transcript: white house press briefing (feb. 29, 2012)

8/2/2019 Transcript: White House Press Briefing (Feb. 29, 2012)

1/22

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

February 29, 2012

PRESS BRIEFING

BY PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:03 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Thanks for coming to the White House for your daily

briefing. Before I take questions I'd like to give you a

brief readout of the President's lunch that ended not long

ago with leaders of the House and Senate of both parties.

I spoke with the President afterwards. It was a

constructive and cordial meeting over lunch. It was the

President, the Vice President and the four leaders. They

discussed a variety of topics, a range of topics, both

domestic and foreign, and they discussed ways that they

could build on the bipartisan cooperation that led to the

extension of the payroll tax cut as well as unemployment

insurance.

And I think it's fair to say that, as we've been

saying for a long time and the President has been saying,

that there is reason to hope that the conventional wisdom

that holds that Congress held by the opposition party, or

largely controlled by the opposition party, cannot get any

business done with the President in an election year is

wrong, and that if folks focus on the areas of agreement

and work in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion, we can

advance the American people's agenda.

The President looks forward to doing just that and to

continuing his conversations with the leaders of the House

and the Senate.

With that, I'll take your questions.


2/22

Q Thanks, Jay. Two topics. I'll pick up on that

one to start. We got a pretty upbeat readout from the

Speaker's office about how the meeting went, including talk

of the Speaker being encouraged by what the President had

to say about the jobs act and that Speaker Boehner would be

happy to work with the President on a true all-of-the-above

energy policy. Your readout there sounded pretty upbeat as

well. Was there a specific legitimate agenda that you

believed came out of this? Items that the American people

can look to, to say those are actually likely to get done?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't want to get into specific

pieces of legislation or itemize the topics. I think as we

talked about yesterday -- I said, and we put out a

statement from Amy Brundage -- about the House Republicans'

jobs act, what they call their jobs act, and elements

within it that overlap considerably with the President's

priorities and in fact echo the very things that the

President brought up first in his speech in September when

he put forward his American Jobs Act. He repeated those

very same areas in terms of small business -- assistance to

small business in his State of the Union address, and again

last week when he signed the payroll tax cut extension. So

certainly there is reason to hope that if Congress can

focus on resolving some differences, that we could get some

progress in that arena or that area.

And as for energy policy, the President stressed that

he will continue to focus on an all-of-the-above approach.And an all-of-the-above approach does not mean just

drilling; it includes drilling. And as you know, since

President Obama took office, domestic oil and gas

production has continued to increase to a point where were

now at an eight-year high. And the President is very

committed to continuing to expand domestic oil and gas

production safely and responsibly.

But he knows -- and its important that politicians be

responsible and acknowledge that if drilling were the

answer, we would not see that spikes in oil prices that wesee, because we have been expanding oil drilling and we saw

global oil prices spike up last year, and of course they

are doing so again now.

We need to take an all-of-the-above approach, and that

all-of-the-above approach includes renewable energy

sources; it includes investments in innovative clean-energy


3/22

technologies; it includes improving the construction of the

first nuclear power plant in the United States in 30 years,

as well as developing more areas of domestic oil and gas

production.

Q On that specific point, on oil drilling, did the

Republican lawmakers pressure the President again on the

Keystone project? And if so, what came of that discussion?

MR. CARNEY: I dont want to get into specifics. It

was a cordial and constructive meeting. The President, as

you know, as we made clear, welcomes the decisions by

TransCanada to construct the pipeline from Cushing,

Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico. That will relieve a

bottleneck that has formed in Cushing and allow oil to get

to refineries and to market. And he certainly -- we

acknowledge that, and TransCanada has said, that it intends

to resubmit -- or submit a new application for a permit to

build its cross-border pipeline, Keystone XL.

I would simply say, as I said yesterday, that calls to

approve Keystone XL right away, again, are insulting to the

American people, because there is no permit to approve,

there is no pipeline route to review, and when there is it

will be reviewed by -- if an application is submitted and a

new route is identified, it will be reviewed in accordance

with the process that has been in place for many

administrations and many years and will be done by the

book.

And the decision that the President made in January,

because Republicans decided to play politics with this and

force a decision before proper review could be conducted,

was made without prejudice on the merits of the project.

So thats how we view Keystone. But I think its

important, too, as I said yesterday, that anybody out there

whos telling his or her constituents that approval of

Keystone will somehow lower the price of gas at their local

gas station is blowing a lot of smoke.

Q I wanted to ask you about North Korea as well and

the developments there, and try to get the Presidents

thoughts on two fronts. Do you see this as a legitimate

breakthrough? And how do you know if you can trust

anything coming from Kim Jong-un?


4/22

MR. CARNEY: Its a very good question. This is

something that we consider -- these are concrete measures

that we consider a positive first step toward complete and

verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a

peaceful manner, which remains this administrations core

goal.

The agreements that the North Koreans have made are

very welcome, but obviously they need to be followed up by

actions. And commitments to do something are one thing;

actually doing them are another. So we will pursue this

policy area with that approach in mind. So, again, a

positive first step. This is certainly a notable

development, but we need to focus on actions as well as

agreements and statements.

Q And what does it mean for the resumption of six-

party talks?

MR. CARNEY: Well, this is a step towards that, but,

again, I think it will depend on actions that the North

Koreans take to demonstrate that they are upholding the

agreements that theyve made.

Q Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: Yes.

Q Jay, can you talk about the timing of the meetingwith congressional leaders, why this came about now? And

also, although both sides are upbeat, isn't it kind of a

sign of the partisanship and the fighting between the two

parties that there has not been a meeting of this kind

since July?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I'd say two things about that. One

is that there has certainly been communication between the

President and the leaders of the House and Senate in the

last -- in the time since they last sat down together. I

think last summer and spring were notable for the highnumber of hours that the leaders spent together with the

President as they tried to work out -- avoid -- avert a

government shutdown in the spring, and work out an

agreement on deficit and debt reduction in the summer.

As for this meeting, it was an opportunity, as the

President saw it, to meet with the leadership at the


5/22

beginning of this year. It was useful to do it after

Congress acted on the President's highest priority for the

beginning of the year, which was ensuring that the payroll

tax cut was extended so that 160 million Americans didnt

see their taxes go up tomorrow. And having done that, it

was an opportunity for the President to meet with

Republican and Democratic leaders to talk about other areas

where we can cooperate and work together to help grow the

economy, enhance job creation, and, in general, pursue the

American people's agenda. So I think that is a good way of

looking at the timing of this particular meeting.

Q And in your answer to Ben on energy policy, it's

clear that you and the Republicans are still very far apart

on that issue in particular. So what specifically leads to

this optimism? Is there anything on energy policy where

you've actually found common ground, other than both

agreeing that it's a problem?

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I think there's Keystone and

sort of the political posturing around that. But then

there is certainly -- there are certainly other areas

within the realm of what the President describes as his

all-of-the-above approach to energy policy where there

should be opportunities for agreement in enhancing

Americas energy security and energy independence.

The President will continue to pursue his approach,

but he will certainly -- he welcomes the opportunity tolook at other peoples ideas. And if they make sense, then

hell certainly gladly work together in a bipartisan way to

get them done.

So I wouldnt -- I think that the constructive and

cordial nature of the meeting today encompasses an array of

issues, not just energy, but certainly energy was

discussed.

Q And on North Korea, are you drawing any

conclusions about what the direction of the new leadershipis in North Korea based on this announcement today?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we believe that it is a positive

sign that in a relatively short period after the change of

leadership in North Korea, that the DPRK decided to

reengage with the United States in substantive discussions

and to take some positive initial steps. Now, our starting


6/22

point is we expect continuity in behavior from the North

Korean leadership, but it is also the case that the new

leadership has agreed to take specific confidence-building

measures, which were announced today, and we view that as a

positive step.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, these are agreements

that have been made, and it is important for the North

Koreans to follow through on them and to act in accordance

with the agreements that they made. But I certainly agree

with the assessment that this is a positive first step.

Jake, and then Ill move around.

Q Another energy company that took a significant

loan -- accepted a significant loan from the Obama

administration, Abound Energy, announced it would be laying

off some workers. And I was wondering if the White House

had any reaction to that and whether the White House feels

as if any of these investments were made without sufficient

diligence into the business venture?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to the Department

of Energy for specifics about any particular loan. I would

say broadly that it is inherent within these kinds of

investments that there is risk, and Congress recognized

that risk, which is why the put aside $10 billion in loan

lost reserves when they created the program.

But just because there is risk, President Obama

believes that we should not just throw up our hands and

cede these industries to the Chinese or the Spanish or any

other country. These are technologies and industries that

will be very important in the 21st century, very important

to the potential for the United States to become more

energy independent. And we need to aggressively pursue

them.

Again, with regards to any particular loan or company,

I would refer you to the Department of Energy. We havesaid and maintain that the loans that were made were made

on a merit-based basis and that continues to be the case.

But for specifics I would refer you to DOE.

Q And in light of the President's pending speech at

AIPAC and the visit of Prime Minister Netanyahu, I was

talking to a national security expert who was telling me


7/22

that he didnt think that there had been enough of a

discussion of what if Israel did launch a strike against

Iran's nuclear facilities and things went wrong. And one

of the issues he raised was the idea that Iran obviously

borders Afghanistan and has stayed relatively -- has stayed

pretty much out of Afghanistan in terms of -- compared to

some of the things that it's done in Iraq, for instance, in

terms of arming the insurgents in Iraq. It has not done so

in Afghanistan. And the official -- the expert, rather,

expressed concerns that if things went wrong then it would

be possible that Iran might start helping to attack or at

least arm insurgents in Afghanistan and try to kill

American soldiers. In light of publicly discussing the

things that could go wrong in such a strike, is that a

concern being discussed here at the White House?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say two things about that.

First, our approach to this has been to galvanize and

mobilize the international community to make it clear that

Iranian behavior is the issue, to pressure and sanction

Iran for its failure to live up to its international

obligations, and to ratchet up that pressure and increase

the sanctions on Iran to the point where we hope Iran will

change its behavior.

We believe that there is time and space to continue to

pursue that approach, even as we refuse and make clear that

we do not take any option off the table in our effort to

prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

It is certainly the case -- and I think we have been

clear about this -- that any military action in that region

threatens greater instability in the region, threatens --

as you point out, because Iran borders both Afghanistan and

Iraq -- we have civilian personnel in Iraq, we have

military personnel as well as civilians in Afghanistan.

There are all sorts of potential consequences to more

military activity in that region and in Iran specifically.

But our approach right now is to continue to pursuethe diplomatic path that weve taken, combined with very

aggressive sanctions, and we continue to ratchet up the

pressure on Tehran. And I think its important to note that

while Tehran does not and has not lived up to its

international obligations, that it does not do the things

it needs to do to demonstrate that it does not have nuclear

weapons ambitions, we do have visibility into their


8/22

programs and Iran has not broken out and started to pursue

a weapon. So there is time and space to continue to pursue

the policy that we have been pursuing since the President

took office.

Q Jay, on the deal with North Korea, is it fair to

characterize this as a continuation of the arrangement that

was being worked on before the death of Kim Jong-Il?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say that there had been

some progress or initial progress towards -- in this

direction prior to the change of leadership. But it is

certainly the case that in a relatively short period after

the change of leadership, that the DPRK has made these

agreements -- and that is certainly notable. But in

general, like I said, we approach this with the expectation

of continuity in behavior, but note that there has been

this positive step.

Q And the officials that sort of gave a background

call on this were describing that they thought that the

North Koreans had to sort of check back with the leadership

before the agreement. Was something similar done with the

President? Did he have to make a phone call and sign off

on this, or were instructions given prior to the trip?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I dont have specific readouts.

And the President is fully briefed on these kinds of

significant discussions, both before and after. But Idont have a specific modality to describe to you in terms

of how our interlocutors are given their marching orders

and how they're executed.

Yes, Mark.

Q Jay, the NGO agreement under which the Americans

are now free to leave -- I mean, I realize theres some

relief that they are, but has this incident done lasting

damage here? I mean, Hillary Clinton got -- lawmaker after

lawmaker today was asking about do we really continue togive aid to folks when they're doing this? What do you

think?

MR. CARNEY: Well, Ill make two points about that.

One, I don't have any specific information about the

reports that you mention with regards to the Americans in

Egypt. I would note that weve worked this issue very hard


9/22

with our Egyptian counterparts. It has been a priority of

the President to resolve this, and we have made clear

throughout the process -- Secretary of State Clinton,

Secretary of Defense Panetta and others -- that we consider

a very serious matter, and that it had the potential of

affecting our relationship.

But I don't want to get too far ahead of these reports

until we have more details about them.

Norah.

Q You just said that we do not believe that Iran

has broken out to pursue a weapon. Is that why the

administration is reluctant to outline when it may use a

military option?

MR. CARNEY: Well, no. I think that weve made very

clear that we do not take any option off the table as we

pursue a policy designed to prevent Iran from acquiring a

nuclear weapon. We believe that the policy that weve been

pursing, unifying the international community and

pressuring and isolating Tehran, creates the best

opportunity for ensuring that Iran does not acquire a

nuclear weapon. It is the best option. And because there

is time and space still to allow that option to work, we

are continuing to pursue it.

But speculation about what we would do if this were tohappen and what would trigger what response is not

something I would do here from the podium, and its not

productive to the success of our policy.

Q To clarify, is U.S. policy to prevent Iran from a

nuclear weapon, or to prevent it from acquiring nuclear

weapons capability?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think Ive been clear that we are

determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

We obviously monitor through IAEA inspectors their nuclearprograms, and there is no question that Iran has not lived

up to its international obligations with regards to uranium

enrichment and their level of cooperation with the IAEA.

So the fact that we do have inspectors who are able to

provide visibility into their programs does not mean that

they have been entirely cooperative, because they have


10/22

not. And it is Irans refusal to behave in accordance with

their international obligations, to take the necessary

steps to assure the international community that they do

not have the intention of developing a nuclear weapons

program and developing nuclear weapons, that they are

subject to these broad and increasing sanctions by the

United States and the entire international community. And

that pressure will continue and it has had an effect on

both the economy and on the political leadership.

Q Can you speak to some of the reports in the

Israeli papers that Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to

pressure President Obama to be more specific about these

"all options on the table"? Will the President be more

specific?

MR. CARNEY: The President is very specific and direct

in his many conversations with the Prime Minister of

Israel, and I'm sure that will be the case when they meet

again next week. Our approach is very clear -- and I do

not expect that I or anyone else will engage in speculation

about how we might react should something or the other

happen in the future with regards to Iran's program. So I

think you'll hear from us a very consistent message and I

fully expect that the President's conversations with Prime

Minister Netanyahu will continue to be as detailed and

candid as they always have been.

Q And if Israel attacks Iran and Iran retaliates,will we defend Israel?

MR. CARNEY: That's a couple of "ifs" down the road.

What I can say is we have an unshakeable commitment to

Israel's security. It's a commitment that's demonstrated

by the unprecedented level of military-to-military and

intelligence-to-intelligence service cooperation that we've

established with Israel, a fact that has been testified to

not just by Obama administration officials but by Israeli

government officials, including the Prime Minister and the

Defense Minister. And that level of cooperation willcontinue. We are absolutely committed to Israel's

security.

Q Two more on gas prices. What's the current

administration thinking on whether to tap the reserves?


11/22

MR. CARNEY: Hmm, should I tell you? (Laughter.)

That was a joke, and I would simply say that I have nothing

to say about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We obviously

look at all the issues and options when we approach energy

policy, but I have no comment on any questions about this

so-called SPRO.

Ed.

Q Jay, following on gas prices, does the White

House agree with Secretary Chu's testimony on the Hill

yesterday that the overall goal of the President's energy

policy is not to lower gas prices?

MR. CARNEY: I'm not aware of that statement or the

characterization that you give it. I think the President

has made clear that the strategy that he has embarked upon

is to enhance American energy independence by pursuing an

all-of-the-above approach that includes increasing domestic

oil and gas production, increasing our development of and

production of renewable energy sources, as well as pursuing

development of nuclear capacity.

The point that the President has made -- and perhaps

this is the point that the Secretary was making, that

you're citing -- is that we are living in a world where

there is a global oil market and that price is affected by

a number of factors that are not necessarily within the

control of policymakers in Washington, and they includeunrest in parts of the world, and they include economic

growth in parts of the world. It is a fact that the pace

of growth in some of the emerging countries of the world,

emerging economies of the world creates a vastly increased

demand for fossil fuels -- growth in China, growth in

India, growth in Brazil and elsewhere -- and that creates

more demand, and that has an impact on oil prices.

Our economic growth, which, I should note, has been

continuing now for a number of quarters and has resulted in

the creation of 3.7 million private sector jobs, alsocreates greater demand for oil and gas.

So the point is the President is not focused on

policy, and is not making promises to the American people,

that, if I do this, you will be paying a certain price at

the pump, because he is not insulting the American peoples

intelligence. He is simply saying that his commitment is


12/22

to pursue a policy that enhances American energy security

and enhances American energy independence, and that the

only way we can insulate ourselves in the future from the

kind of shocks caused by fluctuating oil prices on the

global market is to do just that -- to take an approach

that has, by the way, resulted in a reduction already since

hes been President in our imports of foreign oil.

Q But is it reasonable, also, to expect that while

youre working on that long-term strategy, that the

President is also working in the short term to try to find

a way to lower gas prices for people who are experiencing

gas --

MR. CARNEY: There is no question we look at every

option and review all of the aspects of every option that

might be available. But it is, again, a false promise to

make by any politician that they have a 3-point plan --

that a 3-point plan exists that can guarantee a certain

price for unleaded gasoline at your local Exxon or Sunoco

or Chevron station. Its just not -- its not credible and

its an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

Q So is the overall message then that as youre

working on this long-term strategy, the price of gas may

just keep going up and up, because we cant lie to you that

its going to go down, we dont have a 3-point plan -- its

just going to keep going up?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the fact of the matter is oil

prices in global markets go up and they go down, so the

focus that you need to have is on a sustainable policy that

enhances American energy security, enhances American energy

independence. And thats the approach the President is

taking.

Mara.

Q Can you talk about tomorrow -- what hes going to

say and why he has chosen New Hampshire?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I dont have any readout to give to

you -- any preview to give to you, rather, of the speech

yet. We might have more for you on that. I think --

Q It's an official stop, right?


13/22

MR. CARNEY: Yes.

Q It's not a campaign --

MR. CARNEY: No, no. But its -- were going to New

York -- I think were going to New York afterwards. But

Im sure well have more to say about that later in the

day. I dont want to steal the Presidents thunder, but

you can expect that hell be focused on matters of domestic

policy that are of concern to the American people and will

-- well, Im sure well have more details for you.

Kristen.

Q Thanks, Jay. Following up on North Korea

quickly. You talked about the fact that this is an

important first step and that you want to see it followed

up with concrete action. Can you speak specifically about

what some of the benchmarks are that youll be watching for

in the coming months?

MR. CARNEY: Well, look, the DPRK has agreed to

implement a moratorium on long-range missile launches,

nuclear tests and nuclear activities at Yongbyon, including

uranium enrichment activities. It has agreed to do that.

What we will be looking for is for them to honor that

agreement by implementing a moratorium on long-range

missile launches, nuclear tests and nuclear activities at

Yongbyon, including uranium enrichment activities. As partof that, as part of our ability to verify the

implementation of the agreements that theyve made, the

DPRK has also agreed to the return of IAEA inspectors to

verify and monitor the moratorium on uranium enrichment

activities and to confirm the disablement of the 5 MW

reactor and associated facilities -- part of the agreement

that was made.

So those are the actions that follow on the

commitments that were made, and that's what we will be

monitoring. And clearly, living up to the agreements andimplementing the agreements will be -- if that happens --

will be considered another positive step. So that's what

well be monitoring and watching.

Q And also, Reverend Franklin Graham made headlines

earlier this month when he questions the Presidents

religion on MSNBC. Hes just released an apology saying,


14/22

The President has said he is a Christian and I accept

that. Is that apology good enough?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I dont know that -- we didnt seek

an apology. We certainly appreciate the sentiment

expressed, and well leave it at that.

Dan.

Q Thank you. Just on North Korea, continuing what

you were just talking about. Beyond what North Korea --

disagreement on its nuclear program, is there the hope that

this will help them lift the veil on their intentions --

deliberations, rather, internally in that country?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think Im not breaking any news

when I say thats an opaque society and an opaque

government. I think everything remains to be seen here.

Again, we have no sort of precooked ideas or sentiments

about what the changes in leadership will mean. We

approach it with the expectation of continuity in behavior,

but we certainly welcome positive steps. And that is what

were doing today, is welcoming a positive step that is the

result of the discussions in Beijing.

We will then -- we will continue to pursue our core

objective here, which is the denuclearization of the Korean

Peninsula. And we will monitor the North Koreans behavior

in how they live up to the agreements that theyve made inBeijing.

Q And another question on Olympia Snowe. Senator

Snowe yesterday talked about how the atmosphere is

polarizing in Washington, and its my way or highway.

The President talked a lot over the last few years about

changing the way that Washington works. Whos to blame for

this?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think the President has noted on

my occasions the regrettable fact that partisanshipcontinues to all too frequently dominate the approach to

trying to find solutions to the challenges that we face in

this country. And he has worked very hard to try to find

common ground with members of the other party in Congress.

And that began with reaching out on the Recovery Act and on

health care reform and on issue after issue, and continued

through his efforts in negotiations with the Speaker of the


15/22

House to try to find a balanced, sweeping grand bargain

approach to dealing with our deficit and debt issues.

It's evident in the elements of the American Jobs Act,

which -- many of which had their origination with

Republicans and bipartisan ideas, the kinds of ideas that

had traditionally gained bipartisan support. And with the

action that Congress has taken on some elements of the

American Jobs Act, I think it's demonstrated that those --

that there is an attempt by the President -- when he puts

forward these legislative proposals, that they are designed

in a way not to simply satisfy one party or the other, but

to get things done that are achievable in a bipartisan

context.

And thats the approach he'll continue to take. But

there is no doubt, as Senator Snowe said yesterday, that

the level of sort of partisan polarization continues to be

regrettably high. And thats certainly the view the

President takes.

Chris.

Q Jay, I want to follow up with you on this idea of

President Obama issuing an executive order requiring

federal contractors to have LGBT inclusive

nondiscrimination policies. Will the administration issue

this order before the end of President Obama's first term?

MR. CARNEY: Chris, I, unfortunately, will give you

the unsatisfying answer that I dont have any information

for you on any executive order that the President may or

may not intend to issue in the coming months.

Q Multiple sources have told me that this measure

has been cleared by both the Labor and Justice Departments,

and it's awaiting final action at the White House. Can you

tell me at least if that measure is at the --

MR. CARNEY: Again, I just dont have any comment onexecutive orders that we may or may not be considering, or

actions that may or may not have been taken at lower levels

within the administration.

Q Can you at least characterize from the podium

like what is the level of discussion about this executive

order? Is it being discussed among officials?


16/22

MR. CARNEY: Again, I just dont have -- I'm sorry, I

just dont have any information for you on that. But I

appreciate the question.

Carrie.

Q Thank you. Does the White House view that in

terms of relations with the House GOP have (inaudible) the

payroll tax cut now, Cantor proposing this jobs act -- is

this -- does the White House see this as a positive shift

in maybe the relationship that had been very adversarial?

I know for months, or at least recent months, senior

administration officials have been telling reporters that

there was some hope that there would be a more cooperative

turn sort of as the election grows near, just based on some

considerations by the House GOP. Is this what youve been

predicting?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say that we -- our approach

to this is to expect continuity of behavior. (Laughter.)

But we certainly consider this -- Im sorry, that was a

different issue.

No, Ive been saying all along, and I think obviously

reflecting what the President believes, that we do not buy

the conventional wisdom that suggests that nothing can be

done in an election year between a President of one party

and Congress controlled largely by the other. Weve neveraccepted that. There are a variety of reasons why we don't

think that has to be true. One of them is the fact that

the President is putting forward and pursuing proposals

that he certainly believes and we believe could and should

earn bipartisan support, but also because we think -- not

because we hope it to be so, but because we think that

members of Congress, Republicans included -- or Republicans

especially -- may have some compelling reason to try to get

some things done before the election this year.

I think that its a function of the fact that Housemembers have to face reelection every two years that every

member of the House of Representatives whos running for

reelection will have to justify to his or her constituents

their actions during this Congress. And if the only thing

they have to offer is that I blocked everything I could

that President Obama proposed, maybe that will work in some

districts, but I think in some it wont be a particularly


17/22

compelling reason to send that member back to Washington.

So perhaps that is why there is hope that actions can be

taken.

Now, we take things day by day here. The fact is we

saw -- relative to what we had experienced -- fairly swift

action to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment

insurance. That was a good sign. And we certainly -- some

of the items that you mentioned raised the hope of further

bipartisan cooperation. And this President would certainly

welcome that because as he has made clear, theres a lot of

time between now and November. Theres even a lot of time

between now and when the general election campaign will

really require his engagement at a higher level. And

between now and then theres an opportunity and really a

requirement that he do everything that he can to try to

move the ball down the field in terms of the American

economy and employment in this country. So he is going to

take advantage of that. To the extent that members of the

other party in Congress see that as a positive opportunity

for them, he will welcome it.

Carol.

Q Did the leaders set a time for another meeting?

MR. CARNEY: I dont have a meeting, a future meeting

to announce for you. Certainly the President looks forward

to continuing the conversation that he and the four leadersand the Vice President had over lunch today. I would note

that -- and maybe I did already in answering the question

about the last time they physically met in this kind of

grouping -- while that has been a while that theyve had

this kind of meeting here in the White House, the President

has obviously had numerous discussions with the Speaker of

the House since then over the phone at various times over

the past several months. And the communication will

continue. Whether its at lunch or in physical meetings or

on the phone is yet to be determined.

Q It wont just be a leap date? (Laughter.)

Q I'm trying to figure out whats next. Have they

agreed to move -- task White House aides or talking to

their congressional counterparts on something specific?

Youve talked about the small business legislation. Do


18/22

they at least agree that they would move the ball forward

on that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, weve been very explicit, I think,

about the opportunity to move forward on some elements of

the proposals that the majority leader put forward and we

will certainly pursue that. Working with members of both

parties in Congress there is an opportunity to get that

done and hopefully Congress will act on it.

It requires having the accomplishment as the goal

here, as opposed to some sort of partisan goal, which,

again, I think there is an indication here that we can get

some things done and we look forward to doing that. I

dont have a specific readout about who -- Rob Nabors is

obviously our top legislative affairs official here at the

White House and hes engaging with leadership offices all

the time and will continue to do so, and others will as

well.

Q One on North Korea. With this particular

development, is the White House concerned at all that these

steps could be seen as, or end up propping up a dynasty

thats basically been an adversary of the U.S. and its

allies and to its own people? And theres members of

Congress who are expressing those sorts of concerns.

MR. CARNEY: Well, which steps? The agreements that

the DPRK has made or you mean the food assistance? Thefood assistance is not a quid pro quo. Its not contingent

upon the agreements to move forward on denuclearization.

The fact is the United States is and is always

concerned about the potential for famine in countries

around the world. And we had discussed providing food aid

last year to North Korea and this is a continuation of

that. And we simply needed to reach an agreement, which

was reached, to allow for the provision of humanitarian

assistance, and that relates to the United States deep

concern about the welfare and well-being of the people ofNorth Korea, not the leaders of North Korea.

As for the broader question, this Presidents policy,

this administrations goal is the denuclearization of the

Korean Peninsula, and we have been very hard-nosed in

pursing that, and we will continue to be hard-nosed in

pursing that. And to the extent that this is a positive


19/22

step -- a small step, but a positive step, that's a good

thing. But as Ive said repeatedly here, it will --

further progress will depend on the implementation by the

DPRK of the agreements they made in Beijing.

Hans.

Q On the NGO workers, is there anything the --

MR. CARNEY: Theres a lot of purple going on today.

But Norah has left, so --

Q Lent.

MR. CARNEY: Caren, Chris, everybody -- resplendent.

(Laughter.)

Q On the NGO workers, is there anything that the

White House is doing go facilitate their coming back? And

do you guys have a sense of how soon those -- the NGO

workers in Egypt will return back to the States?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I don't -- I think you were here,

but I just don't have any details on that for you that I

can address now from the podium. Were obviously -- weve

been working this issue very hard. We continue to, and

hopefully well have more information for you soon. But I

don't want to get ahead of that right now.

April.

Q Jay, what did the President think about last

nights winnings for Mitt Romney?

MR. CARNEY: I havent -- Ive met with him today, but

that topic did not come up.

Q And since hes in an understanding of whats

going on and he hopes someone knows whats going on, what

are White House staffers saying about it? Particularly asyou guys held the UAW event yesterday on the day of the

primary, and also the fact that he had said basically there

shouldnt have been a bailout and he won in that area, in

the Detroit area

MR. CARNEY: Well, be that as it may, theres been

plenty of analysis of the Michigan primary. You don't need


20/22

to hear it from me. The fact of the matter is this

President is pursuing a set of policies; he has a record

that he believes has helped put this economy back on track,

back moving in the right direction, growing again after

catastrophic contraction, creating jobs again after

catastrophic job loss, and creating a foundation for

sustained economic growth in the 21st century.

Regardless of who the Republican Party eventually

nominates, what we have seen is that the policies put

forward by the potential nominees are all virtually

identical when it comes to their approach to the economy,

and that is to adopt the very same policies and sometimes

the very same policies, except on steroids, that got us

into this mess to begin with -- so basically saying to

insurance companies -- you can write your own rules again;

that Wall Street, youre on your own, do what you want.

Thats a debate Im sure well have in the fall. The

President thinks thats not the right approach. When it

comes to giving greater tax breaks to the wealthiest

Americans who saw their incomes rise and their share of

Americas prosperity grow dramatically, while middle-class

folks saw their income stagnate or decline, he doesnt

think thats the right approach. Hes made it very clear.

So it almost doesnt matter who the debate is with

because this President thinks American voters are going to

want to focus on what the American people want to focus on,who has the right ideas to continue the economic growth

that weve been experiencing, to continue to dig ourselves

out of the hole, to climb out of the hole that was dug by

the Great Recession. So that debate will be joined at the

appropriate time.

Q Jay, Id like to go back to my original

question. Some say -- some Democrats even believe --

yesterday -- while knowing this White House and knowing

political campaigns, everything is strategic. Yesterdays

UAW event was strategic, and then you had the win with MittRomney. Going back to my original question, what does it

mean --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would suggest to you, April --

and think about -- the UAW set its conference a long time

ago. We had nothing to do with scheduling when the UAW was

going to hold its conference. It was probably scheduled at


21/22

a time long before any of you would have predicted that the

Michigan primary was going to be a significant event. My

understanding, again, based entirely on reading your work

or watching your work, was that that was supposed to be a

non-event primary because one of the contestants was born

there and his father was governor. So the idea that we --

Q Please dont rely on us. (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: Yes, the President gladly spoke to the

United Autoworkers, and he gladly spoke about a policy that

directly affects them and absolutely did contrast his

position and the decisions he made to help revive and --

save and revive the American automobile industry with the

positions of critics who felt that the better option was to

let Detroit go bankrupt. I think its a pretty clear

contrast.

Yes, Jared.

Q Jay, two things. Since the death of Kim Jong-Il,

has the President changed his engagement with the DPRK, and

is that the reason for this new step? Or is the change

fundamentally on the side of the North Koreans?

MR. CARNEY: No, our approach has not changed. We

certainly, as I said, made no special -- we simply, as I

said at the time, during the change of leadership we were

monitoring the situation. We were awaiting -- allowing forthat period of change to take place. And our approach has

always been the same. And our expectation was not for

anything but a continuation of --a continuity in the

behavior of the DPRK, that our approach to -- our goals

have not changed, our approach has not changed. And,

again, this is a positive step, but we are a long way from

achieving our goal, which is the denuclearization of the

Korean Peninsula.

Q Four years ago today -- and I remember it only

because of Leap Year -- the Hillary Clinton campaignunveiled their 3 a.m. phone call ad. Does the President

feel that any of his Republican opponents are unfit to

answer that call?

MR. CARNEY: Thats a question I won't -- I dont have

an answer to. The President -- again, I think I just

mentioned -- is focused on his job as President on behalf


22/22

of the American people -- trying to grow the economy,

trying to create -- help it create jobs, making sure that

he's doing everything he can as Commander-In-Chief to

ensure the national security interests of the United

States.

There will be a time and a place for that debate to

take place. We just dont even know who the nominee is

yet, and may not for some time.

Thanks very much.

Q Thank you.

END

2:55 P.M.

EST

#128-02/29/2012

transcript: white house press briefing (feb. 29, 2012)

Documents