mr. carney: good afternoon, everyone. thanksfor your patience. anyone go out and see the geyser earlier? q yes. you know, this would be a good chancefor you to tell us what they're building over there. more than a year has gone by. mr. carney: we're drilling for oil. (laughter.)it's part of all-of-the-above -- come on. (laughter.) q you can't drill your way out -- (laughter.) mr. carney: you cannot, but it's part of -- q i thought you weren’t opening up nationalparks and you weren’t opening up federal
lands. (laughter.) mr. carney: -- part of our all-of-the-aboveenergy approach, which includes -- q so you're drilling for oil and you hit water,right? mr. carney: -- expanding domestic oil andgas production, investing in renewables, approving the first nuclear power plant in 30 years,et cetera, et cetera. it was quite a sight. i could see if from my window -- from my office. q is your office sinking? mr. carney: i don't believe so -- but perhaps. i have no other announcements to make. (laughter.)i will turn to the associated press. i'd refer
you to the gsa. i don't honestly know. itlooked like water. (laughter.) q the president referred to mitt romney byname yesterday and criticized him. today mitt romney accused the president of having -- runninga hide-and-seek campaign and being disingenuous about his true agenda if reelected. do youhave any direct response to that? and more basically, are you running a risk here ofsome campaign fatigue if these two guys are going at one another by name so directly somany months before the election? mr. carney: well, i know you all know becauseyou listened to the speech or were there and watched it yourself -- the president yesterdaygave a comprehensive, detailed, dare i say, wonky exposition of his views of what ourbudget priorities ought to be and his views
on why the republican budget put forward bychairman ryan is not the right solution to our problems, why it's wrong for america. this was a policy speech that, again, hada great deal of detail attached to it, as he explained why the ryan/republican budget,if it were enacted into law, would be incredibly harmful to america's seniors, to the middleclass, and to the absolute necessity of investing in areas like education, basic research andinfrastructure in order to ensure that america is strong economically in the 21st century. as he mentioned, and one of the major pointsof the speech is, this is not a theoretical exercise. everyone in this room knows thatthe ryan/republican budget would become the
law of the land if someone else were to occupythe oval office next year and if republicans continue to effectively control congress -- becauseeveryone supports this. it's not the sort of idea, the rump idea -- theidea of a rump faction of the republican party. this is what now is mainstream republicanthinking -- which is to, instead of taking a balanced approach to our budget-deficitissues, a balanced approach to getting our fiscal house in order, we should give additionaltax cuts to the wealthiest americans -- virtually the only segment of society that saw theireconomic lot improve in the first decade of this century -- and to pay for those tax cutswe should end medicare as we know it, we should reduce by an average of 19 percent our non-defensediscretionary budget. that means cut dramatically
our investments in education, basic research,innovation and the like. and the president simply believes that's the wrong approach.and this is not a theoretical exercise. this is real policy. and he went on to talk about a concrete votethe senate will take in the next few weeks on the so-called buffett rule, his principle,named after warren buffett, built around the idea that a billionaire should not pay a lowereffective tax rate on his income than his secretary. so he certainly encourages thesenate to approve that. q so is that your direct response to the chargeof a hide-and-seek campaign? mr. carney: look, the fact of the matter is,the president was explicitly talking about
a policy debate that we have been engagedin here in many ways for years and years, but intensively for the past year. and thiswas a policy speech, i think pretty explicitly, delivered to an audience of your colleagues-- editors, reporters, publishers. q and one other quick one on a different subject.do you have any response to a federal appeals court judge in texas, judge smith, who criticizedthe president yesterday for his remarks about the supreme court and its power to overturnlegislation, and has asked for a letter from the justice department affirming the federalcourts' ability to do that? mr. carney: well, i think as the attorneygeneral has said, the department of justice will be responding to the request for a letter.and i would simply refer you to what the president
said and what the attorney general said, that,of course, the supreme court and our federal courts have as their responsibility the rightto rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by congress. the president made clear yesterdayin answer to a question that that is what he absolutely believes. what the president said both yesterday andthe day before -- well, what he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 yearsof supreme court history -- the fact that since the lochner era of the court, sincethe 1930s, the supreme court has, without exception, deferred to congress when it comesto congress’s authority to pass legislation, to regulate matters of national economic importancesuch as health care -- 80 years plus. that
is an observation and not a particularly remarkableone. it is a statement of fact. and he also expressed his faith that the supreme courtwould keep to that 85-year history of judicial precedent, and uphold the constitutionalityof the affordable care act. yes. q on a similar theme, some of the -- the president’sremarks about the health care case in the supreme court have been interpreted as challengingor putting pressure on the court ahead of the decision. can you speak to that, and whynot just allow the court to reach a decision and then -- mr. carney: first of all, the president wasasked a question and responded to it. secondly,
as i just said, he made an observation aboutwhy he believes that -- well, first of all, that the believes the affordable care actis constitutional, why he believes it’s constitutional, and why he believes that thesupreme court will, in keeping with 80-plus years of judicial precedent and supreme courtprecedent, will defer to congress on its authority to pass legislation to regulate issues ofnational economic importance like our health care system. it's the reverse of intimidation. he's simplymaking an observation about precedent and the fact that he expects the court to adhereto that precedent. it's obviously, as he made clear yesterday, up to the court to make itsdetermination. and we will wait and see what
the court does. but i guess you could argue that circuit courtjudges who ruled on this were trying to intimidate or influence the court when they issued opinions,including very prominent conservative judges on the circuit -- court of appeals, rather-- when they issued an opinion -- opinions that the affordable care act is constitutionaland that it is entirely constitutional, in keeping with 80-plus years of judicial precedent. q on a different topic -- the pentagon saidtoday that khalid sheikh mohammed and four other accused people in the 9/11 attacks willgo to the guantanamo war crimes tribunal. could you speak to that decision and why moretime wasn't given to allow for a civilian
court trial? mr. carney: well, it has been more than 10years since 9/11, first of all. and the president is committed to ensuring that those who areaccused of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks against the united states be brought to justice. thepresident remains committed to shutting down guantanamo bay. in that commitment, he isof the same opinion as his predecessor, as his opponent in the 2008 presidential election,as the senior leadership of the united states military, and many, many others who believethat gitmo ought to be closed. there have obviously been obstacles in achieving that,but he remains committed to doing that. in the meantime, we have to ensure that khalidsheikh mohammed and others who are accused
of these heinous crimes are brought to justice.and this procedure is now underway to ensure that that happens. q isn't it contradictory to be committed toclosing guantanamo bay also proceeding with something -- mr. carney: the fact of the matter is, inpart because of the system and the situation that -- the system that was put in place andthe situation that existed under the prior administration, we have now -- 11 years almosthave passed since 9/11 -- or 10 and a half -- and it is important to see that justiceis done. the president's commitment to closing guantanamois as firm as ever. he agrees with our uniformed
military leadership. he agrees with john mccainand george w. bush that it ought to be closed. and we'll work to see that done. unfortunately,as you know we’ve had -- we’ve encountered obstacles in getting that done from congress.but he will continue to work to do that. yes, jessica. q does the administration view the fifth circuit’srequest as intemperate? mr. carney: i would refer you to the justicedepartment. the attorney general said that he would -- or that the department of justicewould respond appropriately. q but you just suggested that in some waysit was an effort by them to intimidate. mr. carney: no, no, i didn't at all. i certainly-- if you interpreted what i said that way,
you were mistaken. no, i was referring toa question about the president’s remarks. the attorney representing the united statesin that court said at the time that the administration, the president, the attorney general believeobviously that the federal courts have their authority to rule on the constitutionalityof laws passed by congress. the president obviously believes that and said so againyesterday. that was my point. and i’m sure that that's what the response will make clear,that the department of justice provides. q yesterday, the president clearly, for thefirst time in a campaign-themed speech, singled out mitt romney. he has said that he willnot weigh in until there is a nominee. by doing so does the white house -- does thepresident feel that he now has his opponent
in the general election? mr. carney: i will go back to my first answersimply to make the point that the president gave a very detailed, fact-laden speech aboutbudget policy yesterday. he made clear his opposition to the recently released, new-but-not-improvedryan/ republican budget, and what his budget priorities are. it is also true -- and this is part of theoverall issue here -- that this budget is supported not just by a small group of ideologueswithin the house of representatives but broadly by the republicans in congress and by virtuallyall of the contenders for president in the republican party. so this is a matter of -- thisis a real debate, because the outcomes at
the policy level are quite serious. it’snot a theoretical debate. that’s the point he was making. you can be sure that he won’t choose asa venue to launch -- to give a campaign speech, especially his first campaign speech or officialcampaign speech, an audience of editors, reporters, and publishers who are professionally obligatedto sit on their hands. q okay. it sounded pretty campaign-themedto me. mr. carney: again, i want to just take issuewith how talking about the budget and how talking about it in terms that -- i mean,there are themes in that speech and specifics in that speech that are directly pulled fromspeeches he’s been giving for the past three
years. q okay. in any case, one last question. onfebruary 8th, you were talking about the stock act and said that you were shocked to learnthat elements of it has been pulled and watered down by eric cantor from the house -- houserepublican eric cantor. mr. carney: this was the grassley amendment? q yes. mr. carney: yes. q is the white house satisfied with the actas passed? mr. carney: well, the president signed itinto law --
q correct. but is this -- mr. carney: -- not too long ago. q why is the white house now pleased withthis bill when you weren’t pleased -- mr. carney: well, it was improved by the senateamendments that passed that gave greater protections to investors. and we will monitor the implementationof this law very closely to make sure that it is implemented in a way that’s effective.but, yes, the president supports it. the overall stock act represents some of the very keyelements from the president’s american jobs act speech back in september of 2011. q would the white house prefer that there-- it includes disclosure for financial advisors
who -- mr. carney: well, there’s no question thatwe would -- if we were issuing an executive order there would be some things that mightbe different or improvements. but we definitely support the act, the bill. the president signedit into law. it represents some initiatives that he was the first to put forward as president,last fall. so absolutely, he supports it. q as part of mitt romney’s response todayto the president’s comments yesterday, he said what the president was trying to do inhis remarks was to deflect criticism from the fact that the debt has increased moreunder president obama than all the previous presidents combined. is that incorrect, thatstatement about the size of the debt?
mr. carney: i’d have to look at his numbers.the fact is, as you know well, norah, that a huge portion of the debt that the unitedstates of america now carries on its books is attributable to the fact that -- certainlythe deficits that we’ve seen is attributable to the fact that in the previous administration,two massive tax cuts, two wars, and an unpaid-for medicare -- expansion of medicare throughthe prescription drug benefit went on the books without, again, being paid for. we canget you the specific numbers, but it is a massive contribution to our federal deficitand our debt. another contributor to that was the fact thatwhen the president took office, president obama, we were in the midst of the worst financialand economic crisis in our lifetimes here,
most of us i think, since the 1930s. and thatrequired a response in order to prevent a great recession from becoming a great depression. the response that the president took was effectivein preventing a depression -- the response the president and congress took. and we havebeen, and are now, recovering from the worst financial crisis in 70-plus years. the fact of the matter is, the president hasembraced and has put forward a balanced approach to dealing with our deficits and our long-termdebt. a balanced approach has been endorsed by every bipartisan commission that has lookedat this -- democrats and republicans. it has been supported by and endorsed by democraticlegislators in the senate and the house. as
of yet, it has not received support in anysignificant way or at any significant level by republicans. this is the problem with therepublican budget the president talked about yesterday. we don’t need to cut education and basicresearch and innovation and transportation by an average of 19 percent, in addition tothe $1.2 trillion in cuts the president has already signed into law, bringing our non-defensediscretionary spending to its lowest level since dwight eisenhower was president. the ryan budget, the republican budget wouldgo further than that by another 19 percent. why? not to reduce the deficit, but to givemore tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.
that’s a losing argument and it’s thewrong prescription for america’s economy. q given the president’s detailed descriptionabout what’s wrong with the republican and the ryan budget that’s been endorsed bymitt romney, why then doesn’t the president want to offer people a different choice? whydoesn’t he have his own party put forward a budget in congress? mr. carney: norah, you know that the presidenthas put forward a budget. you know that -- q i said democrats -- mr. carney: well, i had this discussion yesterdayin an interview that i did. what everyone knows is that in a situation where washingtonis divided, the only way to get to a budget
agreement that represents a compromise thatcan be passed into law and signed by the president is if it enjoys bipartisan support. passinga bill with only republican support in the house -- q -- 51 votes. mr. carney: no, i know. and passing a billin the house that garners only republican support and passing a bill in the senate thatgarners only democratic support does not achieve that and does not bring you any closer toa resolution. what you need -- i can see ed getting allworked up over here -- but what you need is a balanced approach that has been supportedby bipartisan commissions, that is -- i mean,
again, there’s a lot of talk about the simpson-bowlescommission, which, as the president noted yesterday, he created, and had to create throughhis executive authority because republicans -- q has he endorsed it? has he endorsed thesimpson-bowles -- mr. carney: the president endorses the approachthat the simpson-bowles commission took. and in fact, his budget proposal is differentfrom the simpson-bowles approach. how? it doesn't raise as much revenue, which you wouldthink would appeal to republicans, and it doesn't cut defense spending by as much, whichyou would think would appeal to republicans. and yet, the three house republican memberson the simpson-bowles commission voted no,
including representative ryan. so what does that tell you about how theyview the need for a balanced approach? throughout this debate in the past year you have seendemocrats, led by the president, do really hard things. democrats aren’t supposed tolike cuts in discretionary spending, basically domestic programs. and yet, this presidenthas signed into law the deepest discretionary spending cuts in recent memory that have broughtour discretionary spending levels to their lowest level since dwight eisenhower was president. democrats generally do not like and do notsupport cuts in entitlement programs, and yet this president put forward difficult reformsin entitlement programs because he believes
that you have to have a balanced approach,you have to include entitlement reform in any effort to reduce our deficit and bringdown our -- reduce our debt. and the president also believes you have to include revenue,as does the vast majority of the american people. so who hasn't moved here? where is the republicanproposal that includes revenue as an element of a balanced approach? it's certainly notthe republican budget. q i'll let ed follow on that in a minute.(laughter.) but on the supreme court -- just one more question on the supreme court andthe president's comments monday. does he regret using the word "unprecedented"?
mr. carney: not at all, because, as i've saida couple of times now, the president was referring to making the unremarkable observation about80 years of supreme court history. since the lochner era -- q -- made it clarified. mr. carney: well, only because a handful ofpeople didn't seem to understand what he was referring to. of course, he was referringto the fact that it would be unprecedented in the modern era of the supreme court, sincethe new deal era, for the supreme court to overturn legislation passed by congress designedto regulate and deal with a national economic -- a matter of national economic importancelike our health care system.
that is a fact. since the lochner era, whichended when the court began to defer to congress on new deal legislation, the supreme courthas not done that, has not broken the precedent set there. and that's a number of years now.that's what would be unprecedented about it. he did not suggest -- did not mean and didnot suggest that the court -- it would be unprecedented for the court to rule that alaw was unconstitutional. that's what the supreme court is there to do. but it has,under the commerce clause, deferred to congress's authority in matters of national economicimportance. q but on that point, republicans -- mr. carney: ed. (laughter.)
q thank you, jay. at the risk of being intemperate,i just wanted to ask -- mr. carney: never. q eighty years of precedent you keep talkingabout, but republicans are pointing to i think it's 159 different times in the history ofamerica where the supreme court has decided that something is not unconstitutional [sic]-- obviously, not all of those times involving the commerce clause, which is the -- mr. carney: none of them in the last 85 years-- and that's what the president was talking about. q but there's 159 times where the court hassaid it's unconstitutional --
mr. carney: so if they are citing times whenthe court rules as unconstitutional something under the commerce clause that congress did,they're basically saying they shouldn't have passed some of the new deal legislation andperhaps they want to revisit that. but the precedent we're talking about here, as i'vemade clear -- i mean, you can say that they make this argument about precedent based onsomething the president didn't say or mean, or we can talk about -- q but to be clear, he didn't specify whatyou're specifying now. mr. carney: he did yesterday. q yesterday, but in his original commentshe did not draw that caveat. he just said
the whole thing would be unprecedented. mr. carney: that's not what he said, ed. that'snot certainly what he meant. and it was clear to most folks who observe this and understandwhat is at issue here -- q jay, that's not true. the president said,on monday, that it would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law thatwas passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. it took him yesterday totalk about the commerce clause and on an economic issue -- mr. carney: but, norah -- q there are two instances in the past 80 yearswhere the president -- where the supreme court
has overturned stuff: u.s. v. lopez, and u.s.v. -- mr. carney: norah, what i'm telling you -- q these are very specific legal issues. it'snot evident to everybody. mr. carney: well, it may not be evident toyou. it is clear that the president was talking about matters like this that involve the commerceclause, that involve congress passing legislation to deal with issues of national economic importance-- national economic matters like health insurance, which is clearly a national economic issue.that's what he was referring to. and again, he spoke to this yesterday. itis obvious and clear, and nobody would ever contend in his office -- and he certainlywas not contending -- that the supreme court
doesn't have as its right and responsibilitythe ability to overturn laws passed by congress as unconstitutional. he was referring to 85years of judicial precedent, of supreme court precedent, with regard to matters like theone under consideration. and it’s maybe fun to pretend he meant otherwise, but everyonehere knows that that's what he meant. ed. q okay, but -- (laughter.) what norah just-- mr. carney: but. q back to norah. mr. carney: for the sake of argument we’regoing to pretend he didn't mean that.
q no, okay, but -- q he had to clarify. mr. carney: i’m telling you -- q he did clarify it the next day. q he did clarify it. and also when you saidto norah or me maybe we didn't know those cases -- do you think most average americansknow about a supreme court case from 75 years ago? come on, i mean we’re not -- mr. carney: but what’s your point, ed? areyou suggesting -- i just want to know, are you suggesting that he --
q because the president left the impressionthat the whole thing would be unprecedented. he did not have -- mr. carney: and i’m telling you, and hetold you, and others like me have said actually on the day of as well as after that what hemeant, and what he made clear yesterday -- q okay, so what did -- mr. carney: and he was a law professor. q right. mr. carney: and he understands constitutionallaw and constitutional precedent and the role of the supreme court --
q okay. mr. carney: -- was a reference to the supremecourt’s history in its rulings on matters under the commerce clause. q on what norah quoted about the presidentsaying monday, a strong majority of the democratically elected congress -- as you know, the housepassed the health care bill 219 to 212. mr. carney: there you go. q and the senate -- it’s a fact. i know,here we go -- here we go with a fact. imagine that. (laughter.) it was not -- it was nota strong majority. i mean, the republicans just pushed through the ryan budget with republicanvotes. you guys would not call that a strong
majority, would you? mr. carney: no. but here’s the environmentthat we live in, ed. in order for a budget agreement to become law, right -- the republicansdon't control both the executive branch and the legislative branch, and the democratsdon't control both. in order for the absolute necessity of dealing with our deficit anddebt challenges, we need a bipartisan compromise. the only path, as evident to anyone who thinksabout this matter, the only path to that is a balanced approach. there is -- republicansin the house know that. democrats in the senate know that. the president knows that. that'swhy he has embraced a balanced approach. q okay, but back --
mr. carney: but what the republicans haven’t-- q -- 217 to 212, so that's a strong majority,you're saying, factually? mr. carney: you’re talking about applesand oranges here. q no, no, i’m talking about votes on healthcare -- mr. carney: that passed -- q -- 219-212, that is a strong majority factually? mr. carney: ed, that passed congress and wassigned into law. you know that there is no way -- look, you’re making the president’spoint. you know that there is no way to achieve a balanced approach -- to achieve a significantcompromise on deficit and debt reduction in
a budget compromise without a balanced approach.you know that. that's not going to happen right now, right? without -- q i’m talking about health care. we cango back to -- mr. carney: okay. mr. carney: right? you’re absolutely correctif, as some hope happens, someone else occupies the oval office next year and republicanscontrol congress, that the ryan/republican budget could well become law. that's exactlywhat the president was talking about yesterday. this is not a theoretical debate. what will become law -- because this is notthe conservative fringe of a republican party
now talking, it is the entire party -- isa bill -- is a budget that would decimate discretionary spending on education and innovation,and research and development, would end medicare as we know it -- i keep getting throwbacksto the 1990s -- end medicare as we know it by creating a voucher system for medicarewhere -- and a two-tiered system where healthy people go to the cheaper, private insuranceoptions, and then medicare is populated only by the older and sicker members of our seniorpopulation, driving up costs, costs that will be shifted to seniors. and that's simply notfair. that's not what the president believes is right. q i was talking -- just for monday -- i knowwe’re talking, as well, about the budget,
but just to be clear on health care. the presidentwhen he defended what he was saying on the supreme court monday on health care was sayingthat a strong majority passed this in both chambers of congress -- health care, not thebudget, but health care. is that -- 219 votes is a strong majority, factually? mr. carney: a majority passed, ed. look, itwas -- the point the president was making is that under the past 80 years of supremecourt history, the supreme court has shown deference to the legislature to deal withmatters under the commerce clause of national economic importance like health care. andhe is confident that both the affordable care act, under the 80-plus years of precedent,is constitutional, and that the supreme court
will agree with him, as did lower courts inopinions put forward by very prominent, conservative judges. q and the last thing -- when jessica and annwere asking about the budget -- back on the budget -- you kept saying it was a policyspeech and that it was wonky. and there were wonky elements to it, no doubt, because hewas talking about facts. however, he also called it a laughable budget. he said it wasa trojan horse, social darwinism. how can you suggest that he wasn’t playing politicsas well? we get that he was talking about substance, too, but he was playing politicsyesterday. mr. carney: i’m saying that he could have--
q he called it a trojan horse. mr. carney: -- and did, in many ways, givethe same speech last year at this time. he gave a speech in response to the originalryan budget that was very clear about why he felt that it was not the right answer toour challenges economically. and there really is no difference between that and this, exceptthat we now know that all of the would-be leaders of the republican party, virtually,those who would be president, support the ryan/republican budget and think it’s theright way to go. the president disagrees. yes. and then i’m going to move around.sorry for the front row. (laughter.) q does he regret the -- the issue that thejudge seemed to have is this issue of the
unelected jab that the president used on monday,referring to the judiciary, using what was clearly sort of hot political rhetoric inreference to the judiciary when he referred to them as an "unelected" body. that’s somethingthat’s a sort of tried and true political attack on the judiciary that we’ve seenfor years. does the president regret that? i mean, is that why he seemed to walk thingsback a little bit yesterday? mr. carney: no. look, he -- as has been demonstratedhere, i guess other folks didn’t know we were talking about a piece of legislationthat would be ruled on under the commerce clause, and that that’s what he was referringto, so i accept that some of the expansion that the president offered, and i and othersoffered, might have helped people understand
exactly what he was talking about and referringto. but i think his point about congress was simplythat the supreme court, since the new deal, has deferred to the legislature, those whoare elected by people around the country to write laws for them, and in this matter, onmatters of national economic importance, to pass laws that regulate the economy and regulateareas of the economy like our health care market. so that is the point he was making,is that the court, as a matter of precedent, has deferred on matters like this to -- q -- that it’s a bunch of unelected -- hegoes, i would remind them that they’re unelected. i mean, that’s been the way the judiciarywas set up from the very beginning.
mr. carney: again, he was making an unremarkableobservation about -- q is that an unremarkable thing to use a political-- mr. carney: well, i mean, they aren’t elected.it’s, again, a statement of fact, just like members of congress aren’t judges -- well,some of them may have been, but they’re not largely judges. so -- and they are elected.the point of the matter is, is as a matter of supreme court precedent, they have -- thesupreme court has deferred to the legislature in matters dealing with the national economy. q so we shouldn’t -- should we interprethis remarks yesterday as a walk-back of sorts from the tougher rhetoric on monday?
mr. carney: no. it was -- q not at all? mr. carney: he was asked again, and he offeredmore expansive comments on it. again, i take the point here, i guess some folk didn’tknow that we were talking about the commerce clause and that’s what he referred to. iaccept that and hope now it is clear, as, again, would be evident to anyone since he’sa constitutional law professor as well as the president of the united states, that hebelieves the supreme court can and has and should rule on the constitutionality of lawspassed by congress. q two things i want to follow up on, on theanswers that you gave. you referred just now
about -- when you were talking about the budget-- first, isn’t there a -- you say that the only way -- that there's no other wayto get a budget done -- one passes the house with just republican votes. isn’t therea way? i mean, the house and senate work this way all the time. the senate passes a bill,the house passes a bill, and they try to merge them together. what’s wrong with tryingto do that? mr. carney: well, look, it is always our preferencefor congress to work efficiently and effectively, and that would certainly be a good thing.but we have seen in the past year-plus of very intense negotiations between the senateand the house, between republicans and democrats, between leaders in congress and the whitehouse, that the only way to accomplish, in
an environment like this, significant compromisethat can be passed out of this congress and signed into law by the president is to takean approach that is balanced. and that’s how we averted a government shutdownlast spring, and that’s how we in the summer, late summer, while failing to get the comprehensive,balanced approach that is required to deal with our long-term deficits and debt, we wereable to pass into law the budget control act -- which, by the way, which is again designedby congress, voted on by congress, passed by congress, and now republicans in congresswant to violate that agreement for the ryan budget. q would you object to the conference committeeapproach being used if democrats passed a
budget -- and they got into a room and -- mr. carney: chuck, all i’m saying is thatit’s -- we would not object to that. but what i’m saying is it’s not -- given whatwe have seen over the past 11 months, the way that we have come closest to achievingbipartisan compromise is through the kinds of negotiations that we had to go throughlast year. and, unfortunately, the point is, is thatwhat the president has put forward, what democrats have agreed to in these negotiations representsa significant compromise by the president and democrats on issues that are sacred cows,if you will, to the democratic party. what we have not seen --
q have you put out a plan on social securityreform? mr. carney: no. the president has made clearhis position on social security reform. he has made it clear in his state of the unionaddress; he made it clear again when he put out his budget proposal in the fall. and iwould note that the ryan budget contains no social security reform. q so when you say entitlement reform, you’resaying -- you’re excluding social security -- you’re just only talking about medicareand medicaid. mr. carney: i’m not saying that we don’tneed to deal in the long term with our social security matters -- i’m talking about medicare,medicaid and other mandatories. but the fact
of the matter is, as you know, you reportedon it, the president led his party to agree to significant reforms in our entitlements-- our health care entitlements -- as part of what could have been a bipartisan grandbargain, and that was not achieved because republicans would not go along with the ideathat it had to be balanced. it had to include q -- never would have passed -- mr. carney: it had to include -- it is funnyto hear republicans talk about how there is no plan, and then describe it in detail. butthat’s another matter. q neither side released their final plans,publicly. mr. carney: it was part of the negotiatingprocess that you know well is the only way
to potentially achieve this -- what wouldhave been a very difficult compromise. separately, as you guys know and i know from your reporting,on the super committee that dealt with the -- as a result of the budget control act,democrats went extremely far in making significant compromises on issues like entitlements. andthe whole thing broke down -- why? because republicans refused to include revenues aspart of an overall process. and that’s the only way to do it. everybody knows that. april. q jay, on a couple of topics. gallop pollhas come out with the new job approval rating for president obama: 48 percent approve and45 percent disapprove. what are your comments?
mr. carney: there are polls every day. i don’treally have a comment. q it’s not moving. mr. carney: is that your -- that's your comment.i mean, look, we -- the president is focused on the job he needs to do as president, andhe is focused especially on the need to take every action he can, working with congressor through his executive authority, to continue to help this economy to grow and recover,to continue to see job creation, and to continue to ensure the security of the american peopleboth at home and abroad. those are his focuses as president at this time. the campaign andpolls -- there's plenty of time for that and q eight months out from --
mr. carney: that's a long time. that is along time. and as i've said for a long time now, as this year progresses, the presidentwill, of course, by necessity, be more engaged in the campaign. at this point, we still donot have a republican nominee. and that time will come, and you will see him engage whenit's appropriate. q and on another topic -- the hoodie movementhas made its way to the white house. ame bishop john r. bryant came to the prayer breakfastthis morning with a hoodie on, in response to the trayvon martin issue. and what do yousay as the cbc now is calling for legislators to look at the stand your ground law, andas the justice department is investigating still?
mr. carney: well, i would refer you to thelast part of your question, which is that the justice department is investigating aparticular case in florida, as is -- as obviously are florida authorities. and so i wouldn'treally -- i do not have a specific comment on that. the president, as you know, maderemarks about the case and the tragedy of the loss of life here. but i don't have anyfurther comment on it. q but everything comes to the white housefrom -- (inaudible) and everything in between. and now this hoodie movement has come. thepresident didn't say anything. according to bishop bryant, he did not acknowledge, hejust welcomed him. what does the white house feel about that strong movement making itsway here?
mr. carney: well, i haven't spoken to thepresident about this, so i don't have anything to express on that issue. and again, i don'tthink it's appropriate, and i won't, therefore, comment on something that's under ongoinginvestigation by both the justice department and florida authorities. q okay, but i'm not talking about the investigation. mr. carney: i just don't have a comment onthat, sorry. yes, julianna, and then -- sorry. q the president -- tomorrow he's going tosign the jobs act, which provides -- it helps small businesses get investors early on. andthere are some concerns that it actually dismantles
some investor protections, and it might bemore prone to get-rich-quick kind of schemes. does the president share those concerns? mr. carney: well, as you know, the presidentinsisted on and was pleased to see the adoption in the overall legislation of the amendmentsput forward by senate democrats that offer further protections for investors. and wewill be mindful, as this law is implemented, to ensure that it's implemented in an effectiveway and that those protections are upheld. so the president strongly supports it. again,as i was i think saying to jessica, it includes at its heart provisions that the presidentinitially put forward for consideration by congress. and he's pleased that even in anenvironment where getting bipartisan cooperation
is very, very difficult, we have seen enoughof it to enable us to pass two pieces of legislation that the president called for, the stock acttoday and the jobs act tomorrow. q jay, ahead of these p5-plus-1 talks in acouple of weeks, israeli defense minister ehud barak released today the israelis’goals of how they want to proceed forward with these talks, saying that transferringuranium to 20 percent -- that it’s enriched to 20 percent -- needs to go out of the country;that leaving only enough enriched uranium for energy purposes; the third being thatthey need the closure of the fordow enrichment facilities and also the transfer of fuel rods.is this the same agenda the white house has for these talks? are these the same benchmarks?are you guys working in tandem on this?
mr. carney: well, we’re working with ourp5-plus-1 partners when those talks -- q what particular benchmarks would you -- mr. carney: i haven’t seen -- i haven’tseen the proposals that you -- q does it sound something along the ballparkof what the white house -- mr. carney: look, our policy is very clear,together with our partners -- we remain determined to prevent iran from attaining a nuclear weapon.and as the president has said, we believe that diplomacy coupled with strong sanctionsand increased isolation is the both available and best means of achieving and ensuring thatiran does not obtain a nuclear weapon in the near or longer term. but he takes no optionsoff the table.
we are very mindful of iranian behavior inthe past and how they’ve approached negotiations in the past, and we are in a mode where actionsare what speak loudest here. but our insistence is -- and again, i’m not going to get intospecifics -- i’m not going to negotiate on behalf of the p5-plus-1 what the particularsof an agreement would look like, but it would absolutely insist on iran not obtaining anuclear weapon. q but isn’t there anything you can say goingforward, entering these talks, that here are our red lines; if it looks like they're runningout the clock, that no progress is being made, here’s when we walk away? mr. carney: look, the president has said -- andit is a fact -- that time is running out.
there is time. there is time and space toallow for a diplomatic solution, but it is not time without end. and again we -- q what does that mean, time without end? arewe -- mr. carney: well, i’m not going to givea -- q -- talking months? are we talking till theend of the year? mr. carney: well, we’ve made very clearas a matter of what we know about the iranian nuclear program and the fact that there areinspectors on the ground and we have visibility into it, what that process would look like.i don't have a specific time frame to attach to that, but we do have time.
but it is important to move seriously, andwe will insist that the iranians move in a serious way if they are serious about engagingwith the p5-plus-1 and finding a solution here that, one, ensures that iran does notacquire a nuclear weapon, and, two, therefore allows iran to end its isolation and rejointhe community of nations. q jay, following on that, you haven’t saidmuch in public lately about the possibility or risk of an israeli military strike. doyou feel that you have made some progress there in persuading the israelis to hold offfor a while, or do you think that that is still a live possibility in the next coupleof months? mr. carney: i have no updates for you on thatspecific issue. we spoke a lot about this
around the time that prime minister netanyahuwas here and the president gave his remarks at aipac. we believe that the best way of ensuring thatiran does not obtain a nuclear weapon is through the approach that the president has taken.there is time and space for that approach to continue to be pursued, and it is an approachthat has united the international community, that has isolated iran, that has brought tobear the harshest sanctions in history against iran. and those sanctions, as you know, havehad a significant impact on the iranian economy and the iranian regime. but it remains to be seen whether the iranianleadership will choose the right path, will
go through the door that remains open to them,which is to forsake their nuclear weapons ambitions and, by doing so and in demonstratingand in proving to the world that they have done so, create for themselves the opportunityto reduce their isolation, to reduce the significant impact on the economy of these sanctions,and to rejoin the community of nations. q but when prime minister netanyahu was here,the president made a point of saying out loud that he respected israel’s right to self-defense. mr. carney: well, that hasn’t changed. q well, the obvious "but" there was that hewas making a case, don't do this. mr. carney: i really -- i don't have -- nothinghas changed, if that's what the essence of
your question is. our position remains thesame. we have made clear what we believe is the appropriate path to take now, and we’reworking with our p5-plus-1 partners, as well as allies and partners around the world inthis effort, and we’ll continue to that. q jay, can you tell us which members of themuslim brotherhood, the group that's visiting right now in washington -- which members mighthave met with white house officials? mr. carney: i don't have names. i don't havenames for you. it is a matter of fact that the muslim brotherhood will play a prominentrole in egypt’s political life going forward. members of the muslim brotherhood met withjohn mccain when he visited -- and lindsay graham, two senators, when they visited egypt.and again, i don't have the names of folks
who are having meetings here in washington.but lower-level officials here at the nsc did have meetings with them. q a question on pakistan. as you know, thehead of lashkar-e-taiba, in a news conference there, where he basically said give me themoney, give me the reward money, and a pakistani government spokesman said that they need concreteevidence to have the charges withstand judicial scrutiny. what’s the response to that kindof a statement from pakistan in terms of -- mr. carney: i haven’t seen that, so i don't-- i don't think i have a response for you. q thank you, jay. first i want to go backto the monday summit between -- with president calderã³n and prime minister harper. did thesituation in syria come up in the conversation?
mr. carney: i don't know. i'll have to check.it would certainly be possible given that syria is a major topic of conversation rightnow among the world's leaders with the president. but i don't know for sure. q has the president started to build up somesort of support from the allies to a greater involvement in the region? mr. carney: well, we are working with -- by"the region" you mean syria? q syria, yes. and allies implied canada, notably. mr. carney: well, certainly. i mean, look,we are part of the "friends of syria." we have worked through that group. the secretaryof state has participated in that group and
we are working through that group to provideassistance to the syrian people and to further pressure the syrian regime to cease and desist.and i think we have seen kofi annan on his mission put forward a plan. i note that thesyrian regime said it would adhere to it, and then we've seen reports of terrible, terribleviolence continuing in syria. so we're focused on actions, not words. we'veseen -- there have been many, many occasions where the assad regime has made promises thatit has failed to keep. so we will continue to watch very closely what assad does, andwork with our allies through the "friends of syria" to continue to put pressure on thatregime. q last question. on keystone, i don't knowif -- we haven't been able to know if the
topic was touched on at that summit. but ijust want to -- when the prime minister, after at the woodrow wilson center, was asked ifwhat's called the northern gateway, sending oil to asia since it's so complicated throughthe u.s., he answered if the keystone pipeline was approved, if he could change his mind-- and he said, we cannot be as a country in a situation where really our one, in manycases, almost only energy partner could say no to our energy products. how do you react to the idea -- the fact thatcanada sees the president in this precise situation -- the prime minister sees the presidentin this situation having said no to canadian products?
mr. carney: well, first of all, i didn't seethose comments. secondly, you're -- and i think probably with eyes wide open -- misrepresentingwhat happened. but the fact of the matter is the pipeline proposal that was delayedbecause of the opposition of people in nebraska, led most prominently by the republican governorof nebraska -- the process of allowing for a new route to be submitted and consideredand approved was abruptly brought to a halt by the insistence, for political and ideologicalreasons, of the republicans to put -- to insert in a piece of legislation the non-germane-- utterly non-germane element of forcing a decision on the keystone pipeline, forcinga decision on a pipeline route that did not exist and as yet does not exist.
the president has made clear that when a newroute is submitted it will be reviewed in accordance with all the standards that havebeen in place for many, many years now. and hopefully, without any undue ideological effortsfrom the sidelines, it will be reviewed and considered and decided upon accordingly. in the meantime, as you know, because thepresident visited cushing, oklahoma, the president has called on federal agencies to expeditethe permitting process for the portion of that pipeline that would run from cushing,oklahoma down to the gulf of mexico, the approval of which and the building of which would relievea bottleneck that exists in oklahoma in the transporting of oil down to refineries inthe gulf. and the president, as you know,
i'm sure, and have reported on, has approvedmany pipelines, including international pipelines, including pipelines from canada that crossthe border with the united states. that's the accurate history of what happenedhere. i don't have any readout for you on the conversation between the president andthe prime minister on that subject. thank you very much. q is there any change in our standing withburma that's being announce today? mr. carney: i have nothing for you on that.the president and the secretary of state have made clear that we would meet positive actionstaken by the government there with a positive response. but i have no specific update foryou.
q she has a statement supposedly at threeo'clock. mr. carney: well, we'll all watch with interest.
0 comments:
Post a Comment