Mr. Carney:Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for being here. Before I take your questions,I have a statement at the top. For years, health carecosts in America skyrocketed with brutal consequencesfor our country. Escalating costshurt our economy, eating into workers’ wagesand holding back hiring. They contributedto our deficits and crowded out crucialinvestments like education and maintaininga world-class infrastructure. And they’ve taken money directlyout of consumers’ pockets with Americans paying far higherhealth care prices than others around the world forno better outcomes. The Affordable Care Act,for the first time in decades, has helped to stop that trend. New data released yesterdayshows that in 2012 health care spending as a share ofthe economy declined, something that has happenedonly a handful of times over the past several decades. And the years 2009-2012saw the slowest growth in U.S.Health care expendituressince the government started collecting thisinformation in the 1960s. These trends have already begunto pay dividends in the form of savings for American consumers,lower costs for businesses, and our rapidlydeclining deficits. We have already seen powerfulexamples of these trends at work with hospitals and otherproviders making changes to their practices to bring downcosts following the enactment of the health care law,prioritizing results over the amount of treatmenta patient receives.As we bring millions more intothe health insurance system, we will be working to makesure these encouraging trends continue to bring down healthcare costs for our economy, for our businessesand for consumers. After you absorb that,you can fire away. Jim. The Press:Thanks, Jay. Today’s vote in the Senateadvancing the jobless bill, the President calledit an “important step.” But some of the Republicanswho voted for it still insist that there should besome concessions, whether they’re reformsto the U.S.System or ways to pay forthe $6 billion-plus cost. Yesterday, Gene Sperling,from the podium, said that that was unnecessary,but given the numbers of the vote and the necessaryconcessions that might be required, does the President nowthink that there must be some kind of pay-for, some way toaccommodate those Republicans to win a vote? Mr. Carney:The President believes thatthis is an emergency situation for 1.3 million Americansand their families. Their benefits werecut off last week. As Gene said yesterday, theyexpected a check this week and haven’t gotten it,and won’t unless Congress acts.Congress should follow theadmirable lead of the Senate — the House should –and pass a bipartisan bill that extends emergencyinsurance to the unemployed for three months. And as we said yesterday,Gene and I, once that happens — to deal with that situationfor those Americans and their families –we and Congress can continue to talk abouthow to move forward beyond that three-month period. Think about the fact that,I think Gene said yesterday, 14 out of the last 17 timeswe have extended emergency unemployment insurance benefits,they have been unpaid for because this extension wasviewed as an emergency. That happened under DemocraticCongresses and White Houses and under Republican Congressesand White Houses. It happened five times underthe previous administration each time when the unemployment ratewas lower than it is today, and each time whenthe long-term unemployment rate was significantly lowerthan it is today. And when it happenedtowards the end of the previous administration,with bipartisan support, our deficits wereclimbing rapidly.Under President Obama, ourdeficits have been cut in half; they are coming downat a rate faster than we’ve seensince World War II. I would also point you to thefact that yesterday there was a great deal of skepticismin this room, understandably, that today’s vote would succeed. Last month you couldn’tfind a Republican lawmaker, until SenatorHeller came forward, who would go on the recordsupporting extension of unemployment insurance benefits. The Press:But it only succeededbecause some of those Republican senators believed that they couldstill get these — Mr. Carney:And they passed a bill thatextends unemployment insurance. They voted on cloture,and six supported it, that extends –that would extend, if passed, emergency unemployment insurancebenefits for three months without a so-called pay-for.That’s what they voted to do. There’s been bipartisanaction in the Senate. We hope to see furtherbipartisan action in the Senate, and we hope the Housewill follow suit. And I understand thatas there often is, given Congress’s track record,that there’s skepticism and doubt about the capacity forRepublicans to join Democrats, or Democrats to join Republicansto do the right thing by the American peopleand by the American economy. But they can and they have. They just did when theypassed not a grand bargain, but a significant budget deal. And they’ve done it againtoday in the Senate. And we — as the Presidentnoted earlier today, it’s not a huge amountor a huge accomplishment, but it’s reason to hope. And I think the American peopleare looking to Washington in this New Year to shed its habitof inaction and obstruction, and instead to embracecommon-sense solutions that help the economy, help the middleclass, continue this recovery.And that’s what this would do. The Press:So would you at thispoint be willing to issue a veto threat toanything that contains — Mr. Carney:Here’s what I won’t do, is speculate aboutthings that don’t exist, because yesterdaythe informed conventional wisdom said that this would nothappen today, and it happened. Yesterday, I think there weretwo Republicans on the record who said they would support –they would vote “yes” today. I think we ended up with six. Again, six weeks ago,five weeks ago there wasn’t — when the President wassaying several times a week that we needed to dothis and insisted on this, I think most ofyou were noting to us that there wasn’tany Republican support. So we don’t share the convictionthat this can’t happen. We share the profound beliefthat it ought to and it will.So we’re going topress forward with this. We commend the Senateon the action it took today. And we need to get thesebenefits in the hands of the American people because,as the President said, this isn’t just abouthelping these Americans, these 1.3 Americansand their families. This is, as independenteconomists have said again and again and again,a boon for the economy. This is a direct infusion. I mean, when you talkabout bang for your buck, this is a direct infusioninto the economy, and helps — economicgrowth helps job creation, not just helps these individualsas they look for work, but has a broader macro effect. And the failure to extend themhas the commensurate negative impact on the economyand job creation. And that’s, if you candispassionately look at it only from a macro level as opposed toimagining what life is like in those households where a parenthas been looking for work and has been relying to put foodon the table on this assistance.There’s a long tradition,bipartisan tradition throughout many, many years and many administrationsand Congresses of extending these benefitswhen economic conditions demand that we do it. And we should do it again. The Press:Quick question on immigration. Some Democrats even in the Houseare suggesting that one way to get this overhaul throughthe House would be to focus on giving immigrants who arehere illegally legal status, and not go to the next stepwhich is providing a path to citizenship, anddeal with that perhaps later. Is that a step thatthe President would support? Would that be considered? Mr. Carney:The President’sviews have been clear, and they have not changed.This is acomprehensive problem that needs acomprehensive solution. The only way to advancethis is to advance it all, and that includesenhanced border security; it includes measures to holdbusinesses accountable so that everybody playsby the same set of rules; it includes measures to dealwith and provide a path to citizenship to the 11 millionundocumented people here; and it includes the measureswe need to take to enhance our legal immigration system sothat those who come here to get educated stay hereto create businesses. So how the House gets thereis obviously up to the House and House leadership. But in the end,we need comprehensive immigration reform.The President putforward principles; he did not expect to geteverything that he wanted in terms of the line-by-linebill as he would write it, but what the Senate passedin a bipartisan way adheres to those principles. And that reflects this broadbipartisan consensus across the country. This is a remarkable thing. You know — you’ve coveredWashington for some time. You don’t get issues assignificant as this very often where this is this kind ofcoalition of Republicans and Democrats, of businessand labor, evangelicals.This is an opportunitythat should be seized, and if it is seized,will do great benefit — bring great benefit toour economy and our businesses, which is, again,the focus of the President and of so many members ofboth parties here in Washington. Jeff. The Press:Jay, on a completelydifferent subject. Mr. Carney: Okay. The Press:What does the President think about Dennis Rodman’strip to North Korea? Mr. Carney:I have not discussedthat with him, but I can tell youa couple of things. Mr. Rodman is on a private trip. And our views about North Korea and its failure to meet itsobligations have not changed. And our views aboutKenneth Bae have not changed. So I heard about — I did not see — some of the commentsthat Mr.Rodman made, but I’m not going to dignifythat outburst with a response. I’m simply going to say thatwe remain gravely concerned about Kenneth Bae’s healthand continue to urge DPRK authorities to grant hisamnesty and immediate release on humanitarian grounds. The Press:Was there any effortby the White House or the State Departmentto discourage Rodman from doing this trip? Mr. Carney:This is travel that’sprivate by nature, and we do not vet privatetravel to North Korea.We have not been contacted byMr. Rodman about this trip or his prior trip,and we do not — the U.S. governmentdoes not vet U.S. citizens’ privatetravel to North Korea. The Press:Is there any good that cancome from something like this? Mr. Carney:Well, look, sportsexchanges can be valuable. Sports diplomacycan be valuable. And it’s something thatwe pursue in many places around the world, includingthrough direct support. But this is a private trip. And our focus,when it comes to North Korea, is on sharpening the choicethat that regime faces between further isolation,further economic deprivation because of its insistenceupon using its resources to fund its military programand fund its nuclear ambitions, or a decision to comein line with its international obligations and taking advantageof the opportunity to rejoin the community of nations, to ease that and potentiallyend that isolation.That’s the very clearchoice that the DPRK faces. The Press:And just one othertopic as well. Senator Murkowski today gavea speech calling for changing U.S. laws about theexportation of crude oil, which is a big issue for lots ofpeople in the energy industry, as the U.S. energysituation changes. What is the White House’sthinking about that? Mr. Carney:I didn’t get a chanceto review those. I saw that there wasa story about that, but I don’t haveanything for you on that. You might try theDepartment of Energy. Let me move up and back. Chris. The Press:Thanks, Jay. Yesterday,the Supreme Court issued a stay on same-sex marriages in Utah.As the litigation that broughtthem there proceeds through the courts, did the Presidentexpress any disappointment with that decision? Mr. Carney:We have no comment onthe specifics of this case, because theUnited States government is not a partyto this litigation. But speaking broadly,as you know, the President’s viewson marriage equality are well established. He believes that loving,committed gay and lesbian couples that want to getmarried and have access tothe full benefits, protections and obligations thatmarriage brings should be able to do so.He has also long opposeddivisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights andbenefits to same-sex couples. And he believes strongly thatprotections should not be taken away from committed gay andlesbian couples who want to take care of their families. So, again, I can’t –we’re not party to this case. For the sort of questionsof legal nature about it, you might try theDepartment of Justice. But on the broader issues here, the President hasbeen very clear. The Press:The thing I wantto ask you, though, is that there is a questionabout whether the federal government will recognizethe marriages that were already performed in thatstate as legally valid.Are there anyconversations taking place between the White Houseand DOJ about that? Mr. Carney:I would refer you tothe Department of Justice. I’m not — again, this is amatter that’s in litigation now. We’re not a partyto the litigation. The views of thePresident are well known. And when it comesto questions like that, I think the Justice Departmentis the best place to ask them. Jon. The Press:The Speaker of the Housesays that a month ago he told the President that anyextension of unemployment benefits would have to be paidfor and have to include measures to help people get back to work.That was a month ago. That was before thisemergency situation where they have expired. Did the President in any wayact on that or initiate any discussions about coming up witha plan that would be acceptable to House Republicans? Mr. Carney:I thank you forthe question, Jon. As a rule, we don’t readout conversations between congressional leaders, theSpeaker and the Chief of Staff, which is the case here. So I’m not going to get intogreater detail about that. I can tell you that our viewis clear, as I just expressed, which is that there is abipartisan bill that has cleared a significant hurdle in theSenate that extends these benefits, theseemergency benefits, for three months to make thesefamilies, these Americans, these 1.3 million Americans andtheir families whole as they look for work.And we are absolutelyof the mind that the House ought to follow suit. They ought to take care of this. And we can then continue to haveconversations about how we move forward beyond the three months,which is what we’ve been saying for quite some time and whatwe said yesterday, again, when I think the consensus viewwas that this vote would fail this morning. So we believe there’s somemomentum here and that there ought to be a willingness,a bipartisan willingness by members of both parties in bothhouses to do what they’ve done before when the unemploymentrate was lower and when the long-term unemployment ratewas significantly lower.It can’t have beenthe right thing then and the wrong thing now. And if the argument is solelya matter of fiscal probity, why was, when deficits wereclimbing in 2008 exponentially, it was the right thing then, butin a period of steep decline in our deficits it’sthe wrong thing now. So the premise is flawed. But the fact is the Senatetook an important step with bipartisan support today and webelieve that the House ought to follow suit. The Press:But, Jay, as you know, it passed today with the votesof Republicans who said that they would only support finalpassage if it is paid for.So the question is — it’sreally a direct one here — is are you — is the White Houseopposed to paying for the extension ofthese unemployment benefits with cuts to other programs? Mr. Carney:The White House believesthat we ought to do this the way we’ve done it 14out of the last 17 times. ThePress: So the answer is, yes,then you’re opposed to doing it in a way that ispaid for with cuts — Mr. Carney:Yes. We believe thatCongress ought to act on this short-term extensionof these emergency benefits right away so that thosebenefits begin flowing again to these familieswho, by the way, in addition to theother hardships they face in many parts of thecountry, are contemplating how they paytheir heating bills.Louisville, Kentucky, beforeI walked out here today, was seven degrees Fahrenheit –seven degrees. That’s what it washere this morning. If you didn’t geta check this week, or you know you’re notgetting one this week, and you know you’ve gota heating bill coming, you might be wondering howyou’re going to pay it. The Press:So there’s no negotiating withthe Republicans on this point? Mr. Carney:Let me just — allI would tell you is that yesterday the same questionswere asked on the premise that this would fail in the Senate. It has not failed; in fact,it picked up Republican support. So we are absolutely unwillingto concede that there is not support for doing whatCongress has done in the past. Yes. The Press:You talk about whatthe House should do, so is there some reason todoubt that it will do it? Mr. Carney:It wouldn’t be interestingif that weren’t the case, Bill.The Press:Why not admit that if youreally want this to happen, you’re willing to talkto them about alternative plans? Mr. Carney:Bill, I can only repeatwhat I’ve said in the past — in the very recent past — which is that Congress has donethis before many, many times. The previous President, aRepublican, signed it into law, unpaid for many times, billsthat had bipartisan support, bills that were passed byCongress when the unemployment rate was lower and when thelong-term unemployment rate was significantly lower.So again, the questionyou ought to be asking is why was it theright thing to do — The Press:Will you let it fail? Mr. Carney:But, Bill, thatpremise is the same you would have askedyesterday on the supposition that it was going to fail today,and instead, it picked up votes. And what we have seensteadily since December, and what we saw thisweekend on the Sunday shows, and what we saw yesterday andwhat we saw today is that more and more Republicansare supporting, publicly, the idea that we need to do thisin the way that we’ve done it before, which is to set asideideology and recognize that this is the right thing to do forthese families and the right thing to do for our economy. It’s not that complicated. So hopefully that’swhat will happen. The Press:If it doesn’t? Mr. Carney:Well, that’s the samequestion you could have asked yesterday — “Jay, it’snot going to pass tomorrow so what do you do then?” So you’re suggesting somethingwith certitude that you can’t possibly know.And, in fact, I think recenthistory suggests — The Press:And so are you. Mr. Carney: I would say thatwe have the momentum when it comes to the building consensusthat this is something that ought to be done. The Press: One more thing. On the health care costs,declining health care costs, aren’t you giving the ACAmore credit than it’s due? Health care costs have beendeclining between 2009 and 2012, at a time when all consumerspending has declined. So by piggybackingthe ACA onto it, aren’t you giving it morecredit than it deserves? Mr.Carney: What I can tellyou is that you can disagree about the scale of impact of theACA on the continued slowdown in health care costs, but accordingto a range of experts from the Congressional Budget Officeto leading health economists, the slowdown does gobeyond the recession. I would remind you that weare now obviously in 2014, and the recession, asa technical matter, is something thatended sometime ago. The economy has beengrowing and creating jobs. I would also remind youthat a number of skeptics, including the aforementionedSpeaker of the House, said in August of 2010, “Healthcare costs will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare.” I think he missedon that prediction. Paul Ryan: “Unless repealed,this law will exacerbate the spiraling cost of health care.” That was in January of 2011.The opposite happened. The opposite happened. And it reminds me — Bill, it’sgood to do this because you covered it, too — remember1993, the Clinton budget? Remember? And some of these members arestill in the House and the Senate — profoundly confidentpredictions that if this budget were to pass, we would — thecountry would go into recession, job growth would be decimated,terrible things would happen, and instead, we saw the longestsustained period of economic growth and job creationin half a century. So I think we’rea little bit better about the prediction business. Ed. The Press: Jay, there havebeen some reports in talking about the economy that thePresident may have some new proposals this week,specifically the Promise Zones that have beentalked about before. Whether you call it– or confirm it now, the idea that he has some taxincentives and some other things to help areas of the countrythat have been historically dealing with poverty, will hehave something to say this week on that, and on the anniversaryof the War on Poverty? Mr.Carney:I don’t have any schedulingannouncements to make. I think the program that youcited has been discussed in the past. It’s something that we think isa significant help economically, and it’s something thisPresident supports. But I don’t have any schedulingannouncements with regards to the President or previewsof policy proposals he may make or remake. The Press:When the President todayin talking about the unemployment benefitissue acknowledged, as Gene Sperling didyesterday at the podium, that long-termunemployment is still a big problem in this country, since he’s now beenin office for five years, will he acknowledge that someof that is his responsibility? It’s not just policies fromthe Bush administration, but he’s now had five years.Does he bear some responsibilityfor long-term unemployment? Mr. Carney:The President believes that everyone whois sent to Washington by their representatives bearsresponsibility for taking action to help the economy andhelp the American people. And that’s why economicgrowth, job creation, middle-class security have beenthe cornerstones of his domestic policy since the dayhe was sworn into office. The problem that we’ve seen withboth the reduction in mobility, economic mobility has been onethat’s been obviously developing for a number ofyears and decades.When it comes to — and hetalked about that in his speech here in Washington at theCenter for American Progress, so the event sponsored by CAP. And when it comes tolong-term unemployment, this is obviously a situationthat has been developing for some time, and it was gravelyexacerbated by the worst recession since theGreat Depression. And the fact that it is acontinuing problem and a problem that calls out for creativesolutions only reinforces what the President has said aboutthe need to take action, and the need to do thingslegislatively and through other means that help Americans outthere who have been looking for work for too long. And you’ve heard the Presidenttalk about it a lot because it’s very much on his mind. The Press: When you talkabout the millions of jobs that have been created and some ofthe recovery that we’ve seen under the President youcertainly take credit for that, that his policies haveworked in some ways.Will you also takeresponsibility that when you have a record number of peopleon food stamps; when you’ve got, as he says and GeneSperling said yesterday, this long-termunemployment problem, some of his policieshave not worked. Mr. Carney: Well, I’m notsure that’s what he said. He said that long-termunemployment continues to be a persistent problem thatwe need to address. And we look forward tocollaboration and cooperation from Congress on measuresthat will help the long-term unemployed, that will help otherunemployed Americans strengthen the middle class,help our economy grow. And the President has putforward a host of proposals that are of the nature that havetraditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, including his proposalto combine a simplification and reduction in the corporate taxrate as part of a package of investments that would helpbuild our infrastructure and put people back to work. So this President is very eagerto have conversations with members of Congress aboutwhat we can do to further the economic expansion, further thejob creation that we’ve seen. Because there’s no question– given that we started this enterprise here,the President did, when we were hemorrhagingjobs at 800,000 per month, and that job loss was sustainedand dramatic — the work is not yet finished, not evenclose to finished, which is why it’s thePresident’s primary preoccupation.Tamara. Welcome. The Press: Thank you. So it’s not entirelyunprecedented, though, to pay forunemployment extension. You said 14 out of 17,so that leaves three; I think at least one of thosetimes was under this presidency when the unemploymentrate was higher. So does this — it seems likeboth sides have something to say here, and that –is there a way out? Mr. Carney: We’ll take the14 out of 17 as opposed to the 3 out of 17 in terms of thepreponderance of evidence. But I would simply argue thatyou have a situation where last week 1.3 million Americans andtheir families were cut off. You have areas of the countrywhere the unemployment rate is significantly higher thanthe national rate of 7 percent. You have familieswho, in many cases, are in very desperatecircumstances in terms of the prospect of trying todo without that assistance as the individualsor the primary breadwinner in the family searches for work. And remember,as Gene said yesterday, this assistance comeswith the requirement that you’re looking for work. So we’re talking about aproposal that extends these benefits for three months –not a year — three months.And Congress ought to do whatit has done the disproportionate percentage of thetime in the past, including under RepublicanCongresses and Republican Presidents, and extend thesebenefits so that these families can live without some of thefear that they face during a time of economic hardship andthereby create the time here in Washington for furtherdiscussions about how to move forward beyond the three months. It doesn’t seem, given thebipartisan nature of these kinds of efforts in the past, giventhe pro-growth nature of the extension of these kinds ofbenefits and pro-job creation nature of it, it doesn’tseem like it should be a huge ideological disagreement. In fact, what we’ve seen overthe past several days is that it’s not.And when you hear what SenatorHeller says and what other Republicans have said, includingsome Republicans not in Congress but in the think-tank world,there is a positive economic reason to do this. There is obviously themoral reason to do this, because we shouldbe helping these Americans as they search for work. And that has heldtrue in the past and it ought to hold true now. And we take great heart inthe fact that what was largely silence from one side of theaisle in December on this issue has steadily grownwhen it comes to support for moving forward on this. So what we think is thatthe House ought to do what — follow the Senate’s lead. The Senate ought to finishthe work of passing this. The House ought to pass it. And then we can move forwardwith discussions about how to move beyondthe three-month period that this extension would cover. The Press:So is the hope thatthe Speaker just doesn’t really mean what he hasbeen saying for a month? Mr. Carney:Again, I would simplysay that, in the past, including underPresident George W.Bush, these benefits have beenextended more often than not, considerably more often than notwithout pay-fors because of the emergency nature ofthe assistance and the economic benefit of the assistanceat a macro level. And what the bipartisanbill that has been moving through the Senaterepresents is a compromise, a three-monthextension, not a year. And if Congress acts on that,as it should right away, then we can continue discussionsabout how to move forward.That’s the economicallysensible thing to do. It’s the centrist thing to do. It’s certainly — extendingthese benefits is not a disservice to the familieswho are counting on them and to the individualswho are looking for work. So we remain hopeful thatCongress will take action. The Press:Can you say which lawmakersthe President talked to last night lobbyingfor this bill? Mr. Carney:I can only tell you that thePresident has been in contact with lawmakers on this issue, but I’m not goingto itemize a list. The Press:And can I just jump back tothe Murkowski question earlier? One of the things she asked forspecifically was to lift the ban on crude oil exports. It’s not necessarilya new issue.Is the President — Mr. Carney:I certainly don’tbelieve our position on this has changed,but I saw the headline. I just don’t have anythingmore on it for you. Energy might havesomething for you. But I just, before I came outhere, didn’t look into it. Peter. The Press: Jay, the House haspassed dozens of bills to create jobs and for skills trainingfor the long-term unemployed, including theSKILLS Act dating back to I think March of last year. They are held up inthe Senate right now. What’s wrong with thosebills presently out there, pushed by HouseRepublicans admittedly, that the President wouldn’tbe supporting them as a means to try to help accommodatethese people? Mr. Carney:Well, you would have to bemore specific than those bills. The Press:The SKILLS Act, specifically. Mr. Carney:I think a number of thesebills have been scored as terms of their jobcreation and their cost. Obviously, what needs to happenis for a bill to move through both houses of Congressin a bipartisan way.I understand in the House — I understand in theHouse you can pass something with purely Republican supportand check it off your list as having done something. But in the Senate, becauseof the circumstances there and the rules there,you need what we saw today, which was bipartisan action. And the President has putforward a series of proposals that represent what hastraditionally been a bipartisan approach to job creationand economic investment and development. Building our infrastructure ishardly a pursuit that Democrats have engaged inalone over the years. And making a more competitiveand more fair corporate tax code is not something you’d normallyassociate with Democrats alone. So this is just one idea thatwe’ve put forward and Gene repeated againover the weekend and this week that we ought to beable to move on, like, comprehensiveimmigration reform.This is not someideological pursuit. It has the supportof evangelicals. It has the support of bigbusiness and small business. It has the support of labor. It has the support ofRepublicans across the country. It has the support ofRepublicans on Capitol Hill. So let’s do it. The Press:So why won’t thishold the same fate as immigration reform,given the intransigence? Mr. Carney:We believe immigrationreform is going to pass. It’s going to pass. And it’s up to theHouse to decide when, but it’s going to happen. The Press:Just for better understanding, Katherine Hackett was the womanwho spoke before the President today, and there was a group ofthose who have been impacted by the cessation of theirlong-term unemployment benefits. Who pays in situations like thatfor those individuals to come to the White House, just curious? Mr. Carney:I’ll have to get that. I don’t have any backgroundon the individuals. The Press: Then, if I can,specific to the weather that you addressed earlier today — inLouisville, seven degrees here, a record cold,the coldest in two decades in large parts of America.Can you give us a sense, giventhe breadth of this as a real issue, what the President hasbeen doing or what contacts he has had today in termsof emergency management? Mr. Carney: Well, thePresident is certainly aware of the dramatic weather thatparts of the country have been experiencing. And there have been no requeststhus far for federal assistance. But FEMA is monitoring theweather and in contact with state, local and tribal partnersthrough its regional offices. We urge residents to besafe and to follow directions from local officials. If local officials saystay off the roads, avoid travel unlessit’s an emergency. Depending on the state,depending on the region, local officials have the bestinsight when it comes to what’s the right thing andthe safe thing to do.We are confident that the teamat FEMA is monitoring this closely and if there is anissue that requires federal assistance, they’llbe on top of it. The Press: After 43 years,the activists behind the theft of an FBI office that exposeddomestic spying have now come forward, and the FBIspokesperson told NBC News that a number of events during thatera, including that burglary, contributed to changes in howthe FBI identified and addressed domestic security threats,leading to reforms of the FBI’s intelligence policiesand practices. Do you see any relationshipbetween what happened then and the situation withEdward Snowden now, that the two somehow correlateand the impact is the same, that he should somehow betreated the same way those individuals were? Mr. Carney: Our view ofMr. Snowden has not changed. He’s been charged with feloniesfor the illegal leaking of classified information.And our intelligence communityexperts are better able to address this, but there aredramatic negative impacts to that kind of leaking when itcomes to our national security. The Press: Are thereany positive impacts? Anything of value? Mr. Carney: I would simply– the President was asked a version of this at his pressconference at the end of the year and he said itbetter than I could in terms of how he views these matters. And you know from what he saidthen and what he’s said in the past that he takes theseissues very seriously. He has instituted a review aboutthe NSA procedures and broader issues that encompassesboth the review group as well as other elements. And as we’ve said, you’ll behearing from the President on these issues beforethe State of the Union.The Press: The Presidentbrought the NSA advisory report to Hawaii with him on vacation. Can you tell us a little bitabout how much time he spent reviewing that on his vacation,and maybe tell us a little bit whether he has — has he cometo sort of a decision at this point, or closeto a final decision? Mr. Carney: He and his teamare continuing to review the review group’s report,including sorting through which recommendationswe will implement and which might requirefurther study, as well as those thatwe might not pursue. As I mentioned earlier andas we said in December, there are other pieces of thereview beyond the review group’s work, which the group presentedto the President in December.We expect that — in fact,we know with confidence that the President will havemade some decisions about which recommendationshe wants to implement, which require further review,and which we will not implement, and you will hear him discussthose issues later this month. The Press: Can youtalk a little bit, though, about in terms of, for example,the last couple weeks in Hawaii, the last couple days — was hespending time each day on this issue, the President himselfand/or people around his — Mr. Carney: I didn’ttravel with him to Hawaii, but I can say with confidencethat this is an issue that he takes very seriously and heconsumes vast quantities of briefing materials, and I’m surehe gave and has given the report from the review group agreat deal of consideration.Yes, Sam. I’m sorry — Brianna. My peripheral isfading with my age. Sorry. The Press: It’s the beard. Mr. Carney:It’s the beard that’s growingup and blocking my view. [laughter] The Press: You’renot going to blame the beard. [laughter] Mr. Carney:I might. I mean, look whatit’s done to you. [laughter] The Press:Thank you. The Press:Oooh — Mr. Carney: Sorry. I say that out of affection. [laughter] Go ahead. The Press:On unemployment benefits, you’re citing momentum on that,which seems to be based on the fact that theWhite House expected the preliminary vote to fail.Mr. Carney:We didn’t; you guys did. The Press:Well, some Senate Republicanswere indicating they had the votes as early asyesterday afternoon, and then — Mr. Carney:Really? I had one of your colleaguestell me an hour before it passed right here in this room that wewere three votes short — two votes short. The Press: We reportedthat Senate Republicans were indicating –some Senate Republicans — Mr. Carney: Well, I think itwas close, Brianna. I think there wereexactly zero Republicans on the record for this. Then there was SenatorHeller, who, admirably, co-sponsored this legislation,and then we ended up with six. It’s what makes thesethings worth covering, is that none of thiswas baked in the cake.The Press: Yes, it was goingto be close, but as Jon noted, the Republicanswho voted for it, they want conditions thatobviously the White House isn’t advocating. And this was a preliminary vote. This was a vote to begin debate. So is this really momentum interms of a clean extension of long-term unemployment benefits? Mr. Carney: Yes. The Press: Why is that, ifthat’s not what Republicans who voted, that’s notwhat they want? Mr. Carney: Because theoperating rhetoric of the moment in December when this was anissue the President was pushing was that Republicanswouldn’t support extension, they weren’t necessary –the benefits weren’t necessary and, in fact, according toone top Republican, they were a disservice to therecipients of the benefits. So I think byanybody’s analysis, that view has evolvedin a positive direction. I think if you look at whatsenators who were out publicly over the weekendsaid about this, there has been significant andcommendable movement in the direction of moving forwardwith extending these emergency benefits to the 1.3 Americansand their families — I keep saying 1.3 — I mean 1.3 million Americansand their families who had this assistancecut off last week.The Press: So the debatehas moved from the need for the benefits to theneed for a pay-for. You think you canpush them beyond that, including House Republicans,to a clean extension? Mr. Carney: I think thatthere is growing bipartisan support for extending emergencyinsurance to the unemployed. I think that it’s irrefutablethat the direction of this debate has moved in afavorable way since December.I acknowledge that thisis hard; unfortunately, these kinds of thingstend to be hard. But we are hopeful,and we believe and know that it’s the right thing to do. And we’re not — we don’t have acorner on that faith and wisdom. We know it’s shared by Americansacross the country and by economists and by Republicansand Democrats alike. So we’re just going to keeppressing for Congress to do the right thing, which is extendthese benefits temporarily, three months.And then, as we’vesaid quite clearly, we should then haveconversations about how to move forward, which we’re absolutelywilling and interested in doing. The Press: You cite this asan emergency, the time is now. We know that the checks arenot arriving, obviously. But the issue of a pay-for,it’s a traditional request of Republicans. It’s not something youwere blindsided by.I guess I’m asking because theperception is that this is a political fight. So if it’s not politics and thechecks aren’t arriving right now, then why not try to findthat middle ground on a pay-for, middle ground thathas been found before? Mr. Carney:Well, on a relativelyrare number of occasions. What I would say is thatthe ideological fight, if it were to be one, is aroundhorse trading over what are essentially emergency benefitsfor families in need — individuals,1.3 million of them, who are lookingfor work actively, and who have been sufferingunder circumstances of long-term unemployment that areunique in our history, and certainly ourmore recent history.So this, again, is ashort-term extension. And we have made clear thatwe would look forward to conversations about how to moveforward after this three-month extension is passed. Again, this is — I think thoseAmericans who are watching these kinds of debates, and especiallythose who are directly affected by what Congress willdecide to do here, are only askingWashington to work for them and not against them. And this is a case where thosewho support this extension aren’t asking for anythingextraordinary, right? We’ve just cited how many timesthis has been done in the past when the circumstances were notas dire for families like these.So we ought to do that. And there’s an opportunity hereI think that we saw at the end of the year in December withsuccess that Senator Murray and Chairman Ryan had in workingout a budget deal to return to normal order a little bit, toobviously not end all division that we have here or — there’sgoing to be areas no matter what where we disagree and we can’tmove forward legislatively. But this is the kind of thingwhere history shows us we should be able to move forward, andthere are a whole host of areas where that opportunity exists. And it doesn’t make you lessof a Republican or less of a Democrat to find some commonground here and move forward. And this President hasdemonstrated his willingness to do that again and again,and he will continue to do so. The Press:Last question, just on –to follow on Dennis Rodman.I don’t know if you’veseen the interview — Mr. Carney:I haven’t, no. I heard about it, yes. The Press: Okay. It was rather testy. He suggested that there’s avalid reason for North — for the North Korean governmentto be holding Kenneth Bae — I assume you knowthat he suggested that. Is it hurtful tothe U.S.’s position on North Korea andalso relations with, for instance, South Korea,when you have someone who has a really rare access,who’s freelancing with these kind of opinions? Mr.Carney:Well, again, we don’t — the United States governmentdoes not control or vet the private travelof private citizens to the DPRK. The interviewthat you mentioned — I won’t sort of dignify whatI understand was an outburst with a response. The Press:But is it hurtful? Mr. Carney:Look, our position onMr. Bae is what it was, and we want tosee him released. We remain gravely concernedabout his health and continue to urge North Korean authoritiesto grant him amnesty and immediate release. And that pursuitcontinues regardless of what’s happeningwith this visit. The Press: But you won’t sayit’s hurtful when this is — I mean, this is the exposure toAmerica that North Korea has. Mr. Carney: I don’t knowwhether I could assess whether it’s hurtful or not. What I know is whatour position is. And I’m not going to address theassertions made in the interview because they don’t meritone, a response or a comment.We believe he needs to bereleased and granted amnesty. Jon. The Press: Two things, Jay. One, to follow up on Brianna, isthere any concern on the White House’s part that Dennis Rodmancould now be or in the future be in violation of the Logan Act,preventing private citizens from underminingU.S. foreign policy by interactingwith foreign leaders? Mr. Carney:I haven’t heard that discussed. The Press:And then, the second thingis on unemployment insurance. Is there a metric that theWhite House would use for when emergency unemployment insuranceis no longer necessary in terms of unemployment — Mr. Carney:That’s a great question. There’s a mechanism builtinto these benefits, as Gene, far more of an expertthan I, discussed yesterday, whereby already benefits arereduced the number of weeks that they’reextended or reduced depending on theunemployment rate.And that exists already. There are only some areas of thecountry where the full benefits, the full extensionof benefits are delivered because of theunemployment rate. And as the unemploymentrate comes down, weeks are lopped offthat time period. So there is an already existingmechanism within the program that accounts for a reductionin the unemployment rate. Even though we’ve madesubstantial progress in bringingdown the unemployment rate from its terrible highsfrom the Great Recession, we still have alot of work to do. Seven percentis no one’s idea here of an acceptableunemployment rate. So that work continues. And while we have Americans outthere actively seeking jobs who depend on this assistance, weneed to do the right thing here in Washington to ensurethat it continues. Dan. The Press: Thanks, Jay. So we now have these dronesand the Hellfire missiles flowing to Iraq. Are there concerns about how themissiles in particular will be used given the considerationabout civilian casualties in some of these areas? You’re talking aboutFallujah, Ramadi.And also, what about thesuggestion we’ve heard by some observers that just sendingmore weapons will just encourage Prime Minister Maliki to believethat a political solution is not the way to go? Mr. Carney:Well, our policy is certainlynot to simply send more weapons. We continue to follow eventsin Iraq’s Anbar Province very closely as the situationremains, as you know, volatile. Iraqi tribes, with supportfrom Iraqi security forces, continue successfully toconfront Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant fighters inand around the city of Ramadi, and to prepareto confront extremists in the city of Fallujah. We remain in close contact,as I said yesterday, from here in Washington and fromour embassy in Baghdad with all of Iraq’s political leaders atthe highest levels about how we can continue to support theirefforts to defeat our common enemy and about how thereneeds to be a united effort, a unified effortto combat the ISIL and the threatit poses in Anbar.And as you may know,Vice President Biden spoke with Prime Minister Maliki and Speakeral-Nujaifi yesterday to press forthat unified effort. And we have made clear — and we believe thatIraq’s leaders agree — that the only way to fightISIL is through strong coordination between thegovernment of Iraq and local Sunni tribes and officials, whoare essential in this effort. Because I thinkthere’s no question, despite the divisionsin Iraq, that the vast, vast majority of Iraq’s citizensreject the extremism that al Qaeda represents.And that’s why we’re havingthe conversations at very high levels with Iraq’s leaders aboutthe need to work together to combat ISIL. And we were pleased to see PrimeMinister Maliki and Speaker al-Nujaifi call on the residentsof Anbar to rise up against extremist elements, as well astheir call on the Iraqi Army to operate in a professionalmanner with the backing of the local population. This, as you know, is very key. We were also encouraged by GrandAyatollah Sistani’s comments that internallydisplaced Anbaris — residents of Anbar Province — are welcome inNajaf and Karbala, which is Iraq’s Shia heartland,and that they would be received by a committee establishedto meet their needs. And that kind ofapproach — unified, in aspirit of reconciliation and cooperation — is one that we believeis essential to the effort here. The Press: Since the PrimeMinister was here in November, is President Obama satisfiedwith the degree of cooperation with what he’s seen in terms ofMaliki addressing the sectarian issues and the politicalreconciliation issues? Mr.Carney: Well, this is amatter that we have discussed in conversations at the veryhighest levels with Iraqi leaders ever since PresidentObama and Vice President Biden took office in January 2009. I know from my personalexperience when I worked for the Vice President, he’s traveledmany times to Iraq and spent — and continues to spend a lot oftime on the phone with Iraq’s leaders pressingthis very issue, as well as many other issues. It’s an important relationshipthat we have with the government of Iraq, with the Iraqi people,and our commitment to assisting them in this effort I think isrepresented both by the military assistance that we’reproviding and speeding up, but also by the kind ofdiscourse that we have with Iraq’s leaders.Jared. The Press: Jay, yesterday youdescribed — you said that CMS would be providing demographicdata in its next report. Will that be in the annualmonthly report that we should be getting in about a week? Mr. Carney: I think I justsaid I knew it was coming soon. I don’t know inwhat form of report. I don’t think I said nextreport, because I don’t know. The Press: And why has thedemographic and geographic diversity, which you have saidand which the White House has said for weeks now is the cruxof the solvency of the program — why has that been scrubbedout of the last two months of reports of all of the datawe’ve seen from CMS so far? Mr. Carney: I have addressedthese questions to CMS, which has beenproviding briefings and direct information. This is a fairly complicatedpiece of business, all this data coming infrom a variety of sources. It has to be scrubbed; ithas to be made accurate. Top-line numbers are a littlesimpler to come by than more nuanced slices of the data.But as I said yesterdayand as I know CMS has said, we will be providing thatdata once we’re confident that it’s readyto be made public. The Press: So it’s not theWhite House’s policy that age, for example, has been removedfrom the data that’s — Mr. Carney:No, no. Look, I think, Jared, if you’ve watched ussince the rather difficult days of October, our approachhas been very clear.We put out what we have;we acknowledge the wholly unsatisfactory launch thathealthcare.gov underwent on October 1st and havemade every effort, with a team offolks working 24/7, to fix the problems that causedthat rocky start to the launch of the website and otherproblems as they arise. And there’s no question, even aswe’ve seen dramatic improvement in the functionality ofthe website and dramatic improvements — or increasesin the enrollments, that we stillhave more work to do and that we takenothing for granted. So we’re going to get thatinformation to you when it’s ready, and my understandingis that will be soon. The Press: You said youwouldn’t lay out specific calls with Republicans in the Senate,but I wonder if you could kind of describe the outreacheffort in the last day or two leading up to the vote.And also, looking pastthe three-month extension, what does the White House see asthe best path forward if you — once you get a short-termextension passed? Mr. Carney:On the second one, I’ll accept that challengeif and when it arrives. I hope we get to have thatconversation if Congress acts, the House and the Senate,to extend benefits for three months. On the first one, I wouldsimply say that it’s been a comprehensive effort herethat has involved obviously the President and others inconversations with members of Congress, members of theSenate as well as the House. And this will continue.The arguments that are madein those conversations are not unlike the ones we’remaking publicly. They’re similar –they’re the same, which is that this is somethingthat we’ve done in the past; it’s the right thing to do;it’s good for the economy. We have, unfortunately, a highnumber of long-term unemployed Americans whoneed this assistance and we ought to take action. And we will absolutely want tohave further conversations about how we move forwardbeyond a three-month extension.Last one. Steve. The Press: Thank you. To follow up onJared’s question regarding the demographic data — so if the administrationdoesn’t have the demographic data and this is the most — oneof the most important factors in determining the successof these exchanges, does it then follow that theadministration doesn’t know whether these exchangeswill be successful or not? Mr. Carney: I don’t thinkwe would make declarations about where we’re going tobe on March 31st in October — we can make projectionsabout where we hope to be — but October orNovember, December or January. I’m not even sure Iunderstand your question. We are confident that we aremaking significant strides when it comes to enrollees and thatenrollees represent a lot of Americans from differentregions of the country, age groups and circumstances.But the issue here is –I guess this is sort of — this is the new thingwhere we’re going to find some problem in the system. Well, first of all, weacknowledge problems when they arise and when theyneed to be fixed. We acknowledge that there needsto be the right mix for the marketplaces to bemaximally effective. We believe we willachieve that mix. But we’re not going to evenimagine or hope that you’ll take our word for it; you’ll evaluateit as you see the proof of it, as you have with the enrollmentfigures and the numbers that were obviouslyterrible in October and graduallyimproved after that.So we’re committedto getting the data to you and you can judgeit for yourselves. Thanks..
Free Discount Prescription Drug Coupons
