The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
NOMINATION SENT TO THE SENATE:
Robin L. Rosenberg, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, vice Adalberto Jose Jordan, elevated.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Robin L. Rosenberg to serve on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
“I am pleased to nominate this distinguished individual to serve on the United States District Court bench,” said President Obama. “Judge Rosenberg has a long and impressive record of service, and I am confident she will serve on the federal bench with distinction.”
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg has been a Circuit Judge on the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida since 2007. From 2001 to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm Rosenberg & McAuliffe, PL, and she also managed ARC Mediation—a full-service dispute resolution firm—from 2002 to 2006. Judge Rosenberg was Vice President and General Counsel at Slim-Fast Foods Company from 1999 to 2001; a partner at Holland & Knight LLP from 1997 to 1999; an Assistant City Attorney for the City of West Palm Beach from 1995 to 1997; and an associate at Foley & Lardner from 1994 to 1995. She served as a Trial Attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice from 1990 to 1994 and worked at a nonprofit organization in the Czech Republic while on leave from 1993 to 1994. Judge Rosenberg began her legal career as a law clerk to Judge James C. Paine of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida from 1989 to 1990. Judge Rosenberg received her J.D. and M.A. in 1989 from Duke University and her B.A. in 1983 from Princeton University.
President Barack Obama sits in the cab and talks with a worker during a tour of the Light Rail Maintenance Building in St. Paul, Minn., Feb. 26, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
This afternoon, the President traveled to St. Paul, Minnesota to unveil a new plan to upgrade America's transportation infrastructure and put people back to work.
Speaking at St. Paul's historic Union Depot train station, President Obama announced that the Department of Transportation is making available $600 million in Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants, a tremendously successful program investing in our nation's infrastructure. These new grants mark the sixth round of the TIGER program, which has already invested $3.5 billion in 270 transportation projects across the country.
The President explained that "one of the fastest and best ways to create good jobs is by rebuilding America’s infrastructure -- our roads, our bridges, our rails, our ports, our airports, our schools, our power grids. We’ve got a lot of work to do out there, and we’ve got to put folks to work."
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
PRESS GAGGLE
BY PRINCIPAL DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY JOSH EARNEST
AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION ANTHONY FOXX
Aboard Air Force One
En Route St. Paul, Minnesota
12:30 P.M. EST
MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome aboard Air Force One. I have two pieces of good news to share with you. The first is I checked my iPhone right before we took off and the wind chill has risen to -17 in St. Paul, so we've chosen an excellent day to travel to Minnesota. The second piece of even better news is I'm joined this afternoon by the Secretary of Transportation, Anthony Foxx, who can talk to you a little bit about the announcement that the President is going to make today. And he can take any questions you may have about that announcement, and then if you’ll reserve questions on other topics, we'll do that after he’s had a chance to talk to you.
Secretary Foxx.
SECRETARY FOXX: Thank you. It’s great to be here today. And we at the U.S. Department of Transportation are delighted that the President is going to be talking today about two big ideas. Number one is in this year of action, rolling out the sixth round of TIGER. This year it will be a $600 million program, but over the life of TIGER we have had 270 projects that have received TIGER grants in all 50 states around the country.
These projects largely are innovative, they’re job-creating, and they’re transformative for the communities in which they occur. And we are delighted that the work of a bipartisan group in Congress has given us the ability to have a sixth round of this program, which will transform communities all across America.
The second big point the President is making today is that he is outlining a framework to address the challenges with the Highway Trust Fund and moving this country forward above just baseline thinking into how we build infrastructure in the future and actually addressing the tremendous needs that are out there in this country.
The framework is $302 billion over four years, which enables us not only to fill the gap in the Highway Trust Fund but to do substantially more than that -- $90 billion of additional investment in infrastructure that will help us do all kinds of great things for this country, including roads, highways, transit as well as rail.
And we are excited to be leaning into this conversation. I might point out the extraordinary work that is being done by a bipartisan group of leaders in Congress, including Senator Boxer, Senator Vitter, Congressman Shuster, the chair of the House T and I Committee, and its ranking member, Nick Rahall. They’re talking about trying to get something done so we can stave off what is a cliff that's coming in transportation. By August or September of this year, the Highway Trust Fund will reach into insolvency. There are some structural problems with the funding in the Highway Trust Fund because it's gas tax dependent and we're seeing less revenue spin off there. And they’re trying to weigh into this.
But I think this is really a great moment for the country to see the President establish a framework that gives us a seat at the table in a way to engage in this conversation over the next few months.
Q Senator Boxer said this morning that she likes the President’s idea -- or framework, as you called it -- but that she doesn’t have a hope of passing Congress. I guess what’s your sense of how much likelihood there is of it moving forward -- the President’s plan? And why propose a plan when it's clear that it's not going to move?
SECRETARY FOXX: Well, first of all, the certainty here is that we have a transportation cliff that's coming in August or September. And one could posit any type of solution here and there will be voices that say that one thing or another can't get done. I think the most important thing is that the ideas need to be put on the table.
Representative Camp, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, is putting his reform proposal on the table. We want the ideas to be put on the table. Everyone needs to put their cards on the table and try to see how to solve this, because the one thing nobody wants to do is to see the Highway Trust Fund go insolvent because that will be a very bad day and a very bad year for states and communities where gridlock can literally find its way to Main Street.
Q On the Camp proposal, have you discussed it with him and --
SECRETARY FOXX: I haven't seen it.
Q You haven't?
SECRETARY FOXX: No.
Q Speaker Boehner said this morning that he would -- he didn’t think that another bailout of the Highway Trust Fund would have support in the House. What would the administration do if it comes to a bailout, if legislation doesn’t get passed before August or September?
SECRETARY FOXX: Well, first of all, we're going to do everything we can to engage with Congress on this important question. And I think today’s announcement is a very good demonstration of that by putting our ideas on the table.
If we get to a point where the Highway Trust Fund is going over the cliff it's going to mean slowing down payments to states; by the middle part of the summer, the states will have to start locking in contractors and there will be folks who may not get work as a result of it and we may see projects not getting done. And there are 700,000 jobs that are at risk if we don't figure this out and -- or if it doesn’t get figured out. We're going to keep working to try to help.
Q But given the deep investment that most members have in this issue, how likely do you think it is that the United States would go over the cliff? Or how optimistic are you that, one way or another, this is going to be solved, given the bipartisan imperative?
SECRETARY FOXX: We're always optimistic. And as I say, no one has an interest in seeing us go off that cliff. But what we're trying to do today, I think what the President is trying to do here is to get us past Band-Aids and to get us thinking about multiyear solutions, solutions that can stabilize the Housing [sic] Trust Fund over a period of years, and help us do more to get the infrastructure we need to grow jobs and to create the platform for growth in this country for a long time.
Q Blue-ribbon tax panels have said the way to address this long term is to raise gas taxes. Is that something that's off the table as far as this administration is concerned?
SECRETARY FOXX: To an earlier point, that issue has been raised. Chairman Shuster has said that that doesn’t have a possibility of happening. So I think we’re at a point right now where the ideas need to get put on the table, the dialogue needs to occur. Part of getting back to regular order is having the conversations about important issues like this and staving off a cliff dive that would imperil the transportation and infrastructure of this country.
Q You spoke of business tax reform for the additional spending. Can you give a little detail on what specifically you want to see reformed and how much money those reforms would bring?
SECRETARY FOXX: Well, look, there are many different ways to get there. What I know is, is that we could generate about $150 billion, part of which could be used to replenish the Highway Trust Fund, the other part of which could be used to develop new and innovative infrastructure in this country.
We feel like -- and you’ve seen some of the specifics in the proposal -- but the types of things we can do are things like competitive programs similar to TIGER that reward innovation and process efficiency at the state level so that we are getting more projects done for the same amount of money. Those are the types of things that we would like to see happen in transportation, in many ways reforming the way transportation is built so that we can get more bang for the buck.
Q And, Mr. Secretary, obviously Speaker Boehner and the President discussed this issue yesterday. Can you shed any light on how that conversation might be moving the issue forward?
SECRETARY FOXX: I think Jay Carney said it right yesterday. I think the conversation about this was good and constructive. And obviously there are a lot of steps along the way, but the first step is getting a strong proposal on the table, and that’s what I would consider our proposal.
Q I’m just wondering if you could step back for a second and give us your take -- characterize the state of transportation and infrastructure in America. How dire is it to get things fixed?
SECRETARY FOXX: Well, it is dire in the following sense: For years we’ve been fighting ourselves to just get the Highway Trust Fund replenished, and while we’ve been fighting that battle, projects have been slow; communities haven’t even put projects on the books. And, in fact, there’s one small community in Texas that actually seriously entertained digging up roads as opposed to paying the cost to maintain them -- in America. That’s not who we are as a country. And, in fact, that’s not how we’re going to be competitive going forward.
And I think what we’re doing today is stretching the thinking about infrastructure. It’s going past Band-Aids and short-term measures into strategies that give us multi-years of stable funding so that communities can plan. One of the invisible problems with the way we’ve done things -- the way things have been done in Washington over the last several years is that communities really haven’t had the ability to plan. They haven’t known what tomorrow is going to look like or whether the fund is going to be there, so they’ve just stopped planning projects. That is an invisible part of what’s driving the cost of infrastructure up in this country -- because if the projects get done this year, they’re cheaper if they get done 10 years from now.
So we think a multiyear solution is necessary to stop the chilling effect of short-term measures and to get this country on a more stable and certain path when it comes to infrastructure investments.
Q Can you speak to how infrastructure fits in with President Obama’s larger opportunity agenda? Are there ways in which bolstering infrastructure and transportation intersect with helping the middle class?
SECRETARY FOXX: Yesterday, the President rolled out some efforts on advanced manufacturing in additional centers. If you think about it -- the more we produce, the more we’re going to need to move into position to go into not only U.S. markets, but in the global markets. So whether it’s our highway system, our rail system, our aviation system for that matter, we must have 21st century technology and investments in order to ensure that we can move goods efficiently and effectively across the globe.
As we do that, we make an even stronger case for the U.S. to bring manufacturing jobs back into this country and to have products that are stamped, “Made in the USA.” And no one is helped more by that than America’s middle class.
Q We’re going to Minneapolis. Why are you doing this in Minneapolis?
SECRETARY FOXX: Well, this is an example -- we’re going to see an example of our TIGER program. The Union Depot in St. Paul is a project that was -- one that the community had been wanting to get done for a long time, and the wherewithal just hadn’t come together. The TIGER program enabled St. Paul to get out of some of the traditional funding boxes that transportation has, and to put a package together that was very innovative. And you’re going to see not only does the station look tremendous, but what it’s been able to do in terms of catalyzing the area around the station is equally impressive. The connectivity that it allows a regional transportation system to create is pretty incredible. And it’s an example.
But we could have been at the Port of Los Angeles, where we are putting rail right up to the dock, which is going to save days off the time to put freight to and from ships that are coming from and going to all parts of the world. We could have been in North Carolina, where I’m from, on the Yadkin River Bridge, which had been the worst bridge in North Carolina for years. The TIGER program put the last money in to build a new bridge, and it carries a substantial amount of freight along the Eastern Seaboard.
So the TIGER program -- over 270 projects, all over 50 states around this country -- has had a tremendous outsized impact on building infrastructure in this country.
Q And what percentage of those TIGER grants that have already come out came from the stimulus bill? Because the vast majority -- in other words, is it hard to get extra money given that so much of it came from that infusion that came through that?
SECRETARY FOXX: Well, we’ve had a few rounds since the stimulus, but the stimulus was by far the largest single block of TIGER money that went out. We’ll get you the statistics on it, but let me give you a few other round numbers. Out of the life of TIGER, we’ve had 5,300 applications and only 270 projects. By my count, that’s out of every 100 projects that applied, five of them got funded. They requested a total of $115 billion of which $3.5 billion have been funded. So out of every $100 requested $3 have been provided.
So the program is oversubscribed. It’s incredibly popular. It’s doing great work on the ground, and I believe that’s why Congress has reaffirmed it by keeping the program in place. And we’re going to have a year of action this year in which communities all across the country begin applying for this very popular program.
Thank you.
MR. EARNEST: Is there anything else anybody would like to talk about today?
Q Can you give a response to reports that Russia is staging forced-readiness drills along the Ukraine border?
MR. EARNEST: I do have a statement on this. The United States strongly supports Ukrainian leaders’ ongoing work to form an inclusive, multiparty government to represent all the people of Ukraine as they prepare for May elections, and to restore order, stability and unity to the country. As the process moves forward, the United States calls on all parties in Ukraine and in the region to support reconciliation and the country’s return to political and economic health.
We will work with the international community in building an economic assistance package based upon Ukraine’s achievements in crafting a unity government. An inclusive, broad-based government committed to reconciliation and economic reform is the necessary foundation for international assistance. We call on Ukraine’s leaders to do their utmost to protect the security and human rights of all their citizens, including the rights of minorities, and to recommit to honor the states’ international obligations in this interim period.
This is the part that you asked me about: We urge outside actors in the region to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, end provocative rhetoric and actions, support democratically established transitional governing structures, and use their influence in support of unity, peace and an inclusive path forward. We remind all governments of their political commitments to transparency about military activities under the Vienna Document 2011, and other OSCE obligations designed to ensure security and peace in the Euro-Atlantic region.
The United States stands with the Ukrainian people at this remarkable moment, and we will do all we can to help them build the strong, sovereign and democratic country they so richly deserve.
Q So is Russia being transparent enough in terms of what it’s doing?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I’ll say -- I can confirm that we’re aware of the reports that we’ve seen about some of Russia’s military activities. And as I pointed out in the statement, it’s important for all of the parties in the region, both the Ukrainian government as well as the Russians, to understand that it is important for them to live up to the obligations of the documents that I cited.
Q Does the White House agree with General Dempsey’s timeline? He said that he needed to know by June whether troops needed to come out of Afghanistan and have a postwar plan. Does the White House agree with that?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I’m not in a position to set a specific deadline from here. But suffice it to say that the farther that we go without having a signed bilateral security agreement, the more that our military planners will have to curtail the scope and ambition of any post-2014 mission.
Now, at the same time, the planners are factoring in as much flexibility as possible into this process that would allow for the United States and our partners around the world who are involved in this mission to make nimble decisions based on the kind of partnership we can expect with the Afghan government.
So the bilateral security agreement that has been agreed to both by the Afghan government, it’s been endorsed by the loya Jirga, the President and this administration believes it’s in the interest of the United States, is a good and functional agreement. But we need to get the final signoff from the Afghan government in order to make the kinds of plans for what our mission would look like after 2014.
But we’re trying to be as flexible as possible. That’s factored into the process. But there’s no denying that the longer this is delayed, the further the scope and ambition of any post-2014 mission is restrained.
Q -- can't say a June deadline then?
MR. EARNEST: I would not establish a specific deadline from here other than to reiterate the dynamic that we think is in place as the Afghans -- and as President Karzai, in this case -- drag their feet in signing this BSA.
Q Going back to infrastructure, Secretary Foxx didn’t really elaborate on what business tax reform means in this case. Can you help out? I mean, business tax reform could be anything. What exactly will get this money into the Highway Trust Fund?
MR. EARNEST: Well, the President has talked quite a bit about his principles when it comes to business tax reform -- that there is a way for us to lower tax rates for American businesses, broaden the base in a way that will make American businesses more competitive. That ultimately should be the goal, would be a set of policies, including tax policies, that are in the best interest of the American economy, American businesses and American workers.
Now, part of that should also include closing the kinds of loopholes that have riddled the business tax code that don’t contribute to economic growth and don’t create jobs; that there is significant revenue that can be gained by closing some of those loopholes. It’s the President’s view that some of that revenue can be used to invest in infrastructure projects that do strengthen our economy, that do create jobs over the short term and will contribute to economic growth over the long term. It’s a pretty common-sense operating principle that the President -- or at least we’re hopeful that would earn some bipartisan support.
Q Can you give an example or two of particular loopholes?
MR. EARNEST: Well, there have been loopholes that are related to tax policies that are an incentive for companies to ship jobs overseas. The President believes that we should reorient that tax policy, close those loopholes that offer that incentive to ship jobs and commerce overseas, and actually put in place some tax policies that would provide an incentive for companies in the United States and companies around the world to invest in the U.S.
So that’s one example. There are other examples related to other aspects of the tax code like carried interest that have long been sort of part of the kinds of proposals that we’ve put forward.
Q Will the President introduce the infrastructure bank again this year, do you know? Is that going to be part of the budget?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have anything to preview in terms of the budget for you quite yet.
Q Just to jump back to the Israeli air strikes in Lebanon, do you have any response to that? And can you preview at all what the President might talk to Netanyahu about next week?
MR. EARNEST: I have seen the reports of that activity, but I’m not in a position to confirm those reports, so I’d refer you to the Israeli government to see if they have any comment on them.
In terms of the President’s meeting next week with Prime Minister Netanyahu, as you’ll recall from previous briefings and gaggles, we’ve often pointed out that the President has met -- has had as many conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu over his five-plus years in office as he has with any other world leader. That is an indication of the strong relationship between the United States and Israel. It’s an indication of this country’s commitment to Israel’s security. It’s an indication of how much of a priority it is for the President and for the rest of his administration to ensure that we’re working closely and coordinating with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government as we confront the variety of challenges that pose a threat to some instability in the Middle East.
In terms of specific aspects of the conversation I’m not in a position to preview you them right now, but there’s no doubt that the conversation that they’ll be having on Monday is an important one and the next in the series of important conversations they’ve had over the years.
Q On the domestic front, Alison Lundergan Grimes campaigned with former President Clinton yesterday and spoke glowingly about Clinton’s time in office, didn’t mention the President, and, in fact, talked about how both parties were to blame for the paralysis we’ve had in Washington. Is there anything you can say about how the White House views those kinds of comments and what they say about how people will be campaigning this year?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think the President himself has articulated his own frustration with Washington and how too often partisan backbiting and the influence of special interests has blocked progress in Washington. That’s been particularly true among Republicans in Congress. And I think that’s why you’ve seen the President be pretty candid about his desire to work with Congress where he can but not allow that dysfunction to block his efforts to make progress.
So some of the aspects of what the President will be talking about today are evidence of the President’s not just his desire, but his commitment to move forward on all fronts -- particularly on policies that are going to strengthen the economy, that are going to expand economic opportunity, that are going to be good for the middle class. So that is the focal point of the President’s domestic policymaking agenda.
In terms of Democratic candidates across the country, I think there’s a lot that the President is advocating for that Democratic candidates can get behind. I mean, frankly, there’s quite a bit the President talks about that Republican candidates can probably get behind if they wanted to. But we’ll have to see if they choose to do that or not.
Q On the enrollment numbers that came out yesterday, they said 4 million people had signed up for health care plans. Does the administration have any better handle now on how many people -- how many of those people have paid for their plans?
MR. EARNEST: Kevin, as you point out, the administration is doing our best to try to provide as much data on an ongoing basis about the pace of signups onto the Affordable Care Act. As you know, the Affordable Care Act is a reform of our private health insurance system and that is an indication that when people are signing up for health insurance they’re signing up for private health insurance, and that those payments that are made by these new customers are directed to and sent to the private insurance companies themselves. So more information about who exactly -- questions about who exactly has paid for the health insurance can best be directed to those private insurance companies that are collecting those payments.
There is some insight that we can offer that’s not as exact that we’re working to collect, so we may be in a position -- I don’t want to make any promises from here -- but we may be in a position down the line to try to provide some greater insight into that. But the fact of the matter is these payments are being made to private insurance companies, so data about what the rate of payment is can be directed to those insurance companies that are responsible for collecting those payments.
Q How far down the line do you think that would be?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t know. We’ll have to see.
Justin.
Q Do you know or do you have any more information about how many people under 35 have enrolled? I know that we had numbers when we heard the 3.3 million, but now that we have 4 million, if you have any information on that?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any information -- updated information on that, standing here. But I do anticipate that we’ll have more updated information on that in the future. The trend that we’ve been seeing for some time is a slow and steady ramp-up of young adults signing up. There’s a significant increase in the rate of young adult signups in January that even outpace the overall increase in the rate of people signing up in January. That’s a good indication. It also is consistent with the experience of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that over their enrollment period, that most of the young adults who eventually enrolled in the program did so in the last few months of that enrollment period.
So we would anticipate in the remaining weeks of this enrollment period that we would see a continued increase in the number of young adults who sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Q When we were getting on the plane, there were reports from Syrian media that 175 opposition fighters had been killed in an attack, conceivably from the Assad regime. I was wondering if you could confirm any details about that or if the White House had any reaction on that.
MR. EARNEST: I have seen those reports, but I’m not in a position to confirm them. Over the last several years, we’ve many times talked about how tragic the violence is in Syria and that too many people have lost their lives as a result of that violence. It remains the steadfast view of this administration that continued violence will not resolve the disputes that have been so painfully laid bare in Syria and, ultimately, this resolution will require diplomatic talks and a political transition. And that is a rather painstaking effort that we’ve been engaged in for some time. But our commitment to obtaining that goal continues unabated.
Q And on the law in Arizona that’s under consideration, has the President developed a stance on whether Governor Brewer should veto that bill?
MR. EARNEST: I don’t have anything to say about that beyond what Jay said about that yesterday. We don’t weigh in on all these individual pieces of legislation that pass through state legislatures across the country. Based on the reports that I’ve seen -- I’m not an attorney and haven’t analyzed the legislation -- based on the reports it’s clear that this piece of legislation doesn’t seem to be in line with the President’s commitment to equality and justice and fairness of all people, regardless of the color of their skin, their last name or who they love.
Q The President was pretty outspoken about that law in Uganda even before it was signed into law. Is there a reason he was so outspoken on a law that would ban homosexuality in Uganda, but he doesn’t have an official stance on a law here in the United States?
MR. EARNEST: Again, I think that the statement that the President made on the bill that was signed into law in Uganda is consistent with the view that the President has publicly pronounced and strongly advocated in a variety of settings across the country. So our position on this is pretty consistent and has been as we’ve taken questions on a variety of things -- everything from Arizona to Uganda, if you will.
Well, I was just going to say that somebody did ask -- Nedra, I think you asked Secretary Foxx about the proposal release by Camp. And so, if you’d like, I can offer a couple of things here.
The fact that Congressman Camp has put forward a proposal is a positive development. The President has long advocated, as I mentioned earlier, business tax reform that is pro-growth, that simplifies the tax code and makes it more fair. The President has talked about what some of those principles should be -- closing loopholes and using some of that money for infrastructure; that we can also lower rates, broaden the base; that there are a lot of benefits that can be derived from a smart, pro-growth business tax reform.
Now, there are a couple of aspects of Congressman Camp’s proposal that are encouraging. The first is Congressman Camp does propose to close some of the loopholes that I mentioned earlier that the President has long advocated closing. These are loopholes like the corporate jet tax loophole and the carried interest tax loophole, and a series of other unfair tax loopholes that don’t contribute to long-term economic growth. So the President believes that we can close those loopholes and make our tax code a little bit more fair. And we’re pleased to see that Congressman Camp’s proposal includes closing some of those loopholes.
I’d also note that apparently Congressman Camp has embraced another concept that the President has put forward, which is using some of the revenue from corporate tax reform to invest in infrastructure. Again, this would create jobs in the short term, but also lay a foundation for our long-term economic strength.
So there are a couple of reasons to be optimistic about it. But, of course, there are some aspects of this proposal that we do not agree with. The first is that there does not appear to be any money or any revenue raised from this corporate tax proposal that would go to reducing the deficit. That is something that is of concern to the administration. That's something the President has long said that we should do; that this would be in line with a balanced-approach deficit reduction. The second thing is that, more troublingly, Congressman Camp’s proposal appears to actually add to the long-run deficit.
Q Appears to actually add?
MR. EARNEST: Add to the long-run deficit. So that's a source of some concern.
The last thing, and in some ways this is the most important, the President believes that our tax code should reward hard work. And one way that we can reward hard work is to extend and expand the earned income tax credit. The earned income tax credit goes to working people, and the President believes that further tax breaks for working people is a good way to strengthen our economy, expand economic opportunity, and make sure that hard work is rewarded in this country.
Unfortunately, Congressman Camp’s proposal does not include extending the earned income tax credit and, quite frankly, this does not seem like a very good time to be raising taxes on working people in this country. And that's another aspect of Congressman Camp’s proposal that we do not agree with.
But let me end where I began, which is to say that we welcome the constructive, specific proposal that Congressman Camp has laid forward. I understand that he’s presented it as a discussion draft. And this administration will certainly take part in discussions with members of Congress in either party who want to put forward constructive proposals to simplify our tax code, to make it more fair, and orient our tax code around policies that will strengthen our economy and create jobs.
Q And how optimistic is the White House that those discussions will lead to actual reforms this year ahead of the election?
MR. EARNEST: Well, there’s not a great amount of optimism on Capitol Hill for any kind of legislative proposal that seems complicated. There is no doubt that, by any definition, reforming the tax code, particularly the business tax code, is complicated. So that's not going to preclude the President and members of his administration from engaging in conversations with members of Congress in either party that seems interested in having those conversations. But I think it’s fair to say that we are realistic about the prospects for difficult pieces of legislation like this passing this Congress this year.
Q One last thing. Is the White House watching this bitcoin exchange issue and does the White House have any comment on it?
MR. EARNEST: I’ll confess that I have read those headlines, but I’m not prepared at this point to offer a specific reaction. But if you want to direct your question to somebody back at the White House, we may be able to rustle up an answer for you.
Okay? All right? Thanks, everybody.
END
1:06 P.M. EST
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
The United States strongly supports Ukrainian leaders’ ongoing work to form an inclusive, multiparty government to represent all the people of Ukraine as they prepare for May elections, and to restore order, stability, and unity to the country. As the process moves forward, the United States again calls on all parties in Ukraine and in the region to support reconciliation and the country’s return to political and economic health, and will work with the international community in building an economic assistance package based upon Ukraine’s achievements in crafting a unity government. An inclusive, broad-based government committed to reconciliation and to economic reform is the necessary foundation for international assistance. We call on Ukraine’s leaders to do their utmost to protect the security and human rights of all their citizens, including the rights of minorities, to recommit to honor the state’s international obligations, and to avoid divisive policies. We urge outside actors in the region to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, to end provocative rhetoric and actions, to support democratically established transitional governing structures, and to use their influence in support of unity, peace, and an inclusive path forward. We remind all governments of their political commitments to transparency about military activities under the Vienna Document 2011 and other OSCE principles designed to ensure peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic region.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
On February 26th, the President will speak at the historic Union Depot train station in Saint Paul, Minnesota, where he will launch a competition for $600 million in competitive transportation funding and outline his vision for investing in America’s infrastructure with a $302 billion, four year surface transportation reauthorization proposal. The President will continue to act when he can to promote job growth in the transportation sector and put more Americans back to work repairing and modernizing our roads, bridges, railways, and transit systems, and will also work with Congress to act to ensure critical transportation programs continue to be funded and do not expire later this year.
Launching Competition for $600 in TIGER Grants
Today, the President is announcing that the U.S. Department of Transportation is making available $600 million to fund transportation projects across the country under a sixth round of the highly successful TIGER competitive grant program. This funding and opportunity for governors, mayors, and other local leaders to partner with the Federal government is a result of the bipartisan Consolidated Appropriations Act the President signed in January and an example of what progress is possible when Washington works together across partisan lines.
Since 2009 when the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that launched the program, the TIGER grant program has awarded $3.5 billion to 270 projects in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico – including 100 projects to support rural communities. These high impact investments have improved the nation’s road, rail, transit, and port systems, and supported multi-modal projects that efficiently connect these varying types of transportation modes. Demand for TIGER funds has been overwhelming, and the quality of applications has been high. During the previous five rounds, the U.S. Department of Transportation received more than 5,300 applications requesting nearly $115 billion for transportation projects across the country.
The President’s Vision for 21st Century Transportation Infrastructure
The Highway Trust Fund that provides critical funding for repairing roads, bridges, and transit systems is projected to become insolvent later this summer, and the existing surface transportation bill expires in September. Moreover, the current way we fund our transportation investments is insufficient to meet the nation’s transportation infrastructure needs and grow our economy.
The President is committed to working on a solution that not only avoids a near-term funding crisis, but also provides stability and meet the pent-up transportation needs to help American families and workers and businesses in rural, suburban, and urban communities across the country.
The President’s vision, which will be described in his FY2015 Budget request, will create jobs, grow our economy, attract private investment, facilitate American exports, reduce commute times and increase access to jobs, make our roads and bridges safer, cut red tape, and increase the return on investment of transportation infrastructure for American taxpayers. The President is calling for a $302 billion, four year transportation reauthorization proposal that increases and provides stable funding for our nation’s highways, bridges, transit, and rail systems. The President is proposing one way to pay for this investment, by using $150 billion in one-time transition revenue from pro-growth business tax reform, but will work closely with Congress and listen to their ideas for how to achieve this important objective.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Mandarin Oriental Hotel
Washington, D.C.
7:19 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is good to see all of you. And I’ve had a chance to hug you and catch up. So now it’s all business. (Laughter.)
Let me start by thanking Jim Messina and Jon Carson and all the OFA staff for the great work that they do each and every day. I’ve gotten a lot of compliments from a lot of you about the quality of the OFA staff and I actually concur -- (applause.) I actually concur that they are terrific and passionate about the work that we’re doing out there.
I just had a chance to talk to some of the leaders from states and communities all across the country who are pounding the pavement and talking to their neighbors and talking to their friends. And the levels of enthusiasm and energy that they projected was inspiring, and it really reminds me of why what I do in the White House matters -- because I got folks like that out on the ground, out in communities every single day that are counting on me to give voice to the incredible work that they’re doing but also the values that they represent.
And I want to thank all of you. As I look around the room, I would not be President if it were not for this room. And there are a lot of people here who are new friends, but there are also some folks here who supported me way back in the day when I had no gray hair and I didn’t wear a tie. (Laughter.) Somebody just showed me a picture the other day, and I looked really young. (Laughter.)
Most of this is just going to be a conversation. I want to spend time on questions and answers, and dialogue and discussion. But let me just make a couple of quick comments.
Number one, as I said at the State of the Union address, I genuinely think this year can be a breakout year for America. We have now really consolidated the recovery. If you look at the statistics -- 8.5 million new jobs, unemployment rate the lowest it’s been since before I was elected, you’ve got manufacturing coming back, we’ve made progress on energy, fuel efficiency, carbon emissions reductions, making steady progress in terms of reforming our education system -- we’re actually poised to make the 21st century the American Century, just like the 20th century was.
And Alan Solomont is over here nodding his head. Alan was representing the United States and did an outstanding job in Spain. And one of the remarkable things that I think he will affirm is that everybody outside of the United States actually thinks that we’re doing a remarkable job, that our economic growth is the envy of most of the developed world. And yet that’s not always reflected in people’s moods here in the States.
And there’s a reason for that. Our growth has been uneven. Those of us at the very top have disproportionately benefitted from productivity gains, technology, globalization; middle-class families, working-class families still feel like they’re struggling every single day to get by, and the ladders of opportunity for folks who want to work their way into the middle class are not as robust as they used to be. And so, even in the midst of recovery there’s still a lot of anxiety out there.
And what I said in the State of the Union was that we have to be focused like a laser on building back up an opportunity society in which everybody feels like if they work hard and if they’re responsible, they can get ahead. And that means more jobs. That means making sure people are trained for the jobs that are out there. It means making sure kids get a world-class education. It means that work pays and that not only are they getting a decent paycheck that can support their families, but that they’ve got retirement security and health care security, and all the things that give them a stable platform to live their lives and make sure their kids succeed. So we’re doing that.
And I’ve also said that Congress may not be willing to break gridlock during a presidential year -- I’m going to look for every opportunity to work with them, but if they’re not, we’re just going to go ahead and do some work.
So just one example: Today, at the White House we announced two more advanced manufacturing hubs, one in Detroit and one in Chicago, where we are going to take cutting-edge research that’s being done on advanced metallurgy and digital technology, and consortiums of universities and businesses are coming together to bring jobs back to the United States of America, attract investment. And we didn’t have to do that with some legislation, although there is some legislation pending in Congress that could expand it.
We did the same thing to make sure federal contractors are paying their employees $10.10 an hour. (Applause.) We’re doing the same thing when it comes to making sure that we’ve got high-speed broadband in every classroom in America. I already have a commitment that’s going to mean millions of students, about 20 million students, 15,000 schools across America are going to be wired for broadband. We’re doing that in conjunction with the FCC and the private sector.
And so we’re just going to keep on looking for ways in which we can realize the values that we’ve been fighting for, for a long time.
But as all of you know because you were involved in 2008 or 2012, it doesn’t work if we don’t have folks on the ground who are speaking out on behalf of these issues and these values. Politics has become so toxic, and information is so contested, and people are separated from how they get news, that oftentimes to break through what’s necessary is the validation of a neighbor or a friend, or a coworker, or a family member. And that’s where OFA comes in, because it’s able to in very concrete terms help to generate people’s energy and mobilize their interest around these issues in ways that are not abstract, but are very concrete and very specific, and that reach people where they live -- at the kitchen table and at the water cooler at work. And that grassroots work that is done also then energizes me and informs the issues that we’re going to try to lift up over the course of the next year.
So I just want to say to all of you, what you’re doing is really important and we really appreciate it. And you don’t always -- it’s not always flashy. It’s often at the ground level, but it makes a difference.
And one final example of that difference that’s being made is when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. Obviously, nowhere has there been more misinformation; nowhere are just basic facts more contested. But as a consequence of some of the folks that have been doing this work on the ground, as of today, we’ve signed up more than 4 million people through the exchanges. (Applause.) That’s 4 million people who have the security of health care, in many cases for the very first time. And that doesn’t count the 3 million who are already able to get health insurance because they’re staying on their parents’ plan. That doesn’t count the millions who have been able to sign up through Medicaid. And we’re not done yet.
So when you’ve got grassroots folks who are committed and energized like they are, it makes a difference. And whatever issues you care about -- whether it’s climate change, or women’s reproductive health, or foreign policy, or education, or access to higher education -- having folks who are willing to fight for what they believe in connected to what we do here is really powerful and important. And they couldn’t do it without you.
So I just wanted to say thank you to all of you. (Applause.)
END
7:30 P.M. EST
February 25, 2014 | 20:44 | Public Domain
As a part of this year of action and following up on his 2014 State of the Union, today President Obama announces two new public-private manufacturing innovation institutes – one in Chicago and one in the Detroit area -- as well as a competition for the first of four additional institutes that will put America at the forefront of 21st century manufacturing.
East Room
3:19 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hey! Thank you. (Applause.)
Welcome to the White House, everybody. We’ve got some pretty cool stuff up here, and we also have people here who can explain what it all is. But thank you so much for being here. We’ve got, first and foremost, some people who I’m proud to call friends and have been fighting on behalf of American workers every single day.
We’ve got the Governor of the great state of Illinois -- Pat Quinn is here in the house. (Applause.) We’ve got somebody who is responsible for trimming my trees and potholes in front of my house -- (laughter) -- and shoveling snow. And I haven’t been back for a while; I don’t know how it’s going, but I’m assuming he’s handling his business -- the Mayor of the great city of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel is here. (Applause.) We’ve got Phil LaJoy, who’s the supervisor of Canton Township, Michigan, who is here. There he is. (Applause.) Good job, Phil.
And we’ve got some outstanding members of Congress who are here, especially someone who just announced that this would be his last term in Congress, but is somebody who so many of us have learned from, have admired. He is a man who has every single day of his life, in office, made sure that he was fighting on behalf of people who really needed help. And he’s going to be very missed. John, you are not just the longest-serving member of Congress in American history, you’re also one of the very best. Michigan’s own John Dingell is here. (Applause.) And we are better off because of John’s service, and we’re going to miss you.
Now, today I am joined by researchers who invent some of the most advanced metals on the planet, designers who are modeling prototypes in the digital cloud, folks from the Pentagon who help to support their work. Basically, I’m here to announce that we’re building Iron Man. (Laughter.) I’m going to blast off in a second. (Laughter.) We’ve been -- this has been a secret project we’ve been working on for a long time. (Laughter.) Not really. Maybe. It’s classified. (Laughter.)
But keeping America at the cutting edge of technology and innovation is what is going to ensure a steady stream of good jobs into the 21st century. And that’s why we’re here today -- to take new action to put America at the forefront of 21st century manufacturing.
This is a moment when our economy is growing, and it has been growing steadily for over four years now. Our businesses have created about 8.5 million new jobs over the past four years. The unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been in over five years. Our manufacturing sector is adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s. So there’s some good news to report, but the trends that have battered the middle class for decades have become, in some ways, even starker. While those at the top are doing better than ever, average wages have barely budged. Too many Americans are working harder than ever just to keep up. And it’s our job to reverse those trends.
We’ve got to build an economy that works for everyone, not just a fortunate few. We’ve got to restore opportunity for all people. That’s the essence of America: No matter who you are or where you come from, what you look like, how you started out -- if you are willing to work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead in America.
So I’ve been talking now for months about an opportunity agenda. And let me break it down into four parts. Number one, more good jobs that pay good wages -- jobs in American manufacturing, rebuilding our infrastructure, innovation, energy. Number two, training workers with the skills they need to fill those jobs. Number three, guaranteed access to a world-class education for every child in America. And number four, making sure that hard work pays off with wages you can live on and savings you can retire on and health insurance you can count on when you need it.
Now, I’m looking forward to working with Congress wherever they’re willing to do something on any of these priorities. And I have to say that the members of Congress who are here all care deeply about these issues. But let’s face it -- sometimes it’s hard to get moving in Congress. We’ve got a divided Congress at this point. And so, in this year of action, wherever I can act on my own to expand opportunity for more Americans, I’m going to seize that opportunity.
And that’s why we’re here today. Already, my administration has launched two hubs for high-tech manufacturing. One is in Youngstown, Ohio and is focused on 3-D printing, an entirely new way by which the manufacturing process can accelerate and supply chains get stitched together, and you integrate design and all the way through production in ways that can potentially be revolutionary. We’ve also focused on energy-efficient electronics in Raleigh, North Carolina. And what happens at each of these hubs is we’re connecting leading businesses to research universities, so they’re able to ensure that America leads the world in the advanced technologies that are going to make sure that we’re at the forefront when it comes to manufacturing.
Now, my friend Congressman Tim Ryan, who’s here today, helped -- where’s Tim? I just saw him, there he is -- helped us get the first of these hubs off the ground. There’s growing bipartisan momentum now behind these efforts. We’ve got two Republicans and two Democrats, Roy Blunt and Sherrod Brown in the Senate, and Tom Reed and Joe Kennedy in the House, that have written bills that would help us create a true network of these hubs all across the country.
So I’m really encouraging Congress to pass these bills. They’re good ideas. And what they do is not only help link up our top researchers with our best business people, but suddenly they become a focal point of opportunity, and businesses around the country and around the world start seeing, huh, if I’m interested in digital technologies that’s the place I should locate. If I’m interested in 3-D printing, let me go there. And so you get a virtuous cycle that can take place. And Congress I think has an opportunity to really expand these in a significant way.
In the meantime, while Congress decides on what it’s going to do, we’re going to go ahead and take some action to launch more of these hubs this year. And today, we’re announcing the next two advanced manufacturing hubs. One is in the Detroit area, and the other is in Chicago, Illinois. (Applause.)
Now, let me describe a little more why this is so important. For generations of Americans, manufacturing was the ticket to a good middle-class life. We made stuff. And the stuff we made -- like steel and cars and planes -- made us the economic leader of the world. And the work was hard, but the jobs were good. And if you got on an assembly plant in Detroit or in a steel plant in Youngstown, you could buy a home. You could raise kids. You could send them to college. You could retire with some security. And those jobs didn’t just tell us how much we were worth, they told us how we were contributing to the society and how we were helping to build America, and gave people a sense of dignity and purpose. They saw a Boeing plane or one of the Big Three cars rolling off the assembly line, and they said, you know what, I made that. And they were iconic. And people understood that’s what it meant for something to be made in America.
Now, advances in technology have allowed manufacturers to do more with less. Global competition means a lot of good manufacturing jobs went overseas. There was just more competition. Folks caught up to us, and they in some cases just copied what we were doing with lower wages, so the competition was fierce. And in the 2000s alone, we lost about one-third of all American manufacturing jobs -- and the middle class suffered for it.
Now, the good news is, today, our manufacturers have added more than 620,000 new manufacturing jobs over the last four years. That’s the first sustained manufacturing growth in over 20 years. But the economy has changed. So if we want to attract more good manufacturing jobs to America, we’ve got to make sure we’re on the cutting edge of new manufacturing techniques and technologies.
And I just have to emphasize here that -- because you’ll hear some people say, well, why are manufacturing jobs so special, and this is a service economy. Nobody believes that we’re going to duplicate all the manufacturing jobs that existed back in the ‘40s and the ‘50s just because the economy has changed. You go into an auto plant now, it’s different then it was. Fewer people can make more cars.
But keep in mind that when we have manufacturing in this country, what ends up happening is that, first of all, there are a whole lot of suppliers to those manufacturers, so that one plant may be deceptive. It doesn't tell you all the companies all across the country that are working on behalf of those manufacturers. The services that are provided to those manufacturers, the advertising that's connected to it, and the architects and the designers and the software engineers -- all those things may not be counted as manufacturing, but by us having those hubs of manufacturing, it has a ripple effect throughout the economy.
So we’ve got to focus on advanced manufacturing to keep that manufacturing here in the United States. That's what’s going to help get the next Stark Industries off the ground. (Laughter.)
So today -- by the way, my Commerce Secretary, Penny Pritzker, is not here because she’s in Silicon Valley meeting with business leaders and talking about how together we can work together to spur economic growth.
The point is, I don't want the next big job-creating discovery to come from Germany or China or Japan. I want it to be made here in America.
And this is one last point I’m going to make about this. Typically, a lot of research and development wants to be co-located with where manufacturing is taking place -- because if you design something, you want to see how is it working and how is it getting made, and then tinker with it and fix it, and try something different. So if all the manufacturing is somewhere else, the lead we’ve got in terms of design and research and development, we’ll lose that too. That will start locating overseas. And we will have lost what is the single most important thing about American economy, and that is innovation.
So that's what all these hubs are about. They’re partnerships that bring together companies and universities to develop cutting-edge technology, train workers to use that technology, and then make sure that the research is translated into real-world products made by American workers.
So the first hub, in Michigan, is going to focus on developing advanced lightweight materials. Detroit has already helping lead the American comeback in manufacturing. Since we stepped in to help our automakers retool, the American auto industry has created almost 425,000 new jobs. And they’ve already begun using new high-strength steel to make lighter cars that use less gas, save money, help save the planet, cars are still safe -- because of these new metals.
And that's just one example of the incredible things these new metals can do. You’re seeing the same thing when it comes to lighter armored vehicles for our troops; planes and helicopters that can carry bigger payloads. If you look at some of the new planes that Boeing is manufacturing, they look lighter; even though they have the same capacity, they use less fuel. Wind turbines that generate more power at less cost. Prosthetic limbs that help people walk again who never thought they could. So we believe there’s going to be an incredible demand for these metals, both from the military and from the private sector, and we want to make sure they're made right here in America. We want our workers to have those jobs. So that's what our first hub is going to do -- focus on making these cool metals.
Second hub -- based in Chicago, but keep in mind this is a consortium of more than 40 companies, 23 universities, labs like Northwestern and the University of Illinois, and nearly 200 small businesses. A number of other states are participating in this consortium. It’s funded by a $70-million award led by the Defense Department, but the state and its businesses raised $250 million in private funding commitments to help win this bid and make it happen.
So this Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation [Institute] is going to be headquartered not far from downtown Chicago, on Goose Island, where there’s also a very superior beer in case you are -- (laughter and applause) -- I’m just letting you know. (Laughter.) A little hometown plug there. Feel free to use that, Goose Island. (Laughter.) And it’s going to focus on using digital technology and data management to help manufacturers turn their ideas into real-world products faster and cheaper than before. And it will include training to help more Americans earn the skills to do these digital manufacturing jobs.
And this is critical: The country that gets new products to market faster and at less cost, they’ll win the race for the good jobs of tomorrow. And if you look at what’s happening in manufacturing, a lot of it is much more specific. Companies want to keep their inventories low. They want to respond to consumer demand faster. And what that means is, is that manufacturers who can adapt, retool, get something out, change for a particular spec of a particular customer, they’re going to win the competition every time.
And we want that country that is specialized in this to be us, the United States of America. We want suppliers to be able to collaborate with customers in real-time, test their parts digitally, cut down on the time and money that they spend producing expensive prototypes. We want our manufacturers to be able to custom-design products tailored to each individual consumer. We want our troops to be able to download digital blueprints they can use to 3-D print new parts and repair equipment right there in the field. And these are all ambitious goals, but this is America -- that’s what we do, we’re ambitious. We don’t make small planes.
Now, that doesn’t mean we’re going to be able to make all these happen overnight. This stuff takes time. And we also know these manufacturing hubs have the potential to fundamentally change the way we build things in America. So 10 years from now, 20 years from now, imagine our workers manufacturing materials that used to be science fiction -- a sheet of metal that’s thinner than paper but is strong as steel. Or our workers being able to design a product using these materials entirely on a computer, they bring it to market, less money, hire folks to build it right here, sell it all over the world. That’s what the next generation of American manufacturing could look like.
But to get there, we can’t stop at just four of these hubs. I’m really excited about these four hubs; the only problem is Germany has 60 of them. Germany has 60 of them. Part of the reason Germany has been able to take the lead in certain manufacturing areas is because they’ve invested in these hubs and then they invest in the training of the workers for these very precise machines and tools, and that means that that cuts into our market share when it comes to manufacturing around the world.
So we can’t let Germany have 60 and us have four. We’ve got to do better. So I’m hoping that we can get these outstanding members of Congress to push this through so I can sign a bill. But without waiting for Congress, we can launch four new manufacturing hubs this year. That’s our intention. My Department of Energy is announcing the competition for the first of these new hubs today. So to businesses and universities or civic leaders who are watching, start forming those partnerships now. Turn your community into a global center for creating high-tech jobs.
We can’t turn the clock back to earlier, easier times when thousands of Americans would just punch in at a single factory and pound out the products for the industrial age. But thanks in part to our investment and most importantly to the collaboration of some of these outstanding institutions and leaders, factories that once went dark are turning their lights on again. More assembly lines are churning out the cars that the world wants to buy, humming with components of the clean energy age. If we stay focused on winning this race, we will make sure the next revolution in manufacturing is an American revolution. (Applause.) And we’ll make sure that opportunity for all is something that’s made in the USA.
Thanks very much, everybody. Congratulations. Good job. Keep it up. (Applause.)
END
3:40 P.M. EST
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Mandarin Oriental Hotel
Washington, D.C.
6:18 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, OFA! (Applause.) Hey! Well, it is good to see all of you. Thank you. (Applause.) Everybody, sit down, sit down, sit down. Everybody give Joshua a big round of applause. (Applause.) I thought he did an excellent job. His parents and family, who are with him here today, are very proud. They get a little, special seat. This is nice. (Laughter.)
Well, it is great to see all of you. And I could not be prouder of everything that you’ve done. I just always get excited when I have a chance to see OFA because what I know is that each and every day you are out there in your communities, talking to your friends, talking to your neighbors, talking to your coworkers. And that's how change is made. That's how this country continues to constantly evolve so that it’s a little bit fairer, and more people have opportunity because wonderful folks, day in, day out, are out there doing their small part to make our democracy work. So I am really, really proud of all of you, and it is great to see all of you. (Applause.)
Four weeks ago tonight, actually, I delivered my State of the Union address. (Applause.) Yes. And I focused on some ideas that have been at the heart of this journey dating back to 2007, when some of you may have gotten involved in the campaign for the first time. That was back when I had no gray hair --
AUIDENCE MEMBER: You look good! (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Michelle thinks so, too. Michelle thinks so, too. (Laughter.)
I didn't wear a tie back then, which I miss. (Laughter.)
But when we talked about our vision, about why I was running and why so many folks at a grassroots level were getting involved all across the country, there were some basic principles, some basic tenets. And at the core of it was this idea of opportunity -- the idea that in America, it shouldn’t matter where you started, it shouldn’t matter what you look like, where you come from, who you love, what your last name is, what you worship. What matters is you willing to work hard. What matters is your willingness to take responsibility for yourself and your family and your community and your nation. And if you are willing to do those things, you should be able to get ahead. (Applause.)
It doesn't mean that everybody is suddenly wildly rich. It means that you can make it. It means that you’ve got some basic security. It means that you can afford a home and that you can send your kids to college and make sure they get a good education. And you can retire with dignity and respect, and you’ve got health care you can count on. And you can pass on a sense of hope and optimism to your children. That was what we fought for.
And the problem at the time obviously was not just that that idea had been betrayed or was not being fully realized for decades; it was also that we were in the midst of one of the worst financial crises -- we didn't fully know it when I was running -- but we ended up being in one of the worst financial crises in our history.
And so we’ve spent a lot of time now digging back, digging out of that -- fighting back and digging out of that hole. And it’s been challenging, and it’s been tough. And some of you in your own personal lives, you’ve seen the effects of it. Some folks here may have lost their home during that crisis. Some folks here may have lost their jobs during that crisis. Some folks here may have seen someone else in their family suffer from the effects of that Great Recession.
And the good news is, is that over the course of the last four and a half years, we have seen the economy grow. We’ve seen our businesses create more than 8.5 million new jobs. (Applause.) We’ve seen -- the auto industry has come roaring back. We’ve seen manufacturing creating jobs consistently for the first time since the 1990s. We’ve got a lot of work behind us clearing away the rubble of that crisis.
And so I believe that this year we are poised potentially to see a breakout year for America. There’s no country on Earth that is better positioned to take advantage of the future than us. We've got the best businesses, the best workers, the best universities, the best scientists -- (applause) -- the most innovative economy on Earth.
But -- and here’s the catch, and this is what I talked about at the State of the Union address -- what we've still seen even as we've recovered from the recession is this long-term trend that has not yet been reversed in which we've got folks at the very top doing better than ever, and working-class families, middle-class families, folks struggling to get into the middle class have continued to have to work harder and harder and harder just to get by. And more of those ladders of opportunity into the middle class have been taken away.
And as I said at the State of the Union, our job, our generational task is to reverse those trends and get back to a point where our economy is growing in a broad-based way, an economy in which everybody feels the benefits; an economy in which everybody feels more secure. That's what we're fighting for. That's what we're fighting for.
And so I put forward then what we called an opportunity agenda. And it’s pretty simple; we can break it down into four component parts: Number one, more good jobs that pay a good wage -- because we know that work is not just a matter of a paycheck, it also gives people a sense of purpose and dignity and shape to their lives. Number two, making sure that everybody who doesn’t have a job is trained in the skills they need to get those good jobs. Number three, a world-class education for every child in America -- not just some, but every child in America. (Applause.) And number four, that work pays -- so that if you're working full-time, you're not in poverty; so that you're bringing home enough to cover your bills; that you have some semblance of security; that you have some savings that you can retire on; so that you’ve got health care that you can count on. (Applause.)
Now, what I've also said is, look, I want to work with Congress wherever possible. (Laughter.) Now, folks shouldn’t laugh at that. There are a lot of folks in Congress who I think want to get some stuff done, but unfortunately, not enough to break through some of this gridlock. We're going to see this year, an election year, whether they can move forward on some of these priorities. But what I also said is this is going to be a year of action, so I'm not going to wait. (Applause.) Where Congress does not act and I've got a chance to help middle-class Americans and folks trying to get in the middle class, we're going to go ahead and act without them. (Applause.)
And over the past four weeks, we've tried to show what that means -- because we've moved on all four areas of this opportunity agenda. (President sneezes.) (Laughter.) I've been working so hard I might be getting a cold. (Laughter.) I actually think I'm okay. I'm just -- (laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Get covered! (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Got to get covered. (Applause.) Got to get covered. (Laughter and applause.)
So just I’ll give you a couple of examples. We’ve launched new hubs to help bring 21st century manufacturing jobs back to America, to our shores. (Applause.) We ordered reforms in our job training system so that folks are being trained for jobs that actually exist, so that when you get trained you know that there’s a job out there for you. (Applause.)
We rallied business leaders to help make sure that there’s the fastest possible broadband in every classroom in America. (Applause.) And we’ve already gotten that started with billions of dollars in commitments that are going to be going into classrooms. And we’re going to help teachers so that they’re trained to help these students take advantage of these new technologies.
I signed, as many of you know, an executive order saying that if you want a contract with the federal government, you’ve got to pay your workers $10.10 an hour. (Applause.) They deserve fair pay.
So we’ve made some progress, but we’ve got more to do. And as usual, I need your help. You guys are going to be the key to helping to drive some of this agenda not just next month, not just over the next six months, but over the course of this year
-- because we want to be able to look back and say we’ve made some progress on this opportunity agenda.
So let me just talk to you about what I really want you to focus on. Number one, let’s make sure we’re giving America a raise. (Applause.) Let’s make sure we’re giving America a raise. One thing that Americans across the board agree on is if you work full-time in the wealthiest nation on Earth, you shouldn’t be in poverty. You shouldn’t be in poverty. And in the year since I first asked Congress to raise the minimum wage, six states have gone ahead and raised theirs. More are working on it. I just met with the governors this past weekend -- you’ve got a whole bunch of governors who are saying we need to raise this minimum wage.
In my State of the Union address, I called on business leaders to start raising their minimum wage. And last week, the Gap announced that it was going to raise its base wage for 65,000 of its employees, which was good news, obviously, for them. (Applause.) This should not be hard to do.
Three-quarters of Americans support raising the minimum wage -- not just Democrats; independents, Republicans support raising the minimum wage. Unfortunately, so far we have seen Republicans in Congress not even want to vote on it, even though the current proposal would potentially provide more income for 16 million Americans.
Now, I know that OFA volunteers from coast to coast held a Day of Action last week to let people know it makes no sense to block a vote on raising the minimum wage, telling people how to fight back. This is really important. Three-quarters of your neighbors, your friends, your coworkers agree with us on this. We just have to get them activated.
It doesn’t involve a big, new government program. It doesn’t involve a big, new bureaucracy. It doesn’t involve new federal spending. All it involves is Congress taking a vote, and three-quarters of the American people say it’s the right thing to do. And it won’t just be good for those families, it will be good for our economy as a whole -- because when ordinary families have more money in their pockets, they go out and spend it. And when they go out and spend it, that means business has more customers, and that means more profits and that means they can hire more workers. And the whole economy starts going up.
So this is good for our economy and it’s good for everybody. But I’m going to need all of you to keep on pushing on that front.
The second thing, I could not be prouder of the work that you’ve done to help America get covered. Joshua told you his story. He is an example that is duplicated all across the country. Because of you, we now have 4 million Americans who have signed up for quality, private health insurance through the marketplace exchanges; 4 million people have already signed up, because of you -- 4 million. (Applause.) That’s on top of the 3 million young people who have been able to get coverage by staying on their parents’ plan, and on top of the millions of Americans who are signing up to get Medicaid for the first time.
So you’ve already, because of the work that you’ve done, made sure that people all across America are getting better coverage. And that is also in addition to seniors who have gotten discounts on their prescription drugs because we’ve closed the doughnut hole, and all the people who already had health insurance but now don’t have to face lifetime limits now aren’t going to be -- because of some fine print -- left out in the lurch when they actually need their health insurance. It doesn’t count all the preventive care that’s suddenly available to everybody.
And those things are making a difference in people’s lives right now, and you’ve done that. But we’ve got more work to do. The fact is, is that we want everybody covered, not just some. That was always the intention and everybody now has the opportunity to get covered. But let’s face it, a combination of an implacable opposition that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, spreading misinformation on this plan -- you combine that with, let’s face it, the website didn’t work for the first month, and all those things combined mean that a lot of people who really could use this coverage are still unsure, or dissuaded, or haven’t checked it out for themselves.
And we’ve got to make sure that they know that this will pay off for them; that the majority of people out there, if they actually check their plans, when you combine it with the tax credits, can get health insurance for $100 or even less -- in some cases, less than the cost of their cell phone bill or their cable bill. And they’ll have that security, that peace of mind. It means women can’t be charged more than men just because they’re women. (Applause.) It means that if you’ve got a preexisting condition, you don’t have to worry about being able to get coverage if you lose your job anymore. (Applause.)
So everybody here has got a story. A lot of you, you got involved in the first place because of this health care issue, a lot of you -- because I know I met you on the campaign trail in some cases, and you came up and told me about a story of how painful and difficult an illness in the family had been, and not knowing how you were going to pay for coverage, how you were going to pay for the care for a loved one.
So you all know this, and you can tell these stories in ways that are outside of politics. Politicians, if they’re talking here in Washington, people discount them. I’ll just be honest with you. People, they just assume, you know what, everybody is just yacking and trying to win an election. And so that’s why misinformation can thrive.
But when they hear from their friends and their neighbors and their coworkers like you, and you’re able to say, hey, here check it out, take a look on the website -- if you reach out to your Republican friend who can't stand Obama, but is basically a nice person and they just -- (laughter) -- but they watch the wrong newscast or -- (laughter) -- you all know those folks. Some uncle or cousin, you love them to death, but they come in with all this information that's just wrong, and you’re shaking your head, but you decide you don't want to get in an argument with them because you haven’t seen them in a while and you miss them. (Laughter.) Right? Everybody has got those folks. You know them. (Applause.)
So if you’re able to reach out to them, and you just say, take a look, here, here, let’s get on the website. There’s the price. There’s the plan. Here’s the tax credit. Here’s what it will cost for you. Come on, Uncle Joe, I know you don't have health insurance. You may not like the President, but this really is a good deal. (Laughter.) They’ll listen to you, right?
And then there are some folks actually who do like me, but they just don't know. (Laughter.) Because they're not paying attention. Because they're on one of the other channels that has “Real Housewives” or something. (Laughter.) They really don't know that there’s this health care plan out there.
So what you need to do is to continue what you’re doing and reach out with your teams in your respective cities, states, towns, counties, because right now we’ve only got a few weeks left. March 31st, that's the last call. If folks aren’t signed up by March 31st, they can't sign up again until the next open enrollment period with the 2015 rates. So if they want health insurance now, they need to sign up now.
And we’re going to make a big push these last few weeks. But as I said, I can talk, my team can talk here in Washington; it’s not going to make as much of a difference as if you are out there making the case.
The work you’re doing is God’s work. It is hard work. You don't have the prerogative -- (applause) -- you don't have the prerogative to just go around and say no to everything. You don't have the prerogative to just be cynical. You don't think that the country moves forward just on its own. You understand that it happens because ordinary people come together to do some extraordinary things. And let other people root for failure or refight the old battles. Our job is to make sure that this law works for everybody and to keep up the long fight to restore opportunity for all.
So let’s get that minimum wage done and give America a raise. (Applause.) Let’s get people signed up and make sure that everybody has coverage. (Applause.) Let’s keep going on all the issues of equity and equal pay for equal work -- (applause) -- and making sure that families have security, and that we’re bringing jobs back to America, and our kids are getting the education they need and that college is affordable. Let’s keep working on these issues.
I never promised you it was going to be easy. I never did. And I always have to remind people that. (Laughter.) Progress is hard. But progress is possible, and it’s possible because of you. And that's why I couldn’t be prouder of you. All right?
Thank you, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.)
END
6:40 P.M. EST
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:11 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: It’s a good crowd. I don't know what to make about the weather lately, right? I swear it was spring two days ago.
Q We don't control it.
MR. CARNEY: We do have limited control. (Laughter.)
I don't have any specific announcements to make, but I can -- as you know, the President met with Speaker of the House John Boehner here earlier. They had a good and constructive meeting of about an hour where they discussed a range of issues.
You also saw I think a readout of a conversation the President had earlier with President Karzai of Afghanistan, which I don't have a duration on that call, but it was a fairly substantive call, as described in the readout.
Beyond that, I have no other announcements. So I'll go to Jim Kuhnhenn.
Q Thanks, Jay. So I wanted to ask you about those two conversations. With Karzai, he hasn’t spoken to him since June, I believe. Should we read some kind of significance to the call coming at this particular time? And given that the discussion centered a little bit on giving some space for signing of the BSA after the elections, is there a tipping point where it becomes impossible to make any kind of commitment about U.S. troops on the ground?
MR. CARNEY: On the first part of your question, the answer is yes. The President called President Karzai today in order to discuss preparations for Afghanistan’s upcoming elections, the Afghan-led peace and reconciliation efforts, and specifically, the bilateral security agreement. And as you know, we have been calling on the Afghan government to complete that process, to sign that agreement, which was negotiated in good faith, and to do so promptly.
President Obama told President Karzai that because he has demonstrated -- he, being President Karzai -- that it is unlikely that he will sign the BSA, the United States is moving forward with additional contingency planning. So in terms of the timing of the call, I think you can look at it in that context.
When it comes to the potential for a post-2014 troop presence, two things are happening. One, as we made clear would be the case, the President has tasked the Pentagon with preparing for the contingency that there will be no troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014. But we are also remaining open to the possibility of a post-2014 troop presence should a bilateral security agreement be signed -- or the bilateral security agreement be signed later in the year.
But the longer we go without a BSA -- and we've been making this clear -- the more challenging it will be to plan and to execute any U.S. mission. Furthermore, the longer we go without a signed BSA the more likely it will be that any post-2014 U.S. mission will be smaller in scale and ambition. So I don’t have a specific point to identify for you, except to say that the further we go without a signed BSA, any contemplative post-2014 mission would be necessarily limited in scale and ambition because of the requirements of planning for that troop presence.
Q Did the President provide any kind of timeframe to Karzai as to when --
MR. CARNEY: He provided the timeframe I just read out to you, which is --
Q Any specific time when by -- need something by the spring, need something by the fall -- and that would result in what difference?
MR. CARNEY: I think -- or I know that the President was very explicit about what we’ve just read out, which is that the fact that President Karzai has indicated that it is unlikely he will sign the BSA means that if he doesn’t sign it, it is at least possible that a successor Afghan government might sign it, but that pushes us later into the year. And the longer we go without a signed BSA, by necessity, the more narrow in size and ambition the mission for a post-2014 force would be.
So this is about essentially planning for a post-2014 mission. And there are a lot of complexities involved in asking the Defense Department to plan for a zero option -- that is a full withdrawal, in keeping with the President’s promise to end the war in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, and he will keep that promise -- and then, also to plan for a contingency of a post-2014 smaller troop presence. And in the President’s view, it is necessary to plan for that force against the clock here, in the sense that the longer we go without a BSA the smaller in scale and ambition the mission would have to be.
Q In a conversation with the Speaker, it’s been since December of 2012 that they had a face-to-face alone session. Why has it taken so long? I mean, this is the leader of the congressional opposition; he is the President of the United States.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’d say a couple of things, Jim. The President has conversations with leaders of Congress, not all of which are read out to the press -- one. Two, today’s meeting was good and constructive. It covered a range of issues and it was, in the President’s view, a useful conversation. Three, I think you recall the Speaker of the House as reported having said that he would not ever negotiate with the President of the United States again.
So the point is that the President’s position on these issues and his communication with Congress I think has been robust. And we’re looking for ways to move an agenda forward that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility for the American people. We are looking for a partner in Congress to advance part of that agenda. But the President won’t stand still just because Congress is standing still, if Congress decides or if Republicans decide not to take action. So that’s been our explicit approach this year, and that’s the approach the President has been taking thus far and will take for the rest of the year.
Q Any softening on point three that he won’t negotiate with the President?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think it was a good and constructive meeting. I’m not going to read out any more detail beyond sort of the general topic areas that included the ACA, Afghanistan, appropriations, manufacturing, trade, the drought in California, wildfire suppression -- which we talked about yesterday -- other issues, infrastructure and highway funding. But that’s just a partial list. So I think we’re talking about a range of topics that reflect the things that we in Washington are working on both here at the White House and in the administration, and hopefully and potentially in Congress as well.
Jeff.
Q Following up on that meeting as well, the Speaker’s office mentioned that trade was one of the issues that they discussed. Speaker Boehner has said before that it’s up to the President to work on getting his own party behind supporting Trade Promotion Authority. Did the President make any commitments about that or did they discuss strategy for doing that in their meeting?
MR. CARNEY: Trade was one of the many topics that were discussed. I don’t have a further readout on the conversation. I wouldn’t expect a more detailed readout on the conversation. The President’s views on why it is good for the American economy and good for American workers to negotiate trade agreements that expand American exports are well known. And he has expressed them, I have expressed them, others have expressed them, and he has made clear that moving forward on those trade agreements is a priority for him.
It is also the case that this is an ongoing conversation that we’re having with members of Congress in both parties. The difference of opinion that exists in both parties on these issues is not something that suddenly sprang up in 2014. These are issues that have long fostered different views, and that’s something we take into account.
But we believe very strongly, as the President said just last week in Mexico, that having agreements that expand trade and, in particular, when we are talking about the Pacific region, the fastest-growing emerging economies in the world, opening those markets to American goods is good for the economy, and doing so in a way that protects American workers and protects the environment is good for the United States and the world. So that’s why we’re continuing to negotiate agreements, and we will work with Congress to try to bring those agreements into effect.
Q You referenced the Speaker’s comments about not negotiating with the President, but isn’t it also the President’s job to build that relationship and to create meetings like --
MR. CARNEY: Absolutely, and he has. Again, you are under --
Q But wouldn’t you agree that a year is a long time not to have a one-on-one meeting with the Speaker of the House?
MR. CARNEY: I would simply say that we do not read out every conversation and meeting that the President has with members of Congress.
Q Are you implying with that there have been other one-on-ones?
MR. CARNEY: I would simply say that we do not read out every conversation and meeting that the President, the Vice President, or other senior members of the White House has with Congress.
Q Let me ask you one other question. Reuters reported yesterday that Iran signed a deal to sell Iraq arms and ammunition worth $195 million. Has Iran informed the United States about that? And does the White House have a problem with that contract?
MR. CARNEY: We raised our concerns about this matter at the highest levels with the government of Iraq and reiterated that any transfer or sale of arms from Iran is in direct violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The government of Iraq assured us that it would look into the matter. Today, we have seen the press release issued by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense denying that any contracts for military equipment were signed with Iran. We will follow up with the government of Iraq on that matter.
Jim.
Q Getting back to the President’s meeting with the Speaker, it’s been reported and I think it’s a general feeling here in Washington that the Speaker has been standing up to conservative groups, whether it be on the budget or the debt ceiling. Did the President thank the Speaker for that when they met for sticking his neck out for him?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have a more detailed readout for you, Jim. I can tell you that the President has noted generally, as have I and others, that despite the differences that exist in Washington, we have managed to move forward when it comes to the budget agreement and the regular order established by it, first negotiated by Senator Murray and Chairman Ryan, and then passed, and then followed through on with the funding bill that was passed. That's a positive development.
The fact that Republicans decided not to put the full faith and credit of the United States to the test again with the brinksmanship over the necessity of paying the bills that Congress racks up, that was a good thing. And that's good for the economy. It’s good for the middle class. It’s not about winners and losers here in Washington. It’s simply a fact that when the opposite approach has been taken in the past it’s done harm to the American people, harm to job creation. So those are positives. I just don't -- again, I’m not going to get into 20 questions about, was this said, and was that asked.
Q You would hope that perhaps a breakthrough has been made in this relationship between the President and the Speaker, and that perhaps more meetings like this might take place that could be made public.
MR. CARNEY: I think it’s a press misconception that success or failure of legislation in Congress depends on the relationship between a President and a Speaker, or a President and a leader in Congress. The President’s relationship with the Speaker, as the Speaker has said and the President has said, has always been solid. And the problem we’ve had in the past here in Washington has been often the dictation that has been provided by a segment of the House Republican Congress over what the House of Representatives would or would not do. And that hasn’t necessarily been a reflection of what the Speaker would hope for in a perfect world, but what he is able to get his conference to do.
So again -- and I think going back to the broader implication from Jeff’s question and some of the other questions, you saw last year coming out of the 2012 elections, the President and his team very aggressively engage with Congress, including Republicans in Congress, in an effort to try to move forward on some of the issues that have divided Washington, most especially the possibility of a broader budget agreement that would require compromise from both sides but would move the country forward by making necessary investments and reducing the deficit and debt for the medium and long term.
The President put forward a good-faith offer that everyone on both sides recognized as a compromise, and despite all the meetings and dinners and coffees and engagements, we could not get a similar counteroffer from the Republicans.
So we’re going to continue to engage with Congress, with Republicans, in an effort to see where we can find common ground to move the ball forward for the American people. Where Congress refuses to act, the President is going to use every authority available to him to advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work.
Q And I just want to get back to the President’s call to President Karzai. It is a fact that if this bilateral security agreement is not signed that there will be no troops?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, correct.
Q By December 31st, they’ll all be gone?
MR. CARNEY: Absolutely.
Q No wavering on that?
MR. CARNEY: Absent a BSA, there will not be any U.S. troops on the ground beyond the end of the year.
Q And did the President -- his instructions to the Defense Secretary to initiate contingency planning, that started today?
MR. CARNEY: No, no, no --
Q -- or had that already been looked at previously?
MR. CARNEY: What we had been saying for some time now is that we wanted to see the BSA signed; that it was negotiated in good faith by both sides; it was endorsed by the loya jirga in Afghanistan; the end-of-the-year deadline was one that was agreed to by both sides. Afghanistan failed to -- the Afghan government failed to meet that deadline. And we have been pressing in the early part of this year for President Karzai to take action so that that BSA can be completed. He has indicated that he’s not likely to sign the BSA, and so we have to reevaluate where we are.
As we've been saying since the beginning of the year, the longer we wait the more likely the possibility is that we end up a zero option with no troops at all beyond 2014 because we cannot and will not have U.S. troops on the ground without a signed BSA.
Q A former Guantanamo detainee has been arrested in Britain on suspicion of terror offenses in Syria. When you see these incidences pop up does it give the White House any pause on a policy for closing Guantanamo?
MR. CARNEY: I haven't seen that specific report. What I can tell you is that there is a thorough review process on every individual, every detainee who’s being considered for transfer that takes all of these issues into account.
Margaret.
Q Did the President, in his instructions to the Pentagon, give them a timeline to provide him with a zero option? I know it’s been under discussion for a while, but now he’s saying, do this; tell me how it would work. When do you expect to get that from them, even if you don't need to use it until August or September?
And I also wanted to ask you, when the President and Speaker Boehner spoke about Afghanistan, as the readout reflects, can you give us some kind of a sense about whether Boehner will support Obama on this BSA thing? It seems to me like you see a lot of calls from Republican leadership or committee leadership, like the President really needs to get onboard and get serious about the BSA. But it seems like from the White House’s perspective, you guys are saying, look, we're doing this; it’s the Afghan government that's not signing it. Did the President and the Speaker sort of get square on that, or are you still concerned that you have political undercurrents on the Republican side that are hurting you in your posture on Afghanistan?
MR. CARNEY: Let me take a crack at the second part there. It’s inconceivable, I think, to us that leaders in Congress would allow for a U.S. troop presence without a signed bilateral security agreement in Afghanistan. It is a simple fact that the bilateral security agreement was negotiated over a prolonged period of time in good faith. The agreement was reached. It was endorsed by the representatives of the Afghan people. It is not subject to renegotiation. I'm not sure I've heard members of Congress suggest that it should be.
What I think has been amply demonstrated is that we've been pressing very hard for the Karzai government to complete the process by signing the BSA. Since it is now unlikely, it has been indicated that it is unlikely by President Karzai that he will sign it, the President made clear in his call today that we are preparing for the possibility of no troops in Afghanistan beyond the end of the year, and that any -- we are open to the signing of a bilateral security agreement later in the year, but the longer it takes to get there, by necessity because of the planning, the smaller the mission will be beyond 2014 both in size and ambition.
And the mission, in any case, as you know -- to clarify since I haven't said it today -- will be focused solely on counterterrorism and the training and support of Afghan security forces. The war ends this year, at the end of this year, regardless, as the President and NATO decided some time ago.
Q But did the President ask Speaker Boehner, hey, can you please support me on this BSA stuff rather than have Republican members in your caucus making it sound like I’m not pushing hard enough to get the BSA signed? Did this come up as a part of their conversations?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have a more detailed readout to provide to you. What I can tell you is that that was a subject of -- a conversation that included many subjects and that --
Q Afghanistan or --
MR. CARNEY: Afghanistan. And I think -- the BSA is part of Afghanistan -- that is certainly the focus at this time.
The President had, just prior to meeting with Speaker Boehner, had spoken with President Karzai, so this was certainly a fresh development to discuss with the Speaker. But I’m not -- maybe I’m missing something. I’m not aware of to any great degree the critique about pushing for the signing of the BSA because I think we have been quite aggressive in doing that.
Q And on the question of -- I know you don’t have more to read out than what’s in the readout, but is the Pentagon going to present now the President with a plan that they have not yet presented him with, which is, this is how zero option would work? And when do you expect him to get that plan?
MR. CARNEY: Look, I think that the answer to that question is I don’t have a specific date for you. The fact is it has always been envisioned by the U.S. and our NATO allies that we would draw down to zero by the end of this year. The prospect of a force beyond 2014 has always been a goal, a policy goal dependent upon a BSA being signed.
And what I think the conversation today and the message conveyed today by the President to President Karzai was about is the acknowledgement that President Karzai, despite our efforts, has indicated he is unlikely to sign the BSA, and the consequences of that in terms of planning going forward on, with each passing day, more realistically, on the prospect of a full withdrawal, and the acknowledgment that we’re making today and the President made to President Karzai that we would be open to the BSA being signed later in the year, but that as time passes, by necessity because of the complexities of planning withdrawal -- and it’s not just troops, we’re talking about equipment and closing of bases -- that the mission beyond 2014 should a BSA be signed would, by necessity, if it happens late in the year, be smaller in scale and ambition.
Does that make sense?
Jon.
Q On the meeting with Speaker Boehner, in the readout that the Speaker’s office provided is a long, long list of topics -- droughts, floods, fires, Afghanistan -- no mention of long-term budget, entitlements, tax reform. So what I’m wondering, given that and given the fact that the entitlement reforms were taken out of the President’s budget, or are going to be taken out of the President’s budget, could we now put the last nail in the coffin of the idea of a grand bargain?
MR. CARNEY: I’d say two things. First of all, the list that I’ve seen from the Speaker’s office and the one that I’ve provided more or less off the cuff just now I don’t think represents a complete --
Q But they weren’t banging out a grand bargain, is that right?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t think we suggested that they were or that that was even possible in the time that they met. What remains absolutely the case is that the President is ready and willing to negotiate a balanced deficit reduction deal, long-term deficit reduction deal, if Republicans are willing to meet him halfway and are willing to commit to balance. That’s what the inclusion of so-called chained CPI in his budget last year was about.
It was the exception to the rule, when it comes to the presentation by Presidents of their budgets, in that it included not a priority for him, but a priority for Republicans, because that was an effort to make clear in the presentation of his budget that the offer he had made to the Speaker of the House in negotiations at the end of the previous year was still on the table and that it was a good-faith offer, and that he believed, based on those negotiations, there was the possibility that Republicans might be willing to meet him halfway in achieving that grand bargain, if you will, or even a mid-sized bargain that was based on a balanced approach to dealing with our deficit challenge -- an approach that allowed us, because of the balance, to make sure that we weren’t achieving that deficit reduction solely on the backs of the middle class, that we are asking everybody to participate, and that we would be able to make the necessary investments in our economy in innovation and job creation that would secure the foundation for growth in the future.
So that’s a long way of saying the offer, as I said last week, is on the table, but we have not, despite our, I think, persistent efforts last year -- all the meetings and coffees and dinners and the like to try to test the theory that Republicans were willing to have discussions about this -- despite those efforts producing nothing out of the Republicans.
Q So whoever’s fault it is, has the President come to terms with the likelihood, maybe even certainty, that he will leave office having been unable to achieve an agreement that will even address the long-term challenges facing Social Security and Medicare? That is just something that he will have left and left the problem for his successors to deal with?
MR. CARNEY: The President has nearly three years remaining in his term. And he believes that there’s enormous opportunity for progress in a range of areas with Congress and through the use of his executive authority. And he would not say that there’s no chance of that effort being rewarded with success, but it requires a willingness by Republicans to compromise, to agree to the basic principle that if we’re going to tackle our longer-term deficit and debt challenges, that we have to do it in a balanced way.
And you’ve seen kind of the schizophrenia among Republicans on this issue where they criticize the President for taking CPI out when they refuse to deal in good faith on a compromise -- a negotiation built around compromise last year when the President explicitly made clear it was on the table and put it in his budget. You see it where they try to hammer Democrats over savings and entitlements that have been in the Republican budget for three straight years. I think it doesn’t reflect well on their seriousness when it comes to trying to reach a compromise bipartisan long-term deficit reduction plan.
I would also say that the President remains hopeful that that can be achieved during his time in office. He will, regardless, based on projections and based on where we are now, have presided over the steepest deficit reduction since World War II. He will have presided over deficit reduction that brings in the next 10-year window, based on our projections, the deficit-to-GDP below 2 percent, which is significantly lower than the projections under the much celebrated Simpson-Bowles goal. And he will have done that having inherited the largest deficits in history when he took office in January of 2009.
Q And then quickly on Afghanistan. Obviously, this is a big deal -- I mean, the frustration of not being able to get the BSA signed; enormous consequences if the United States has to pull out every last troop at the end of the year. And yet, the President hasn’t had a conversation with President Karzai since July until today. I mean, why that level of detachment? With the stakes so high, why did the President go so long without picking up the phone and talking to Karzai and personally urging him to sign this agreement?
MR. CARNEY: Jon, I think it’s a preposterous suggestion that when you have prolonged negotiation with the Afghan government that produces the Bilateral Security Agreement, you have the commitment through the loya jirga of the Afghan people to support it, you have a deadline set by both the U.S. and Afghan government that it should be signed by the end of the year, and you have all of the interlocutors that we have on the U.S. side engaging with the Afghan government, including with the President on a regular basis, that the message that it needs to be signed was not abundantly clear to President Karzai. The decision of President Karzai to indicate that it is unlikely that he’ll sign the BSA that his government negotiated is obviously his decision, but it’s not because we haven’t made clear that it ought to be signed.
Q I mean, what do you make -- again, you’ve got many -- you’ve got the Secretary of State, you’ve got many people raising this issue. But this is the President of the United States. This is a high-stakes situation. And he decided obviously it was important to make the call today. I’m just wondering why not as the deadline approached, or as the deadline passed? I mean, why --
MR. CARNEY: Jon, I just think that it has been communicated directly and indirectly --
Q But not by the President himself. You know how --
MR. CARNEY: Well, no, the President has stood up and said it publicly many times. I think it’s sort of a preposterous notion that somehow President Karzai until today didn’t know that it was absolutely our view that he ought to sign the BSA quickly.
Steve.
Q Does the White House have any assurances or reason to believe that some or all of the presidential candidates in Afghanistan would sign the BSA if they were elected?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t think we would, given the experience we’ve had, predict with any great certainty what might happen. I would note that those who cover these issues have reported that candidates have suggested they support it. But we will obviously wait to see what happens.
And mindful of the fact that the longer we go without a signed BSA the more likely a zero option becomes, and the more -- even if a BSA is signed, the smaller the mission will have to be, by necessity, in scale and ambition. And by necessity, I mean in the President’s view when it comes to the planning involved and the safety and security of our troops, that we have to have a sort of sliding scale as the year progresses when it comes to what that post-2014 mission would look like in terms of size and ambition.
Peter.
Q Jay, if I can, Jan Brewer is expected by the end of this week to weigh in on a controversial measure in her state, SB 1062. We asked you about this yesterday and you didn't have an official statement then, but this would allow businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians because of religious beliefs. And we’ve now heard from the NFL, Apple, both senators from that state. Does the President have any thoughts on this?
MR. CARNEY: Well, my suggestion yesterday that it sounded like a pretty intolerant proposed law I think reflects our views. As a practice, we don't generally weigh in on every piece of legislation under consideration in the states. But I think the President’s position on equality for LGBT Americans and opportunity for all is very well known and he believes that all of us, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, should be treated fairly and equally with dignity and respect. And that view would govern our disposition toward a state law under consideration.
Q When Jan Brewer was in Washington, the President didn't have any exchange with her on this topic?
MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of.
Q President Clinton right now is campaigning in the state of Kentucky for Alison Lumdergan Grimes. I’m curious if the President has plans or has spoken to her about plans to come out to Kentucky on her behalf as well.
MR. CARNEY: I don't have any scheduling announcements to make involving the President.
Q In terms of your schedule, later today the President has two OFA events. The DNC is the only major political entity that has not outraised its Republican counterparts. Some Democrats have been critical, complaining that the OFA is diverting funds away from the DNC. Because you speak on behalf of the President and it’s his schedule, any thoughts on that complaint?
MR. CARNEY: I think you can expect, as you’ve seen already, the President to be very engaged in an effort to support Democratic candidates in the Democratic Party through the course of this year, and I think that will be seen in the schedule as it is unveiled.
Q Jay, following on what you told Peter about the Arizona law, you said you don't weigh in on every state law. Why then is the Attorney General telling state attorneys general today, you do not have to defend laws banning same-sex marriage in individual states. If those laws are onerous, discriminatory, you don't like them, why don't you work to overturn them? Why is the Attorney General telling other attorneys general, don't defend the law?
MR. CARNEY: Well, two things. The Attorney General was clear that any decision not to defend individual laws must be “exceedingly rare,” in his quotes, and be based on “firm constitutional grounds”.
As you know -- and I think this goes to the first part of your question -- prior to the Supreme Court on DOMA, the President determined that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and that his administration would no longer defend equal protection challenges against it in the courts. So the Attorney General’s views --
Q So can't individual states decide whether they think it’s constitutional or unconstitutional?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not aware that -- while I’m not a lawyer, but I’m not sure that states decide what’s constitutional.
Q Can I ask you about health care? Secretary Sebelius was on HuffPost Live today, was asked about the original goal of 7 million new enrollees by the end of March, would you still hit that, and she said, “Certainly hope so.” So I wonder -- she wouldn’t give a specific number. But she said I hope we hit that target. Is 7 million still the goal, or the 5 million, 6 million goal that the Vice President said?
MR. CARNEY: I’d say a couple of things, Ed. I think what Secretary Sebelius was reflecting is that we don't have a specific numerical goal in the sense that --
Q You did months ago.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m happy to go through that again, but the --
Q And you put out a --
MR. CARNEY: Hold on, hold on, Ed, let me get through my sentence. That there’s not a specific number that we hit and suddenly it’s a success, and below that by one or five or 20 and it doesn't work.
The important factors here are that there’s a substantial number of people, in the millions, who enroll. We are very confident we will reach that goal. Also important is that there’s a good mix demographically who have enrolled, and we believe based on the data we’ve seen thus far, and based on the experience that Massachusetts had, the closest thing to a model and precursor to the Affordable Care Act at a state level, that we will achieve that necessary demographic mix for the exchanges to work effectively.
When it comes to the 7 million target that CBO simply said was what they believed based on their analysis we would reach, and that it’s true other administration officials then said we hoped we would achieve that, I think what the Vice President said reflects our basic view that we’re going to get a lot of folks by the March 31st deadline.
You won’t hear me or the Secretary or anybody else say it’s going to be this number or over that number. We’re confident that the website has been working effectively for the vast majority of the American people who want to avail themselves of it in order to purchase insurance, and that the numbers that we’ve seen put us on track, as long as we do our jobs well, to achieve the goal of a substantial number in the millions of Americans.
Q Last one: CMS had a report from the administration in the last few days about the impact on small businesses of the health care law, and they pointed out that the impact on large companies will be negligible, there will not be a huge impact. But on small businesses, they said nearly two-thirds of them will pay more for coverage. Since this is the administration saying this, is that not concerning?
MR. CARNEY: Well, of course, the truth about what the CMS evaluated was one provision or one of three -- they looked at three provisions within the law, just three, not the rest. And only one of them has a measurable impact on premiums. So they didn't look at the whole impact of the law and on the one provision, they showed the result that you just mentioned. But this is another Republicans cherry-picking data to tell half the story about the Affordable Care Act.
Q But it’s an administration report. Why wouldn’t they look at the whole law?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think it was an administration report requested and now highlighted by Republicans, again narrowly looking at one provision, which was the requirement that insurance companies no longer, in terms of setting their premiums, advantage seniors over young people and the like. So the fact is the net impact, we believe, will be positive. And the report itself clearly states several times that its results are incomplete and overstated, only looks at the impact of certain parts of the law, not the law as a whole.
Other studies that did look at the impact of the law as a whole found that the impact on premiums would be minimal and the benefits to employers and to workers would be significant -- here are some examples of provisions in the ACA that help to lower costs. In other words, I mean, the point is they looked at one thing that in isolation would have the effect of raising premiums for some individuals without looking at all the other aspects of the law that would actually produce a downward effect on premiums -- tax credits for small businesses, the medical loss ratio, rate review, more purchasing power, more competition between insurers -- all of those elements of the law have the opposite effect.
So again, when looked at in whole, which is how we tend to do it, as opposed to those who want to repeal the law or sabotage it or undermine it -- looked at a whole, we believe the impact on premiums would be minimal and the benefits to employers would be and will be significant.
Q You just told Ed that the ACA was achieving a good demographic mix, which runs counter to everything we’ve heard -- skewing older, we understand. And you’ve got people out there pushing very hard to get younger people in is because they’re underrepresented.
MR. CARNEY: Well, actually that’s a misrepresentation of the facts so far. Where we are in terms of -- based on the data that’s come out in terms of young Americans, young people signing up for ACA, is consistent with where Massachusetts was, A. B, consistent with where Massachusetts was, young people tend to be late signers-up, they tend to come at this very late. And hence, as we telegraphed way in advance, there is an enormous effort aimed at reaching young people to make sure they are aware of all the options available to them, make sure they are aware of the wisdom of having health insurance and aware of the fact that they’re not invincible just because they sometimes feel like they are because they’re young and they don’t have the aches and pains that you and I have some days. They’re going to need health insurance and some of them will need it right away. So that campaign is underway.
But we feel, based on the data that we’ve seen and has been released, that we are on track to have the demographic mix that we need.
Q That means you don’t have it yet.
MR. CARNEY: Well, no. It’s February and the deadline is March 31st.
Q Young people are all going to sign up later?
MR. CARNEY: I think that it is -- I can say with great confidence, based on an enormous body of evidence when it comes to deadlines of this nature and open enrollment periods for a general population, that people tend to sign up in surges towards the end of open enrollment periods. That’s just a fact. We saw that at the end of December. And young people in particular are more prone to wait until the last minute. I think you don’t have to be a sociologist to know that. You just have to be a parent.
Q Chairman Camp either has or is about to release his tax program, which, as we’ve heard, two brackets, 10 and 25 percent, with a 10 percent surtax on large earners. Is this something that the White House has seen, is interested in, could get behind?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we haven’t seen the proposal. We’ve certainly seen a couple of news articles about it or reports about it. So I don’t have a comment on something we haven’t seen. But what I can say is that the President has been clear about his principles. He fought to keep taxes low for 98 percent of Americans. He fought and succeeded in making permanent a tax cut for middle-class Americans. He fought and succeeded to return marginal rates for millionaires and billionaires back to what they were under President Clinton, and he succeeded in doing that. He laid out a corporate tax reform plan that would close loopholes to make our businesses more competitive and use savings through the process of closing loopholes to modernize our infrastructure and invest in what we need to grow. He will continue to take steps to promote economic security for the middle class and opportunity for all.
That’s the President’s approach. I don’t have a response to a tax proposal that we haven’t seen.
Alexis.
Q Jay, last year the President was sensitive publicly to Speaker Boehner’s -- I guess, the pressure on him if the two of them met publicly or were seen publicly. The President actually even joked about it and he wanted to give the Speaker some running room especially on immigration reform. The fact that the two of them met today, does it signal that the President believes the Speaker is in a stronger place to work together on legislation, or that immigration reform is going to have to wait for a new Congress?
MR. CARNEY: I would say, Alexis, that the President asked for the meeting with the Speaker and was glad to have the meeting with the Speaker. It was a good and constructive meeting in which they discussed a range of topics, focused on those areas where here in Washington we either need to take action or where we should take action in order to expand opportunity and reward hard work for middle-class Americans. I don’t think the more nuanced analysis of that played into the meeting. It was just a meeting.
And I think there is -- going to my response to a question earlier, whether it’s the Speaker or another Republican leader, there has not been a lack of conversations and meetings between the President and Republican leaders, or senior members of the President’s team and Republican leaders that is the cause for our failure to achieve everything we need to achieve here in Washington. I think as many of you in this room have amply documented in your reporting, there has been enormous resistance to compromise, largely driven by one faction of one House -- of one party in one House of Congress.
But even when it comes to the so-called grand bargain that Jon was asking about earlier, the President -- we spend a lot of time meeting with Republican senators -- so not even in the House, but Republican senators -- that we and you had hoped would be open to taking a compromise approach, and all those efforts resulted in not a single proposal from Republicans.
So the President’s good-faith proposal remains on the table on that broader issue. And meanwhile, we’re just going to continue to work with Congress to get the things done that we can get done. And when Congress won’t, or where the President has unique powers or authority to advance an agenda using his pen or his phone, he’s going to do that.
Q Can I just follow up and ask you, in all seriousness, when you say it was just a meeting but you also say it was a very useful conversation, what was particularly useful about the two of them meeting face to face?
MR. CARNEY: Alexis, I would simply say two things. As I noted earlier, we don’t read out every meeting and conversation that the President has. And two, this particular meeting was good and constructive and it, as I think both sides have said, covered a range of topics.
Q Were there other people in the meeting? Who else was in the meeting? Where did they get together?
MR. CARNEY: I believe Katie Beirne Fallon, our Legislative Affairs Director, was in the meeting. I’m not sure if anybody else was. But we’ll get that for you.
Q In the Oval?
MR. CARNEY: In the Oval, yes.
Q Jay, a couple questions. On demographics for young people, I just wanted to get a sense. So right now, according to the most recent stats, I think we stand around 27 percent of the enrollees. General experts have talked about needing 40 percent of enrollees to be young people. Could you just define success?
MR. CARNEY: No, I think that the general experts have said that 40 percent of people who are uninsured are young people. That’s a little different from what you would need for the exchanges to have the demographic mix that’s necessary for them to function effectively.
So if you look at the Massachusetts experience, the fact that 27 percent, as you identify, is roughly where we are now, that is entirely consistent with where Massachusetts was. And we remain --
Q At the end of the process or at this point in the process?
MR. CARNEY: At this point in the process. And we remain hopeful and optimistic that, not least because of the efforts that are being undertaken to reach out to folks around the country, that come March 31st, we will have a demographic mix that will meet the criteria necessary to have effective exchanges.
Q And then on wildfires, I was just wondering, given that you have a new budgetary proposal and that came up at the meeting with the Speaker, can you describe to what extent he seemed open to that proposal, which obviously would require action by Congress?
MR. CARNEY: I wouldn’t characterize on behalf of the Speaker his views. I would simply concur that it came up in the meeting. I laid out in some detail yesterday in the briefing what the President’s approach is, essentially acknowledging that these severe wildfires create extraordinary emergencies and that we have been in funding suppression efforts -- basically stealing from one fund in order to deal with suppression -- and therefore leaving us short in a fund that is meant to provide mitigation efforts. So because of that, the President is taking the approach that he is taking.
Yes, Peter.
Q Back on Afghanistan and the call today. To what extent was it timed to allow Defense Secretary Hagel to put the zero option more fully on the table when he meets with his fellow NATO colleagues in Brussels?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think part of that sentence reflects the timing. One of the reasons for the call earlier this week is because Secretary Hagel will be participating in the NATO Defense Ministerial later this week, and obviously planning for a potential post-2014 force is something that will be on the agenda at that NATO Defense Ministerial. So that relates to the timing.
Again, the prospect of no troops beyond the end of this year has been on the table in the sense that for these past weeks President Karzai has been indicating that he’s unlikely to sign the BSA, and absent a signed BSA, we cannot and will not have U.S. or NATO troops in Afghanistan and the longer we go without the BSA being signed the more real that prospect becomes. The planning for that contingency is underway, and I think that was one of the messages the President sought to convey today to President Karzai.
Q Did he also send him a message about U.S. aid, the future of U.S. aid being contingent on signing a BSA, as some in Congress have demanded?
MR. CARNEY: We gave a fairly strong readout and full readout of the call. I think that we have made clear that our commitment to Afghanistan separate from a potential troop presence beyond 2014 is in our national security interests and continues. So I don’t have anything further as it relates to non-military aid or funding that isn’t related to a military presence.
Jon-Christopher.
Q Jay, what is the White House anxiety level when it comes to the next move that President Putin may take regarding Ukraine?
MR. CARNEY: Jon-Christopher, our views on this remain what they have been, which is that we strongly believe that it is in both Russia’s and Europe’s interest that there be a de-escalation of violence in Ukraine; that there be stability restored in Ukraine; that there be steps taken to establish a unity government, a multiparty government, a technocratic government that reflects all sectors of Ukrainian society; and that there be early elections, which would allow the country to have a government that broadly reflects the will of the Ukrainian people.
In the meantime, obviously, decisions need to be made to ensure that the economic piece of that stability is achieved. And we are, as I said yesterday, working with our partners and allies to look at ways that we could complement a potential IMF effort along those lines.
When it comes to Russia, as I said, we don’t view this as a binary proposition. The fact is Ukrainians have expressed very clearly over the past weeks and months that they desire greater integration with Europe. And if that is what they desire, no other entity should deny them that opportunity -- no state or other entity should deny them that opportunity. But it is not a contradiction to say that Ukraine can achieve that further integration with Europe that the Ukrainian people desire while still maintaining close, historic and cultural and economic ties to Russia. We believe both are possible and both reflect Ukraine’s history and the desires today of Ukraine’s people.
Q Jay, as you know -- you’ve spent a lot of time in this region -- the Ukrainian people are not solidified on exactly which way they want to go. So where does the White House --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m not sure --
Q There’s the East and there’s the West concept.
MR. CARNEY: Sure. I would say a couple of things. One, we strongly believe, and believe that Europe and Ukraine and Russia do or ought to share the view that Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity and unity needs to be preserved. I would note that in the actions taken by parliament in the last several days, the substantial majorities have included votes from parliamentarians of President Yanukovych’s party. And that’s not an insignificant development.
So what is important going forward is that Ukraine take steps both in the establishment of a technocratic unity government and then through the process of free and fair elections that ensure that the government of Ukraine in the future reflects the will of all the Ukrainian people and allows for the voices of all the people of Ukraine to be heard.
Jessica.
Q The State Department has confirmed that the United States has expelled three Venezuelan diplomats to the embassy here. President Maduro says he plans to nominate a new ambassador to Washington and improve the American perception of him. Does the White House welcome that, especially given the enormous oil trade relationship? And of course, with all the protests there, does the U.S. want the relationship diplomatically?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I appreciate the question. I’d say a couple of things. One, the United States did declare three Venezuelan diplomats PNG yesterday evening. That was a reciprocal move. This action was taken, as I said, based on reciprocity for the February 17 expulsion of three U.S. consular officials from Venezuela.
On the broader matter, I would simply say that President Maduro needs to focus on addressing the legitimate grievances of the Venezuelan people through meaningful dialogue with them, not through dialogue with the United States. Despite what the Venezuelan government would like to lead people to believe, this is not a U.S.-Venezuela issue. It is an issue between Venezuela and its people. We’ve been clear all along that the future of Venezuela is for the Venezuelan people to decide. And we have indicated our readiness to develop a more constructive relationship with Venezuela. As we said many months ago, that could include an exchange of ambassadors. Venezuela, however, needs to show seriousness for us to be able to move forward. Recent actions, including expelling three of our diplomats, continue to make that difficult.
So I think the issues right now for the Venezuelan government have to do with establishing a dialogue with the Venezuelan people. This is not a U.S.-Venezuelan issue.
I’ll do that last one. Dan, did you have any?
Q Yes, on Iran. I just wanted to ask you about a couple statements by Netanyahu before the Merkel visit and during the Merkel visit. Before it, he said -- again, he said this before that he believes Iran has set out to become a threshold power with continuing enrichment capabilities. And today I believe he said that he’s spoken to -- all Middle East leaders he’s spoken to agree that it was a mistake to go on the course that the P5-plus-1 have gone on. Does the U.S. disagree with that, that Middle East leaders think it was a mistake? Has there been any headway in some of the concerns that the Gulf and Saudis have, with the Saudi Arabia trip coming up?
MR. CARNEY: I hadn’t taken a survey of Middle East opinion or the opinion of all Middle Eastern leaders. I would say that, first, the Joint Plan of Action is an interim agreement reached by the P5-plus-1 that commits Iran to freeze or roll back aspects of its program that allows over a six-month period for the negotiations towards a comprehensive solution to take place. Getting that comprehensive solution will surely be difficult and it is far from a guarantee, but is absolutely the right thing to do, especially given the commitments Iran had to make as part of the Joint Plan of Action to test whether or not Iran is now ready to get right with the international community, comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, and take steps to, in a transparent and verifiable way, make clear to the world that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Our bottom-line proposal, our position is that Iran cannot have -- cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. So the best way to achieve that for the long term is for Iran itself to give up the effort. But the President takes no options off the table. He simply believes that given the commitments that Iran has made and the enforcement mechanisms and verification mechanisms in place that we need to test whether or not a comprehensive solution is possible. Because obviously achieving a nuclear-weapon-free Iran through diplomatic agreement that is verifiable and transparent is a far better outcome than alternatives.
Thanks, all
END
2:09 P.M. EST
