The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

February 06, 2013

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/6/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

11:58 A.M. EST

MR. CARNEY: Hello, everyone. Thanks for being here. Before I take your questions, I just wanted to mention that earlier today, at the White House, Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor; Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council; Jeff Zients, Director of OMB; and Alan Krueger, the President’s chief economist met with the following business leaders in the defense contracting industry: Wes Bush, Chairman, CEO and President of Northrop Grumman Corporation; David P. Hess, President of Pratt & Whitney; Linda Parker Hudson, President and CEO of BAE Systems Inc.; John S. Langford, Chairman and CEO of Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation; David F. Melcher, CEO and President of ITT Exelis; Mike Petters, President and CEO, Huntington Ingalls Industries; and Marion C. Blakey, President and CEO, Aerospace Industries Association.

The focus of the conversation was the potential devastating impacts of the sequester going into effect as a number of the participants noted the notion that allowing the sequester to take effect would someone have limited effect or would be reversible, that notion was disputed heavily in the meeting. For some of these major companies, the impacts would be long lasting, as they would have to make decisions about programmatic changes they would make and therefore contractual changes. A company like Northrop Grumman, I believe, would have, for example, something like 20,000 small businesses in their pipeline that would be severely affected by implementation of the sequester.

And a lot of these companies, while they are defense contractors, also have a significant civilian side business operations that would be negatively affected by the impacts on their R&D budgets, for example.

So this is a very serious matter. I would also note that the participants did not support proposals thrown out there that we could somehow address only the defense spending side of the sequester, take care of that, but let the nondefense cuts kick in, across-the board cuts, or double up on the nondefense across-the-board cuts, because these companies depend for their workforces of their future on investments in education and in STEM education in particular, and in other areas of investment that this government makes to help build the foundation for our future economy. So it was a very good meeting and about a very important topic.

And with that, I go to the Associated Press.

Q Thank you. Does the White House have any response to the Boy Scouts delaying their decision on allowing gay members and leaders?

MR. CARNEY: We have no response. I don’t have a response to their process. You know that the President believes the Boy Scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in American boys for more than a century. He also, as you know, opposes discrimination in all forms, and as such believes, as he said just on Sunday, that gay Americans ought to be able to participate in the Boy Scouts.

But in terms of the process of their evaluation of their policies, I don’t have a comment.

Q The President obviously is in Annapolis talking to Senate Democrats, and there’s no press access to that event, which, first, we just want to register our complaint on that. Second of all, can you give us any readout of what the President’s message was going to be to Senate Democrats, particularly on his priorities for immigration and gun control?

MR. CARNEY: The President will talk about all the work that the Senate is doing -- Senate Democrats are doing with the administration in a coordinated way, whether it’s on addressing the sequester that I just talked about and our fiscal challenges; the balanced approach we need to take towards further deficit reduction; the investments we need to make to ensure our economy grows and continues to create jobs.

On immigration, there has been -- and the President will note this -- significant progress made with the participation of Senate Democrats towards a bipartisan piece of legislation that would meet the standards and principles the President has put forward in his blueprint, and hopefully would pass the Senate and the House and get the President’s signature. That’s a very high priority of the President’s and of the nation’s. And on other issues, whether it’s taking actions to reduce gun violence in America, or dealing with a variety of other issues that confront us, the President looks forward to meeting with Senate Democrats because they play such an important role in moving this agenda forward.

Q What’s his message specifically on the assault weapons ban? That's an issue that several Democrats have refrained from voicing their support or opposition to. Is he going to push them to take this to the floor and have a vote on it?

MR. CARNEY: The President firmly supports reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. He has long supported that. He understands that these issues are difficult, that achieving them will not be easy, but he is committed to pressing forward on them and to enlisting the support of lawmakers in both the House and the Senate of both parties in the effort.

As for the assault weapons ban, in particular, I think he said on Sunday and I know he believes that this needs to come to a vote. The American people actually, by most polls, support passage of the assault weapons ban. The President certainly does, and he believes it should come to a vote.

Q Even if that means putting members of his own party in the position to vote against something that he supports or take a vote that could hurt them politically?

MR. CARNEY: I think he thinks that the American people, understandably, expect Congress to vote on these important matters, to vote yes or no. And he would hope that the Senate has an opportunity to do that.

Q Finally, I wonder if you have any update on the President’s State of the Union, how he’s going through the process of working on that; if there’s any sort of message or theme that you can tell us about at this point.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't have a preview of the speech itself for you. It’s a collaborative process between the President and his speechwriter -- in this case, Cody Keenan, as I think it’s been noted is taking the lead on the speechwriting team for this and will be getting a higher profile in the weeks to come -- internally, anyway. But these are speeches that the President takes very seriously. He’s a writer himself, so he engages at a very deep level on the framing of a speech, on the writing of it and the editing of it and the shaping of it. So that process continues.

Jeff.

Q Jay, Speaker Boehner said today that he would not support a delay in the sequester without further spending cuts. And the reaction yesterday from Republicans, largely to what the President said, was negative. How do you plan to overcome that opposition? And more specifically, will the President give any details about what spending cuts he would like to see in a short-term package?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the President was clear yesterday that he believes if we don't have the time, or the Republicans are not inclined in the short term to accept the offer that he put forward to Speaker Boehner that would resolve the sequester and then some when it comes to deficit reduction in a balanced way, that we should at the very least take action for a temporary buy-down just as we did at the end of the year of the sequester in order to prevent the terrible impact of the sequester if it were to take place, and to give Congress the time to continue to work on a budget process that the President hopes and others hope will produce a balanced approach towards further deficit reduction.

So a balanced approach means spending cuts as well as revenue through tax reform. So we would work with -- we will work with Congress on a package that would do that. So if Speaker Boehner is saying that spending cuts have to be part of that, the President believes that, too. But it cannot be spending cuts alone. The balance is what the American people support. And whether it’s proposals, as the Republicans have put forward, that achieve significant deficit reduction over 10 years only through spending cuts and therefore borne almost entirely by senior citizens and struggling middle-class families and others or proposals for short-term buying down of the sequester or other measures that would reduce the deficit, it has to be balanced because it’s -- the principle is broadly supported by the American people. It’s the right economic principle to apply.

And the argument that Republicans seem to be making is that the choice here should be unbalanced spending cuts that adversely affect Americans who are trying to get by, but hold harmless corporations that enjoy tax breaks for jets or subsidies for oil and gas industry, for example; hedge fund managers who pay a much lower tax rate through the carried interest provision than average folks who drive a bus or walk the beat in a municipal police department or teach our kids -- that that’s a better -- that he see that’s the choice, or we let the sequester kick, in thousands of upon thousands Americans lose their jobs as a result, and the economy takes a severe blow. That’s a terrible choice, and it's not an option the -- it's not a choice that has to be made.

If we do it in a balanced way -- and again, we've done this before, so why was buying down the sequester for a temporary period of time to allow for congressional work to be done on this issue for broader deficit reduction, why was it okay to do it in a balanced way two months ago but it's not okay now? It's the right thing to do. The President made that clear yesterday.

Q And you may pose that question, but, as I said in the original question, the response has been --

MR. CARNEY: Right, well, they will have to explain.

Q But how will you -- will you try to overcome that? Or is the President willing to accept the fact that on March 1st the sequester would just go in and the people who he met with this morning and their companies and employees will suffer?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the President came out here yesterday in part to challenge the growing conventional wisdom among Republicans in Congress that the sequester is somehow acceptable; it's somehow a useful political play for them, because the effects of the sequester on average Americans out there would be very negative. And he put forward a proposal for avoiding that outcome while Congress continues to work on longer-term deficit reduction. That’s the sensible thing to do.

Why make -- why punish the American people because you haven't been able to achieve your ideological objectives through other means? They pass budgets that are wholly objectionable to most Americans; they didn’t become law because of that, because they don’t have the support of the American people.

Compromise solutions have the support of the American people, solutions that involve some revenues through tax reform -- the kinds of tax reform -- closures of loopholes and capping of deductions that, supposedly, Republicans supported a few months ago, but don’t support now. And then combined with spending cuts and entitlement reforms, we can achieve what has long been this President's goal and the goal of many others, which is significant deficit reduction on the order of $4 trillion over a decade that would put us on a fiscally sustainable path and allow our economy to grow and continue to create jobs.

Q And we know what the proposal is for $4 trillion, and he referred to it yesterday, but the reaction, as I've said, is they want to see -- the Republicans who would need to agree to this want to see what the specific spending cuts would be in the short-term deal.

MR. CARNEY: Look, I think that we would work with Congress on whatever a short-term deal would look like. It has to be balanced. The reaction I've heard --

Q That’s clear. But are there any -- do you have any meat on the bone for that right now -- for either side?

MR. CARNEY: We haven't -- we will work with Congress. The meat on the bone in terms of what balance would look like is available in the bigger plan. And obviously, you would take --

Q But he's proposing the shorter plan.

MR. CARNEY: Jeff, I think -- here are the facts: We proposed a specific option for the Speaker of the House. It was a compromise that was far more detailed than anything we ever saw from the Republicans in that process, both on the spending cuts side and on the revenue side. The President made clear yesterday and I've made clear that deal is still available.

If you want to pursue balance in a short-term deal, then you can look to the options provided in the President’s proposal for both spending cuts and reforms and revenues.

And you can -- when it comes to revenues, you can look to the language that Republicans used when they talked about how we could achieve significant revenue increases from wealthy Americans through tax reform alone. So if it was true then, it must be true now.

Q Jay, follow?

MR. CARNEY: Let me -- I’m going to go a little to the right here and then to the left.

Q Jay, thanks. I want to go back to the drone strikes. The New York Times is pointing out that a number of military and intelligence officials have expressed concern that the drone strikes might actually be creating more militants in areas like Yemen than they're killing. Is that one of the effects? Are they having the reverse impact?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would -- in terms of the broader effort, I would refer you to the Pentagon -- the broader effort in terms of dealing with al Qaeda. But the fact is, as John Brennan and others have made clear, our counterterrorism efforts are designed -- including our targeted efforts -- to limit civilian casualties. And I think any fair assessment of those efforts would draw you to the conclusion that they have significantly limited civilian casualties, I think.

Q Civilians have been killed.

MR. CARNEY: Well, again I’m not disputing that necessarily, although I won't talk about specific instances. But the fact is, is that the methods that we use are designed specifically to avoid civilian casualties. I think it’s fair to say that far fewer civilians lose their lives in an effort to go after senior leadership in al Qaeda along the lines that we are discussing here as opposed to an effort to invade a country with hundreds of thousands of troops and take cities and towns.

So I think that these are issues that obviously concern everyone involved in the effort to combat al Qaeda and to deal with the region as a whole. So that aspect of it is one that is very much in the front of everybody’s minds when they make these decisions and move forward with actions.

Q Stanley McChrystal was quoted as saying that these strikes contribute to a perception of “American arrogance.” How concerned is the President about that, that these strikes are making America seem arrogant?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that the President takes a very serious approach to these matters and has, as I said yesterday, two responsibilities in mind, and that is his absolute responsibility under the Constitution to protect the United States and to protect American citizens, and his responsibility in carrying out the first to do so in a way that's consistent with our Constitution and our laws and our values.

And on the broader objectives, we obviously take the fight to al Qaeda in a way that we believe serves our national security objectives. And that means eliminating senior al Qaeda leadership, and it also means working with countries around the region to encourage a process whereby the populations in some of these countries recognize that choosing the ideology of al Qaeda is ultimately disastrous for them and their futures and their country’s future. And so it’s an effort that includes a lot of different elements to it that is not just military.

Q And just shifting to the President’s trip to Israel quickly, does he plan to bring any concrete proposals to his trip to advance the peace talks? Has Netanyahu offered any proposals ahead of the visit?

MR. CARNEY: As I said yesterday, this is a trip the President looks forward to making that is timed in part because we have here obviously a second term for the President, a new administration, and a new government in Israel, and that's an opportune time for a visit like this that is not focused on specific Middle East peace process proposals. I'm sure that any time the President and Prime Minister have a discussion, certainly any time the President has a discussion with leaders of the Palestinian Authority, that those issues are raised. But that is not the purpose of this visit.

Our views and our efforts on Middle East peace are clear and they’re continuing. And I think as I said yesterday, the visit will include travel to the West Bank as well as to Jordan.

Q Jay, on the drones, why are you dancing around the question of whether or not we kill civilians? Why can't the government at least admit that civilians have been killed?

MR. CARNEY: I don't think that I'm dancing around it. I didn’t dispute it.

Q You said I’m not necessarily disputing it.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm just not going to -- what I can't do or what I'm not --

Q Civilians have been killed, right?

MR. CARNEY: I don't disagree with that.

Q Okay. Do you think this is going to imperil John Brennan’s nomination?

MR. CARNEY: The President believes that John Brennan is uniquely qualified as a 25-year veteran of intelligence work -- a 25-year veteran at the CIA -- to lead that agency. And as the President’s top counterterrorism advisor these past four years, he’s done extraordinary work in the effort to combat al Qaeda, and through that work we have seen a significant decimation of senior al Qaeda leadership, including the elimination of Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Brennan brings I think not only a vast amount of experience but a significant perspective on the battles that we wage in this effort and the right way to conduct them. So the President believes that the Senate should and will confirm John Brennan expeditiously.

Q Two quick questions. CBO yesterday in a report said that the President’s health care law is going to push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage. That's nearly twice the previous estimate. In fairness, it seems like it’s not because of the original health care law, it’s because of some tax changes in the fiscal cliff talks that in part is causing this change. But since it’s happening, how can the President still claim that people are going to get to keep their coverage, keep their doctor, if 7 million people are going to be thrown off their insurance?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that the report is oversimplified in a number of areas, and HHS can provide you more details, more information about that. The bottom line here is that no matter where you live, on January 1st, 2014, an insurance marketplace will be up and running, and consumers will have more access to quality, affordable health insurance coverage.

We've seen just in recent days and weeks, states led by both Democrats and Republicans stepping forward to implement the Affordable Care Act. We now have approximately 25 states, again, led by members of both parties, that will operate their own health insurance marketplace either on their own or in partnership with the federal government. And as I said, in 2014 consumers in all 50 states will have access to a marketplace where they can afford -- where they can access, rather, affordable private health insurance coverage.

Q Last thing is on the Boy Scouts. When you were asked about it before you said that the President was motivated in large part because he opposes discrimination in all forms, of course. He believed the same about discrimination in 2009, I assume, and yet was against same-sex marriage. What has driven his evolution on issues like same-sex marriage?

MR. CARNEY: I think the President gave a lengthy interview about just this very topic to Robin Roberts last year, so I would point you to his comments about his evolution.

Q But he opposed discrimination -- is it because of public sentiment changing so much over the last decade?

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I would -- for his personal evolution -- a term that he used -- I would point you to his words. I think that there’s no question, as many have written about and commented on, that our country has as a whole evolved significantly in our view, the public’s view, of these matters. And the President believes that's a very good thing.

Dan.

Q Does the President owe the American people a clearer explanation about the standard or the threshold for killing Americans overseas?

MR. CARNEY: I think it’s an excellent question and it’s the one the President -- and it is one that the President takes very much to heart and very seriously. He thinks that it is legitimate to ask questions about how we prosecute the war against al Qaeda. It is something that he has discussed internally. It is his belief in these issues, his belief that we need to move forward with more transparency as well as create, in his words, a "legal framework" around how these decisions are made that has led to, I think, unprecedented levels of information provided to the public about how we do this, including the speeches that I talked about yesterday from John Brennan and the Attorney General and others -- Jeh Johnson and others.

And the President fully expects that that process will continue, because these are issues that he believes are very important. As I said before, his high responsibility here as Commander-in-Chief is to protect the American people and to protect the United States from threats like the threats posed by al Qaeda.

It is also his high responsibility to perform that function in a way that is consistent with who we are, our values and the Constitution. And he believes that it's wholly legitimate to examine these issues and to have conversations about them. And he is engaged here internally in a process that I think reflects his views on this. I think he said late last year, in the fall, one of the things -- this was in an interview, and I'm quoting the President -- "One of the things that we've got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need congressional help to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in, but any President is reined in, in terms of some of the decisions that we're making."

So we're talking -- he's talking about this in a very deliberative and thoughtful way about how we move forward as a nation on these issues, because, obviously, this is a -- these are questions that will be with us long after he is President and long after the people who are in the seats that they're in now have left the scene.

Q And can we expect him to address this in a public way any time soon?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have any scheduling announcements to make or remarks to preview. But I just wanted to convey to you the seriousness with which the President approaches these issues, and he respects the questions being asked.

I think, again, while the white paper that was produced by the Department of Justice for senators was not a public document, as I noted yesterday, it does -- it did represent an effort in our providing of information to the applicable members of Congress to explain the legal concepts and legal theories that undergird the decisions that are being made.

Q Jay on that question --

MR. CARNEY: Can I just -- I'm still with Dan.

Q I just have one more thing on the budget. We're at a place now that we've been at several times over the last few years when it comes to fiscal matters, and that is there is a looming deadline, and then the White House will have meetings with people who are talking about dire consequences if something doesn’t happen. What do you say to the American people who are just simply frustrated with the cycle that they've sort of gotten used to now for several years?

MR. CARNEY: We agree with their frustration. The President understands that frustration. The dysfunction that often dominates the way we govern here in Washington is a source of frustration to every American who is paying attention and every American for whom the dysfunction has an adverse effect on how they live their lives, and maybe their livelihoods. That would certainly be the case if political calculations were the result of -- resulted in the sequester kicking in because of a desire to achieve some sort of ideological objectives in a way that would throw a lot of Americans out of work and do obvious harm to our economy.

The President talked about this I think on a couple of occasions. He said we have to get out from under the cloud of crises, this mode of governing where we sort of go from, as you described it, crisis to crisis in these confrontations. We need to go about our business in a way that allows for compromise, that rejects sort of absolutist positions that have no -- adherence to absolutist positions that won’t become law and that only drive us to brinksmanship. The President has practiced that in his approach, sometimes causing himself political peril, but he has believed that that’s the right way to do this.

And going to the aspect of this that involves reaching out to people like defense contractors or traveling around the country to engage, it’s a reminder that what happens here and the decisions made, or the failure to act, all of this has an effect on people around the country; it’s not just a parlor game here in Washington. These are real-world decisions that significantly affect our economy and the American people.

So he would whole-heartedly agree with the sense of frustration Americans have about this kind of governance, and he hopes that we can move beyond that and return, if you will, to sort of more regular order when it comes to how we deliberate about our budget process, how we move forward on reducing our deficit. The options for that -- that path is open and available. Compromise is the way to achieve it.

Q And so is the White House just pointing the finger -- the blame at Republicans?

MR. CARNEY: No, not at all. I mean, again, I think if you saw in the President’s proposals, as he made clear yesterday, are on the table to be taken up, you saw tough decisions for a Democrat -- a Democratic President, you saw a willingness to compromise in the scope of revenue that he believes should be included in a big package, you saw significant spending cuts on top of the already significant spending cuts this President has signed into law -- that’s the kind of spirit of compromise that he believes is required when we’re just trying to get work done for the American people and trying not to do harm to the economy, let alone help the economy, which is what we should be doing.

Q Jay, on that question of the drone strikes, Senator Wyden today is saying he’s going to “pull out all the stops” to force the administration to turn over the actual legal analysis behind the justification for the drone strikes -- not the much discussed white paper, but the actual legal memos. That sounds to me like a senator raising the possibility of a filibuster. What is your answer to Senator Wyden? Will the Intelligence Committee, will the Congress get the actual legal analysis used to justify those strikes?

MR. CARNEY: Well, without discussing specific actions or cases or memos, I can say that the President has been and is committed to working with Congress on these matters and to providing information to Congress, and that process continues.

I think it’s important to note -- and I should have said this yesterday -- that when it comes to some of these matters, the information that is kept secret is kept secret for national security reasons not to keep it from the American people, but to keep it from those who plot daily and continually to do harm to the United States and do harm to the American people. That is the premise behind which decisions like that are made.

Having said that, again, broadly speaking -- not referring to any specific operation or possible memo or memos -- the President is committed to continuing to work with Congress to provide Congress information on these important matters as he has been in the past.

Q So Wyden will get his -- the information he wants --

MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not going to -- I can't and won’t talk about specific operations or specific memos that may or may not exist. What I can say is that the President and this administration will continue to work with Congress, as it has, to consult with and provide information to appropriate members about these important, weighty matters.

Q An entirely different subject: The post office is saying it’s going to do away with Saturday delivery. Does the President have a problem with that decision?

MR. CARNEY: Well, a couple of things. One, this is a decision -- it’s an independent agency, as you know, the Postal Service, and this is a decision that we found out about here just yesterday. And I’m looking -- I have a little more information for you on it. So let me just make that point.

The second point is that we put forward a year and a half ago a series of proposals for reform of the Postal Service that would put it on much more firm financial ground and it passed the Senate. Unfortunately, the House failed to take it up. So it would be our preference that that comprehensive package of reforms be implemented for the sake of a stronger future Postal Service.

But we’re looking at this particular action now and can't really evaluate it yet since we just found out about it yesterday.

Yes.

Q You mentioned a minute ago that the President wants to put a legal architecture in place for the drone strikes. What steps is he taking to do that? Is he proposing something to Congress? Is he asking them to come up with it?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I think this is -- I was quoting the President and this is something that he and others have talked about. Mr. Brennan has said in the past that we’re trying to right now -- “What we’re trying to do right now is to have a set of standards, a set of criteria and have a decision-making process that will govern our counterterrorism actions so that irrespective of the venue where they're taking place, we have a high confidence that they're being done for the rights reasons in the right way.” So this --

Q Would you agree to getting Congress involved in it?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that the answer is yes. Again, quoting the President, he said last fall that there is a -- that it requires consultations with Congress that this -- and that's why going to Jon’s question, that we have been and will continue to be engaging with Congress on these important matters.

What that structure looks like and timelines on it, I don't have information for you today about, but it is something that the President considers a lot and takes very seriously.

Q But are these deliberations underway?

MR. CARNEY: Yes, they are.

Q I mean, have you gone to Congress and opened these discussions?

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I don't have any modalities to report to you in terms of specific conversations or meetings. But as Mr. Brennan and the President have discussed, this is something that has been underway and will continue to occupy a fair amount of time for people involved here, because it is the desire of this President to make sure that we have an architecture in place that governs these issues not just for this President and this administration, but for the future.

Q But just to clear, he wants to write rules for this kind of --

MR. CARNEY: Again, I don't have -- to use that fancy word, I don't have the modalities here. I don't know -- or I don't have for you today what that looks like. It has been described as a playbook. It has been described as a set of standards. But what it does represent, the effort itself represents I think the thoughtfulness and seriousness with which this administration, led by this President, approaches these issues.

Q Just one other question here. A few days ago you were asked about the --

MR. CARNEY: You’re not going to throw my words back on me?

Q -- remodeling of the West Wing and temporary quarters for the President. You referred us to GSA. They have been completely uncommunicative on the issue. Do you have anything more on it? And should we expect something from them?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me just say that as a rule with renovations and things like that and just work being done on this complex, we do refer reporters to the GSA. That's their --

Q Yes, well, it doesn’t do us any good.

MR. CARNEY: But I can say specifically there -- the reports about a replica Oval Office are false, and no one is moving from the West Wing. Certainly, no decisions about that have been made and not in any timeframe that --

Q You’re saying that no one is moving from the West Wing, you mean including the President?

MR. CARNEY: Including the President.

Q Even though renovations may be made?

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I don't have -- for what kinds of renovations -- I mean, you guys have looked around and seen that there’s constant work being undertaken here on the overall campus, but I don't have anything specific. But because this issue, because of the description of an alleged replica Oval Office was reported out, I can tell you that that is false.

Q Temporary office quarters for him?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I just don't have any more information for you. It’s not something that's on my radar. I would refer you for more details to the GSA.

Q That hasn't worked. Perhaps you could ask them to help us out?

MR. CARNEY: I will -- I'm sure they know now, because they're probably watching, that this has come up. (Laughter.)

Q Let’s hope.

MR. CARNEY: So we'll see what happens.

Q Come on, guys.

MR. CARNEY: Sorry, who do I have here? Yes, Peter.

Q Thank you, Jay. The President is making a Cabinet appointment today. Does he feel now that he has a team in place in the Cabinet and senior staff that reflects the gender balance and racial balance that he wants to see in his senior team? And does he have a team that looks like America, so to speak?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think the President has addressed this, and his views are quite clear, which he believes that diversity is important because it improves the quality of debate and therefore the quality of decision-making. And he seeks excellent personnel to fill all of these positions, and he certainly believes he has found an excellent candidate in Sally Jewell, who will be announced as the Interior Secretary later today.

She is uniquely qualified for that job. With years of experiencing managing a nearly $2 billion-a-year company, she will bring to the position integrity, keen management skills, as well as dedication to the Department's mission of managing our nation's lands. Trained as an engineer, Jewell has broad private sector experience in energy and finance, as well as a commitment to conservation. So the President looks forward to making that announcement later today.

Ari.

Q The Pentagon is expected this week to announce same-sex -- benefits for same-sex spouses, rather. A group in Congress has been open about pushing the Defense Secretary to do this. Was the White House involved in pushing the Pentagon to do this, and do you have any reaction to the step that is expected?

MR. CARNEY: I think I would refer you to the Pentagon for an announcement that they haven't made yet. So I don’t have anything for you on that at this point.

Q Are you pleased to hear that it's going to happen?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think in answer to questions I've had previously, the President has been very attentive to this issue and believes that it needs to be addressed. So I don’t want to get ahead of any announcements, but it is certainly something that has been on the President's radar and that he believes needed to be and needs to be addressed.

Q A follow on Middle East?

MR. CARNEY: Okay. Connie.

Q I've got three. First on Israel, does the President expect to put any pressure on the settlements issue?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have a preview this many weeks in advance of the conversations that he will have with officials in Israel. I think that, as we said yesterday, we expect that Iran and Syria will be topics of conversation, but I'm sure a variety of issues will be discussed, as they always are, when the President meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders. And that is certainly the case when he meets with Palestinian Authority officials. But I don't have a -- it’s far too early to give you a tick-tock in advance of a meeting that won't happen for a number of weeks.

Q Two on Iran. What are your thoughts about Ahmadinejad’s visit to Egypt?

MR. CARNEY: What are my thoughts about it? Do you have a broader -- or more specific question, rather?

Q Does the U.S. still plan to support Egypt with military and financial aid?

MR. CARNEY: Well, our position on support for Egypt is a support for an ally that is in the process of a transition from years of autocratic rule to democracy. We made clear our views on these issues, as we have recently during some of the protests and unrest in Egypt. And we believe that Egypt’s commitment to its obligations and its treaties are very important and that the process needs to continue in Egypt so that Egyptians are allowed to realize a future that is democratic and more prosperous.

Q But is the U.S. still going to give several billion dollars in aid to Egypt?

MR. CARNEY: We're making no changes in our aid program based on a visit by a foreign leader.

Q One more on Iran. As I was walking here, there’s a small group of demonstrators who are demonstrating for the pastor who’s been put in jail for eight years, chanting “Christianity is not a crime.” Does the U.S. have any leverage at all to try to get this man out of jail?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the State Department has been taking the lead on this matter. I've answered questions about this several times in the last couple of weeks, and it is of concern to the President, to the White House, to the administration, and we have made clear our view on this.

But for specifics in terms what we're doing, I would refer you to the State Department.

Phil.

Q As a follow-up to the question about the Cabinet, you mentioned Sally Jewell’s experience in the private sector and business, and I'm wondering if the President feels that that's enough private sector experience in his Cabinet, or if he’s looking to fill some of these other positions with business leaders --

MR. CARNEY: I have no announcements or hints to give about future personnel decisions.

Q But is that a satisfactory amount of business experience?

MR. CARNEY: The President doesn’t look at it that way. He looks at finding the best people with the best experience possible for each position. He, as I said in answer to the question earlier, believes that diversity is an important goal because diversity enhances debate and enhances the decision-making process. But I don't have any previews to provide on future personnel decisions.

Q And any kind of timeframe for how quickly he’s going to --

MR. CARNEY: I don't have that either.

Roger.

Q Thank you. Back to the Postal Service for a moment. The budget last year endorsed an end to Saturday delivery of mail. Is that the administration’s -- still the administration’s position?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I was referring to a package of provisions and reforms that we put forward; the Senate passed a version of this. But the package is what’s important. It is true that as part of these reforms that we’ve proposed, that change in delivery service was included. But the overall package is what’s important because the issue is -- again, I'm not judging at this point because we're reviewing the action announced by the Postal Service, but our view was that there need to be a series of actions taken to help make the Postal Service more financially sound. And that's why we put together that package of proposals.

So it was one element of a more complete set of actions that we regret the House failed to act on.

Q A follow-up. The Postal Service says that it has its own authority to decree an end to Saturday mail delivery, but legislation on the Hill is split. Does the administration take a position on that?

MR. CARNEY: Again, this is related to a decision they just announced and we just found out about, and we're reviewing it.

Q How did you find out about it?

Q Yesterday. You said yesterday.

MR. CARNEY: It was yesterday. I'm not sure through what means, but it was only yesterday.

Q But does the White House agree with the Postal Service that it has --

MR. CARNEY: Again, you're asking me for a legal judgment here that we have not made. We're reviewing the decision -- or the announcement.

April.

Q Jay, on immigration, there is a longstanding issue about the Haitian immigrants who were turned away from U.S. shores. Wade Henderson was part of the group meeting with the President yesterday, a group of progressives, and he said that issue is on the table about the Haitian immigrants. They've been turned away from U.S. shores when Cuban immigrants are allowed to come. What is on the table? What is the President considering when he deals with the issue of the Haitian immigrants?
MR. CARNEY: You've seen what the President's comprehensive immigration reform package looks like. I haven't had that discussion with him, so I would have to take the question.

Obviously, this is a process that we're hoping will continue in the Senate in a bipartisan way. The President has made clear that he wants to give the Senate space here and time here to continue the progress they've made, but that he will also, if he perceives that action is stalling or not happening at all in the Congress, that he is prepared to submit his own legislation. I just don’t have anything for you on that specific issue.

Q And a follow-up on that, though. For such a long time, the face of immigration -- or immigration reform has been the Hispanic community. We see that the Asian community is involved now and the African American community is involved now, and there is that component. What else is the President willing to give to those communities -- the Asian or the black communities -- in the way of immigration reform along with the Hispanic community?

MR. CARNEY: April, I think comprehensive immigration reform is not about a specific community, it's about a problem that we need to address as a whole. We have a system that is broken, and there have been bipartisan efforts in the past to address it. We hope that we are at a point now where a bipartisan effort can move forward again to address it; that follows the principles and the specifics that the President has laid out.

So, again, this is not about one community here, this is about an American problem that affects all of us. It affects our economy, it affects fairness for the middle class, it affects our businesses directly, and it affects those who don’t have legal status here in the United States, and with all the impacts that that fact has on our economy and our nation.

So we need to address this comprehensively, not narrowly, precisely because of the scope of the challenge. And that’s the best way to get something done in Congress.

Q But just to be clear, the reason why I asked that, he did have the Asian community and the black community, and the Hispanic community out there represented, coming together because each community has a large number of undocumenteds in this country. So you're saying you're not --

MR. CARNEY: I think your question reflects my answer, which is that this is a -- when it comes to immigration in this country, it's not about a specific community, it's about a broader issue.

Q Thanks, Jay.

MR. CARNEY: Kathleen, I think I was going to call on you, and then I'll go.

Q Just one more on the announcement later today. I think Bruce Babbitt is quoted in the Times this morning or today criticizing the administration, saying that in the tug-of-war over opening lands to oil and gas and protecting lands, that industry has been winning too often. I’m wondering what you’d say to that. And then if his nominee -- the choice of nominee signals any change in policy on that front?

Q I think the President is rightly proud about the fact that oil and gas production since he’s taken office here at home has increased each year, and domestic oil production is currently higher than at any time in nearly a decade, and natural gas production is at an all-time high.

The United States is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in nearly two decades. Those are very important developments for our economy and our energy security. It is also the case that this President has pursued development of energy at home in a responsible and safe way. He believes that that is vital as we continue to make ourselves more energy independent. So both of these principles are -- move forward together. And the President believes that in implementing our approach to conservation as well as implementing our approach to energy, Sally Jewell will be an excellent Secretary of the Interior in carrying that agenda forward.

Thanks all.

END
12:45 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

February 05, 2013

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/5/13

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:24 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY: Thanks for being here. I was hoping to skip the briefing today, but apparently I'm here to take your questions.

Julie.

Q Thank you. How can the government determine that an American citizen is an imminent threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests without having any kind of specific evidence that that person is planning an immediate -- an attack in the immediate future?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the question, obviously, that you ask relates to some stories out today regarding a document prepared -- an unclassified document prepared for some members of Congress -- and understandable questions. And I can just say that this President takes his responsibilities very seriously, and first and foremost, that’s his responsibility, to protect the United States and American citizens. He also takes his responsibility in conducting the war against al Qaeda as authorized by Congress in a way that is fully consistent with our Constitution and all the applicable laws.

We have acknowledged, the United States, that sometimes we use remotely piloted aircraft to conduct targeted strikes against specific al Qaeda terrorists in order to prevent attacks on the United States and to save American lives. We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats, to stop plots, prevent future attacks, and, again, save American lives. These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise. The U.S. government takes great care in deciding to pursue an al Qaeda terrorist, to ensure precision and to avoid loss of innocent life.

As you know, in spite of these stories -- or prior to these stories, this administration, through numerous senior administration officials, including Deputy National Security and Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan, State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh, and former Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson -- have spoken publicly and at length about the U.S. commitment to conducting counterterrorism operations in accordance with all applicable domestic and international law, including the laws of war.

In March 2012, the Attorney General gave a speech at Northwestern University Law School in which he outlined the legal framework that would apply if it was necessary to take a strike against one of the "small number of U.S. citizens who have decided to commit violent acts against their own country from abroad." The Attorney General made clear that in taking such a strike, the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations, but that under generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions, U.S. citizenship alone does not make a leader of an enemy force immune from being targeted.

Q But how can the government decide that there’s an imminent threat if there’s no evidence that an attack is happening in the immediate future?

MR. CARNEY: As you know, Congress authorized in an authorization of the use of military force all necessary military force to be used in our fight against al Qaeda. And certainly under that authority, the President acts in the United States' interest to protect the United States and its citizens from al Qaeda.

The nature of the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates is certainly different from the kinds of conflicts that have involved nations against nations. But this has been discussed amply, again, in the effort that we have made through our senior administration officials to explain the process that we use, by the officials I named -- by John Brennan in a speech, and he addressed this very issue about “imminent.”

I would point you to the now-released -- it was not meant for public release, but it's not classified -- the now-released white paper, which goes into some detail on that very issue.

Q Should the American people be comfortable with the administration's definition of "imminent" if it also means that there is no specific evidence to back that up?

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I think that what you have in general with al Qaeda senior leadership is a continuing process of plotting against the United States and American citizens, plotting attacks against the United States and American citizens. I think that’s fairly irrefutable.

What you also have is the authorization for the use of military force by Congress. You also have a President who is very mindful of the very questions that you are asking and is, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, taking all the necessary steps to ensure that he fulfills his constitutional obligation to protect the United States and its citizens, and does so in a way that comports with our Constitution and with our laws.

Q Did he sign off on this memo and any classified documents to back it up?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I certainly have no information on any classified documents. I don’t know the specific process by which this memo was generated.

Yes, Reuters.

Q Jay, the President’s remarks today -- what sort of package is he talking -- how big a package is he talking about? What’s the mix between spending cuts and revenue? Is he going to offer his own package?

MR. CARNEY: I think you heard from the President a couple of things. First that he has sought continually with leaders in Congress to achieve broad deficit reduction that would reach the target of $4 trillion over 10 years that would help put our economy on a fiscally sustainable path. He continues to seek achievement of that goal.

We have come a long way, or a significant way, towards achievement of that goal -- over $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction through the combined actions that this President has signed into law -- the spending cuts and revenues as well as saving through interest that we’ve achieved thus far.

The deal that he put forward to Speaker Boehner in December, which, unfortunately, the Speaker walked away from, remains on the table. The President made that clear. We are in a situation now where if Congress is not able to or willing to act immediately on this bigger deal -- which would eliminate the sequester entirely as well as achieve all those other important objectives like $4 trillion in deficit reduction, like continued investment in our economy to make sure it continues to create jobs and grow -- we need to not engage in a process where Washington is inflicting a wound on the economy unnecessarily. And that’s what would happen if the so-called sequester were to be allowed to kick in on March 1st.

Because we have relatively little time between now and March 1st, the President believes that we ought to -- Congress ought to take action to buy down the sequester in a balanced way -- which we actually just did in December so we know what the model looks like to achieve it. And he would work with -- we would work with Congress on the composition of that package.

But the point is, as the President said, leaders in the Senate and the House have committed themselves to a standard budget process, a budget process that we hope would result in -- and produce a package that achieves the kind of further balanced deficit reduction the President talked about, that allows the economy, which is poised to grow and create jobs in 2013, to do just that.

So we should not, while that process is underway, essentially blow it up by permitting the sequester to take effect, the result of which would be hundreds of thousands of people potentially losing jobs and a direct hit to the American economy at a time that we shouldn't be letting Washington do such a thing.

Q Republicans were talking about closing tax loopholes in lieu of a tax increase on the wealthy. But you got the tax increase on the wealthy. Why would they be in any position to support tax -- closing these loopholes now?

MR. CARNEY: I've heard some folks speaking about this very issue on the Republican side, in search for I think better messaging on the same set of proposals. The problem is the proposals. It's not the communication strategy. And here's why. If it was desirable and achievable last year to raise up to $800 billion in revenue by cutting, eliminating loopholes in our tax code that benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations, by capping deductions that benefit the wealthiest individuals, it can't possibly be the case now that that policy is good policy and that we should instead reduce our deficit further solely by asking the same people that Republican leaders now are insisting they care most about to bear the burden of deficit reduction alone. It can't be.

If $800 billion in deficit reduction were achievable through tax reform, raising revenues through tax reform, because those loopholes needed to be closed and because those deductions needed to be capped, because, in our view, hedge fund managers should not be paying at a significantly lower rate than bus drivers or clerical assistants or store managers, that has to be the -- if that was true then, it's got to be true now.

And what we need to do is continue to cut spending in a responsible way, eliminate or change programs that can and should be eliminated or changed, but also raise revenue through tax reform by doing the very things that, again, outside groups have said we should and must do -- Simpson-Bowles Commission and others -- doing the things that have been identified by the President, by Democrats and Republicans, including the Speaker of the House just a couple of months ago.

Dan.

Q Thank you, Jay. Just to follow on drones. So is there a checklist then that will more narrowly define what "imminent threat" is? Is there a checklist that will be followed?

MR. CARNEY: I would point you to a speech by John Brennan where he talked about this issue. And again, I want to say from the outset, these are important questions and the President takes them very seriously, just as he takes his responsibility to defend the United States and its citizens very seriously.

Mr. Brennan gave a speech in which he talked about this issue of imminent threat. I think I just talked in general terms about the nature of the conflict we have with the terrorists who have set as their goal the killing of Americans and attacks on the United States. And this President and those who work for him are very mindful of the need to fulfill our responsibility to protect the United States and its citizens, and to do so in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and consistent with the laws that apply. And that is certainly something of great importance to the President.

Q So the White House doesn't believe that this is vague in any way?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I would point you to the paper that we've been talking about that generated the stories today, that as a general -- in a general statement of principles on matters related to this, explains some of the legal reasoning that undergirds it.

There’s no question that in the conflict that we have been engaged in with al Qaeda, that as many more sophisticated observers than I have noted, we have significant challenges because of the nature of the attacks, how they’re planned, who plans them. But there is no question that senior operational leaders of al Qaeda are continually planning to attack the United States, to attack American citizens.

Under the authorization of Congress in the war against al Qaeda, the authorization to use military force, it is entirely appropriate for the United States to target senior operational leaders of al Qaeda.

Q Jay, on gun violence --

Q Jay, not to --

MR. CARNEY: I’m sorry, I’m taking questions here, thanks. And I’ll call on others as Dan finishes.

Q Thanks. On gun violence, how committed is the President to pushing for the assault weapons ban? And is this something that he wants to see happen initially or happen later? I mean, it almost seems like this is being separated from some of the -- background checks and some of the other things that the President is pushing for.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think there’s obviously active discussion and debate on Capitol Hill about all the measures that the President put forward in his comprehensive package of common-sense solutions to reduce gun violence, and that includes the need to institute universal background checks. It includes the need to confirm an ATF director for the first time. It includes the need to do something about limiting high-capacity ammunition clips and to reinstate an updated assault weapons ban.

The President supports all these measures. He made that clear again yesterday in Minneapolis. He has long supported the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, and looks forward to Congress having a vote and taking action on that issue. So there’s not -- the package the President put together entirely enjoys his support and he will push for all of it.

He has said, when asked and in his remarks about this effort, that he understands that these are hard things to achieve. If they weren’t hard, they surely would have been achieved already. But it is imperative that we commit ourselves to getting this done, to working with Congress, to working with organizations and groups and individuals around the country to raise awareness of the need to act, to raise voices in support of the need to act. And that’s why the President traveled yesterday on this issue and while he’ll continue -- he and the Vice President and others -- will continue to make the case both here in Washington and around the country.

Jon.

Q The President strongly opposed the enhanced interrogation techniques --

Q -- senators are calling for the release of those papers --

MR. CARNEY: I think I called on Jon.

Q Are you going to release those papers that --

MR. CARNEY: I think I called on Jon. Go ahead.

Q The President obviously strongly opposed the enhanced interrogation techniques, so-called, from the Bush administration. He ended them. How is dropping -- how does dropping a bomb on an American citizen without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions than something like waterboarding?

MR. CARNEY: Jon, again, as I said, the questions around this issue are important and the President takes them seriously. He takes his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief to protect the United States and its citizens very seriously. He takes the absolute necessity to conduct our war against al Qaeda and its affiliates in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution and our laws very seriously.

It is a matter of fact that Congress authorized the use of military force against al Qaeda. It is a matter of fact that al Qaeda is in a state of war against us and that senior leaders, operational leaders of al Qaeda are continually plotting to attack the United States, plotting to kill American citizens as they did most horrifically on September 11, 2001.

So again I would point you to the speeches that have been given by senior administration officials to the document that we’ve been discussing here, where the reasoning is laid out, and simply make the point that the President understands the gravity of these issues. That is why he is committed to taking very seriously his responsibilities in this and committed to the kind of process that you’ve seen in an effort to communicate publicly about it, elaborated by senior administration officials on numerous occasions.

Q But let’s be clear. This is giving a legal justification for killing American citizens without any trial whatsoever, without any evidence.

MR. CARNEY: Again, I would point you to the ample judicial precedent for the idea that someone who takes up arms against the United States in a war against the United States is an enemy, and therefore could be targeted accordingly. That’s I think established in a number of cases, and I’m not even a lawyer and I’m aware of that.

So having said that, the issues here are important and the President recognizes that. And that’s why he takes these responsibilities so seriously. That’s why he has authorized various senior administration officials to discuss publicly these issues the way that they have, and why I believe that process will continue.

Q What do you say to the ACLU that calls this a profoundly disturbing document because it gives broad power without checks, without balances?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I would point you to the legal reasoning behind what we are talking about here, and recognize that these are weighty matters that are all about the balancing of imperatives here, the need to defend the United States, defend American citizens against senior al Qaeda officials and affiliated actors who are engaged continually in an effort to attack the United States and American citizens.

So, again, you won’t get a debate with me about whether these are significant matters that merit discussion. But I think you’ve seen in the way that this President has approached them the seriousness with which he takes all of his responsibilities on this.

Q Well, what about -- just one more -- what about the drone strike that killed the 16-year-old son of Awlaki. Does he meet that definition of a senior operational leader as outlined in the white paper?

MR. CARNEY: Well, Jon, I’m not going to talk about individual operations that may or may not have occurred. What I can talk to you about is the general principle that had been discussed by senior administration officials, the acknowledgement that we’ve made about actions taken in countries like Yemen and Somalia, and the overriding fact that senior operational leaders of al Qaeda have, without question, engaged in plots against the United States and engaged in plots designed to kill Americans, often many, many Americans.

And that’s a reality that a Commander-in-Chief has to confront as part of his constitutional responsibility. And therefore, it is, this President believes, important that we address it in a way that acknowledges those constitutional responsibilities and the responsibility to carry out our war against al Qaeda in a way that is consistent with our values and our laws and our Constitution.

Q What about some kind of review? I mean, you're taking away a U.S. citizen's due process. And nobody is questioning particularly this President's good intentions, but you're establishing a precedent which will last beyond this administration. You're pointing to various legal decisions to back it up, but doesn’t it deserve a broader debate and a broader court hearing?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t know about a specific suggestion like that. I can tell you that the administration has -- and I think this is demonstrated by the public comments of senior administration officials on this matter -- reviewed these issues -- I think that’s demonstrated by the so-called white paper that was published today -- and is continually reviewing these matters. How that process moves forward from here I'm not going to speculate. But, again, going back to what I've said before, we understand that these are weighty matters, that these are serious issues, and they deserve the kind of considered approach that this President has taken to them.

Q Shouldn’t it be considered beyond the executive branch, is what I'm asking.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not going to speculate about how these issues or matters might be considered in the future. What I can tell you is that, internally, they have been reviewed and considered with great care and deliberation.

Q On the sequester, is the President asking Congress to do exactly what he suggested to the Speaker last fall?

MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, I want to congratulate those who have taken the bait in a communications effort -- you know that you've lost the argument when you start relying on a complete misinterpretation of a quote that everybody knows is wrong as the basis of an argument, which is, the President, when he said that, was talking -- you're talking about vetoing -- would never -- "I would veto this?"

Q No. I'm just asking if -- (laughter) --

MR. CARNEY: Tell me then what you're talking about. (Laughter.) Because I think that’s what you are talking --

Q Apparently it's the answer you wanted to give, but it's not the question. (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: Let's see what you're talking about, Bill, because I have my suspicions.

Q All right. The President and the Speaker discussed how to do this last fall. Is that what the President is asking?

MR. CARNEY: Discuss how to do what?

Q Discuss how to reduce spending.

MR. CARNEY: If you're asking me is the President's plan from -- you mean last December?

Q Yes.

MR. CARNEY: Okay. Absolutely. He made very clear here that the President believes that -- and encourages the Speaker of the House and Republican leaders in Congress to take up the remaining portions of the proposal that he put before the Speaker that the Speaker walked away from.

Q So that’s what he wants?

MR. CARNEY: Well, you were sitting right here. You heard the President talk about how he would be delighted if Congress were to act on that right away. Because there are only a few weeks before the sequester kicks in, he also doesn’t want -- if it's not possible for Congress to do that, he doesn’t want to have the sequester kick in right at a time when leaders in Congress are committed, from both parties, to a budget process that will obviously extend beyond March 1st, and which will hopefully produce a budget that achieves the kind of balanced deficit reduction that this President supports, that Democrats and Republicans and independents support, that bipartisan commissions support.

So his point today was the big deal, if you will, remains what he seeks. We have an imminent deadline when it comes to the sequester kicking in, and we certainly oppose suggestions by some that as a political tool we should allow the sequester to kick in; that for political advantage, it would be okay to have tens and thousands or hundreds of thousands of Americans lose their jobs because of these across-the-board indiscriminate cuts in defense and nondefense spending. We shouldn’t do that, because we should not inflict harm on the economy right when it's in a position to grow and create jobs.

So we should act responsibly in a balanced way to buy down the deficit, just as we did as part of the fiscal cliff deal -- the sort of unremarked-upon part of the fiscal cliff deal at the end of the year to allow Congress the time and space necessary to move forward with this budget process, which the President hopes, as a part of a return to sort of normalcy, if you will, and the way that we deal with these matters, will produce something that represents balance and the principles that he has espoused for so long.

Q One more. Israeli television says the President will visit there on March 20.

MR. CARNEY: That’s a statement. Do you have a question?

Q Yes. (Laughter.) Will he?

MR. CARNEY: When the President spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu on January 28th, they discussed a visit by the President to Israel in the spring. The start of the President's second term and the formation of a new Israeli government offer the opportunity to reaffirm the deep and enduring bonds between the United States and Israel, and to discuss the way forward on a broad range of issues of mutual concern, including of course Iran and Syria. Additional details about the trip, including the dates of travel, will be released at a later time.

Q Jay, following on the sequester, what I wonder is if you could flesh out for us, though, what specifically the President is calling for. We remember what was on the table in December. Some of that was acted on, some of it wasn't. But, for example, I seem to remember the President saying something like he'd be willing to do $350 billion in Medicare cuts -- because you were referring back to his previous budget. In this case, you only need about $85 billion to shut off the sequester. So my question is --

MR. CARNEY: You need far more than that. The sequester is $1.2 trillion.

Q I think for the short-term, though.

MR. CARNEY: Right, so the President --

Q And the President is talking about $85 billion in the short term.

MR. CARNEY: So I just want to be clear, and that is that the deal the President offered Speaker Boehner, which many of you reported on, that represented meeting Republicans at least halfway when it came to revenues as well as spending cuts, that represented some very tough choices on entitlement reforms, remains on the table in its entirety.

Q But please spell that out.

MR. CARNEY: Well, it's been spelled out. I'm happy to give you more details.

Q Unchained CPI, Social Security -- what's on the table?

MR. CARNEY: Everything that was in that plan is available today to the Republicans, including the additional $600 billion in revenue that was part of the President's proposal. And that revenue could be achieved through tax reform. And that means eliminating -- closing loopholes that give tax advantages to the wealthy and to corporations that average Americans and average businesses don't have. They give the ability of hedge fund managers and others who enjoy the benefit of paying tax on their income through the carried interest rule that allows them to pay a much lower percentage of tax on their income than, say, most average Americans. So that should be closed.

So there's the subsidies to oil and gas companies. There's the subsidies to corporate jet owners. These are the kinds of things that can account for -- there's the cap on deductions, limiting it to 28 percent. These are proposals that are, on paper, part of the President's plan.

And if we were to move forward and try to achieve all of the remaining deficit reduction that would hit that $4 trillion target, that would far exceed what's necessary to eliminate the sequester and it would put us -- because included in the President's package are targeted measures to invest in our economy and help it grow and create jobs -- that would put us on a fiscally sustainable path and allow us to grow more and create jobs faster.

Q Thank you for answering that. And a follow would be then, that $600 billion you referred to, mostly you referred to deductions and capping things --

MR. CARNEY: Tax reform.

Q Tax reform. So are you closing the door on new tax rate increases as part of this? Is it just deductions?

MR. CARNEY: The President was asked this on Sunday. I think it was much discussed at the end of the year when we were doing the fiscal cliff negotiations. The President sought and achieved a return to the Clinton-era rates, a top marginal rate of 39.6 percent for top earners, for millionaires and billionaires. In the deal that was reached with Congress on the fiscal cliff, that set the threshold at $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families. That's a significant accomplishment that helps achieve the revenue that has contributed to the deficit reduction that we talked about, the $2.5 trillion.

Q But he wanted $250,000.

MR. CARNEY: There's no question that that was part of the deal that was reached in the fiscal cliff. Going forward, we can -- if you're telling me, if you're announcing to me that Republicans want to revisit tax rates, that would be an interesting --

Q Do you want to?

MR. CARNEY: I think the President answered this question very clearly. Are you telling me you didn't watch the Super Bowl? But the President answered this question. I think we answered it frequently at the end of the year. The point is there is still revenue that must be achieved as part of a balanced package through tax reform.

And that's a principle not only that the President has articulated, it's a principle that Speaker Boehner articulated at the end of the year. And as I was saying earlier, it can't possibly be that the reforms to our tax code that were good and desirable then are somehow not worth doing now, that we shouldn't close those loopholes that allow corporations and wealthy individuals to take advantage of the tax code in a way that average folks can't.

We need to reform our tax code in a way that makes it fairer and better, and that allows us to raise some additional revenue combined with spending cuts that achieve the kind of deficit reduction we need.

Q So last thing -- when he was talking about the March 1st deadline and the reason why we need a short-term solution is that Congress may not get a budget done by March 1st, a broader budget, so you've got to deal with the sequester separately. You've got the March 1 deadline on that. Why didn't he meet the deadline for submitting his own budget then? And when will we see --

MR. CARNEY: Part of what the President has talked about just in recent days is that we need to get beyond this situation where we are governing, especially with regards to our fiscal and economic matters, in a state of constant crisis, under a cloud of crisis. And as you saw with the nail-biting negotiations over the fiscal cliff, with the machinations over whether or not we would entertain default, that's what we've been doing. And that has certainly distracted from the process of producing --

Q So why not submit a budget and calm the markets and say, here's the plan?

MR. CARNEY: I think I'm answering your question -- that because of these things, we are delayed in producing a budget. But, Ed, let's be clear. The President produced a budget that achieves the kind of balanced deficit reduction that everyone has called for, that the American people support. Republicans produced a budget in the House that contains no balance and asked -- if it were ever to become law, even though it's not supported by the American people -- that would have asked seniors and other Americans to bear the burden solely of deficit reduction while eliminating Medicare as we know it. Not a great idea.

The President, again, in his negotiations with the Speaker of the House put forward a broad $4 trillion deficit reduction package that remains available -- the parts that haven't been acted on -- to the Speaker right now.

So when it comes to specific plans -- again, we had this debate at the end of the year -- the specificity attached to the President’s proposal to Speaker Boehner is considerable compared to what we saw in return. Specificity is there. It remains available to be acted on.

What the President was announcing today is, given that we have this imminent deadline, given the unfortunate reluctance of the Speaker and others to act on that proposal at least right now, we should not allow the sequester to kick in and threaten the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans and deliver a blow to the economy right when we can't afford it.

Kristen.

Q Jay, thanks. A group of bipartisan senators, 11 of them wrote a letter to the President asking him to release all of the Justice Department memos relating to the subject of a suspected al Qaeda leader who might be a U.S. citizen as well. Will President Obama release those memos?

MR. CARNEY: I just have nothing for you on alleged memos regarding potentially classified matters.

Q So you can't tell us whether you're going to release --

MR. CARNEY: Again, I just don't have anything for you on that.

Q Can you address the broader question of transparency? The President has obviously talked a lot about the importance of transparency, and here you have a document being leaked, senators calling for more information. Is this transparency?

MR. CARNEY: Well, what I would say is that, as I’ve been saying, with regards to this matter and the issues around it, the President has made clear, as reflected in the statements by and speeches by senior administration officials, that we need to inform the public and explain to the public and to you the process that we’re undertaking and the reasoning behind it. And the white paper that was provided to some members of Congress -- it is unclassified, it’s been released -- is part of that process. And since it is out there, you should read it. I think it’s a click away.

Q It was leaked.

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, it was an unclassified document provided to, as I understand it, members of Congress with a particular oversight responsibility on these issues.

The fact is -- and I encourage you to go back to look the speeches by the Attorney General, by John Brennan, remarks by Jeh Johnson and by Harold Koh on these matters, and I think they provide a pretty voluminous accounting of matters that are treated here with great deliberation and seriousness.

Q I want to just shift to immigration quickly, Jay. After the President’s meeting this morning with progressive and labor leaders, some of them came out of the meeting and said that they want -- they don't want to see a path to citizenship be contingent on border security. Is that a line in the sand that the President is willing to draw as well?

MR. CARNEY: I think the President has addressed this. What we -- and I have. When it comes to border security, the President’s record is extremely strong. And as we’ve said, the goals that were set out by Senator McCain and others that needed to be -- that they believe needed to be met in terms of border security in order to pursue comprehensive immigration reform, while we do not agree that we needed to do it first before we move forward -- the President thought we should have passed comprehensive immigration reform when he was senator, he thought we should have passed it in 2010 -- the fact of the matter is close to all of those goals, if not all of those goals, have been met because of the President’s commitment to enhanced border security.

And I won’t go through it again because I think I’ve provided a substantial amount of numerical evidence to that. Senator McCain himself has said in recent days that there’s been enormous strides made when it comes to border security. So that's a fact. And the President’s -- among the President’s four principles in moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform is that we have to continue to take steps to enhance our border security.

I’m not going to prejudge and he’s not going to prejudge what the Senate comes up with in this bipartisan effort to produce comprehensive immigration reform. What is clear is that the President’s commitment to border security has been amply demonstrated and is backed up by hard, cold facts.

It is also true that he remains, as part of the comprehensive immigration reform process, committed to increasing our border security further. But when we talk about comprehensive immigration reform, we’re talking about a whole package that moves as a whole. And that includes a clear path to citizenship for people who are affected here. So those are the President’s principles. I’m not going to rule in or out things in legislation that doesn't yet exist.

Julianna.

Q Thanks. On the sequester, the package that the President is talking about to temporarily delay it, does that need to meet the definition of balance?

MR. CARNEY: Yes.

Q Could that be spending cuts alone?

MR. CARNEY: Balance.

Q Because he was talking of spending cuts and tax reform, but tax reform is a --

MR. CARNEY: Tax reform that generates revenue.

Q -- tall order in the next month.

MR. CARNEY: Well, when we talk about -- going to Ed’s question -- about the size of a temporary buy-down, there are certainly means available to achieve balance. That includes cuts and revenue that would not be that complicated. So we would look forward -- the principle of balance applies in all things when this -- as far as the President is concerned when we approach reducing our deficit because it can't be the right way to go in December and not the right way to go in February or March.

Q And that’s a priority over letting the sequester go into effect?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the President doesn't believe that we should ask our seniors, or families who have children with disabilities, or folks who are trying to send their kids to school, that they should bear the burden of deficit reduction alone. So a proposal that says we'll solve this problem temporarily or for the long term, either way, just by asking those folks to bear the burden is not one the President would support.

Q And on John Brennan's confirmation hearing -- does the White House believe that they're going to be smooth sailing? Or do you expect to see the same sort of resistance as Senator Hagel?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me start with Senator Hagel. I think that we've seen since his hearing an increase in the number of senators who have come out publicly to say that they will vote to confirm him. We've seen Senator McCain say, I believe yesterday, that he would oppose what would be essentially an unprecedented attempt to filibuster that nomination, and that is certainly appreciated. So we see momentum behind Senator Hagel's nomination. The President believes that he will be confirmed, and looks forward to having him serve as Secretary of Defense.

When it comes to John Brennan, that process obviously has not started, as far as hearings go. But, again, the President selected John Brennan because he knows from his experience working with him here in the White House that he would be an excellent director of Central Intelligence, and we believe that he will be confirmed.

Q Does the President believe that there are any areas that should be off limits in the confirmation hearings, such as unauthorized -- renditions?

MR. CARNEY: Well, setting aside what -- from the President here, I think that everyone involved in public hearings understands that the discussion of classified issues -- I'm not saying that issue can't be discussed, but classified matters is not a -- discussing classified matters in public hearings, generally not an appropriate thing to do or a legal thing to do.

But I'm sure that there will be -- the Senate will fulfill its responsibility here. This is a process that’s important, and the President believes that Mr. Brennan will answer the senators' questions ably and that he will be confirmed.

Yes. Welcome.

Q Thank you. Two quick things. On Israel, the Jerusalem Post is apparently reporting he's also going to go to the West Bank, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Without obviously giving us dates and things, can you at least confirm the nature of the other countries he's going to be visiting?

MR. CARNEY: I can tell you that that report is, at least in part, incorrect. The President will --

Q We got one country wrong? (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: -- also travel -- well, I mean, but that shouldn’t be the standard, right, get it half right?

Q So Israel is right?

Q Any more?

MR. CARNEY: Were you not here? I confirmed a question earlier that the President will --

Q Not March?

MR. CARNEY: I'm not confirming dates here. We'll have more information about dates later. The President will also travel to the West Bank and Jordan to continue his close work with Palestinian Authority officials and Jordanian officials on bilateral and regional issues of mutual interest.

So there’s going to be a little correction on that report I guess.

Q And then one other thing on the transparency question involving the white paper and the memo. Seeing as how you’ve cited repeatedly today the extent to which administration officials have gone out and talked about the principles, and now you're have a 15-page white paper that kind of lays out the legal arguments, what is the administration's argument against releasing some form of the actual memos, perhaps -- if nothing else, a redacted form that -- since you already have now released both in written and verbal form much of the arguments that undergird them?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think the discussions that you’ve seen in public, including in the white paper, have to do with general principles that are applied on this important matter. Without going into the alleged existence of any particular memo or action, I can say that what we cannot do is discuss classified operations. It would compromise what tend to be called sources and methods, and would do harm to our national security interests.

The fact of the matter is that the white paper that we’ve discussed was provided -- was developed and produced in an unclassified manner precisely so that those general principles could be spelled out and elaborated -- and I would refer you to Justice as well on this. But that’s precisely why a document like that would be produced.

Q But you will release the white paper? You’ve pointed us to it several times.

MR. CARNEY: I think it’s out there. It’s online.

Q From you? From you?

MR. CARNEY: No, no -- I think it was a news organization that Kristen works for has put it out online.

Q You’ve repeatedly pointed to it, referred to it.

MR. CARNEY: I’m just saying that that document was produced by the administration, provided not for public release but provided to senators who have jurisdiction on these issues last year and for the very purposes of consideration that we’ve been discussing here. And the reason why I can talk about it openly and refer you to it is because it is an unclassified document.

Q But we request that you put it out, Jay.

MR. CARNEY: Put what out?

Q The white paper you’ve referred to dozens of times.

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I’ll take the question. I’m sure the Justice Department can also take this question. It is out there online.

Q Not the same thing. It’s not.

MR. CARNEY: I take your point.

Ari.

Q You said that U.S. citizenship alone does not make a leader of an enemy force immune from being targeted. Talk about U.S. citizenship plus residency. Why does the U.S. believe it’s legal to kill Americans abroad but not to kill Americans at home without judicial process?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I would point you to the ample material here both in spoken presentations by senior administration officials as well as the much discussed white paper. I’m not a lawyer and these are the kinds of things that are probably best expressed and explained by lawyers. My understanding, for what it’s worth --

Q How would that --

MR. CARNEY: Thank you for your interruption. But there are issues here about, again, that have been discussed and are out there about feasibility of capture that I think are pertinent to that very question.

Q So it’s not --

MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not a lawyer -- and maybe you are. I bet you are --

Q I’m not. (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: But you’d make a very good one. (Laughter.) So I can’t -- it’s not appropriate for me --

Q But it sounds like you’re saying there’s no constitutional distinction; it’s just that capture is feasible in the U.S. and it may not be feasible abroad.

MR. CARNEY: Again, I would look at the reasoning that underpins what we’ve been talking about here, again, available in the presentations made by senior administration officials that got far less attention than this story at the time -- even collectively less attention and fewer questions, even though they were public speeches given, in some cases, before journalists. And it talked about just these issues -- and also the document that we’ve been discussing, which is available.

Q But doesn’t it stand to reason that if imminence is one of the major tests, a plot in the United States conducted by a terrorist leader in the United States would be more imminent than something abroad?

MR. CARNEY: Yes, I think I've addressed this in terms of the general reasoning here and I would point you to the sources that I've just talked about.

Q Jay, on immigration, the President met with labor leaders this morning and has business CEOs coming in later today. And I'm wondering to the extent he thinks a deal might be possible between both sides in the debate on a temporary worker program. I mean, does he think that's realistic? Is he trying to help make that happen?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think we've discussed this before or I've been asked about it before. The President will obviously look forward to working with Congress, the Senate, as it produces legislation -- and the House, if it produces legislation on this matter, and will consider as part of the comprehensive deal efforts to address that question. I don't have any disposition in particular to provide to you about it. We're looking to Congress to deliberate on that issue.

Yes. Tara, how are you?

Q Fine, thanks. On the sequester, when you agreed to the two-month extension as part of the fiscal cliff deal, sort of the rationalization for the short-term nature of that was to give Congress and the White House time to come up with a solution. You're now asking for another short-term extension. Was there anything, any attempt in the last couple weeks to come up with a solution if you made a determination that would not happen by March 1st? And to speak to your point, you said here that the government can't run on a short-term extension and the President has said that. Now that you're asking for the second short-term extension or fix, how are the two -- the action and the statements consistent?

MR. CARNEY: Well, there's no question, as the President made clear when he came out here, that the preferred course of action is to resolve this by accepting what the President put forward, which is a compromise solution that achieves the big deal, the $4 trillion total in deficit reduction, in a balanced way, that would allow our economy to grow and to continue to create jobs, but would also, by reducing our deficits significantly, put us on a fiscally sustainable path.

It would do it in a way that would protect seniors and middle-class families, and not ask them to bear the sole burden of the need to reduce our deficit. It would do it in a way that asks folks to play by the same rules, that says we should close loopholes in our tax code that allow wealthy individuals or corporations to enjoy tax benefits that average folks and average businesses don't enjoy.

So it remains and has been the President's preferred course. What he has also said is -- as recently as 40 minutes ago -- that if Congress won't act on the bigger deal or can't in the time before the sequester is scheduled to kick in, we need to take action, Congress needs to take action to make sure the sequester doesn't kick in.

Because far from being a useful political tool in someone's back pocket, the sequester, if allowed to kick in, threatens the livelihoods of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Americans. It would do harm to middle-class families around the country. And there’s no reason to allow it to take effect when we can agree, as we did in December, or January 1st, to buy down the sequester for a period of time to give Congress the time and space to do what it has now, in the interim, agreed to do, which is pursue a budget process that the President hopes will result in further balanced deficit reduction along the lines that he's proposed.

Q But were there any serious attempts to do it in this two-month --

MR. CARNEY: Well, there was certainly a hope that in the wake of what you all wrote was -- well, I won't go there -- but in the wake of the fiscal cliff deal that produced the result that it did, that there might be a greater willingness in the near term to embrace the kind of reasonable compromise the President put forward; that, again, numerically, factually, represented the President coming halfway towards Republicans, the President making some very tough decisions and leading the Democrats on those issues when it comes to entitlement reforms and spending cuts; and that maybe there would be a willingness to grab hold of that opportunity, perhaps to achieve the significant deficit reduction in a bipartisan way, claim victory for everyone here in that effort, and then move on to other issues.

That hasn't happened yet. However, the Congress has decided to move forward with a budget process that has the potential of allowing the kind of action to take place here when it comes to these matters that removes the constant state of crisis, removes the cloud of crisis that we've had over our head for so long. And the President is encouraged by that. So we should buy down the sequester so that we don’t create chaos in our economy right as we're trying to do something bigger and better.

Q Jay, is the release of the memo a threat to national security?

MR. CARNEY: I'm sorry?

Q Is the release of this memo a threat to national security?

MR. CARNEY: Which memo?

Q The drone -- switching topics -- (laughter) -- I mean, sorry, the release of the DOJ white paper?

MR. CARNEY: No. No.

Q What's that?

MR. CARNEY: No, it was provided -- it's an unclassified document.

Q So you don’t -- even though it was unclassified, the fact that it's out there is --

MR. CARNEY: It wasn't designed for public release, but it's an unclassified document.

Q Okay.

MR. CARNEY: Thanks, guys.

END
2:16 P.M. EST

President Obama Names Sally Jewell to Lead the Department of the Interior

President Obama Nominates Sally Jewell as Secretary of the Interior

Remarks by the President in the Nomination of Sally Jewell as Secretary of the Interior

Remarks by the President in the Nomination of Sally Jewell as Secretary of the Interior

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/6/2013

Statement from the President on the Departure of Subra Suresh

President Obama on the Need for a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction

Remarks by the President

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/5/13

Readout of the President's Call with Baltimore Ravens Coach Harbaugh and General Manager Newsome

President Obama Makes a Statement on the Sequester

Remarks by the President