Mr. Carney:
Good afternoon,
ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for being
here on this Monday.
It's Monday, right?
Good.
Before I take your questions,
I have something to say
about health care reform
and saving consumers money.
Today we are focusing on
the savings that millions
of consumers have already seen
because of the health care law's
provisions that ensure
Americans receive more value
for their health
insurance premium dollars.
For decades before
the Affordable Care Act,
insurance premiums skyrocketed
for many middle-class families.
And while insurance companies
still set premiums rates today,
the health care law put into
place new rules to make sure
that the vast majority of
consumers' premium dollars
were being spent
to improve the quality
of their care and
to better protect against
unreasonable
increases in premiums.
First, the law requires
insurance companies
to spend at least
80 percent of premiums
on medical care and on efforts
to improve the quality of care,
instead of things
like overhead or profits.
If they don't, insurers have
to send consumers a refund
to meet this threshold,
either through a check
in the mail or by
lowering future premiums
or through another means
of refunding these savings
to the consumer.
Almost 80 million consumers
saved $3.4 billion up front on
their premiums in 2012, and
8.5 million customers received
an average refund of
approximately $100 per family.
The health care law also
requires insurance companies
to post publicly and justify
any proposed rate increase
of 10 percent or more.
As a result of state
action and public scrutiny,
many insurers are withdrawing or
decreasing proposed rate hikes.
If the Affordable Care
Act were repealed,
these refund checks would
no longer be required --
safe to say they'd
no longer be sent.
And yet another way -- which is
yet another way the Republican
repeal plan would
potentially raise costs
for millions of Americans.
I have a graphic
to go along with it.
With that, I will
take your questions.
The Press:
Thanks, Jay.
Over the weekend, Paul Ryan
spoke about wanting to extract
concessions from Democrats
in the next fight over raising
the debt ceiling next year.
Does the President's position
from the previous debt ceiling
fight that you will not
negotiate over raising the debt
ceiling, does that hold true
for the next debt ceiling fight?
Mr. Carney:
The President's position
has not changed,
and I would point
you to two things.
One, I think Congressman Ryan as
well as Senator Murray deserve
a lot of credit
for the compromise they reached
on the budget deal.
As I said last week,
it's a small step,
but given the expectations
that have been set
over recent periods by Congress,
it's an important step.
They exceeded expectations
by proving that a return
to regular order can be good
for our economy --
is good for our economy
and good for the middle class.
That's why we hope to see the
Senate follow what the House did
by passing the budget agreement.
And we hope to see what outside
forecasters are predicting,
which is that as a
result of the rather new notion
of certainty created by
a two-year budget deal,
that we might see
added economic growth
and job creation as a result.
That would certainly
be a welcome change
from what we've seen,
certainly most recently in
October when Republicans
in the House decided to shut the
government down out of partisan
pursuit and to threaten
default for the same reason.
So we do not expect Republicans
to walk that path again,
precisely because it
proved to be so disastrous
for them politically
and, more importantly,
for the economy
and for the middle class
when they went down
that path in October.
I would point you to
numerous statements,
including from the leader of the
Republican Party in the Senate,
who have promised that
Republicans wouldn't do that
again, and we certainly don't
expect them to do that again.
So right now we're focused on
the positive accomplishment
that we're seeing develop in
Congress now over the budget.
We hope and expect
the Senate to act,
and then we can continue to
address the many agenda items
that need to be addressed when
it comes to growing the economy
and helping the middle class.
The Press:
But if they do
pursue that again,
considering that their budget
chairman has said --
Mr. Carney:
I said the President's
position hasn't changed.
But I would simply suggest that
the numerous statements
from Republican leaders of all
stripes essentially forsaking
that strategy would lead us to
believe and might lead you
to believe that they won't
pursue that strategy again.
It's bad for the economy,
bad for the middle class;
at least some people think it's
bad for the Republican Party.
The Press:
And can you update us on
anything that the White House
is doing actively to push
for extension of unemployment
benefits other than merely
calling on Congress to do that?
Is there anything going
on behind the scenes here?
Mr. Carney: Sure.
We're working with
Congress directly
on how we make this happen.
It's happened in the past.
It happened under
President George W. Bush
when the unemployment rate
was significantly lower
than it still is today;
when the average unemployed
person was unemployed
for 17 weeks as
opposed to 36 weeks,
which is the truth today --
the unfortunate truth.
Despite all the progress that
we've made in bringing the
rate down and despite all
the jobs that have been created
in the private sector,
we still have more work to do.
And there's still
too many people out there
who depend on these benefits.
And so we will work
with Congress continually
to try to find
a way to make sure
that these benefits
are extended,
as they have been in the past.
The Press:
And some of the Republican
groups that had been --
some Republican leaders
who have been pushing back
against some groups that
have put them in a corner,
recently we've heard some of
those groups come back and say
that they think that
Speaker Boehner was maybe
trying to lay the groundwork
for immigration next year
by creating some distance there.
Do you share that assessment?
Mr. Carney:
The only assessment we have
is that it is
absolutely imperative
that Congress pass comprehensive
immigration reform.
And there are just myriad
reasons for why that's
a good thing to do, including
very conservative reasons
as to why that's a
good thing to do.
And we think that the
broad-based support we saw
in the Senate, the broad support
across the country from business
and labor, law enforcement and
faith communities demonstrates
that this is an issue that
can and should be embraced
by Democrats and Republicans.
And we remain very hopeful that
the Republicans in the House
will pass comprehensive
immigration reform
the way that the Senate passed
comprehensive
immigration reform.
It's the right thing to do.
And as I've said many
times in the past,
it's good for the economy,
it's good for the middle class,
it's good for border security,
it's good for innovation,
and as at least some
observers have said,
it would be good for the
Republican Party --
again, going back to --
like, you could
sort of pick your reason
for doing it, but we think
it should be done.
And we're optimistic that
Republicans will do it.
Eventually we hope they will.
Steve.
The Press:
Would the President consider
amnesty for Edward Snowden
if he were to turn over
all of his documents?
Mr. Carney:
First of all, our
position has not changed
on that matter at all.
And what I can tell you is that
Mr. Snowden has been accused of
leaking classified information,
and he faces felony charges
here in the United States.
He should be returned
to the United States
as soon as possible
where he will be accorded
full due process and
protections in our system.
So that's our position
and it has not changed.
The Press:
One of the NSA officials
brought this up.
Is this --
Mr. Carney:
He was expressing
his personal opinion.
These decisions are made by
the Department of Justice,
and I would refer
you there for more.
But there's been no
change in our position.
He has been
charged and accused
of
leaking classified information.
He faces felony charges here.
He ought to be returned
to the United States --
again, where he will face
full due process and protection
under our system
of justice that we hope
he will avail himself of,
and we are obviously
pressing the Russians
and others on that issue.
The Press:
And on health care,
you're coming up on the
December 23rd deadline.
What assurances
has the White House received
from insurance companies
that they will be flexible?
Mr. Carney:
Well, we have taken
a series of steps
to ensure that all those
Americans who enrolled,
or enroll by December 23rd and
are seeking insurance coverage
by January 1st are covered.
And we are taking a number
of steps to do that,
and that includes the sort of
belt-and-suspenders approach --
reaching out to those who
believe they have enrolled,
or have enrolled, to make sure
that they are aware of deadlines
for paying their premiums;
that all their information
is correct, as we've talked
about when we have discussed
the backend issues,
the 834 forms.
We're working to make sure
that all of those 834 forms
are accurate,
both past and present 834 forms.
And I think there's
been some reporting
that shows the progress
we've made in the transmission
of that information,
and we're continuing
to work on the site
on those issues and others.
So we're focused on
this issue very closely,
the team that is working
on the implementation
of the Affordable Care Act
and working on the
improvements to the website
and working directly
with insurers to make sure
that the fixes that
have been in place
have had the desired effect in
terms of improving the accuracy
of the information that's
conveyed to insurance companies,
and making sure that
those problems that existed
in the past and the
results of those problems
when there are inaccuracies
are addressed,
so that those who enrolled
or believed they enrolled,
that they're made
whole essentially;
that they know that
they're in the system,
that they're insured,
and that they take the steps
necessary to pay their premiums.
Moving around.
Jessica.
The Press:
Question related to the NSA.
This is something
coming from a lot
of our foreign press colleagues,
this idea that a lot
of countries have a problem
with the NSA spying
on their citizens,
which is under
a different set of rules
than obviously surveillance
of U.S. citizens.
Can you say whether or
not you would consider
limiting the surveillance
of foreign citizens
since you're addressing
this domestically?
Mr. Carney:
Well, I think the President
has made clear that
in the reviews that
he has asked for,
that we are looking
at the entire system
of intelligence-gathering
and evaluating it
through the lens of whether
we are doing everything
that we can and should
in order to protect Americans
and protect the
United States and our allies;
or are we doing
more than that --
are we doing things
just because we can,
because we have the tools
and capabilities to do that.
So that process
remains underway.
When it comes to the concerns
raised by other countries,
by allies, we are communicating
with him directly through
diplomatic channels.
We have engaged in
a variety of levels
with different
countries and leaders,
as well as counterparts
at the State Department-level
and elsewhere on these matters,
and we have taken steps to
address those concerns and
explain what we do in order to
try to allay those concerns
as we review this process.
What I can tell you
is that on Friday,
the President's Review Group on
Intelligence and Communications
Technology submitted its
report to the President.
The President is
grateful to the group --
that includes Richard Clarke,
Michael Morell,
Geoffrey Stone, Cass Sunstein,
and Peter Swire --
for devoting themselves
to this effort over the past
several months and
providing thoughtful input
for the administration
to consider
as we conclude
the ongoing interagency review
of signals
intelligence collection
being led by the White House.
The review group's report
draws on the group members'
considerable expertise and
intelligence, counterterrorism,
civil liberties law,
and privacy matters,
and on consultations
with the U.S. government,
privacy, and
civil liberties advocates
in the private sector.
Over the next several weeks,
we will be reviewing the review
group's report and its more
than 40 recommendations
as we consider the path forward,
including sorting through
which recommendations
we will implement,
which might require
further study,
and which we will
choose not to pursue.
We expect the
overall internal review
to be completed in January.
After that, the President will
deliver remarks to outline
the outcomes of our work, and at
that time we will make public
the review group's full report
and other conclusions
of our work.
The Press:
Can we follow on that?
Mr. Carney:
Yes, follow-up, sure.
The Press:
On Kim Jong-un
reappearing over the weekend,
really today,
after the death of his uncle,
is there any
White House reaction on that?
Mr. Carney:
We don't have
any reaction here.
We expressed our
views on the reports
about his uncle last week.
For more, I would refer you
to the State Department.
Jon and then Brianna.
The Press:
Jay, as we approach
this deadline
for people to enroll
by the first of the year,
how confident are
you that all of those
who lost their insurance will be
able to enroll in new insurance
by January 1st?
Mr. Carney:
I think, Jon, as we've
talked about a lot lately,
we are working overtime
to make sure that everyone
who wants insurance
by January 1st --
coverage by the 1st
is able to get it.
Those who have -- either they
enrolled early in the process in
the post-October 1st period and
experienced some problems with
their enrollment, perhaps some
accuracy issues on the backend,
we've taken steps to address
that to make sure all the
information that's necessary
has been accurately conveyed to
insurance companies, that the
two entities are linked up --
the enrollee and the issuer --
and that premiums --
that enrollees know when
their premiums are due.
When it comes to those who
received cancellation notices,
those who fall into that group
that the President discussed,
we obviously took action to
encourage states to allow for
a greater duration, an extension
of the current policies
that they have,
and a number of states --
I think more than half --
have taken that up.
So we're working as hard as we
can to make sure that everybody
who wants coverage by January
1st receives coverage
by January 1st in all the ways
that I discussed in answer
to Steve's question.
The Press:
But taken in its totality,
all those efforts,
I mean, not all the
states went along --
you said half did.
Taken in totality, is the
White House reasonably confident
that everybody who needs
to get coverage by January 1st
will be able to be covered?
Mr. Carney:
Well, obviously there are --
this is a six-month
enrollment period
and there are
uninsured Americans who may not,
for a variety of reasons --
may not enroll
until January
or February or March.
I don't think the expectation
was that every uninsured
American would have
insurance on January 1st --
as welcome as that
development would be.
The Press:
I guess I'm specifically asking
if those who need coverage
because they lost
their coverage --
they got those
cancellation notices.
Mr. Carney:
Again, I think we're working
very closely with the states
and issuers to ensure
that those who are seeking
to purchase insurance, enroll in
insurance on the exchanges
are able to
in time for January 1st.
I think that that
universe also --
you have to parse
it pretty carefully,
because people who got
notices didn't necessarily
get notices that their policies
ended on December 31st but
that they would not be renewed
when those policies ran out,
and that could be any time
through a period of months
into the next year.
So the action the President
took was to basically waive
the requirement in the ACA and
therefore to make it possible
for state insurance commissions
to extend those existing
policies further
than previously allowed.
So we're working very
closely, again, as I said,
to make sure that everybody who
wants insurance on the market
is able to get it.
We're also, obviously, working
very closely with those states
that chose to expand Medicaid
to ensure that those who qualify
under the expanded Medicaid
program are getting the coverage
that they now qualify for.
The Press:
Are you able to guarantee
that everybody who enrolled
on the website by December
23rd will actually have
their insurance policies go
into effect by January 1st?
Mr. Carney:
What I can tell is that
we are working overtime
to make sure that every 834 form
is accurate when it goes
to the issues of the backend
problems that existed,
and I think you've seen a lot of
reporting on how those backend
issues have been addressed --
or continue to be addressed.
One of the processes here is to
ensure that those who enrolled
are in communication
with their issuers
to make sure they know
when their premiums are due,
and that's something that
we're trying to help facilitate.
And all I can tell you is
we're doing everything we can
to make sure that
everyone who has enrolled
and who pays his or her premium
is aware of all the information
they need to do that and
is covered on January 1st.
And this is something
we're going to push through
all the way to the
end of the month.
The Press:
But some will fall
through the cracks.
Mr. Carney:
I can't speculate about
who may fail to pay his or her
premium or what may happen.
All I can tell you is what
we're doing now to make sure
that all of the
forms are accurate,
to make sure that everybody
is being contacted
who may have enrolled
and may not be sure
that the information
got to their issuer.
And we are doing that --
CMS is doing that
very aggressively.
Brianna, and then
I'll go back again,
and then I'll come to the front.
The Press:
You said you're sort of --
it seems like maybe
putting some of the onus
on people needing
to follow through,
make sure that they
paid for their plans.
But it's hard for them to pay
for it if there's I think,
what, 10 percent of
enrollment files at this point
there are still errors.
So there's a part of the --
I guess my point
is just it seems like
you're leaving room --
The Press: Sure.
I wasn't trying to
combine the two.
I was saying that one of
the things that we're doing
is making sure that
those who have enrolled --
The Press:
People need to know
they have to pay
and that they're not
fully enrolled unless they pay.
But it seems --
Mr. Carney:
Right, that they
need to pay on time.
And we're working with issuers,
encouraging them
to be flexible --
The Press:
Yes, and to reach out.
We hear you saying that.
But it seems that you're
leaving room for the fact
that there may be a lot
of people who want insurance,
who apply for insurance,
who enroll for insurance,
and who really need to
have it by January 1st
but they may not
have it January 1st.
Mr. Carney:
What I'm saying is that we are,
as I've been talking about for
at least a couple of weeks now,
taking all the steps
we can to reach out --
we being the administration,
CMS principally --
reaching out to those who
have enrolled to make sure
that their
information is accurate,
the information
conveyed to the issuers;
making sure that they are in
contact with their insurance
company so that they know
when premiums are due.
We've taken steps to encourage
insurers to be flexible
in terms of the
receipt of premiums,
again with the mind
to making sure that everybody
who has enrolled and seeks
to be covered by January 1st
is covered.
And we have engaged in a process
of evaluating all those
834 forms to make sure
that they are accurate,
especially -- including those
going back into October,
which is a relatively
small pool,
given the trouble
we had with the site,
but where there were more
problems throughout the site,
including on the backend.
So when it comes to everything
that we can do, we are doing it,
and with the idea
that those who have enrolled
and seek insurance coverage
by January 1st will get it.
Again, we extended the deadline
from the 15th to the 23rd;
we've taken steps to encourage
insurers to be flexible;
and are working on all the
issues with the 834 forms.
The Press:
How problematic is that rate,
the 10 percent error rate
for enrollment files?
Mr. Carney:
Look, I think there's
been a lot of reporting
on this, and I think what you've
seen is a dramatic reduction
in the problems
with the 834 forms.
There are some --
The Press:
I'm talking about
like where it is now.
I mean, we know there's been --
it went from thousands
of enrollment files
that weren't transmitted.
But that rate, I guess I'm
trying to get a sense of how
it's been communicated to the
White House and the President,
and how problematic --
Mr. Carney:
But you're citing
data that also is --
since the beginning
of December enrollments
that did not generate
the necessary transaction form
that goes to the
insurance company --
in other words, that backend
problem has been close to zero
since the November
30th deadline.
So obviously there are past
problems that we're addressing,
but in this month --
The Press: But the 10 percent
that still may have some errors,
like how big
of an issue is that,
I guess?
Mr. Carney:
I think it's been clear
that it's our top priority.
CMS's top priority is making
sure that every 834 form --
both past and
present -- is accurate.
So that my point about
December is that the fixes
that have been made to the
site have resulted in a lot
of improvements including
the fact that the enrollments --
that the problem we had when our
enrollments weren't generating
834 forms has been
reduced to zero, close to zero.
That doesn't mean
that we don't have
to deal with those enrollments,
those 834 forms that
were inaccurate
or where they were not
completed or did not send,
and that's what CMS has been
working on to make sure
that all of those past
834 forms are accurate
so that those who enrolled
for insurance on January 1st
are able to get it.
The Press:
And I know you've
been asked about this,
but it's been a couple weeks --
has the President signed up
for insurance yet?
Mr. Carney:
I have no updates on that.
The President will purchase
insurance on the exchanges.
The Press:
Is there like a time --
he doesn't have to do it.
He doesn't need it by the 1st.
Mr. Carney:
He doesn't.
Obviously, the enrollment
is still March 31st.
So when we have an update
on it we'll provide it to you,
but our guidance
on that has not changed.
The Press:
And what exchange will it be?
And also, will we get
a chance to see him do it?
Mr. Carney:
I just don't have any
new information on that
beyond what we said in the
past, which is that he will.
Jon-Christopher.
The Press:
Assuming that the
Senate passes the bill,
the Ryan-Murray bill, what
assurances can the President
give a very anxious global
financial market that this may,
in fact, be the end
of financial uncertainty,
including the debt ceiling --
raising the debt ceiling?
Mr. Carney:
Well, I would point you
to what I said earlier
about the small but important
step that has been taken here
by Congress and that this
budget deal represents:
compromise by both sides,
bipartisan cooperation,
and a return to regular order.
And what a return to
regular order means is that,
at least in this instance
and hopefully moving forward,
this period of governing
by crisis and governing
by congressionally generated
crisis has at least,
if not come to an end, has been
pushed back into the future
for some time.
And we hope,
as I mentioned earlier,
that when it comes
to the full faith and credit
of the United States
and any willingness or
suggestion that Republicans
would again threaten to default,
that that will not be the case
because of all the damage
that that approach has done
to our economy and to the
middle class, to job creation,
and to the Republican Party.
So we're very hopeful that the
many Republican leaders
who have said that they will
not go down that road again,
go down the same road
they went down in October,
speak broadly for the party
itself and for Republicans
in Congress, and that
would be a good thing.
That's why we welcomed
the deal that Senator Murray
and Chairman Ryan produced,
because as we've seen
in the private
sector analysis,
merely the certainty
created by it would be
a positive for the economy,
for growth and job creation.
And that's a good thing.
And the details
would also be --
in the buying down
of the sequester,
that obviously has
positive impacts
because it means that we're
able to invest in very key
and necessary areas
of our economy
so that it grows and
creates jobs and lays
a foundation for the future
on scientific research
and other areas.
So this is what counts
for significant progress
in a period when Congress
has been inflicting wounds
on the economy instead
of making it easier to grow
and create jobs.
Major, and then Chuck.
The Press:
CBS News talked to Iranian
Foreign Minister Zarif
yesterday about the Friday
decision or announcement
of freezing of assets and
transactions for companies
evading existing sanctions.
He called it a very wrong move,
and he said the process --
meaning the technical
discussions --
over implementing phase
one has been derailed,
it has not died.
What's your reaction
to those comments,
that the process
of reaching agreement
on phase one implementation
has been derailed?
Mr. Carney:
Well, we made clear,
and I think that the
Foreign Minister's comments
in many ways reinforced this,
that implementing
existing sanctions
was always intended and not part
of the Joint Plan of Action,
not part of the
preliminary agreement.
Our call on Congress to refrain
from passing new sanctions
came with it the assurance that
we would continue to maintain
the existing sanctions structure
and we would continue
to implement existing sanctions,
which the action that was
announced last week represented.
And we continue to prepare --
The Press:
Did that help you calm things
down on the Hill a little bit?
Mr. Carney:
It is a fulfillment of what
we've been doing all along.
And again, the issue here
is new sanctions
versus existing sanctions.
Our view has been
that Congress ought to wait
until it is necessary,
if it is necessary,
to impose new sanctions,
to pass new sanctions for
a time when Iran either fails
to meet its obligations
on the preliminary agreement
or fails to reach agreement
with the P5-plus-1
on a comprehensive solution,
our comprehensive agreement.
And if Congress were to do that
it would have the kind of effect
that sanctions are meant to,
and rather than if
they were to impose
or pass new sanctions now,
which could undermine our
unity internationally
with the P5-plus-1 and cause
problems and potentially scuttle
the initial
preliminary agreement.
But I think that the point
that's been made here is that
this administration has
led the way in building
the most comprehensive
sanctions regime in history,
led the way in building
international consensus behind
that and behind the central
premise that the problem here
was Iranian behavior --
not Western behavior,
not American behavior,
but Iranian behavior.
And the steps that President
Obama took in his first term
were persuasive, which allowed
us to create that consensus.
And as you know, when it comes
to this kind of sanctions
regime, it's only as effective
as it's been when it includes
not just the United States
but all of our international
partners, which
has been the case.
So we're going to continue to
implement the sanctions that
exist, that have been
implemented and then continue to
work on preparing to implement
the Joint Plan of Action.
And we're prepared to meet again
with our P5-plus-1 partners and
Iran as soon as possible to
resume the technical talks that
were taking place last week.
The EU will make an
announcement once the date
for the talks is finalized.
The Press:
Do you agree the process
has been "derailed,"
in Mohammad Zarif's words?
Mr. Carney:
Well, no, we don't.
We think that implementation
of existing sanctions
is completely in keeping --
The Press:
No, no, he's talking
about the process
of working out the technical
implementation of phase one.
That's what he's referring to.
Mr. Carney:
Again, what you cited
to me is that he was saying
that was the result
of the implementation
of existing sanctions,
and our position is of
course that's not the case.
And we certainly look
forward to the resumption
of technical talks.
It was always going to be the
case that these highly complex,
detailed technical
conversations and negotiations
would require the teams
to return to their capitals,
which is what happened,
and we look forward
to the resumption of those
talks in the near future.
The Press:
A big meeting on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership
this morning.
Is that a signal that the
administration feels it needs
to regain momentum,
has lost some momentum?
Missed the deadline for the
end of this year and you need
to sort of re-gather
your strength?
Mr. Carney: No, I think that
it represents a couple things.
One, that this remains a top
priority of the President
because of the positive economic
benefits that come from it,
and that's why he met with
members of his Cabinet and
senior staff to receive an
update on his trade agenda.
They specifically discussed
trade promotion authority and
the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The team updated the President
on the progress made by trade
ministers last week on the TPP
and discussed the importance
of trade promotion authority.
Congress and the American public
have high expectations
for the TPP.
The administration is determined
to get the best deal possible,
and we are pleased with the
progress made towards achieving
an ambitious, comprehensive,
high-standard agreement.
The TPP is critical for
creating jobs, promoting growth,
providing opportunity
for American workers,
and leveling the playing
field for American businesses
in the Asia Pacific.
As you know, the President
has put a priority on engaging
in the Asian Pacific
region at all levels,
and that's why we believe that
the work being done on TPP
has been so important.
The President welcomed the
opportunity to get an update
on our progress on that issue.
The Press:
And just one more question,
following up on the
one about immigration.
The President has identified
several times that the reason
that the Speaker of the House
hasn't brought immigration
reform to the floor is a faction
within a faction within the
House Republican conference.
Last week, the Speaker
of the House defied that faction
and those who, from the
outside, support it.
It seems obvious --
or at least arguable --
that that could create
a window that you see,
that you didn't see before,
on immigration since
it's that very same faction
that would likely
be in a position or try to be
in a position
to scuttle immigration reform.
You don't see an opening
created in the aftermath
of the budget deal?
Mr. Carney:
Well, if you're saying
that there's an opening created,
I would say, from your
lips to the Speaker's ear,
we hope that's the case.
We're not going to
get into analyzing the --
The Press:
But you have analyzed
what the fundamental
problem is legislatively,
and I'm just saying,
well, here's the Speaker --
Mr. Carney:
Well, that's been the
fundamental problem --
The Press:
-- was taking on that problem
and that may create an opening.
Mr. Carney: Or it remains to
be seen whether the Republican
leaders, not just the Speaker,
but Republican leaders broadly
decide to act despite some
opposition from some quarters
on comprehensive
immigration reform.
And I wouldn't
project into the future
based on what's
happened recently --
The Press:
Are you even asking?
Mr. Carney: We have been
pressing all of the House
Republican leaders who have
demonstrated an interest in this
and talked about the need
to deal with immigration --
and the Speaker is one of them,
others are among
that group --
about the necessity
and wisdom of moving forward.
And we hope that we'll see
progress from the House as soon
as possible because of all
the benefits that passing
comprehensive immigration
reform would deliver.
The Press:
Is what you saw last
week give you any more
optimism that that's possible
than you had let's say two weeks
ago when you were
still advocating,
pressing all the same buttons?
Do you think the terrain
has shifted any way?
Mr. Carney:
I think we can only
hope that there is more
interest in pushing forward
on comprehensive
immigration reform.
I would hesitate to assume that
the decision to push ahead with
a budget agreement against some
resistance from some elements of
the Republican Party would mean
anything more than that decision
was made and
followed through on.
But of course we remain hopeful.
And if this is a sign that
there's the potential for more
compromise and the potential
for a greater willingness by
Republican leaders to listen
to the center as opposed to the
wing, or the wings, then that
would be a good development I
think for American people
and the American economy.
Ed.
The Press:
A couple on health care.
The top Democrats on seven
different House committees are
asking for a classified briefing
with Speaker Boehner and Leader
Pelosi to talk about the risks
of releasing documents that
spell out security
protocols at healthcare.gov,
and it appears from the reports
that these documents were turned
over to Republican
Darrell Issa un-redacted.
And so my question in part is,
was that an accident that they
were turned over --
Mr. Carney:
They weren't turned over.
My understanding --
Ed, I think you need
to look into this story --
is that the concern --
I shouldn't speak
for the House Democrats,
but my understanding
is the concern was that
there has been not exactly
a demonstration of care taken
in the release of documents
by that committee.
And when you're talking
about documents
that contain information --
The Press: Well, was
some turned over by the --
or were they leaked?
Or what is the
concern by Democrats?
Mr. Carney:
No, no, I think this might
have to do with an outside --
a third-party, a contractor
is my understanding.
The Press:
Is turning them over to Issa?
Mr. Carney:
Again, I would
look at the stories.
I don't have all the details.
The Press:
But does the White House
have concerns about it?
Mr. Carney:
I think we would
have, in general,
concerns about the potential for
the release of information that
could provide guidelines
to would-be hackers
of any federal IT system.
But beyond that, I would refer
you to the committee that's
called for this meeting
that you mention.
The Press:
The very same committee,
run by a critic of the
administration, Darrell Issa,
is having a field hearing
in Texas today where they're
alleging that some of the health
care navigators that try to help
people sign up for the new law
have in some cases, they allege,
have committed fraud
and told people,
lie about your income so you
can get better subsidies,
and that there's not proper
background checks of some of
these people to see
that they're actually --
they can
be trusted to guide people.
What's the reaction here?
Mr. Carney:
This is just one more data point
in the Republican obsession
with sabotaging Obamacare.
All navigators must complete
about 20 hours of training,
including training
on privacy issues.
And this training is not
a one-time only process.
Navigators have regular
refresher opportunities where
they can share updates,
receive information,
and address issues as they are
in the process of helping people
in their communities.
All navigators must complete
their training and pass course
exams to ensure appropriate
understanding of relevant
exchange-related information,
which includes privacy issues.
Navigators are required to
comply with privacy and security
standards and they should
not obtain information
without the consumer's consent.
And let's pull back
a little bit further.
When Republicans attack
navigators they're attacking
folks like the
University of Arkansas,
the Epilepsy
Foundation of Florida,
the Visiting Nurse Services
of Iowa, Ascension Health,
Ohio Association of Food Banks,
and the National Urban League.
These are just a few of the
organizations that actually hire
and supervise these navigators.
These are people who are
engaging in an effort to help
Americans who want health
insurance to get it.
So I think it's pretty evident
upon scrutiny that this is an
effort to in a partisan way
sabotage the Affordable Care Act
that's in keeping
with a long line of efforts
to sabotage the
Affordable Care Act.
And let's put some faces to
the name "navigators" here.
These are folks in their
communities working for
organizations like the ones
I discussed who are doing
something very simple but
important: helping their fellow
community members get the
information they need
if they seek to enroll
and purchase health insurance --
for many of them,
health insurance coverage
that they have
not had in the past
that's quality and
affordable coverage.
The Press:
Last one was an allegation
put out not by Republicans,
but The Washington Post over
the weekend had a long story
suggesting that people
who used to work for this
administration were suggesting
that regulations were held back
last year because
it was an election year --
not just on health care,
but a whole range of issues --
because the President
didn't want to pick fights
on some of these issues,
wanted to wait until after he
got reelected to lay out
some of these new health
care regulations.
How do you react to that?
Mr. Carney:
Well, I would point you to OIRA,
which is the agency that
handles regulations,
and as they have said, their
approach to regulatory review
is consistent with longstanding
precedent across previous
administrations of both parties,
and fully adheres to the
established principles
guiding regulatory policy.
OMB works as expeditiously
as possible to review rules,
but when it comes
to complex rules
with significant
potential impact,
we take the time
needed to get them right.
The administration is committed
to a regulatory strategy
that maintains a balance between
protecting the health, welfare,
and safety of Americans,
and promoting economic growth,
job creation, competiveness,
and innovation.
Our goal is to move -- is not,
rather, to move rules hastily,
but to maximize the
effectiveness and benefits
of the rules we complete.
And I would say on
that issues, in 2012,
one of the most important sets
of economically significant
rules completed in decades
was the fuel economy standards
for cars and light-duty trucks
issued in August of 2012.
Two other economically
significant rules issued during
the President's first
term included the Mercury
and Air Toxic Standards
issued in December 2011,
and the Unique Device
Identification rule issued
in July of 2012.
In addition, in 2012,
the administration issued
more than 20 rules related
to the Affordable Care Act
and affordable
insurance exchanges.
And I can tell you
that from November 6, 2011
to November 6, 2012,
the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs --
the aforementioned OIRA --
concluded review of 436 rules,
81 of which were
economically significant.
Finally, through
the fourth fiscal year
of President Obama's presidency,
the net benefits
of major rules finalized
was about $159 billion per year.
That's four times the net
benefits through the fourth
fiscal year of the
previous administration.
Chuck.
The Press:
Just to follow up, though,
can you say with certainty
there was no politics?
Politics never entered --
Mr. Carney:
I can tell you what --
The Press:
I understand the
rules that were made.
Can you say with
certainty, though,
that anything -- that politics
didn't enter any decision
to delay a regulation?
Mr. Carney:
Look, I can just tell --
OIRA runs this process.
They run a rigorous process.
And I can either point you
to a number of high-profile,
highly economically significant
and contentious rules
that were put out and acted
on in 2012 and late 2011.
The Press:
This report referred
to politics,
referred to the campaign.
I mean, it's not
like made up by --
it wasn't made up by a
political opponent, in fairness.
Mr. Carney:
Well, again, I
would just point you
to what actions were taken.
The fact that 20 -- again, as
regards the Affordable Care Act,
20 rules related to the ACA
and to the affordable insurance
exchanges were
issued in 2012 alone.
So those actions were taken;
they seem to contradict the
assertions of that story.
The Press:
I want to ask about Syria.
Considering the suspension of
some of the non-lethal aid to
some of the moderate groups, is
there a sense that essentially
they're losing Syria,
considering -- that basically
it's a choice between
extremists on one end and Assad?
Mr. Carney:
Well, first of all,
I think on the
suspension of aid,
that relates to the material
security of aid itself
after the raid of the warehouse.
And that suspension of
deliveries of non-lethal
assistance into Northern Syria,
while we evaluate the situation
and gather additional
details, continues.
But it is related to
that specific instance.
And our humanitarian assistance,
which is distributed through
international and
non-governmental organizations,
including the U.N., is not
affected by the suspension,
nor is our broader commitment to
providing non-lethal assistance
to the Syrian people, as well
as assistance to the opposition.
We are the leader in the
provision of assistance and
we'll continue to do that.
What is unquestionably the case
is that there is no resolution
to the conflict in Syria without
a negotiated political solution.
And that is why it's important
to move forward to Geneva,
and why it's important to engage
in a political process that can
produce a resolution so that the
bloodshed can end and the Syrian
people can begin to rebuild
their country and enjoy the
better future that they deserve.
There's no question the
situation there has been and is
terrible for so many reasons.
But the only way out of this is
through a political resolution.
The Press:
Does the administration --
does the President feel
almost powerless now?
Mr. Carney:
No, look, we have
a broad-based effort
to provide
substantial assistance
to work with the opposition,
to move forward on
the political process.
There's no question
that it's difficult
and there's no question
that Assad continues
to brutally murder
his own people,
including with his recent
use of barrel bombs
in and around Aleppo,
which killed dozens of citizens,
many of them women and children.
The use of those bombs further
underscores the brutality
of the regime and the
lengths it will go
to attack and kill
its own people.
These specific weapons
are not intended to strike
a particular target
but rather are intended
to cause mass casualties,
which is what they did,
including the killing
of women and children.
So the brutality continues, and
that is why it is so important
to take the actions that we've
taken and move to a political
process and resolution.
The Press:
Is the administration
considering any actions
against the
Ukraine government,
considering what's going on?
Mr. Carney:
I think we've made clear our
view that the government there
needs to respect the
rights of its citizens
to peaceful protest.
And we've made clear
our views on the issue
in terms of
European integration.
But I don't have any new
updates on our policy position
toward Ukraine in light of this.
The Press:
-- talking about some
sort of substantial
economic or anything like that?
Mr. Carney:
I would refer you to
State for more information
about Ukraine, but our view is
that the government there needs
to demonstrate that
it allows peaceful protests
and that it listens
to its people.
Margaret.
The Press: Thanks.
There's a ruling out
announced today
from a U.S. District Court judge
who happened to be an
appointee of President Bush's
saying that the NSA's
telephone eavesdropping program
appears to have
been unconstitutional.
My understanding
is there's actually
a stay on his order
pending appeal.
But what is the administration's
initial reaction?
This is sort of the first --
Mr. Carney:
I would refer you to
the Department of Justice.
I don't have anything.
I'm not even aware
of that ruling.
The Press:
Do you expect you may have
something yourself later today?
Mr. Carney:
Since I'm just learning
about it from you,
I couldn't even say.
But I would refer
you to Justice.
The Press:
Okay, well, I may come back
to you after going to Justice.
Mr. Carney: Okay.
The Press:
You were asked twice today
about the administration's
position on negotiating
the debt limit
and said the position
hasn't changed.
Would you be willing to
go one step further and say
prospectively that
it will not change
just so we can stop
asking you about it?
Mr. Carney:
Well, yes, because it
is simply unconscionable
to imagine that Republicans
are going to try
to exact -- or extract, rather,
ideological wins in exchange for
fulfilling their responsibility
to pay the bills that
they've already racked up.
I mean, we've --
The Press:
But even if it's unimaginable,
you will not change
your position?
Mr. Carney:
We have not and will
not change our position,
nor do we expect Republicans
to travel down that road again,
because, one, so many of
them have said they won't,
including those who endorsed the
approach in October; and two,
because that approach and
pursuit was so disastrous
for them and for the economy
and for the middle class.
So I'm not going to anticipate
a decision by Republicans
to do that again,
to play chicken with
the full faith and credit
of the United States, because
we don't believe, obviously,
that they should, and nor
do we believe that they will.
The President's position
has not and will not change.
The Press:
One quick last one.
Our week-ahead had nothing on
it except for a Friday evening
departure from the White House.
I was wondering
if you could sort of
fill the tree a little bit.
What's he trying to do before
he leaves for a well-deserved
family vacation?
What can we expect this week?
Mr. Carney:
Well, sure, he will have and
is having a series of meetings,
substantive policy meetings.
As you know, he had one earlier
today on a trade agenda
and will continue to have
a variety of policy meetings
through the week.
I would note that also in
that week-ahead was the events
surrounding the anniversary
of Newtown on Saturday.
But as some of these
meetings take shape,
I'm sure we'll have more
information about them for you,
at least some of them.
The Press:
And an end-of-the-year
news conference?
Mr. Carney:
I don't have a scheduling
update to provide to you.
But as we get more information
about this schedule,
we'll let you know.
Jackie.
The Press:
To follow up on Margaret,
who was following others,
on your optimism about there
not being another
fiscal showdown
when the debt limit
needs to be raised --
Mr. Carney:
You think it's naïve?
[laughter]
The Press:
Do you?
Mr. Carney: No.
[laughter]
I don't, because, again, leader
after leader in the Republican
Party, including those who
endorsed the strategy back -- or
at least held their nose as the
strategy was pursued in October
I think have come out and made
clear that it was the wrong
strategy to pursue and that
they would not pursue it again.
So what we obviously can't do
with 100 percent certainty is
predict the future, but we do
not anticipate that Republicans
would want to threaten
default again.
But under great pressure,
I committed to Margaret that
our position on Congress's
responsibility to pay the bills
that Congress has racked
up would not change.
The Press:
Well, those comments
you suggest from
Republican leaders who were
saying that the shutdown
was the wrong strategy --
Mr. Carney:
But they were also --
The Press:
-- they were speaking
to the shutdown and --
Mr. Carney:
No, there were
Republican leaders
who have also spoken to debt
limit and threatening default.
The Press:
But some of those who have
spoken to the debt limit
have said they want
the administration,
the President
has to pay a price,
that there has
to be more savings.
Some have talked about Speaker
Boehner's previous policy
that there would be
dollar-for-dollar budget cuts
to raise the debt limit.
Mr. Carney:
As fun as it sounds
to engage in that kind of
negotiation now in anticipation
of something that may or may not
happen months from now, I think
that we're focused on making
sure that Congress takes
the final steps to pass
the current budget agreement.
I would note something you don't
hear from those who talk about
a willingness to shut down
the government over deficit
reduction, that we have
seen the deficit come down
at the fastest rate
in our lifetimes --
unless some of you
were here prior to World War II.
And that effort continues.
And even the budget agreement,
as modest as it was,
that was reached between
the House and the Senate,
Senator Murray
and Congressman Ryan,
contains within it continued
modest deficit reduction
to build on the deficit
reduction we've seen thus far.
The focus we need to have and
that the American people want us
to have is as we maintain steady
progress on dealing with our
deficits to take action to
help the economy grow faster,
to help it create more jobs and
help it to create the kinds of
jobs that middle-class
families can rely on.
The Press:
Isn't there a prospect that
the fact that the Republicans --
House Republicans did
compromise, as they see it,
on the appropriations for the
next fiscal year will make them
dig in on the
debt limit and try to --
Mr. Carney:
I suppose there is.
I mean, it goes to the question
I had earlier about whether or
not the decision to compromise
and reject the advice of some of
the advocacy groups on the right
harbors well for the potential
of reaching a comprehensive
immigration deal with the House.
It might or it might not.
What I can simply say is that
the President's position is what
it is, and it won't change.
And I would be surprised --
and maybe you'll tell
me how wrong I was --
but I would be surprised
if Republicans wanted to go
down that road again right as we
continue to see positive signs
in the economy and continue to
see people going back to work
and positive numbers in
industrial production
and the like.
So we need to be focused
on growth and job creation,
not just deficit reduction.
We continue to maintain
that that's important.
We have seen significant deficit
reduction over the course
of this presidency,
and the President is committed,
as you've seen in his budgets,
to addressing the medium-
and longer-term issues related
to our debt in a way that's
responsible and balanced.
So we'll work with
Congress on those issues,
but I don't think that we would
expect -- we're always ready --
but I don't think
we would expect Congress
to want to threaten
default again
after what we all saw
happen in October.
Jared.
The Press:
Thank you.
I don't know if this broke
just while we were in here,
but Yemen's parliament voted
to immediately halt the U.S.
drone strikes in their country.
Does the White House have a
response and are you in touch
with President Hadi about this?
Mr. Carney:
I don't have a
specific response.
We obviously cooperate closely
with the government of Yemen
on counterterrorism -- have
in the past and will continue
in the future to do that.
State Department might
have more reaction.
In the back.
The Press:
It's less than two months
until the Sochi Olympic Games
kick off and we have not
heard who the delegation
from the United States will
be to the opening ceremonies.
It was like four months
ahead of time for London
that you announced that
the First Lady was going,
so why the delay in the Sochi
Games and when can we expect
to see a delegation announced?
Mr. Carney:
I don't have any updates
on the answer I gave to
that question last week,
which is that when we have
a delegation to announce,
we'll announce it,
but no new information
to provide today.
April.
The Press:
Jay, two questions on
two different subjects --
2014, we know immigration
is going to be the issue.
What about gun control?
When will we see the President
lean and put his shoulder
in on the issue of gun control?
Mr. Carney:
I think we addressed
that in part on Saturday
on that very somber anniversary.
The President remains committed
to doing everything he can
to advance common-sense measures
that reduce gun violence.
The legislation that failed in
the Senate was supported by vast
majorities of the American
people in states across
the country -- red, blue, and
purple -- and it was quite
a disappointment that the
Senate failed to heed their
constituents on that issue.
The President continues to
urge Congress to take action on
common-sense measures
to reduce gun violence.
And even as he does that,
recognizing that Congress is the
obstacle when it
comes to legislation,
even the legislation that has
broad support from the American
people, he will continue to take
action administratively on the
23 actions that were outlined in
his overall proposal and where
in other areas where he sees
that he can make a difference.
But ultimately, when it
comes to legislation,
we have to see a change in
Congress so that we can do
something as sensible and simple
as improving our background
checks system -- something that
has had enormous support across
the country, including
from conservatives,
including in very
conservative states.
And we'll press on that issue,
and as we press on that issue,
recognizing that we hit a wall
because of the Senate refusal to
pass it, we're not going to
then just press only there,
but we're going to continue
in the ways that we have.
The Press:
In February of this year,
Education Secretary Arne Duncan
said some of the safest places
in this country
are schoolhouses.
Is that still the case?
Mr. Carney:
I would refer
to Secretary Duncan.
I don't have an update
on his comments.
The Press:
And on my last question --
Mr. Carney:
It certainly should be.
The Press: Okay.
Can you confirm or deny that an
administration official went
to QSSI a couple Saturdays
ago to look at the operation
to see what was going on?
Mr. Carney:
April, I wouldn't
deny it because I'm sure
numerous administration
officials have visited the place
where the work is being
done to make improvements
to the healthcare.gov website,
so I would be surprised if
administration officials hadn't
been engaged in that effort.
I'm quite sure that they have.
The Press:
Was Denis McDonough
one of those persons?
Mr. Carney:
I know you emailed
me about this.
I'll have to find out.
I wouldn't be surprised
if he was there.
I just don't know,
but I would be shocked if --
in fact, I am sure that
administration officials
have been deeply engaged
in the effort, as you know,
to improve the
healthcare.gov site.
The Press: I'm talking
about people in this building,
in this building,
in the West Wing.
Mr. Carney: Right.
Again, I certainly
wouldn't surprise me.
All right.
Thanks very much, guys.
Oh, wait, everybody,
return to your seats.
[laughter]
The Press:
Wow, this better be good.
[laughter]
Mr. Carney:
The pressure is on.
The Press:
You talked a little bit
about immigration reform.
Do the problems with the
healthcare.gov rollout,
does that impinge on the
administration's ability
to convince both Congress and
the American public that
the administration could enact
and roll out a comprehensive
immigration reform system
without the same sorts of
computer glitches and
problems that were inherent
in the health care rollout?
Mr. Carney:
Well, I think that's
an interesting question.
I would argue first that these
are obviously two very different
steps in terms of
implementation.
The healthcare.gov website is
unique in its complexity and
what it does in terms of linking
would-be purchasers of insurance
in all the states that aren't
running their own exchanges and
those insurers who are
offering plans in those states
all the information
that it provides.
And there's no question that the
early stages of the rollout of
that website were not up to the
standards that we had set
or that we expected,
which is why you've seen
all the effort expended to fix
the problems with the website.
So our belief is that when
it comes to comprehensive
immigration reform that the
wisdom of passing it comes
from the benefits that it would
provide to the economy --
the conservative arguments
for why it would be
the right thing to do in terms
of making sure every employer
plays by the same rules,
making sure that our border
is enforced even further
beyond what we've done in
the past nearly five years,
and in all the other ways that
comprehensive immigration reform
would be a boon and a benefit
to the economy and the people.
The Press:
The question was whether
people have confidence
that the administration can
implement all the things that
you're talking about
given what they've seen
over the last
three or four months.
Mr. Carney:
Well, Reid, I guess
I would say, again,
that these are
different systems, A;
and B, I would point to the
extraordinary effort
that's gone into fixing
the problems on healthcare.gov,
acknowledging
the shortcomings --
the serious,
significant shortcomings,
taking ownership
and responsibility for them
and acting to fix the problem.
Because in the end -- and this
would be true of immigration
reform as it is of
healthcare.gov or the ACA --
the issue isn't in the end
how the process is;
the process is performed in
service of the legislation
and the goal.
And in this case,
in immigration reform,
it's in service of a bill that
would provide, when implemented,
the benefits that we've
described and that outside
analysts have described.
So we believe that it will pass,
that there will be comprehensive
immigration reform that
the President can sign,
because of the unique,
broad-based support for
immigration reform among
conservatives and liberals,
business and labor, law
enforcement and faith
communities, and
Republicans and Democrats.
And we encourage the House to
take it up and to work with the
Senate and work
with the administration
so that we can get this done on
behalf of the American people,
the middle class
and our economy.
The Press:
And one last thing
on this point.
Nancy Pelosi, over the weekend,
said that the President
should ease off of the
deportation policy.
Is that something that the
White House is considering?
I know the President got a
question from a hackler in San
Francisco last month on this.
But is there any sort of
move or suggestion that this
administration or the President
is moving in that direction of
doing something unilateral?
Mr. Carney:
Well, what the President
has said is that he
can't not enforce the law.
We have to enforce the law.
He does, the
administration does.
Obviously there is prosecutorial
discretion, and that is applied.
The focus is on those who
have committed felonies.
But the broader question and
the problems with this aspect
of immigration policy reinforces
the argument for why we need to
pass comprehensive
immigration reform --
that the piecemeal
solutions aren't solutions.
We need the whole
comprehensive reform to pass.
And that was the case with
the so-called DREAMers,
and remains the case,
that the deferred action that
has been implemented
with regard to the DREAMers is,
as we described at the
time, not a solution;
it's an action that
can be taken now,
but it's not a replacement
for comprehensive
immigration reform.
That's why Congress
needs to act.
And we believe that this
situation reinforces the
argument for acting
on a broad base,
House and Senate together,
so that the President
can sign a bill.
Thanks.
