who, against the overwhelming opinion of the American people, rally around that particular item in the report to suggest that we can’t give Americans a raise risk more damage to themselves and politically, as well as to the middle class economically, and to Americans economically.
So I don’t think we view it that way. Support for raising the minimum wage is broad and deep. We’ve seen states take action, and we’re going to continue to press the Congress to take action.
Thank you.
END
Showing posts with label PRESS SECRETARY CARNEY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PRESS SECRETARY CARNEY. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Thursday, January 23, 2014
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING FOR JANUARY 22, 2014
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Daily Briefing by the Press Secretary, 1/22/14
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:55 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Kind of feels like Monday, weirdly. My kids still haven't gone to school this week.
Good afternoon. I hope you're holding up in the wintry weather, today’s cold. Before I take your questions I'd like to tell you that this morning the President and Vice President held a meeting in the Oval Office with Attorney General Holder, Secretaries Hagel, Sebelius and Duncan, and senior administration officials to discuss their commitment to combating rape and sexual assault in all settings. During the meeting the President and Vice President reiterated their deep, personal interest in doing everything possible to root out these types of abuse and build on the steps their administration has taken to protect Americans from it.
They discussed the findings of a report issued by the White House Council on Women and Girls that was issued earlier today and identifies key areas to focus on as part of these continued efforts, including working to change social norms, improving criminal justice response, and protecting students from sexual assault. Each of the Cabinet members briefed the President and Vice President on various actions their respective agencies are taking to lead a coordinated, comprehensive effort to combat sexual assault from the military to college campuses and beyond.
And later today, the President and Vice President and these Cabinet officials will join additional representatives of the Council on Women and Girls for a meeting in the East Room -- which I think you know -- where the President will sign a new presidential memorandum to establish the White House Task Force on Protecting Students from Sexual Assault. In his meeting this morning, the President said that he looks forward to seeing recommendations from the task force within 90 days.
Working to combat rape and sexual assault in all settings has been a priority for the President and Vice President throughout their time in office, and these new efforts build on steps that this administration has taken to combat these crimes, including last year’s reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which the Vice President himself authored, and the series of executive actions that Secretary Hagel recently announced to address sexual assault in the military.
With that, I take your questions. Julie.
Q Thanks, Jay. I have a couple questions about Iran and Syria. I know the State Department has talked about this over the weekend, but what is the White House’s understanding of what happened with the Ban Ki-moon invitation to Iran to the Syria talks and then having to pull that invitation back?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to the U.N. Secretary General for more detail about this. I think he’s spoken to it and explained. Our position never changed and remains today what it has always been, which in order to participate in the Geneva conference you need to endorse the Geneva Communiqué. And the purpose of the Geneva II conference is the full implementation of that communique, including the establishment by mutual consent of a transitional governing body with full executive authorities.
So I would refer you to what Secretary General Ban has said on this issue. Our position is clear. And we're certainly following events in Montreux now as that conference has gotten underway.
Q Is there any concern that any tension that was created through this invitation and pulling back the invitation might bleed over into the nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran?
MR. CARNEY: No. I think that we have made clear and the P5-plus-1 in general have made clear that the focus of the implementation of the Joint Plan of Action and of the next step, the six-month process of trying to reach a comprehensive resolution of this matter, is on how we can persuade Iran to abide by its international commitments, how we can ensure that Iran will not obtain and cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. There are other issues, very serious ones, in the Iran account that we have and that includes our profound differences over Syria and the fact that Iran has clearly played a negative role there and a violent role there.
Q And on those talks, they’re off to a bit of a rocky start. Does the administration see this round, Geneva II, as sort of the last, best chance to get Assad out? And if this round of talks ends without a positive conclusion, where does the discussion on Syria go from here?
MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, I’d note that this is the beginning of what will be a tough and complicated negotiation to end the war in Syria. The meetings in Montreux are ongoing and the start of the Syria-Syria negotiations will begin on Friday in Geneva. That is where the two parties themselves are negotiating.
The international community is focused on the full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué, including the establishment, based on mutual consent, of a transitional governing body exercising full executive powers, as I just said, including over military and security entities. It’s important to be clear: Mutual consent for a transitional governing body means that that government cannot be formed with someone who is objected to by one side or the other. In other words, that means that Bashar al-Assad will not and cannot be part of that transition government.
Now, the most important work will be done in the coming days, weeks, and months ahead with the regime and the opposition sitting down together to negotiate the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué and the formation of that transitional governing body, and that will be hard work. But today is the beginning of an important process that will hopefully lead to an end to that terrible war.
Q Given how hard it’s been to get these parties to even come to the table, do you see this as really the last, best chance to have a political solution?
MR. CARNEY: There is no alternative to a political solution, a negotiated political settlement. And I wouldn't, as these talks are just starting, move ahead to an assumption that they’ll fail -- although I will recognize, as we all will and the President will, that this is going to be tough and complicated work. But there is no alternative. There is no other way forward for Syria absent a negotiated political settlement; absent a settlement based on the principles of the Geneva Communiqué, which calls very clearly for a transitional governing body that is reached to by mutual consent. That’s going to be hard work, but it’s important that it’s gotten started.
Jeff.
Q Thanks, Jay. The President spoke yesterday with President Putin of Russia and your readout said that they discussed the Olympics and security. What more would the White House like to see Russia doing on security there? And what more would the United States like to do or to be involved in to address the mounting concerns about security in Sochi?
MR. CARNEY: Well, let me say that starting with the call yesterday that the United States has offered its full support and any assistance to the Russian government in its security preparations for the Sochi Games. Russian authorities will be responsible for overall security at the Olympics, and the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has the security lead for United States. We will send diplomatic security and FBI agents to liaise with host nation security and law enforcement officials. And that’s standard operating procedure for large events like this, where thousands of U.S. citizens -- athletes from Team USA, American corporate sponsors and members of the U.S. media are present for an extended period of time.
Now, the United States and Russia have had discussions on counterterrorism cooperation in a number of venues, as we’ve noted in the past, including in working groups of the Bilateral Presidential Commission. The United States has also been working with the Russian government through the International Security Events Group on Sochi preparation, specifically as we do with any host country. Now, U.S. citizens planning to attend the games in Sochi should be contact with the State Department. Potential threats to safety and security can be found on the embassy’s website and the Department of State’s travel website.
I’ll also note that we have seen an uptick in threat reporting prior to the Olympics, which is, of course, of concern, although it is also not unusual for a major international event. And we have offered, as I said, assistance to the Russians -- any assistance that they might need to counter that threat.
Q Is Russia accepting any of that assistance that’s been offered?
MR. CARNEY: I would, first of all, refer you to the Department of Defense for details on assistance that’s been offered. I would also say that we’re having ongoing conversations with the Russians about this and have offered any assistance that we can provide. They obviously have lead for security at the Olympics -- they are the host nation.
Q But did that offer come out of a concern that they’re not doing enough?
MR. CARNEY: No, I think that this is an international event; there will be a large U.S. citizen presence there for an extended period of time, and we take the necessary precautions as you would expect. I think the Pentagon said on Monday of this week that the United States has offered its full support to the Russian government, and that includes the two U.S. ships that have been sent to the Black Sea as part of the prudent planning and preparations that are required for an event like this.
Q All right. And then one other issue -- The Washington Post today had a story quoting U.S. officials expressing concern that they would not be able to make good on the President’s promise regarding the telephone records and the NSA proposals. How confident is the White House that a deadline can be met? Was it realistic?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say the relevant agencies are already at work on implementing the directions in the President’s speech that he gave. As the President said, these are complicated issues, but they are not new to us. We’ve already been working on them over the past six months and doing everything in our power, already we are, to meet those timelines. So it’s complicated, but the word has already gone out, some of the work has already been done, and the President looks forward to progress being made and completed.
Jon.
Q On Russia, the call with Putin, who called who? Did the President call or did Putin? Who initiated the call?
MR. CARNEY: I don't know the answer to that, Jon. They speak with some frequency, but I can find out if there is an initiator.
Q And get back to us?
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q And on this question of security at the Olympics, what is your assessment, what is the White House assessment? How are the Russians doing on security? Are they doing enough?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, what I can tell you is there has been an uptick in some of the reporting, but that is not unusual. It’s of concern, but not unusual for an event like this. The State Department has handled and is handling the issue of travel advisories for U.S. citizens, and we are offering the Russians any assistance that they might require or request in a situation like this.
But I wouldn’t be qualified -- I wouldn’t want to venture to assess overall except that these kinds of major events around the world obviously present security challenges; this one is not unique. And we take matters like this seriously because of the presence of U.S. citizens. That's why we’re working with the Russian government. That's why we’re offering the assistance that we’re offering, as well as encouraging U.S. citizens planning to travel to Sochi to be in contact with the State Department to make sure they're aware of the advisories that are out there.
Q Can you characterize our level of confidence in the steps they have taken? You’ve heard -- obviously Putin has talked a “ring of steel” around the Sochi Olympics. Do we have a great deal of confidence that they have done enough on this?
MR. CARNEY: All I can tell you, Jon, is that we have had conversations with the Russian government about security in Sochi. The President spoke with President Putin about this. We have offered any assistance that they might want to avail themselves of, and we’re taking, I think, prudent precautions on this matter, as evidenced by some of the steps the Department of Defense and the State Department have taken.
I wouldn’t want to assess from here because this is a complicated piece of business, obviously -- an international event like this, Olympics in general -- because they, unlike already complicated events like a single day of a sporting event, the Olympics last over a significant period of time.
Q And can I ask a question on the Iran -- on the negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue? Is it the White House’s belief that if you can reach an agreement with the Iranians that those sanctions can be lifted without congressional approval? Can further sanctions be lifted? Obviously there are some steps which you’re able to do without congressional approval, but can you strike a deal with Iran and lift sanctions without Congress okaying it?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t seen that assessment made because it presupposes what is the only acceptable outcome to these negotiations, which is a verifiable, transparent agreement by Iran to forsake its nuclear weapons ambitions. And the promise of that for Iran is that by coming into compliance with its international obligation, by offering in a way that is 100 percent reassuring to the P5-plus-1 and our international partners and allies that they will not pursue and cannot pursue a nuclear weapon, there will be an opportunity for Iran to end its isolated state that its violation of its international obligations has brought upon it.
But how that process would work, I think it’s a little early to discuss that because the six-month period that we’ve been talking about for the negotiations over a comprehensive solution is only just beginning.
Q Okay. And then just one last thing. The First Lady had her 50th birthday party and I believe you said that the President picks up the cost for that party.
MR. CARNEY: I think we put out information. I don’t have it here. I would refer you to the East Wing.
Q And I was just wondering if you had an estimate on what the cost was.
MR. CARNEY: I don’t, but I would refer you to the East Wing.
Q On that uptick in threat reporting, you said that it’s something you should expect with events like this. But really going beyond that, part of that uptick is because of recent events in the area because of the region we’re talking about. Is that correct?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I mean, you’re asking me to assess the region. I think that international events like this always represent -- or present, rather, security challenges, and that’s broadly speaking. Obviously each event presents unique challenges. But I’m not going to get into a detailed analysis of how this one might be different from another one. The approach that the U.S. government takes and the administration takes is one of prudent preparation because of any risks that might be out there.
So as I said, as you might expect in the run-up to an event like this, there has been an uptick in some of the threat reporting, and we’re taking precautions accordingly. But that is not unusual.
Q And does President Putin seem welcoming of U.S. offers for assistance?
MR. CARNEY: I think that we have communicated at a variety of levels including between the two Presidents that we are absolutely willing to assist the Russian government where we can, and those conversations are being engaged. And I wouldn’t characterize them -- I can point you to the Defense Department in terms of some of the conversations they’ve had and some of the steps they’ve taken. But we’re going to continue to work with the Russian government and have those conversations moving forward.
Q And on The New Yorker piece, the President said a couple of things about marijuana. He said that legalization experiments in Washington State and Colorado should “go forward.” He also mentioned that he didn’t think marijuana was any more dangerous than alcohol. In 2010, this White House put out a policy paper on national drug policy stating that marijuana should not be legalized. Was the President setting new drug policy?
MR. CARNEY: No, the President’s position on these matters hasn’t changed. I think he was making a couple of points -- one, that we ought to use discretion appropriately in our prosecution prioritization -- A. B, when it comes to marijuana use, he made clear that he sees it as a bad habit and a vice and not something that he would encourage -- and this is a quote: “It’s not something I encourage, and I told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.”
But there’s no question that we’ve applied our drug laws in a way that has been counterproductive and that there are issues there that need to be addressed. I think that it’s important to -- because he’s quoted quite extensively in that article -- to look at the full context of some of these quotes that have been taken out in phrases when, at least in this instance, there’s an opportunity to see him speak at length.
Q But he does want to see those experiments to go forward in Washington State and Colorado. What does he hope to find out --
MR. CARNEY: I think the point he was -- well, see, I think again that you’re probably not aware of the entire sentence. “It’s important for the experiment” -- which is bracketed -- “to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law, and only a select few get punished.” In other words, he’s talking about the issue of the disparities in our prosecution of our drug laws that an experiment like this may be addressing. He’s not endorsing any specific move by a state; he’s simply making an observation. His position on these matters has not changed.
Q And, Jay, on Syria, getting back to Syria, there has been a huge cache of photos that have been released showing what appears to be widespread killings, mass killings, mass torture in Syria. Has the White House examined these photos? Does it have an opinion on what should happen with respect to those photos?
MR. CARNEY: We stand with the rest of the world in horror at these images that have come to light, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the actions of the Assad regime and call on it to adhere to international obligations with respect to the treatment of prisoners. While we cannot independently confirm or affirm the information that was presented recently, these photos cannot be ignored or dismissed. They suggest widespread and apparently systematic violations of international human law and demonstrate just how far the regime is willing to go in harming its own people. They’re very disturbing images.
Let me move around a little bit. Christie.
Q Thanks, Jay. Back on the metadata program. Can you say when the DOJ and the ODNI began working on the storage -- the new storage place for this database? Was it 10 minutes after the President speech or --
MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to them. I don’t know when they --
Q Well, your answer to Jeff made it sound like --
MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that on -- the examination of these issues was part of the review process. So moving forward, participants in that effort are not starting from scratch. And that was the point I’m making -- not that the President had issued specifically this directive prior to his speech, but that there’s a knowledge base there that was built in part by the review the President asked for and got, and that will certainly be of assistance as the work moves forward to make some determinations about storage.
Q And do you know if the Attorney General has assured the President that he can make the deadline that he has set?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think I would point you to what I said earlier. There’s work that’s been done on this issue broadly speaking so people aren’t starting from scratch. It’s a complicated piece of business, but the President expects that action can be taken in the timeline he set.
Q Well, you also have the component of needing congressional help on this. What would happen if Congress did not act to set something up by the deadline the President is talking about? Is the President willing to stop -- he said in his speech that the government will no longer maintain this database. Would he stop doing that --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re going to work with Congress because we think that this is the kind of thing that can enjoy bipartisan support. There’s a shared interest in moving forward on this so I think that we hope and expect congressional cooperation moving forward.
Q On income inequality, the President has repeatedly made it clear recently that this is going to be a big part of the next three years. But with so little appetite in Congress to do anything about it, how much effort is he going to put behind measures that can actually reduce the trend?
MR. CARNEY: Well, there’s no question, as you heard the President say in Anacostia late last year, and as you’ve heard him say over the years, including in Osawatomie and earlier this year, that the challenge we face when it comes to economic mobility in this country and the ability of Americans from all stations in life to achieve the American Dream is something he considers his number-one priority. And addressing that challenge, addressing that problem, making sure that there’s opportunity for everyone, is something that we can do together with Congress and it’s also something that he can tackle using all of the tools in his toolbox as President of the United States.
And you have seen him do that -- or rather you have seen examples of how he can do that just recently with the Promise Zones that he talked about, and the manufacturing hub in North Carolina, where we can continue to work on the renaissance of manufacturing in this country and focus on advanced manufacturing and the kind of industries that create well-paying jobs for middle-class families to live on here in the United States. You've seen it in the initiative last week with a hundred representatives from colleges and universities and elsewhere interested in improving education for Americans, and that, in turn, helps address the issue, because it’s not something that a single piece of legislation will resolve.
You've seen it in efforts across the states to raise the minimum wage, state by state. The President strongly supports action by Congress, strongly supports action here in Washington to raise the minimum wage, because as a basic principle in this country you ought to be able to earn a living, i.e. not live in poverty, if you put in a hard day's work. That's certainly the President's view. And that's something that has enjoyed across the country and through the years bipartisan support. So there's an opportunity for action with Congress on that specific issue -- and others.
So the President is fiercely committed to this agenda that goes right at the heart of what he believes America has always been about, which is the foundational belief that no matter what the circumstances of your birth that you have endless opportunity in this country to advance yourself and your family if you're willing to work hard, if you're willing to take responsibility, and if you're willing to educate yourself and help your family move forward. So this is obviously something the President has spoken about before. I think you can expect that it will be something he'll speak about in the coming days and weeks, and throughout his presidency.
Q How would he measure success?
MR. CARNEY: I think he would measure success by evidence that we have improved economic opportunity in this country for everyone; that the mobility that we've seen declining in this country is on the rise again, where you don't have I think surprising statistics that suggest that countries in Europe have greater economic mobility than the United States, which sort of goes at the heart of who we believe we are in this country and what our history has been about when it comes to opportunity for people who have been willing to work hard and take responsibility. So that's an agenda that could not have more presidential force behind it.
Major.
Q There was a report last night that the Pentagon sent to the President a report or a recommendation that there would be 10,000 U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan after 2014 provided the BSA is signed, but that those forces would be removed by 2016. A, can you confirm if that's true? And if so, does it reflect a presidential desire to wind down the war completely by the end of his term, even if the bilateral security agreement is signed by the Afghan government?
MR. CARNEY: What I can tell you, Major, is that the President has not made any decisions about final troop numbers and I'm not going to discuss ongoing deliberations. We will be weighing inputs from our military commanders, as well as the intelligence community, our diplomats and development experts as we make decisions about our post-2014 presence in Afghanistan.
As you mentioned, in addition, our position continues to be that if we cannot conclude a bilateral security agreement promptly then we will initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no U.S. or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan. That's not the future we're seeking; it’s not the policy we think is best, and we don't believe it’s in Afghanistan’s best interest. But the further this slips into 2014, the more likely such an outcome is.
Meanwhile, as the interagency convenes to continue considering options to present to the President for a post-2014 presence, we will have to increasingly take into account the lack of a signed BSA in that planning. We'll have to frame decisions based on our clear position that we can't pursue a post-2014 mission without a BSA. And that mission, if I could just reiterate, would be one tailored to focus on counterterrorism operations and on the training and support of Afghan security forces.
So no decisions have been made. We're not going to get into ongoing deliberations. And it’s important to note in the context of all of these discussions that we are still waiting for the Afghan government to sign the bilateral security agreement.
Q Does the difficulty in obtaining that signature on the BSA inject into these deliberations a new question about the utility of keeping forces for a long period after 2014 because it appears the Afghan -- we may not be welcome there and therefore the utility of us staying might be in question now?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think, in fact, the loya jirga strongly endorsed the bilateral security agreement, and as a body that represents the will and opinion of the Afghan people, we think that is significant and it reflects the fact that the BSA was negotiated in good faith with the Afghan government. And we consider that another strong reason why it ought to be signed.
Q But you know as well as I do that part of this is the succession of Karzai and this being a live issue, so that if it’s not overshadowed, certainly presents itself within the succession of the Karzai government and it certainly is a factor being weighed by not just the loya jirga but whoever may succeed Karzai.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that's probably the case, but we're not basing the need for the BSA to be signed on that timeline in Afghan politics. We're basing it on the fact that we have to make decisions -- we and our NATO allies have to make decisions and make plans for 2014 that need to take into account whether or not there is a BSA that's been signed, because there cannot be a further troop presence beyond 2014 absent a signed BSA. So the further we slip into this year, the more we have to take that into account as we make plans.
Q It was suggested on a couple of Sunday talk shows that there is evidence in possession of the U.S. government that Edward Snowden may well have received assistance from the Russian government in transit on his way to Russia and that he may be cooperating in ways that is harmful to the U.S. government on an ongoing basis. Does the administration agree with those assessments?
MR. CARNEY: I would say that this is an ongoing criminal investigation; there have been charges brought. And I don't have anything to add from here on that matter.
Q Would the administration cast any doubts on those suspicions?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I just don't have anything to add. There is a case that has been presented against Mr. Snowden, charges have been brought. It is our firm position that he ought to return to the United States and face the charges against him here where he will be afforded all of the protections of due process that our judicial system provides.
Q In The New Yorker piece, the President said he was haunted by Syria. You read a statement about the images that the administration had a chance to look at. You also said there’s no alternative to Assad staying in power. Why isn't there any alternative to Assad staying in power? He’s been there for almost two and a half years, a wide-running bloody civil war. The military does not appear to be any less aggressive in its defense of the Assad regime than it has been from the start. The opposition is splintered. The Geneva II peace process or conversations are off to, at best, a rocky start. Why isn't it possible that Assad stays and the President remains haunted by this for the remainder of his administration?
MR. CARNEY: Because there’s no future that the Syrian people will endorse for their country that includes Assad in the government or as President. He has forsaken in bloody fashion any claim he might have to lead that country into the future by massacring his own people --
Q But with respect, that may undermine his moral authority, but the practical reality is he’s there, his military is there and fights aggressively to keep him there.
MR. CARNEY: And there’s an ongoing civil war there, and there is no solution, there is no end to that war absent a negotiated political settlement. And that settlement has to be based on the Geneva Communiqué, which calls for a transitional governing authority based on mutual consent. And there’s no achieving mutual consent in Syria of the members of that governing authority that could include Bashar al-Assad in the government. It won’t happen. It can't happen.
So our view that Assad can't be part of Syria’s future is not one that we make on our own; it’s one we observe in the fulfillment of the Geneva Communiqué, because there’s no way the opposition would agree to -- nor should -- a governing transitional authority that would include Assad among those participants.
Q Jay, on that point, is a U.S. military strike against Syria -- a potential U.S. military strike still on the table?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Ed, I don't think that we would ever rule out options when dealing with matters like this. But what I can tell you is that we foresee no U.S. troops in Syria and that there is -- the only resolution here -- I think that suggesting the use of force somehow answers the mail when we said there’s no resolution here that doesn't include a negotiated political settlement --
Q The President very publicly considered U.S. force, was right up to the line of it, and then went to Congress. All that only played out a few months ago. My question is two summers ago, the President from that podium had a news conference and drew the red line and that was on chemical weapons specifically.
MR. CARNEY: As was the threat of the use of force.
Q The threat of force. And the President, though, then when he drew that red line in August of 2012, said that if they crossed the line there would be enormous consequences. Now, in addition to the mass killings that were just talked about a moment ago, chemical weapons were used in mass fashion, and as result, in a positive step, Syria started turning over some of those chemical weapons. But my question is, Assad is still in power, as Major suggested. He’s still killing his own people. What is -- what can the U.S. do about it?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Ed, if I could briefly clarify the history that you recounted, the President made clear that it was a red line for Syria to use chemical weapons. And he then very clearly and forcefully threatened force when the evidence demonstrated that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. It was because of that credible use of force -- threat of force, rather, that something happened that I don't think anybody would have predicted, which is that a government that had long denied that it even possessed chemical weapons agreed to give them all up. And that process is underway.
What remains the case is that there’s an ongoing civil war. What the President has said is that we will do everything we can through provision of humanitarian assistance, through pushing the Geneva process forward, including the meetings underway now, including help and assistance to the opposition, to help bring about an end to the war and a negotiated political --
Q But all of that has been going on for a couple of years now is my question, I guess. And if the President is haunted by it, does he feel paralyzed? Does he feel --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I guess, Ed, I would point you to the words of the President when he’s made clear that we cannot intervene in every -- militarily into every civil war, but we can do what we have done in this case, which is work with international partners to help try to bring about a negotiated political settlement.
And we can, as we did, working with our international partners, help bring about the commitment by Syria to give up one of the largest collections of chemical weapons in the world. And that is obviously something that’s very positive and that work is ongoing.
Q Last thing on health care. The Hill newspaper reported a couple of days ago that a procurement document from late December says that federal officials decided to bring on Accenture for the healthcare.gov contract. And they did it quickly; they did it without open bid because they justified it, administration officials, by saying they had to move quickly because they said the health insurance industry was at risk if the site was not fixed. They also went on to say, ”The entire health care reform program is jeopardized if these fixes are not made by mid-March.”
MR. CARNEY: Who said that?
Q Federal officials who were quoted in --
MR. CARNEY: Which officials?
Q From CMS, I would expect. Not from the White House.
MR. CARNEY: I didn’t see the article. I’m not aware of those statements --
Q But you’ve been saying the website is turning the corner. Does this document suggest that there are still concerns here in the administration?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not aware of the document. What I can you tell you is there has been an enormous effort expended and an enormous effort that continues to be expended in making sure that the website functions effectively for the millions of Americans who have so clearly demonstrated that they desire the product on offer here. And I certainly hope that as those improvements have resulted in significantly increased numbers of Americans enrolling in and purchasing insurance through the exchanges, that that story is getting the full coverage that it merits.
Margaret.
Q Thanks. I wanted to go back to Sochi for a second. Just to clarify, there were some reports beginning yesterday that the U.S. was using counterterrorism operatives to help the Russians look for potential suicide bombers inside the security zone. Can you confirm that? And even if you can’t, is the U.S. concerned that there may be suicide bombers inside the security zone?
MR. CARNEY: Margaret, I just don’t have more. I don’t have -- I have not seen that report. What I can tell you is that we are having conversations with the Russians. We have made clear that we are prepared to provide any assistance that we can if Russia asks for it. And we’re going to continue to work with them and take steps as we’ve been taking out of prudence, given that this is the kind of event where security is an issue.
Q On the President’s call with Mr. Putin, the one thing in the readout that I didn’t notice was any mention of Edward Snowden. Can you tell us explicitly, did they -- is this like in the agree-to-disagree category and they just don’t talk about it? Or they talked about it and it’s just not going in the readout because there’s nothing you could possibly tell us about what they said?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have more detail on the phone call. What I can tell you is that our position on Mr. Snowden I think is abundantly clear to everyone, including the Russians, and our view that he ought to be returned to the United States where he will be afforded all the rights and protections in our system. That hasn't changed. So I don't think there's any doubt in Moscow or elsewhere of our position on that matter.
Q Can I do one more?
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q There's an ally of Angela Merkel's who is like the foreign policy spokesman for her party in the Parliament, and what he had said is that it's their view that what the President has promised or offered in terms of the foreign leader aspect of the NSA role last week isn't quite enough and that -- he said, "Transatlantic relations are in the deepest crisis now since the Iraq war." I'm just wondering if the President is concerned about the sort of ongoing steps to repair the relationship with Germany specifically and what he is doing in the wake of the NSA remarks?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we have had direct country-to-country and, in some cases, leader-to-leader consultations on these matters as they have arisen. And we've certainly been clear about that when it comes to the United States and Germany and President Obama and Chancellor Merkel. And I would say that at Chancellor Merkel and President Obama's direction, we have undertaken extensive, close consultations on our intelligence cooperation in recent months, which has resulted -- those consultations, rather, have resulted in a better understanding of the requirements and concerns that exist on both sides. And those consultations will continue among our intelligence services. And I think they reflect the very close relationship we have across the board, including on issues of and matters of intelligence.
Peter.
Q Jay, clearly, there was a greater degree of sharing in past Olympics -- in London, in Vancouver, and even Beijing before that. What specifically would you like to see with Russia that would give this administration more confidence in the safety of Americans not just in Sochi, but throughout Russia?
MR. CARNEY: Again, Peter, I just don't have more on this beyond what I've said, which is that we are in conversations with the Russians, we've made clear that we are prepared to offer any assistance that they might require. Russian authorities are, of course, responsible for overall security at the Olympics -- they are the host nation -- and the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security has the security lead for the United States. As part of that responsibility, we will send diplomatic security and FBI agents to liaise with host nation security and law enforcement officials.
I think that reflects the actions that we take in situations like this; they're fairly standard. But these are obviously events that present security challenges, so we work with host nations and we take actions that we think are necessary to make sure that the precautions we can take are taken.
Q So at this time, is the White House satisfied that Russia is prepared to host a safe games?
MR. CARNEY: I think that Russia has responsibility for overall security in terms of the steps that they've taken, and assurances that they can make are ones that they have to make. Our view is that we partner with host nations and liaise with them. We also, in this case, are offering security assistance and we'll continue to work with the Russians as the event approaches and begins.
Q Senator Angus King said a couple of days ago, "I would not go and I don't think I'd send my family." Americans are making those decisions right now. Should Americans go? Should they feel safe sending their family?
MR. CARNEY: Sure. I think there will be, as I understand it, a lot of Americans in Sochi, which is why, of course, we pay close attention to an event like this. There will be Team USA members there, as well as corporate sponsors. And our advice to Americans who might travel to the games is to avail themselves of the information provided by the State Department in the form of travel advisories related to this and to take the standard precautions that those advisories recommend. And beyond that, we're just going to continue to work with -- to take the necessary precautions and to work with the Russian government.
Q As for Chairman Rogers, who this weekend discussed his suspicion or belief that Edward Snowden received some help -- this is going to a question that was asked earlier -- but he made these -- you could call them allegations or accusations -- at least it was his belief system that there was help provided to Edward Snowden. A senior FBI official told us on Sunday that it’s still the Bureau’s conclusion that Mr. Snowden acted alone. So I guess I’m curious right now if Chairman Rogers and others using language like that somehow hinders the relationship the U.S. is trying to develop right now with Russia by making those suggestions when it appears the administration has no evidence of that.
MR. CARNEY: I think the disagreement we have with Russia over Edward Snowden I think has been publicly expressed with some frequency. I don’t think that --
Q Is he helping or hurting by saying that if there’s no evidence?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t think that that’s really an issue because we have -- the President spoke with President Putin directly and does so with some frequency, as Presidents of Russia and the President --
Q Wait, about -- I’m sorry, about Edward Snowden?
MR. CARNEY: No, I’m just saying in general that we don’t -- that the President can talk to President Putin, and does. And in our relations with Russia, we have areas of significant cooperation where our interests are aligned and we have areas of significant disagreement, including but not limited to the matter of Edward Snowden. But I don’t think we’re anything but transparent about that. And we have expressed that very clearly both on that matter and other matters. That’s been the approach the President has taken in our relations with Russia because he thinks that best serves the interests of the United States, which is a very clear-eyed approach to U.S.-Russian relations that allows for cooperation on matters that are vital to U.S. national security and U.S. interests, and can also allow for the clear expression of disagreements -- and that happens.
We are still able to move forward and cooperate with the Russians on a host of areas. That includes the P5-plus-1. It includes counterterrorism cooperation in general. And it includes obviously the ability to discuss security around the Sochi games.
Q Finally, very quickly, we’re under the impression you’ll get back to us on who delivered -- who placed the phone call, whether it was President Putin or President Obama yesterday. But we’re under the -- we’ve been told that the conversation was apparently several days or even weeks in the making. Did the two of them agree to have other conversations and have other conversations been set before the games where further decisions will be made in terms of cooperation?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any previews of additional phone calls that may or may not happen. As I said, the President speaks with President Putin with some frequency, as you might expect, but I don’t know when the next call might be.
Yes, Jess.
Q On the U.S.-Africa summit that you announced earlier this week, can you talk about what prompted that, and also why Egypt is not among those that are invited, especially given what’s going on there right now?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I can tell you that what prompted it is the hope that the summit will build on the progress made since the President’s trip to Africa last summer that it will advance the administration’s focus on trade and investment in Africa and highlight America’s commitment to Africa’s security, its democratic development and its people.
I think that on matters of the invitation list, on Egypt -- I know I have this here somewhere. Hold on. I can give you -- Egypt has not been invited because it is suspended from the African Union, and that’s the reason why Egypt was not invited. I can read you the entire list of the invitees, but I think you’ve probably seen it. But that’s why Egypt was not invited.
Q Is there any concern that that is a missed opportunity to have discussions that you’d like to be having with Egypt?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think we have regular discussions with Egyptian leaders and authorities focused on the bilateral relationship, on security matters, but also on developments in Egypt and our belief that Egypt needs to transition to a civilian-led government in a process that is inclusive where Egyptians from all walks of life get to express their views and be heard.
Reid.
Q Jay, yesterday after he was indicted, former Virginia Governor McDonnell and his attorneys both described his actions while he was governor as similar to things that President Obama has done in the White House. They said in the legal brief the President routinely participates in corporate events which lend credibility to his major benefactors, invites benefactors to events in the White House, allows his photo to be taken with benefactors, and includes benefactors in policy discussions with senior administration officials, in describing or explaining Governor McDonnell’s actions with Jonnnie Williams. I’m sure you're going to refer questions about the prosecution to the Justice Department. But does the President sort of concede the point that a lot of the people who are involved in some of these policy discussions are people who have contributed to his campaign?
MR. CARNEY: Reid, I have no comment on what is obviously an ongoing matter of prosecution, and I’ll leave it at that.
Q Thanks, Jay.
MR. CARNEY: Mark.
Q Jay, how will foreign leaders know if they are among the friends and allies whose phone calls the United States will not conduct surveillance on?
MR. CARNEY: Mark, what I would say is that we have direct conversations through diplomatic channels on these issues and will continue to do so. I think you can address those questions, that question elsewhere, but I think that we -- as has been the case since these revelations began, where they have affected our relations with a specific country, there have been direct and substantive conversations between the two countries using diplomatic channels, which is the tradition.
Q So you’re saying you’ll tell them, you’re okay, your phone calls won’t be surveilled?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not sure what other method you might suggest, Mark. (Laughter.) I can simply tell you that we have close relationships with our friends and allies -- our close friends and allies, and these kinds of discussions take place through normal diplomatic channels.
Q And have you responded to the ad yesterday in the paper from Europe 1 Radio requesting an interview with the President? And would you suggest that's a way for many of us to request interviews from now on? (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: No, I think CBS has requested interviews through more traditional means successfully, as have many of the news organizations here. But I wouldn’t rule out that as a means to request. I think it’s an expensive way to do it. But keep those invitations coming.
Thanks very much.
END
1:48 P.M. EST
Daily Briefing by the Press Secretary, 1/22/14
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:55 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Kind of feels like Monday, weirdly. My kids still haven't gone to school this week.
Good afternoon. I hope you're holding up in the wintry weather, today’s cold. Before I take your questions I'd like to tell you that this morning the President and Vice President held a meeting in the Oval Office with Attorney General Holder, Secretaries Hagel, Sebelius and Duncan, and senior administration officials to discuss their commitment to combating rape and sexual assault in all settings. During the meeting the President and Vice President reiterated their deep, personal interest in doing everything possible to root out these types of abuse and build on the steps their administration has taken to protect Americans from it.
They discussed the findings of a report issued by the White House Council on Women and Girls that was issued earlier today and identifies key areas to focus on as part of these continued efforts, including working to change social norms, improving criminal justice response, and protecting students from sexual assault. Each of the Cabinet members briefed the President and Vice President on various actions their respective agencies are taking to lead a coordinated, comprehensive effort to combat sexual assault from the military to college campuses and beyond.
And later today, the President and Vice President and these Cabinet officials will join additional representatives of the Council on Women and Girls for a meeting in the East Room -- which I think you know -- where the President will sign a new presidential memorandum to establish the White House Task Force on Protecting Students from Sexual Assault. In his meeting this morning, the President said that he looks forward to seeing recommendations from the task force within 90 days.
Working to combat rape and sexual assault in all settings has been a priority for the President and Vice President throughout their time in office, and these new efforts build on steps that this administration has taken to combat these crimes, including last year’s reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which the Vice President himself authored, and the series of executive actions that Secretary Hagel recently announced to address sexual assault in the military.
With that, I take your questions. Julie.
Q Thanks, Jay. I have a couple questions about Iran and Syria. I know the State Department has talked about this over the weekend, but what is the White House’s understanding of what happened with the Ban Ki-moon invitation to Iran to the Syria talks and then having to pull that invitation back?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to the U.N. Secretary General for more detail about this. I think he’s spoken to it and explained. Our position never changed and remains today what it has always been, which in order to participate in the Geneva conference you need to endorse the Geneva Communiqué. And the purpose of the Geneva II conference is the full implementation of that communique, including the establishment by mutual consent of a transitional governing body with full executive authorities.
So I would refer you to what Secretary General Ban has said on this issue. Our position is clear. And we're certainly following events in Montreux now as that conference has gotten underway.
Q Is there any concern that any tension that was created through this invitation and pulling back the invitation might bleed over into the nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran?
MR. CARNEY: No. I think that we have made clear and the P5-plus-1 in general have made clear that the focus of the implementation of the Joint Plan of Action and of the next step, the six-month process of trying to reach a comprehensive resolution of this matter, is on how we can persuade Iran to abide by its international commitments, how we can ensure that Iran will not obtain and cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. There are other issues, very serious ones, in the Iran account that we have and that includes our profound differences over Syria and the fact that Iran has clearly played a negative role there and a violent role there.
Q And on those talks, they’re off to a bit of a rocky start. Does the administration see this round, Geneva II, as sort of the last, best chance to get Assad out? And if this round of talks ends without a positive conclusion, where does the discussion on Syria go from here?
MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, I’d note that this is the beginning of what will be a tough and complicated negotiation to end the war in Syria. The meetings in Montreux are ongoing and the start of the Syria-Syria negotiations will begin on Friday in Geneva. That is where the two parties themselves are negotiating.
The international community is focused on the full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué, including the establishment, based on mutual consent, of a transitional governing body exercising full executive powers, as I just said, including over military and security entities. It’s important to be clear: Mutual consent for a transitional governing body means that that government cannot be formed with someone who is objected to by one side or the other. In other words, that means that Bashar al-Assad will not and cannot be part of that transition government.
Now, the most important work will be done in the coming days, weeks, and months ahead with the regime and the opposition sitting down together to negotiate the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué and the formation of that transitional governing body, and that will be hard work. But today is the beginning of an important process that will hopefully lead to an end to that terrible war.
Q Given how hard it’s been to get these parties to even come to the table, do you see this as really the last, best chance to have a political solution?
MR. CARNEY: There is no alternative to a political solution, a negotiated political settlement. And I wouldn't, as these talks are just starting, move ahead to an assumption that they’ll fail -- although I will recognize, as we all will and the President will, that this is going to be tough and complicated work. But there is no alternative. There is no other way forward for Syria absent a negotiated political settlement; absent a settlement based on the principles of the Geneva Communiqué, which calls very clearly for a transitional governing body that is reached to by mutual consent. That’s going to be hard work, but it’s important that it’s gotten started.
Jeff.
Q Thanks, Jay. The President spoke yesterday with President Putin of Russia and your readout said that they discussed the Olympics and security. What more would the White House like to see Russia doing on security there? And what more would the United States like to do or to be involved in to address the mounting concerns about security in Sochi?
MR. CARNEY: Well, let me say that starting with the call yesterday that the United States has offered its full support and any assistance to the Russian government in its security preparations for the Sochi Games. Russian authorities will be responsible for overall security at the Olympics, and the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has the security lead for United States. We will send diplomatic security and FBI agents to liaise with host nation security and law enforcement officials. And that’s standard operating procedure for large events like this, where thousands of U.S. citizens -- athletes from Team USA, American corporate sponsors and members of the U.S. media are present for an extended period of time.
Now, the United States and Russia have had discussions on counterterrorism cooperation in a number of venues, as we’ve noted in the past, including in working groups of the Bilateral Presidential Commission. The United States has also been working with the Russian government through the International Security Events Group on Sochi preparation, specifically as we do with any host country. Now, U.S. citizens planning to attend the games in Sochi should be contact with the State Department. Potential threats to safety and security can be found on the embassy’s website and the Department of State’s travel website.
I’ll also note that we have seen an uptick in threat reporting prior to the Olympics, which is, of course, of concern, although it is also not unusual for a major international event. And we have offered, as I said, assistance to the Russians -- any assistance that they might need to counter that threat.
Q Is Russia accepting any of that assistance that’s been offered?
MR. CARNEY: I would, first of all, refer you to the Department of Defense for details on assistance that’s been offered. I would also say that we’re having ongoing conversations with the Russians about this and have offered any assistance that we can provide. They obviously have lead for security at the Olympics -- they are the host nation.
Q But did that offer come out of a concern that they’re not doing enough?
MR. CARNEY: No, I think that this is an international event; there will be a large U.S. citizen presence there for an extended period of time, and we take the necessary precautions as you would expect. I think the Pentagon said on Monday of this week that the United States has offered its full support to the Russian government, and that includes the two U.S. ships that have been sent to the Black Sea as part of the prudent planning and preparations that are required for an event like this.
Q All right. And then one other issue -- The Washington Post today had a story quoting U.S. officials expressing concern that they would not be able to make good on the President’s promise regarding the telephone records and the NSA proposals. How confident is the White House that a deadline can be met? Was it realistic?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say the relevant agencies are already at work on implementing the directions in the President’s speech that he gave. As the President said, these are complicated issues, but they are not new to us. We’ve already been working on them over the past six months and doing everything in our power, already we are, to meet those timelines. So it’s complicated, but the word has already gone out, some of the work has already been done, and the President looks forward to progress being made and completed.
Jon.
Q On Russia, the call with Putin, who called who? Did the President call or did Putin? Who initiated the call?
MR. CARNEY: I don't know the answer to that, Jon. They speak with some frequency, but I can find out if there is an initiator.
Q And get back to us?
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q And on this question of security at the Olympics, what is your assessment, what is the White House assessment? How are the Russians doing on security? Are they doing enough?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, what I can tell you is there has been an uptick in some of the reporting, but that is not unusual. It’s of concern, but not unusual for an event like this. The State Department has handled and is handling the issue of travel advisories for U.S. citizens, and we are offering the Russians any assistance that they might require or request in a situation like this.
But I wouldn’t be qualified -- I wouldn’t want to venture to assess overall except that these kinds of major events around the world obviously present security challenges; this one is not unique. And we take matters like this seriously because of the presence of U.S. citizens. That's why we’re working with the Russian government. That's why we’re offering the assistance that we’re offering, as well as encouraging U.S. citizens planning to travel to Sochi to be in contact with the State Department to make sure they're aware of the advisories that are out there.
Q Can you characterize our level of confidence in the steps they have taken? You’ve heard -- obviously Putin has talked a “ring of steel” around the Sochi Olympics. Do we have a great deal of confidence that they have done enough on this?
MR. CARNEY: All I can tell you, Jon, is that we have had conversations with the Russian government about security in Sochi. The President spoke with President Putin about this. We have offered any assistance that they might want to avail themselves of, and we’re taking, I think, prudent precautions on this matter, as evidenced by some of the steps the Department of Defense and the State Department have taken.
I wouldn’t want to assess from here because this is a complicated piece of business, obviously -- an international event like this, Olympics in general -- because they, unlike already complicated events like a single day of a sporting event, the Olympics last over a significant period of time.
Q And can I ask a question on the Iran -- on the negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue? Is it the White House’s belief that if you can reach an agreement with the Iranians that those sanctions can be lifted without congressional approval? Can further sanctions be lifted? Obviously there are some steps which you’re able to do without congressional approval, but can you strike a deal with Iran and lift sanctions without Congress okaying it?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t seen that assessment made because it presupposes what is the only acceptable outcome to these negotiations, which is a verifiable, transparent agreement by Iran to forsake its nuclear weapons ambitions. And the promise of that for Iran is that by coming into compliance with its international obligation, by offering in a way that is 100 percent reassuring to the P5-plus-1 and our international partners and allies that they will not pursue and cannot pursue a nuclear weapon, there will be an opportunity for Iran to end its isolated state that its violation of its international obligations has brought upon it.
But how that process would work, I think it’s a little early to discuss that because the six-month period that we’ve been talking about for the negotiations over a comprehensive solution is only just beginning.
Q Okay. And then just one last thing. The First Lady had her 50th birthday party and I believe you said that the President picks up the cost for that party.
MR. CARNEY: I think we put out information. I don’t have it here. I would refer you to the East Wing.
Q And I was just wondering if you had an estimate on what the cost was.
MR. CARNEY: I don’t, but I would refer you to the East Wing.
Q On that uptick in threat reporting, you said that it’s something you should expect with events like this. But really going beyond that, part of that uptick is because of recent events in the area because of the region we’re talking about. Is that correct?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I mean, you’re asking me to assess the region. I think that international events like this always represent -- or present, rather, security challenges, and that’s broadly speaking. Obviously each event presents unique challenges. But I’m not going to get into a detailed analysis of how this one might be different from another one. The approach that the U.S. government takes and the administration takes is one of prudent preparation because of any risks that might be out there.
So as I said, as you might expect in the run-up to an event like this, there has been an uptick in some of the threat reporting, and we’re taking precautions accordingly. But that is not unusual.
Q And does President Putin seem welcoming of U.S. offers for assistance?
MR. CARNEY: I think that we have communicated at a variety of levels including between the two Presidents that we are absolutely willing to assist the Russian government where we can, and those conversations are being engaged. And I wouldn’t characterize them -- I can point you to the Defense Department in terms of some of the conversations they’ve had and some of the steps they’ve taken. But we’re going to continue to work with the Russian government and have those conversations moving forward.
Q And on The New Yorker piece, the President said a couple of things about marijuana. He said that legalization experiments in Washington State and Colorado should “go forward.” He also mentioned that he didn’t think marijuana was any more dangerous than alcohol. In 2010, this White House put out a policy paper on national drug policy stating that marijuana should not be legalized. Was the President setting new drug policy?
MR. CARNEY: No, the President’s position on these matters hasn’t changed. I think he was making a couple of points -- one, that we ought to use discretion appropriately in our prosecution prioritization -- A. B, when it comes to marijuana use, he made clear that he sees it as a bad habit and a vice and not something that he would encourage -- and this is a quote: “It’s not something I encourage, and I told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.”
But there’s no question that we’ve applied our drug laws in a way that has been counterproductive and that there are issues there that need to be addressed. I think that it’s important to -- because he’s quoted quite extensively in that article -- to look at the full context of some of these quotes that have been taken out in phrases when, at least in this instance, there’s an opportunity to see him speak at length.
Q But he does want to see those experiments to go forward in Washington State and Colorado. What does he hope to find out --
MR. CARNEY: I think the point he was -- well, see, I think again that you’re probably not aware of the entire sentence. “It’s important for the experiment” -- which is bracketed -- “to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law, and only a select few get punished.” In other words, he’s talking about the issue of the disparities in our prosecution of our drug laws that an experiment like this may be addressing. He’s not endorsing any specific move by a state; he’s simply making an observation. His position on these matters has not changed.
Q And, Jay, on Syria, getting back to Syria, there has been a huge cache of photos that have been released showing what appears to be widespread killings, mass killings, mass torture in Syria. Has the White House examined these photos? Does it have an opinion on what should happen with respect to those photos?
MR. CARNEY: We stand with the rest of the world in horror at these images that have come to light, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the actions of the Assad regime and call on it to adhere to international obligations with respect to the treatment of prisoners. While we cannot independently confirm or affirm the information that was presented recently, these photos cannot be ignored or dismissed. They suggest widespread and apparently systematic violations of international human law and demonstrate just how far the regime is willing to go in harming its own people. They’re very disturbing images.
Let me move around a little bit. Christie.
Q Thanks, Jay. Back on the metadata program. Can you say when the DOJ and the ODNI began working on the storage -- the new storage place for this database? Was it 10 minutes after the President speech or --
MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to them. I don’t know when they --
Q Well, your answer to Jeff made it sound like --
MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that on -- the examination of these issues was part of the review process. So moving forward, participants in that effort are not starting from scratch. And that was the point I’m making -- not that the President had issued specifically this directive prior to his speech, but that there’s a knowledge base there that was built in part by the review the President asked for and got, and that will certainly be of assistance as the work moves forward to make some determinations about storage.
Q And do you know if the Attorney General has assured the President that he can make the deadline that he has set?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think I would point you to what I said earlier. There’s work that’s been done on this issue broadly speaking so people aren’t starting from scratch. It’s a complicated piece of business, but the President expects that action can be taken in the timeline he set.
Q Well, you also have the component of needing congressional help on this. What would happen if Congress did not act to set something up by the deadline the President is talking about? Is the President willing to stop -- he said in his speech that the government will no longer maintain this database. Would he stop doing that --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re going to work with Congress because we think that this is the kind of thing that can enjoy bipartisan support. There’s a shared interest in moving forward on this so I think that we hope and expect congressional cooperation moving forward.
Q On income inequality, the President has repeatedly made it clear recently that this is going to be a big part of the next three years. But with so little appetite in Congress to do anything about it, how much effort is he going to put behind measures that can actually reduce the trend?
MR. CARNEY: Well, there’s no question, as you heard the President say in Anacostia late last year, and as you’ve heard him say over the years, including in Osawatomie and earlier this year, that the challenge we face when it comes to economic mobility in this country and the ability of Americans from all stations in life to achieve the American Dream is something he considers his number-one priority. And addressing that challenge, addressing that problem, making sure that there’s opportunity for everyone, is something that we can do together with Congress and it’s also something that he can tackle using all of the tools in his toolbox as President of the United States.
And you have seen him do that -- or rather you have seen examples of how he can do that just recently with the Promise Zones that he talked about, and the manufacturing hub in North Carolina, where we can continue to work on the renaissance of manufacturing in this country and focus on advanced manufacturing and the kind of industries that create well-paying jobs for middle-class families to live on here in the United States. You've seen it in the initiative last week with a hundred representatives from colleges and universities and elsewhere interested in improving education for Americans, and that, in turn, helps address the issue, because it’s not something that a single piece of legislation will resolve.
You've seen it in efforts across the states to raise the minimum wage, state by state. The President strongly supports action by Congress, strongly supports action here in Washington to raise the minimum wage, because as a basic principle in this country you ought to be able to earn a living, i.e. not live in poverty, if you put in a hard day's work. That's certainly the President's view. And that's something that has enjoyed across the country and through the years bipartisan support. So there's an opportunity for action with Congress on that specific issue -- and others.
So the President is fiercely committed to this agenda that goes right at the heart of what he believes America has always been about, which is the foundational belief that no matter what the circumstances of your birth that you have endless opportunity in this country to advance yourself and your family if you're willing to work hard, if you're willing to take responsibility, and if you're willing to educate yourself and help your family move forward. So this is obviously something the President has spoken about before. I think you can expect that it will be something he'll speak about in the coming days and weeks, and throughout his presidency.
Q How would he measure success?
MR. CARNEY: I think he would measure success by evidence that we have improved economic opportunity in this country for everyone; that the mobility that we've seen declining in this country is on the rise again, where you don't have I think surprising statistics that suggest that countries in Europe have greater economic mobility than the United States, which sort of goes at the heart of who we believe we are in this country and what our history has been about when it comes to opportunity for people who have been willing to work hard and take responsibility. So that's an agenda that could not have more presidential force behind it.
Major.
Q There was a report last night that the Pentagon sent to the President a report or a recommendation that there would be 10,000 U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan after 2014 provided the BSA is signed, but that those forces would be removed by 2016. A, can you confirm if that's true? And if so, does it reflect a presidential desire to wind down the war completely by the end of his term, even if the bilateral security agreement is signed by the Afghan government?
MR. CARNEY: What I can tell you, Major, is that the President has not made any decisions about final troop numbers and I'm not going to discuss ongoing deliberations. We will be weighing inputs from our military commanders, as well as the intelligence community, our diplomats and development experts as we make decisions about our post-2014 presence in Afghanistan.
As you mentioned, in addition, our position continues to be that if we cannot conclude a bilateral security agreement promptly then we will initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no U.S. or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan. That's not the future we're seeking; it’s not the policy we think is best, and we don't believe it’s in Afghanistan’s best interest. But the further this slips into 2014, the more likely such an outcome is.
Meanwhile, as the interagency convenes to continue considering options to present to the President for a post-2014 presence, we will have to increasingly take into account the lack of a signed BSA in that planning. We'll have to frame decisions based on our clear position that we can't pursue a post-2014 mission without a BSA. And that mission, if I could just reiterate, would be one tailored to focus on counterterrorism operations and on the training and support of Afghan security forces.
So no decisions have been made. We're not going to get into ongoing deliberations. And it’s important to note in the context of all of these discussions that we are still waiting for the Afghan government to sign the bilateral security agreement.
Q Does the difficulty in obtaining that signature on the BSA inject into these deliberations a new question about the utility of keeping forces for a long period after 2014 because it appears the Afghan -- we may not be welcome there and therefore the utility of us staying might be in question now?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think, in fact, the loya jirga strongly endorsed the bilateral security agreement, and as a body that represents the will and opinion of the Afghan people, we think that is significant and it reflects the fact that the BSA was negotiated in good faith with the Afghan government. And we consider that another strong reason why it ought to be signed.
Q But you know as well as I do that part of this is the succession of Karzai and this being a live issue, so that if it’s not overshadowed, certainly presents itself within the succession of the Karzai government and it certainly is a factor being weighed by not just the loya jirga but whoever may succeed Karzai.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that's probably the case, but we're not basing the need for the BSA to be signed on that timeline in Afghan politics. We're basing it on the fact that we have to make decisions -- we and our NATO allies have to make decisions and make plans for 2014 that need to take into account whether or not there is a BSA that's been signed, because there cannot be a further troop presence beyond 2014 absent a signed BSA. So the further we slip into this year, the more we have to take that into account as we make plans.
Q It was suggested on a couple of Sunday talk shows that there is evidence in possession of the U.S. government that Edward Snowden may well have received assistance from the Russian government in transit on his way to Russia and that he may be cooperating in ways that is harmful to the U.S. government on an ongoing basis. Does the administration agree with those assessments?
MR. CARNEY: I would say that this is an ongoing criminal investigation; there have been charges brought. And I don't have anything to add from here on that matter.
Q Would the administration cast any doubts on those suspicions?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I just don't have anything to add. There is a case that has been presented against Mr. Snowden, charges have been brought. It is our firm position that he ought to return to the United States and face the charges against him here where he will be afforded all of the protections of due process that our judicial system provides.
Q In The New Yorker piece, the President said he was haunted by Syria. You read a statement about the images that the administration had a chance to look at. You also said there’s no alternative to Assad staying in power. Why isn't there any alternative to Assad staying in power? He’s been there for almost two and a half years, a wide-running bloody civil war. The military does not appear to be any less aggressive in its defense of the Assad regime than it has been from the start. The opposition is splintered. The Geneva II peace process or conversations are off to, at best, a rocky start. Why isn't it possible that Assad stays and the President remains haunted by this for the remainder of his administration?
MR. CARNEY: Because there’s no future that the Syrian people will endorse for their country that includes Assad in the government or as President. He has forsaken in bloody fashion any claim he might have to lead that country into the future by massacring his own people --
Q But with respect, that may undermine his moral authority, but the practical reality is he’s there, his military is there and fights aggressively to keep him there.
MR. CARNEY: And there’s an ongoing civil war there, and there is no solution, there is no end to that war absent a negotiated political settlement. And that settlement has to be based on the Geneva Communiqué, which calls for a transitional governing authority based on mutual consent. And there’s no achieving mutual consent in Syria of the members of that governing authority that could include Bashar al-Assad in the government. It won’t happen. It can't happen.
So our view that Assad can't be part of Syria’s future is not one that we make on our own; it’s one we observe in the fulfillment of the Geneva Communiqué, because there’s no way the opposition would agree to -- nor should -- a governing transitional authority that would include Assad among those participants.
Q Jay, on that point, is a U.S. military strike against Syria -- a potential U.S. military strike still on the table?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Ed, I don't think that we would ever rule out options when dealing with matters like this. But what I can tell you is that we foresee no U.S. troops in Syria and that there is -- the only resolution here -- I think that suggesting the use of force somehow answers the mail when we said there’s no resolution here that doesn't include a negotiated political settlement --
Q The President very publicly considered U.S. force, was right up to the line of it, and then went to Congress. All that only played out a few months ago. My question is two summers ago, the President from that podium had a news conference and drew the red line and that was on chemical weapons specifically.
MR. CARNEY: As was the threat of the use of force.
Q The threat of force. And the President, though, then when he drew that red line in August of 2012, said that if they crossed the line there would be enormous consequences. Now, in addition to the mass killings that were just talked about a moment ago, chemical weapons were used in mass fashion, and as result, in a positive step, Syria started turning over some of those chemical weapons. But my question is, Assad is still in power, as Major suggested. He’s still killing his own people. What is -- what can the U.S. do about it?
MR. CARNEY: Well, Ed, if I could briefly clarify the history that you recounted, the President made clear that it was a red line for Syria to use chemical weapons. And he then very clearly and forcefully threatened force when the evidence demonstrated that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. It was because of that credible use of force -- threat of force, rather, that something happened that I don't think anybody would have predicted, which is that a government that had long denied that it even possessed chemical weapons agreed to give them all up. And that process is underway.
What remains the case is that there’s an ongoing civil war. What the President has said is that we will do everything we can through provision of humanitarian assistance, through pushing the Geneva process forward, including the meetings underway now, including help and assistance to the opposition, to help bring about an end to the war and a negotiated political --
Q But all of that has been going on for a couple of years now is my question, I guess. And if the President is haunted by it, does he feel paralyzed? Does he feel --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I guess, Ed, I would point you to the words of the President when he’s made clear that we cannot intervene in every -- militarily into every civil war, but we can do what we have done in this case, which is work with international partners to help try to bring about a negotiated political settlement.
And we can, as we did, working with our international partners, help bring about the commitment by Syria to give up one of the largest collections of chemical weapons in the world. And that is obviously something that’s very positive and that work is ongoing.
Q Last thing on health care. The Hill newspaper reported a couple of days ago that a procurement document from late December says that federal officials decided to bring on Accenture for the healthcare.gov contract. And they did it quickly; they did it without open bid because they justified it, administration officials, by saying they had to move quickly because they said the health insurance industry was at risk if the site was not fixed. They also went on to say, ”The entire health care reform program is jeopardized if these fixes are not made by mid-March.”
MR. CARNEY: Who said that?
Q Federal officials who were quoted in --
MR. CARNEY: Which officials?
Q From CMS, I would expect. Not from the White House.
MR. CARNEY: I didn’t see the article. I’m not aware of those statements --
Q But you’ve been saying the website is turning the corner. Does this document suggest that there are still concerns here in the administration?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not aware of the document. What I can you tell you is there has been an enormous effort expended and an enormous effort that continues to be expended in making sure that the website functions effectively for the millions of Americans who have so clearly demonstrated that they desire the product on offer here. And I certainly hope that as those improvements have resulted in significantly increased numbers of Americans enrolling in and purchasing insurance through the exchanges, that that story is getting the full coverage that it merits.
Margaret.
Q Thanks. I wanted to go back to Sochi for a second. Just to clarify, there were some reports beginning yesterday that the U.S. was using counterterrorism operatives to help the Russians look for potential suicide bombers inside the security zone. Can you confirm that? And even if you can’t, is the U.S. concerned that there may be suicide bombers inside the security zone?
MR. CARNEY: Margaret, I just don’t have more. I don’t have -- I have not seen that report. What I can tell you is that we are having conversations with the Russians. We have made clear that we are prepared to provide any assistance that we can if Russia asks for it. And we’re going to continue to work with them and take steps as we’ve been taking out of prudence, given that this is the kind of event where security is an issue.
Q On the President’s call with Mr. Putin, the one thing in the readout that I didn’t notice was any mention of Edward Snowden. Can you tell us explicitly, did they -- is this like in the agree-to-disagree category and they just don’t talk about it? Or they talked about it and it’s just not going in the readout because there’s nothing you could possibly tell us about what they said?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have more detail on the phone call. What I can tell you is that our position on Mr. Snowden I think is abundantly clear to everyone, including the Russians, and our view that he ought to be returned to the United States where he will be afforded all the rights and protections in our system. That hasn't changed. So I don't think there's any doubt in Moscow or elsewhere of our position on that matter.
Q Can I do one more?
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q There's an ally of Angela Merkel's who is like the foreign policy spokesman for her party in the Parliament, and what he had said is that it's their view that what the President has promised or offered in terms of the foreign leader aspect of the NSA role last week isn't quite enough and that -- he said, "Transatlantic relations are in the deepest crisis now since the Iraq war." I'm just wondering if the President is concerned about the sort of ongoing steps to repair the relationship with Germany specifically and what he is doing in the wake of the NSA remarks?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we have had direct country-to-country and, in some cases, leader-to-leader consultations on these matters as they have arisen. And we've certainly been clear about that when it comes to the United States and Germany and President Obama and Chancellor Merkel. And I would say that at Chancellor Merkel and President Obama's direction, we have undertaken extensive, close consultations on our intelligence cooperation in recent months, which has resulted -- those consultations, rather, have resulted in a better understanding of the requirements and concerns that exist on both sides. And those consultations will continue among our intelligence services. And I think they reflect the very close relationship we have across the board, including on issues of and matters of intelligence.
Peter.
Q Jay, clearly, there was a greater degree of sharing in past Olympics -- in London, in Vancouver, and even Beijing before that. What specifically would you like to see with Russia that would give this administration more confidence in the safety of Americans not just in Sochi, but throughout Russia?
MR. CARNEY: Again, Peter, I just don't have more on this beyond what I've said, which is that we are in conversations with the Russians, we've made clear that we are prepared to offer any assistance that they might require. Russian authorities are, of course, responsible for overall security at the Olympics -- they are the host nation -- and the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security has the security lead for the United States. As part of that responsibility, we will send diplomatic security and FBI agents to liaise with host nation security and law enforcement officials.
I think that reflects the actions that we take in situations like this; they're fairly standard. But these are obviously events that present security challenges, so we work with host nations and we take actions that we think are necessary to make sure that the precautions we can take are taken.
Q So at this time, is the White House satisfied that Russia is prepared to host a safe games?
MR. CARNEY: I think that Russia has responsibility for overall security in terms of the steps that they've taken, and assurances that they can make are ones that they have to make. Our view is that we partner with host nations and liaise with them. We also, in this case, are offering security assistance and we'll continue to work with the Russians as the event approaches and begins.
Q Senator Angus King said a couple of days ago, "I would not go and I don't think I'd send my family." Americans are making those decisions right now. Should Americans go? Should they feel safe sending their family?
MR. CARNEY: Sure. I think there will be, as I understand it, a lot of Americans in Sochi, which is why, of course, we pay close attention to an event like this. There will be Team USA members there, as well as corporate sponsors. And our advice to Americans who might travel to the games is to avail themselves of the information provided by the State Department in the form of travel advisories related to this and to take the standard precautions that those advisories recommend. And beyond that, we're just going to continue to work with -- to take the necessary precautions and to work with the Russian government.
Q As for Chairman Rogers, who this weekend discussed his suspicion or belief that Edward Snowden received some help -- this is going to a question that was asked earlier -- but he made these -- you could call them allegations or accusations -- at least it was his belief system that there was help provided to Edward Snowden. A senior FBI official told us on Sunday that it’s still the Bureau’s conclusion that Mr. Snowden acted alone. So I guess I’m curious right now if Chairman Rogers and others using language like that somehow hinders the relationship the U.S. is trying to develop right now with Russia by making those suggestions when it appears the administration has no evidence of that.
MR. CARNEY: I think the disagreement we have with Russia over Edward Snowden I think has been publicly expressed with some frequency. I don’t think that --
Q Is he helping or hurting by saying that if there’s no evidence?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t think that that’s really an issue because we have -- the President spoke with President Putin directly and does so with some frequency, as Presidents of Russia and the President --
Q Wait, about -- I’m sorry, about Edward Snowden?
MR. CARNEY: No, I’m just saying in general that we don’t -- that the President can talk to President Putin, and does. And in our relations with Russia, we have areas of significant cooperation where our interests are aligned and we have areas of significant disagreement, including but not limited to the matter of Edward Snowden. But I don’t think we’re anything but transparent about that. And we have expressed that very clearly both on that matter and other matters. That’s been the approach the President has taken in our relations with Russia because he thinks that best serves the interests of the United States, which is a very clear-eyed approach to U.S.-Russian relations that allows for cooperation on matters that are vital to U.S. national security and U.S. interests, and can also allow for the clear expression of disagreements -- and that happens.
We are still able to move forward and cooperate with the Russians on a host of areas. That includes the P5-plus-1. It includes counterterrorism cooperation in general. And it includes obviously the ability to discuss security around the Sochi games.
Q Finally, very quickly, we’re under the impression you’ll get back to us on who delivered -- who placed the phone call, whether it was President Putin or President Obama yesterday. But we’re under the -- we’ve been told that the conversation was apparently several days or even weeks in the making. Did the two of them agree to have other conversations and have other conversations been set before the games where further decisions will be made in terms of cooperation?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any previews of additional phone calls that may or may not happen. As I said, the President speaks with President Putin with some frequency, as you might expect, but I don’t know when the next call might be.
Yes, Jess.
Q On the U.S.-Africa summit that you announced earlier this week, can you talk about what prompted that, and also why Egypt is not among those that are invited, especially given what’s going on there right now?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I can tell you that what prompted it is the hope that the summit will build on the progress made since the President’s trip to Africa last summer that it will advance the administration’s focus on trade and investment in Africa and highlight America’s commitment to Africa’s security, its democratic development and its people.
I think that on matters of the invitation list, on Egypt -- I know I have this here somewhere. Hold on. I can give you -- Egypt has not been invited because it is suspended from the African Union, and that’s the reason why Egypt was not invited. I can read you the entire list of the invitees, but I think you’ve probably seen it. But that’s why Egypt was not invited.
Q Is there any concern that that is a missed opportunity to have discussions that you’d like to be having with Egypt?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think we have regular discussions with Egyptian leaders and authorities focused on the bilateral relationship, on security matters, but also on developments in Egypt and our belief that Egypt needs to transition to a civilian-led government in a process that is inclusive where Egyptians from all walks of life get to express their views and be heard.
Reid.
Q Jay, yesterday after he was indicted, former Virginia Governor McDonnell and his attorneys both described his actions while he was governor as similar to things that President Obama has done in the White House. They said in the legal brief the President routinely participates in corporate events which lend credibility to his major benefactors, invites benefactors to events in the White House, allows his photo to be taken with benefactors, and includes benefactors in policy discussions with senior administration officials, in describing or explaining Governor McDonnell’s actions with Jonnnie Williams. I’m sure you're going to refer questions about the prosecution to the Justice Department. But does the President sort of concede the point that a lot of the people who are involved in some of these policy discussions are people who have contributed to his campaign?
MR. CARNEY: Reid, I have no comment on what is obviously an ongoing matter of prosecution, and I’ll leave it at that.
Q Thanks, Jay.
MR. CARNEY: Mark.
Q Jay, how will foreign leaders know if they are among the friends and allies whose phone calls the United States will not conduct surveillance on?
MR. CARNEY: Mark, what I would say is that we have direct conversations through diplomatic channels on these issues and will continue to do so. I think you can address those questions, that question elsewhere, but I think that we -- as has been the case since these revelations began, where they have affected our relations with a specific country, there have been direct and substantive conversations between the two countries using diplomatic channels, which is the tradition.
Q So you’re saying you’ll tell them, you’re okay, your phone calls won’t be surveilled?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not sure what other method you might suggest, Mark. (Laughter.) I can simply tell you that we have close relationships with our friends and allies -- our close friends and allies, and these kinds of discussions take place through normal diplomatic channels.
Q And have you responded to the ad yesterday in the paper from Europe 1 Radio requesting an interview with the President? And would you suggest that's a way for many of us to request interviews from now on? (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: No, I think CBS has requested interviews through more traditional means successfully, as have many of the news organizations here. But I wouldn’t rule out that as a means to request. I think it’s an expensive way to do it. But keep those invitations coming.
Thanks very much.
END
1:48 P.M. EST
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
PRESS BRIEFING FROM PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 10/15/13
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:44 P.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for being here. Before I take your questions, I just wanted to note that earlier today the President was briefed by senior staff on the effects of the lapse in appropriations -- the so-called shutdown. And among the items that he was briefed on was the fact that small businesses are feeling the impact of shutdown as key federal efforts that support small business have been halted.
Due to the shutdown -- as you know, now in its 15th day -- the SBA cannot approve new guarantees of loans provided by banks to small businesses. In a typical month, the Small Business Administration approves loans to more than 4,000 small businesses, and halting these loans represents over $1 billion in lost loan assistance to small businesses, thereby jeopardizing thousands of jobs -- and, again, another consequence of the wholly unnecessary, completely manufactured crisis that is doing harm to our economy, harm to our small businesses, and was brought about by one faction of one party in one house in one branch of government making ideological demands and thereby shutting down the government.
With that, I take your questions. Julie.
Q Thanks, Jay. I want to just get a sense of the state of play at this point. Is it the White House’s understanding that there is a deal in the Senate that's been finalized between Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell that would lift the debt ceiling and reopen the government?
MR. CARNEY: The President is pleased with the progress that we've seen in the Senate. It is important to note that the process that's been undertaken in the Senate is bipartisan, that Senators Reid and McConnell have been engaging one another, Democrats and Republicans have been engaging on this issue. And it’s all built around the fundamental premise that we should not have shut down the government, that we should reopen the government, and that we must ensure that the United States pays its bills on time, as it always had, and we should do -- the Congress should take those actions in a way that does not have partisan strings attached and that ensures the kind of stability for our economy and for our middle class that they need.
So we're pleased with the progress. I would refer you to the Senate leaders for the status of those discussions. But we certainly believe that there’s a potential there for a resolution to this unnecessary, manufactured crisis that can allow us to get back to the important business of helping grow the economy and create jobs and taking action to improve the lives of middle-class Americans that elected officials were sent here to do.
Q Is the White House confident that that resolution could pass both the Senate and the House ahead of the Thursday deadline for the debt ceiling?
MR. CARNEY: For congressional timing and how --
Q But you guys know the state of play.
MR. CARNEY: There is no question that we are very close to a very important deadline and time is of the essence. So I think that is why you see some very serious-minded efforts being undertaken in the Senate. And we would hope that the House would also approach this important deadline with the same understanding of just how serious it is.
Q And in 2011, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded just because the government got so close to a default. Is the White House or Treasury hearing from any of the rating agencies now that we are, again, very close to that deadline without a resolution?
MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the Treasury Department for those kinds of conversations, if they’re taking place. That wouldn't be something I would brief on from here.
We know from past experience, the difficult lessons learned from 2011, that the serious flirtation with default that House Republicans engaged in two years ago led to some pretty negative consequences for our economy, including, as you know, the United States being downgraded for the first time.
Q But the President in his briefings that you say he’s getting every day, is he getting anything from any of these officials about how the rating agencies --
MR. CARNEY: That would not be something that I would brief on from here because obviously issues that have to do with market sensitivities are not ones that I would address here.
Roberta.
Q Last week, the President said in a worse-case scenario, there are things that he will do. And what if Thursday comes and there’s no deal. Have you -- has the White House started implementing any of those contingency plans already ahead of -- because we’re so close?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would not go further than what the President or the Treasury Secretary have said about that, and I would refer you to Treasury. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified, as you know, last week where broadly this issue was discussed.
But we are obviously focused on working with members of Congress, leaders in Congress, on an effort to do what we’ve said was essential all along, which was open the government and make sure that the United States pays its bills by extending the debt ceiling, and doing that in a way that we don't simply put us on a trajectory to re-create this crisis again in a few weeks.
So we’re encouraged by the progress that we’ve seen in the Senate, but we’re far from a deal at this point and so we hope that progress continues.
Q What is there about the Senate deal, though, that doesn't re-create the crisis in a few months down the road? What is there in it that doesn't mean we’re going to be doing this all over again in --
MR. CARNEY: Again, there’s not a bill for me to analyze for you right now. What I would --
Q Right, but the pending -- the shape of the pending --
MR. CARNEY: I think that every participant in this exercise would, hopefully, understand that it should not be repeated -- not in a few weeks and not in a few months. And when it comes to the fundamental responsibility of Congress to ensure that the United States does not default, not ever. That’s certainly the President’s view.
That is why he has been so insistent that we cannot engage in a process here that then becomes normalized where a minority in Congress, a faction of one party in one house can threaten the full faith and credit of the United States if it does not get what it could not get through the normal legislative process or through elections. So those are the stakes when it comes to the essential responsibility of Congress to ensure that the Department of Treasury can pay our bills.
Q There do seem to be, though, some strings attached in the deal as it appears to be sort of coalescing or developing. What does the White House make of those strings?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not going to analyze details of a bill that we haven’t seen yet and that has not emerged yet.
Brianna.
Q Jay, some of the -- it seems like the key parts, at least, of the Senate bill -- the reinsurance, the income verification -- President Obama said, “Nobody gets to threaten the full faith and credit of the United States just to extract political concessions.” But if you're open to that, as presumably the White House is because they're talking to Senate Democrats, isn’t that concessions?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think what we have seen --
Q Isn't that setting the precedent that he said he won’t?
MR. CARNEY: What we have seen in the process thus far that Senator Reid has engaged in is a proposal that would reopen the government and remove the threat of a first-ever U.S. default by raising the debt ceiling. We don’t need any more self-inflicted wounds from Congress. The economy is already paying a price, as outside analysts have noted. There is already a cost to the economy and, therefore, to growth and jobs from this behavior.
And it’s important, as I think so many Americans believe, that it stop, that Congress simply fulfill its basic responsibilities to open the government, to fund it at, again, levels that were set by Republicans, so that we can get about the business of negotiating in good faith over longer-term budget proposals. I'm not going to --
Q But there are provisions on -- you are talking about the short-term increase in the debt ceiling and the CR. If you’re not going to talk about the Obamacare provisions, which are also on the table -- I mean, you’re talking about the short-term debt ceiling and CR provisions. I mean, even if these are sort of small-fry gives on Obamacare, doesn’t it violate the principle that the President set out there that he will not negotiate on Obamacare?
MR. CARNEY: Again, until we have a proposal that has emerged from these negotiations in the Senate, I’m not going to analyze it with you piece by piece. What I can say is we’ve been encouraged by the progress, and we believe -- and the President believes it’s very important that when it comes to the debt ceiling that we not do what a previous effort in the House would have done, which is try to create a scenario where budget negotiations and the renewal of government funding are once again tied directly to the essential responsibility of Congress to pay our bills -- and right before the holidays, which would have been -- would be a terrible outcome to this process, as every business owner will tell you -- and I think many of them have told you, and many of them have told their representatives in Congress.
Q So does he hold firm to that assertion that he will not negotiate when it comes to Obamacare on the full faith and credit of the U.S. or on the government being shut down?
MR. CARNEY: Yes. He has made clear that -- he’s made clear two things, Brianna, as you know. He is willing, within the context of broader budget negotiations, within the context of serious-minded and earnest discussions about how to improve the Affordable Care Act, to look at any proposal that might do that -- going to Obamacare. And that’s true on broader budget issues.
But some of the ideas that we’ve seen this morning, when it comes to sort of demanding ransom, to try to rally tea party members, in exchange for opening the government or raising the debt ceiling, that’s not acceptable and it has not been through this whole process.
Q Speaker Boehner -- real quickly, is there nothing in the Boehner proposal that’s acceptable to you?
MR. CARNEY: Reopening the government and extending the debt ceiling, that’s acceptable.
Q The Obamacare provisions included in the Senate deal?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think two things. One, as I understand it, there’s not a proposal in the House to talk about now, based on the press conference given by House Republican leaders. And based on some of the reporting I’ve seen since then, that’s because they’re now going back to try to add some sweeteners for tea party members.
And the better course of action is the one being undertaken by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. Instead of trying to once again craft a measure to ensure full Republican support in the House, why not work on a measure that could get bipartisan support in the House, the way that Republicans and Democrats are trying to do in the Senate? That’s certainly what I think is best for the American people. It’s the kind of process that the President supports. So, with regards to proposals that we haven’t seen, it’s hard to --
Q But aren’t you cherry-picking which parts you’ll talk about? Because you’re talking about the short-term funding and debt ceiling increase, but you won't talk about the other items.
MR. CARNEY: Talking about the shutdown and the need to raise the debt ceiling -- yes, that’s what we’ve been talking about for weeks.
Q But the time frame of it.
MR. CARNEY: No, look, we’ve said all along that we want a debt ceiling increase for as long as possible because of the need to remove uncertainty from this process. I mean, the very uncertainty that has been created by this manufactured crisis is what we need to avoid as an economy going forward, and what Washington needs to avoid, because it is already causing harm to the economy. It is already causing uncertainty among Americans, which, in turn, has them making decisions about how they spend their money, which has a negative impact potentially on the economy. And that creates a cascading effect that can only be bad, which is why we need to, here in Washington, why Congress needs to fulfill its basic responsibilities: reopen the government, and make sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is upheld, as it has been in the past.
Jon.
Q Jay, what exactly is the deadline?
MR. CARNEY: For?
Q Raising the debt ceiling, for default?
MR. CARNEY: Well, those are two different things, as we’ve been explicitly clear about. On October 17th, as the Treasury Secretary has noted many times, the United States runs out of borrowing authority, and beyond that point we only have cash on hand available to pay our bills.
The Treasury Secretary has testified to this on Capitol Hill and is obviously far more of an expert than I, so I would point you to his testimony and public statements about that fact. But as everyone knows, in order to meet all of our obligations as a country, the United States needs borrowing authority in order to make sure that all of our bills are paid. All of the obligations that Congress has made, all of the bills that Congress has incurred will come due. And if we can only pay those bills with cash on hand, that is a problem. And that is what --
Q I’m just trying -- everybody has their countdown clocks, everything going on, and they seem to be counting down to midnight tomorrow. But is it midnight tomorrow when the calendar strikes the 17th, or is there another day after that?
MR. CARNEY: As much as I’d like to improve the quality of the countdown clocks -- (laughter) -- I would have to refer you to Treasury on the minute and the hour.
Q Okay, well, more important than the countdown clocks, when does Congress need to act by? Do they need to pass something by tomorrow? Can something pass on Thursday? Will the sky fall if it doesn't pass on Friday? When is the deadline that they have got to produce something? Is it tomorrow?
MR. CARNEY: Jon, the deadline for --
Q Midnight tomorrow?
MR. CARNEY: -- avoiding uncertainty has passed. The deadline for not shutting the government down has long since passed. So Congress has already failed to act in a timely fashion. But we hope that Congress will act quickly to resolve these issues now.
Q I guess what I’m asking -- when is too late, Jay? I’m just trying to figure out when is too late.
MR. CARNEY: I’m not sure what that means. They need to act as soon as possible, because what is absolutely true is that every day we’re in shutdown there is harm done to hundreds of thousands of Americans and, indirectly, to many, many more, and there’s direct harm done to our economy. And every day that we get closer to the point beyond which we’ve never been, which is where the United States does not have borrowing authority, creates more trouble for our economy and uncertainty globally, which has a negative impact on our economy.
Q Obviously, there’s a lot of anxiety in the bond market because of this. Can bondholders be reassured that they will still receive their interest after tomorrow, after Thursday?
MR. CARNEY: Jon, those are the kinds of questions that I think are best directed to the Treasury Department. What is unquestionably the case is that when people talk about prioritization, they are talking about default by another name. When people talk about paying some bills but not others, they are talking about entering a realm that this country and this government has never been in, which is picking and choosing who gets paid and when they get paid. And that has tremendous negative consequences for our economy, not all of which are knowable beyond the fact that we know they're bad.
Q No question. But do you have a game plan? Obviously, this is no longer hypothetical. There’s a real possibility Congress doesn't act -- whatever the deadline exactly is. Do you have a game plan of what to do?
MR. CARNEY: Well, this is obviously something that the Treasury Department would have jurisdiction over, so I would refer you to Treasury.
Q And one specific question. This idea of suspending the medical device tax, I believe it’s been referred to as a ransom payment for part of this deal. The Speaker’s office is saying that this idea was actually proposed by White House staff in negotiations last week. Is that true or not?
MR. CARNEY: That is not true. What we have always said is that discussions of the medical device tax or other elements within the Affordable Care Act that lawmakers want to talk about in an effort to improve the Affordable Care Act we are willing to have, but not in the context of or as ransom for opening the government. That is why a provision like that appears in the latest proposal that seems to be going nowhere from House Republicans -- because it’s an effort to try to buy votes from tea party Republicans who shut this government down in the first place. And so there’s --
Q So just to be clear, they're not telling the truth about that?
MR. CARNEY: Again, that is not -- the conversations that have been had here and up on Capitol Hill about the medical device tax, as far as we’re concerned, have been about our willingness -- as the President said and others -- in a broader context; not ransom for opening the government, not ransom for Congress doing its job to pay our bills, but within the context of the President’s willingness to hear ideas about ways we can improve, as opposed to undermine or dismantle or defund Obamacare. We’re willing to have that. But we’re not going to pay ransom -- the President is not going to pay ransom from the American people to the tea party in order to open the government.
Q I'd like to follow that and --
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q -- pin you down a little more closely. Thursday, the Speaker’s spokesman said specifically that a White House official asked for repeal of the medical device tax.
MR. CARNEY: That's just not the case. That's just not the case.
Q I’m not saying it’s in connection with any other part of the plan, but simply that it was asked for by the White House.
MR. CARNEY: You’re saying that separate from anything, the White House proposed a change to the Affordable Care Act? Obviously, that's not the case. The issue of the medical device tax has been obviously in the air for the last several weeks. And when I’ve had this question and others have taken this question, we have made clear that we would be willing to talk about lawmakers who want to address that provision, as well as other ideas that lawmakers might have about making changes to the Affordable Care Act that strengthen it or improve it.
When it comes to the medical device tax, I think it’s very important to note that those who portray themselves as paragons of fiscal responsibility and discipline often propose making that change without acknowledging the fact that it would raise the deficit. So that's an important point to acknowledge, too.
But again, we have never said we would agree to paying ransom, making changes to the Affordable Care Act simply to placate tea party Republicans who shut this government down over their opposition to the Affordable Care Act.
Q Just to be clear, in Thursday’s meeting, you’re saying --
MR. CARNEY: I think I’ve answered this, Bill, three times.
Q -- no one here asked for repeal of the medical device tax?
MR. CARNEY: Correct.
Q There are people on Wall Street and in Washington who speak openly about the real crunch point being November 1st, as opposed to Thursday the 17th.
MR. CARNEY: On October 17th, as was made clear to Congress in a letter from the Treasury Secretary, we cease to have borrowing authority. We only have cash on hand. And as everyone knows who understands how this process works, that means we do not -- that is a scenario by which we will not be able to pay all our bills because of the fact that we need to borrow money in order to pay our bills.
And these are bills that Congress has incurred. These are obligations that Congress has made. This is not new debt. This is not new spending. There’s a lot of misrepresentation of that by those who claim that they came to Congress with a mandate never to raise the debt ceiling. Because that has nothing to do with spending, okay? It is just a --
Q But this has to do with a feeling that any obligations like Social Security and other payments come due on November 1, and that between the 17th and the 1st --
MR. CARNEY: What I can tell you is that we have a huge number of payments as a country that need to be made every day, and that there’s a series of obligations that the United States government has to fulfill. For details about how that process works, I refer you to the Treasury Department. But if anybody -- we've seen a lot of talk from deficit -- not deficit -- debt limit deniers and default deniers and they have been roundly shot down, that talk has been, by experts in the field, including CEOs and financial industry experts, including many of whom I think tend to have the ear of Republican lawmakers.
It is absolutely not the responsible thing to do to allow us as a nation to enter territory we've never been in before, which is to not have the authority to pay our bills.
Ed.
Q Thank you. Nice to talk to you. I wanted to ask you about the President’s role in the final hours here. Yesterday there was supposed to be a meeting with leaders in both parties. Today his schedule just has House Democratic leaders, not both parties. Senator McCain, a short time ago on the Senate floor -- and he’s obviously been critical in recent days of his own party and has said that they need to come to a deal -- but a short time ago he said it’s a mistake for Democrats to reject Speaker Boehner’s latest proposal. He said it’s, in his words, “a serious proposal.” So my question is, does the President plan to, A, let the congressional leaders work this out in the final hours, or does he see that his role in the final hours -- because this is so critical, as you say -- that he will play some direct role in trying to force a deal?
MR. CARNEY: I have no doubt the President will be in contact with congressional leaders of both parties as this process continues. As you know, Ed, but didn’t include in your question, we postponed the meeting yesterday because of the progress that was being made in the Senate --
Q True. I wasn’t trying to --
MR. CARNEY: So it is the President’s intention -- and it’s reflected by the meetings and conversations he’s been having with leaders, as well as the fact that he invited every member of Congress to the White House last week for discussions on this issue -- to engage directly with lawmakers as they try to resolve this issue, and try to do it in a way that, hopefully, reflects the bipartisan spirit that we've seen in the Senate process. And we continue to hope that that will bear fruit and will produce something that can, in the end, lead to a resolution that opens the government, provides the authority to the Treasury for the United States to pays its bills, so that we can then focus on some of the bigger issues that we face as a country, instead of getting distracted by these manufactured crises that only do harm to the economy, only do harm to the American people, and apparently, according to a lot of Republican commentators, do a lot of harm to the Republican Party. We need to get beyond this, for the sake of the country.
Q Two other quick topics on some of the big issues you're talking about. NSA -- The Washington Post has another revelation today saying that they’re collecting -- the NSA is collecting email contact lists not just of foreigners but of Americans. How do you justify that?
MR. CARNEY: As you know, I'm not in a position to discuss specific tools or processes, but as you know, the National Security Agency is focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets, such as terrorists, human traffickers and drug smugglers. They are not interested in personal information about ordinary Americans. Moreover, they operate in accordance with rules either approved by the Attorney General or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as appropriate, designed to minimize the acquisition, use and dissemination of any such information.
So, again, the purpose here is to discover and develop intelligence about foreign intelligence targets. That is the mission and that is purpose of the various methods that the NSA employs.
Q But part of what you said is they’re not interested in private information of Americans, except The Washington Post says they collect the telephone numbers of Americans, the street addresses of Americans, business information, family information. So doesn’t that contradict what you're saying?
MR. CARNEY: Well, no, Ed, in fact, they are not interested in the personal information of ordinary Americans. They target foreign intelligence -- their targets are terrorists, human traffickers, drug smugglers and the like, and they gather foreign intelligence. There are minimization procedures in place approved by the Attorney General and the FISA Court that are designed to minimize the acquisition, use and dissemination of any such information -- information that might be collected as part of the effort to target terrorists and the like.
Q Last question. Your predecessor, Robert Gibbs, had some interesting things to say about the health care rollout yesterday. He said that it’s been botched. And he said that when it gets fixed, “I hope they fire some people that were in charge of making sure that this thing was supposed to work.” How do you react to that? And since Republican Senator Pat Roberts has called for Secretary Sebelius to be fired, does she still have the full confidence of the President?
MR. CARNEY: The Secretary does have the full confidence of the President. She, like everyone else in this effort, is focused on our number-one priority, which is making the implementation of the Affordable Care Act work well. People are working 24/7 to address the problems and isolate them and fix them when it comes to the website and enrollment issues.
The fact is the President wants these matters addressed because he wants to make sure that Americans across the country have the best possible consumer experience as they look at their options and the plans available to them and see the fact that for so many of them there’s affordable health insurance out there that was never there before.
And I think it’s important to note that even amidst this early stage of the enrollment process, and even though there have been challenges with the website, there are Americans across the country who are, through call centers and through the websites and through the states, getting access to this information and making -- seeing what choices are available to them, and enrolling if they’re ready to enroll.
And that includes a woman in Illinois who bought health insurance for her family with a savings of about $390 a month from their current average, according to the Chicago Tribune. In Mississippi, a woman who was skipping medication for years was able to enroll herself and her husband for a plan that will cost $60 a month.
I noticed last week in Utah, a father in a family of five, a small business owner, who said, “It took us half a dozen tries over several days, but he was able to strike gold on Saturday” -- silver, actually -- I'm quoting the Salt Lake Tribune -- with family health coverage purchased on the Affordable Care Act’s online exchange. After plugging in particulars about his family of five, the Salt Lake City business owner was able to compare 38 plans and apply for tax credits to put towards his monthly premiums. He settled on a silver-level plan that retails for about $850 a month. After tax credits, his family will pay just $123 a month. “It’s a great deal. I'm thrilled to have coverage.”
So this is why we're doing this. These are the people we're focused on helping. And the President is committed and has instructed his team to work 24/7 to resolve the issues that have arisen when it comes to implementation. But the purpose here is to provide benefits to those Americans who have struggled for so long without access to affordable health insurance.
Q Without litigating the details and the countdown clocks one more time, very briefly, I want to ask you about October 17, if I can, quickly, and some of the urgency associated with that date. When the sequester went into effect, there were predictions from this podium, dramatic predictions about long lines at airports, about special education funding. Without denying the impact of a default when such a thing would take place, does that in any way undermine the White House’s or this administration’s credibility when it says October 17th is some form of a D-Day, when, in fact, the 18th, 19th, 20th may come and the sky may not fall -- what is the risk of that?
MR. CARNEY: I would simply say that there is nobody in this field who understands how financial markets work and understands what the impact of default would be on the global economy who accepts the absurd position taken by the debt limit or default deniers. This is a serious matter. And we've been through this, and I've read quotes to you from numerous financial industry experts, numerous CEOs -- President Reagan, among others, who noted the importance of maintaining the full faith and credit of the United States. And what we know is that on October 17th, we seize to have borrowing authority. That means we can only pay our bills with cash on hand.
And we are the largest economy in the world and we have a lot of obligations and our obligations exceed our income. And that is why we have to ensure that Treasury is able to borrow in order to pay our bills.
Q If those obligations don't exceed our income for a matter of days, without specificity -- I'm not Jack Lew so I don't know the exact detail -- but the Treasury Department has indicated that there’s like a $6 billion payment on October 31st, $11 billion payment shy of that. So the potential exists that we could go five, six, seven, eight days and nothing really happens. Isn't that a potential risk?
MR. CARNEY: What’s at risk is even flirting with the idea that we should try to wait until the very last moment before a bill comes due that we can't pay. This is the United States. And the idea that we're going to send a signal to the world that it’s an acceptable proposition -- this is what some Republicans on Capitol Hill seem to be conveying -- that we can cross that threshold and just hope that we can resolve this before we have to delay a payment, already, once you get to that deadline, you’ve entered territory that we've never entered before. And that sends a signal I think globally that there is uncertainty about the fidelity here in the United States to the principle that we always pay our bills on time.
And that is why this line has never been crossed, why administration after administration, both Democratic and Republican, has taken the position that we should never cross this line. It’s why businessmen and women, CEOs who understand the impact that this would have on what they do and on the American economy have called on Congress to quit even flirting with the prospect of default.
So, again, for details on what would happen if we were to cross that line I would refer you to the Treasury Department. We are focused on working with Congress to prevent that, as every member of Congress who cares about the American economy should be focused on at this time.
Q Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta this week said, “When you're operating by crisis I think there’s enough blame to go around.” Does the President agree with one of his closest allies in the recent past that he should also bear some of the blame for the situation we're in right now?
MR. CARNEY: Well, here’s what I would tell you. There is no question, as we've discussed in the past, that there are no winners in a situation like this -- not the American people, not the American economy, and not members of either political party. And any politician who plays this as a political game, hoping to win, is making a mistake -- A.
B, the President’s position has been crystal-clear: Don't shut the government down. Once they shut it down -- reopen the government. He’s asking for nothing in return. He’s making no demands on Congress, insisting on nothing from them in order to sign a bill that would reopen the government with no strings attached. The same when it comes to the responsibility of Congress to raise the debt ceiling. There’s only one party to this process that has been saying, we would flirt with default, we would even allow default if we don't get what we want.
We are in a shutdown now, the 15th day of a government shutdown, the first shutdown in 17 years, because one faction of one party in one house of Congress decided that it was so opposed to a law that had been passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, and litigated -- to use your word -- in a presidential campaign in which the candidate who took their position lost, that they shut the government down over not achieving their aim, which was to do away with it.
So the President’s position has been that he has demanded nothing in return for Congress simply keeping the government open and simply doing its job to ensure that the United States does not default.
Q Last question, very briefly -- an op/ed from the China State News Agency --
MR. CARNEY: I missed that this morning.
Q Okay, I'm sorry you missed it. I'll read it for you, the quote is here. They said, among other things, “It’s perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world.” What’s the White House’s message to the Chinese?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't have a message to any particular country. I would simply say that it is an important fact that the full faith and credit of the United States, the principle that has existed for centuries that this country pays its bills and pays them on time -- and that includes paying investors from around the world -- the principle that this economy is a safe bet, and the safest bet, that investment in our country is as safe as any investment anywhere should not be compromised. And those who would compromise it are flirting with something -- are risking something that has immense value to the nation and to the American people.
Carol.
Q I wanted to follow on Brianna’s question just to clarify. Is the President negotiating on whether or not to reopen the government and raise the debt limit?
MR. CARNEY: Our position has been no ransom for reopening the government, no ransom for Congress fulfilling its responsibility to pay the U.S. bills.
Q I understand. Is he or is he not negotiating? It’s a yes or no question.
MR. CARNEY: Well, it depends on what you mean by “negotiate.” He’s been having conversations with lawmakers. What he will not do, what he has firmly made clear again and again is give the tea party its ideological agenda in exchange for Congress opening the government or Congress raising the debt ceiling so that the United States doesn’t default. That has been his position all along.
It’s, I think, helpfully clear in its simplicity: Open the government. Pay our bills. Stop threatening default. Stop doing harm to our economy. Stop doing harm to the American people.
And that's been our position all along. And my goal coming out here wasn’t to reiterate those points that we've been saying for so long. It was to make clear that we see progress in the Senate; we see in the Senate process the kind of bipartisan effort that is the path to resolving these kinds of issues when it comes to the simple responsibilities that Congress maintains -- opening the government, funding it, making sure Congress pays its bills. And we hope that all of Congress takes the appropriate action to ensure that they do not continue to inflict harm on the American economy.
Q One other thing I want to clarify. Since you’ve been talking, a spokesman for Speaker Boehner has said that for you to say that a senior administration official in Thursday’s meeting did not proactively raise the medical device issue is astoundingly dishonest and that it was a senior administration official who proposed it in those talks. So can you just clarify --
MR. CARNEY: I think I've answered the question three times --
Q -- nobody from the White House raised the issue?
MR. CARNEY: No, no, what I -- look, there have been conversations about the medical device tax because Republicans have been putting it on the table and others have been talking about it. What we have always said is that we have never, ever proposed or agreed to pay ransom in exchange for opening the government. And the proposal that had a brief existence this morning, apparently, before I guess the tea party pulled it down, contained within it a demand to placate the tea party related to the Affordable Care Act in exchange for opening the government. And our position has always been we're not paying ransom for that.
So, again, it is astoundingly disingenuous to suggest that our position has ever been that we're going to pay ransom to the tea party in order for the Congress, for House Republicans, to open the government.
Q May I ask on one other topic -- there's been a lot of focus on the shutdown, but it was not long ago we were all talking about Iran. And has the President had any reaction to the talks that have been going on and the offer that the Iranians put on the table?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not sure there's an offer.
Q Well, their proposal.
MR. CARNEY: I think that there was a P5-plus-1 meeting in Geneva, the first day of it, and the Iranian delegation made a presentation and the P5-plus-1 and Iran spent the day discussing the presentation. We're not going to negotiate this in public or go into the details of what was in their proposal. We certainly want to make clear that no one -- despite the positive signs that we've seen -- no one should expect a breakthrough overnight.
These are very complicated issues -- in some cases, very technical issues. And as the President has said, the mistrust here is very deep. But we hope for progress in Geneva. And although we appreciate the recent change in tone from the Iranian government on this issue, we will be looking for specific steps that address core issues, such as the pace and scope of its enrichment program, the transparency of its overall nuclear program and its stockpiles of enrichment.
The P5-plus-1 is seeking an agreement that ultimately resolves all of the international community's concerns about Iran's nuclear program. And while we negotiate, we will continue to keep up the economic pressure on Iran, which has brought about the occasion for at least the prospect of making progress.
Q Can you characterize at all how you guys viewed the presentation? Did you find it encouraging? Was it a step in the right direction? How did the President respond to that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would simply say that after day one, we're hopeful that we will make progress in Geneva. But beyond that, I wouldn't characterize the presentation or the status of conversations.
Margaret.
Q Thanks, Jay. Polling on this shutdown and default stuff has been just clearly bad for congressional Republicans. It's not been great for everyone else either, but probably like worse for them, right across the board. How do you think that should affect the way they proceed? And how do you think that should affect how the White House proceeds and how much you should concede is the pressure is for you to make concessions?
MR. CARNEY: Margaret, as the President said I think last week that there are no winners here and it's not the right thing to do to look at this as a partisan, zero-sum game. The right thing to do is to make no partisan demands as part of Congress doing its basic job -- funding the government, making sure the United States pays its bills on time.
The President is more than eager to sit down and work with lawmakers of both parties to discuss a broader budget agreement in which we can, hopefully, find compromise when it comes to making necessary investments in key areas like education and innovation and infrastructure, while making balanced but tough choices when it comes to continuing the project of reducing our deficit and managing our long-term debt.
That's been evident in the proposals he has put forward, and he wants to get back to that. But the context for that is budget negotiations where there are no guns on the table, where the threat of shutdown or the threat of continued shutdown is removed, the threat of default is removed, and lawmakers with good intentions from both parties, as well as the White House, can try to find a broader agreement on our budget priorities. That would be good for the economy. It would be good for the country. And I think it would probably be good for everyone in Washington of both parties.
Q The polling that's well done reflects at least a snapshot in time of how the public is feeling about a particular issue. Do you feel that the broad spectrum of polling that's out there has been well done and does reflect a public sentiment? Everybody looks at polling. You guys look at polling. The Republicans look at polling. What is the polling telling you about how the public feels and how both sides should proceed?
MR. CARNEY: Margaret, I would just say that Americans are justifiably frustrated by dysfunction in Washington, by a decision from any quarter -- in this case a decision clearly made by House Republicans -- to shut the government down over a partisan dispute, or to threaten default for partisan reasons. And, again, how the public views it I think is reflected in what's been played out here, which is that the President has taken a position where he has asked for nothing in return for Congress doing its job. He is eager to sit down and have tough negotiations and conversations with Republicans and Democrats about our budget priorities, but only after these basic responsibilities are fulfilled, that the government reopen and the threat of default be removed.
Q I'll try it one more way. Do you think that Senate and House Republicans are paying attention to the polling? Do you see any reflection of that --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I just don't think that's the way we want to look at this here.
Q You mean at the podium or in general?
MR. CARNEY: I mean in general. Look, here's the thing, whatever analysis you make of the data that you cite -- and I think there's a consensus that reflects what you said -- we wish it weren't so. We wish instead Congress had simply kept the government open. We wish instead that the House had allowed for a process by which Congress, without drama and delay, ensure that the United States would pay its bills into the future.
Just like we wish for the country, for deficit reduction, for our economy that the House would follow the Senate's lead and pass comprehensive immigration reform with a big bipartisan vote. That might be good for the Republican Party. Analysts say so. Republicans say so. We hope they do it.
The President believes it's very important in our country to have two strong parties, and to have parties with sincere differences but lawmakers who are willing to make compromises and politicians who are willing to make compromises without sacrificing their principles but are willing to compromise in order to do the essential business of the American people and move our country forward. That's the approach he has always taken.
And one of the things that has been particularly difficult in these last several years is that we've seen a highly partisan wing of one party drive the train, if you will, when it comes to how we move forward on these issues. And that makes it very difficult.
Q But you don't want to say from the podium that the polling bolsters the tact that the President has taken not to negotiate?
MR. CARNEY: Again, the President's simple proposition has not been -- I think it's important, because if you shorthand it and say he doesn't want to negotiate, that ignores an entire calendar year in which he has been explicitly asking Republicans to sit down with him and negotiate on budget priorities. He put forward a budget that reflected that. He had numerous meetings and meals and conversations with Republicans in the Senate and the House about these very issues.
But he does not believe that our partisan differences should be the excuse for shutting down the economy -- in the worst-case scenario, if there were to be default -- or shutting down the government. Because that's just using the American people and the American economy as pawns in this partisan dispute and that's not the right way to do things. We ought to make sure that these essential functions are funded, make sure that the United States pays its bills. And then, we should negotiate.
Tommy.
Q Thanks, Jay. I have three questions.
MR. CARNEY: Three?
Q Yes, sorry. It's been a while. First of all, I don't know if you're aware of this, but when I had a heart attack three years ago, I was uninsured and I haven't been able to get insurance ever since then. But listening to all the pressure on the President to negotiate -- a lot of it from inside this room -- made me think, is there a chance the President would be willing to delay Obamacare for a year if Republicans were to agree to delay heart attacks for a year?
MR. CARNEY: Tommy, you know the President's position is that we need to implement the Affordable Care Act. And when it comes to the millions of Americans across the country who have had a very hard time getting access to affordable health insurance, we need to focus on those folks and continue the business of implementing the Affordable Care Act, so that on January 1st, those Americans will be able to purchase this insurance, quality insurance at affordable rates for the first time. Does that answer your question?
Q Just for what it's worth, I was able to enroll in the exchange about a week and a half ago. I haven't picked a plan yet, though.
My second question, I was talking to my mom this morning -- right out here, actually -- and she asked me to ask you to please open the government back up again. And I know you can't just do that. But she is really worried about her Social Security check. And I told her, don't worry, Mom, we'll get it taken care of. I don't want you to worry. But Steve Rattner last night said that October 23rd is one of these drop-dead dates that start to pile up. And so I guess my question is should she be worried?
MR. CARNEY: What I would say about that, which goes to the issue of the debt ceiling, is that the United States government through Congress has made a lot of commitments and has a lot of obligations, and those include the commitments and obligations that the Congress has made and we have made to America's seniors. And we need to never even contemplate the possibility that the timely provision of benefits to those seniors would be jeopardized by a decision by one faction of one party of one house of one branch of government to wage an ideological battle here in Washington.
So that's why -- I mean, that crystallizes the fact that there are real people who depend on some basic things. And everybody in Washington -- Democrats and Republicans and independents -- should sort of agree to the principle that we ought to at the very least ensure that those people are taken care of and that the essential functioning of government is allowed to proceed and that the basic premise that the United States always pays its bills on time is not jeopardized. So that's the position the President has taken.
Q Last question -- do you remember the last debt ceiling deal there was a plan floated, it was called the McConnell plan, where Congress would authorize a debt ceiling increase for I think it was a year, a year and a half. And it would hold a vote every so often, so that Republicans could vote no but it would require two-thirds majority to overrule, so it gave the President the authority. Is something like the McConnell plan in the air now, being discussed now? And if not, why not?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would basically direct you to Congress for the various plans under discussion and the plans that have been adopted in the past for how they fulfill their responsibility invested in them through the Constitution to pay our bills. So Congress has the authority, whether it's to devise a scheme or a plan along the lines that you talk about, or simply just to take the vote and raise the debt ceiling. That's not an authority that the President has. That's an authority Congress has.
Q Haven’t heard any conversations about that?
MR. CARNEY: I'd just refer you to the Senate.
April and then, John and then, Julia -- and then, we'll go.
Q Jay, basically you're saying Thursday -- and from what you said at the podium -- that you're not going to be able to pay all of your bills. What should the American public be bracing for? I mean, you're calmly almost screaming “fire.”
MR. CARNEY: I'll just be clear that on Thursday the United States runs out of its borrowing authority. And that means that the Treasury only has cash on hand to meet the obligations that the United States government has.
Q Did you or did you not say that you're not going to be able to pay all of your bills?
MR. CARNEY: Because we -- what I'm saying is the Treasury is the place to go for specific timetables about when bills come due and how that works. What I'm saying is that as a nation, the reason why we need to raise the debt ceiling is to ensure that the Treasury can borrow money to make sure we meet all our obligations. Inevitably, if your obligations exceed what you take in, you're in a situation where default is a possibility. But the Treasury is the right place to address those questions.
And, look, again, April, I don't have the list of many outside experts who aren't crying “fire” -- they're crying “stop.” Stop threatening the American and global economy with the prospect of default and just do the responsible thing and pass a bill that extends the debt ceiling, so that this is not even something that can happen or be contemplated. So that's not us, certainly not us alone. I think many folks from the business world and from both sides of the aisle here in Washington have acknowledged that we don't want to cross that line, because the consequences would be very negative.
Q Jay, I'm not putting any blame anywhere, I'm just asking what should the American public be bracing for? Because many persons already have had their paycheck stopped. Many persons are concerned about government subsidies to programs. Thursday, Friday, whenever -- when you're not able to pay all of your bills, what should the American public be bracing for?
MR. CARNEY: No, I understand, April. And I would just say, A, we hope we do not get to the point where that's a reality. It's entirely within Congress's and, in many cases, the Speaker of the House's power to ensure that that does not happen. Broadly speaking, I've said that there is reason to be concerned, given the disposition we've seen in Congress -- in particular among House Republicans, although some Senate Republicans as well -- to flirt with default, flirt with crossing that threshold beyond which we don't have borrowing authority. And that's very dangerous.
We believe that there's a majority in both houses to ensure that, if given the chance, to ensure that this is not something that ever comes about.
I'm going to have to go, because I know there's Medal of Honor pre-positioning.
Q I just have this last question. As we deal with this, what is the construct as to why we're here? We know it's partisan agendas and politics. And Sunday, we saw situations at the White House, come to the White House where race was involved. Many persons are saying part of this now has to do with race, because the President is indeed an African American, a black man. Is race a part of this stalemate, this conversation?
MR. CARNEY: April, I don't believe that that's the issue here. I believe that this is a decision by -- Republicans shut the government down not because every Republican wanted it, but because Republican leaders in the House were listening to a faction within their own conference. And it's important that when it comes to reopening the government a majority of the House be allowed to vote on a clean CR, for example, as we've talked about for a long time, and when it comes to the essential responsibility to ensure that the United States pays its bills, that Congress be able to take that action so that this threat is removed and everybody -- Republicans and Democrats -- can get about the business of discussing and negotiating over our budget priorities.
I’ve really got to go -- John, last one.
Q Two quick ones -- I'll use shorthand here. Does the President support the reinsurance provision --
MR. CARNEY: John, I'm not going to negotiate over items of proposed bills that haven't been written or submitted.
Q And can I get your reaction to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell deciding to suspend negotiations until the House does or does not act today?
MR. CARNEY: Again, we have seen progress in the Senate and we hope to see continued progress in the Senate. We’ve seen a bipartisan approach in the Senate that we would hope that the House could emulate.
Julia, you get the last one.
Q On the Affordable Care Act, can you give us both a timeframe for when you anticipate federal exchanges will be fully functional, what entities are working on it, and just as important, who pays for this fix? Is this part of the contract, or is this an additional cost to the federal government?
MR. CARNEY: Those are all questions for HHS and CMS. I can tell you that, at the President’s direction, people are working 24/7 to resolve the problems that have arisen and taking steps to make sure that those many, many millions of Americans who are interested in the options available to them to purchase affordable health insurance, in many cases for the first time, have the best consumer experience possible.
And there are a lot of people hard at work on this. But for details of the work being done and the process in place, I’d refer you to HHS.
Thanks, everybody.
END
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 10/15/13
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:44 P.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for being here. Before I take your questions, I just wanted to note that earlier today the President was briefed by senior staff on the effects of the lapse in appropriations -- the so-called shutdown. And among the items that he was briefed on was the fact that small businesses are feeling the impact of shutdown as key federal efforts that support small business have been halted.
Due to the shutdown -- as you know, now in its 15th day -- the SBA cannot approve new guarantees of loans provided by banks to small businesses. In a typical month, the Small Business Administration approves loans to more than 4,000 small businesses, and halting these loans represents over $1 billion in lost loan assistance to small businesses, thereby jeopardizing thousands of jobs -- and, again, another consequence of the wholly unnecessary, completely manufactured crisis that is doing harm to our economy, harm to our small businesses, and was brought about by one faction of one party in one house in one branch of government making ideological demands and thereby shutting down the government.
With that, I take your questions. Julie.
Q Thanks, Jay. I want to just get a sense of the state of play at this point. Is it the White House’s understanding that there is a deal in the Senate that's been finalized between Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell that would lift the debt ceiling and reopen the government?
MR. CARNEY: The President is pleased with the progress that we've seen in the Senate. It is important to note that the process that's been undertaken in the Senate is bipartisan, that Senators Reid and McConnell have been engaging one another, Democrats and Republicans have been engaging on this issue. And it’s all built around the fundamental premise that we should not have shut down the government, that we should reopen the government, and that we must ensure that the United States pays its bills on time, as it always had, and we should do -- the Congress should take those actions in a way that does not have partisan strings attached and that ensures the kind of stability for our economy and for our middle class that they need.
So we're pleased with the progress. I would refer you to the Senate leaders for the status of those discussions. But we certainly believe that there’s a potential there for a resolution to this unnecessary, manufactured crisis that can allow us to get back to the important business of helping grow the economy and create jobs and taking action to improve the lives of middle-class Americans that elected officials were sent here to do.
Q Is the White House confident that that resolution could pass both the Senate and the House ahead of the Thursday deadline for the debt ceiling?
MR. CARNEY: For congressional timing and how --
Q But you guys know the state of play.
MR. CARNEY: There is no question that we are very close to a very important deadline and time is of the essence. So I think that is why you see some very serious-minded efforts being undertaken in the Senate. And we would hope that the House would also approach this important deadline with the same understanding of just how serious it is.
Q And in 2011, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded just because the government got so close to a default. Is the White House or Treasury hearing from any of the rating agencies now that we are, again, very close to that deadline without a resolution?
MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the Treasury Department for those kinds of conversations, if they’re taking place. That wouldn't be something I would brief on from here.
We know from past experience, the difficult lessons learned from 2011, that the serious flirtation with default that House Republicans engaged in two years ago led to some pretty negative consequences for our economy, including, as you know, the United States being downgraded for the first time.
Q But the President in his briefings that you say he’s getting every day, is he getting anything from any of these officials about how the rating agencies --
MR. CARNEY: That would not be something that I would brief on from here because obviously issues that have to do with market sensitivities are not ones that I would address here.
Roberta.
Q Last week, the President said in a worse-case scenario, there are things that he will do. And what if Thursday comes and there’s no deal. Have you -- has the White House started implementing any of those contingency plans already ahead of -- because we’re so close?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would not go further than what the President or the Treasury Secretary have said about that, and I would refer you to Treasury. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified, as you know, last week where broadly this issue was discussed.
But we are obviously focused on working with members of Congress, leaders in Congress, on an effort to do what we’ve said was essential all along, which was open the government and make sure that the United States pays its bills by extending the debt ceiling, and doing that in a way that we don't simply put us on a trajectory to re-create this crisis again in a few weeks.
So we’re encouraged by the progress that we’ve seen in the Senate, but we’re far from a deal at this point and so we hope that progress continues.
Q What is there about the Senate deal, though, that doesn't re-create the crisis in a few months down the road? What is there in it that doesn't mean we’re going to be doing this all over again in --
MR. CARNEY: Again, there’s not a bill for me to analyze for you right now. What I would --
Q Right, but the pending -- the shape of the pending --
MR. CARNEY: I think that every participant in this exercise would, hopefully, understand that it should not be repeated -- not in a few weeks and not in a few months. And when it comes to the fundamental responsibility of Congress to ensure that the United States does not default, not ever. That’s certainly the President’s view.
That is why he has been so insistent that we cannot engage in a process here that then becomes normalized where a minority in Congress, a faction of one party in one house can threaten the full faith and credit of the United States if it does not get what it could not get through the normal legislative process or through elections. So those are the stakes when it comes to the essential responsibility of Congress to ensure that the Department of Treasury can pay our bills.
Q There do seem to be, though, some strings attached in the deal as it appears to be sort of coalescing or developing. What does the White House make of those strings?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not going to analyze details of a bill that we haven’t seen yet and that has not emerged yet.
Brianna.
Q Jay, some of the -- it seems like the key parts, at least, of the Senate bill -- the reinsurance, the income verification -- President Obama said, “Nobody gets to threaten the full faith and credit of the United States just to extract political concessions.” But if you're open to that, as presumably the White House is because they're talking to Senate Democrats, isn’t that concessions?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think what we have seen --
Q Isn't that setting the precedent that he said he won’t?
MR. CARNEY: What we have seen in the process thus far that Senator Reid has engaged in is a proposal that would reopen the government and remove the threat of a first-ever U.S. default by raising the debt ceiling. We don’t need any more self-inflicted wounds from Congress. The economy is already paying a price, as outside analysts have noted. There is already a cost to the economy and, therefore, to growth and jobs from this behavior.
And it’s important, as I think so many Americans believe, that it stop, that Congress simply fulfill its basic responsibilities to open the government, to fund it at, again, levels that were set by Republicans, so that we can get about the business of negotiating in good faith over longer-term budget proposals. I'm not going to --
Q But there are provisions on -- you are talking about the short-term increase in the debt ceiling and the CR. If you’re not going to talk about the Obamacare provisions, which are also on the table -- I mean, you’re talking about the short-term debt ceiling and CR provisions. I mean, even if these are sort of small-fry gives on Obamacare, doesn’t it violate the principle that the President set out there that he will not negotiate on Obamacare?
MR. CARNEY: Again, until we have a proposal that has emerged from these negotiations in the Senate, I’m not going to analyze it with you piece by piece. What I can say is we’ve been encouraged by the progress, and we believe -- and the President believes it’s very important that when it comes to the debt ceiling that we not do what a previous effort in the House would have done, which is try to create a scenario where budget negotiations and the renewal of government funding are once again tied directly to the essential responsibility of Congress to pay our bills -- and right before the holidays, which would have been -- would be a terrible outcome to this process, as every business owner will tell you -- and I think many of them have told you, and many of them have told their representatives in Congress.
Q So does he hold firm to that assertion that he will not negotiate when it comes to Obamacare on the full faith and credit of the U.S. or on the government being shut down?
MR. CARNEY: Yes. He has made clear that -- he’s made clear two things, Brianna, as you know. He is willing, within the context of broader budget negotiations, within the context of serious-minded and earnest discussions about how to improve the Affordable Care Act, to look at any proposal that might do that -- going to Obamacare. And that’s true on broader budget issues.
But some of the ideas that we’ve seen this morning, when it comes to sort of demanding ransom, to try to rally tea party members, in exchange for opening the government or raising the debt ceiling, that’s not acceptable and it has not been through this whole process.
Q Speaker Boehner -- real quickly, is there nothing in the Boehner proposal that’s acceptable to you?
MR. CARNEY: Reopening the government and extending the debt ceiling, that’s acceptable.
Q The Obamacare provisions included in the Senate deal?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think two things. One, as I understand it, there’s not a proposal in the House to talk about now, based on the press conference given by House Republican leaders. And based on some of the reporting I’ve seen since then, that’s because they’re now going back to try to add some sweeteners for tea party members.
And the better course of action is the one being undertaken by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. Instead of trying to once again craft a measure to ensure full Republican support in the House, why not work on a measure that could get bipartisan support in the House, the way that Republicans and Democrats are trying to do in the Senate? That’s certainly what I think is best for the American people. It’s the kind of process that the President supports. So, with regards to proposals that we haven’t seen, it’s hard to --
Q But aren’t you cherry-picking which parts you’ll talk about? Because you’re talking about the short-term funding and debt ceiling increase, but you won't talk about the other items.
MR. CARNEY: Talking about the shutdown and the need to raise the debt ceiling -- yes, that’s what we’ve been talking about for weeks.
Q But the time frame of it.
MR. CARNEY: No, look, we’ve said all along that we want a debt ceiling increase for as long as possible because of the need to remove uncertainty from this process. I mean, the very uncertainty that has been created by this manufactured crisis is what we need to avoid as an economy going forward, and what Washington needs to avoid, because it is already causing harm to the economy. It is already causing uncertainty among Americans, which, in turn, has them making decisions about how they spend their money, which has a negative impact potentially on the economy. And that creates a cascading effect that can only be bad, which is why we need to, here in Washington, why Congress needs to fulfill its basic responsibilities: reopen the government, and make sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is upheld, as it has been in the past.
Jon.
Q Jay, what exactly is the deadline?
MR. CARNEY: For?
Q Raising the debt ceiling, for default?
MR. CARNEY: Well, those are two different things, as we’ve been explicitly clear about. On October 17th, as the Treasury Secretary has noted many times, the United States runs out of borrowing authority, and beyond that point we only have cash on hand available to pay our bills.
The Treasury Secretary has testified to this on Capitol Hill and is obviously far more of an expert than I, so I would point you to his testimony and public statements about that fact. But as everyone knows, in order to meet all of our obligations as a country, the United States needs borrowing authority in order to make sure that all of our bills are paid. All of the obligations that Congress has made, all of the bills that Congress has incurred will come due. And if we can only pay those bills with cash on hand, that is a problem. And that is what --
Q I’m just trying -- everybody has their countdown clocks, everything going on, and they seem to be counting down to midnight tomorrow. But is it midnight tomorrow when the calendar strikes the 17th, or is there another day after that?
MR. CARNEY: As much as I’d like to improve the quality of the countdown clocks -- (laughter) -- I would have to refer you to Treasury on the minute and the hour.
Q Okay, well, more important than the countdown clocks, when does Congress need to act by? Do they need to pass something by tomorrow? Can something pass on Thursday? Will the sky fall if it doesn't pass on Friday? When is the deadline that they have got to produce something? Is it tomorrow?
MR. CARNEY: Jon, the deadline for --
Q Midnight tomorrow?
MR. CARNEY: -- avoiding uncertainty has passed. The deadline for not shutting the government down has long since passed. So Congress has already failed to act in a timely fashion. But we hope that Congress will act quickly to resolve these issues now.
Q I guess what I’m asking -- when is too late, Jay? I’m just trying to figure out when is too late.
MR. CARNEY: I’m not sure what that means. They need to act as soon as possible, because what is absolutely true is that every day we’re in shutdown there is harm done to hundreds of thousands of Americans and, indirectly, to many, many more, and there’s direct harm done to our economy. And every day that we get closer to the point beyond which we’ve never been, which is where the United States does not have borrowing authority, creates more trouble for our economy and uncertainty globally, which has a negative impact on our economy.
Q Obviously, there’s a lot of anxiety in the bond market because of this. Can bondholders be reassured that they will still receive their interest after tomorrow, after Thursday?
MR. CARNEY: Jon, those are the kinds of questions that I think are best directed to the Treasury Department. What is unquestionably the case is that when people talk about prioritization, they are talking about default by another name. When people talk about paying some bills but not others, they are talking about entering a realm that this country and this government has never been in, which is picking and choosing who gets paid and when they get paid. And that has tremendous negative consequences for our economy, not all of which are knowable beyond the fact that we know they're bad.
Q No question. But do you have a game plan? Obviously, this is no longer hypothetical. There’s a real possibility Congress doesn't act -- whatever the deadline exactly is. Do you have a game plan of what to do?
MR. CARNEY: Well, this is obviously something that the Treasury Department would have jurisdiction over, so I would refer you to Treasury.
Q And one specific question. This idea of suspending the medical device tax, I believe it’s been referred to as a ransom payment for part of this deal. The Speaker’s office is saying that this idea was actually proposed by White House staff in negotiations last week. Is that true or not?
MR. CARNEY: That is not true. What we have always said is that discussions of the medical device tax or other elements within the Affordable Care Act that lawmakers want to talk about in an effort to improve the Affordable Care Act we are willing to have, but not in the context of or as ransom for opening the government. That is why a provision like that appears in the latest proposal that seems to be going nowhere from House Republicans -- because it’s an effort to try to buy votes from tea party Republicans who shut this government down in the first place. And so there’s --
Q So just to be clear, they're not telling the truth about that?
MR. CARNEY: Again, that is not -- the conversations that have been had here and up on Capitol Hill about the medical device tax, as far as we’re concerned, have been about our willingness -- as the President said and others -- in a broader context; not ransom for opening the government, not ransom for Congress doing its job to pay our bills, but within the context of the President’s willingness to hear ideas about ways we can improve, as opposed to undermine or dismantle or defund Obamacare. We’re willing to have that. But we’re not going to pay ransom -- the President is not going to pay ransom from the American people to the tea party in order to open the government.
Q I'd like to follow that and --
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q -- pin you down a little more closely. Thursday, the Speaker’s spokesman said specifically that a White House official asked for repeal of the medical device tax.
MR. CARNEY: That's just not the case. That's just not the case.
Q I’m not saying it’s in connection with any other part of the plan, but simply that it was asked for by the White House.
MR. CARNEY: You’re saying that separate from anything, the White House proposed a change to the Affordable Care Act? Obviously, that's not the case. The issue of the medical device tax has been obviously in the air for the last several weeks. And when I’ve had this question and others have taken this question, we have made clear that we would be willing to talk about lawmakers who want to address that provision, as well as other ideas that lawmakers might have about making changes to the Affordable Care Act that strengthen it or improve it.
When it comes to the medical device tax, I think it’s very important to note that those who portray themselves as paragons of fiscal responsibility and discipline often propose making that change without acknowledging the fact that it would raise the deficit. So that's an important point to acknowledge, too.
But again, we have never said we would agree to paying ransom, making changes to the Affordable Care Act simply to placate tea party Republicans who shut this government down over their opposition to the Affordable Care Act.
Q Just to be clear, in Thursday’s meeting, you’re saying --
MR. CARNEY: I think I’ve answered this, Bill, three times.
Q -- no one here asked for repeal of the medical device tax?
MR. CARNEY: Correct.
Q There are people on Wall Street and in Washington who speak openly about the real crunch point being November 1st, as opposed to Thursday the 17th.
MR. CARNEY: On October 17th, as was made clear to Congress in a letter from the Treasury Secretary, we cease to have borrowing authority. We only have cash on hand. And as everyone knows who understands how this process works, that means we do not -- that is a scenario by which we will not be able to pay all our bills because of the fact that we need to borrow money in order to pay our bills.
And these are bills that Congress has incurred. These are obligations that Congress has made. This is not new debt. This is not new spending. There’s a lot of misrepresentation of that by those who claim that they came to Congress with a mandate never to raise the debt ceiling. Because that has nothing to do with spending, okay? It is just a --
Q But this has to do with a feeling that any obligations like Social Security and other payments come due on November 1, and that between the 17th and the 1st --
MR. CARNEY: What I can tell you is that we have a huge number of payments as a country that need to be made every day, and that there’s a series of obligations that the United States government has to fulfill. For details about how that process works, I refer you to the Treasury Department. But if anybody -- we've seen a lot of talk from deficit -- not deficit -- debt limit deniers and default deniers and they have been roundly shot down, that talk has been, by experts in the field, including CEOs and financial industry experts, including many of whom I think tend to have the ear of Republican lawmakers.
It is absolutely not the responsible thing to do to allow us as a nation to enter territory we've never been in before, which is to not have the authority to pay our bills.
Ed.
Q Thank you. Nice to talk to you. I wanted to ask you about the President’s role in the final hours here. Yesterday there was supposed to be a meeting with leaders in both parties. Today his schedule just has House Democratic leaders, not both parties. Senator McCain, a short time ago on the Senate floor -- and he’s obviously been critical in recent days of his own party and has said that they need to come to a deal -- but a short time ago he said it’s a mistake for Democrats to reject Speaker Boehner’s latest proposal. He said it’s, in his words, “a serious proposal.” So my question is, does the President plan to, A, let the congressional leaders work this out in the final hours, or does he see that his role in the final hours -- because this is so critical, as you say -- that he will play some direct role in trying to force a deal?
MR. CARNEY: I have no doubt the President will be in contact with congressional leaders of both parties as this process continues. As you know, Ed, but didn’t include in your question, we postponed the meeting yesterday because of the progress that was being made in the Senate --
Q True. I wasn’t trying to --
MR. CARNEY: So it is the President’s intention -- and it’s reflected by the meetings and conversations he’s been having with leaders, as well as the fact that he invited every member of Congress to the White House last week for discussions on this issue -- to engage directly with lawmakers as they try to resolve this issue, and try to do it in a way that, hopefully, reflects the bipartisan spirit that we've seen in the Senate process. And we continue to hope that that will bear fruit and will produce something that can, in the end, lead to a resolution that opens the government, provides the authority to the Treasury for the United States to pays its bills, so that we can then focus on some of the bigger issues that we face as a country, instead of getting distracted by these manufactured crises that only do harm to the economy, only do harm to the American people, and apparently, according to a lot of Republican commentators, do a lot of harm to the Republican Party. We need to get beyond this, for the sake of the country.
Q Two other quick topics on some of the big issues you're talking about. NSA -- The Washington Post has another revelation today saying that they’re collecting -- the NSA is collecting email contact lists not just of foreigners but of Americans. How do you justify that?
MR. CARNEY: As you know, I'm not in a position to discuss specific tools or processes, but as you know, the National Security Agency is focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets, such as terrorists, human traffickers and drug smugglers. They are not interested in personal information about ordinary Americans. Moreover, they operate in accordance with rules either approved by the Attorney General or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as appropriate, designed to minimize the acquisition, use and dissemination of any such information.
So, again, the purpose here is to discover and develop intelligence about foreign intelligence targets. That is the mission and that is purpose of the various methods that the NSA employs.
Q But part of what you said is they’re not interested in private information of Americans, except The Washington Post says they collect the telephone numbers of Americans, the street addresses of Americans, business information, family information. So doesn’t that contradict what you're saying?
MR. CARNEY: Well, no, Ed, in fact, they are not interested in the personal information of ordinary Americans. They target foreign intelligence -- their targets are terrorists, human traffickers, drug smugglers and the like, and they gather foreign intelligence. There are minimization procedures in place approved by the Attorney General and the FISA Court that are designed to minimize the acquisition, use and dissemination of any such information -- information that might be collected as part of the effort to target terrorists and the like.
Q Last question. Your predecessor, Robert Gibbs, had some interesting things to say about the health care rollout yesterday. He said that it’s been botched. And he said that when it gets fixed, “I hope they fire some people that were in charge of making sure that this thing was supposed to work.” How do you react to that? And since Republican Senator Pat Roberts has called for Secretary Sebelius to be fired, does she still have the full confidence of the President?
MR. CARNEY: The Secretary does have the full confidence of the President. She, like everyone else in this effort, is focused on our number-one priority, which is making the implementation of the Affordable Care Act work well. People are working 24/7 to address the problems and isolate them and fix them when it comes to the website and enrollment issues.
The fact is the President wants these matters addressed because he wants to make sure that Americans across the country have the best possible consumer experience as they look at their options and the plans available to them and see the fact that for so many of them there’s affordable health insurance out there that was never there before.
And I think it’s important to note that even amidst this early stage of the enrollment process, and even though there have been challenges with the website, there are Americans across the country who are, through call centers and through the websites and through the states, getting access to this information and making -- seeing what choices are available to them, and enrolling if they’re ready to enroll.
And that includes a woman in Illinois who bought health insurance for her family with a savings of about $390 a month from their current average, according to the Chicago Tribune. In Mississippi, a woman who was skipping medication for years was able to enroll herself and her husband for a plan that will cost $60 a month.
I noticed last week in Utah, a father in a family of five, a small business owner, who said, “It took us half a dozen tries over several days, but he was able to strike gold on Saturday” -- silver, actually -- I'm quoting the Salt Lake Tribune -- with family health coverage purchased on the Affordable Care Act’s online exchange. After plugging in particulars about his family of five, the Salt Lake City business owner was able to compare 38 plans and apply for tax credits to put towards his monthly premiums. He settled on a silver-level plan that retails for about $850 a month. After tax credits, his family will pay just $123 a month. “It’s a great deal. I'm thrilled to have coverage.”
So this is why we're doing this. These are the people we're focused on helping. And the President is committed and has instructed his team to work 24/7 to resolve the issues that have arisen when it comes to implementation. But the purpose here is to provide benefits to those Americans who have struggled for so long without access to affordable health insurance.
Q Without litigating the details and the countdown clocks one more time, very briefly, I want to ask you about October 17, if I can, quickly, and some of the urgency associated with that date. When the sequester went into effect, there were predictions from this podium, dramatic predictions about long lines at airports, about special education funding. Without denying the impact of a default when such a thing would take place, does that in any way undermine the White House’s or this administration’s credibility when it says October 17th is some form of a D-Day, when, in fact, the 18th, 19th, 20th may come and the sky may not fall -- what is the risk of that?
MR. CARNEY: I would simply say that there is nobody in this field who understands how financial markets work and understands what the impact of default would be on the global economy who accepts the absurd position taken by the debt limit or default deniers. This is a serious matter. And we've been through this, and I've read quotes to you from numerous financial industry experts, numerous CEOs -- President Reagan, among others, who noted the importance of maintaining the full faith and credit of the United States. And what we know is that on October 17th, we seize to have borrowing authority. That means we can only pay our bills with cash on hand.
And we are the largest economy in the world and we have a lot of obligations and our obligations exceed our income. And that is why we have to ensure that Treasury is able to borrow in order to pay our bills.
Q If those obligations don't exceed our income for a matter of days, without specificity -- I'm not Jack Lew so I don't know the exact detail -- but the Treasury Department has indicated that there’s like a $6 billion payment on October 31st, $11 billion payment shy of that. So the potential exists that we could go five, six, seven, eight days and nothing really happens. Isn't that a potential risk?
MR. CARNEY: What’s at risk is even flirting with the idea that we should try to wait until the very last moment before a bill comes due that we can't pay. This is the United States. And the idea that we're going to send a signal to the world that it’s an acceptable proposition -- this is what some Republicans on Capitol Hill seem to be conveying -- that we can cross that threshold and just hope that we can resolve this before we have to delay a payment, already, once you get to that deadline, you’ve entered territory that we've never entered before. And that sends a signal I think globally that there is uncertainty about the fidelity here in the United States to the principle that we always pay our bills on time.
And that is why this line has never been crossed, why administration after administration, both Democratic and Republican, has taken the position that we should never cross this line. It’s why businessmen and women, CEOs who understand the impact that this would have on what they do and on the American economy have called on Congress to quit even flirting with the prospect of default.
So, again, for details on what would happen if we were to cross that line I would refer you to the Treasury Department. We are focused on working with Congress to prevent that, as every member of Congress who cares about the American economy should be focused on at this time.
Q Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta this week said, “When you're operating by crisis I think there’s enough blame to go around.” Does the President agree with one of his closest allies in the recent past that he should also bear some of the blame for the situation we're in right now?
MR. CARNEY: Well, here’s what I would tell you. There is no question, as we've discussed in the past, that there are no winners in a situation like this -- not the American people, not the American economy, and not members of either political party. And any politician who plays this as a political game, hoping to win, is making a mistake -- A.
B, the President’s position has been crystal-clear: Don't shut the government down. Once they shut it down -- reopen the government. He’s asking for nothing in return. He’s making no demands on Congress, insisting on nothing from them in order to sign a bill that would reopen the government with no strings attached. The same when it comes to the responsibility of Congress to raise the debt ceiling. There’s only one party to this process that has been saying, we would flirt with default, we would even allow default if we don't get what we want.
We are in a shutdown now, the 15th day of a government shutdown, the first shutdown in 17 years, because one faction of one party in one house of Congress decided that it was so opposed to a law that had been passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, and litigated -- to use your word -- in a presidential campaign in which the candidate who took their position lost, that they shut the government down over not achieving their aim, which was to do away with it.
So the President’s position has been that he has demanded nothing in return for Congress simply keeping the government open and simply doing its job to ensure that the United States does not default.
Q Last question, very briefly -- an op/ed from the China State News Agency --
MR. CARNEY: I missed that this morning.
Q Okay, I'm sorry you missed it. I'll read it for you, the quote is here. They said, among other things, “It’s perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world.” What’s the White House’s message to the Chinese?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't have a message to any particular country. I would simply say that it is an important fact that the full faith and credit of the United States, the principle that has existed for centuries that this country pays its bills and pays them on time -- and that includes paying investors from around the world -- the principle that this economy is a safe bet, and the safest bet, that investment in our country is as safe as any investment anywhere should not be compromised. And those who would compromise it are flirting with something -- are risking something that has immense value to the nation and to the American people.
Carol.
Q I wanted to follow on Brianna’s question just to clarify. Is the President negotiating on whether or not to reopen the government and raise the debt limit?
MR. CARNEY: Our position has been no ransom for reopening the government, no ransom for Congress fulfilling its responsibility to pay the U.S. bills.
Q I understand. Is he or is he not negotiating? It’s a yes or no question.
MR. CARNEY: Well, it depends on what you mean by “negotiate.” He’s been having conversations with lawmakers. What he will not do, what he has firmly made clear again and again is give the tea party its ideological agenda in exchange for Congress opening the government or Congress raising the debt ceiling so that the United States doesn’t default. That has been his position all along.
It’s, I think, helpfully clear in its simplicity: Open the government. Pay our bills. Stop threatening default. Stop doing harm to our economy. Stop doing harm to the American people.
And that's been our position all along. And my goal coming out here wasn’t to reiterate those points that we've been saying for so long. It was to make clear that we see progress in the Senate; we see in the Senate process the kind of bipartisan effort that is the path to resolving these kinds of issues when it comes to the simple responsibilities that Congress maintains -- opening the government, funding it, making sure Congress pays its bills. And we hope that all of Congress takes the appropriate action to ensure that they do not continue to inflict harm on the American economy.
Q One other thing I want to clarify. Since you’ve been talking, a spokesman for Speaker Boehner has said that for you to say that a senior administration official in Thursday’s meeting did not proactively raise the medical device issue is astoundingly dishonest and that it was a senior administration official who proposed it in those talks. So can you just clarify --
MR. CARNEY: I think I've answered the question three times --
Q -- nobody from the White House raised the issue?
MR. CARNEY: No, no, what I -- look, there have been conversations about the medical device tax because Republicans have been putting it on the table and others have been talking about it. What we have always said is that we have never, ever proposed or agreed to pay ransom in exchange for opening the government. And the proposal that had a brief existence this morning, apparently, before I guess the tea party pulled it down, contained within it a demand to placate the tea party related to the Affordable Care Act in exchange for opening the government. And our position has always been we're not paying ransom for that.
So, again, it is astoundingly disingenuous to suggest that our position has ever been that we're going to pay ransom to the tea party in order for the Congress, for House Republicans, to open the government.
Q May I ask on one other topic -- there's been a lot of focus on the shutdown, but it was not long ago we were all talking about Iran. And has the President had any reaction to the talks that have been going on and the offer that the Iranians put on the table?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not sure there's an offer.
Q Well, their proposal.
MR. CARNEY: I think that there was a P5-plus-1 meeting in Geneva, the first day of it, and the Iranian delegation made a presentation and the P5-plus-1 and Iran spent the day discussing the presentation. We're not going to negotiate this in public or go into the details of what was in their proposal. We certainly want to make clear that no one -- despite the positive signs that we've seen -- no one should expect a breakthrough overnight.
These are very complicated issues -- in some cases, very technical issues. And as the President has said, the mistrust here is very deep. But we hope for progress in Geneva. And although we appreciate the recent change in tone from the Iranian government on this issue, we will be looking for specific steps that address core issues, such as the pace and scope of its enrichment program, the transparency of its overall nuclear program and its stockpiles of enrichment.
The P5-plus-1 is seeking an agreement that ultimately resolves all of the international community's concerns about Iran's nuclear program. And while we negotiate, we will continue to keep up the economic pressure on Iran, which has brought about the occasion for at least the prospect of making progress.
Q Can you characterize at all how you guys viewed the presentation? Did you find it encouraging? Was it a step in the right direction? How did the President respond to that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would simply say that after day one, we're hopeful that we will make progress in Geneva. But beyond that, I wouldn't characterize the presentation or the status of conversations.
Margaret.
Q Thanks, Jay. Polling on this shutdown and default stuff has been just clearly bad for congressional Republicans. It's not been great for everyone else either, but probably like worse for them, right across the board. How do you think that should affect the way they proceed? And how do you think that should affect how the White House proceeds and how much you should concede is the pressure is for you to make concessions?
MR. CARNEY: Margaret, as the President said I think last week that there are no winners here and it's not the right thing to do to look at this as a partisan, zero-sum game. The right thing to do is to make no partisan demands as part of Congress doing its basic job -- funding the government, making sure the United States pays its bills on time.
The President is more than eager to sit down and work with lawmakers of both parties to discuss a broader budget agreement in which we can, hopefully, find compromise when it comes to making necessary investments in key areas like education and innovation and infrastructure, while making balanced but tough choices when it comes to continuing the project of reducing our deficit and managing our long-term debt.
That's been evident in the proposals he has put forward, and he wants to get back to that. But the context for that is budget negotiations where there are no guns on the table, where the threat of shutdown or the threat of continued shutdown is removed, the threat of default is removed, and lawmakers with good intentions from both parties, as well as the White House, can try to find a broader agreement on our budget priorities. That would be good for the economy. It would be good for the country. And I think it would probably be good for everyone in Washington of both parties.
Q The polling that's well done reflects at least a snapshot in time of how the public is feeling about a particular issue. Do you feel that the broad spectrum of polling that's out there has been well done and does reflect a public sentiment? Everybody looks at polling. You guys look at polling. The Republicans look at polling. What is the polling telling you about how the public feels and how both sides should proceed?
MR. CARNEY: Margaret, I would just say that Americans are justifiably frustrated by dysfunction in Washington, by a decision from any quarter -- in this case a decision clearly made by House Republicans -- to shut the government down over a partisan dispute, or to threaten default for partisan reasons. And, again, how the public views it I think is reflected in what's been played out here, which is that the President has taken a position where he has asked for nothing in return for Congress doing its job. He is eager to sit down and have tough negotiations and conversations with Republicans and Democrats about our budget priorities, but only after these basic responsibilities are fulfilled, that the government reopen and the threat of default be removed.
Q I'll try it one more way. Do you think that Senate and House Republicans are paying attention to the polling? Do you see any reflection of that --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I just don't think that's the way we want to look at this here.
Q You mean at the podium or in general?
MR. CARNEY: I mean in general. Look, here's the thing, whatever analysis you make of the data that you cite -- and I think there's a consensus that reflects what you said -- we wish it weren't so. We wish instead Congress had simply kept the government open. We wish instead that the House had allowed for a process by which Congress, without drama and delay, ensure that the United States would pay its bills into the future.
Just like we wish for the country, for deficit reduction, for our economy that the House would follow the Senate's lead and pass comprehensive immigration reform with a big bipartisan vote. That might be good for the Republican Party. Analysts say so. Republicans say so. We hope they do it.
The President believes it's very important in our country to have two strong parties, and to have parties with sincere differences but lawmakers who are willing to make compromises and politicians who are willing to make compromises without sacrificing their principles but are willing to compromise in order to do the essential business of the American people and move our country forward. That's the approach he has always taken.
And one of the things that has been particularly difficult in these last several years is that we've seen a highly partisan wing of one party drive the train, if you will, when it comes to how we move forward on these issues. And that makes it very difficult.
Q But you don't want to say from the podium that the polling bolsters the tact that the President has taken not to negotiate?
MR. CARNEY: Again, the President's simple proposition has not been -- I think it's important, because if you shorthand it and say he doesn't want to negotiate, that ignores an entire calendar year in which he has been explicitly asking Republicans to sit down with him and negotiate on budget priorities. He put forward a budget that reflected that. He had numerous meetings and meals and conversations with Republicans in the Senate and the House about these very issues.
But he does not believe that our partisan differences should be the excuse for shutting down the economy -- in the worst-case scenario, if there were to be default -- or shutting down the government. Because that's just using the American people and the American economy as pawns in this partisan dispute and that's not the right way to do things. We ought to make sure that these essential functions are funded, make sure that the United States pays its bills. And then, we should negotiate.
Tommy.
Q Thanks, Jay. I have three questions.
MR. CARNEY: Three?
Q Yes, sorry. It's been a while. First of all, I don't know if you're aware of this, but when I had a heart attack three years ago, I was uninsured and I haven't been able to get insurance ever since then. But listening to all the pressure on the President to negotiate -- a lot of it from inside this room -- made me think, is there a chance the President would be willing to delay Obamacare for a year if Republicans were to agree to delay heart attacks for a year?
MR. CARNEY: Tommy, you know the President's position is that we need to implement the Affordable Care Act. And when it comes to the millions of Americans across the country who have had a very hard time getting access to affordable health insurance, we need to focus on those folks and continue the business of implementing the Affordable Care Act, so that on January 1st, those Americans will be able to purchase this insurance, quality insurance at affordable rates for the first time. Does that answer your question?
Q Just for what it's worth, I was able to enroll in the exchange about a week and a half ago. I haven't picked a plan yet, though.
My second question, I was talking to my mom this morning -- right out here, actually -- and she asked me to ask you to please open the government back up again. And I know you can't just do that. But she is really worried about her Social Security check. And I told her, don't worry, Mom, we'll get it taken care of. I don't want you to worry. But Steve Rattner last night said that October 23rd is one of these drop-dead dates that start to pile up. And so I guess my question is should she be worried?
MR. CARNEY: What I would say about that, which goes to the issue of the debt ceiling, is that the United States government through Congress has made a lot of commitments and has a lot of obligations, and those include the commitments and obligations that the Congress has made and we have made to America's seniors. And we need to never even contemplate the possibility that the timely provision of benefits to those seniors would be jeopardized by a decision by one faction of one party of one house of one branch of government to wage an ideological battle here in Washington.
So that's why -- I mean, that crystallizes the fact that there are real people who depend on some basic things. And everybody in Washington -- Democrats and Republicans and independents -- should sort of agree to the principle that we ought to at the very least ensure that those people are taken care of and that the essential functioning of government is allowed to proceed and that the basic premise that the United States always pays its bills on time is not jeopardized. So that's the position the President has taken.
Q Last question -- do you remember the last debt ceiling deal there was a plan floated, it was called the McConnell plan, where Congress would authorize a debt ceiling increase for I think it was a year, a year and a half. And it would hold a vote every so often, so that Republicans could vote no but it would require two-thirds majority to overrule, so it gave the President the authority. Is something like the McConnell plan in the air now, being discussed now? And if not, why not?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would basically direct you to Congress for the various plans under discussion and the plans that have been adopted in the past for how they fulfill their responsibility invested in them through the Constitution to pay our bills. So Congress has the authority, whether it's to devise a scheme or a plan along the lines that you talk about, or simply just to take the vote and raise the debt ceiling. That's not an authority that the President has. That's an authority Congress has.
Q Haven’t heard any conversations about that?
MR. CARNEY: I'd just refer you to the Senate.
April and then, John and then, Julia -- and then, we'll go.
Q Jay, basically you're saying Thursday -- and from what you said at the podium -- that you're not going to be able to pay all of your bills. What should the American public be bracing for? I mean, you're calmly almost screaming “fire.”
MR. CARNEY: I'll just be clear that on Thursday the United States runs out of its borrowing authority. And that means that the Treasury only has cash on hand to meet the obligations that the United States government has.
Q Did you or did you not say that you're not going to be able to pay all of your bills?
MR. CARNEY: Because we -- what I'm saying is the Treasury is the place to go for specific timetables about when bills come due and how that works. What I'm saying is that as a nation, the reason why we need to raise the debt ceiling is to ensure that the Treasury can borrow money to make sure we meet all our obligations. Inevitably, if your obligations exceed what you take in, you're in a situation where default is a possibility. But the Treasury is the right place to address those questions.
And, look, again, April, I don't have the list of many outside experts who aren't crying “fire” -- they're crying “stop.” Stop threatening the American and global economy with the prospect of default and just do the responsible thing and pass a bill that extends the debt ceiling, so that this is not even something that can happen or be contemplated. So that's not us, certainly not us alone. I think many folks from the business world and from both sides of the aisle here in Washington have acknowledged that we don't want to cross that line, because the consequences would be very negative.
Q Jay, I'm not putting any blame anywhere, I'm just asking what should the American public be bracing for? Because many persons already have had their paycheck stopped. Many persons are concerned about government subsidies to programs. Thursday, Friday, whenever -- when you're not able to pay all of your bills, what should the American public be bracing for?
MR. CARNEY: No, I understand, April. And I would just say, A, we hope we do not get to the point where that's a reality. It's entirely within Congress's and, in many cases, the Speaker of the House's power to ensure that that does not happen. Broadly speaking, I've said that there is reason to be concerned, given the disposition we've seen in Congress -- in particular among House Republicans, although some Senate Republicans as well -- to flirt with default, flirt with crossing that threshold beyond which we don't have borrowing authority. And that's very dangerous.
We believe that there's a majority in both houses to ensure that, if given the chance, to ensure that this is not something that ever comes about.
I'm going to have to go, because I know there's Medal of Honor pre-positioning.
Q I just have this last question. As we deal with this, what is the construct as to why we're here? We know it's partisan agendas and politics. And Sunday, we saw situations at the White House, come to the White House where race was involved. Many persons are saying part of this now has to do with race, because the President is indeed an African American, a black man. Is race a part of this stalemate, this conversation?
MR. CARNEY: April, I don't believe that that's the issue here. I believe that this is a decision by -- Republicans shut the government down not because every Republican wanted it, but because Republican leaders in the House were listening to a faction within their own conference. And it's important that when it comes to reopening the government a majority of the House be allowed to vote on a clean CR, for example, as we've talked about for a long time, and when it comes to the essential responsibility to ensure that the United States pays its bills, that Congress be able to take that action so that this threat is removed and everybody -- Republicans and Democrats -- can get about the business of discussing and negotiating over our budget priorities.
I’ve really got to go -- John, last one.
Q Two quick ones -- I'll use shorthand here. Does the President support the reinsurance provision --
MR. CARNEY: John, I'm not going to negotiate over items of proposed bills that haven't been written or submitted.
Q And can I get your reaction to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell deciding to suspend negotiations until the House does or does not act today?
MR. CARNEY: Again, we have seen progress in the Senate and we hope to see continued progress in the Senate. We’ve seen a bipartisan approach in the Senate that we would hope that the House could emulate.
Julia, you get the last one.
Q On the Affordable Care Act, can you give us both a timeframe for when you anticipate federal exchanges will be fully functional, what entities are working on it, and just as important, who pays for this fix? Is this part of the contract, or is this an additional cost to the federal government?
MR. CARNEY: Those are all questions for HHS and CMS. I can tell you that, at the President’s direction, people are working 24/7 to resolve the problems that have arisen and taking steps to make sure that those many, many millions of Americans who are interested in the options available to them to purchase affordable health insurance, in many cases for the first time, have the best consumer experience possible.
And there are a lot of people hard at work on this. But for details of the work being done and the process in place, I’d refer you to HHS.
Thanks, everybody.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)