The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

February 19, 2014

Press Gaggle en route Toluca, Mexico

PRESS GAGGLE BY
PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY
AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
FOR STRATEGIC COMMNICATIONS BEN RHODES

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Toluca, Mexico

9:50 A.M. EST

MR. CARNEY: Good morning. Thank you for joining us on our early start this morning. We are making our way to Mexico for the North American Leaders Summit. And I have with me today Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who can assist on questions you may have about national security and foreign affairs.

Let me just start by saying, as I think you know, later on this flight, the President will sign an executive order on streamlining the export-import process for America’s businesses. In his State of the Union address, President Obama set an ambitious agenda to make 2014 a “Year of Action,” using his pen and his phone to take steps to expand opportunity for America’s middle class, including helping small, American businesses compete in a global economy.

Today, as I said, aboard Air Force One, the President will sign a new executive order on streamlining the export-import process for America’s businesses, specifically the executive order that cuts processing and approval times from days to minutes for small businesses that export American-made goods and services by completing the International Trade Data System by December 2016.

Today, businesses must submit information to dozens of government agencies, often on paper forms -- sometimes waiting on process for days to move goods across the border. The ITDS will allow businesses to electronically transmit through a single window the data required by the U.S. government to import or export cargo. This new electronic system will speed up the shipment of American-made goods overseas, eliminate often duplicative and burdensome paperwork, and make our government more efficient.

I have no other announcements to make, so if you have questions on domestic matters, why don't you fire away? And then we'll turn it over to Ben.

Q Ben, can you talk about -- (laughter.) Sorry, Jay, I’ll get back to you. Can you comment on the U.S. response to what’s going on in Ukraine, the violence there? Have there been conversations with both President Putin and with Ukrainian leadership?

MR. RHODES: Well, I think the scenes that we saw in Kyiv yesterday were completely outrageous and have no place in the 21st century. The fact of the matter is we have made it very clear to the Ukrainian government that it is their responsibility to allow for peaceful protest. We consistently oppose any use of violence by all sides, but the responsibility is on the government to pull back its riot police, to call a truce and to engage in a meaningful discussion with the opposition about the way forward.

Clearly, the people of Ukraine feel that their legitimate aspirations are not being met in the current political context, and it's incumbent on the Ukrainian government to reach out to the opposition and to find a way forward that can unify the country.

We have also made clear that Ukraine has a future that is a part of the Atlantic community, that Ukraine’s orientation towards Europe and the Transatlantic community is an important priority of U.S. foreign policy; that it is not a zero-sum game with Russia. We understand that Ukraine is a neighbor of Russia, has historic ties to Russia, but that that need not preclude Ukraine from, again, continuing to pursue a European path as well.

So Vice President Biden communicated our position to President Yanukovych yesterday. I know that Secretary Kerry, Victoria Nuland are working this with their counterparts, particularly as the EU prepares for a meeting. The only additional thing I'd say is that we continue to watch events very closely, including who we believe is responsible for violence, and we've made clear that we would consider taking action against individuals who are responsible for acts of violence within Ukraine. And we have a tool kit for doing that that includes sanctions.

Q Can you say whether the United States would consider following the European Union’s lead if they impose sanctions against the Ukraine as an institution?

MR. RHODES: Well, I think as a general matter we aim to be coordinated with the European Union and we have generally had a common position and spoken with a similar voice on issues related to Ukraine because we both have an interest in seeing an end to the violence and seeing the unity of Ukraine upheld and seeing Ukraine on a European orientation. So I think we are in consultation with the European Union on the questions like which individuals should be held responsible for the violence, and in consideration of issues like imposing sanctions related to the ongoing violence.

Q You guys have been talking about sanctions now for a while. What would it actually take to pull the trigger?

MR. RHODES: Well, I think the events that we saw yesterday are certainly heightening our focus on this issue and I think we'll be reviewing this, as we have been, on a near daily basis. And we also will be talking to the Europeans as they have their meeting of the EU foreign ministers, and we'll make a determination both on our own and, again, in consultation with the European Union about the next steps.

Q Is that near-term thing, though? I mean, would there be a determination like this within days, weeks?

MR. RHODES: Well, obviously, the situation is very fluid, so I don’t want to put a timeline on it or get ahead of any particular announcement. I will say that events like what we saw yesterday are clearly going to impact our decision-making. On the other hand, if the government takes the appropriate steps of pulling back riot police, of respecting the right of peaceful protest, releasing prisoners and pursuing serious dialogue with the opposition about how to pursue a more unified government and way forward, that would obviously factor into our calculus as well.

But, clearly, the United States and the European Union believe that the events of yesterday were unacceptable. And I think that’s why you see renewed diplomatic activity this week.

Q To what extent does Russia have a role in either reducing the violence or creating additional disturbances?

MR. RHODES: Well, I think the message that we delivered to the Russians is that, again, we are not in some competition for the future of Ukraine. Frankly, our interest is that the people of Ukraine are able to determine their future, not any external actor. Clearly, we believe that a significant number of Ukrainians believe very deeply in the importance of Ukraine pursuing a European orientation, even as they maintain relations with Russia as a neighbor.

And so the role we would like to see Russia play is of constructive support for reducing these tensions and allowing the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, and that we don’t think that there should be, again, a situation where Russia is viewing this as some competition with the European Union or the United States; rather, we all have an interest in a Ukraine that is stable. And, clearly, the status quo is not a recipe for stability, because too many Ukrainians are feeling like their own aspirations are not being met in this government and in this plan that turns away from Europe. So that’s the message we delivered to the Ukrainian government and the Russian government as well.

Q So far, Vice President Biden has been your main interlocutor on this. Is there a point at which the President gets to follow up directly?

MR. RHODES: Yes, I would expect the President -- he’s been involved in the sense that he’s followed the situation very closely. He’s discussed it with counterparts in the past; with President Hollande this was a subject of discussion. And I’d expect the President to be involved in the days to come as well.

Again, he has pressed us to make sure we’re doing everything we can to try to reduce tensions and to try to stabilize the situation and support the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people for a more unified government and a government that has the ability to pursue a European orientation as well as good relations with Russia.

So I’d expect him to be involved. I’d expect it to come up today, frankly. It’s a pressing global issue and I’m sure he’ll be discussing this with President Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Harper.

Q Is he watching any of the television footage from Kyiv or anything?

MR. RHODES: I don’t know if he’s -- we’d have to ask him that. I’m not aware that he’s seen particular footage, but he has been getting very regular updates on the situation in Ukraine.

Q Do you expect the President to say anything publicly today or for it to be more in the meetings with the other leaders?

MR. RHODES: I mean, obviously, it’s not the focus of these meetings. The focus of these meetings is our North American partnership, trade and commerce, and increasing economic competitiveness in the North American region, security issues.

However, it being a significant global issue, I’d anticipate that he will have some public comment on it, as well as comment with the other leaders.

Q Jay, can you talk about the executive order a little bit? This system has been in the works for a while. Why was an executive order necessary?

MR. CARNEY: Because the President has the authority through an executive order to streamline the process on behalf of American businesses, in particular small businesses. And, as you know, while he has taken an approach since he took office that includes not just acting legislatively, but using his executive authority where he can on behalf of the American people, he has tasked his team with finding opportunities for him to use that authority in a way that benefits the American economy and the American people. This is an example of that.

Q Jay, you said numerous times in recent days that it's no surprise that Democrats as well as Republicans have their problems with trade-expanding agreements. But the enthusiasm among Democrats seems particularly slight this time around compared to last -- past rounds of big trade deals. What can the President say to reassure Peña Nieto and Harper that there’s any hope whatsoever for accomplishing trade deals this year?

MR. CARNEY: Well, as you know, Mark, the President has made clear that expanding American exports and trade, especially in the Pacific region, is a priority. And the reason for that is that there’s enormous growth and opportunity in that region, and absent an agreement that allows for expansion we would cede that territory to our competitors, which would be detrimental to our economy, to our middle class. He is pursuing an agreement, the TPP, that explicitly protects American workers and the environment, and that he believes would be highly beneficial to our economy and the middle class. So it’s a conversation he has and others have with lawmakers of both parties.

I think it’s worth noting that this is an issue around which there is not a uniform point of view in either party. And the President has long understood that. And I think it is worth noting that this is nothing new, especially for those of us who have been around Washington for more than 20 years.

But that doesn’t mean that there’s not a reason to make it a priority. The President believes it's a priority and he’ll continue to have those conversations. And I’m sure he'll make his views known in his conversations with the other two leaders today.

MR. RHODES: One thing to add is that this has been an ongoing negotiation for several years, so there’s been a very sustained effort over a period of years, precisely because this represents an agreement that would encompass 40 percent of the global economy and have huge opportunity for the United States and the countries involved. That’s part of the reason why Canada and Mexico came into this process.

What I’d say also, though, is that, first of all, we see this as an opportunity to introduce elevated standards on issues like labor and the environment that were not in NAFTA. So, in many respects, it’s an opportunity to, again, elevate the standards that were absent from the NAFTA agreement so that we are dealing with issues like labor and environmental standards that are important to 21st century trade.

The other thing I’d say, though, is that as you get further along in a trade negotiation, there are sensitive issues in every country. Trade is not simply an issue that has a significant range of opinions in the United States. Every country in a negotiation always has constituencies that have a divergence of views on issues in a trade agreement.

So I think these leaders, like all leaders involved in the agreement, understand and appreciate that. As you continue towards the end of a negotiation, you get into sensitive issues and you will have an effort undertaken to build support for an agreement. And so I think the leaders know exactly where things are in the negotiation and appreciate that.

Q Can you explain the decision to make this such a short trip? Any concern at all that this could be viewed as a bit of a snub by Mexico?

MR. RHODES: No, I don’t think so. This is our second visit to Mexico since President Peña Nieto became President. We had a full bilateral summit in Mexico City and had two days of good meetings and a dinner with the President the last time we were here. So this is not the first time the President has been to Mexico since President Peña Nieto took office.

I think if you look at the history of the North American Leaders Summit, it’s generally a one-day meeting, so this is consistent with summits that have been held in the past, including summits in the United States.

Q Jay, on Keystone, Harper told reporters yesterday his message to our President will be the same as he said publicly. What will President Obama’s message be back to Harper on that discussion today?

MR. CARNEY: He will say the same thing that he and I and others have said publicly, which is this a process that is run out of the State Department in keeping with past practice of administrations of both parties. We have reached a stage in that process with the release of the environmental impact statement. We’re now in a phase where there is input from agencies -- others agencies and from the public, and that that process needs to be insulated from politics -- that’s the President’s view -- and that he will explain that to both leaders. I’m sure they’re fully aware of that dynamic.

Q Do you think you can say the timeline of a likely decision, though, without commenting on the substance of it?

MR. CARNEY: The timeline is as I just relayed to you and we’ve discussed publicly, and it’s something that is institutionalized by the State Department. And we’re now in a phase of input from agencies and the public, and the process will move forward. But we’re not going to alter the process; we’re going to let it proceed the way it should, because these are issues, as the President said, that have to be determined based on what is viewed as in the best national interest of the United States.

Q Immigration is a big issue in Mexico. In his bilat with President Peña Nieto, what will be the President’s assessment of the best chances on the timing of passage of immigration reform?

MR. CARNEY: The President continues to believe that 2014 presents the best opportunity we’ve had to see comprehensive immigration reform become law. We obviously have a ways to go, but the Senate has passed a bill with bipartisan support and a large majority. The House, through its leadership, has taken steps by putting forth standards and principles. That’s a new development this year that represents progress and demonstrates that Republican leaders recognize the value of immigration reform and the benefit that it would provide to our economy, to our border security, to our middle class, and to innovation for our businesses.

So I’m sure the President will update both leaders on where that stands, and his hope and belief that the question around comprehensive immigration reform is not if but when, and we hope it’s this year.

Q Are you guys having any kind of communiqué or deliverable-specific tangible things you’re planning to announce as a result of today? Or is it mainly a matter of catching up and sort of updating each other on where things stand?

MR. RHODES: I’d expect there to be a leaders’ statement at the conclusion of the summit that addresses the agenda that we will have worked on. And again, I think if you look at the North American Leaders Summit, it’s been a venue for us to do two things: in the near term, to work through specific issues related to trade and commerce. That gets at cross-border trade, customs issues, supporting the free flow of commerce, but also secure borders, efforts to promote security in North America more broadly. We have energy cooperation and cooperation on climate change. So there’s a range of near-term steps that they’ll be discussing today and I think we’ll be able to address at the conclusion of the summit.

At the same time, we’re also looking to what is our vision for North America more broadly going forward. It’s a huge asset of the United States, frankly, to have such close relationships with our two neighbors, two significant trading partners. And we cooperate on issues that run the gamut from trade to the environment, to energy and climate change, to security. And so what is the vision of a stable, secure, prosperous North America looking ahead, I think they’ll also be addressing that as well.

Q Obviously, going at a time when we’re marking the 20th anniversary of NAFTA, a lot of debate -- good, bad. What is the President’s assessment of NAFTA? Even though he’s had some issues with it, was it overall a success? Was it something that he wishes didn’t happen? What is his view of that?

MR. RHODES: Well, I think, on the one hand, NAFTA supports a huge amount of trade that supports a significant number of U.S. jobs. If you look at the trade between the United States and Mexico and Canada, millions of U.S. jobs are associated with that. I think it has led to a more prosperous and competitive North America as a whole within the global economy. So there has been progress that is rooted in the trade relationship between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

At the same time, there are issues that were not addressed in NAFTA, like the labor and environmental standards that the President has spoken about in the past and that, frankly, are a part of the TPP agreement.

So we see NAFTA as providing, clearly, a foundation for trade in North America that can be improved and enhanced by elevating the standards of trade to include the issues that are of increasing attention to us. And if you look at TPP, that’s labor and the environment, but also issues related to intellectual property and state-owned enterprises, access to the Pacific markets.

So what you really want, Peter, is a dynamic where the North American competitiveness allows us to be drivers in terms of getting into the fastest emerging markets in the world, which are in this Asia Pacific region. And so we’re in a good position to do that given our own trade relationship, but we also can, frankly, go back and elevate some of the issues that were not a part of the original agreement through the TPP.

Q Ben, last year when we were in Mexico, one of the issues that hung over at those meetings was the level of cooperation taking place between the new Peña Nieto administration and the U.S. over security. What’s the status of that? Has the Peña Nieto administration made inroads on the security issue to the satisfaction of the U.S.? What’s the U.S. view of security?

MR. RHODES: We have maintained our security cooperation with Mexico. We are very pleased with the level of cooperation that we have with the Mexican government in addressing the narcotrafficking issue. President Peña Nieto is focused on reducing the levels of violence, broadly. We continue to provide whatever support the Mexican government asks us for and requires as they deal with huge border security -- huge issues of violence around the border, and because of the narcotrafficking issue. At the same time, we’ve continued to make clear our own responsibilities to crack down, for instance, on the flow of guns southward, which has been an element of the violence there.

So the cooperation has continued. It’s certainly been good from our perspective, and I’m sure that they’ll address it in their bilateral meeting, as well as in the trilat.

MR. CARNEY: Can I just say, since nobody asked -- hey, Christi, did you have a question?

Q No.

MR. CARNEY: Well, so a couple of things have happened this week related to the President’s primary focus on growing the economy and expanding opportunity that are rather remarkable. First of all, you see Republicans lining up en masse against raising the minimum wage, which is a remarkable development if you think about it. You have Americans across the country working full-time and yet being paid a wage that keeps them in poverty. That’s not something that should happen in this country. And the American people, including Republicans’ constituents, overwhelmingly support lifting the minimum wage. As the CBO report demonstrated, that would lift something on the order of 900,000 Americans out of poverty and raise the wages for 16 million-plus Americans across the country. And as Jason Furman said, the substantial consensus among economists is that it would not have a negative impact on jobs.

The second thing that happened was the five-year anniversary of the Recovery Act. And as a point of personal privilege as somebody who was covering these matters back in the early ‘90s, I find it remarkable that Speaker Boehner attacks the President for the Recovery Act. I remember when Speaker Boehner powerfully argued against President Clinton’s economic agenda, said that it would lead to stagnation and job loss. He could not have been more wrong then. We saw record job creation. Speaker Boehner was wrong.

Speaker Boehner argued powerfully against the Recovery Act and President Obama’s economic agenda. In the wake of the worst recession since the Great Depression, we've seen the creation of 8.5 million private sector jobs. Speaker Boehner could not have been more wrong. In between, Speaker Boehner supported economic policies that helped to precipitate the worst financial crisis and economic crisis in our lifetimes and, by the way, led to record deficits, which were handed over to President Obama when he took office.

It's very important to have the long view here. And what we know about the Recovery Act is that it delivered tax cuts, it delivered investments in clean energy, it delivered an infusion in an economy that was teetering on the brink of collapse. And the alternative at the time, as you remember if you saw the headlines, was the potential for depression, some predicting 20 to 25 percent unemployment. Republicans refused to support a plan that saved the country from that kind of disaster and set us on the course towards job creation and economic growth.

This is not a project that's anywhere near done. That's why the President remains focused principally on growing the economy, helping the middle class. And certainly raising the minimum wage is a way to do that.

Q Jay, since you brought it up, on the CBO, it’s been remarkable cherry-picking of the results of the conclusions of that report by both sides. How can it be that those economists can be right on one issue from your side, the raising people out of poverty, but so wrong on the job costs of that report? And is there a danger in going after what is usually considered a fairly neutral arbiter of economic issues and budget issues?

MR. CARNEY: Jim, we're not going after anyone. As Jason Furman, the President’s chief economist, said yesterday, we respectfully disagree with that particular conclusion and point to the deep and wide body of academic research on this that supports our view. But it’s not about -- obviously we have enormous respect for the CBO, and I think that’s reflected in the fact that we point to some of the other conclusions in that report.

It’s just demonstrated by history and, again, by the work of many experts in the field that there’s likely to have no negative impact in terms of job creation by raising the minimum wage, which spurs economic activity, lifts people out of poverty, and raises the wages for Americans across the country, including middle-class Americans. But again, that’s a respectful disagreement on a particular finding in which the experts in the field have expressed a different view.

Q But you must have felt that that report was damaging to your efforts to get support for raising the minimum wage.

MR. CARNEY: Look, I think that Republicans who, against the overwhelming opinion of the American people, rally around that particular item in the report to suggest that we can’t give Americans a raise risk more damage to themselves and politically, as well as to the middle class economically, and to Americans economically.

So I don’t think we view it that way. Support for raising the minimum wage is broad and deep. We’ve seen states take action, and we’re going to continue to press the Congress to take action.

Thank you.

END
10:19 A.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

February 19, 2014

Executive Order -- Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America’s Businesses

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

STREAMLINING THE EXPORT/IMPORT PROCESS FOR AMERICA'S BUSINESSES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to reduce supply chain barriers to commerce while continuing to protect our national security, public health and safety, the environment, and natural resources, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The United States is the world's largest economy and the largest trading Nation. Trade is critical to the Nation's prosperity -- fueling economic growth, supporting good jobs at home, raising living standards, and helping Americans provide for their families with affordable goods and services. It is the policy of the United States to promote commerce through the effective implementation of an ambitious 21st century trade agenda and vigorous enforcement of our Nation's laws relating to trade, security, public health and safety, the environment, and natural resources. In support of these goals, and to ensure that our Nation is well-positioned to compete in an open, fair, and growing world economy, the Federal Government must increase efforts to improve the technologies, policies, and other controls governing the movement of goods across our national borders.

In particular, we must increase efforts to complete the development of efficient and cost-effective trade processing infrastructure, such as the International Trade Data System (ITDS), to modernize and simplify the way that executive departments and agencies (agencies) interact with traders. We must also improve the broader trade environment through the development of innovative policies and operational processes that promote effective application of regulatory controls, collaborative arrangements with stakeholders, and a reduction of unnecessary procedural requirements that add costs to both agencies and industry and undermine our Nation's economic competitiveness. By demonstrating our commitment to utilizing technology, coordinating government processes, fulfilling international obligations, and embracing innovative approaches to promote new opportunities for trade facilitation in the 21st century, we can lead by example and partner with other countries willing to adopt similar programs. This will encourage compliance with applicable laws and, more broadly, result in a more prosperous, safe, secure, and sustainable trading environment for all.

Sec. 2. Policy Coordination. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic reviews for the functions and programs set forth in this order shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive–1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System), or any successor.

Sec. 3. International Trade Data System. The ITDS, as described in section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (the "SAFE Port Act") (Public Law 109-347), is an electronic information exchange capability, or "single window," through which businesses will transmit data required by participating agencies for the importation or exportation of cargo. To enhance Federal coordination associated with the development of the ITDS and to provide necessary transparency to businesses, agencies, and other potential users:

(a) by December 31, 2016, participating agencies shall have capabilities, agreements, and other requirements in place to utilize the ITDS and supporting systems, such as the Automated Commercial Environment, as the primary means of receiving from users the standard set of data and other relevant documentation (exclusive of applications for permits, licenses, or certifications) required for the release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export;

(b) by December 31, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security shall confirm to the Secretary of the Treasury and the ITDS Board of Directors (Board), which serves as the Interagency Steering Committee established under section 405 of the SAFE Port Act, that the ITDS has the operational capabilities to enable users to:

(i) transmit a harmonized set of import and export data elements, to be collected, stored, and shared, via a secure single window, to fulfill U.S. Government requirements for the release and clearance of goods; and

(ii) transition from paper-based requirements and procedures to faster and more cost-effective electronic submissions to, and communications with, agencies;

(c) the Board shall, in consultation with ITDS participating agencies, define the standard set of data elements to be collected, stored, and shared in the ITDS; and continue to periodically review those data elements in order to update the standard set of data elements, as necessary;

(d) the Board shall continue to assist the Secretary of the Treasury in overseeing the implementation of, and participation in, the ITDS, including the establishment of the ITDS capabilities and requirements associated with the collection from users and distribution to relevant agencies of standard electronic import and export data; and

(e) the Board shall make publicly available a timeline outlining the development and delivery of the secure ITDS capabilities, as well as agency implementation plans and schedules. Agencies shall take such steps as are necessary to meet the timeline, including timely completion of all appropriate agreements, including memoranda of understanding, and other required documents that establish procedures and guidelines for the secure exchange and safeguarding of data among agencies and, as appropriate, with other Federal Government entities.

Sec. 4. Establishment of the Border Interagency Executive Council. (a) There is established the Border Interagency Executive Council (BIEC), an interagency working group to be chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security or a senior-level designee from the Department. The BIEC shall also have a Vice Chair, selected every 2 years from among the members of the BIEC by a process determined by the members. The BIEC shall develop policies and processes to enhance coordination across customs, transport security, health and safety, sanitary, conservation, trade, and phytosanitary agencies with border management authorities and responsibilities to measurably improve supply chain processes and improve identification of illicit shipments.

(b) The Department of Homeland Security shall provide funding and administrative support for the BIEC, to the extent permitted by law.

(c) In addition to the Chair and Vice Chair, the BIEC shall include designated senior-level representatives from agencies that provide approval before goods can be imported and exported, including the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies with border management interests or authorities, as determined by the Chair and Vice Chair. The BIEC shall also include appropriate representatives from the Executive Office of the President.

Sec. 5. Functions of the BIEC. The BIEC shall:

(a) develop common risk management principles and methods to inform agency operations associated with the review and release of cargo at the border and encourage compliance with applicable law;

(b) develop policies and processes to orchestrate, improve, and accelerate agency review of electronic trade data transmitted through relevant systems and provide coordinated and streamlined responses back to users to facilitate trade and support and advance compliance with applicable laws and international agreements, including (in coordination with, and as recommendations to, the Board) policies and processes designed to assist the Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate, with activities related to the ITDS;

(c) identify opportunities to streamline Federal Government systems and reduce costs through the elimination of redundant capabilities or through enhanced utilization of the Automated Commercial Environment capabilities as a means of improving supply chain management processes;

(d) assess, in collaboration with the Board, the business need, feasibility, and potential benefits of developing or encouraging the private-sector development of web-based interfaces to electronic data systems, including the ITDS, for individuals and small businesses;

(e) engage with and consider the advice of industry and other relevant stakeholders regarding opportunities to improve supply chain management processes, with the goal of promoting economic competitiveness through enhanced trade facilitation and enforcement;

(f) encourage other countries to develop similar single window systems to facilitate the sharing of relevant data, as appropriate, across governmental systems and with trading partners; and

(g) assess, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, opportunities to facilitate electronic payment of duties, taxes, fees, and charges due at importation. The Federal Government endorses electronic payment of duties, taxes, fees, and charges due at importation, and currently allows payment electronically through various systems.

Sec. 6. Regulatory Review. To support the Federal Government's rapid development of the ITDS that, to the greatest extent possible, relies upon the collection, exchange, and processing of electronic data, each agency that utilizes the ITDS shall:

(a) as part of the retrospective review report due to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on July 14, 2014, pursuant to Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens), unless directed otherwise through subsequent guidance from OIRA, determine whether any regulations should be modified to achieve the requirements set forth in this order; and

(b) promptly initiate rulemaking proceedings to implement necessary regulatory modifications identified pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 7. Reports. (a) Within 180 days of the date of this order, agencies with border management interests or authorities shall report to the Board on their anticipated use of international standards for product classification and identification.

(b) By July 1, 2014, and every year thereafter until July 2016, the BIEC, in consultation with the Board, shall provide to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, a report on the implementation of section 5 of this order.

Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the requirements of this order.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 19, 2014.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

February 19, 2014

FACT SHEET: President Obama to Sign Executive Order on Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America’s Businesses

In his State of the Union address, President Obama set an ambitious agenda to make 2014 a year of action: using his pen and his phone to take steps that expand opportunity for America’s middle class – including helping small American businesses compete in a global economy. Today, aboard Air Force One, the President will sign a new Executive Order on Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America’s Businesses.

Specifically, the Executive Order cuts processing and approval times from days to minutes for small businesses that export American-made goods and services by completing the International Trade Data System (ITDS) by December 2016. Today, businesses must submit information to dozens of government agencies, often on paper forms, sometimes waiting on process for days to move goods across the border. The ITDS will allow businesses to electronically transmit, through a “single-window,” the data required by the U.S. Government to import or export cargo. This new electronic system will speed up the shipment of American-made goods overseas, eliminate often duplicative and burdensome paperwork, and make our government more efficient.

This Executive Order is especially important to small and medium companies that depend on global trade. Once fully implemented, the ITDS will dramatically reduce the time and expense for businesses to move the more than 50 million containers and $3.8 trillion worth of goods that cross our borders each year.

Development of a “Single-Window”

The Executive Order mandates the completion of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) by December 2016. The ITDS creates capabilities that will allow businesses to transmit, through an electronic “single-window,” the data required by the U.S. Government to import or export cargo.

At present, businesses must submit data to multiple agencies through various channels, often in paper form. The ITDS will save businesses time and money, and dramatically reduce the number of forms a business has to fill out to import or export.

The ITDS will allow more efficient government decision-making associated with goods arriving at the border, reducing the time for clearing goods from many days to, in some cases, seconds. This will dramatically speed the flow of legitimate commerce across our borders.

Coordinated and automated messaging about these decisions will increase predictability for the private sector and allow them to plan supply chain movements with greater confidence and less cost.

Though the development of the ITDS has been underway for some time, the Order establishes a deadline for completion, requires relevant agencies to transition from paper-based to electronic data collection, and calls for enhanced transparency by requiring public posting of implementation plans and schedules.

Creation of More Efficient Business Processes through Partnership

The new Executive Order also charges the government to partner with non-government stakeholders to build more efficient business processes and improve border management policies.

A newly expanded group, the Border Interagency Executive Council (BIEC) will be responsible for improving coordination among the dozens of agencies with import and export requirements and with outside stakeholders. The BIEC is charged with cutting red tape and reducing supply chain inefficiencies, while managing the risks presented by goods flowing in and out of the United States.

The ITDS Board of Directors will continue to oversee the development of the ITDS automated capabilities.

New Funding to Increase Access to Mental Health Services and New Protections Under the Health Care Law

Stefanie Feldman
February 18, 2014
07:22 PM EDT

So far this year, the Administration has taken three key steps as part of our ongoing effort to increase access to mental health services.

First, the President signed an omnibus appropriations bill, securing $115 million for new mental health initiatives that the President and Vice President proposed in January 2013 as part of their comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence. This funding will have a real impact in communities across the country, where it will be used to train more mental health professionals and help educators and other adults who work with youth recognize the early signs of mental health problems and refer young people to appropriate help when needed. The funds will also be used for a new initiative which will support innovative state-based approaches to making sure young people ages 16 to 25 who are at high risk for mental illness don’t fall through the cracks of our mental health system when they leave school or home.

Second, on January 31, with funding from the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services made $50 million available to help Community Health Centers across the country establish or expand mental and behavioral health services for people living with mental illness or addiction. Using these funds, Health Centers can hire new mental health professionals and add mental health and substance use disorder services. This new funding was first announced by Vice President Biden last December. At that time, the Vice President also announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has set a new goal of financing $50 million for the construction, expansion, or improvement of mental health facilities in rural areas over the next three years.

Stefanie Feldman is the Assistant Director for Policy in the Office of the Vice President

A Look At What They’re Saying About myRA Across the Country

Brandi Hoffine
February 18, 2014
06:20 PM EDT

Ed. note: This is cross-posted from Treasury Notes, the official blog of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. See the original post.

Last month in the State of the Union, President Obama laid out specific executive actions he will take to put more Americans back to work and expand opportunity so that every American can get ahead. Speaking about the importance of securing a dignified retirement, the President announced that he would direct Treasury to create a new way for working Americans to start their own retirement savings. According to independent estimates, about half of all workers and 75 percent of part-time workers lack access to employer-sponsored retirement plans. That is why the Obama administration designed myRA (my Retirement Account) - a simple, safe, and affordable retirement savings account that will be offered through employers to help low- and moderate- income Americans begin to save for retirement.

Statement from the President on the Retirement of Congresswoman Gloria Negrete McLeod

Gloria Negrete McLeod has been a strong advocate for hardworking families and farmers in California’s 35^th district and across the country. She has been a key partner in promoting access to affordable health care and bringing quality employment and higher education opportunities to all Americans. Gloria has consistently supported working women and their families and has championed programs to help our nation’s veterans find jobs and enroll in college. Michelle and I thank Congresswoman Negrete McLeod for her service and send her, her husband Gilbert, and their family our warmest regards.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

February 18, 2014

On-the-Record Call by Jason Furman and Betsey Stevenson on the CBO Report on Minimum Wage

ON-THE-RECORD CONFERENCE CALL
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS CHAIRMAN JASON FURMAN
AND CEA MEMBER BETSEY STEVENSON
ON THE CBO REPORT ON MINIMUM WAGE

Via Telephone

3:56 P.M. EST

MR. LEHRICH: Hey, everybody. Thanks for joining us. It’s Matt Lehrich from the White House Press Office. I know all of you are interested in our reaction to the CBO report today on minimum wage. And so I’m here with Jason Furman and Betsey Stevenson from the Council of Economic Advisers here at the White House.

And with that, I will turn it over to Jason.

MR. FURMAN: Thank you so much. I think you have all probably seen our blog post on the new CBO report. But just to quickly recap on some of the points we make, the new CBO report finds that 16.5 million workers would get a raise from increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. It would help millions of hardworking families reduce poverty and increase overall wages going to lower-income and moderate-income households.

In all of that analysis, the CBO is essentially confirming the consensus view: the consensus on the magnitude of workers helped; the consensus on the impact on poverty; I think very important, the consensus that, overall, wages and earnings would go up for low-moderate and middle-income households, even taking into account CBO’s estimates of employment; and then the overall consensus on issues like only a small minority of beneficiaries are teenagers.

On the issue of employment, CBO’s central estimate is that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would lead to a 0.3 percent decrease in employment. And CBO acknowledges that the employment impact could be essentially zero. But even those estimates do not reflect the overall consensus view of economists who have said that the minimum wage would have little or no impact on employment. And in our blog post we cite a wide range of evidence to that respect, including drawing on 64 different empirical studies of the minimum wage and the impact that it has on employment.

And if you take all of that as a whole, what that research basically finds is that raising the minimum wage increases motivation. It reduces some of the distractions that impact productivity that are related to poverty. It reduces absenteeism. It increases retention for workers on the job, and reduces turnover. And that when you take all of that into account, the overall benefits for productivity, plus the other margins on which firms can adjust -- for example, reduced profits -- mean that there is substantial literature that has found little or no employment impact on the minimum wage. And, in fact, a number of the leading studies from 1994 through the present published in peer review journals have in fact found precisely that, which is no impact on employment.

So, in summary, overall the report very much does make the case for a policy that benefits more than 16.5 million workers, reduces poverty, raises incomes. In doing that, it confirms a consensus -- it goes outside the consensus view of economists when it comes to the impact of the minimum wage on employment.

Q What’s your view on how high the minimum wage would have to go before the employment effects would be significant? I mean, I assume the White House picked $10.10 for some reason. Why not go higher if the effects are negligible at $10.10?

MR. FURMAN: Sure. Josh, the research we have on the minimum wage is within the range of the types of minimum wages we’ve seen at the federal, state and local level over the past couple of decades; $10.10 is well within that range. In fact, it would still be below the peak value of the minimum wage in the late 1960s. It would be below the real value of the minimum wage you’ve seen in some other cases. So for that reason we’re comfortable that that value is within the range that had been considered by the economic studies that we’re drawing on, in terms of its impact on employment.

Q Republicans obviously have already jumped on this report. Are you concerned that these numbers, even spun like you’re spinning them, will make it harder to pass an increase?

MR. FURMAN: Look, I think -- I’ve seen an awful lot of tweets from Democrats as well pointing out how many workers are helped, the reductions in poverty, the increases in income and all the other incredibly positive things this report finds. And even this report finds that the very large majority of the workers that it discusses here are benefitting. And I think that explains why this has overall been a very popular issue for the public. And I don’t think this report changes those facts or will change the public perception.

But as an economist, there have been a lot of studies of the minimum wage. We’ve had a chance to review those studies. This is not a piece of original research into the impact of the minimum wage on employment, and I think a lot of economists who have looked at that literature would summarize it differently than CBO has summarized it here.

Q I just wanted to ask you about something you said earlier. You said that the CBO report, the findings do not reflect the overall consensus view of economists. This is something similar to what you said in the briefing room about the other recent CBO report, the 10-year outlook. Can you talk about why the CEA is coming out and directly refuting something that the CBO -- why are you criticizing the CBO’s report in this way?

MR. FURMAN: When I went to the briefing room on the CBO report, on the employment impact of the Affordable Care Act, the principal argument that I made in that briefing room was that the CBO analysis was not about businesses cutting jobs, it was about choices by workers. I also pointed out there were other factors that CBO hadn’t factored in. But the main argument -- I would say most of what I was pointing out was precisely that.

The next day or the day after, CBO came out with a blog post that said exactly what I had been saying, which is this was not about businesses killing jobs, it was about a labor supply effect. And CBO Director, Doug Elmendorf, both in testimony to his blog, said that in a lot of cases that choice would be, for example, someone nearing retirement that might choose to retire now in a way that they couldn’t before, and that would benefit them and their family.

So there, the main issue was the report was being misinterpreted, and the interpretation I put forward was completely consistent with the interpretation that Doug Elmendorf put forward.

In terms of today’s, sometimes you have to have respectful disagreement between economists. When it comes to a budget estimate, usually the only estimate you have is CBO. And they have all of the expertise on that topic, and that's why we take those budget estimates very seriously.

We take this seriously too, but there are also dozens and dozens of other studies on the minimum wage that we can draw on and infer from. And an economist like Larry Katz, who is one of the leading labor economist experts in the country at Harvard University, is the type of person and authority on the issue of the minimum wage that I would generally look to and draw on.

So I don't think this is the Council of Economic Advisers versus CBO. I think the last one was all about a misinterpretation where CBO agreed with us. Today there is some difference of opinion about how to read the literature on the employment effect of the minimum wage. But that's a difference of opinion that I think a lot of economists would have as well.

Q Hey, Jason. This is RealClearPolitics. We’re all down here in the basement. I have a quick question for you. Would it have been more advisable for CBO’s report to outline in greater depth the ambiguities in the numbers, which is what CBO did in 2006 under Mr. Marron? Or is there sufficient information here in terms of how CBO, without doing original research, came to the conclusions?

MR. FURMAN: I don't want to edit someone else’s report -- and I can't say the report did. This is important -- it did say that 0.3 percent decrease in employment, and that there was a range where that range included essentially no impact on employment and that there were possibilities of estimates beyond that, which presumably would be a small increase in employment.

So their report does convey the possibility that there would be no impact on employment. Their report also does confirm that the greater purchasing power of low-income workers would in the short run boost the economy, which is another effect they have there. But I don't think the way the headline number is being presented reflects the consensus view of economists on this topic.

Q Hey, Jason. Thanks for doing this. Two questions. One, can you explain how it is that -- or the basis for accepting some of CBO’s conclusions -- it seems like the ones that support your position -- but not accepting the conclusions that don't support your position when they're based on the same economic assumptions in the same report? And also, what are you doing at this point to promote minimum wage passage in Congress?

MR. FURMAN: On your first, we put out our own report -- CEA did last week -- and some of the things here are consistent with that and consistent with other research. For example, does raising the minimum wage reduce poverty? There have been a number of studies that have addressed that question and almost all of them have come to the answer yes. In that case, CBO is restating a consensus. When it comes to employment, I think they are not restating what I would understand the consensus to be, and that’s where I think there is some respectful disagreement on the emphasis and the certainty around that magnitude of employment loss.

Could you repeat your second question?

Q Yes, absolutely. Just what are you doing to promote or push for minimum wage passage in Congress? I’m in the Capitol right now and there is certainly -- there’s a lot of debate over how hard the administration and Democrats are --

MR. FURMAN: I mean, the President has -- there are others that could speak to that better than I could, but it certainly was something he emphasized in the State of the Union. He emphasized again when he recently signed the EO raising the pay of federal -- people that work for federal contractors. The Council of Economic Advisers put out a report last week, and it’s something you’ll continue to see the President and the administration more broadly pushing on.

Q Jason, I want to be clear -- are you saying is your argument that what is flawed about CBO’s conclusion on employment has to do with their failure to take into account the adjustments that you cite in the last paragraph of the statement that you and Betsey Stevenson put out -- namely lower turnover, lower absenteeism?

MS. STEVENSON: So, this is Betsey. I think that that’s exactly right. While they’re not completely clear in the report how they’re thinking about that, I suspect that they are not fully appreciating how much the literature has moved in terms of understanding the cost savings that you get from reduced turnover when you raise the wages for lower-wage workers, from reduced absenteeism and from increased productivity.

So I think one of the conceptually harder things to appreciate is that there are important spillover effects. So if the lower-wage workers become more productive, are less likely to quit, have lower absenteeism, that not only means that you’re getting more productivity out of them, but to the extent that they influence the productivity of their coworkers you can overall see greater productivity.

And I think that that understanding in the literature is one of the things that has moved the profession towards believing that the employment effects are zero, and I think that CBO didn’t fully appreciate that in their review.

Q And just if I could follow up, is that the White House view that if you had to put a number on the employment effects, it would be zero rather than the number that CBO comes up with?

MR. FURMAN: Our view is that -- and this is Jason again -- that zero is a perfectly reasonable estimate of the impact of the minimum wage on employment based on research that began with David Card and Alan Krueger comparing minimum wage increase in New Jersey to fast food restaurants across the border in Pennsylvania that didn’t have them, to more recent research that’s taken basically the same method but applied it to hundreds of contiguous county pairs where one of them raised the minimum wage, one of them didn’t. You compare the employment in one county as compared to the other.

This is something economists have spent a long time studying, there’s a lot of papers on, and most of those papers are very close to zero. Some papers are negative. There’s probably some papers that have found -- people have gone out and run a regression and found a big increase in employment, decided that that probably isn’t true, correctly decided that and didn’t publish the paper. I think that doesn’t happen on the other side. If you find a large negative effect, those papers tend to be published, so there’s also some publication bias here. But when you look at some of the highest quality studies in all of it, I think it’s completely reasonable to think it would have zero impact on employment.

Q Jason, so the CBO report also looked at the effects of a $9 minimum wage, which of course is what President Obama first proposed a year ago. And it was only I think just a few months ago that he got on board with the Harkin-Miller plan of $10.10. So then the report, as you expected, the effects -- the positive and negative -- were more muted with the $9 one, but I think the effects on employment were somewhere on the order of like a fifth of the $10.10 proposal. And so I’m wondering if you feel like this would have been a much easier sell at $9, politically, and how secure you are in feeling that $10.10 is the right number here.

MR. FURMAN: I guess I’d say substantively it was one type of proposal that benefitted a wide swath of workers. This benefits 16.5 million directly below $10.10, and then CBO says that as many as 8 million who are just above that line would benefit. That’s substantially more than at $9 an hour. If you look at the poverty line for a family of four with one full-time worker who is working full-time, $10.10 takes that family -- if they’re working full-time -- at the minimum wage from below the poverty line to above the poverty line. And, as I said, we don’t accept the conclusion in this report that this reflects consensus of economists, and that zero employment within the range of $10.10, $9 -- any of those numbers -- would be a perfectly reasonable estimate of the employment impact.

Q I’m wondering, you’ve obviously been looking at this issue for a long time and I’m curious at what you’ve learned from studying minimum wage increases that have been enacted in the past and how that impacts your point of view for increasing the minimum wage now to $10.10.

MS. STEVENSON: This is Betsey. And Jason passed this to me because he sort of already stated this, so I’ll give you a second opinion. I’ve been also looking at minimum wage studies since my very first days in graduate school, and I really do believe that both the profession and the literature has moved towards thinking over the last couple of decades towards thinking the employment effects are small.

I think early on in the literature, people were really focused on this idea that sort of comes from that intro Ec class that many of you may have taken, which is that you assume that productivity doesn’t change or can’t be influenced by the rate of pay. And as I stated earlier, a new burgeoning literature has really pointed out that how much you pay people actually affects how they perform, what they do, and how much they produce. Once you have that relationship between pay and productivity, it changes the standard model in a way that means that you don’t get the loss of employment that that supply and demand X that you saw on the chalkboard, if you took introductory economics, would have demonstrated.

And that, plus the empirical estimate -- so a better understanding of the theory, the complexity of the theory, and hundreds of empirical estimates of the actual effect has really shifted at least how I view the employment effects of the minimum wage. And I think that I am really sort of in the middle of the distribution and the profession in terms of thinking about how the minimum wage affects employment.

MR. FURMAN: And then, just one thing to add is also people have looked across states or across counties that have changed it. And in addition to finding unemployment, as Betsey said, they’ve also found -- confirmed the more obvious things, which is that it raises incomes -- raising the minimum wage raises incomes and reduces poverty.

MR. LEHRICH: Thank you to Jason and Betsey, and to all of you for joining us today. As always, if you have follow-up questions or didn’t get your question in, don’t hesitate to check in with us. Otherwise, we’ll talk to you all next time. Thanks.

END
4:19 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

February 18, 2014

Statement from the President on the Retirement of Congressman Rush Holt

Over his 15 years in Congress, Rush Holt combined a relentless focus on building a brighter future with an unwavering commitment to improving the everyday lives of the New Jerseyans he represents, especially the veterans he works tirelessly to support. Just the second research physicist elected to Congress, no one has worked harder to keep America on the cutting edge of innovation than Rush. Time and time again, he has led efforts to fund science education and basic research. His legacy will live on in our labs, our universities, and our classrooms, where countless math and science teachers have been able to afford college thanks in part to the TEACH grants he helped create. Michelle and I thank Congressman Holt for his leadership and service, and we wish him, his wife Margaret, and their children and grandchildren the very best in the future.

President Obama Speaks on Improving Fuel Efficiency for American Trucks

February 18, 2014 | 16:20 | Public Domain

President Obama lays out additional details for the plan he announced in the 2014 State of the Union to improve the fuel efficiency of American trucks and bolster energy security, cut carbon pollution, and spur manufacturing innovation.

Download mp4 (605MB) | mp3 (16MB)

Read the Transcript

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

February 18, 2014

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/18/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:10 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you had a relaxing holiday weekend. Before I take your questions, I just wanted to note that the “My Brother’s Keeper” event, which was postponed last week due to weather, has been rescheduled for Thursday, February 27th. And with that, I’ll take your questions.

Julie.

Q The Geneva talks between the Syrian government and the opposition seem to have officially broken down over the weekend with no plans at this point for them to resume. Does the Geneva process remain the administration’s main focus in terms of a resolution on Syria, or are you looking -- even if it’s diplomatic -- for another process at this point?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the talks are in recess, that’s correct. The international community needs to use this time to determine how to use -- or rather, needs to move forward in determining how to use this time most effectively in order to bring about a political solution.

So to answer your question, it is still our view, absolutely, that there is not a military solution to this conflict and that a negotiated political settlement is the only path forward for Syria, and the Geneva process is the process by which that is pursuable and achievable at this time. But there’s no question that there has not been a great amount of progress. It is important that the two sides sat down across from each other, but the international community needs to focus on how we can move this process forward.

Q Well, what do you mean by “using this time most effectively?”

MR. CARNEY: Again, to work together to push the process forward, to make the diplomatic channel and the negotiation channel more productive, so that progress can be made towards a solution that allows Syria to move forward, allows for an end to the military violent conflict, so that there’s a transition in Syria away from civil war.

Q And what would be some of the things that the U.S. might look to do in this period in order to try to make those talks more effective?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any announcements to make in terms of policy steps. We, as a rule, are always looking at all of our options and reviewing old options and new options when it comes to a situation like we find in Syria. It should not be forgotten that the obstacle to progress here has been the regime. The opposition attended the Geneva talks and conducted themselves appropriately. The regime, however, has made clear that it’s throwing up obstacles to moving forward and making progress.

Q But would you disagree then with U.S. officials who say that the discussion around some of these options has taken on if not increased urgency but there’s sort of a renewed focus on looking at options that maybe have been shelved previously?

MR. CARNEY: We got this question last week. I think that it is a standing proposition that the President is always looking for options available to him.

Q So there’s nothing different about that process currently than there was a month ago?

MR. CARNEY: Correct. There’s not a new review of policy underway, because the assessments of where we are and the options that we have available to us to get where we need to be is ongoing. The fact of the matter is the situation in Syria is horrendous, as the President has said. And we are going to continue to work with our international partners to try to push this process forward.

We should note that when it comes to the urgent need to allow for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, we have been working with partners on the United Nations Security Council to move forward on a resolution that would advance that cause, and Russia has been a holdout. And it is notable that if you’re going to proclaim your concern about the fate of the Syrian people, one way to act on that concern is to not block progress in the United Nations Security Council on a resolution that would provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people who so desperately need it.

Q And then, on another topic, is there any White House reaction to the U.N. report on crimes against humanity in North Korea?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any at this time. Perhaps State Department does.

Q No? Wait, wait, wait. There is no White House reaction to this report in North Korea? This U.N. report about all the atrocities going on? You guys don’t have any statement?

MR. CARNEY: Well, as a matter of course, Chuck, we are extremely vocal and critical about the appalling conduct of the North Korean regime. I don’t have a specific reaction to this report. I’m sure we can provide one to you, but it should come as no surprise to anyone that the United States and this administration is highly critical of the conduct of human rights in North Korea and the persecution of people in North Korea and we highlight our difference with North Korea on a range of issues constantly.

Yes, Steve.

Q On Friday night, the President said that there’s some short-term steps to take and some intermediate steps to take on Syria. What was he talking about?

MR. CARNEY: Again, we are looking at the situation in Syria, understanding that the only resolution to this conflict is through negotiation. We absolutely recognize that the situation on the ground is terrible and that the Syrian people are still under constant assault from the Assad regime. We provide significant assistance to the opposition, including to the military -- military opposition. We provide far and away the most significant amount of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian civilian population. And we are at the forefront of the process that’s trying to produce a negotiated political settlement in Syria.

What I think we’ve been discussing over the last several days and the President was referencing is that we are constantly looking at options available to make more progress on the humanitarian front and make more progress on the effort to push forward on the Geneva process, the negotiated-settlement process because, again, that’s the only way out of this for the Syrian people and for the future of Syria. And there is no question that we are all pained by what we see in Syria and enormously frustrated by the obstructionism that the Syrian regime participates in, the unhelpful approach that Russia has taken on the Security Council when it comes to the resolution regarding humanitarian aid access. What remains the case is that we are looking for ways to advance a policy that is in the national interest -- national security interest of the United States and that helps Syria progress towards a negotiated political settlement.

Q Short of military action, what can be done to pressure Assad to make concessions?

MR. CARNEY: We are providing, as I said, assistance to the opposition. We have a lot of partners in that effort. We are also working with our international partners on pressing the Assad regime to engage constructively in a negotiated political settlement, and that includes our partners on the Security Council and our partners elsewhere.

The most important part of your question, I think, Steve, is the “short of military engagement,” and I think that while everyone is enormously concerned about and frustrated by the situation in Syria, it should be on everyone’s mind that when we look at the situation we’re in, we have to examine what the alternatives some might be proposing are and whether they're in our national security interests, and whether a desire to do something about it could lead us, the United States, to take action that can produce the kind of unintended consequences we’ve seen in the past.

Q And just one other thing. Sorry to belabor it -- Vice President Biden sounded very pessimistic on fast track, according to participants at the Democratic caucus. Is there a recognition here now that this is not going to move forward in any significant way for some time?

MR. CARNEY: Steve, I think we talked about this a fair amount last week. The fact that there are differing views in both parties on trade matters has been the case as long as you and I have been covering this in Washington and it’s the case today. The value in the kinds of trade agreements that, for example, we are trying to negotiate with the Pacific region is I think pretty self-evident when you look at the economic growth that that region represents, and the potential for American workers and American businesses through exports to capitalize on that growth through a trade agreement that would protect American workers and protect the environment. That's why we think it’s in the best interests of the United States.

But we're going to continue to press for this authority, as we have in the past, mindful, of course, and recognizing that there are differing views on these issues in both parties, not just the Democratic Party.

Move around a little bit. Yes, Alexis.

Q Jay, can I just follow up on Syria?

MR. CARNEY: Yes.

Q Can you, today, remind us, is the U.S. goal to unseat Assad from control in Syria, or is the goal to end the civil war?

MR. CARNEY: The United States policy and position is that Syria’s future cannot include Bashar al-Assad because the Syrian people have so clearly shown that he cannot be a part of future or transitional government in Syria. That's not a decision that we make here in the United States. That's a decision that the Syrian people have made and have suffered for in the past several years at the hands of Assad and at the hands of his brutal regime.

There’s no possibility, in our view -- and this is simply a reflection of the view of the Syrian people and certainly of the opposition -- that a transitional government or governing authority in Syria could include Assad as part of it. The purpose of the talks that have started, albeit without significant progress, is to find a path forward and a transitional governing authority that can be agreed upon. And the only way that can be agreed upon is that it not include Assad, as far as the opposition is concerned, and we certainly support that view. Our goal is an end to the conflict through a negotiated political settlement, and that, again, settlement cannot be possible with Assad remaining in power.

Q Can I just follow up? If the U.S. is interested in supporting the opposition, is that, in the President’s view, military intervention? Is that extending the conflict?

MR. CARNEY: We do support the opposition, and we have supported the opposition for some time now in a variety of ways. We have made clear our views on different kinds of support and our concern over the course of this conflict when it comes to some provision of weapons that some people have suggested and other countries have proposed or engaged in, that there is a concern about that kind of weaponry falling into the wrong hands in a way that could pose a challenge or a threat to our national security interests or the national security interests of our allies in the region. And that remains the case.

Victoria.

Q If you look at Obamacare, including the difficulty with the rollout, and you look at midterms, would you regard it as overall an asset or an albatross for the Democrats?

MR. CARNEY: Is this a campaign press conference?

Q It’s a political question for you.

MR. CARNEY: Look, I think that we have made enormous progress in the enrollment of millions of Americans across the country. And I think that fact is reflected in the diminished coverage of healthcare.gov and the process involved in getting people enrolled. The problems that we had with the website obviously set back the effort, but the significant improvements we’ve seen in enrollments since the website began functioning effectively have been very welcome, obviously, and I think demonstrate that the exchanges work and that the interest among millions of Americans in getting quality, affordable health insurance remains intense.

I think that, as a general principle, without gaming out election strategies, it’s a difficult case to make, despite the well-documented polling data on Obamacare, for Republicans to say they want to take away the benefits that the Affordable Care Act provides. It is a concrete reality now -- when you have millions of Americans who have quality affordable health insurance, you have millions more who have access to Medicaid in those states that have expanded it that they did not have before, and you have all of us across the country who enjoy other benefits from the Affordable Care Act, including the ability to keep our children on our health plans through the age of 26, including the fact that insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage if you have a preexisting condition, they can no longer charge you twice as much as they might charge your twin brother if you had one just because you’re a woman -- these are benefits that the repeal effort would take away. They’re concrete, they’re real, they have accrued to the American people and to millions of Americans across the country.

So I think this has gone from an abstract debate to one that involves real people whose lives would be adversely affected by the success of an effort to take away dramatically the benefits that they enjoy. And I think that that’s a difficult argument to make. I’m sure that it will be made, maybe not quite in the way that I just made it, but I think everybody who is running on a repeal platform needs to explain why their constituents -- either the ones they currently represent or the ones they want to represent -- should have those benefits taken away so that insurance companies can be put back in charge of their health care.

Q Jay.

MR. CARNEY: Welcome.

Q Thanks. What’s the U.S. position on negotiating with terrorists? We’re hearing that talks have now been reopened on the release of Bowe Bergdahl. Has the U.S. position changed? Is it being revised?

MR. CARNEY: We have long supported an Afghan-led peace process, and we’ll continue to do so. When it comes to Sergeant Bergdahl our hearts go out to his family. We have great sympathy for them. Sergeant Bergdahl has been gone for far too long, and we continue to call for his immediate release. We can’t discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that we work every day, using our military, our intelligence and our diplomatic tools, to see Sergeant Bergdahl returned home safely.

We are not -- to go directly to your question -- involved in active negotiations with the Taliban. Clearly, if negotiations do resume, at some point then we will want to talk with the Taliban about the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl. He has been gone far too long, and we continue to call for and work towards his safe and immediate release.

Q Is there a concern about setting a precedent here? Is he a special, unusual case?

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, he is a special case in the sense that he has been gone far too long. And we are very concerned about him and our hearts go out to his family and we have great sympathy for them. They’ve been going through quite an ordeal.

We have long said that we support an Afghan-led process, reconciliation process with the Taliban. And we are not involved in any negotiations with the Taliban, active negotiations, but if negotiations were to resume, we would certainly want to discuss the fate of Sergeant Bergdahl.

Q Is this seen as very time-sensitive?

MR. CARNEY: Well, he should, in our view, be returned as soon as possible.

Jon.

Q Just a quick follow-up on that first. Is the United States open to the idea of a prisoner exchange?

MR. CARNEY: I know the story you’re referring to. I can tell you that, again, we won’t discuss all the details of our efforts. With respect to Guantanamo, the President reiterated, when he signed the fiscal year 2014 Defense Authorization Act, that this administration will not transfer a detainee unless the threat the detainee may pose can be sufficiently mitigated and only when consistent with our humane treatment policy.

Q So just to try to do this generally, a prisoner exchange for a POW held by a terrorist group, would that be the kind of negotiations with terrorists that this administration would not be open to, or would be willing to engage in?

MR. CARNEY: First of all, we have long made clear that we support an Afghan-led process of negotiations and reconciliation with the Taliban. We are not involved in active negotiations with the Taliban. If negotiations were to resume, we would certainly press the case of Sergeant Bergdahl. In the meantime, we are actively engaged in an effort to see his return. I can’t document every effort, but that includes our military, our intelligence and our diplomatic tools.

Q Back to Syria. You’ve said many times there is no military solution to the problem in Syria. Is there or are there military options for stopping some of the killing that has been done by the Assad regime?

MR. CARNEY: The President has said that he does not take the use of American military force off the table in Syria or in any of these circumstances. So, in that sense, the military option always remains available and on the table. We’ve made very clear we do not see American boots on the ground in Syria. When we’re looking at options, we are very interested in actions that move a process forward towards a conclusion that we think is the only one that can lead to a resolution of the conflict in a way that is best for our U.S. national security interests and the interests of our partners and allies in the region. But we look obviously at all options as we’ve been talking about for the last several days and weeks.

Q So all options, as you said, except for boots on the ground. So just to clarify, some have suggested a no-fly zone to ground the helicopters that are dropping the barrel bombs on civilians in Syria, targeted air strikes on those helicopters and on fixed-wing aircraft in Syria. Are either of those military options under renewed consideration?

MR. CARNEY: Well, obviously, a lot of ideas that have been discussed in the past have been put forward of late in the press, and I recognize that. Having said that the President would never take the use of military force off the table, we also firmly believe that there’s not a military solution to this conflict. And as a general principle, I think that the use of military force in any circumstance like this needs to be engaged in with a very clear-eyed sense of what the consequences of that use of force would be and what the policy objectives would be that are being sought and that can be achieved.

Q But just trying to understand the process here, you said that they’ve talked about it in the press. No doubt. But these were clearly options that the President decided not to pursue in that past. Is there any renewed consideration given how bad the situation has gotten on the ground -- “worst humanitarian crisis in a generation,” in the words of our U.N. Ambassador -- is there any renewed consideration of those military options?

MR. CARNEY: I don't have specific options to itemize that I can say are being considered beyond saying that we are always considering all plausible options when it comes to advancing our goals in this terrible conflict. And our goals include the negotiated political resolution of the conflict in a way that allows for transitioning governing authority -- a transitional governing authority that does not include Bashar al-Assad, who has significant Syrian blood on his hands. And that is in keeping with the interests and desires of the Syrian people.

Q But given how bad it’s gotten, and given the apocalyptic language coming from some of the President’s own top advisors on this, why wouldn’t there be a renewed review? Why wouldn’t the President be asking for new options? Why wouldn’t the President be saying, come to me, we may have to do a review of this policy, obviously what’s happening right now is not working, the crisis is getting worse -- why wouldn’t there be a new comprehensive review?

MR. CARNEY: Well, Jon, I think you’re putting words in my mouth that I didn’t speak. I simply said that the review has been ongoing, that the suggestion that there is some --

Q But you said there is not a new review of policy underway. Why wouldn’t there be a new review of policy?

MR. CARNEY: You can’t do something new that you’ve been doing all along. We could call it new for the public relations value in it. But the fact is the President has been asking for all of the options available to him constantly in the course of this conflict. And so, in the interest of providing factual information, I can tell you that the review of options that is ongoing is not new, but it is broad and it reflects a recognition that the conflict continues to exact a terrible toll on the Syrian people. It has significant regional implications and is a challenge to the national security interests of the United States and our partners and allies. And for those reasons, this review is ongoing. And the President takes no option off the table, but nor does he rush to or embrace an option that might sound good because of the frustration we all feel over the terrible situation there, without thinking through the implications of the use of that option.

Bill.

Q You said earlier that the only resolution in Syria is through a negotiation. But how do you pursue negotiation with someone who the Secretary of State says is being put in an advantageous position because of Russian military help and who shows no sign of being willing to negotiate? So it’s one thing to say, let’s negotiate, but it’s very hard to see how you can get there.

MR. CARNEY: Well, Bill, the fact is that was the case before we actually succeeded in establishing the Geneva process and before the parties actually sat down across from one another. And while we’re not --

Q -- haven’t resolved the problem.

MR. CARNEY: Well, you’re right, we haven’t resolved and they haven’t brought an end to the conflict immediately. There has not been significant progress from those negotiations, but it is only from those negotiations or negotiations as a general matter that this can be resolved. There’s not a military outcome here that ends the civil war and allows for the Syrian people to open a new chapter in this history.

We need to work -- because the work is hard and because it is frustrating doesn’t mean that it’s not the right course. And we understand and share the enormous frustration that those who care about the Syrian people and what they’re suffering are experiencing. Our goal is to pursue policies that provide the aid necessary to the Syrian people that push pressure on our partners who have the capacity to either block or allow aid to reach the Syrian people, and to pursue policies that support and provide assistance to the opposition -- the moderate opposition as we continue to press all parties to negotiate an end to this conflict.

Q That presumes that the war will simply drag on while you continue to pursue these goals, which have so far proved, to put it mildly, elusive.

MR. CARNEY: So what’s the question? I mean, are you --

Q Why would you not want to advance somehow the possibility that you could affect regime change there?

MR. CARNEY: Are you suggesting that we should invade or attack?

Q I’m asking you --

MR. CARNEY: I think obviously questions that reflect the enormous suffering that's happening in Syria and the frustration that everyone feels about that are completely understandable. Concrete policy alternatives are even more welcome. And if you have one, let me know. Because I don't think that, for example, a U.S. invasion of a country in the region is something that would be in the national security interests of the United States, or would be viewed by the American people or the representatives in Congress as the right policy.

Q But, Jay, wasn’t it the President himself who, at that podium, set the red line almost two years ago and said, if they were to use these chemical weapons, it’s a red line, enormous consequences. Where are those consequences? You pushed back for a time because they were -- you said, they were turning over chemical weapons. Turns out Assad is not turning over --

MR. CARNEY: Well, Ed, I think you’re conflating the two things. The red line --

Q No, the red line on the chemical weapons. Then you said he was turning them over, but he’s not.

MR. CARNEY: The President -- well, first of all, there is no question that the Assad regime has blown some deadlines on the transport and delivery of its chemical weapons supplies. The regime is still committed to ridding itself of those supplies, and Russia is on the hook for making sure that, as the regime’s significant ally, that those chemical weapons and the supplies are delivered and the regime is fully rid of chemical weapons as part of that agreement.

Now, the fact is the President said that was a red line. He threatened the use of force in response to that. And because the threat was real, we saw the Assad regime go from refusing to acknowledge it even had chemical weapons stockpiles to acknowledging that it had them and to reaching an agreement that they would give up those weapons. And we are going to -- and the international community is going to hold both Syria and Russia responsible for the fulfillment of that agreement.

Q Why would anyone believe you’re going to hold them responsible when this has been going on for years? And in answer to Jon’s question when you said “the review is ongoing,” if the review is always ongoing, doesn't that suggest that you’re more likely to spin your wheels because you’re just reviewing and reviewing, but there’s not an endpoint to this?

MR. CARNEY: Again, you’re conflating a bunch of things, Ed. When we’re talking about policy as a general matter -- not just with regards to chemical weapons, but as a general matter in Syria -- we are constantly reviewing options that would allow us to provide more and more effective humanitarian aid to the Syrian people, that would allow us to provide more and more effective support for the opposition, and that would allow us to advance the essential cause of diplomatic negotiations that could lead to a peaceful political settlement to the conflict and a transitional government. And those are the range of options that the President is constantly asking for and evaluating, because we all recognize that progress has not been coming quickly on Syria and we need -- together with our partners -- to press for a solution here on behalf of the Syrian people.

Q Two other quick things, one on national security. James Clapper, you probably saw comments he made to the Daily Beast where he -- he at one point said, “I probably shouldn’t say this, but I will. Had we been transparent about this from the outset, right after 9/11, which is the genesis of the 215 program” -- he’s talking about the metadata -- “and said both to the American people and to our elected representatives, we need to cover this gap” -- he said, if we had been more transparent, we wouldn’t have had these problems, that Edward Snowden’s leaks wouldn’t have had as much of an impact on the American people if the intelligence community had been more transparent. Does the President agree with that assessment?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I certainly don't think that Director Clapper is saying anything that should come as a surprise. He’s going all the way back to the event that led to the creation of some of these programs.

Q He said “since 9/11,” so he was talking about both administrations I should point out.

MR. CARNEY: Correct. Well, I think that you’ve seen in what the President has done in the steps that he’s taken, that he absolutely shares the view that we need to enact reforms and take steps that provide more transparency to the American people in a way that gives them more confidence that the intelligence gathering we engage in is done with full oversight and in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that it’s done solely with the aim of protecting the American people, protecting the interests of the United States.

Q Last question: On 2014, when you were asked about it before, you obviously said you don't want to get too much into politics, but you believe that health care will be an asset for Democrats, for the President in 2014. David Axelrod undoubtedly agrees with you on that part of the story, but in The New York Times today says he’s concerned the Koch brothers are spending $20 million on Senate races. And he said he’s concerned there are some Democratic activists who are too focused right now on 2016, too excited about that, and losing sight of the election ahead of you. Does the White House share a concern that your fellow Democrats are not focused enough on the fact that if the President loses control of the Senate that will be a big problem for him?

MR. CARNEY: Look, again, this is not a campaign briefing. I can tell you that the President is obviously going to engage and do everything he can to assist Democrats running in 2014, but he is principally focused on an agenda that’s designed to expand opportunity for the American people, strengthen and expand the middle class, reward hard work and responsibility.

Q But if you lose control of the Senate, that legislative agenda -- if you put aside politics for a second, if you lose control of the Senate, it’s going to be pretty hard to get that agenda through, wouldn’t it?

MR. CARNEY: Well, he is not going to, and the Democratic Party is not going to lose control of the Senate, in our view. And that’s precisely because of the policies that he and Democrats support that are focused on expanding opportunity, as opposed to repealing benefits; that are focused on providing broad support for the middle class so that it can become more secure going forward; and that more jobs are created, as opposed to support for special interest tax loopholes that benefit the few. I mean, that’s sort of a general principle. And the President feels very strongly that that approach is one that broadly speaking the American people support.

Q Turning to Venezuela, the government there has thrown out three diplomats -- or is trying to throw out three diplomats from the country. What is the U.S. response? Are they going to go ahead and agree to the order? And is there -- in the past there’s been retaliation where the United States has asked -- has ordered Venezuelan diplomats out of the country. Is there going to be retaliation?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I can tell you that the Venezuelan government has notified the United States that it has declared three of our consular officials PNG -- persona non grata. We’ve seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the U.S. or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela. And these efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces.

The allegations against our diplomats by the Venezuelan government are baseless and false. And as we’ve long said, Venezuela’s political future is for the Venezuelan people to decide. We urge the Venezuelan government to work to address its people’s grievances forthrightly, through real, meaningful dialogue. The U.S. values its strong, historic and cultural ties with the Venezuelan people and remains committed to our relationship with them.

I don’t have any reaction to announce or preview.

Q Or anything that says any -- kicking anybody out of the country?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have any reaction to that information.

Q Anything about -- Leopoldo Lopez, who has been the leader of the opposition, turned himself in to Venezuelan authorities. Any U.S. -- any reaction to that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re deeply concerned about the violence in Venezuela. We are alarmed by the Venezuelan government’s use of security forces and armed gangs affiliated with the government to disrupt peaceful protests, which is disproportionate and threatens further escalation of the violence. Venezuelan authorities have arrested and detained scores of anti-government protestors. We call on the government to release them immediately and to provide the political space necessary for meaningful dialogue with the Venezuelan people.

Q And if they don’t do this, is there an action you’ll take? Is there --

MR. CARNEY: Those responsible for acts of violence must be held to account through impartial investigation and independent judicial processes. I have no other action to preview.

Q Two other foreign policy questions. Going back to North Korea, I know that you guys time and again publicly condemned the actions of North Korea as human rights violations. What about with China? Is there anything beyond asking China to do more about North Korea that the U.S. plans to do?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I mean, that’s no minor thing. China has a unique and significant leverage with North Korea, and because of that fact, we engage with the Chinese directly on these matters and encourage the Chinese to --

Q Have you guys ever punished China for not doing anything?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would simply say that we make clear to the Chinese that we believe very strongly that it is in not just the U.S. interest but in the interests of regional security, including in the interest of China, that North Korea take steps to deescalate some of the provocative behavior that they engage in periodically, and ultimately to get right with the international community, to comply with the series of United Nations Security resolutions that it is in violation of, and we will continue to work with the Chinese and others to help bring that about.

Q I mean, I guess the point is, is that does China realize that they can do nothing because it’s not as if the United States is ever going to react other than a strongly worded statement?

MR. CARNEY: I’m not sure I agree with that assessment and I think that we are working with the Chinese on these issues, as well as our partners in the region, on a regular basis.

Q And on Syria, you guys are obviously -- I know that we’re all beating a dead horse maybe on this, but is there a -- obviously, there’s a sense of urgency. Is there a timeline that the President is operating on -- that, okay, you know what, he’s not abiding by the chemical weapons, this is still going on, they’ve got three weeks or else -- I mean, is there some sort of timeline he’s operating on here in deciding whether to shift the policy or not?

MR. CARNEY: I think the way to answer that question, Chuck, is that we are actively engaged in a process of looking at the options available to the President to advance the goals that we believe are necessary, which include making sure that humanitarian assistance is being provided the Syrian people -- we continue to be the lead nation when it comes to providing that assistance -- making sure that our assistance to the moderate opposition is being delivered and our assistance to the moderate armed opposition is being delivered. We continue to work on an international basis to press for the only path forward when it comes to resolving this conflict, which is through the diplomatic channels and negotiated political settlement.

So I don’t -- and on the matter of CW, I’ve made clear that we believe the Assad regime as well as the Russians must comply with their obligations to the international community when it comes to ridding the regime of its chemical weapons supplies so that they can be destroyed.

Q And if they don't, what?

MR. CARNEY: Well, there’s no consequence to something that hasn’t happened to announce today except to say that this is a very serious matter -- as we demonstrated last fall, which lead to this agreement -- and that we and our international partners take it very seriously.

Jared.

Q Thanks, Jay. On the resumptions of talks over Iran’s nuclear program, does the administration still think there’s a good chance of a comprehensive agreement?

MR. CARNEY: Our view hasn’t changed in that we think that it is absolutely the right thing to do to test whether or not Tehran is serious about resolving this conflict diplomatically.

There is no question that the prospects for success are a matter of serious debate or that -- they're far from a sure thing, either way. But because there is at least some prospect that Tehran might be willing to in a verifiable, transparent way convince the international community that it has forsaken pursuit of a nuclear weapon, we ought to do through diplomatic means.

Resolving this issue through the use of military force has to be something that we obviously never take off the table but can't be a first option. And because, in the wake of their elections and the enormous pressure that the unprecedented sanctions regime has placed on their economy, the Iranian government was willing to move forward with talks and to reach the interim agreement, the JPOA, and now to engage in the comprehensive settlement discussions is worth exploring. But we’re obviously mindful of the fact that they may not result in an agreement, but because they present the opportunity, we have to take it.

Q How much of a sticking point is their recent ballistic missile testing? And how important is that to these talks?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I want to be very clear, per the Joint Plan of Action agreed to by Iran, Iran must address the U.N. Security Council resolutions related to its nuclear program before a comprehensive resolution can be reached. In other words, they have to deal with matters related to their ballistic missile program that are included in the United Nations Security Council resolution that is part of explicitly, according to the Joint Plan of Action, the comprehensive resolution negotiation.

So U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, passed in 2010, prohibits Iran from undertaking any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology. So that is explicitly agreed by Iran in the Joint Plan of Action. And I think that applies -- it’s important to note that that applies to all of the United Nations Security Council resolutions in this area. That is explicitly referenced in the Joint Plan of Action.

Scott, then Mara.

Q Thanks, Jay. Thinking back on the Libya intervention for a minute, the President spoke after that and told the American people that the principles he acted on were, by all American interests, imminent humanitarian catastrophe and a military strike with partners. And it was easy for a time in Syria to see that the parallels were not there, but now the Syrian army is moving on the ground, on Aleppo, which looks a lot like Benghazi -- a second city, seat of the rebellion. Why aren’t those same parallels coming into clearer focus for the President?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that you’ve left out some of the parallels that continue not to line up with the Libyan example, including the international agreement to take action.

Q You had the Arab League.

MR. CARNEY: So this is as we’ve discussed in the past, including, you’re right, the Arab League. So it is our view that there is not a military resolution to this conflict and that we need to continue to press forward with an effort that is aimed at reaching a negotiated settlement between the two parties because that’s the only way to ensure that Syria has a fighting chance in the future as opposed to an extended, ongoing conflict.

Q Will you try to reengage the Arab League to get their endorsement, which was crucial to the Libyan intervention?

MR. CARNEY: We are engaged with all our partners in the region on this very serious issue. I wouldn’t say that that’s around a certain prospective action that could be taken, but as a general matter, this is something that we need everyone who is concerned about the fate of the Syrian people and about the instability this conflict causes in the region to be engaged in so that we can help move the process forward.

Q But it sounds like without the Security Council’s support, you’re not interested in any sort of -- considering a military option and Russia is not going to give you that. So are you being hung up by the U.N. at this point? Is that what is --

MR. CARNEY: Let me just be clear that we don’t take any option off the table; the President has made that clear. What we are focused on is a path forward that recognizes that there’s not a military solution to this conflict and that the only way forward for the Syrian people is through a negotiated political settlement. Now, how we use our leverage and the leverage of others to help push that process forward is very much what we’re engaged in now, and the progress has been frustratingly slow, there’s no question about it. But it does not change the essential fact in our view that there’s not a military resolution to the conflict.

Q Last thing. When you say that, that there’s no military resolution to this conflict, there was in Libya. Why isn’t there -- was there a moment in this conflict when there was a military solution to it, and has that moment passed? And if you had acted then, would the situation be different now? In other words, by waiting as long you have to begin to consider these things, obviously the battlefield is a lot more complicated.

MR. CARNEY: I think for reasons that you better than most probably here understand there are a host of differences between Libya and Syria, and that play into even hypothetical counterfactuals about what might have been in that conflict. And what has been the case all along is that the President has pursued a policy that he believes puts as a priority United States national security interests and that is supportive of an opposition that wants to rid itself and Syria of a tyrranical regime, and that envisions working with partners in the region to help bring about a negotiated political settlement. So engaging in hypotheticals about actions that could have taken by sort of stating all other things being equal when of course they weren’t and aren’t doesn’t really get you very far.

Cheryl.

Q Thanks, Jay. On minimum wage, CBO has been looking at the effects of raising the minimum wage on employment. What do you say to critics who say raising the minimum wage will cost jobs and cut hours?

MR. CARNEY: I would point them to the ample documentation from respected economists who say the opposite -- that there is not evidence that it has a significant impact on jobs, and that, to the contrary, it’s beneficial to the economy and to efficiency and productivity. And the theory behind the opposition to raising the minimum wage -- that it costs jobs -- if you tease it out all the way, then there shouldn’t be a minimum wage at all. And there are probably fewer than 5 percent of the American people who believe that. That would be let’s just pay people a dollar an hour, and nobody believes that that’s the right thing to do any more than paying them a full-time wage that keeps them below poverty is the right thing to do, which is the situation we have now.

So, again, there are far greater economic minds than this one who can attest to the fact that raising the minimum wage, certainly in the way that has been proposed and the President supports, is the right thing to do for the economy and that does not have a significant impact on jobs.

Olivier.

Q Jay, a couple for you. First, did the White House invite any of the original “Monuments Men” to tonight’s screening?

MR. CARNEY: I do not have a list of participants, but we’ll try to get those to you later in the day. The White House is hosting a screening, as you know, of “The Monuments Men” today, or tonight. The cast and crew have been invited, along with officials from the State Department’s Cultural Heritage Center who are our country’s modern-day “Monuments Men” and women. In addition, the White House curators, members of the Jewish community and officials from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum will attend. We’ll try to get you a fuller list.

Q And can I just -- one more. On Syria, in late January, Director Clapper told Congress that the area is under control by the al Qaeda-linked militants now. It looked like they’re becoming the new FATA, the new lawless Pakistan areas. Did that change the President’s outlook on the usefulness or the desirability of entering the conflict militarily in any capacity?

MR. CARNEY: His testimony?

Q Yes. Well, that was news to at least me that that’s what was going on there. Did that change -- did finding out that this is becoming a new petri dish for this stuff, did that change the way he’s thinking about this?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say that among the many concerns that we have about the situation in Syria is the presence of extremists and al Qaeda-linked organizations and individuals. And that is obviously a concern anywhere that it presents itself. And it speaks to sort of both sides of the issue when you talk about actions that you might take. I mean, one of the issues that has always been discussed was making sure that the provision of assistance gets into the right hands and isn’t passed on to those who have designs on U.S. national security interests or on the interests of our allies. So that’s always something that we’re concerned about. And certainly, Director Clapper identified that in that testimony.

Mark.

Q Back to trade if I can, and also specifically about the North American Summit -- trade is if not at the top of the agenda here, it’s close to it. What is the President going to tell to the other two leaders about the possibility of completing an accord of this Trans-Pacific Partnership that all three countries have been trying real hard to get finished when the leaders of his own party have thrown up roadblocks to it?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I think that it’s a useful exercise when reporting on this discussion and debate to make sure that your readers are aware of the fact that ‘twas ever thus. And the differing opinions on these matters are not new, and the fact that there are differing opinions within both parties is not new. So I don’t have -- obviously, the President will be speaking to this during his visit, broadly, in terms of what the agenda is and what the discussions will be at the summit. But we shouldn’t pretend that the wheel has been recreated here when we talk about the differing views that people have on matters of trade expansion.

Q Well, what does he hope to accomplish tomorrow?

MR. CARNEY: Look, we’ll have more information on the visit. And the President himself will obviously be speaking at the summit. But these are obviously two close allies and partners, and he looks very much forward to the discussion and the meetings.

Q Jay, before you go -- Ukraine. The government has moved in to clear out protestors.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have anything that’s happened since I’ve been here obviously at the podium -- I don’t have new info on. But I can tell you we are appalled by the violence that was already taking place in downtown Kiev, and reports of armed riot police amassing on the edge of Maidan.

We continue to condemn the street violence and excessive use of force by either side. The force will not resolve the crisis. To restore peace and stability we urge President Yanukovych to deescalate immediately the situation and end the confrontation at Maidan. We also urge him to restart a dialogue with opposition leaders today to develop a consensus way forward for Ukraine.

Last one.

Q -- says that he’s going to meet with opposition leaders tomorrow. Is that --

MR. CARNEY: I can’t respond, absent my BlackBerry, to breaking news. Sorry.

Last one.

Q Has the Vice President or the President reached out to Mr. Yanukovych in the last few days?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have an update on the fairly regular conversations that the Vice President in particular has been having with President Yanukovych and others in Ukraine. If we do have an update on that we’ll get it to you.

Thanks very much, guys.

END
2:05 P.M. EST

Press Gaggle en route Toluca, Mexico

Executive Order -- Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America’s Businesses

FACT SHEET: President Obama to Sign Executive Order on Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America’s Businesses

New Funding to Increase Access to Mental Health Services and New Protections Under the Health Care Law

A Look At What They’re Saying About myRA Across the Country

Statement from the President on the Retirement of Congresswoman Gloria Negrete McLeod

On-the-Record Call by Jason Furman and Betsey Stevenson on the CBO Report on Minimum Wage

Statement from the President on the Retirement of Congressman Rush Holt

President Obama Speaks on Improving Fuel Efficiency for American Trucks

Remarks by the President on Fuel Efficiency Standards of Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/18/2014