WikiLeaks logo
The Global Intelligence Files,
files released so far...

The Global Intelligence Files

Search the GI Files

The Global Intelligence Files


[OS] Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney

Released on 2012-10-16 17:00 GMT

Email-ID 4981145
Date 2011-09-30 00:33:35

Office of the Press Secretary


For Immediate Release
29, 2011



James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:16 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a
sad day. (Laughter.)

Q Not for Tigers fans.

MR. CARNEY: I stayed up a little late last night watching
baseball. And I was reminded by the travesty that occurred sometime after
midnight for Red Sox fans, that there's a reason you play the game.
There's a reason you play the game, right? Because when statistical
probabilities say you cannot lose -- (laughter) -- Red Sox-Rays. You have
to go to the playoffs.

Q Is this an analogy here of some kind?

Q Did you use that chart during the debt
ceiling debate? (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: Sports is life. Sports is --

Q The curse is back?

MR. CARNEY: I hope not. But my congratulations to the
Tampa Bay Rays. Amazing comeback. And there's always next year. I don't
have any other announcements. (Laughter.) But I'll take your questions.


Q Are you sad?

MR. CARNEY: I'm very sad.

Q Glad you're hanging in there. Two
questions, one follow-up. On the jobs bill, I believe you said yesterday
the Senate will act and you're confident about that. Do you have any
clarity yet, does the President have any clarity from the Democratic
leadership about when that will happen? Are you confident they'll vote in

MR. CARNEY: Well, I certainly understand that the Senate
will -- it's my understanding that the Senate will take it up in October,
which begins in a few short days. And then, of course, how it proceeds,
we'll have to see, in terms of when the vote might happen.

But we do expect, and the Majority Leader has said that
the Senate will take it up. We look forward to that -- because we feel
very strongly that all of the elements of the American Jobs Act are
designed to generate the maximum benefit to the economy and give the kind
of boost to hiring that the economy desperately needs.

As I said yesterday, if some members of Congress oppose
portions of the jobs act, they ought to say what they are and why.
Whether it's hiring back teachers or putting construction workers to work,
rebuilding our infrastructure, renovating our schools -- they should say
why. Or maybe it's giving a tax cut to small businesses, or incentives to
small businesses to hire new workers or increase wages or give employees
-- extend the payroll tax cut, extend and expand it, that the Americans
have had this year.

And then when it comes to paying for it, we obviously
believe it has to be paid for. The President put forward proposals that
pay for it entirely, and pay for it in a way that's balanced and fair,
ensures that the burden is not borne by the middle class, that it's a
shared burden, and that represents the kinds of choices we have to make in
an environment where our resources are limited and we have to make choices
about what our priorities are.

Q Can you say whether the President spoke to
Speaker Boehner about this, or whether he plans to?

MR. CARNEY: I'm certain he will. I don't know if he's --
I don't think he's spoken to the Speaker in recent days about it. No
doubt they will discuss it. As I mentioned yesterday, the President has
put forward a plan in detailed legislative language, and expects and hopes
the Congress to take it up, debate it, pass it. And we'll obviously be
part of that process as it moves through Congress.

There's not a lot of complexity to what he's put forward.
It's a pretty straightforward plan that outside economists have judged
would be beneficial to the economy -- substantially beneficial -- and
beneficial to hiring. So this is the top priority of the American people,
and it is absolutely the top priority of the President. So he wants
Congress to take it up, act on it, so that we can -- that Washington can
do what Americans out there expect it to do, which is take measures to
help the economy grow, help the economy create jobs, rather than, as we
saw during the summer through brinkmanship and intransigence, do things
that actually hurt the economy dramatically. So we're hopeful that that's
what will happen this fall.

Q One other quick topic. There was an
attempted attack on the U.S. ambassador in Syria, as you know. Are there
any plans to remove him from Damascus for his safety?

MR. CARNEY: No, there aren't. And let me just give you
my reaction to this -- our reaction. These kinds of assaults against
diplomatic personnel, including our ambassador, are unwarranted and
unjustifiable. This is clearly a part of an ongoing campaign to
intimidate and threaten diplomats attempting to bear witness to the
brutality of the Assad regime.

Day after day, Ambassador Ford puts himself at great personal risk to
support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. And I'd like to
make this point: that we urge the Senate to show Ambassador Ford its
support by confirming him and allowing him -- allowing, rather, his
courageous work to continue.

So we absolutely want Ambassador Ford to continue the important work he's
doing. And we hope that the Senate will act to confirm him to make that


Q Good morning -- or good afternoon. Pressure seems to be
growing in Congress for more military action in Pakistan beyond just drone
strikes. And Pakistan's intelligence chief was saying that that is just
not acceptable, although he did seem to be trying to cool down the
temperature a little bit by saying he didn't want things to get to the
point of no return. How close are we to that point of no return with
Pakistan? And what is the White House doing to cool the temperature?

MR. CARNEY: Well, as I said yesterday, John, the relationship that we
have with Pakistan is complicated but very important. They have been
important allies, the Pakistanis have been, in our fight against al Qaeda,
and that fight continues. And we expect to have continued cooperation
with the Pakistanis on that. There's no question that we have
disagreements, complications in our relationship, and we speak openly and
candidly with the Pakistani counterparts -- our Pakistani counterparts
about this. But we certainly believe that the relationship is important
enough, that the kind of cooperation we get is essential to our national
security and we need to continue it, precisely so we can most effectively
take the fight to al Qaeda and succeed in that region.

Q And what discussions are going on right now
with the Pakistanis about military action that might go beyond drones --

MR. CARNEY: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by

Q This is something that Senator Graham --

MR. CARNEY: U.S. military action?

Q This is what Senator Graham was talking
about. He said "We have lots of assets beyond drones."

MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not sure what he's referring to.
Certainly, we take action against the enemies of the United States --
members of al Qaeda -- where we find them. And as you know, in the case
of Osama bin Laden, that happened to be in Pakistan.

The fact of the matter is we are fighting a war in
Afghanistan, and one of the problems we've had, which is where this issue
arises from, is with the safe havens that the Haqqani network has in
Pakistan. That's an issue that we raised with our Pakistani counterparts,
and we continue to have those discussions on a regular basis -- those
discussions and discussions about the broad range of areas where we have
shared interests and cooperation.

Let me work this way, thanks.

Q If the President is promoting this jobs
plan, the Senate is going to take it up in October, it has no chance of
passing the Senate, how is that not a sign of resignation on the part of

MR. CARNEY: You know, it's a sunny day outside, Brianna.

Q But it's the truth.

MR. CARNEY: I don't share your pessimism.

Q Well, Senate Democrats I've spoken with do.
And I just wonder why it isn't a sign that the White House is resigned to
a political win versus a policy win.

MR. CARNEY: I think -- I just utterly reject your
premise. I will buy everyone in here a drink if, by the end of this year,
there is not action on the jobs act. And Congress has to take -- Congress
will have a lot of explaining to do, members of Congress will have a lot
of explaining to do when they go home for the end-of-the-year recess if
they've done nothing -- nothing -- to address the urgent need to help our
economy and create jobs. And not because the President is saying so, or
certainly not because I'm saying so will the Congress take action, but
because their constituents are demanding it.

So as we discussed yesterday here, we believe that the entirety of the
American Jobs Act should be voted on and passed in full, and the President
would sign it, of course. If the -- as discussions we've had from the
very beginning -- if Congress were to pass portions of it, we obviously
support all the elements, all the pieces of it, the President would sign
each portion as it came to him, and then demand that the rest come his
way, and if it doesn't, make clear what is blocking the passage of those
measures that the American people support.

So I just think the premise of your question is wrong. I think that the
Senate will act, and we expect the full Congress to act.

Q And not pass --

MR. CARNEY: No, again, I just think that it would be -- I
would be very surprised if Congress takes no action to help boost economic
growth or accelerate hiring before the end-of-the-year recess. It's just
almost inconceivable to me. Now, I did show a chart that demonstrates
that the inconceivable can happen in sports and in politics, but I would
be surprised.

Q My premise isn't that nothing will happen.
I mean, obviously, there are some areas of agreement between the two
sides. But the White House, obviously, is prepared to hit Republicans if
the entire thing isn't passed, or all of the provisions in it are not
passed. And that's not expected to happen.

MR. CARNEY: Again, this goes -- so what you're saying is
-- is your question, do we expect all of it to be passed?

Q No --

MR. CARNEY: We hope, and that's what we're arguing for.
That's what the President is out there making a case for. But again, I
think I've addressed the question because it's been asked about specific
elements. If the tax cut, the payroll tax cut extension and expansion
came to him, would he sign it? Well, he obviously wouldn't veto something
he very much supports, as long as it's paid for in a responsible and
balanced way. And same with each element -- the infrastructure
investments, or the money to hire teachers. And each element that he
supports he would obviously sign because he thinks it's important for the
economy. But he would then ask, where's the rest.

Q Yes. My point is, knowing the reality that
all of the provisions won't be passed but still pushing for it -- the
fact that the President and the Speaker aren't even talking, I mean that's
sort of depressing if you're someone sitting at home without a job.

MR. CARNEY: There's a shining little ball that people, I
guess, want you guys to focus on here that somehow -- that there have to
be negotiations, when in fact --

Q Discussions. Communication.

MR. CARNEY: -- in the summer it was, where is the
President's plan? That shows you're not serious because we don't have a
written plan. Well, okay, now you guys have reams of paper and written
plans, and now the question is, where's the meeting? Well, there will be,
I am sure, discussions and conversations and negotiations as this process
moves forward. But there is a written piece of detailed legislation in
legislative form called the American Jobs Act that Congress can act on --
and will take up. Where it goes from there remains to be seen. I just
don't share your pessimism about its prospects.

Q On a lighter note, the Washington monument--

MR. CARNEY: Are you a Rays fan? (Laughter.)

Q No. The Washington monument -- there's a lot of interest in
it. It's outside the President's backyard. There's engineers repelling
down it; there's concern it may never reopen. Has he said anything about
it? I'm not trying to be pessimistic. (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: No, no. I haven't spoken to him about it since that report
came out. I do remember asking him if he could tell whether it was
leaning or not from his balcony, but -- (laughter) -- and the answer is no
-- because when the earthquake happened, wasn't there a report that it
leaned? I don't know.

But I don't have any -- I think the Department of Interior would have more
information on that. I haven't spoken with him about it. It's obviously
a very important symbol for this country and its democracy, so we
certainly hope, as do all Americans, that it is properly repaired and
reopened for the American public.

Yes, Mary.

Q Forgive me if you've addressed this already, but can you
explain what the President meant when over the weekend he told the
Congressional Black Caucus that it was, "time to stop complaining, stop
grumbling, stop crying, we've got work to do." And what's your response to
criticiss after the fact that he hasn't used similar language when
addressing other groups?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would simply say that the second part is utterly
false, because I've heard him use exactly identical language with folks
that he's talked to.

And his point I think is simply that this administration has accomplished
significant things over the past two and a half years in the face of
incredibly challenging obstacles, beginning with the kind of economic
collapse this country hasn't seen since the 1930s. Among those
accomplishments are, obviously, a health care bill, law, that was passed
that would provide insurance for 30 million uninsured Americans -- an
accomplishment that was 100 years in the making, 100 years of effort here
in the United States, that failed until this President, working with
Congress, was able to pass it. That's an accomplishment.

There are certainly people who support health care reform very
passionately who feel that it wasn't perfect. And I think his point, the
point that he's making is that we cannot let perfection -- the failure to
reach absolutely -- get everything that we want shadow -- or overshadow
the fact that great things have been accomplished. And so much more work
needs to be done. I mean, that's the essential message that he was
bringing to that group and to many others.


Q Jay, can I get you first to comment on the unemployment
claim numbers that now show the number of people seeking unemployment
benefits fell sharply last week, an encouraging sign that layoffs may be
easing? Any thoughts on that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say that there's always a lot of volatility in
the weekly numbers, and so we don't react much to one week's results.

When we have positive signs, those are obviously good and we welcome
them. But, again, I have to acknowledge up front that there is a certain
amount of volatility in that particular number. And it doesn't change the
fact that we need to take dramatic action, significant action, to address
the unacceptably high unemployment rate in this country. That's why the
President is out pushing Congress to pass the American Jobs Act. As you
know, reputable outside economists have said that if it were to pass in
full, it would significantly boost employment in 2012 and economic growth.

So while that may be a good sign, and good signs are good things, we don't
put a great deal of stock in one figure from one week.

Q The Vice President gave a radio interview this morning. He
says it's not relevant to blame the Bush administration for the current
economic problems, and said, "What's relevant is we are in charge." Does
the President agree with that, that this administration owns the economy,
owns the blame for it?

MR. CARNEY: That's not what the President said -- I mean the Vice
President said. He didn't say that the blame for it is owned. But what
he absolutely said is that most Americans want their elected officials in
Washington -- all of them want their elected officials in Washington to
act to improve the situation. That's what this President and this Vice
President have been doing since the day they were sworn in, and what they
will continue to do.

As a political matter, I mean -- well, as a matter of
basic fact, they're in power and they are responsible for taking actions
to improve the economy. That is indisputable and something that the
President and the Vice President believe very strongly. It is also true
that Americans understand, as data show, that the dramatic economic crisis
that we've experienced dug a very deep hole that will take -- and will
take a long time to climb out of. And I think Americans understand that.

Q The Vice President also said it's totally
legitimate that the election will be a referendum on Obama and Biden and
the nature and the state of the economy. Do you agree it will be a
referendum on the President?

MR. CARNEY: I think, again, what he said is that it will
be -- it's legitimate, and I think every elected official who's running
for office in 2012 will run on his or her record. And this President and
Vice President will run on their record of saving the American economy
from a great depression, of reversing the kind of dramatic contraction in
the economy and dramatic job loss that we saw, and beginning to build a
foundation for the kind of competitive economy that we absolutely must
have in the 21st century for us to succeed and for America to continue to
be the kind of America that we want it to be.

Q So just to put a final point on it, the
President is -- he's okay if this election is a referendum on his progress
on the economy?

MR. CARNEY: The President fully expects that when people
cast their ballots in November of 2012, that they will be making their
decisions based on their assessment of his record, what he's done, what
he's accomplished, and obviously comparing that and what his vision is for
the future -- which is critical as well -- for where he wants to take the
country going forward, and comparing that to whoever is the candidate for
the Republican Party. So the answer is, yes. It's more than that, but,


Q The Chamber of Commerce and a bunch of other
groups, business groups, called for the super committee to go big in its
deficit reduction plan --

MR. CARNEY: Joining the President.

Q -- including a reform of the tax code. Do
you take them seriously at that?

MR. CARNEY: Do I take their calls for the --

Q The Chamber call seriously.

MR. CARNEY: Well, yes, sure. I think that many people in
Washington and all around the country recognize that a grand bargain, if
you will, at least in size if not in name, is what we should be hoping to
achieve. That's why the President put forward a plan that substantially
overshoots the mark in terms of the target that the super committee is
legislated to have to achieve, because he believes that you need to have a
significant -- all told, when you take the $1 trillion in savings from the
Budget Control Act plus the savings from his fiscal plan that he put
forward -- when you get into the $4 trillion range, you are achieving the
kind of reduction in deficit and balance between debt and GDP that really
should be the goal, that addresses the problem for a decade. Short of
that, you don't chip away at that ratio in a way that has that kind of
maximum benefit for the economy.

Q Their call for tax reform, however, seems to
preclude the idea of taxes going up for anybody. Is that serious?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me just start by saying I haven't
examined their call or proposal in any specificity. What I think most
people believe who look at this, the issue of tax reform, is that you need
to close a lot of loopholes and eliminate a lot of special privileges that
have benefited greatly those organizations or groups or sectors of the
economy that -- or society who are able to pay lobbyists to get special
benefits written into the law.

So, in terms of how it -- if you're saying that they're saying it should
not produce revenue, the President obviously believes, as you know from
the proposal he put forward, that we need to close loopholes as well as
generate revenue to help bring down our deficit.

Q The idea of tax reform without the tax bill
increasing for some people or businesses.

MR. CARNEY: I'm not going to get into -- because you're
talking about individual corporate reform. These are related, but
different ideas, and I don't -- not having had the benefit of having read
the Chamber's statement or proposal, I don't -- I'm out on thin ice here,
so I don't want to comment too much.

Q The Energy Department is making the last of
its loan guarantees under the Recovery Act this week. The program ends
tomorrow. Did the President, in light of Solyndra's bankruptcy, request
that the vetting be especially tight this week, especially rigorous?

MR. CARNEY: The process at DOE, what has been evaluated
and improved over the course of the whole time that we've been in office,
is merit-based and it's done -- it reflects extensive due diligence on the
projects that you're referring to, the new large-scale solar generation
facilities that receive loan approvals. And those projects are part of a
broad portfolio of loans that's putting people to work and making a
contribution achieving key administration policy objectives, like doubling
electricity generation from renewables like wind and solar during the
President's first term.

Q No more rigorous due diligence in light of

MR. CARNEY: The nature of the process at the Department
of Energy I would think would be best described by those over there who
are most familiar with it -- it is rigorous, it is merit-based, and it has
been adjusted over time -- not because of anything in the last several
weeks, but over time -- to improve it, as is true of all kinds of programs
that this administration administers.

Q And one more, if I could. Can you respond
to the ABC report that people who were involved in fundraising in the
President's campaign were also involved in decision-making on some of
these loans inside the Energy Department?

MR. CARNEY: I didn't see an ABC report, Wendell. Hold on
a second --

Q Three prominent fundraisers -- Steve Spinner
-- I'm sorry.

MR. CARNEY: Sorry, hold on one second. I know I have
that here. Again, I didn't see the ABC report, but it's my understanding,
at least with regard to the gentleman you just mentioned, that he had no
connection to overseeing the loan guarantee program.


Q Thanks, Jay. Going back to the criticism
that the President has gotten from some within the African American
community, why do you think he's failing to resonate and, in some cases,
angering some leaders in the African American community?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I just would take issue with the
assertion. People from every community express their opinions. A lot of
people are frustrated in this country, for understandable reasons --
because we have unacceptably high unemployment and growth that's not
strong enough to drive the kind of growth and employment that we need. So
there's a lot of economic anxiety and frustration. And I think that's
reflected across the board. And it's understandable. And it's why this
President is so focused on getting the American Jobs Act passed, because
he knows that is the number-one concern of the American people.

Q But the recent criticism hasn't been
necessarily about the economy. Tavis Smiley said, in light of the CBC
comments that the President made over the weekend, why does he get to
speak to black folks like that? I mean, that's a very different type of
criticism --

MR. CARNEY: I just addressed this question. And the
quote that I think, Mary, you read to me, right -- I have heard him make
similar comments to all sorts of different groups that have heard him

So his point is that we have made tremendous progress towards some very
hard-to-achieve goals and we're continuing to make progress. An example
is -- on the environmental front, for example, the fuel efficiency
standards that this President enacted administratively, with the
cooperation of major automakers, both domestic and foreign, represent an
historic achievement, the kind of achievement that, had it been passed
legislatively through Congress, might be the singular most -- single most
important piece of environmentally helpful and energy-related legislation
you could see in a generation. That's a huge accomplishment.

It doesn't mean that our work on energy is done, or our work on the
environment is done, but it's an enormous accomplishment.

Q I guess the question, though, is it doesn't
seem like he's that concerned about this criticism. Will we see him try
to do a better job of reaching out to some of these leaders -- Cornell
West, Tavis Smiley, Maxine Waters -- who have been critical of him?

MR. CARNEY: I think there are individuals in every
community who might be unhappy with a political leader. The fact is the
President is the President of the United States of America and all of the
American people, and he is working on their behalf to improve the economy,
to take measures to help the economy create jobs, to protect the American
people, defend the United States' national interests here and abroad, and
that's what he wakes up every morning worried about. There are critics
from all corners when you're President, and that's a fact of life.

Q Turning to the super committee. They've met
a few times but haven't briefed reporters yet. Has the President been in
contact with the super committee? Is he aware of what's transpired at
these meetings?

MR. CARNEY: I haven't had that discussion with him. It's
certainly possible he has spoken to individual members -- I don't know
specifically about super committee matters, but he may have had
discussions with individual members. I say "may have" because I don't
know of any specific ones. I just don't want to rule out that he's spoken
to anybody on the super committee, and then when I walk out of here
somebody remind me that he spoke to Senator so-and-so yesterday.

Q Is the administration at all concerned that
there hasn't been enough transparency at this point in the process?

MR. CARNEY: I haven't had that -- I haven't heard that
concern expressed internally. I think our primary concern or interest is
in the super committee focusing on its responsibilities, on the task that
it's mandated to achieve -- and hopefully to over-achieving -- to coming
up with the kind of proposal the President put forward, which is balanced,
substantial in size, and represents the sort of bipartisan approach and
balanced approach that we've seen from other committees and groups that
have looked at this problem and tried to address it in a way that reduces
the debt, deals with -- deficit -- deals with our long-term debt problems,
and does it in a balanced way so that the middle class, for example, or
seniors don't have to bear all the burden.


Q On the health care law, is the President
disappointed at all that what he's described as his signature achievement
is now going to the Supreme Court and could potentially become a pretty
divisive issue next year?

MR. CARNEY: Potentially becoming a divisive issue?

Q Is. Do you want to declare it as a divisive

MR. CARNEY: I don't think there was any expectation other
than that eventually this would require a legal review. I think that's
been the case of major domestic legislation of all kinds, including Social
Security and Medicare.

The fact of the matter is we are absolutely confident that the
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act will be upheld, as it has
been upheld by numerous courts. And we look forward to that taking
place. And what we also know is that, although full implementation of
health care reform doesn't take place until 2014 with the exchanges, there
have been tangible benefits accrued to the American people already. Now
-- as the Kaiser report mentioned the other day, more than 2 million young
people now are on their parent's insurance because of the provisions that
have taken effect from the Affordable Care Act. And that's a very
important fact to remember, and that's in addition to the protections for
those with preexisting conditions that now are in place and already

So we look forward to legal review that upholds the constitutionality of
the Affordable Care Act. We note that not only have lower courts upheld
its constitutionality but the fact of the individual mandates being both
constitutional and wise policy is an opinion shared across the ideological

A former governor of Massachusetts just said the other day, "The idea for
a health care plan in Massachusetts was not mine alone. The Heritage
Foundation, a great conservative think tank, helped on that. I'm told
that Newt Gingrich, one of the very first people who came up with the idea
of an individual mandate, did that years and years ago. It was seen as a
conservative idea to say, you know what, people have a responsibility for
caring for themselves if they can. We'll help people who can't care for
themselves, but if you can care for yourself, you've got to take care of
yourself and pay your own bills."

That's the former governor of Massachusetts describing the individual
mandate and why it's smart policy, and we certainly agree.

Q I guess what I'm asking is, what's the
President's reaction? If this -- what's transpiring, is how he envisioned
or would want --

MR. CARNEY: Carol, I don't think anybody ever -- correct me if I'm wrong,
this is the kind of thing that we expected would be taken to the courts,
and we have proceeded through these cases --

Q I'm not disputing that. I'm asking is it -- I'm asking for
a sense of what his mood is about this happening right now.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't know that his mood has changed appreciably
since it was fully expected to happen. But he feels very confident that
the Affordable Care Act will be upheld as constitutional, the individual
mandate, and that implementation will continue apace as it has, because --
and very pleased to see that tangible benefits from the act are already
being felt by the American people.

Q Just one more on that. Do you guys have any estimation on
what it's costing?

MR. CARNEY: Sorry, what --

Q It's costing the administration to fight these --

MR. CARNEY: You'd have to ask the Department of Justice, because they
handle the legal -- the court cases.


Q Jay, the new fiscal year begins Saturday. President Obama
will have to sign a four-day extension CR and then he'll have to sign a
six-week extension. Have you heard him talk about whether he thinks this
is any way to run a government -- or fund it, at least?

MR. CARNEY: You know, Mark, I haven't heard him address this particular
instance of this kind of process. I know that he shares a lot of people's
frustration about how difficult it is to get seemingly simple things done
in Washington. That was the case this past week with regard to the
funding of government at a level that had already been agreed to through
the Budget Control Act. But I haven't heard him address the particulars
that you just discussed and the kind of repeated steps that need to be
taken, in this case.

Q And if he's not worried about the Washington
Monument, has he said anything about how long the "big dig" out there has
been taking? (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: I haven't had that discussion with him at
all. I think his office is far enough away that he doesn't hear the
banging and the drilling.

Q Well, you sure do.

MR. CARNEY: I do, although it's not nearly as loud as it
used to be. I think when Robert was here it was worse. (Laughter.) So I
lucked out.

Q Because they dug deeper.



Q I have two questions. The first is on --
I'm curious whether the President has been following the actions in the
German parliament today with regard to the eurozone crisis. The lower
house of the parliament passed some measures to increase Germany's
contribution and the SFS leverage. And I'm just wondering, is the
President following this? Is he speaking with Merkel? And is this the
sort of decisive action that he wants European countries to be engaged in?

MR. CARNEY: When I saw him this morning he didn't mention
whether or not he had been briefed on or knew about the vote in Germany.
He is following the issue generally very closely because it is very
important, and he has had regular consultations with European leaders
about the overall issue of the eurozone and the need to -- for Europeans
to take forceful, decisive action to deal with it. And as we have said in
the past -- as I have said and others -- the Europeans have a capacity to
deal with it. We have urged them to take the kind of action that is
necessary to deal with it, and we obviously support the actions that have
been taken to address it and urge them to continue that.

But on the specific vote today, I haven't had a discussion
with him about it. I'm sure he's aware of it because he's had advisors
come in and out on different subjects.

Q Do you know -- are you aware, is he planning
on talking with her today?

MR. CARNEY: Not that I'm aware of. I can -- if he has --
it's already pretty late there, but -- so I don't think he had a call to
Chancellor Merkel today. But I'll double-check that.

Q And I have a completely non sequitor
question, too. The President expected to speak at the Human Rights
Campaign dinner over the weekend, and the last time that we checked in,
his views on gay marriage were evolving. I'm wondering whether we'll get
an update on that evolution at the dinner or whether DADT will be the main
-- essentially only newsbreaking topic of conversation.

MR. CARNEY: I haven't seen a draft of the remarks yet, so
I don't want to anticipate what he might say. I certainly think that the
successful repeal and elimination of DADT is a topic worth discussing.
It's a major accomplishment and a much needed one. But beyond that, I
don't know what he will say at this point.

Q Is the President working on the speech

MR. CARNEY: What's today? Wednesday? Thursday?

Q Thursday.

MR. CARNEY: Probably not until tomorrow. I'm thinking
about cycles here. Probably -- he will, definitely. There are very few
speeches that he gives that he hasn't marked up, left-handed. So he will.

Q Can I just ask you about immigration? We
have a story recently on the website saying that the administration and
Justice Department lawyers are reviewing statutes in four other states to
potentially get involved in tough new immigration laws that have been
considered or passed in those states -- I think Utah, Georgia, Indiana,
South Carolina. The reporter who wrote the story talked to experts who
are saying this kind of federal intervention is highly unusual. Can you
talk about what's going on with this, if you're aware, and kind of what's
prompting this from the administration? Do you consider this an
extraordinary step? And are you actively considering taking court action
in this case, in these states?

MR. CARNEY: I will have to refer you to the Department of
Justice -- not as a dodge, but I think they have a better answer to this.
I don't.

Q But the President said yesterday in a
roundtable forum with Latino reporters that what you don't want -- just to
quote him accurately -- he said that "you don't want 50 states with 50
different laws."

MR. CARNEY: Well, that's certainly been his position, and
he's said that I think on numerous occasions. And that's -- federal law
is federal law for a reason when it comes to immigration. But I haven't
heard him say anything more than that in regard to your first question.
So you might just get better direction from the Department of Justice in
terms of what actions and involvement we might have legally.

Q Has he given recent instructions to take
stronger action in these cases?

MR. CARNEY: Not that I've heard him give, but if he has,
Justice would know about it.


Q Hi, Jay. Picking up on Margaret's Europe
question, how big an economic threat does the President believe the debt
crisis in Europe poses to the U.S. and the U.S. economy?

MR. CARNEY: I'm not sure how to measure it. It's
obviously caused problems for the domestic economy, the American economy,
this year, as well as problems for other economies around the globe. It
is one of the economic headwinds that has contributed to the slowdown and
growth here and the related slowdown in hiring.

How big, I'm not sure I would hazard a guess, either in
his voice or mine. But it is a concern. And the eurozone is a major
factor in the global economy. We are very close allies with our European
friends and work with them very closely in discussing these matters and,
as I said before, have urged them in our consultations at all levels to
take direct, forceful action to deal with it. So I hope that answers your

Q You said before that the Europeans have the
capacity to confront the problem. But most analysts you ask even about
what the German parliament did today will say that's not enough; they need
closer coordination with the ECB and they need a bailout fund that is
substantially larger than even the larger one they're putting together.
So when the President speaks to European leaders, is the message not only,
you guys can do it, but you guys have to do more, you're not doing enough?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think when I say that we are urging
Europeans to take forceful, decisive action, that that continues to be the
message even as we take note of the actions that have been taken already.

Q Have you seen forceful action so far?

MR. CARNEY: Well, they're certainly -- I mean, they're
certainly addressing it. But we continue to deliver the message that we
believe forceful and decisive action needs to be taken. And when we say
that that they have the capacity, obviously we're talking about the
financial capacity to deal with this. They have the resources and
capacity to handle the problem. And then it becomes a matter of -- and
understandably difficult given the nature of the system -- but it becomes
a matter of political will and collective action that needs to be taken.
So we continue to -- Secretary Geithner and others have these
consultations regularly. We closely watch what's happening and keep up
those conversations.

Q Jay, can I briefly follow up on Mark's
question? He was thinking ahead to November and the latest CR running
out. I'm thinking also of the super committee coming up in November. The
President is supposed to be out of town, out of the country a lot of that
month between the G20, APEC, Indonesia, Australia. Are you concerned that
all of this is going to be coming to a head and he's going to have to
operate by remote control?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think two things: One, the tasks of
Congress that are basic and fundamental to their responsibilities should
be achievable without emergency action by the President of the United
States. And that was our position last week and this week; it's certainly
our position as it regards November. And the deadline for the super
committee is for the super committee itself to act, it's not for Congress
to act. And this is a congressional mandate for a congressional

The President has well in advance put his detailed proposal on the table,
which he hopes the committee will seriously consider. But it obviously --
the committee is the acting body here. We hope that as we enter October
and work picks up with the committee, that they will, again, as I said,
take up the proposals the President put forward and we can have
conversations with them about that, and urge them to go in certain
directions, and provide them information about our proposals and why we
think they're the right ones. But, ultimately, the committee has to act.

Q Well, it was a big deal last time and ended up, again, he
was right in the thick of it.

MR. CARNEY: Well, let's just remember the fundamentally different nature
of what we're talking about in terms of if you're referring to debt
ceiling crisis.

Q Both, actually -- that and the CR.

MR. CARNEY: The failure to act in terms of the debt ceiling crisis would
have been catastrophic for the economy, both here and around the world.
It could have precipitated a global financial crisis that would have made
what happened in 2008 seem minor. So there was an absolute imperative in
the end to ensure that we did not default on our obligations. And even
the threat of default -- when the mere possibility that Congress wouldn't
take action, that it would be held hostage by a minority of membership of
the House of Representatives, and it wouldn't take action to lift the debt
ceiling -- even that prospect did serious harm to the economy and
certainly caused great turmoil in the market.

So that's a different kettle of fish, if you will, from what you're
discussing now.


Q Hi. Thanks, Jay. Twice you answered that you heard the
President tell other groups to stop complaining. Can you tell us whether
any other groups have been told to "take off their bedroom slippers"? And
should anybody in the ballroom that night take offense at the President's
admonishment to "take off their bedroom slippers and start marching"?

MR. CARNEY: The message that he delivered he has
delivered -- that night he has delivered to audiences in different --

Q That --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would have to go back and look at the
speeches. He has certainly used vivid language -- similarly vivid
language before a variety of audiences. And his fundamental message is
simply what I described before, which is those who support him and
supported him and supported his candidacy in 2008, and who support the
kind of agenda that he's put forward have a lot to be proud of in terms of
the accomplishments that have been achieved in the last two and a half
years; that there is still much work to be done.

His point is that we need to -- all of us -- though the challenges we face
are enormous and we have setbacks, that we need to keep fighting, keep
struggling, keep moving forward to move the country forward -- the economy
and employment and all the other things that he's pressing for.

So, again, that is the same message he's taken elsewhere.
I can't answer your question about exact phrases because I don't have all
the speeches in front of me.

Q You're careful not to use the phrase
"bedroom slippers." So you --

MR. CARNEY: I'm not careful, I just don't know if he's
said it before or said it since. I just --

Q So he's not sorry he said it in that

MR. CARNEY: I haven't talked to him about that phrase.


Q Jay, now that the President has made his
decision about the No Child Left Behind waivers, is there still work being
done to reauthorize -- or work out an agreement on a reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act?

MR. CARNEY: That's a question I might have to take. I
mean, it's -- as the President made clear and Secretary Duncan made clear,
we have been working with the Congress on this for a long time -- the long
time that Congress had to take action. Because Congress couldn't act, the
President did to move this program forward, to allow for the waivers that
are provided to states in exchange for meeting very high standards. So I
will get back to you in terms of what work we're doing now with Congress
continuing on and the possible reauthorization. But the decision by the
President was to act because Congress had not.

Q Jay --

MR. CARNEY: Yes, April.

Q Getting back to the issue of jobs --

MR. CARNEY: What happened? Weren't you over there
earlier? (Laugher.)

Q I was, but I had a cough, I didn't want to

MR. CARNEY: Okay. That's very polite. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. Jay, getting back to the jobs
issue, what is the acceptable unemployment rate that this White House
would not look at it as a crisis?

MR. CARNEY: Well, as a crisis -- I would hesitate to use
that term to describe our disposition in terms of is it -- does a crisis
end at 4.9 percent but exist at 5. I mean, I know that this President
believes that he will not be satisfied until every American who is looking
for a job can find one. And we are obviously a long way from that.

So economists have models about what levels of unemployment represent some
sort of economic nirvana. We're focused on taking the policies that --
and pushing the policies in Congress that will help grow the economy and
create jobs. And since we're not in any danger of reaching the point
where every American who is looking for a job can find one anytime soon,
we're not spending a lot of time thinking about what that point would be.
We're just focused on the task at hand.

Q Going back to Saturday night, I was there
and talked to some congressional leaders off the record. And some were
saying, look, the speech was "whatever" -- that's with quote-unquote --
but they said at the same time it's about, "what have you done for me
lately?" They're talking earmarks. They're saying if you want this,
you've got to give us something. What does the President say and what
does this White House say about that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't know specifically about what
people were asking you about, or for, in terms of actions the
administration or Congress might take. The President's policy proposals
are very clear and they would benefit hard-hit communities. They would
benefit teachers who have been pushed out of a job because of cutbacks in
their states; construction workers who are idle because of the lack of
work in states. They would put extra money in the pockets of every
working American who gets a paycheck through the payroll tax cut holiday,
so -- and expansion.

I think our position on narrowly targeted earmarks, if you
will, is well known. His goal is to improve the economy for those
Americans who desperately need the economy to improve.

Q These were black leaders, black lawmakers
who came to me after the speech saying that, we understand what's in the
American Jobs Act, but when we go back to our communities, they still want
more. They want earmarks. Is this administration --

MR. CARNEY: I haven't had those conversations myself, and
I haven't discussed with our Legislative Affairs Office whether
conversations like that have taken place, so I wouldn't want to respond
since I'm not all that familiar with them.

Q Okay. Well, what do you think about Al
Sharpton's march on the weekend that the King memorial was unveiled -- on
jobs, the issues of jobs? What do you think about that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't know very much about it. But I think you've
probably seen the President focus quite a bit of his energy and time on
jobs and the economy. So he shares the opinion of others that we need to
take significant action to grow the economy and create jobs. That's why
he's out every week, in different parts of the country, calling on
Congress to take action on jobs, because that's the number-one priority.

Lesley, and then I've got to go.

Q Forgive me if this has been asked before. Has the President
had a chance to talk with Bill Richardson since he returned from Cuba,
pretty much disillusioned with the way he was treated? And has there been
any talk about revisions to the administration's Cuba policy?

MR. CARNEY: On both, I'll have to take. I don't believe he's spoken to
Ambassador Richardson, but I have to check, and I haven't heard any
discussion of that. I'll have to check on that as well.

Thanks, everybody.

Q Do you have a statement on Pastor Nadarkhani?

MR. CARNEY: I believe -- yes, didn't we put one out? Yes, it just went

Q Would you be able to -- so we can have it on tape?

MR. CARNEY: You want me to read it? Do I have it here? I may not have

Q We need the audio.

Q We're big on audio.

MR. CARNEY: Let me find it here. Is this the statement
itself, the one in the box? I mean, I assume it's the same.

Okay, regarding Mike's question about Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, the United
States condemns the conviction of Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani. Pasto
Nadarkhani has done nothing more than maintain his devout faith, which is
a universal right for all people. That the Iranian authorities would try
to force him to renounce that faith violates the religious values they
claim to defend, and crosses all bounds of decency and Iran's own
international obligations.

A decision to impose the death penalty would further
demonstrate the Iranian authorities' utter disregard for religious freedom
and highlight Iran's continuing violation of the universal rights of its

We call upon the Iranian authorities to release Pastor Nadarkhani and
demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including
freedom of religion.

Q Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: You bet. Thanks.

END 2:11 P.M. EDT


