Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Mr. Carney: Hello, everyone.

  • Good to have you here today - another beautiful day here

  • in Washington, D.C., the nation's capital.

  • Fabulous weather.

  • I have a lot of toppers and I'm going to top with this one.

  • My first topper is, on Monday, September 23, the Vice President

  • and Dr. Jill Biden will travel to Colorado to view damage from

  • recent flooding and survey recovery efforts there.

  • The Vice President's office will be releasing additional

  • information as we get closer to Monday.

  • That's topper number one.

  • Topper number two, on Tuesday, President Obama will travel

  • to New York to attend the Clinton Global Initiative, where

  • he and President Clinton will engage in a conversation about

  • the benefits and future of health care reform in America

  • and access to quality health care around the globe.

  • I know that was confusing -- I said that he'll

  • travel to New York.

  • He will be in New York, as you know,

  • for the United Nations General Assembly.

  • Secondly, as you all know, following on the announcement

  • that he'll be having this conversation with former

  • President Clinton about the benefits and future of health

  • care reform, this conversation will take place one week before

  • the health insurance marketplaces open for business,

  • and Americans who do not currently have insurance will

  • be able to sign up for affordable, quality health plans

  • that meet their needs.

  • This conversation between the two Presidents will follow

  • up on the health care speech President Clinton gave

  • in Arkansas in early September and is part of a ramped-up

  • public education effort to reach Americans who want to sign

  • up for new affordable options in the health insurance

  • marketplaces from October through March.

  • Finally, today the Senate Judiciary Committee approved

  • Nina Pillard's nomination to be a judge

  • on the U.S. Court of Appeals for

  • the District of Columbia circuit.

  • There are now two highly qualified nominees for this

  • court pending before the full Senate, and we urge

  • their prompt confirmation.

  • As you may know, Pillard's career includes landmark

  • accomplishments on behalf of women and families.

  • She helped defend the constitutionality

  • of the Family and Medical Leave Act and helped open the doors

  • of the Virginia Military Institute to female students.

  • Today, Pillard is a professor at Georgetown Law School.

  • And I would remind you that the D.C. circuit has a strong

  • tradition of judges who were previously innovative scholars,

  • and that would include Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

  • Some Republicans continue to cynically raise arguments about

  • that court's workload, even though the court is more

  • than a quarter vacant today.

  • During the last administration, these very same senators

  • confirmed judges to the 9th, 10th, and 11th seats on this

  • very same court.

  • And earlier this year, these same senators confirmed judges

  • to circuit courts with fewer pending appeals per active judge

  • than is the case at the D.C. Circuit.

  • Right now there are 14 judicial nominees pending in the Senate,

  • including 12 who have the unanimous support

  • of the Judiciary Committee, and we urge the Senate to consider

  • Nina Pillard's nomination and all of the President's judicial

  • nominees without delay.

  • That was a lot of toppers, and maybe we can just wrap it up.

  • Or I'll take your questions.

  • Yes.

  • The Press: I appreciate it.

  • Thanks, Jay.

  • Today, House Speaker John Boehner said the House won't

  • vote to increase the debt limit without including some spending

  • cuts to reduce the deficit.

  • Is the President willing to give them?

  • Mr. Carney: The President has been and is willing to negotiate

  • with Republicans over a broad compromise on budget,

  • on funding and spending.

  • He has put forward his own proposal to do that.

  • And he urges Congress to act to make sure the government does

  • not shut down and continues to be funded, and, if necessary,

  • to pass a short-term extension of funding at current levels

  • in order to allow for further negotiations

  • on a broader budget agreement.

  • I would note that, in keeping with his promises,

  • and the Democrats, in keeping with their promises,

  • the President submitted a budget that represented compromise

  • and tough choices for Democrats, with broad-based deficit

  • reduction achieved through a balanced approach.

  • The Senate passed its own budget, as Republican leaders

  • insisted they must.

  • At the time, Republican leaders said we have to have regular

  • order; we have to have a situation where the House passes

  • a budget, the Senate passes a budget, and then, in accordance

  • with regular order, a conference is established

  • and a product is produced.

  • Except when that happened, and the Senate passed a budget,

  • the House decided it did not want to join in a conference,

  • and the House Republican leaders have refused to name conferees

  • for the budget now for about six months.

  • So that's a laying-down of the facts here when it comes

  • to the President's willingness to compromise to achieve

  • resolution and find common ground on budget issues.

  • And he looks forward to doing that in the future.

  • On the matter of debt ceiling, the answer is, no, we will

  • negotiate over Congress's responsibility to pay the bills

  • that Congress incurred -- Congress's responsibility

  • enshrined in the United States Constitution, which gives

  • Congress power over the purse strings here in this country,

  • to responsibly ensure that we do not default,

  • that the United States is good -- is true to its word and that

  • our full faith and credit will be upheld.

  • It's unconscionable to imagine that there are those

  • in the Congress -- and now, apparently, because he couldn't

  • persuade them otherwise, the Speaker of the House has joined

  • them, who believe that it is the right thing to do to threaten

  • another recession, threaten economic calamity in this

  • country and the globe, over their ideological desire

  • to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act.

  • We've had this battle.

  • That's how it works: You write legislation; you propose

  • legislation; you pass legislation.

  • It becomes law.

  • If people think it's inappropriate

  • or unconstitutional, they take it to the Supreme Court --

  • through the court system to the Supreme Court.

  • In this case, that's what happened and the Supreme Court

  • upheld the law, and we're implementing the law.

  • And if members of the Republican Party want to continue to try

  • to overturn the law through legislation, they can --

  • they have been doing that nonstop for

  • the past several years.

  • But they should not hold the full faith and credit

  • of the United States hostage to their insistence that they get

  • what they want in a manner that they couldn't

  • get through legislation.

  • That's our position.

  • The Press: Will the White House urge House Democrats to vote

  • for a clean debt ceiling, even though it would be at a level

  • reflecting a continuation of the sequester?

  • Mr. Carney: As I said the other day and I think as recently

  • as yesterday, and I think the SAP that we put out,

  • the Statement of Administration Policy, says that we would

  • be willing to accept a so-called clean CR at current spending

  • levels for several months to allow for continued negotiations

  • over a broader budget deal.

  • What we won't accept is further cuts in important

  • investments in our economy.

  • I think it's worth noting that the Republican --

  • House Republican budget approach enshrined in the Ryan budget was

  • rejected by House Republicans, who could not even pass

  • a transportation and housing bill out of committee.

  • I think that demonstrates that the Ryan budget is not

  • acceptable even among House Republicans.

  • But to answer your question, we would accept a clean CR for

  • a short term in order to continue the negotiations over

  • how we can find agreement over funding the government,

  • ensuring that we're protecting the middle class and helping

  • it grow, that we're creating jobs, and that we're reducing

  • our deficit in a responsible way.

  • What Speaker Boehner didn't note in his presentation today

  • is that the deficit has been coming down dramatically.

  • It has been coming down and is now slated to be half the size

  • it was when the President took office -- despite the enormous

  • economic challenges that our nation faced when the President

  • did take office and all that we had to do to avert a depression.

  • But there is more work to be done.

  • And we can responsibly reduce our deficit in the mid and long

  • term, and fund our necessary priorities to help the economy

  • grow, and help the middle class, and create good-paying jobs here

  • in the United States through investments in education

  • and innovation, research and development and infrastructure.

  • We just have to do it in a responsible way.

  • And we can't go to the nation -- or we shouldn't --

  • they shouldn't go to the nation and say, we couldn't get this

  • through normal means, so we're going to threaten your job,

  • your welfare, your security and future, so that we can defund

  • Obamacare, or delay it -- a proposition which would actually

  • increase the deficit.

  • So this is supposed to be all about spending, but they want

  • to increase the deficit to get what they --

  • what their ideology demands.

  • And I think we've seen, not just coming from here but from all

  • corners, including many corners within the Republican Party,

  • the view that this is a bad idea.

  • It's bad for the economy.

  • It's bad for the middle class.

  • It's bad for the Republican Party.

  • Obviously that's for Republican Party leaders and members

  • to sort out, what's good for them politically.

  • What we know is that this approach

  • is bad for the American people.

  • The Press: Can you just talk about Sunday?

  • Is there any more you can tell us about the President's plans

  • at the memorial service?

  • Is he going to speak, and might we hear anything about gun

  • control, like after Newtown?

  • Mr. Carney: I don't have a preview beyond what

  • I announced yesterday.

  • I think the President might speak, but I don't have anything

  • more specific than that to say about it.

  • When we have more information we'll provide it.

  • The Press: On Syria, in his interview with Fox,

  • President Assad said that he thought it would cost about

  • a billion dollars to destroy Syria's stockpile

  • of chemical weapons, and he suggested that the United States

  • should pay for it.

  • I'm wondering is the United States willing to finance

  • the cost of destruction of --

  • Mr. Carney: A couple of things.

  • He also said that somebody else was responsible for mass murder

  • of civilians using chemical weapons, including children.

  • And I suppose if you use poison gas to murder your own people,

  • including the children of your own nation, you probably

  • would deny it publicly.

  • We're working with the Russians on a framework that

  • Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov worked out with

  • their teams to implement a program that would identify,

  • verify and remove from Assad's control the chemical weapon

  • stockpiles in that country.

  • And this is obviously a complicated piece of business.

  • I don't have a cost figure associated with it.

  • What I can tell you is that it would be in the interest

  • of the Syrian people, the interest of the people

  • of the region, the interest of the United States and the people

  • of the world to see those chemical weapon stockpiles

  • safely removed from Syria -- removed from Assad's control

  • and destroyed, so that he cannot use them again in the deplorably

  • indiscriminate way that he used them against his own people.

  • The Press: So when it comes, though, to the cost

  • of doing that --

  • Mr. Carney: The folks working on the details of the plans might

  • have more information about what it would take, what it will take

  • to bring about the identification and transfer

  • and ultimate destruction of the chemical weapons.

  • And we're working with our teams on that.

  • But two things I would say -- is that the use of those weapons

  • is the absolute, clear responsibility of Assad.

  • The U.N. report, the inspectors' report reinforces what we've

  • been saying and what many nations around the world have

  • agreed with us in saying that Assad was responsible

  • for the attacks on August 21st.

  • Attempts to suggest otherwise have become farcical in their

  • weirdness and their disassociation

  • from established facts.

  • But none of that matters so much as the fact that Syria has now,

  • for the first time in its history, acknowledged that they

  • have chemical weapons and agreed to rid themselves

  • of chemical weapons.

  • And Russia has obviously joined with the United States

  • in producing this framework for achieving that.

  • Now, there's a lot of work to be done, but this is a significant

  • development over these past days.

  • And we're going about the business of trying

  • to make it happen.

  • The Press: Looking ahead to next week, are you moving toward some

  • kind of encounter at the U.N. between President Obama

  • and President Rouhani?

  • Mr. Carney: We have no meetings scheduled, as I said yesterday.

  • We have met with the Iranians through the P5-plus-1 process.

  • We communicate with the Iranians through a variety of methods,

  • as we've said in the past.

  • President Obama and the new President, Rouhani,

  • have exchanged letters, as President Obama noted

  • in a couple of interviews.

  • It has long been the position of President Obama since he was

  • a candidate and this was a matter of debate during

  • the Democratic primaries in 2008 as well as during

  • the general election, that he would, as President, be willing

  • to have bilateral negotiations with the Iranians provided that

  • the Iranians were serious about addressing the international

  • community's insistence that they give up their

  • nuclear weapons programs.

  • That is the position that we hold today.

  • The first words he uttered after he took the oath of office

  • included this sentence -- he being the President:

  • "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit

  • and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong

  • side of history, but that we will extend a hand

  • if you are willing to unclench your fist."

  • And that was a reference in his inaugural address to his

  • position stated during the campaign and throughout his

  • presidency that he'd be willing to have direct conversations

  • and negotiations with the Iranians provided that

  • the Iranians were serious about ridding themselves of their

  • nuclear weapons program and honoring the international

  • commitments that they've made.

  • Now, there have been a lot of very interesting things said

  • out of Tehran and the new government, and encouraging

  • things, but actions are more important than words.

  • And one of the reasons why we're seeing this change in rhetoric

  • we believe is because -- we know is because of the international

  • consensus that has been established with

  • the President's leadership behind the proposition that Iran

  • must give up its nuclear weapons program.

  • And that consensus has been backed with the most severe

  • sanctions regime in history.

  • And that sanctions regime has inflicted enormous harm

  • on the Iranian economy.

  • And the new President has made clear that he wants to --

  • or says that he wants to address that problem.

  • And to do that, he needs to demonstrate that he's serious

  • about resolving this conflict with

  • the international community.

  • I'm going to move -- instead of going regular order here,

  • I'm going to start on the right.

  • Starting on the right.

  • The Press: Thanks, Jay.

  • Can I get your reaction to Ann Curry's interview with Iran's

  • President, just following up on these questions, in which

  • he says that he doesn't plan to make a chemical weapon?

  • But then when he was asked about --

  • Mr. Carney: I think you mean -- sorry -- nuclear weapons.

  • The Press: Yes, sorry, nuclear weapon.

  • And then when he was asked about Israel, though, he described

  • Israel as an "occupier and a usurper government."

  • So, first of all, could you respond to his initial comments

  • about nuclear weapons?

  • Mr. Carney: Well, as I was just saying in answer to Roberta,

  • there's no question that new Iranian government has been

  • taking a different approach in the things that it has

  • said about a lot of issues.

  • And it has taken some actions that suggest a new approach,

  • and I don't want to diminish that.

  • That's obviously welcome.

  • And as I said yesterday, we are interested in testing

  • the seriousness of those assertions -- the desire,

  • the stated desire by the new government to improve

  • its relationships with the international community, knowing

  • that the only way to do that is to deal with this problem.

  • So I would put that statement and that interview within

  • the context of other things that have been

  • said along those lines.

  • And then the second question?

  • The Press: The comments about Israel --

  • he calls it a "usurper government."

  • When he was asked directly about whether he believed whether

  • the Holocaust was a myth, he sort of dodged that question.

  • So how do you square --

  • Mr. Carney: Well, I think that obviously -- I didn't see

  • the full text of the interview, so I'm taking your description

  • of it in answering this question.

  • But these are obviously important issues, and we have

  • seen certainly from President Rouhani's predecessor incredibly

  • offensive statements with regards to Israel

  • and the Jewish people.

  • So we are assessing and evaluating all the things

  • that the new government is saying and doing.

  • The Press: Did the President see the interview or the transcript?

  • Mr. Carney: The President is very, as he always is,

  • up to date on developments on this issue.

  • I don't know that he saw the interview, but I know

  • he's certainly aware of many of the things that the new

  • President has been saying, and members of his government

  • have been saying.

  • The Press: And then on Syria -- yesterday, a State Department

  • spokesperson said about the Saturday deadline for Assad

  • turning over his list of chemical weapons, she said,

  • "We've never said that was a hard and fast deadline."

  • So do you expect to actually get a full accounting of Assad's

  • chemical weapons by the first deadline?

  • And is it a hard and fast deadline?

  • Mr. Carney: Well, let me be clear about that.

  • We developed this framework because it is our stated goal

  • to prevent Assad from ever using chemical weapons again.

  • And fulfilling this framework by removing those weapons from his

  • control and destroying them would achieve that goal.

  • We believe the situation is so serious that action needs

  • to be taken as swiftly as possible so the Assad regime can

  • never use these weapons again.

  • And we expect the Syrian regime to abide by the timeline

  • in the framework, and for Russia to hold the Assad

  • regime to account.

  • Now, we need to stress that these are timelines and goals,

  • and we are all aware that something as complicated

  • as destroying a massive stockpile of chemical

  • weapons takes time.

  • And as we've said --

  • The Press: So it's not --

  • Mr. Carney: The framework makes a distinction -- and this

  • is what's important, and this goes to the question --

  • between the initial information provided by Syria that would

  • fall under a one-week timeframe and the formal

  • CWC Declaration -- the Chemical Weapons Convention Declaration

  • -- which is on a 30-day timeframe.

  • So we are looking at both and we will evaluate Syria's compliance

  • as we see information from Syria.

  • The Press: So I just want to be clear.

  • If they don't give you a full accounting by Saturday, it

  • doesn't necessarily indicate the deal has fallen apart?

  • Mr. Carney: There's an initial provision of information,

  • and that is the one-week deadline.

  • And we'll evaluate compliance when we see what

  • the Syrians have provided.

  • And then there's the 30-day deadline in accordance

  • with the convention.

  • Yes.

  • The Press: Thanks, Jay.

  • I'm not asking you about a Fed action, but asking you about

  • the President's performance on the economy.

  • When the Fed says that the economy is simply not strong

  • enough to take the training wheels off, is that not

  • an indictment of the President's policies,

  • since he's had five years now?

  • Mr. Carney: No.

  • I think that -- again, without commenting on Fed policy --

  • it is something that this President says every time

  • he speaks about the economy, that we have more work to do.

  • What all the actions taken at various levels to address these

  • severe economic straits we were in as a nation were meant

  • to do was to help propel this economy

  • in a different direction --

  • The Press: But they're saying it hasn't -- you got us out

  • of another potential depression, but the economy

  • has not propelled.

  • They haven't taken the training wheels off.

  • Why is that?

  • Mr. Carney: The economy is not where we need it to be --

  • The Press: Right.

  • Why?

  • Mr. Carney: What is true is that the economy policies that

  • produced the worst recession in our lifetimes, that had

  • us headed for a global depression with the prospect

  • of 25 percent unemployment, created a situation where when

  • the President was taking office, the nation was losing

  • 800,000 jobs a month.

  • The nation's economy was contracting at an annual rate

  • of 8 percent.

  • We ultimately lost more than 8 million jobs.

  • And thanks to the grit and determination and resilience

  • of the American people, thanks to policies that were put

  • in place in the months and years after the economic collapse,

  • we have seen this country grow steadily and produce 7.5 million

  • private sector jobs.

  • By definition, that is not a completion of the job.

  • And the fact is the unemployment rate is still too high; too many

  • Americans are still looking for jobs.

  • And that's why we should be investing in education,

  • not slashing education, which Republicans, especially

  • in the House, say we should be doing.

  • It's why we should be investing in our infrastructure to create

  • jobs today and create the foundation for future job growth

  • and economic growth down the line.

  • And we should be investing in research and development

  • and other aspects of our economy that will help it grow and help

  • it create jobs, instead of cutting all that in order,

  • in part, to preserve tax breaks for corporations that are

  • unnecessary, or other privileges that don't help

  • our economy grow.

  • The Press: Except, on that point of education, on August 2, 2011,

  • the President signs a Budget Control Act of 2011 --

  • the last time we had this big debt ceiling fight -- into law.

  • And he says, "We have $2 trillion in deficit reduction,"

  • the President says, "yet it also allows us to keep making key

  • investments in things like education and research that lead

  • to new jobs, and assures we're not cutting too abruptly while

  • the economy is still fragile."

  • August 2011.

  • Here we are more than two years later, you're saying the same

  • thing about we need to invest in education --

  • Mr. Carney: And how many jobs has the economy

  • created since then?

  • The Press: And Bernanke yesterday said it's not keeping

  • up, that people are leaving the workforce.

  • That's why the unemployment --

  • Mr. Carney: You and I, we're going to do this on Crossfire

  • one day, I promise.

  • And let's be clear that I'll be on one side and you'll

  • be on the other.

  • But what was true then is true today that we need to continue

  • to invest in education.

  • We need to continue to invest in infrastructure.

  • We need to continue to invest in areas --

  • The Press: The budget of 2011 did that, according

  • to the President.

  • Two years later --

  • Mr. Carney: Okay, first of all, as we discussed yesterday,

  • you need to -- we need to help you with your facts about what

  • happened in 2011.

  • There was a $1.1 trillion non-defense discretionary cut,

  • which allowed for us to preserve key investments

  • in education and elsewhere.

  • There was a call for additional deficit reduction, which

  • the President proposed a plan to do, which was balanced

  • and the Republicans rejected.

  • A super committee was tasked with finding a way to achieve

  • that, and if that was not achieved after another year,

  • the sequester would kick into place.

  • Now, the sequester is indiscriminant, across-the-board

  • cuts, which Republicans bemoaned, until, lacking

  • an alternative, they celebrated, including significant cuts

  • to our military readiness and cuts to Head Start

  • and other programs that are vital to millions of American

  • families across the country.

  • So again, if you're suggesting by this that we ought

  • to be cutting education, you should say so.

  • If you're suggesting we ought to be -- that's what the Republican

  • budget proposes -- that we ought to be cutting --

  • we ought not to be funding infrastructure.

  • The Press: The President said we were making those investments.

  • Two years later, the Fed says it's just not growing.

  • Mr. Carney: Ed, have we been growing?

  • Has the economy been growing?

  • Yes, it is.

  • The Press: Those are facts.

  • That's what he said.

  • He said it's just not growing quick enough for us to take

  • the training wheels off.

  • Mr. Carney: The President believes entirely that we need

  • to continue to make the key investments to have the economy

  • grow and create jobs.

  • And he agrees entirely with those who would say that

  • the economic policies that were in place that helped precipitate

  • the worst financial crisis and the worst economic crisis in our

  • lifetimes are mirrored by the Republican proposals

  • that we see today.

  • Republicans have put forward ideas that would bring us back

  • to policies that caused the worst job loss of our lifetimes.

  • That's a bad idea.

  • The Press: Last one is -- since you said you wanted to focus

  • on facts, yesterday you and the President talked about how

  • "never in the history of America has the debt ceiling been used

  • to extort a President."

  • You probably saw The Washington Post looked at that, looked

  • at the facts and gave you four Pinocchios.

  • So are you going to correct that today?

  • Mr. Carney: There is no question that prior to 2011, there has

  • never been a case where one party with one ideological

  • agenda has threatened to default on the United States obligations

  • for the first time in its --

  • The Press: -- not the first time --

  • Mr. Carney: Did not -- was default --

  • The Press: Richard Nixon wanted to lift the debt ceiling

  • and Ted Kennedy and other Democrats brought up a campaign

  • finance reform bill because of Watergate, correct?

  • Mr. Carney: No question.

  • Was anybody threatening default?

  • The Press: -- another party, right?

  • Ted Kennedy --

  • Mr. Carney: Was anybody threatening default?

  • Was anybody saying, if I don't get this --

  • The Press: They were days away.

  • Mr. Carney: -- if I don't get what I want, we'll allow

  • the economy to default?

  • The Press: That's what Kennedy was demanding --

  • a campaign finance reform bill.

  • Days away.

  • Mr. Carney: Ed, again, go look at the facts.

  • Go look at the history.

  • The Press: So why did The Washington Post give

  • you four Pinocchios?

  • Mr. Carney: You can ask The Washington Post.

  • The Press: So you're going to continue to say this

  • has never happened before?

  • Mr. Carney: Ed, why don't we look at what

  • Republicans have said?

  • Threatening default is a bad idea.

  • The Press: Let's look at what The Washington Post said.

  • You still haven't answered.

  • The Washington Post says four Pinnocchios.

  • Mr. Carney: Does anybody else want to watch Ed and me debate?

  • The Press: Well, you won't answer it -- four Pinocchios.

  • Mr. Carney: Yes, I said it is absolutely correct that prior

  • to 2011, no party to the budget agreements of the past had ever

  • threatened default if it did not get its way ideologically.

  • It did not happen.

  • And in 2011, we saw it happen.

  • And even the flirtation with default, the fact that there

  • were members of Congress on Capitol Hill who said, we should

  • default rather than reach an agreement with President Obama,

  • a compromise with President Obama -- that took an enormous

  • toll on our economy.

  • And people who think that this is fun and games ought to tell

  • it to those people who did not get jobs in August of 2011

  • or September of 2011 because of that behavior; people who

  • struggled to pay their bills for longer than they should have

  • because of that decision.

  • It was a mistake then, and I think the American people

  • saw it as a mistake.

  • And a lot of people, including a lot of Republicans, see

  • it as a mistake today.

  • Jim.

  • The Press: Jay, what has the President done in the last

  • 24 hours to prevent a shutdown or default?

  • And is he just stepping back and watching the Republicans

  • duke it out?

  • Is that what the strategy is at the White House?

  • Mr. Carney: Well, he didn't make any videos, but he did meet with

  • leading members of the business community to talk about the need

  • for all of us to work together to grow the economy, ensure that

  • the middle class is strong and getting stronger, and to avoid

  • both a government shutdown and a default.

  • I think you saw a statement from the Chamber of Commerce.

  • You've seen statements from across the board, including,

  • as I've noted, from Republicans of all stripes who believe that

  • the strategy, if you can call it that, employed

  • by House Republicans is a recipe for economic disaster

  • and, at least according to them, trouble for

  • the Republican Party.

  • The President has made clear that he's willing to discuss

  • how we move forward on our budget issues.

  • He's put forward a compromise budget proposal.

  • He spent a lot of time this year meeting with Republicans who

  • said they were interested in finding common ground

  • on our budget challenges.

  • And even as he has done that, we've presided over economic

  • growth and job creation, and a reduction

  • of our deficit by half.

  • He understands we need to do more, but we need

  • to do it in a way that's fair to the middle class.

  • What is not fair to the middle class is a shutdown that hurts

  • the middle class.

  • What is not fair to the middle class is default for the sake

  • of the ideological goal of defunding or delaying the

  • Affordable Care Act "I'm either going to take your job --

  • make sure you lose your job, or take away your access to health

  • insurance" -- that's the choice.

  • The Press: Are you quietly rooting for Ted Cruz?

  • Mr. Carney: I saw that somebody suggested he might be a secret

  • ally of the Democrats.

  • I'm not sure that's the case.

  • But I think that a lot of people have noted that the effort

  • to defund the Affordable Care Act is going nowhere,

  • and wasting time on it when we have urgent deadlines to protect

  • our economy and allow it to grow and help the middle class

  • is quixotic at best.

  • The Press: And, Jay, speaking of Obamacare and jobs lost,

  • the Cleveland Clinic says that because of concerns with health

  • care reform, it's cutting $330 million out of its budget,

  • that there may be jobs lost as a result.

  • What does the President have to say to Americans who may lose

  • their jobs due to the implementation of Obamacare?

  • Mr. Carney: Well, I have not seen any specifics

  • on that particular report.

  • What I can say is that there is no data that bears out

  • the assertion that the economy is losing jobs because

  • of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

  • What we have seen, even though you --

  • The Press: A spokesman for the Cleveland Clinic is saying --

  • Mr. Carney: Again, Jim, I appreciate it, and I'm saying

  • I don't know the details of that story.

  • What I can tell you is that when Republicans stand up and say

  • that the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare is raising health care

  • costs, they stand there and say that with a straight face,

  • knowing that the last three years have seen a reduction

  • in the growth of health care -- the lowest increase in health

  • care costs in 50 years, in the three years since

  • the Affordable Care Act was passed.

  • Okay?

  • So the cost of health care has -- the rate of increase has been

  • going down dramatically, and partly that is due to the

  • Affordable Care Act.

  • What we have seen in the data is that the vast majority

  • of the jobs created of those 7.5 million -- vast majority are

  • full-time jobs, not part-time jobs, as Republicans

  • and opponents of the Affordable Care Act will tell you --

  • again, contradicting the evidence that people are only

  • creating part-time jobs in order to --

  • The Press: You're saying that there is no evidence that any

  • jobs will be lost due to the implementation of health care?

  • Mr. Carney: I'm saying that there's no data that

  • backs that up.

  • I'm not saying that there isn't anecdotal evidence.

  • There is some anecdotal evidence, some people --

  • there has been an ongoing trend of employers, for example,

  • shedding employees from employer-sponsored

  • health care plans.

  • One of the reasons why we needed health care reform was to deal

  • with that growing problem.

  • And then when you see some employers say, well, now we're

  • continuing that trend but this time we're going to blame

  • it on a new law, it doesn't really pass the seriousness test

  • because this has been a trend that's been ongoing

  • for a long time.

  • And one of the reasons why, for people who cannot or do not have

  • access to employer-based insurance, can now buy --

  • when the marketplaces are in effect, can now buy insurance

  • at affordable rates that they could not buy before.

  • They did not have access to affordable rates.

  • I said the other day that there was a study that just came out

  • that showed that nearly six in 10 Americans who are uninsured

  • will have access to health insurance at a cost of less than

  • $100 per month.

  • And if all governors followed the Republican governors in some

  • states who have fully implemented or are fully

  • implementing the Affordable Care Act, including the expansion

  • in Medicaid, that nearly eight in 10 uninsured Americans would

  • have that access.

  • That's a huge deal for those Americans.

  • It may not be a huge deal for people who don't really offer

  • alternatives or care that much about whether those uninsured

  • Americans get health insurance, but it certainly matters to them

  • and their families.

  • The Press: And you mentioned the video.

  • You're obviously referring to Speaker Boehner's video.

  • Is that right?

  • Mr. Carney: Might have been.

  • (laughter)

  • The Press: -- that his office put out this morning, saying

  • that the President is more willing to negotiate with

  • Vladimir Putin than he is with House Republicans.

  • Mr. Carney: I'd say two things.

  • One, the President will be --

  • The Press: -- he has spent more time with Vladimir Putin.

  • Mr. Carney: That is irrefutably false.

  • The President has spent an enormous amount of time with

  • John Boehner over the years.

  • And I have no doubt and you can expect that the President will

  • be in conversations with congressional leaders

  • in the coming days about the need to deal with

  • these pressing deadlines.

  • The video I thought demonstrated a little Putin envy, a little

  • odd bit of Putin envy on behalf of the Speaker.

  • (laughter)

  • But maybe he can explain that.

  • The Press: What is Putin envy, exactly?

  • The Press: Jay, the President's Ambassador-at-Large for War

  • Crimes Issues, Stephen Rapp, said yesterday that

  • President Assad should absolutely be charged for crimes

  • against humanity and war crimes.

  • Is it the policy of the U.S. government that Assad should

  • be charged for war crimes?

  • Mr. Carney: There is no doubt that the Assad regime

  • is responsible for crimes against humanity and violation

  • of the laws of war.

  • Since the regime began its brutal campaign against

  • the Syria people, the United States has been clear that

  • those responsible for the atrocities in Syria

  • must be held accountable.

  • We have worked to support efforts by the international

  • community to gather evidence that could help build the

  • foundation for future efforts to hold accountable those

  • responsible for those atrocities in Syria.

  • And these efforts include

  • the U.N. Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, established

  • by the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the Syrian Justice

  • and Accountability Center, an independent organization that

  • the international community established in 2012.

  • So it's our view that Assad and his regime are responsible for

  • these, and we have undertaken all these efforts

  • that I just described.

  • The Press: So are you saying it is the policy that Assad should

  • be charged with war crimes?

  • Mr. Carney: Again, our position that those responsible for

  • the atrocities in Syria, atrocities that are clearly

  • crimes against humanity, must be held accountable.

  • Syria itself is not an ICC state party, and we have seen that

  • there is no realistic prospect that the Security Council will

  • refer the Syrian situation to the ICC or agree to establish

  • a U.N. tribunal, as was done for the former

  • Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

  • But we still believe that those responsible for these atrocities

  • must be held accountable.

  • The Press: So I want to ask you about something you said

  • at least twice over the past week from that podium.

  • You said that Assad, in a network interview, claimed that

  • he did not have chemical weapons.

  • What were you talking about?

  • And is that statement true?

  • Mr. Carney: Prior to the agreement by the Syrian

  • government, the Assad government, to the Russian

  • proposition agreed to with the United States that Assad would

  • give up his chemical weapons, they have insisted for years

  • that they do not possess chemical weapons.

  • And when asked, they have demurred or refused to answer,

  • or said at different times that they don't have them.

  • I don't think anybody doubts that that was their position

  • and that it has changed in the wake of the credible threat

  • of U.S. force in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons

  • and the developments that we've seen since then.

  • The Press: But, Jay, you have said before that you would never

  • -- it's important to have credibility and to get the facts

  • right from the podium.

  • So I'm just asking you very specifically -- because you said

  • this twice -- you said, and the most recent one was just

  • on Monday -- "President Assad, in a taped interview, appeared

  • on a network claiming that Syria did not have chemical weapons."

  • You said that a week ago today.

  • Mr. Carney: Look, I don't have the transcript of the interview.

  • There's no question that --

  • The Press: I have it here.

  • He did not say that.

  • In fact, he said exactly the opposite.

  • He said, "We never said that we have it, and we never said that

  • we don't have it."

  • Now, you said twice --

  • Mr. Carney: Okay, Jon --

  • The Press: I'm just asking --

  • Mr. Carney: Okay, fair point.

  • The Press: -- did you speak inaccurately?

  • Was that inaccurate?

  • Mr. Carney: I will concede, having not seen the transcript

  • recently, that he did not -- I'm taking your word for it --

  • say, we don't have them.

  • He refused to answer the question.

  • And for 20 years Syria refused to answer the question.

  • If it is now ABC's position that, in fact,

  • Syria has all along admitted --

  • The Press: ABC is not the issue.

  • I'm trying to get at whether or not you're speaking accurately

  • from the podium.

  • And if you want to correct the record, that's fine.

  • Because Assad said in his latest interview that he's never said

  • one way or the other, and you've said otherwise.

  • It's just a matter of credibility here.

  • Mr. Carney: Five nations in the world, Syria among them,

  • have refused to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention.

  • The Press: I understand.

  • I'm asking about what you said about the interview Assad

  • did last week.

  • Mr. Carney: And I understand.

  • What was clear from that interview -- and I accept

  • the time you spent dissecting these words -- but I accept that

  • Assad did not admit that he has chemical weapons, nor did

  • he deny that he had them.

  • What the world has known for 20 years, since the CWC was opened

  • for signatories, is that Syria would not admit to having

  • stockpiles of chemical weapons, even though the world knew they

  • had them, and that that changed because of the pressure placed

  • on Syria by the United States and its allies.

  • Major.

  • The Press: President Rouhani said in his interview that

  • he has complete authority to negotiate a nuclear weapons deal

  • with the United States.

  • Does this government believe that?

  • Mr. Carney: What we believe is that the dramatic effects

  • on the Iranian economy of the unprecedented sanctions regime

  • has made it clear to leaders of that country that it would

  • be in their best interests to deal with this problem.

  • Whether they will deal with it remains to be seen.

  • And the President has made it his policy from the time he ran

  • for office and took office that he is willing to meet with

  • and the United States is willing to have bilateral negotiations

  • with Iran if Iran is serious about addressing the problem

  • that the international community asserts that exists,

  • which is that Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon.

  • The Press: This goes to an assessment I'm trying to gather

  • about this new government --

  • Mr. Carney: About who's in charge.

  • The Press: -- and who's in charge, and what do we deduce

  • differently about Rouhani than we did about Ahmadinejad,

  • and its relationship with the clerics and the leadership above

  • the presidency in Iran.

  • Mr. Carney: These are excellent questions and ones that I know

  • keep Iran experts up late at night.

  • And I think that the only way to know the answer to those

  • questions is to test the proposition, is to test

  • the assertions of the Rouhani government that it wants

  • to improve its relations with the international community,

  • including the United States, knowing that the only way

  • to do that is to solve this problem, which is come clean

  • with the international community; rejoin it by agreeing

  • to in a verifiable way give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.

  • The Press: In the last couple of days, Iran has released

  • 11 political prisoners, some of them with notable

  • histories in Iran.

  • Rouhani also said in his interview that he would be open

  • to social media access in Iran that had been denied for years.

  • Where would you place these two developments in the arc --

  • Mr. Carney: Well, I'd say that the release of political

  • prisoners is a concrete action.

  • And I would say that rhetorically entertaining

  • the idea of providing access to social media is rhetoric.

  • And it's welcome rhetoric.

  • And I think that we are all watching very closely and with

  • interest, and listening closely and with interest to the things

  • that the new leadership has been saying.

  • And we are very interested in testing whether or not their

  • claimed desire to improve relations with the international

  • community will be backed up by action, and we hope it is.

  • We believe, as we've said all along, that there is still

  • an opportunity to resolve this issue diplomatically.

  • It is certainly in the world's interest

  • to resolve it diplomatically.

  • And we continue to pursue that through the P5-plus-1,

  • through various means.

  • But actions, in this case -- words are

  • no substitute for actions.

  • And we need to follow through on these openings and see how

  • serious the Iranians are.

  • The Press: I know you told us there's nothing

  • scheduled in New York.

  • What I'm more curious about is if it's even too early

  • to suggest a meeting between these two particular leaders.

  • Mr. Carney: I would say no, because, as I noted when I did

  • not do justice in my reading of a sentence from the President's

  • first inaugural, that he has been saying all along and did

  • so as a candidate that he'd be willing to have that meeting,

  • and he'd be willing to have the U.S. meet

  • and negotiate directly in a bilateral way with the Iranians,

  • as well as, of course, through the P5-plus-1, provided that

  • Iran demonstrates a seriousness about dealing

  • with this nuclear weapons program.

  • And we will see.

  • We will see.

  • The Press: So it's possible?

  • Mr. Carney: Well, I would just say that

  • in general, it's possible.

  • But it has always been possible.

  • The extended hand has been there from the moment

  • the President was sworn into office.

  • The Press: Might be more possible considering the events

  • we've just been talking about.

  • Mr. Carney: I would say that we obviously notice a significant

  • change in language and tone from the new Iranian government when

  • compared to its predecessor.

  • It's rather dramatic.

  • But it's important when we're talking about this incredibly

  • serious matter of a nuclear weapons program that we not just

  • take Iran's words for it, that we back

  • it up and see if it's real.

  • The Press: Two quick questions on Syria.

  • Getting back to what we discussed earlier, forgetting

  • or setting aside for a moment the $1 billion figure that Assad

  • mentioned, that seems more -- a substantive question

  • is the willingness of this government to state publicly

  • it will finance, to whatever degree necessary, because

  • it is such a priority, the pursuit of nonproliferation,

  • getting rid of these weapons, the mechanisms by which they

  • will be destroyed, and that price is really no object,

  • that whatever the price is required, the money will

  • be found, and if it needs to come from the United States

  • it will be there.

  • Can you say that?

  • Mr. Carney: Well, I think that this is all premature.

  • I haven't seen anything beyond what President Assad

  • has said about --

  • The Press: But it's going to cost -- everyone knows that.

  • Mr. Carney: Well, let's just --

  • The Press: What I'm trying to get at is the commitment

  • of the United States government to prioritize that in tax

  • dollars, because it's --

  • Mr. Carney: Well, we certainly believe that successfully

  • implementing this framework -- and by successfully, I mean

  • removing from his control Assad's chemical weapons and

  • ultimately destroying them -- is very much in the interest

  • of the United States, and is, as a matter of cost, comparatively,

  • when you talk about using military force.

  • Again, without dealing with numbers, the use of military

  • force is costly no matter how you look at it even when you're

  • talking about something of limited duration and scope.

  • So it is profoundly in our interest and it is an economical

  • proposition, broadly speaking, to remove successfully Assad's

  • weapons from him and destroy them.

  • I would also say that this is a goal that is an international

  • goal, and it is a goal that is being worked on with partner

  • nations, and worked on with fellow members

  • of the United Nations Security Council.

  • So the responsibility for fulfilling the framework will

  • not rest with the United States only.

  • The Press: One last thing about the Saturday deadline.

  • You obviously know, as people scrutinize Syrian compliance,

  • the first and lowest hurdle of that compliance is providing

  • information they already possess.

  • That should not be a difficult timeline for the Syrians

  • to meet, since they already have the information themselves.

  • And any slippage of that Saturday deadline would suggest

  • to people looking on the outside that the United States might

  • be flexible in ways it ought not to be to achieve compliance.

  • Mr. Carney: Well, we will evaluate --

  • The Press: -- information they already possess should be handed

  • over to prove their seriousness with complying

  • with this particular --

  • Mr. Carney: I wouldn't disagree with that.

  • And I think that we will evaluate Syria's seriousness

  • about compliance, based on a variety of benchmarks.

  • And the first one is the seven-day deadline.

  • The Press: The expectation of this government is that that

  • information is provided on Saturday and not a day later?

  • Mr. Carney: We certainly expect that Syria will uphold

  • its responsibility to provide this initial

  • piece of information.

  • And we will evaluate their seriousness based on both their

  • timeliness and the content of their submission.

  • The Press: Can you tell us what the White House's purpose

  • was in calling the Hill yesterday on the Fed nomination?

  • Mr. Carney: I'm not aware that the White House called

  • the Hill on the Fed nomination or any nomination.

  • You have to frame your question in a way that I can answer it.

  • The Press: We heard that the White House -- it was reported

  • that White House officials placed some calls to Banking

  • Committee members to talk about the Fed nomination.

  • Mr. Carney: I don't have anything new for you on that

  • or any other personnel matter.

  • The Press: Jay, the stock market, of course, yesterday

  • rose to new highs.

  • I'm sure you know about that.

  • Mr. Carney: Let me just say I don't comment on Fed policy.

  • The Press: I know that.

  • I'm not asking about Fed policy this time.

  • But does the President have any concerns that a potential

  • government shutdown, or a potential default, or both would

  • damage investor confidence?

  • Mr. Carney: Oh, yes.

  • Unquestionably.

  • Because history proves that it would be damaging to confidence

  • in the U.S. economy, especially when there's even

  • a flirtation with default.

  • We saw it in the summer of 2011.

  • Every economist will tell you that our economy took a hit

  • because of the suggestion that we might actually default

  • because of the ideological demands placed on those

  • negotiations by Republicans.

  • That was a bad outcome and wholly unnecessary.

  • And we need to make sure that we don't repeat it -- which is why

  • we should -- when it comes to the responsibility, never unmet,

  • of ensuring that Congress pays the bills it incurs, it should

  • just be done.

  • And nobody should attach poison pills to it and say that

  • if I don't get my poison pill, then let default happen.

  • That's just irresponsible.

  • And that's the position we've taken because of the threat

  • to our economy that even the flirtation with default poses.

  • The Press: All right.

  • To follow on Major's question on Iran, is it accurate then to say

  • that the White House is open to or preparing for a meeting?

  • Mr. Carney: There are no meetings currently planned.

  • The Press: I understand that.

  • Mr. Carney: And the openness question I answered.

  • We've been open as a general proposition to bilateral

  • discussions with the Iranians since the President took office.

  • And that was a controversial position

  • in the Democratic primaries.

  • It was a controversial position in the general election in 2008,

  • but it was the position the President believed was the right

  • one to take.

  • And it's the position he holds today.

  • It's conditioned upon Iran being serious about wanting to resolve

  • this obstacle, which is its insistence on developing

  • a nuclear weapons program.

  • The way to rejoin the international community

  • and relieve the pressure on the Iranian economy that has been

  • imposed on it by this sanctions regime is to come to terms with

  • the international community, forsake and give

  • up in a verifiable way Iran's nuclear weapons program,

  • and then move forward.

  • So we believe there's a window of opportunity that remains

  • open to do that.

  • It will not remain open forever, and we have been certainly

  • interested in some of what we have heard from the new Iranian

  • government about their interest in improving relations

  • with the international community.

  • The Press: And what about the trip tomorrow?

  • Can you tell us anything -- is that part

  • of the middle class tour thing?

  • Mr. Carney: I think we'll have more information on it,

  • but the answer is, he will be, obviously, talking

  • about the economy.

  • Cheryl.

  • The Press: Yesterday, to the business roundtable,

  • the President said he was willing

  • to discuss Republican priorities.

  • Is one of those priorities the Keystone Pipeline?

  • Was that on the table?

  • Mr. Carney: I mean, if the President said he was willing

  • to discuss Republican priorities, I think that's

  • consistent with what he's said all along and demonstrated

  • in all the negotiations he's had over the years with Republicans

  • over economic and budget policy.

  • I don't have a specific item to hang on it.

  • The decision about that pipeline obviously is something that's

  • reviewed and evaluated and housed over -- by and over

  • at the State Department.

  • So I think what the President said goes to what we've been

  • discussing earlier, which is, when it comes to reaching

  • a broader budget agreement, the President has consistently been

  • willing to seek common ground and to make reasonable

  • concessions to Republicans and to their priorities.

  • What he has not been willing to do is stick it to the middle

  • class in order to achieve some of their ideological agenda

  • priorities, and reach a compromise that benefits

  • the wealthy and corporations, rewards insurance companies, but

  • doesn't help the middle class -- in fact, hurts the middle class.

  • But, as you saw in his budget submission this year, as you saw

  • in his negotiations with the Speaker of the House at the end

  • of last year, he has been willing to put forward a plan

  • that addresses some of their stated priorities, and a plan

  • that, as scored by outside groups, would significantly

  • reduce the deficit further beyond what we've done thus far,

  • and do it in a way that goes beyond the sequester, replaces

  • the sequester, but allows for investments in the middle class

  • and investments in our future by doing it in a balanced way.

  • That's his position, as it ever has been.

  • Mr. Nakamura.

  • The Press: Jay, on immigration -- the President said the other

  • day in the interview with Telemundo that there's nothing

  • more he can do about deportations.

  • But immigration advocates are calling this a moral crisis,

  • the number of deportations under the Obama administration.

  • Is the White House basically saying that if Congress does not

  • pass immigration reform, your hands are tied, there's nothing

  • else you can do, and these high numbers of deportations will

  • continue the next three years?

  • Mr. Carney: What he has said and what he said in that interview

  • is that there isn't a plan B here

  • to comprehensive immigration reform.

  • And when it comes to deportations, or trying

  • to freeze them, he said, "To do so would be ignoring

  • the law in a way that I think would be very

  • difficult to defend legally.

  • So that is not an option."

  • And that's just the case.

  • The Press: So there are no other options?

  • There's no other things the White House

  • can do other to stop or --

  • Mr. Carney: Pass immigration reform,

  • comprehensive immigration reform.

  • The whole purpose of doing immigration reform

  • in a comprehensive way is that doing it that way solves a lot

  • of problems, helps the economy, helps the middle class,

  • increases growth, reduces the deficit, and resolves a lot

  • of the problems around the 11 million undocumented people

  • in this country, and provides a clear path to citizenship with

  • a lot of hurdles along the way, but a clear path.

  • So it was that approach that garnered a broad, bipartisan

  • majority in the Senate.

  • And it is that approach that if the Speaker of the House took

  • a break from the civil war he's engaged in with his own party

  • and put the Senate bill on the floor, would get a majority

  • in the House, and then the President could sign it into law

  • and do the Republican Party a huge favor by removing this

  • problem for their political future.

  • The Press: Some of the White House allies on immigration,

  • some of the groups have said in recent days after that

  • interview, that the President -- if immigration reform isn't

  • passed, and in some ways it's out of the President's hands,

  • he could go down as having one of the worst records

  • on immigration because of those high levels of deportations.

  • What's your reaction to that?

  • Mr. Carney: The President is obligated to enforce the law.

  • And as he said in Telemundo, there's not --

  • immigration reform proponents should not believe that there

  • is some plan B here that is a viable alternative

  • to the House of Representatives doing the right thing by America

  • and allowing a bill that has broad support across

  • the country, that has broad bipartisan support in the Senate

  • come to the floor so that it can be voted on and passed.

  • Just do it.

  • It won't hurt.

  • And the benefits will be enormous for the economy,

  • for the middle class, and even for the Republican Party.

  • The Press: Two quick Congress questions.

  • You said earlier that the President would

  • be in conversations with congressional leaders

  • in the coming days.

  • Can you elaborate on who he will speak with, when,

  • and in what format?

  • Mr. Carney: I can only say that you can expect that he'll have

  • conversations with leaders in Congress about these looming

  • deadlines and about the need for Congress to do the right thing,

  • make sure they don't shut down the government and make sure

  • they don't default.

  • I don't have any more details for you.

  • The Press: And there are some congressional Democrats who

  • believe a short-term continuing resolution locking in sequester

  • and what they believe are huge cuts in investments

  • to education, infrastructure, other things the President

  • believes in, would be a bad thing, perhaps even

  • worse than shutdown.

  • Why is a short-term CR better in the President's view?

  • Mr. Carney: Than shutdown?

  • The Press: Yes.

  • Mr. Carney: The administration is willing to support

  • a short-term continuing resolution to allow critical

  • government functions to operate without interruption, and looks

  • forward to working with the Congress on appropriations

  • legislation for the remainder of the fiscal year that preserves

  • critical national priorities, protects national security,

  • and makes investments to spur economic growth and job creation

  • for years to come.

  • That's our position that we should -- that as an alternative

  • to a bigger budget deal, which unfortunately doesn't look

  • achievable between now and October 1st, the government must

  • not be allowed to shut down, and that we would be willing

  • to support a short-term continuing resolution to allow

  • time for further negotiations.

  • We have seen because of the -- in one of the episodic examples

  • of the House Republicans' inability to pass legislation,

  • the bill through the transportation and housing

  • committee that was based on the Ryan budget failed.

  • The House Republican budget is not an option, obviously.

  • And we need to negotiate further to find a compromise that allows

  • for investments that are necessary

  • to spur economic growth.

  • The Press: When the President has done these middle class

  • economic events on the road before, Republicans often accuse

  • him of engaging in campaign-style politics,

  • particularly when there are crises in Washington.

  • Can you address that concern?

  • Mr. Carney: The President of the United States, as was true

  • of all of his predecessors and will be true of all of his

  • successors, believes that it is absolutely the right thing

  • to do to travel around the country to talk about his agenda

  • and what we need to do as a nation to grow the economy.

  • He'll continue to do that.

  • And, ultimately, members of Congress of both parties should

  • cast their votes based on what they believe is right for

  • the country, not because this President or any President

  • says they should vote one way or the other.

  • And so, because we live in a democracy, and because we have

  • representative government and we have Congress, and two houses

  • of Congress, it's important to talk to the people who then are

  • able to express their own opinion about what they think

  • we should be doing in Washington.

  • And he'll continue to do it.

  • The Press: Can I also ask -- in 2011, it was reported that

  • in the White House some were arguing that Republicans should

  • get their shutdown and learn their lesson.

  • That's obviously not the White House's public posture now;

  • it's not the President's opinion.

  • But have there been any people in the White House arguing

  • for that this time around?

  • Mr. Carney: Not that I've heard.

  • Look, it is not good -- it would not be good for the middle class

  • of this country, or for our general economy, to see a lapse

  • in the funding of government, essential government operations.

  • It hasn't been in the past, and it wouldn't

  • be in the near future.

  • So that's why, in answer to Jonathan's question, we are

  • willing to accept a short-term continuing resolution keeping

  • funding at current levels to avert a shutdown and allow us

  • time to continue to negotiate over a sensible compromise

  • on a broader budget agreement.

  • All of that would be easier if the House would simply appoint

  • conferees, as they said they would, to negotiate the budget

  • passed by the Senate and the House.

  • But because they haven't done that for the past six months,

  • and we obviously need a little more time, we would

  • support that short-term CR.

  • But it is not our policy and not our view that a shutdown would

  • be anything but bad.

  • April.

  • The Press: Jay, on two subjects.

  • Debate on the Hill right now -- Democrats and Republicans

  • are fighting over SNAP.

  • Where does the White House stand when it comes to these

  • large cuts in SNAP?

  • Mr. Carney: Well, as we said at the time when this was evolving,

  • it's unconscionable in our view to literally take food out

  • of the mouths of hungry Americans in order to, again,

  • achieve some ideological goal.

  • And there's a very interesting article in National Review

  • Online right now that argues that this is bad policy for

  • the Republicans, that conservatives are crazy

  • to do this and they should not do it.

  • It is wrong.

  • This program lifts 4 million people out

  • of poverty every year.

  • And to punish them when we can protect the most vulnerable

  • Americans, move forward economically, grow our economy,

  • invest in our economy, and reduce the deficit

  • if we do it in a balanced and responsible way, is just

  • terrible policy and it's insensitive.

  • The Press: I want to go to another subject.

  • I'm looking at a February 25th, 2013 briefing on whitehouse.gov

  • with Janet Napolitano standing at that podium

  • where you are, and all of this comes to play

  • in the midst of a possible government shutdown October 1,

  • the money woes in October that could be coming.

  • And one thing that's striking, it says -- and it kind of goes

  • to the Navy Yard situation as well -- she responded

  • to Ed Henry and she said, look, I don't think we can maintain

  • the same level of security at all places around the country

  • with sequester as without sequester.

  • Did sequester affect what happened at the Navy Yard?

  • Were there less patrol officers there because of sequester?

  • Mr. Carney: I think I got this question earlier in the week,

  • and I don't have an answer to that.

  • I've seen some answers from people who have in-line

  • responsibility for it -- well, no, from folks at the Navy

  • or the Navy Yard, and I would refer you to them.

  • I'm not aware that that was an issue, and I think that what you

  • saw was a rather remarkably fast first responders response, based

  • on the accounts I've read.

  • But having said that, I would refer you

  • to the Navy Department, to Pentagon on it.

  • The Press: And staying in line on the financial picture,

  • with that -- with what Janet Napolitano said in February,

  • and again, looking at the picture in October,

  • the possibilities of the picture in October,

  • where will the nation stand?

  • I mean, we asked her at that time, would we be vulnerable?

  • She said yes --"yes."

  • Will the nation -- if there is a shutdown and other things happen

  • in October, how vulnerable will this nation be with sequester

  • already in play?

  • Mr. Carney: Well, there's no question, April, that a shutdown

  • would have negative effects on millions of people

  • and on our economy.

  • And it's wholly unnecessary to entertain a shutdown, again, for

  • the purposes for achieving some empty political victory, which

  • would turn to dust and ashes pretty quickly politically.

  • So we don't need to do that.

  • We need to just responsibly find common-sense solutions to our

  • budget challenges and not refight,

  • re-litigate old battles.

  • And, in that spirit, we've said that we would accept

  • a short-term continuing resolution to allow

  • for further negotiation.

  • We've also said that in the name of the economy

  • and in the proposition that the United States always pays

  • its bills and meets its obligations, nobody should

  • be entertaining for political purposes

  • the prospects of default.

  • Chris, and then Mike.

  • The Press: The Oklahoma National Guard announced this week that

  • it will no longer accept spousal benefit applications for troops

  • in same-sex marriages, despite guidance from the administration

  • saying these benefits should be available nationwide.

  • This means Oklahoma is joining Texas, Mississippi,

  • and Louisiana in withholding these benefits.

  • Is the President aware of this and believe these installations

  • are violating federal policy?

  • Mr. Carney: I do not know the answer to the question

  • about the President.

  • I would refer you to the Department of Defense on it.

  • And I can take your question and we can talk about it later.

  • I'm just not aware of these developments.

  • The Press: Just a question, Jay.

  • Why is the Vice President going to Colorado, not the President?

  • Will the President be looking at a trip later?

  • Mr. Carney: I don't have any scheduling announcements

  • for the President.

  • Obviously, the President is going to the United Nations

  • General Assembly on Monday and Tuesday.

  • And the Vice President is going out to view the damage

  • caused by the terrible flooding in Colorado and to meet

  • with affected families.

  • The Press: -- scheduling thing?

  • Mr. Carney: Again, I think it's entirely appropriate

  • for the Vice President to make this visit with Dr. Biden.

  • I don't have any other updates on the President's schedule.

Mr. Carney: Hello, everyone.

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級

13年9月19日:白宮新聞簡報會 (9/19/13: White House Press Briefing)

  • 119 5
    Vincent Chang 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字