Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/10/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:12 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon.  Thanks for being here on Friday, rainy Friday.  I don’t have an announcement at the top.  I do have a week ahead, which if you remind me, I’ll deliver at the end.  So I’ll go straight to your questions.

Jim.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Yesterday, on the effort on renewal of the jobless benefits, Senator Reid offered a proposal that would pay for an extension through November, but since he alienated potential Republican supporters by not allowing any Republican amendments, why would the President agree to that kind of strategy given the urgency that you said at the podium is required to get this done?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let’s review what you’re talking about.  We need to renew these benefits right away.  There are 1.3 million Americans out there, and their families, who are wondering if they’re going to get assistance.  They’ve already missed one payment, and they’re on track now to miss another.  We have said that the temporary short-term extension, three months, without offsets that is moving in the Senate and cleared one hurdle ought to be passed so that assistance can be provided right away. 

Republicans have said they want offsets.  They want offsets.  We’ve said that we’re willing to talk about -- have conversations about how to move forward on a long-term extension.  Senator Reid and Senate Democrats, in response to Republicans, as I understand it, and their insistence on offsets put forward a proposal for a long-term extension using offsets that Republicans support.  And now that’s not good enough.  It’s hard to believe.  What do you tell those families?  You got what you wanted but you still won’t extend the benefits?

Q    But this is a legislative strategy issue.  Why not allow --

MR. CARNEY:  But, Jim, I understand that parliamentary procedures can be complex, but what Republicans first said in December is we shouldn’t extend benefits, right?  Then, Senator Heller and progressively a handful of other Republican senators said that we should, and they allowed cloture and many of them have said that we need to have pay-fors, offsets.  And Senator Reid, as I understand it, came back and said, okay, for a long-term extension we’ll do it, and here are the offsets.  And these are offsets that Republicans have said they support and have supported in the past, including one that Chairman Ryan included in the budget deal with Senator Murray.

So what now?  What are you asking these families to do now in exchange for the lifeline that Congress needs to provide to them?

Q    Was the White House talking to any of the Republican senators yesterday on this issue or simply with Democrats?

MR. CARNEY:  Broadly, on the issue, we’ve been engaged with members of both parties on it, and I don’t have any specific conversations to read out.  But we’re going to continue to press Congress to move forward.  It would be best, in our view, if they would just pass the short-term extension, and then we could have discussions about a longer-term extension.  But it's striking to me that if Senator Reid had put forward a proposal that reflects the concerns that Republicans said they had and does what they said they wanted, and then there's a problem, that’s unfortunate -- because we really need to do this, and we need to get these benefits into the mailboxes of these families.

Q    Quickly on Iran -- latest vote count in the Senate is 59 senators supporting some kind of Iran sanctions measure, and they're moving toward even a potentially veto-proof number.  Is the White House worried about that number?  And does it add extra pressure on this next round that’s unfolding in Geneva to actually show some progress so that you can make your case on the Hill?

MR. CARNEY:  Jim, our position remains what it's been, which is that, first, Congress has been a strong partner with this administration in passing and implementing and enforcing the most effective sanctions regime in history, and one that claims that status because of the strategy the President has employed from the time he took office, which allowed for consensus internationally so that the sanctions regime is not just an American sanctions regime, but an international one, which is what makes it so effective.

The purpose of that sanctions regime, the purpose of responding to Iranian intransigence with these series of sanctions and this structure was to try to change Iranian behavior so that Iran would come to the table and begin to talk seriously about how to get right with its international obligations.  The sanctions regime that was put in place with the excellent assistance of Congress and our international partners has had that effect.  It has brought Iran to the table, and resulted in a change in the calculations of the Iranian leadership to the extent that they made agreement on the preliminary six-month agreement, and that sort of technical talks continue there as they move towards implementation.  And then we will look at whether or not further negotiations can produce a concrete, permanent and verifiable resolution to this challenge that will allow us to be sure that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, and we can do that peacefully. 

That is the goal.  That was the purpose of sanctions, and that's why we are where we are.  And that's why we have in our many discussions with members of Congress urged them not to pass further sanctions legislation now because it would be counterproductive.  It would I think in many ways have the opposite effect that they hope it would have because it could, if they were to do it, actually weaken the sanctions structure that's in place by undermining faith among our international partners and providing Iran the opportunity to say that we have been negotiating in bad faith. 

So I think we all -- at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- share the same goal, which is to deprive Iran of a nuclear weapon.  That is the President’s policy, and we have worked together towards that policy, and we want to continue to do that.  And Congress has the capacity -- should Iran fail to meet its obligations in either the interim agreement or fail to come to an agreement with the international community, the P5-plus-1 in the final analysis -- to act very swiftly to impose further sanctions. 

And if they were to do that then, if it were necessary, they would again have, we believe, the kind of consensus internationally behind that action that would allow it to be enforced and to result in the consequences for Iran that they seek.  So that's our view.

We continue to consult with members of Congress, and I think we’ve been very clear that we oppose this legislation strongly.

Q    Does this increase pressure on having some kind of concrete result in the short term to forestall action in the Senate, to have --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't know that there’s -- when you say concrete result in the short term, there is -- you may have seen recently that EU Deputy Secretary General Schmid and Deputy Foreign Minister Araqchi made very good progress on all the pertinent issues in the ongoing process, and I believe they're taking back to capitals, so capitals are looking at what’s been achieved in Geneva, and we hope to finalize the implementation agreement soon, which is the first-stage agreement.  So that is progress. 

But there is no question that a longer, more -- I mean, a more permanent resolution to this challenge, a verifiable commitment by Iran to forsake a nuclear weapon will require further extensive negotiations.  And the purpose of this implementation agreement is to stop Iran from making progress on its program, roll back aspects of it while these longer-term negotiations take place.  That’s a positive thing.  Because the alternative would be to -- if you didn’t have the interim agreement -- would be to allow Iran to continue to make to progress, even speed up progress on all aspects of its program.

Q    Jay, along those lines, Iran and Russia are negotiating an oil-for-goods swap worth $1.5 billion a month that would let Iran lift oil exports.  Is there any concern this would undermine the sanctions?

MR. CARNEY:  Steve, I’ve seen that report and I’ll have to take the question.  I may also refer you to the State Department.  We have worked very closely with the P5-plus-1 and all of our partners in building a sanctions regime, part of which addresses aggressively Iranian oil exports.  That regime has been effective in bringing about the opportunity that the P5-plus-1 and the world has now.  So on the specific matter that you have mentioned, I’ll have to take the question and also refer you to State.  If we have more here to say about it I can get back to you.

Q    And on health care, there is a report the administration is replacing its main contractor, CGI, with another one.  Is this true?  And if so, does this create some disruption as you post the final deadline?

MR. CARNEY:  Steve, I’ve seen that report.  Contracts at CMS are something that CMS would address.  I don’t have any more information on that for you.

Q    There is a tweet from one of our colleagues here in the White House Press Corps, Julianna Goldman with Bloomberg, saying that the President will announce --

MR. CARNEY:  Troublemaker.

Q    -- his changes at the NSA on Friday, January 17th.  Can you confirm that?

MR. CARNEY:  Okay.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Does that count as confirmation?

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, it does.  (Laughter.)  You can expect the President to speak about these issues on Friday, January 17th.

Q    And I know that the President has been having these meetings with stakeholders --

Q    There goes your week ahead.

MR. CARNEY:  Yes.  (Laughter.)

Q    The President has been holding these meetings with stakeholders on NSA surveillance activities, and I was just curious -- I know you don’t want to get ahead of what the President is going to announce and you don’t want to tip anybody’s hand as to what reforms he’s looking at and what he’s going to propose, but looking ahead a year from now, will Americans feel that their civil liberties are better protected by these reforms that the President is going to pursue?  And do you think that they will see an NSA that has dramatically curtailed its surveillance activities, marginally curtailed?  How would you characterize that?

MR. CARNEY:  I wouldn’t hazard to address the second part of that question, because the President has been clear throughout this review process that we will not harm our national security or our ability to face global threats.  And our intelligence-gathering activities are directly related to our ability to face those global threats and protect our national security. 

When it comes to the broader question, the goal the President I think has set here is to take measures that create more transparency, introduce reforms that improve the system in a way that gives the American people more confidence.  As for what kinds of measures he's considering, I won't get into that; I'll let the President speak to it.  But we have been very clear about the kinds of recommendations he has been getting.  The review group's report was publicly released for that reason.  So we made clear upon the release of that report that the President considered all of the recommendations worth serious consideration, and that's what he and his team is giving them.

Q    Do you have any idea about the format of the --

MR. CARNEY:  The scheduling matter, you want to -- no, I don't have any more detail.

Q    -- it will be a speech?  It will be here somewhere?

MR. CARNEY:  I can just tell you that he will be making remarks to discuss the outcomes of the work that's been done and the review process.

Q    In what?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, Ann, I don't have anything more than the confirmation of the intrepid reporting that produced the news flash that it will happen on January 17th. 

Q    And, Jay, any response to House Speaker John Boehner's tweet that was within minutes --

Q    A lot of tweets.

Q    -- within minutes after the jobs report came out this morning -- "Where are the jobs?"  Where are the jobs?

MR. CARNEY:  I think you saw our statement in reaction to the monthly jobs report.  The Chairman of the CEA Jason Furman has been out, as has the Secretary of Labor.  And our view has always been -- whether it is a month where job creation exceeds expectations or is a month where it comes in below expectations -- that we have continued to see progress in the economy, but we have more work to do.  And we need to get that unemployment insurance to those families who need it. 

One of the things I think that the underlying data show is that long-term unemployment in the starkest possible way remains the biggest problem we face when it comes to unemployment.  I'm risking saying more than I understand, because I'm not an economist.  But an economist told me this morning that -- (laughter) -- I'm going to try to put it in layman's terms, that the short-term employment rate is now roughly at where it was during the last expansion and maybe a little below it, which means that the unemployment problem we have is truly concentrated in the long-term unemployment part of it.  So that's something the President has talked about a lot.  It's something that is very much at the heart of the debate about how to move forward on extending unemployment insurance benefits, because we're talking about here people who have been unemployed and are looking for a job and have been doing so for a long time. 

Let me move.  Jessica.

Q    A question on India.  What is the White House response to what's going on with this latest permutation in the ongoing issue between diplomats with the removal of this U.S. diplomat in the New Delhi embassy?

MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you, Jessica, is that the White House is of course aware of this matter, which is being handled by the State Department and the Department of Justice, so I will have to refer you to them.

Further, as I've said over the course of our conversations about this, the United States and India enjoy a broad and deep friendship.  And this isolated episode is not indicative of the close and mutually respectful ties that we share. 

For matters related to U.S. diplomats and this general issue, I think the State Department is the best place to go; on the case itself, the Department of Justice.

Q    Can I ask on Syria?  Can you confirm the reports that the U.S. is considering returning nonlethal aid to the rebels, or parts of the rebels?

MR. CARNEY:  My understanding is that, as we said when we made the decision to suspend nonlethal assistance to the Supreme Military Council, this has nothing to do with our support for the moderate military opposition but rather the security of our assistance.  And in that context, we have been reviewing if we can resume the aid to the SMC as we continue to want to support the moderate armed opposition.  We are currently reviewing how to do this moving forward, but no decisions have been made yet regarding the resumption of nonlethal assistance to the SMC. 

But we have resumed deliveries of nonlethal assistance into  northern Syria to civilian actors -- so not the armed opposition, but the civilian actors.  And as we have made clear, our humanitarian assistance has continued throughout with no suspensions.  And I know it's sort of complicated groups here, but the humanitarian assistance is assistance delivered sort of blind to any Syrian who needs it; the nonlethal assistance is delivered to specific recipients, and that includes both the nonlethal assistance that has been suspended as we review the security of it to the SMC, but the nonlethal assistance to civilian actors has been reinstated.

Q    How are you vetting people who are getting it, given the fact that the people are starting to change sides now?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that’s a question I think best addressed to the agencies that deliver the aid.  But vetting is obviously something that has been a priority across the board when it comes to our policy of supporting the Syrian opposition and providing assistance to it. 

So again, the suspension -- I think it's important when you ask that question, that the suspension of aid to the SMC was not a vetting matter, it was a matter of the security of the aid after the incident at a warehouse.  We still do strongly support and want to be able to continue to provide nonlethal assistance to the SMC, to the moderate armed opposition, and are reviewing ways that we can restore that aid.

Q    Is there an endpoint for that review, or a time certain?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t know of one, but perhaps the State Department can give you more information.

Jon.

Q    Back to the jobs numbers, Jay.  I seem to remember you at the podium not long ago showing us charts of jobs growth over the past couple of years, and the implication taking some credit -- the White House taking credit for the President's policies in contributing to jobs growth.  Now we have this report -- I mean, barely treading water:  74,000 jobs created, and probably more ominously, the workforce rate --

MR. CARNEY:  Participation rate?

Q    -- participation rate, you're down at a low for almost 40 years.  What do you --

MR. CARNEY:  Pretty much where it's been since 2009, but, yes.

Q    So does the White House, does the President's policies have anything to do -- are to blame at all for this jobs report?

MR. CARNEY:  Jon, as I think you note, when we talk about the monthly jobs reports, we always begin with the fact that whether it exceeds expectations or comes in below expectations, that there is more work to do.  And this report is no different.  What it does represent is 46 consecutive months of private sector job creation -- 8.2 million jobs over that period.

Q    I mean, 74,000 jobs is barely anything in an economy this large, right?

MR. CARNEY:  Jon, it just reinforces that we need to continue to have job growth, economic security, economic mobility as our top priorities.  And those priorities are the President's priorities, and he wants to work with Congress and wants to work with others outside of Congress to advance an agenda that delivers on those priorities; that continues the recovery; that expands the opportunity that economic growth affords.

So there's no question that when you have -- again, I think we've seen periods of late where the numbers have come in way over expectations, and we’ve see periods where they come in below.  What we have seen generally is consistent private sector job creation.  What we have seen also, labor participation rate notwithstanding, is a fall in the unemployment rate from 10 percent to 6.7 percent.  6.7 percent is too high.  It is too high.  And that’s why we need to -- despite the drop, it is too high.  That’s why we have to keep working and have this as our focus, and not get hung up over ideological fights when we need to be focused on what we can do, coming together, to spur job creation and economic opportunity.  That’s what the President is focused on.

Q    But do you see this as an ominous jobs report?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not an economist; I think our economists were out there talking about it today.  What we've seen in general over recent months has been largely positive economic data.  I'm not suggesting this is anything beyond the latest report, but I would point you to economists to give you a broader macro picture of where we are economically. 

The fact is we have work to do.  We’re continuing to grow, we’re continuing to create jobs, but we have to grow faster and we have to create more jobs.  That should be our priority here in Washington.  That’s what folks in the country expect our priorities to be.  They don’t want us re-litigating old ideological fights.  They don’t want us veering off to have debates about issues that don’t seem to affect their lives directly. 

So the President is very focused on these matters, and you’ve heard him talk about them a lot lately and you’ll hear him talk about them a lot in the coming days and weeks.

Q    And if I can follow up on Jim’s question about the Senate tactics -- and I know you’re not managing the Senate floor schedule and this is done out of the Majority Leader’s office -- but I mean, it affects the White House.  You have a situation where the hardball tactics of the Senate Majority Leader are alienating the Republicans who have said that they want to work with the White House on this issue.  Is there any concern that --

MR. CARNEY:  My concern, Jon, is that Republicans who said they wanted offsets for a longer-term extension of unemployment benefits, having been presented the offsets which they said they wanted, now are suggesting they won’t vote for it.  That’s my concern for those families.  How does that square with the goal here, which is to get that assistance into the hands of the 1.3 million Americans and their families who need it?

I think, again, this is Senator Reid, he’s the Majority Leader, he’s taking the action here; he and Senate Democrats have proposed the offsets for the long-term extension.  But again, the debate began with Republicans saying, we don’t need any extension of unemployment insurance.  Then there was a recognition by some that we did need to do it and by others that they would do it if they got offsets.  So now Senator Reid has proposed offsets for the longer-term extension and that seems to be a problem.

So what is forgotten in that debate is the absolute necessity to get the aid to the American people who need it.

Q    I understand.  So I guess just to -- the White House has no concerns with the tactics that have been used by the Senate Majority Leader offering no amendments -- again, alienating the Republicans who said that they were open to supporting this.  And now you’re in a situation where you have gridlock, nothing is happening.

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I followed it -- well --

Q    There’s no concerns?  The White House is happy with how --

MR. CARNEY:  Here’s the gridlock, Jon:  There was a measure to extend benefits in the way that President Bush signed into law five times, and Republicans won’t go along with it.  That’s gridlock.  There is an effort by the Majority Leader to meet the concerns expressed by Republicans who have said sincerely that they want to extend these benefits if there are offsets.  And he put offsets on the table.  So I think that is pretty good faith and ought to be acted on.

Cheryl.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  House appropriators -- or House and Senate appropriators are finalizing the omnibus spending package due next week.  They’re not quite there yet.  Does the White House have any particular concerns with that package?  And also, would you support a short-term CR through next Saturday?

MR. CARNEY:  Based on what we’ve heard and seen, there is progress being made, and that is good.  And if they need to buy themselves a few extra days in order to complete the work, then that would be fine as long as progress is being made.  And we believe that progress is being made.

Chairman Rogers and other have reinforced that this process is about government funding and is not the place to inject partisan riders.  And we hope and expect that the Republican leadership will support this principle and focus on the need to fulfill the promise of the budget agreement reached by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan.  I hope that answers your question.  As long as there’s progress, we think that’s a good thing.

Q    The State Department designated Ansar al-Sharia as a terrorist organization today.  I’m just wondering why it took that long considering the affiliation with al Qaeda.  And was it directly linked to the attack on Benghazi?

MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate the questions, because it’s more complicated than that, as I think you know.  Let me see if I can find it here.  Because Ansar al-Sharia means Partisans of Sharia and is used by various groups in North Africa, the naming convention does not necessarily imply a centralized organization, which is why, in fact, Ansar al-Sharia was not designated, but specific Ansar al-Sharia groups were designated as terrorist organizations -- Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, in Darna and Tunisia, as well as designations were made for two individuals -- Ahmed Abu Khattalah and Sufian bin Qumu.

In answer to your other statement about al Qaeda, none of these Ansar al-Sharia organizations are official affiliates -- affiliates, rather, of core al Qaeda under Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Q    But are they really -- because it’s the same as the one in Syria, with the al Nusra.  They are not part of it, but  they are --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m telling you what our determination is, our view, the intelligence community of the United States and our allies, that these are not affiliate of core al Qaeda.  But the government is committed, the U.S. government, to taking all appropriate actions against the organizations and individuals responsible for the attacks against the United States diplomatic facilities in Libya and Tunisia, and doing everything we can to prevent similar attacks in the future.

The State Department’s announcement today of the terrorist designations is a reflection of that commitment.  Our focus continues to be working with the Libyan government to bring the perpetrators of the September 11th, 2012 Benghazi attacks to justice, and to work tirelessly to ensure the safety of our personnel serving overseas.  Likewise, we also remain committed to working with the Tunisian government to bring to justice those responsible for the September 14, 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy and American school in Tunis.

For more information about the status of those investigations, I refer you to the Department of Justice and to the Department of State for any further information on the terrorist designations.

Major.

Q    Jay, can you tell us what the President learned and when he learned about the chemical spill in West Virginia, and the level of the White House activity monitoring that over the weekend?
  
MR. CARNEY:  The President is aware -- I don't have a specific time, but he was made aware and he approved the emergency declaration that was done last night.  He asked his team --

Q    That was pretty swift.

MR. CARNEY:  It was very swift.  This is obviously a serious incident.  He asked his team to monitor the situation and provide necessary assistance.  Secretary Johnson, DHS Secretary, spoke to Governor Earl Ray Tomblin this morning about this matter.  And I have information from FEMA about what they are doing in terms of working through its regional office in Philadelphia, in close coordination with the West Virginia Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to support state and local efforts to ensure public safety and health in response to the emergency conditions resulting from that chemical spill in Charleston on Thursday.

Q    Does this appear manageable for public health?

MR. CARNEY:  I would refer you to FEMA for specifics about the conditions and the spill and the health -- the public safety aspect of it.  But obviously, the emergency declaration reflects that it's an emergency situation.

Q    What's the White House reaction to 67 Democrats voting this morning in the House for this disclosure piece of legislation regarding any security breach of healthcare.gov?  The White House did not threaten yesterday to veto, but the Senate opposes this.  The House Democrats were clearly well aware of that, and yet a sizable majority -- not a sizable majority, but sizable enough to create a veto-proof majority in the House nevertheless went with Republicans.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, you're right, we put out statements of administration policy yesterday making clear that the administration opposes these bills, because they would impose a burdensome requirement, reporting requirement that is less effective than existing industry standards and those already in place for federal agencies that possess such information.

The bottom line here is that when consumers fill out their online marketplace applications, they can trust that the information that they are providing is protected by stringent security standards and no person or group has maliciously accessed personally identifiable information from the site.  Security testing is conducted on an ongoing basis, using industry best practices to safeguard appropriately consumers' personal information.  And the security of the system is also monitored by sensors and other tools to deter and prevent any unauthorized access.

Q    Now, you've said that before, and consumers can only take your word and HHS's word and CMS's word on that.  But the legislation just says if there's a breach, the HHS Secretary should notify individuals affected within two days.  What is burdensome or onerous about that?

MR. CARNEY:  Look, I would point you to the existing reporting requirements and that the effort here obviously is aimed at -- is designed by folks by and large who have as a goal sabotaging the ACA.  But when it comes to the security -- the important issue here, the security of the site, it already meets standards, stringent standards.  There have been no reported security breaks -- breaches.  And the proposition here is actually less effective than existing industry standards, and those already in place for federal agencies that possess such information. 

Q    Does it trouble you that so many Democrats wanted to undermine the process?

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, look, security is an important issue.  And I understand that everyone from the administration on down and throughout the government here takes it very seriously.  But I think we've made clear in our SAPs that we oppose the legislation, made clear why, and the American people who fill out their marketplace applications can be sure that that information is protected using the highest standards -- industry standards that are available.

So again, I think that the focus here ought to be on delivering in a responsible way -- which is what is happening -- the benefits of the Affordable Care Act to the American people who so demonstrably desire those benefits and the opportunities and options available to them through the marketplaces.

Q    Stipulating that neither one of us are economists, I want to challenge you on something you said a moment ago when Jon brought up the labor force participation rate.  You said it’s been --

MR. CARNEY:  You know, I was thinking of a graph I saw earlier that has to do about the percentage of American adults who are employed, which has basically been the same since early 2009. 

Q    That’s different than the labor force participation rate, which has changed in the last year.

MR. CARNEY:  It has been trending downward for quite a long time.

Q    Yes, 62.8 percent now.

MR. CARNEY:  It has been trending downward for quite a long time predating this administration, as I'm sure you're aware and will report.  Yes.

Q    I am aware.  But nevertheless, if the labor force participation rate had remained constant over the year, today's unemployment rate wouldn’t be 6.7 percent, it would 7.9 percent, which indicates --

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not an economist and don’t know that to be true or accurate, and I would check that, but -- maybe you're right.  But the fact of the matter is -- Major, here's the fact --

Q    My question is, is that people -- discouraged workers are leaving the labor force, and that’s why they're showing up in this data.  The long-term unemployed, there are those who you're trying to deal with who are constantly looking for work, they would benefit from the extension of long-term emergency aid.  But there are many who are completely opting out.  They are so discouraged they've become almost not only chronically unemployed, but so discouraged that they've left the labor force entirely.  This seems to be a structural economic reality.

MR. CARNEY:  We need to take every measure we can to help the economy grow, to help it create jobs, to create economic opportunity in places like the five Promise Zones that were designated yesterday and around the country.  That’s what the President is focused on.

Remember, when we came in, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month.  The conditions were severe.  We have seen a situation in this country of economic expansion that has created 8.2 million private sector jobs over 46 months, an average for some time now I think of 2 million jobs per year.  Not enough.  We have more work to do. 

And as the President has made clear, the goal isn’t just to get back to where we were, the goal is to have a situation where the chronic trend of suppressing economic mobility is arrested and reversed.  The goal is to create more ladders of opportunity for Americans who aspire to the middle class, more economic security for those Americans who are in the middle class, and more opportunities for American businesses and foreign businesses to create jobs here in the United States.  That represents the sort of circle of goals that the President has when it comes to his economic policy, and that’s what he remains focused on and has been since he took office.

Ed.

Q    I want to go back to health care.  When you were asked before about healthcare.gov getting a new contractor, you said it was a CMS contract issue.  I understand there are a lot of contracts, you can’t keep up on every one of them, but you would probably acknowledge this is not just any federal contract.  And when administration officials are privately telling us the new contractor is going to get something like $90 million this year to take over the account and you have a situation where you’re switching web portals sort of midstream here, it would seem to be kind of an important issue that would cross the President’s desk.  Is he being updated on this, and isn’t this kind of a big deal?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I’ve seen a report in a newspaper, Ed, what I can tell you from here is that I don’t have information about a contract at CMS.  If and when I do, I’ll be sure to take a question and answer it.  But for now, when it has to do with a CMS contract that may or may not be changing, I would refer you to CMS.

Q    On Iran, you got a lot of questions on that, but I wanted to be more specific.  There’s an interesting story in the Huffington Post where a White House official is quoted today as suggesting the people who support this sanctions bill on the Hill -- Democrats and Republicans -- the quote is, ”If certain members of Congress want the U.S. to take military action, they should be upfront with the American public and say so.”  You’re basically accusing Democrats like Bob Menendez of wanting to go to war.  Is that really a fair characterization?

MR. CARNEY:  I think we have said all along, Ed, that we have worked cooperatively and effectively with an excellent partner in Congress in building a sanctions regime against Iran, the likes of which the world has never seen; more effective than the world has ever seen.  And we share the same goals that members of Congress of both parties share, which is the absolute need to deprive Iran of acquiring a nuclear weapon. 

And our stated concern again and again is that pursuing sanctions now -- new sanctions now would actually undermine the objective here -- the objective being that we can bring about, potentially, through negotiation, a peaceful resolution of this conflict between Iran and the rest of the world in a verifiable, transparent way that would, more effectively than a military action, assure the P5-plus-1, the United States, our allies and everybody in the world, that Iran does not and is not -- does not have and is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Q    I understand you're saying this could blow up a diplomatic deal, but the thing is, you're going further in this story, and a White House official on the record is saying that these lawmakers want the U.S. to take military action.  Can you say from the podium that Democrat Bob Menendez wants to go to war?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that Senator Menendez, Chairman Menendez wants what we want, which is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  He and many others in the Senate have been excellent partners in helping construct this sanctions regime, which was designed to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and which, thanks to the efforts of Congress, has achieved that. 

And I believe that -- when it comes -- this isn't a debate about sanctions; obviously, this administration supports sanctions.  We built the biggest, most effective sanctions regime in history.  Our view of the current situation is that passing new sanctions legislation now would be counterproductive to the goal that we all share. 

And the obvious problem with that is that if we want, as everyone does, to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, and we make it harder if not impossible to pursue achieving that goal peacefully, then our options become very limited.  So it's not about motive, it's about the potential outcomes that would be negative for the United States and our allies. 

Q    The President himself has repeatedly said he has the military option on the table, he should not take that off the table.

MR. CARNEY:  And he won't.

Q    So it would unfair for people to suggest he wants to go to war, right?  He's just saying I want to have that option.  So how can you possibly accuse Democrats and Republicans on the Hill of wanting to take military action?  That’s what you're saying.

MR. CARNEY:  Again, Ed, I think that the --

Q    That’s the quote.  Are you running from that quote, is my question.

MR. CARNEY:  No, I'm not.  What I'm saying is that -- I don’t know every one of a hundred senators what their personal views are on whether or not military force ought to be used in Iran.  So I can't give a blanket statement about how they all feel. 

What I do know is when it comes to Senator Menendez and all of the partners who have assisted this administration over the years in building this sanctions regime is that we share a common goal, which is to deprive Iran of the opportunity of acquiring a nuclear weapon, and to do so through negotiations.  That’s why we built the sanctions regime.  And our strong concern is that passage of sanctions at this time would negatively affect and perhaps scuttle the negotiations that are underway, and then make it much harder if not impossible to achieve our objective peacefully.

Q    Last one.  On Afghanistan, you've probably seen the reports that President Karzai is suggesting he's not going to sign the agreement.  And I asked you a couple of days ago -- when was the last time the President spoke to the U.S. commander on the ground in Afghanistan?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have an update on the President's conversations with military leaders, which he has with some regularity, as well as his civilian leaders in the Pentagon.  What I can tell you is our views on this and our position on this remains the same.  The bilateral security agreement was negotiated in good faith and endorsed by the loya jirga, and it needs to be signed, it ought to be signed. 

Q    But why can't you say when was the last time he spoke to the General?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, Ed, I don’t think we read out every conversation that the President -- I know we don’t read out every conversation the President has with his military leaders. 

Q    Was it recently?

MR. CARNEY:  Ed, I think I've answered the question.  Thank you.

Michael.

Q    So on the CMS issue -- just another question here.  I understand you're not going to give us an answer on this substantive question, but it wasn't that long ago that you guys were deeply involved in every detail, contracting and otherwise, with this website -- holding sessions in this building, piped into the War Room and all sorts of other things -- and that you guys were saying that Denis McDonough and other top officials here --

MR. CARNEY:  Let me see if I can be clearer and just sort of get to your -- but here's what I know.  A newspaper has reported something.

Q    Right.

MR. CARNEY:  CMS, as I've seen, has not confirmed it publicly.  I think there's a gap there, and people ought to go to CMS and get what information they can.

Q    Understood.  But what I'm saying is, I've gotten now, from you and from others in this building, that it's not a -- that a contracting issue with CMS is not something that is of -- that you guys would even know or would even be interested in, it seems like.  And so the question is, have we moved past the point where Denis McDonough and the President and the top officials here and Zients and everybody else were so interested in --

MR. CARNEY:  I think there are distinctions here, Michael, if I could.  The issue of a legal contract between an agency and a private contractor is something that is worked out obviously by counsel between the agency and counsel for a contractor. 

When it comes to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and the mechanisms by which that is done effectively, including all the changes in repairs and improvements made to healthcare.gov, obviously the White House has been and is very engaged in that process.  I'm telling you that when it comes to the status of a contract, I don't have an answer.  I would refer you to CMS; it's a CMS contract.  And if CMS has more information to provide, they will.  And if they don't at this time, that's because they don't have information to provide on it.

Q    One last thing.  Is that something that you guys are also trying to find out from them?  Or is it something that's really not --

MR. CARNEY:  What I'm telling you is that there's not information that I have to give to you today.  And there is some distance between a newspaper report and what the agency involved is saying at this time. 

Kristen.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  I've spoken to two insurance industry executives who say there are ongoing problems with the 834s.  They say they’re as high as 5 percent.  Do you have a percentage?  Because last time I heard the administration weigh in on this it was far lower than 5 percent?  So I'm wondering if you --

MR. CARNEY:  My understanding is that since December it's been close to zero. 

Q    They're saying it's much higher.  So are they wrong?

MR. CARNEY:  Close to zero.  So if you take 5 percent going back to October 1st, obviously the percentage --

Q    But this was a conversation I had today. 

MR. CARNEY:  Right, but some of the reporting on this has blended some of the data and the months involved here.  So if you go back to -- look, the percentage was extremely high in October.  That's the bad news.  The silver lining in that very dark cloud was that there weren't that many people who got through the system in October.  So that high percentage of a low number is not that big.  What has been the case since the improvements were made to the website and since December 1st is that the backend issues have been aggressively addressed and the problems have been addressed. 

For percentage figures, I should be a little careful.  I don't have them available right now.  I haven’t had a question on this in a while.  But I know CMS does and has been answering these questions.

Q    And just to be clear, I mean, these are conversations that I had today.  And they feel as though the percentage has actually been downplayed by the administration.  So given that you don't have percentages --

MR. CARNEY:  You're saying "they" -- if you want to name names and tell me, I'm sure I can put them in touch with people at CMS and others who are working on the website. 

Q    Given that there are ongoing problems --

MR. CARNEY:  You actually don’t have to name names. 

Q    I'm not going to name names.

MR. CARNEY:  I know who they are.  (Laughter.)

Q    But given the ongoing problems --

MR. CARNEY:  It's an NSA joke.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Sticking to health care, given the ongoing problems and that there are some, however high you would put the percentage, how engaged is the administration right now in terms of working with insurance companies and consumers to help iron out the people who have orphan plans, who say that they have signed up for coverage and insurance companies say we still can't find their plans?

MR. CARNEY:  We have been aggressively engaged with issuers and with individuals on everyone affected by the so-called "backend problems," and that includes directly reaching out to individuals to making sure that when it comes to payments and other issues, making sure that everyone who has enrolled in a plan is taking all the steps necessary to make sure that they have the coverage that they desire and which they enrolled in, and that we continue to work with issuers to make sure that the data they're getting through the backend, the 834 forms, is accurate.

Q    And how concerned is the President -- there are some stories that are starting to emerge, in the L.A. Times for example, about consumers who are getting the runaround, waiting on the phone for long periods of time, not getting the answers that they’re looking for in terms of their coverage.

MR. CARNEY:  From?

Q    From the insurance companies, from the administration.  I mean, they feel like they’re getting the runaround.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, are you sort of broadly saying -- are you identifying specific problems?

Q    These are ongoing problems.

MR. CARNEY:  In a limited number of instances, consumers are getting help through our casework system to address some of these backend issues.  I have a little more information for you here.  When it comes to casework process to handle individual situations, of the 1.1 million individuals who have enrolled in private coverage through the federal marketplace, there are only 13,000 casework cases in the system right now that CMS is working on with issuers, where people are having enrollment issues or other issues and they are actively working with health plans to address and resolve them. 

I don’t have my calculator, but I think that’s a relatively low percentage -- 13,000 out of 1.1 million.  But every one of them is getting direct attention so that we can resolve this working with the insurers.

Q    And Jay, can you comment on the Justice Department’s decision to recognize the same-sex marriages that were performed in Utah over the past several weeks?

MR. CARNEY:  I can tell you the President welcomes the Attorney General’s determination that the federal government, for purposes of federal law, will recognize the same-sex marriages that were lawfully performed in Utah before a stay was issued.  For more, I would point you to what the Attorney General said and to the Department of Justice.  But the President welcomes that determination by the AG.

Anita.

Q    I have two quick questions on NSA.  You were asked something earlier this week about the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, but now that we are pretty sure -- we have the date that the President is going to speak next week --

MR. CARNEY:  Pretty sure?  (Laughter.)

Q    We are pretty sure that their report will come out after the President speaks.  They have said late January, early February.  There are some folks on the Hill, even from your own Democratic Party, civil libertarians who don’t understand why the President wouldn’t wait until the independent group gives their report.  I know you were sort of asked about this but I didn’t fully understand or --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as you know, the President has met with members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties [Oversight] Board, and when it comes to the timing of the report, you can ask them.  But today, the meeting the President had the other day -- I think it was yesterday -- was an opportunity for the President to hear from them directly about the very issues that they’re working on ahead of their report being issued so that our internal review takes into account their views and their input, which is very valuable.  The President sought it and has engaged with them directly for that reason.  So I can’t speak to the timing of the release of their report, but the work they’ve done is very much a piece of the input that the President and his team have taken in putting together their review.

Q    So does that mean they’re verbally giving a report before --

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t know if there is paper attached to it.  I can’t speak to you when they’re releasing their report.  I know that they met with the President and discussed the issues that they’d been reviewing.

Q    Okay.  And secondly, yesterday you indicated that you would give out the names of the companies that are here today at the White House, the industry folks and NSA --

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t believe I said that.  My understanding is I said there wouldn’t be a further readout of that meeting.  I don’t have the names of the companies.

Q    You’re not going to list the names of the companies?

MR. CARNEY:  I just don’t have them.

Q    Okay, well, you could get them.

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll take the question.

Steve.

Q    Last December -- well, last month, I guess, you said that you didn’t believe that the sanctions bill would pass the Senate.  Is that still the White House assessment?

MR. CARNEY:  We believe that the bill would be detrimental to our efforts to pursue a resolution with Iran through the P5-plus-1, a peaceful resolution.  I think that we remain hopeful that Congress will not pass such a sanctions bill because of the negative effect that would have on the ongoing negotiations and the potential to resolve this peacefully.  But I’m not going to make legislative predictions.

Q    We got that statement from Rice last night, which is a very strong statement.  Now, during the briefing, there’s a Reuters story from the United Nations quoting sources briefed on U.S. discussions saying the U.S. has weighing targeted sanctions against South Sudan.  Can you confirm that?  And also talk about confidence in President Kiir at this point?  Is there any wavering in confidence in his leadership?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have anything that I can give to you on the question of -- on the first question regarding sanctions.  I would point you to Ambassador Rice's statement in general about the situation in South Sudan and to what I've said in the past, but I have no update on our view of that matter, which is very concerning.

Q    This story also talks about frustrations for the President.  Has he become increasingly more frustrated with not only President Kiir but the former Vice President?

MR. CARNEY:  I think we're all, from the President on down, concerned about the violence there and the stability -- or the instability that it creates.  But I wouldn’t go further than that.

Andrei.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  On Monday, the Russian journalists will be celebrating their professional holiday, the National Day of the Press, in Russia.  And when I was thinking about this --

MR. CARNEY:  Does that mean nobody is going to be here, no briefing?  (Laughter.) 

Q    That’s probably right.

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t think I ever got to celebrate that holiday even when I was living there. 

Q    This is what I want to ask you about.  Living here, I've often wondered at the enormous amount of different causes that I recognized here by all sorts of national days, national weeks, national months.  Why is there no national day for the press?  (Laughter.) 

Q    I don’t know if I want an answer.  (Laughter.)

Q    Amen, brother.  

MR. CARNEY:  “We the people” petition?  I hear it coming.

Q    Every day is a national day for the press.  (Laughter.) 

MR. CARNEY:  Yes.  I think the view that the American people have about if not the media itself but about the importance that in our democracy that the free media play is enshrined in our Bill of Rights.  And when you got that, you don’t need a holiday.  (Laughter.)   

Q    Okay.  So the people here do not deserve a holiday in your opinion?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, they avail themselves of other holidays.  There's one coming up.

Q    Do you want to say anything to the Russians on their national day for the media?  (Laughter.) 

Q    In Russian?

MR. CARNEY:  с Новым годом!  (Happy New Year!)

Q    Jay, you just said the President welcomes the decision by DOJ to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in Utah, but to what extent was the President involved in reaching the decision getting there? 

MR. CARNEY:  The President simply welcomes the decision.  This is an action and a determination taken by and done by the Attorney General.  The President obviously has been both public -- has expressed his view publicly about same-sex marriage and the need for equal rights for all Americans.  I don’t think -- I don’t know, but I don’t think they discussed this specific issue.  This was a determination by the AG.

Victoria.

Q    I had to cut out, so I hope I didn’t miss this question.  But Afghanistan says it's --

MR. CARNEY:  The one about the holiday for journalists?  (Laughter.) 

Q    Yes, that’s the key question of the day.  Afghanistan says it's going to release a large number of prisoners that the U.S. regards as extremely dangerous.  I have two questions on that.  The first one:  Does the U.S. regard this as a deal-breaker in terms of the security agreement?  And the second one is, President Karzai is said to be very upset over the references in Bob Gates's book to President Obama apparently not liking him at all, and that being one of the reasons why he is releasing the prisoners.  Do you think that perhaps Bob Gates should have waited to write this book and known that he should have waited to write this book, being a former Secretary of Defense?

MR. CARNEY:  On the last question about memoirs and the decision to write them and when to publish them, I think I answered that earlier in the week.  So I won't add to that answer.

Q    But now that we have -- now that Karzai has responded.

MR. CARNEY:  We have very concrete and serious negotiations with the Afghan government about very serious and concrete matters.  And we negotiated with the Afghan government the bilateral security agreement.  And we engage with Kabul, our colleagues in Kabul -- through our colleagues in Kabul, with the Afghan government every day.  We are very concerned about the release of any detainees who would pose a threat to U.S. forces.  And this is an issue we take quite seriously.  And we are in touch through our embassy in Kabul and others in Afghanistan on this matter.  But I would refer you to ISAF and DOD for more.

On the other matter, I think we have a series of engagements with -- we engage with the Afghan government on a series of issues, including prisoners, including the bilateral security agreement, including our commitment economically.  And those talks are ongoing.

Q    But what is your concern about whether this could be a deal-breaker?  You want this signed. 

MR. CARNEY:  Again, you're saying that that's what you read in a report somewhere.  We're concerned because we believe it ought to be signed and it should have been signed before the end of the year, which was the goal I think stated by both parties to the negotiations that produced the bilateral security agreement.  So we've been saying that it needs to be signed promptly.

Q    There is apparently a confidential cable from the Ambassador saying that Karzai is not going to sign it. 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't comment on confidential cables.  What I can tell you is that it has been our view, it has been the view of the Afghan people represented by the loya jirga that the BSA ought to be signed.

Is that it?  Oh wait, week ahead.  I have to make a change to Friday here, hold on.  (Laughter.) 

On Monday, the President will welcome the President of the Government of the Kingdom of Spain, Mariano Rajoy Brey, to the White House.  The President will highlight the strength and depth of the United States' relationship with Spain.  The President and President Rajoy will discuss promoting economic growth and new jobs, support for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, cooperation within NATO, Latin America, shared challenges in North Africa and the Middle East and other topics of mutual interest.

On Tuesday, the President will hold a Cabinet meeting, which the Vice President and obviously his Cabinet members will attend.  In the afternoon, the President will welcome the 2013 NBA Champion Miami Heat to the White House to honor the team on winning their second straight championship title. 

On Wednesday, as I think I mentioned yesterday, the President will travel to Raleigh, North Carolina, for an event on the economy. 

On Thursday, the President and First Lady will host an event here at the White House on expanding college opportunity.

And on Friday, in addition to attending meetings here at the White House, he'll make remarks outlining or giving information about, making remarks about the outcomes of the review that we have undertaken that he has led on the issue of signal intelligence. 

Thank you very much.

Q    Some shots with LeBron while he is here?

MR. CARNEY:  Unless they set up a court in the East Room, I wouldn't count on it. 

Thanks very much.

END
2:11 P.M. EST

President Obama Signs West Virginia Emergency Declaration

The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of West Virginia and ordered federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts due to the emergency conditions resulting from a chemical spill beginning on January 9, 2014, and continuing.

The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the counties of Boone, Clay, Jackson, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, Putnam, and Roane.

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency.  Emergency protective measures, limited to direct federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent federal funding. 

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Michael J. Lapinski as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area.

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/9/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:25 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  I did cross a bridge here, but on my way here, I was at a funeral in Falls Church.  I apologize for the delay.  It was a funeral for a remarkable woman, the mother of a friend, who lived a great life and was a great woman.  And it was a lovely service.  Her name was Theresa McKenna. 

And with that, I have a couple of announcements.  First, on Wednesday, January 15th, President Obama will travel to the Raleigh-Durham area in North Carolina for an event on the economy.  Further details on the President’s trip to North Carolina will be made available in the coming days. 

Second, this afternoon, as you know, President Obama will host an event here at the White House to name officially the first five Promise Zones that our administration is partnering with to invest in and rebuild.  The President will be joined at the event by representatives and community members from each of the five zones, which are located in San Antonio, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Southeastern Kentucky, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

The President first announced our Promise Zone initiative during last year’s State of the Union address as a way to partner with local communities and businesses to create jobs, increase economic security, expand access to educational opportunities and quality, affordable housing, and to improve public safety. 

Yesterday, as we reflected on the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, the President reiterated this commitment.  He reminded us of the frustrations that many American families face and the need to build ladders of opportunity for those working to get into the middle class.  So today’s event will be a critical step forward in delivering on this commitment and making progress toward our greater goal of strengthening the economic mobility of all Americans.

As I think you know, there will be a final call I'm told at 1:50 p.m.  For those of you who need to go over there, feel free, don't mind me.  I apologize again for being late.  And if anyone is still around I'll keep taking questions.

Julie.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  The President met this morning with several lawmakers to discuss his NSA review.  Is there any kind of readout you can give us from that meeting, and can you also tell us what lawmakers attended?

MR. CARNEY:  I think I have that here somewhere, hold on.  Give me one sec.  I can tell you that he did --

Q    I have a question on another topic if you want --

MR. CARNEY:  I'm sorry, I apologize. 

Q    It’s okay.  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  I was told as I was coming out here and I just can't find it, but we did have a short readout.  He did meet with congressional members on the NSA disclosures issue, and we'll have -- if I stumble across it, I'll come back to you.  It’s in here somewhere.  Otherwise, we'll get it to you right after the briefing.

Q    On that other topic, the President obviously has developed a good relationship with Chris Christie over the past couple of years.  I'm wondering if he has any reaction to both Christie’s lengthy news conference today and also the issue with the bridge in general.

MR. CARNEY:  On that, I haven't spoken to him about the situation in New Jersey.  I don't know, but I doubt that he had time to catch any of the news conference.  And beyond that, it sounds very much like a state matter to me.  And to the extent that it isn't, as I understand there was a statement by the U.S. Attorney.  That's something that you would have to ask the Department of Justice about.

Let me tell you that today President Obama met with members of Congress to discuss the administration’s ongoing review of signals intelligence programs, including our study of the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies report.  In August, the President committed his administration to working with Congress to pursue reforms of our nation’s surveillance programs and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  This meeting was an opportunity for the President to hear from the members about the work that they have been doing on these issues since they last met and to solicit their input as we near the end of our internal review.  The President thanked the members for their ongoing work on these challenging issues.

I'll run through quickly those who attended:  Senator Feinstein, Senator Chambliss, Senator Leahy, Senator Grassley, Senator Durbin, Senator Cochran, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Udall, Senator Wyden, Representative Rogers, Representative Goodlatte, Representative Conyers, Representative Frelinghuysen, and Representative Visclosky, Representative Schiff, and Representative Sensenbrenner.

Anything else?

Q    Has the President set a date yet for his speech on the NSA review?

MR. CARNEY:  We don't have a scheduling announcement to make.  It remains the case that he will be making remarks upon the completion of his own review, the complete review, and decisions he’ll make about the path forward, and that will happen before the State of the Union address on January 28th.

April.

Q    Hey, Jay.  Because of the magnitude of what’s happening in New Jersey, would the President be advised by the Attorney General if indeed there were to be subpoenas issued for personal emails and phone records?

MR. CARNEY:  No.  And this is not -- again, you're asking about something that would, if it even were to happen, would be an investigation that would be done by the Justice Department.  It would not involve the White House. 

Q    But this could also involve the Department of Transportation, because the way I'm hearing, out of New Jersey, there could be charges linked to obstructing interstate highways and traffic, acting under the color of state law to interfere with lawful political activity.  So this is beyond just state law in New Jersey.  This has far-reaching ramifications. 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that may be the case, April.  I honestly only know what I've had the chance to read in the paper.  But there's certainly nothing that involves the White House with this issue.  And to the extent that there's any involvement of the federal government, I think you would have to ask the Department of Justice.

Q    So to be clear -- so the President, if the national transportation -- or the Department of Transportation or the Attorney General wants to look into it, the President would not be advised about that?

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, you're asking me speculatively, but I do not imagine that this would be something that as a rule would involve a White House or a President.

Mark, sorry.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  On the meeting with lawmakers about NSA, can you provide any additional detail?  How far is he along in terms of making his decisions?  Is he consulting with them about potential decisions in terms of his own review?

MR. CARNEY:  The answer to the first part is that he's fairly far along.  This is a review, broadly speaking, that’s been underway for some time.  He's had a number of meetings with people conducting close examinations of this issue -- the review group, the PCLOB, and obviously the members he met with today, as well as members of his own team.  But he's not yet finished with that, and he is still soliciting input, which he did today, and sort of reviewing the scope of the matter and some of the ideas that were presented, for example, in the review group report, which was released publicly. 

So he's obviously close to the end of this review in the sense that he will be giving remarks about his conclusions and the steps forward he wants to take within the next couple of weeks, or before January 28th -- don’t want to have to do the math.  But it's also the case, as we've noted, that when it comes to the review group's recommendations, for example -- specific recommendations -- that the President wanted every one of those and wants every one of those to be considered, and it is the case that, with the exception of the one on which a decision has already been made, that there will be some, I expect, that he will want to act on or want the government to act on right away.  There will be others that he may decide should not be acted on, and there may be some that would require further review.

So I don’t think -- I expect that this will be an important milestone in the process, and a conclusion, in many respects, for this review.  But not all of the work will be done simply because these recommendations are being acted on.

Q    Separately, Speaker Boehner in a new conference today called on the President to take a more active role with regard to Iraq, pointing to the events in Fallujah and sort of talking about the U.S. experience there.  Can you comment on that, please?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I didn't see those remarks by the Speaker, but obviously as you know, Mark, the administration is deeply engaged in efforts to consult with the Iraqi government and also to step up assistance to the Iraqi government in their effort to combat international terrorist groups operating in Anbar province, and that effort continues.

As you know, I think yesterday I mentioned that Vice President Biden had had yet another conversation with Iraqi leaders, including the Prime Minister, and those kinds of consultations are ongoing as we provide assistance to the sovereign government of Iraq in its important effort to combat these al Qaeda groups and international terrorist operations, because the overwhelming majority of Iraqis -- no matter whether they're Shiite or Sunni, no matter their political views -- want to be rid of al Qaeda.

And President -- rather Prime Minister Maliki has been conducting internal outreach to Iraqi local, tribal, and national leaders, including Sunnis and Kurds.  And the Council of Ministers recently decided to extend state benefits to Sunni tribal forces killed or injured in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is the al Qaeda affiliate that is in Anbar right now.

So I’m not sure what the Speaker was calling for, but I can assure you that this administration at the highest levels, as well through our embassy in Kabul -- I mean, rather, in Baghdad is very directly involved in this in an assistance role.

Q    If I could just ask about today’s event.  What does it say about the President’s efforts generally to combat income disparity, that having sort of launched his own version of a War on Poverty he’s beginning with a fairly narrowly targeted program -- five Promise Zones -- when national programs like raising the minimum wage would have a much greater effect on decreasing poverty?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President is not going to pursue Promise Zones and then say we’re done with the effort here.  As you know, the President is forcefully committed to raising the minimum wage.  We support the legislation in the Senate that would raise it to $10.10 and then index it to inflation.  The President himself has spoken about it, including at the State of the Union address last year and including multiple times during the course of last year, not least of which was the speech he gave in Anacostia towards the end of the year on economic mobility and income disparity.

Raising the minimum wage, you're absolutely right, would have a profoundly positive impact.  And that's why he believes strongly that Congress ought to act, and he supports efforts in states to act to raise the minimum wage.  So this is not a one-off proposition. 

The Promise Zones represent the kind of creative and innovative approach to some of the economic challenges we face that the President believes are essential if we're going to build on the progress that has been made over the past 50 years in combating poverty, and move in different directions to tackle the challenges that remain.  Partnering with local communities, local governments and businesses in a way that the Promise Zone program does is an absolutely vital and I think creative way to further economic development in different parts of the country.  And I think we've seen bipartisan support for that effort, which is always a welcome thing. 

Brianna.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  On unemployment, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, now saying that he is open to an extension of -- a long-term extension of long-term unemployment benefits if the cost is offset.  Are you on the same page as the Senate Majority Leader?

MR. CARNEY:  What we have said remains the case, which when it comes to the bill that exists that would deal with the emergency that exists for 1.3 million families -- Americans and their families -- across the country extends that unemployment insurance without offsets, we believe that Congress ought to act on it right away.  We have always been open to, as we've said and I've said daily from here, conversations about how to move forward for a longer extension; a full-year extension is what is normally talked about. 

So, yes, we're obviously in sync with Senator Reid in that respect and I think in the general approach to this, which is -- the only measure that exists is the one that has cleared the first hurdle in the Senate.  And unlike some of the policy debates that we have in Washington and the legislation that moves forward in Congress, this is one that is desperately needed now by some very real people in the country who are suffering.  So our view has been that in keeping with past practice 14 out of 17 times, including all five of the times that President George W. Bush signed an extension into law, we can and should move forward with the short-term extension without offsets.  But we are absolutely open to discussions about how to move forward beyond that.

Q    It seemed like before you wanted the three-month clean extension and then to talk about offsets after that.  So now you're willing to talk about offsets before the first three months is extended for the long-term benefits?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I guess the way I would explain it, Brianna, is that we certainly oppose any suggestion that movement on getting these benefits right away to the family should be halted or stalled while conversations are being had about longer-term solutions. 

So we believe that Congress ought to act right away to extend these benefits for three months, short term; to ensure that these 1.3 million Americans don’t suffer; and that their efforts to find jobs aren’t hampered by the fact that they have no assistance and no assistance to put food on the table for their families or to pay their heating bills, for example.  But we are open to conversations about how to move forward for a longer period.  That’s what I think I’ve been saying all week.

Q    Well, it seems sort of like something has changed a little bit; that there seems to be more of a realization that talking about the long term and offsets for the long term may be the way to get the benefits in the near term for the long-term unemployed -- kind of confusing -- put in place.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, our interest is in the result in the sense that -- obviously there are conversations all the time between members of both parties in both houses about how to move forward on issues, including this one.  And the Republicans who voted in favor of cloture earlier this week I think demonstrated how important and bipartisan this issue is, and we want to see that kind of cooperation and cooperative bipartisan conversation move forward on this issue and so many others.

I think, again, our view is -- putting aside the conversations about what moving forward looks like on Capitol Hill -- we want these benefits passed.  And right now there’s a bill that would do that, get that assistance to those families right away.  And we just don’t want any conversations about subjects related to this, including long-term extension, to stall efforts.  We want that effort to move fast.

Q    I guess my bottom-line question is, when you’re talking to Americans who are directly affected by this, the long-term unemployed, should they be -- in your estimation and the estimation of the President and the White House, should they be feeling more encouraged today than perhaps -- yesterday it seemed pretty discouraging.  Should they be feeling more encouraged today that this is going to be resolved?

MR. CARNEY:  I can’t really answer that.  We’ve been, I think, optimistic in a way that not everyone has this week and last week about the prospects for this moving forward and assistance getting to these families.  And so we remain hopeful and optimistic that it will happen.  I don’t know that developments in the last 24 hours make that more or less likely, but we certainly hope the answer is more likely.

Michael.

Q    Just a real quick thing on the Promise Zones -- and I apologize if I’ve missed this -- but is there specific money attached to the kind of -- the efforts for these five places?  And if so, where does it come from, and how much?  Is that something he’s going to be announcing -- specific dollar amounts?

MR. CARNEY:  We’ll have more information, specific information after the President’s event, or concurrent with the President’s event.  This is about partnership, and I know that there is existing monies that helps the agencies involved at the federal level focus their attention on and efforts on, and cut a lot of bureaucratic red tape for and on behalf of the area selected here.  So I think that is the principal objective.  But for more details --

Q    The fact sheet said investments -- sort of used terms like -- vague terms like “investment,” but it didn’t say --

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have anything more specific than if we’ve already put out a factsheet, because that’s what I was referring to.  But I’m sure that those who are working on a policy level on this can get you more information.

But the focus here really is on creative and innovative efforts to cut through red tape on behalf of these Promise Zones, who have put plans together to work with local communities, work with local businesses to help create jobs and assist the middle class.  And that’s sort of the idea behind the Promise Zones.  And these five areas -- three cities and two areas -- put together plans that would achieve that with the assistance and the bureaucratic red tape-cutting assistance that we can provide at this level.

Jon.

Q    Jay, I just want to come back to Speaker Boehner’s call for the President to be more engaged in Iraq.  He also basically suggested the President was outsourcing Middle East policy to the Vice President, saying, “Starting with the President delegating his responsibilities to the Vice President, the administration has chosen to spend much of its time and energy explaining why having terrorists holding key terrain in the Middle East is not the President’s problem.”  What do you say to this?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I haven’t seen it, but I take your word for it that that’s what he said.  That’s just an inaccurate representation.

I know that Speaker Boehner opposed candidate Obama’s promise to end the war in Iraq.  I know that.  Maybe he still does.  Maybe he thinks that American men and women in uniform ought to be fighting today in Anbar Province.  That’s a disagreement that may continue to exist.  I don’t know.  I don’t know Speaker Boehner’s specific views on this.

The President made a commitment to end the war in Iraq.  He fulfilled that commitment.  We, as a nation, continue to have an important relationship with Iraq and the Iraqi government, and commitment to assist the sovereign nation of Iraq in the ways that we are assisting the government now, both through materiel assistance and through the good offices that we bring to bear in urging the various political leaders in that country to work together to resolve what has always been, or what has always demanded a political solution here. 

The alternative to sectarian violence is nonviolent, peaceful, political negotiation and resolution, and there have been obviously periods in Iraq’s recent history where they have embraced that.  And what we are hopefully seeing now -- and it is still a very fluid situation -- is an effort to reinvigorate that process, where Sunni tribes and others are being encouraged by and assisted by the Iraqi government to deal with a common problem here, which is the presence of, and destructive presence of the al Qaeda affiliate that is doing so much -- wreaking so much havoc in Anbar.

So I’m not sure what the Speaker means by that, and maybe he ought to be more clear about what he envisions ought to happen.  And if he means that we should have troops there, he ought to say so.  The President would disagree with that.

Q    A year ago, the administration was talking about how good things were in Iraq, and the violence was down quite a bit.  Is there any sense that the ball was dropped here?  Or is this all kind of events completely out of control -- outside the control of the United States’ influence?  I mean, you have the flag of al Qaeda flying in two cities in Iraq.

MR. CARNEY:  Again, Jon, I think, as I said earlier this week, there was terrible sectarian violence in Iraq when there were tens of thousands of U.S. troops there, when there were men and women fighting and dying in Iraq -- American men and women in uniform.  And through the enormous courage and sacrifice of our armed forces, as well as the efforts of our diplomatic personnel, we have provided enormous opportunity to Iraq to move forward and find a peaceful resolution to sectarian conflicts and to unify behind democratic goals and shared prosperity.  And we continue to assist Iraq in that effort in the way that the United States can and does assist sovereign governments that are dealing with these kinds of conflicts.

When it comes to -- I was asked earlier this week about looking out at the world, and different extremist groups and the threats they represent, and some of them represent threats that are local or regional, and some of them potentially or in fact represent threats to the United States, to the American people and to our allies.  And we obviously make policy decisions and judgments and take actions based on the assessments of the kinds of threats that these groups represent.

And we are very mindful of the fact that this al Qaeda affiliate has created a lot of chaos and carnage in Anbar Province, and that’s why we are engaged in the effort we are to assist the Iraqi government to help them expel that presence.

Q    Can I just take a quick crack at New Jersey?  Governor Christie I think is without question the one Republican elected official the President probably has the best relationship with, or had.  I’m just wondering, any surprise in the White House that his political operation could have been involved in something like this?

MR. CARNEY:  I just don’t have a comment on that.  We’ve seen the news and obviously have read it, so I can’t claim that I don’t know what you’re talking about.  But I will simply point you to the fact that it’s a state matter in New Jersey, and to the extent that there’s any federal involvement I would refer you to the Department of Justice.

Major.

Q    If you could, what’s the promise behind the Promise Zone?  What will these cities have a year from now or two years if everything works just right?

MR. CARNEY:  With the action on and implementation of the plans that they presented, there should be -- and we hope there will be -- a partnership with local businesses and communities that creates more jobs, increases economic security, expands access to educational opportunities and to quality, affordable housing, and also improves public safety.  So that is the hope, that through this program, this partnering with the private sector and local communities, we can help bring economic progress to regions of the country -- cities and regions that have a plan for doing that.

Q    Do you have a means to measure that?

MR. CARNEY:  Major, I would urge you to come back to us with questions.  Maybe we can connect you with some of the policy people on this.  But the Promise Zones are something that the President talked about in the State of the Union and has talked about periodically through the year last year.  And now we have five regions -- three cities and two regions that have been selected for action, and the President believes deeply that this is the kind of creative, innovative approach to economic growth that can help us make progress.  And it can be coupled with other efforts that we take, whether it's extending unemployment insurance -- emergency unemployment insurance to Americans who need it while they're looking for work; or raising the minimum wage, which study after study demonstrates has a very positive impact, both for those who benefit directly from it by having a raise in income, and because of the economic bang for the buck you get out of it.

So we're moving on all fronts on a broader economic agenda that’s focused on economic mobility.  And the problem the President talked about that has been developing over the course of many decades here in this country, where the promise, or one of the promises of America -- which was that no matter your circumstances, if you worked hard you could get ahead and become anyone or do anything that you dreamed -- that that has been diminished; that the economic mobility that we prided ourselves on is now outranked by some of the countries in Western Europe that a lot of folks left 100, 200 years ago to pursue the dreams that America afforded them.

Q    On Iraq, how would you describe the President's sense of urgency?  Even with promised and agreed-upon weapons sales to the Iraqis, many of them haven't arrived; they're two or three or four months late, even those that have been approved.  There are new requests that are having trouble in Congress getting approved; Senator Menendez is still somewhat unresolved as to whether or not he's going to approve the most recent one.  And the implication of Speaker Boehner's criticism is that by having the Vice President so routinely involved, it conveys to the Iraqis and everyone else the President himself does not consider this an urgent priority.  How would you evaluate that?  And how would you describe where things currently are and what you're doing to try to get those things already approved to the Iraqis and remove the blockades that you're currently encountering on the most recent request for all those?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we're going to continue to work with Congress to provide the assistance that we believe is important in this effort with Iraq. 

On the first point, when the President asked the Vice President to oversee Iraq policy when they came into office in early 2009, that was widely viewed as a demonstration of the fact that the President took the need to move forward in Iraq and to wind down that war so seriously.  He brought it right into the West Wing, and that is where it resides today. 

So the President is very engaged in this effort.  And he spends, as we discussed yesterday, quite a bit of time with the Vice President talking about national security matters, including, a lot lately, Iraq.  So I think that that reflects the commitment he has and the Vice President has to working with Iraq on a very complex problem.

And as was the case and has been the case for a long time  -- and we believe Iraq’s leaders agree on this -- the only way to fight ISIL is through strong coordination between the government of Iraq and local Sunni officials and tribes against a common enemy.

That was true late in the previous administration, and it’s true today.  And it’s not just about military assistance -- although that's important -- and it’s not just about the much-improved capacities of the Iraqi forces, it’s also about a will -- a political willingness to unify against this common enemy.  And that means Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.  It means the various political blocks.  And that is the conversation that we are having at very high levels with Iraqi leaders.

Q    On the weapons part, is he satisfied that approved weapons still haven’t been delivered?  And has he done anything or said anything to try to speed that process up?

MR. CARNEY:  We are, again, working with Congress to accelerate our foreign military sales and looking to provide an additional shipment of Hellfire missiles --

Q    I’m talking about things that have already been approved and still haven’t gotten --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't have any -- the Department of Defense has -- if you have a specific question about a specific shipment, I have to ask you to bring your question to the Department of Defense. 

Q    I’m just asking if the President is satisfied.

MR. CARNEY:  The President -- I haven’t had a specific conversation about the timing of shipments.  I know the President wants assistance provided to the Iraqi government as quickly as possible.

Q    Jay, has the President had a chance to talk to Secretary Gates?  Or does he want to -- does he feel like they need to talk any of this out?  Or is it kind of turn the page?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, two things, Ed.  I think I spoke at length and repeatedly yesterday in answers to questions about that, about the fact that the President appreciates Secretary Gates’s service as Secretary of Defense and his lifetime of service to our country.  The President did speak with Secretary Gates I think over the weekend, if I'm not mistaken, when he learned about the injury to his neck that Secretary Gates suffered. 

Q    Not about the book, per se.

MR. CARNEY:  Yes.

Q    Did it come up in that conversation?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't think the book had come out.

Q    And he hadn't heard about it yet, the details on this?

MR. CARNEY:  I just don't know, Ed.  I mean, certainly not the details.  We had not -- nobody -- as I said yesterday, we got the -- I got the book the night before.  But we had seen some reports, the early reports about it. 

But again, his view is the one I repeated several times yesterday and just repeated again.  But I don’t know that they have -- I don’t believe they have talked in the last few days since they talked last, and I'm not sure when they'll talk again.

Q    Two other quick ones.  On the Promise Zones, fair to say the President has put a serious plan on the table on this.  Do you believe that the Republicans who are talking about this are serious as well?  Rand Paul, Marco Rubio put a plan on the table yesterday.

MR. CARNEY:  A Promise Zones plan?  Or you mean --

Q    Oh, I'm sorry -- economic zone.  They have their own versions of this.  Paul Ryan is talking about how Republicans need to help people who are in poverty -- they got to do a better job on that.  My question is more -- Rand Paul is here today, Mitch McConnell is here for the President's event.  We've talked about this before.  He reaches out, they say they want to work, then things fall apart.  Is there any hope on this issue that when there are so many people in America --

MR. CARNEY:  There's always hope, Ed.  And I think you saw the President in Anacostia late last year made clear on this specific issue that he wants to hear from any member of Congress, from anybody of any affiliation who has a good idea about how to deal with this challenge that he described as the challenge of our time that we need to address, because it goes to the heart of who we are as a country economically and how we see ourselves and define ourselves.  And he is eager to listen to and talk to and negotiate with anyone who has a good idea. 

So I know that the men you mentioned gave speeches the other day about their ideas, so I haven’t evaluated them.  I don't know that anybody here has yet.  But I think that I would point you to what the President said before, and the answer is, yes.  And the fact that the senators you mentioned are here, presumably because one of the Promise Zones is Southeastern Kentucky, I think that's a good thing. 

And we should always -- as I said, I don't know, some time this week, that when it comes to working with Congress or using the other powers the President has, he is not doing one or the other, he'll do both.  And where there are opportunities to move forward with Congress in a bipartisan way, he will embrace them because he knows that's the right thing to do for the country.

Kristen.

Q    Jay, thanks.  I want to go back to unemployment insurance.  Senator Ayotte has floated an amendment that would essentially pay for an extension of unemployment insurance benefits by closing a tax loophole of people who fraudulently claim to have kids who don't actually have children.  Is that something that the President would support?

MR. CARNEY:  I just don't know that much about it.  But I'm certainly not going to negotiate proposals that are floating on Capitol Hill.  What I know is that there is a bill that got 60 votes on a cloture vote that would extend these benefits right away to 1.3 million Americans and their families, and that that vote included six Republicans who supported it. 

Q    That doesn’t have enough votes to pass this bill.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, that’s what they said about the cloture vote.  That’s what you guys reported about the -- and when I say "you guys," I want to make clear I'm talking collectively -- because that was what people thought, and that was the conventional wisdom.  And maybe you're right, maybe you're not, but we're not going to concede that that’s -- I don’t think the 1.3 million Americans out there and their families want to hear anybody give up on that effort.  We're not going to, because it has to happen, and we hope that Congress will make it happen. 

As I said to Brianna, we're absolutely willing to have conversations about how to move forward on the longer-term extension.  We are concerned with getting that short-term extension done because the clock keeps ticking for those families who were depending on assistance and no longer are receiving it.

Q    And on that point, does the President regret not having fought harder for this before everyone left for vacation?

MR. CARNEY:  I can’t remember if you were here the day that Gene Sperling came and listed the number of times the President explicitly, publicly, passionately called on Congress to act on this.  So we did it then, we're doing it now.  They ought to --

Q    This is still a long -- I mean, the White House Democrats still voted on something that didn’t contain unemployment insurance benefits.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, they vote a lot on a lot of things that don’t include unemployment insurance benefits.  That doesn’t excuse them from the absolute necessity of extending unemployment insurance benefits now.

The budget deal was a good deal and it was an important deal.  It was a modest deal, but it was a significant -- far more than the size of the deal was the symbolism after what we'd been through of Congress actually coming together in a bipartisan way to pass a budget.  And that made it important.  But that doesn’t excuse Congress from the need to act, as it has in the past, under Republican Presidents and Republican Congresses, as well as Democratic Presidents and Congresses, to extend unemployment insurance. 

Q    Is the President concerned that there's a loss of momentum in terms of getting this passed? 

MR. CARNEY:  The President is concerned each day that this isn't passed for the families who rely on this assistance.

Q    One, Jay, quickly, on Afghanistan.  Has anyone from the White House reached out to Karzai, or will anyone, in the wake of the Gates book?  Do you feel like -- I know you got some questions on this yesterday, but is that something that you think is --

MR. CARNEY:  Not that I'm aware of, Kristen.  We are in contact with President Karzai -- we, as a government and an administration, our embassy in Kabul, others, the State Department and elsewhere -- with the Afghan government on a regular basis on a variety of issues, because we work collaboratively on so much in Afghanistan, and specifically on the need for the bilateral security agreement to be signed promptly so that we can begin to plan for 2014.  There is not a lot of time left before that planning has to begin. 

And the bilateral security agreement was negotiated in good faith.  It was endorsed by the loya jirga, and we certainly agree with that endorsement.  It ought to be signed.

Peter.

Q    Thank you very much.  Presumably, there's going to be more memoirs written.  Does the President have a view on whether his appointees should disclose private conversations he's had with them in the Situation Room or in the Oval Office?

MR. CARNEY:  I would simply say what I said yesterday, which was a broad statement not a presidential statement, that that anybody who has the privilege and honor of serving at a high level in a White House or an administration, and participates in debates and conversations with a President and other principals, leaves office and decides for himself and herself how to speak about it and write about it and when.  And that’s each individual's decision. 

So you're right, I know some people write memoirs, some don’t.  We’re too busy focused on what we’re doing today and what we can do this year for the American people to spend a lot of time worrying about that.

Q    There’s no standing directive, though, to high-level appointees that they should refrain from making public the conversations they're having with the President in the Situation Room or the Oval Office?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, when you say the Situation Room -- if you’re saying, is there a standing directive not to leak classified information, yes, I think there’s a federal statute -- at least one.  So when you talk about conversation, I think it’s understood that -- at least I’m confident it’s understood that when you work here or elsewhere in the administration that you -- it’s an honor and a privilege, and that those you are assisting and advising can best rely on your assistance and advice when it’s discreet.

Mark.

Q    On that point, do you know whether President Obama feels that some presidential confidences were betrayed by Robert Gates, things that he said and never expected would show up in print?

MR. CARNEY:  Mark, he is focused on other things -- I promise you.  I have talked to him about this in the course of conversations about a lot of other issues, and we didn't spend a lot of time on it, because he is much focused on other matters, including getting those Promise Zones done, and getting minimum wage raised, and getting that unemployment insurance extended, and the situation in Iraq, and the negotiations with the P5-plus-1, and, and, and -- this is way down on his list.  It’s not even on his list.

Q    But if you had told me something off the record and I reported it, you’d be mad at me, right?

MR. CARNEY:  We’ll see.  (Laughter.)

Q    But is the President mad or disappointed in Robert Gates?

MR. CARNEY:  He did not demonstrate those emotions in my presence.

Q    One last thing.  Is it coincidence that eight counties in Kentucky, the state of the Senate Minority Leader, were chosen to be a Promise Zone?

MR. CARNEY:  Are you suggesting that we’re trying to assist the --

Q    I’m not suggesting, merely asking.

MR. CARNEY:  I think that the Promise Zones were carefully selected, and I would ask you to check in to find out by whom in the process.  But I think this was -- I know this was based on the merits and the programs that were put forward.  And I think that if you look at the diversity of the list, that reflects what the -- at least at one level what the criteria were.

Q    Does the President have any position on the current status of India in its relationship?

MR. CARNEY:  Does he have any --

Q    Any thoughts on what’s happening on the India-U.S. relationship front?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any new information to provide since we talked about that last.  It’s an extremely important relationship, and I just haven’t had that conversation with him yet.  I know he’s updated on developments on the issues surrounding the relationship, but I haven’t spoken to him about it.

Q    Yesterday, Secretary Kerry met him at the White House.  Among other foreign policy issues, was India a topic of discussion when --

MR. CARNEY:  When who met with him?  Sorry.

Q    Secretary Kerry met the President.

MR. CARNEY:  I just don’t know.  I don’t know if we gave a readout of that.  It’s a regular meeting the President has, so I just don’t know the answer to that.

Q    A quick clarification?

MR. CARNEY:  Yes.

Q    Is the President aware of this withdrawal of diplomatic -- of the privileges to the diplomats and to our diplomatic missions in India?  Every day, we have something or other being withdrawn.  So is the White House going to get into it so that this is resolved? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the State Department is engaged, and I know that they have addressed this in briefings by my colleague, Jen Psaki, and others -- Marie Harf and others.  So I would point you to what they’ve said about it.  The President is obviously a consumer of the news as well as a recipient of many briefings, so I can say with great confidence that he is following these developments.  But I don’t have a position or view to express from the presidential level on those developments.

Q    Jay, two economic things.  Number one, the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committee have reached a deal on fast-track trade authority, something which the President has called for at least in principle.  This actual legislation that they’ve negotiated, is this something, A, that you guys support?  How confident are you that you can get this fast-track authority passed through Congress?  And what is the President going to do to persuade particularly members of his own party to back this? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can tell you that trade promotion authority is a priority, not in theory but in fact, for the administration because it is a key part of our overall economic strategy and our foreign policy, particularly in Asia, and because it’s time for Congress to update and to assert its own role in trade negotiations.  We are pursuing transatlantic and transpacific trade deals, as you know, with countries that together represent half of the world’s gross domestic product, separating out the United States.  And we will be working with Congress to secure legislation that will assure their role in bringing those trade agreements home. 

So when there is progress on that front, we view it as a good thing.  I don’t have details on -- with any specificity on the movement in Congress today, but we do believe that this is a priority.  The President has made clear it’s a priority.  He has pushed -- and this is for these folks here who cover this stuff -- TPP and T-TIP, and as well as the TPA.  So, any “T” you can think of in fact.  (Laughter.) 

No, seriously, Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, these are important proposals that we want to see acted on, and trade promotion authority is an important part of that.

Q    The other thing, on this White House meeting tomorrow on the NSA stuff, which I guess will be with staff, as I understand it, and not with the President himself -- but maybe I’m wrong on that -- will tech companies be represented at that meeting?  And if so, which tech companies?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have greater information on that.  I’m sure we’ll be able to provide more to you tomorrow.  What I have is that as part of our outgoing -- ongoing, rather, outreach and following up on the President’s recent meeting with tech executives, White House staff will be meeting with representatives from tech companies on Friday.  This is another opportunity to share views, as the administration nears completion of our internal review of signals intelligence.  And contradicting me directly, it says here we would not expect a readout of that meeting, but I’ll see if we can get participants depending --

Q    Did you say tech companies will be at that meeting?

MR. CARNEY:  Yes.  Representatives from tech companies.

Q    But you don't --

MR. CARNEY:  But I don't have specific --

Ann.

Q    Thank you.  On that, is the President really looking at executive actions he can take in terms --

MR. CARNEY:  On which?

Q    On the intelligence reforms.  You have said that --

MR. CARNEY:  I think if you look at the review group’s recommendations, and obviously he’s looking at actions that --

Q    But he’s gone beyond that.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I don't want to characterize -- he’s obviously -- the review is greater than that group’s efforts.  I think the recommendations put forward were widely viewed as pretty extensive, and the work that that group did as quite credible by not just here, but by the outside community that is following this and cares about it.

So I would point you to those recommendations for a delineation between which, if acted upon, would require legislation, which could be acted upon through executive authority.  I’m sure there’s a balance.  So the answer is, yes, both.

Q    Okay.  And where is he on State of the Union?  Has he begun to do a process?  Has he mapped out a basic --

MR. CARNEY:  I saw some notes on a napkin when I was in the Oval.  Maybe that was -- no, he’s -- we’re where you would expect this far out, working on it.  Working on it.

Yes, Leslie.

Q    Jay, there’s been some reports that the President believes that as part of the NSA review that there should be curbs on spying on foreign leaders.  Can you talk about that at all?  And can you talk about whether or not there have been any conversations as part of the review with foreign leaders to get their perspective on it?

MR. CARNEY:  I think I can point you statements we’ve made in the past about the fact that that issue, in terms of signal intelligence and surveillance, is one of the ones that was identified as an area that merited review and is being reviewed.  I'm not going to preview conclusions that the President will make or actions that he will decide to take.  But it is certainly the case that that is one of the issue areas that has been part of the various reviews that are being undertaken.

Q    I was just wondering, since he’s had members of Congress in and intelligence officials, whether or not there was any sort of similar reach-out with foreign leaders or State Department folks to kind of get -- Brazil has had a number of questions about what they think should be done.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we've read out various conversations the President has had with foreign leaders and when those conversations have touched on this subject.  I don’t have any new ones to review for you. 

I think, as a broad matter, as we've said, when these issues have arisen between the United States and a specific nation, we have been directly engaged with the nations involved through normal diplomatic channels and at various levels, including very high levels.  So I think that continues.  I just don’t have more than what we've already provided in terms of presidential conversations.

Q    The President before he left for his break indicated at the press conference that he was interested in a recommendation that private communication companies might be the ones to be the repositories of the metadata as an alternative to the NSA stockpiling that information.  Is it the President's ambition that that question be resolved before he gives his remarks to the American people?

MR. CARNEY:  She’s good, right?  She framed it in a way that actually had a chance of getting an answer. 

The President -- I would point you to what he said in terms of viewing that as a serious recommendation.  And it's certainly one that he's looking at and his team is looking at, but I don’t have any more guidance to give to you before he makes those conclusions and gives his remarks.

Q    Did it work? 

Q    So, yes, I was going to say -- it was a good try, but it didn’t work in the end.  (Laughter.) 

MR. CARNEY:  She's a pro and a veteran.  It works sometimes. 

Yes.  I know you guys have got to go.  We'll make this the last one.

Q    Is President Obama going to have any more meetings like the one today? 

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any scheduling updates to provide to you.  We're obviously fairly close to the end of this process, but I wouldn’t rule it out.  I just don’t have any meetings to preview beyond what we have.

Goyal, you get the last one.  You're very patient.

Q    Thank you.  First of all, Happy New Year. 

MR. CARNEY:  Thank you.

Q    Two quick questions.  One, going back to India-U.S. relations.  My question is a simple one:  How does the President feel as we enter in the New Year as far as the future of India-U.S. relations?  Not going back what had happened or what’s happening, because these are maybe small issues, but beyond this issue, really, where do we stand today?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Goyal, I would say what I said earlier, which is that this is an extremely important relationship that has many aspects to it and cultural ties, political ties, economic ties.  And the President believes strongly that we need to continue to build on that relationship.  And you know he worked very hard on U.S.-Indian relations in his first term and will continue to do so in his second term.  But I don’t have anything more specific for you with regards to some of the issues that have come up in the last month.

Q    And second, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, as the troops are going to be out of Afghanistan, but some nations in the region are worried, including India is really engaged in many ways, as far Afghanistan is concerned -- and security.  And Pakistan is also important in this relationship.  So what role do you think India should or will play in the future in Afghanistan, as far as security is concerned?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't think it's for me to project.  I think that there are a number of very important players in the region.  Most importantly, and what we've been focused on obviously has been assisting the buildup of and professionalism of Afghan security forces and assisting the Afghan government in helping give it the space so that it can be stronger as this transition occurs. 

Now, you mentioned the withdrawal of troops.  And it is true that the combat mission ends and U.S. troops are withdrawing.  We believe, and have a plan for, a small presence of U.S. troops beyond 2014.  But that is dependent upon the Afghan government signing the bilateral security agreement that was negotiated between the two nations.  So going back to what I said before, that needs to be acted on so that we can move forward with our planning.  Absent it, we cannot plan for a troop presence beyond 2014.

Thank you. 

END
2:20 P.M. EST

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

• Deborah L. Birx – Ambassador at Large and Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally, Department of State
• Suzette Kimball – Director of the United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior 

President Obama also announced his intent to appoint the following individual to a key Administration post:

• Jerilyn Mendoza – Member, Joint Public Advisory Committee of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

President Obama said, “I am confident that these outstanding women will greatly serve the American people in their new roles and I look forward to working with them in the months and years to come.”

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

Dr. Deborah L. Birx, Nominee for Ambassador at Large and Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally, Department of State

Dr. Deborah L. Birx is the Director of the Division of Global HIV/AIDS in the Center for Global Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a position she has held since 2009.  From 2005 to 2009, Dr. Birx served as the Director of the CDC’s Global AIDS Programs for the National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention.  Dr. Birx served on active duty in the U.S. Army for 29 years, retiring in 2008 with the rank of Colonel.  As an Army officer, she served as Director of the U.S. Military HIV Research Program and as Director of the Division of Retrovirology at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research from 1996 to 2005.  She served as the Laboratory Director of HIV-1 Vaccine Development from 1995 to 1996, Chief of the Department of Retroviral Research from 1994 to 1995, and Assistant Chief for the Department of Retroviral Research from 1989 to 1994.  Concurrently, Dr. Birx has served as adjunct professor at the University of North Carolina since 2012, a consultant to Walter Reed Army Medical Center since 1989, and an assistant professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences since 1985.  Dr. Birx received a B.S. from Houghton College and an M.D. from Penn State University. 

Dr. Suzette Kimball, Nominee for Director of the United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior

Dr. Suzette Kimball has been the Deputy Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at the Department of the Interior since 2010, and has fulfilled the duties of the Director of USGS since February 2013.  Previously, she served as the Associate Director for Geology from 2008 to 2010, Director of the Eastern Region from 2004 to 2008, and Eastern Regional Executive for Biology from 1998 to 2004.  Dr. Kimball served as the South East Associate Regional Director and Regional Chief Scientist for the U.S. National Park Service from 1993 to 1998.  Previously, she was Research Coordinator in the Global Climate Change Program at the National Park Service and an Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.  She has served as Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Center for Coastal Management and Policy and as Associate Marine Scientist at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the College of William and Mary.  From 1983 to 1986, Dr. Kimball served as a Coastal Engineering Research Center Unit Chief and a Program Manager for Barrier Islands Sedimentation Studies in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  Earlier in her career, she served as a research coordinator and a research assistant at the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.  Dr. Kimball received a B.A. from the College of William and Mary, an M.S. from Ball State University, and a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia.

President Obama announced his intent to appoint the following individual to a key Administration post:

Jerilyn Mendoza, Appointee for Member, Joint Public Advisory Committee of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Jerilyn Mendoza is the Senior Environmental Affairs Program Manager at the Southern California Gas Company, a position she has held since December 2013.  Prior to this, Ms. Mendoza served as a Commissioner of the Los Angeles Board of Public Works from 2011 to 2013.  From 2010 to 2011, Ms. Mendoza was the California Manager for ICLEI -Local Governments for Sustainability.  Previously, she served as the Vice President of the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners from 2005 to 2010.  Ms. Mendoza served as a Policy Director and Staff Attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund of Los Angeles from 2000 to 2009.  She was a Litigation Associate at Foley & Lardner from 1998 to 2000 and was previously a Litigation Associate at McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen from 1996 to 1998.  Ms. Mendoza received a B.A. from Stanford University and a J.D. from the UCLA School of Law.