mr. carney:good afternoon, everyone.thanks for being here. i have no announcementsto make, so i'll start with your questions. jim. the press:thanks, jay. a couple things. on korea, so far we haven'tseen any test missiles fired by north korea. does the president take thatas a signal that things are cooling down, perhaps?
and secretary kerry said overthe weekend that the u.s. could reach out to kim jong-un underthe appropriate circumstances. i wondered if you couldtalk about what those circumstances would be. mr. carney:on the first part, we have seena pattern of behavior reassert itself in recent weeks. and we would not be surprisedif that series of provocative actions and bellicosestatements were to continue. so we're monitoring thesituation very carefully.
we are taking the prudent stepsthat we've talked about in terms of ensuring that ourhomeland is defended and our allies are defended. and we are engaging with thechinese and the russians, as well as others, to urgethem to prevail upon the north koreans, usingtheir specific influence, to ratchet down the behaviorand the rhetoric because it does nothing good for anyone -- it does not help for the causeof stability in the region.
it certainly does nothing fornorth korea's aspirations to rejoin the community of nations. it does nothing for thenorth korean people. on the matter of negotiations,it has long been our position -- and this is i thinksomething that secretary kerry made clear -- that northkorea has available to it a path it may take -- could take if itagreed to the basic principle that it needs to be committed toits international obligations; it needs to be committed theproposition of a denuclearized
korean peninsula. and through the six-party talks,there is a path available. but north korea hasunfortunately chosen another path, a different path, thepath of provocative behavior and rhetoric that has onlyserved to isolate it further and to bring more harm to itseconomy through sanctions and the like. so that's what secretarykerry was referring to -- is that this path isavailable to north korea,
but that has longbeen our position. the press:the fact that -- you've talkedin the past about how this has been a pattern of activityon the part of pyongyang. but the fact that they haven'tfired a missile, though, seems to be a breakfrom tradition, given the particularanniversary. is that heartening tothe president that they haven't done this? mr. carney:well, any absence of provocativebehavior or unhelpful rhetoric
is a good thing in this case. but, again, i would not suggestthat we believe the cycle of behavior has ended necessarily. we are monitoring this asclosely today as we were over the weekend and inprevious days and weeks, and taking the necessarymeasures and working with our partners and allies to makeclear to north korea what the result of that kind ofdecision would be in terms of condemnation and isolationand further sanction.
but i just don't have anassessment to make over the fact that something has not happened. we certainly would not besurprised if north korea were to take that action. it would be in keepingwith past behavior. the press:on venezuela, any reactionto nicolas maduro's election? and does the closeness of thatelection say anything to the president about therelative weakness of the chavistas in venezuela?
mr. carney:well, we congratulate thevenezuelan people for their peaceful and orderlyparticipation in this electoral process. now, given the tightnessof the result -- around 1% of the votes castseparate the candidates -- the opposition candidate andat least one member of the electoral council have calledfor a 100% audit of the results. and this appears an important,prudent and necessary step to ensure that all venezuelans haveconfidence in these results.
in our view, rushing to adecision in these circumstances would be inconsistent with theexpectations of venezuelans for a clear and democratic outcome. and while our twocountries have differences, the united states has longdesired a dialogue with venezuela on mattersincluding counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and thecommercial relations between our two countries. the press:does this new government --does this offer the chance
for a new start inrelations with venezuela? mr. carney:well, again, i would simplysay that we congratulate the venezuelan people on theirparticipation in this process. the result, as reported,is extremely close. the opposition candidate andat least one member of the electoral council have calledfor an audit, which again, in our view, seems likean important and prudent step to take. so i don't want to getahead of that process.
i only want to say at thispoint that the people deserve our congratulations fortheir participation in the electoral process. the press:now, jay, in guantanamobay, there's hunger strikers. there was a clash between theguards and the prisoners over the weekend. is there anything you can dohere to lessen the situation? or is it becoming increasinglyuntenable and it requires some sort of action onthe white house part?
mr. carney:well, i'd say acouple of things. first, we've beenmonitoring, of course, the situation at guantanamoclosely and we're informed by the department of defense of thesteps it was going to take to move detainees from camp six -- or at camp six from a communalsituation to single-cell living in order to ensure theirhealth and security. more details can beprovided by dod, southcom, and the joint taskforce guantanamo.
more broadly, it is our view,the president's view that that facility ought to be closed. and we have taken steps inprocessing detainees and in transferring themto third countries. but the obstacle toclosing guantanamo bay -- obstacles have beenraised by congress, and that remains a reality. but our position is clear:it's in our national security interest to pursue that,and the president remains
committed to it. the press:and any movement in congress,anything you're doing with congress to try tomake this happen? mr. carney:well, we are always discussingwith congress our belief that we should take the action that thepresident has long supported, that military commanders andthe president's predecessor supported, because it's in ournational security interest. congress has, as you know,raised obstacles to this, legislatively, and that has madeit obviously more difficult to
pursue this. but that does not change thefact that it is the president's objective, and we are constantlylooking for ways to move forward on that objective. yes. the press:over the weekend, presidentabbas accepted the resignation of palestinian primeminister fayyad. this must be disappointingto the president. and how worried is theadministration this will
impact the possibility ofconstructive movement toward peace talks? mr. carney:well, first of all, i wantto say that we recognize the important roles that bothpresident abbas and prime minister fayyad play, and weappreciate their efforts as we and others work to supportthe establishment of a viable, independent palestinian state. now, it is ourunderstanding that, while the palestinian authorityshould be the source for further
details, prime minister fayyadwill remain in a caretaker capacity, at least temporarily. and i would say that primeminister fayyad has been a strong partner in theinternational community and a leader in promotingeconomic growth, state-building, and security for thepalestinian people. we look to all palestinianleaders to support those efforts. and while we greatly appreciatethe work of prime minister fayyad, it is important toremember that the palestinian
authority remains -- it isimportant to remember that this is about the aspirationsof the palestinian people. it's not about one person. these issues are biggerthan any single individual. and we are committedto moving forward with institution-building effortsin the west bank and to working with both palestinian andisraeli leaders in reenergizing the commitment to peace. so, again, prime minister fayyadhas been an important partner in
these efforts, ashas president abbas. prime minister fayyadis, as we understand it, remaining in a caretaker -- the press:until someone new -- mr. carney:-- position temporarily. broadly speaking, this work thathas been done by the palestinian authority, with the guidanceof these two leaders, is more important and greaterthan any one individual. and we consider -- we continueto pursue that path with the
palestinian leadership. the press:and switching to guns -- itlooks like a logical count suggests this legislation inthe senate might require up to 10 republicanvotes for it to pass. what is the president doingto reach those republicans? and how concerned is he thattheir votes aren't there? mr. carney:well, as i said lastweek and he said, this is a difficult challenge,and the fact that we had progress last week on theprocedural vote to allow for
debate on the underlying billdoes not mean we have gotten to where we need to be, which ispassage of legislation that is common-sense and that willreduce gun violence in america. this upcoming vote on abipartisan amendment on background checksis very important. and our position is the same asit was on the procedural vote, which is that it is incumbentupon the senators to allow a vote; if they're opposed toit, to vote no and explain why; and to understandthat if they vote no,
they will be siding with the 10%and not the 90% in the united states who supportbackground check legislation. and now maybe that is aposition they want to take. the press:and you guys willmake that known? mr. carney:well, i think anybody would --who suggested otherwise would be wrong, given theefforts we have undertaken, the president's speech inhartford last week, the -- the press:is he working the phones,or does he plan to? mr. carney:-- the fact that he brought --
he invited newtown familymembers of victims to travel down to washington withhim aboard air force one; the fact that we took theunprecedented step of having francine wheeler deliver thepresident's weekly address. the president's commitmenton this issue is very clear. and his call to the congress --and in this case, the senate -- to vote with the 90%could not be clearer. so in terms of the president'sefforts, they will continue. he is in contact withlawmakers on this issue;
has been in the pastand will continue to be. i don't have specificconversations to read out to you, but you can be surethat he is engaged on this. it is an absolute priority, andit's essential for, as i said, for those senators who will voteon this amendment to consider their position carefully;to allow a vote, first and foremost; and then todecide whether it is really in the interest of the americanpeople and the effort to reduce the scourge of gun violence inamerica to take a position that
only 10% of the people supportas opposed to the position that 90% of the americanpeople support -- a position that democrats,republicans and independents support; a positionthat gun owners support, which is to improve ourbackground check system to ensure that those who should nothave a weapon are not able to obtain them because of loopholesin the existing system. jon. the press:jay, it is certainly toughto get the 60 votes on this
compromise you're talking about. but is the president concernedthat this compromise is watering, is playing downto the point where it won't do any good? i mean, the backgroundchecks are not universal, and this actually includespro-nra provisions, including one to make it easierfor gun owners to transport guns across state lines. mr. carney:well, i would say that weapplaud senators manchin
and toomey for theirleadership on forging this bipartisan agreement. as you noted in your question,this is not an easy task, and it's an agreement that comestogether around common-sense background checks that will makeit harder for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun. now, this is not, as you pointout, the administration's bill, and there are aspects of theagreement that we might prefer to be stronger.
but it represents welcome andsignificant bipartisan progress, and it recognizes that thereare good people on both sides of this issue. and we don't have to agree oneverything to know that we've got to do something to stemthe tide of gun violence. now, there are some redherrings here when it comes to some of the provisionswe're talking about. as i said and tried tomake clear last week, when it comes to familymembers, family-to-family
member transfer, or loanersfrom sportsman to sportsman, those are exemptions thatthe president supports. and the fact is, is that whilethis is not the bill as we would have written it word for word,it does represent a significant improvement on ourbackground check system. and the presidenthas made clear, if everything that he supportedbecame law and all the executive actions that he orderedtaken were done, that would not eliminategun violence in america.
that would not mean that therewould never be a senseless act of violence thattook innocent lives. but it would reduce thenumber of these incidents, and it would save lives. and it is incumbent upon themembers of congress and all of us who are working onthis issue to take prudent, common-sense measures that donot in any way violate second amendment rights, but willreduce gun violence in america and prevent the pain, forat least some parents --
the pain that the mothers andfathers of kids in newtown continue to suffer;the pain that mothers, fathers and relatives of thevictims of virginia tech and aurora continue to suffer. we can and should do this. it's common sense. on the amendmentthat you talk about, that is a 90% issuein this country. and we talk a lot about whatthe right thing to do is,
and this is theright thing to do. but when it comes tosimply public opinion, public opinion is onthe side of doing this. and we hope that the senatorsfor whom that is an issue take it into account. the press:can you help mequantify, though, how much of a victory this is? i mean, this would beno assault weapons ban. it would be no ban on thehigh-capacity magazines.
it would not be universalbackground checks. it would include provisionsthe nra has favored, making it easier totransport guns and others. is this a 50% victory? a 20% victory? mr. carney:well, let me just say --first of all, you haven't -- all of those provisions, theban on military-style assault weapons, the limit on thecapacity of ammunition magazines, those haven'tbeen voted on yet.
you're presupposing outcomesthat i would simply suggest to you a lot of people presupposedthat we couldn't get cloture last week, andinstead we got it. the supporters ofthis bill got it. the american people got itbecause the voices of the american people were heard. the press:but your allies on the hill aresaying that those things are not going to happen; this is the onething that has a chance to pass. if only this passes, is thisanything near a victory for
the president? mr. carney:again, i'm not going toaccept the premise that other provisions can't pass. we have to have avote on all of them. there should not be proceduralefforts to block votes on any of them, and we will seewhere senators stand. the fact that thisis difficult, jon, you've covered this long enoughto know that all of this is hard, and that if anyone hadpredicted to you six months ago
what we would be where we arewith the far in excess of 60 senators who voted to have adebate on this bill last week, you would have probablydiscounted that prediction given how hard this is. so we've made progress, butwe have a long way to go. and that's why we urge lawmakersto continue to listen to the voices of americans who believethat common-sense measures to reduce gun violence arethe right way to go, that these measures in no wayviolate second amendment rights
that this president supports. and we hope that havingheard those voices, the members of the senatewill act accordingly. ed. the press:jay, on immigration, obviously,senator rubio did a lot of shows yesterday trying to put outhis view on all of this. and i wonder if you couldreact in general but also on a specific, such asa path to citizenship. the president has talked abouta clear path to citizenship.
senator rubio is talking abouta plan with a 13-year path. is that a clear path inthe white house's view? mr. carney:the president has madeclear that he would support legislation, or it is athreshold for him that it can contain within it aclear path to citizenship. now, the president's plan isvery consistent with the ideas that i think we have hearddiscussed of late with regards to the gang ofeight legislation, because that path isa challenging one.
it's a clear path, but itrequires paying back taxes. it requires paying a penalty. it requires learning english. and it requires first andforemost getting to the back of the line. that is the president's planand the ideas that he supports. and i think that while we havenot seen final language on the legislation that the gang ofeight will be putting forward, as we understand it,that is consistent with
the president's position. and also consistent with thepresident's position is an insistence that we continueto take steps to enhance our border security. the president has overseenconsiderable improvement in our border security that includes21,000 boots on the ground, more than doubling the bootson the ground since 2008. it includes apprehensionsbeing down nearly 80% since 2000 and 50% since 2008.
we have more boots on theground, as i was saying before, than any time in our history. so these are compatible ideas:enhancing border security, allowing for a clear path tocitizenship that requires a number of very specific steps. so the president is verypleased with the progress we've seen thus far. we will evaluate the legislationwhen we get the final language. but what we have seen is i thinka remarkable, in washington,
level of consensus betweenand support for bipartisan comprehensiveimmigration reform -- whether it's business groupsor labor, evangelicals, immigration groups. democrats, republicans --there is a consensus here that is required to getthis done, but it exists. and we remain cautiouslyoptimistic that this progress will lead to legislationthat can pass and the president can sign.
the press:it sounds like beyondbeing optimistic. i mean, you're not reallyquibbling with the principles that senator rubio laidout in terms of the path to citizenship -- i know notevery single line -- but you're saying in general itshares with the president. and then, on enforcement, thereare some democrats who are concerned that maybe thesespecific provisions and triggers and whatnot would be too much. i'm not hearing from you thatyou're worried about that.
it sounds like you think thepresident shares the idea that border security has tobe a big part of this. mr. carney:well, the president made clearthat it was one of his basic principles, basic prioritieswhen it came to comprehensive immigration reform that enhancedborder security be very much atop the list with aclear path to citizenship, responsibility onbehalf of employers. and what we have seen thus far,as we await the legislation itself, is in keeping with thosebasic principles and with the
underlying details of thoseprinciples that the president has had available to thepublic now for quite some time. again, we'll look at thelegislation when it arrives. but enhancing border securityand allowing for a clear path to citizenship are cornerstones ofthe president's proposal and we will await to see what thegang of eight produces. but it sounds like that is apath they are taking as well. the press:one other topic. there's a murder trial inpennsylvania that i know you
know is getting a lot ofattention, more attention, and in the media was notgetting a lot of attention. kermit gosnell, this doctorwho is accused of having -- delivering some babies who wereliterally screaming and then beheading them, he's facingmurder charges on that. it hasn't been decided yet,obviously; still on trial. is the presidentfollowing this at all? does the white house haveany reaction to that kind of situation that is alleged?
mr. carney:i'll say two things. one, the presidentis aware of this. two, the president does notand cannot take a position on an ongoing trial,so i won't as well. certainly, the things that youhear and read about this case are unsettling, but i can'tcomment further on an ongoing legal proceeding. the press:i understand thelegal proceeding. the president as a state senatorin 2003 voted against a bill
that would provide medicalcare, as i understand, to babies who would beborn after a botched abortion like this. and the president at the timesaid he couldn't support it as a state senator because hefelt like any doctor in that situation would takecare of a child. when you hear this kind ofevidence that suggests there's at least one doctorwho apparently did not, i understand youcan't comment --
you can't deal with thedeliberations of the case, but is there some legislativesolution or at least a conversation that needsto happen in washington? because on guns, youwere just saying, we need common-sense reform,we need to save lives. in this case, do we needto be saving lives as well? mr. carney:well, again, you're relating itto a case that i can't comment on and the presidentcan't comment on. i would simply say that thepresident's position on choice
is very clear. his position on thebasic principle that, as president clinton said,abortions ought to be safe, legal and rare is very clear. i just don't have commentthat could shed light on this specific case. the press:just last one on this then. is there any sort ofcommon-sense reform, though, without restrictingabortion rights?
does the white house see anyline in there where if there is a baby that is still alive, theyshould be taken care of without restricting abortion? mr. carney:ed, i just -- you're asking forhypotheticals about legislation or proposed legislationthat i haven't seen, so it's hard forme to comment on. the press:jay, thanks. back to gitmo. when was the president madeaware that the raid was going to take place?
mr. carney:again, as i think i said, wewere informed of the department of defense's intent totransition detainees from communal setting to single-cellsetting for their own security and health. as i think, i would point youthe department of defense and others for the details about it. the press:when did that happen? mr. carney:well, in advance, but ihaven't got a specific time of day for you.
but the fact is,as they've put out, we had a situation wherecameras were being covered. it was impossible to knowthrough the monitoring of it, whether the security ofdetainees was being maintained, and so this decision was taken. but, again, the details forthis mostly reside at the department of defense. the press:and how concerned is he aboutthis ongoing hunger strike? mr. carney:well, obviously, itis overall an issue,
as i mentioned earlier, thatthe president would like to see addressed throughclosure of guantanamo bay. the fact is we have facedobstacles with congress on this, but we continue to monitor thehunger strikes, specifically, very closely. but the department of defense isthe place to go in terms of the assessments about wherethat stands right now. the press:and just to make one more point,is he prepared at all to take any further steps at thispoint in time to transfer
the detainees who havebeen cleared for release? mr. carney:well, as you know, sincethe beginning of this administration, after thereview that was conducted, over 70 detainees have beenrepatriated or resettled to third countries. and the bottom line is that thisadministration remains committed to closing the facility andwill not send more individuals to the prison there. the assessments about transfersare something that's ongoing,
but we have reduced thepopulation there and transferred over 90 detainees eitherthrough repatriation or transfer to a third country. the press:and just goingback to guns, jay, there are democrats as wellwho have said that they're not prepared to votefor this legislation. i know you were just asked aboutwhat type of outreach we could see from the presidentthis week specifically. will he -- will the vicepresident be picking up
the phone and making callsto democrats, encouraging them to vote forthis legislation? mr. carney:well, i think you will seethe entire administration, and certainly the whitehouse, the president, the vice president engaged inthe effort to make progress on this effort toreduce gun violence. it is certainly the case, asi think i said in answer to a question last week, that when -- just as a basic proposition,without counting votes or
getting into where any specificindividual stands on any part of this -- that when 90-pluspercent of one party supports something and 90-plus percentof another party opposes it, if it doesn't succeed, it isfair to say that the party that was opposed by 90% wasthe principal roadblock. so the idea that there might bea handful of lawmakers from one party who have problems withit or might oppose it is not the cause for the troubles wehave here in getting these kinds of things passed.
peter. the press:the president has now haddinner with about two dozen of the 45 republicansin the senate. where do you think weare with a grand bargain? do you think we're closerthan we were before some of this outreach began? and what's your assessmentgenerally about whether we're going to get to a grand bargain? mr. carney:the house has passed a budget.
the senate has passed a budget. the president has presentedwhat he believes is a compromise budget that representsa willingness to -- as it did when he made thefundamental offer to speaker of the house boehner -- meet republicans halfway andto produce a deficit reduction package that would achieveanother $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction, bring the total toover $4 trillion over 10 years, exceeding the goal set byeconomists to get our deficits
and debt under control. so he hopes -- and this is ahope he has expressed in his conversations withrepublican lawmakers -- that there is an opennessto this path of compromise, that there are lawmakers ofthe republican party who seek to occupy this commonground with him. and we will see. we certainly would hope thatregular order would be observed and conferees would be appointedto see if there's a way to
bridge the substantialdifferences by the house-passed budget andthe senate-passed budget. and the president will continuehis efforts to engage with republican lawmakers to see ifwe can find some common ground. but there's a thresholdissue here, which is -- now, while therehave been lawmakers, both publicly and in theirconversations with the president, who have made clearthat they would support a balanced approach, that theywould support both savings from
entitlements but also revenuefrom tax reform as part of a balanced package,we haven't seen it. we have seen at the leadershiplevel an adamant refusal to engage in that, even thoughspeaker of the house boehner said he could achieve a trilliondollars in revenue from tax reform by closing loopholesand capping deductions. the president is proposing $580billion out of that process because it's theright thing to do. the wealthy and well-connectedought to have skin in the game.
it can't just be, as the houserepublican budget suggests it should be, that senior citizensand students and families with kids with disabilities ought tobear the burden alone of further reducing our deficit. he won't do that. margaret, how are you? the press:i'm great, thank you. i know you follow russiannews, obviously, as do i. so tom donilon is in russiaand he had a meeting,
and the readout from yuriushakov was that the russians feel like, a, congress is arussophobic congress; and, b, the administration is taking "noaction" to get congress in line. so i guess i'm wondering, doyou know what mr. donilon's response was to that? and what's the administration'sposition both on russia's take and on whether it's yourrole to get congress to like russia more? mr. carney:well, i would saya couple of things.
first of all, we also had areadout: national security advisor tom donilon helddiscussions with president putin, security councilsecretary general patrushev, foreign minister lavrov, andpresidential foreign policy advisor ushakov on the fullrange of bilateral and global issues in preparation for themeeting between president obama and president putin on themargins of the g8 summit and a u.s.-russia bilateralsummit in early september. the discussions werecomprehensive and constructive.
they covered a range of issues. i think i addressedthe magnitsky issue. and, look, one way to resolvethis is for the russian government to takeaction against -- investigate and to take actionon those individuals responsible for mr. magnitsky's death. that's the clear, right responseto the international outcry over his death -- conduct a properinvestigation and hold those responsible for his deathaccountable, rather than engage
in tit-for-tat retaliation. so that's our view. but as i've said repeatedly, notjust in the last week but for my entire time at this podium, wehave an important relationship with russia. we have considerabledifferences on some issues, and we are clear about thoseand candid about those, as i just was. but we also have areas where wehave and can make real progress
where our interests align. and that's why we engage withthe russian government on a range of issues. that's why tom donilon engagedwith russian officials in his meetings, including presidentputin on a range of issues -- because we have a lot ofimportant business to do with the russians. we disagree on some matters,and we are able to cooperate and agree on others.
the press:i had another -- it'sa total non sequitur. can you shed any more light onfriday, between now and friday? we've read some local reportsabout the president's plans for the end of the week,but i haven't -- mr. carney:oh, i'm sorry, scheduling. i don't have any schedulingannouncements for later in the week at this time. when we have more details,we'll give them to you. the press:if his is about russia,you can go ahead.
the press:thank you. just to follow on that --russian officials are also saying that mr. donilon passeda letter from president obama to president putin, andcould you confirm that? and also, they're saying that itinvolved some non-proliferation issues and some economiccooperation issues. can you tell us a little bitmore about what that letter -- if that happened --what it contained? mr. carney:i can confirm that the letterwas passed on from mr. donilon.
i don't have details on thesubstance of the letter beyond what i've said in generalabout the substance of our communications withrussian officials from the president-on-president meetingsand conversations down through the various levelsof government, and that is that theyencompass a range of issues -- including bilateraltrade issues, including iran and north koreaand other matters, syria. so i think you can expectthat the conversations that
tom donilon has had covereda variety of issues, and that any communications thatthe president might have with president putin would alsocover a variety of issues, as will their discussions on themargins of the g8 and later in september in st. petersburg. i'll keep with therussia theme briefly. andrei -- yes. the press:thank you, jay. basically, the same questionin a different wording.
(laughter) the russians have been sayingthat they want this upcoming summit to be devoted primarilyto economy and trade. what is your mainfocus in that summit? mr. carney:on which summit? sorry. the press:the upcoming meetingsbetween our presidents. the russians have for a longtime said that they want the meetings to focus oneconomy and trade. mr. carney:well, i think that matters ofeconomic relations and trade
relations are very important,and i'm sure they will be a focus of meetings. the press:what is the focus? mr. carney:well, i'm not goingto characterize. who knows what events inthe world might drive the conversation that won't takeplace for a number of months now, so i wouldn't predict. but those are matters ofimportance between russia and the united states, as are avariety of international issues
that we work on with therussians and cooperate on, and other matters likesyria and elsewhere where we have disagreements. all of those things iexpect will be the topics of conversation whenever we meetwith our russian counterparts. the press:certainly so. are we beyond reset? what is now? what phase are we in now?
they settled the reset? how would you define it? mr. carney:i'll leave thatto you and others. i would simply say thatthe reset was an important adjustment in our relations withrussia that began a process that i think i've beenechoing from here, which is that we understandwe have differences. and we are very clear andtransparent and candid about those differences.
and we engage with russianofficials on those differences, whether it's missiledefense or the magnitsky legislation or syria. but we also have areas wherewe can cooperate in ways that are useful and in theinterest of both russia and the united states. and we have done that. this administration, thispresident have done that over the past four-plus years.
and that has been a productivething to do for both countries, and we believe that'sthe right course to take. going back to mr. landler. and then, ari -- sorry. the press:on missile defense,but -- sorry, ari. the press:it's alright. go ahead. mr. carney:i can't believeyou did that to ari. the press:on missile defense,about north korea -- the secretary of state made sortof an interesting proposal over
the weekend in beijing, wherehe said that were the nuclear threat from north korea todecline over time, the u.s. would consider taking out someof the missile defense batteries that it's installed inthe past few months. i'm interested in your thinkingabout what's behind this sort of offer, this proposal. and i'm also curiousabout the timing. given that you said at the topthat there's no evidence that the provocations from the northhave subsided and there may be
further provocations, why danglethe possibility of pulling back these batteries ata time like this? mr. carney:well, i think you may be readinga little too much into it. i think we have been clear thatthese precautionary measures, including the steps taken toenhance anti-missile defense systems have been inreaction to the provocations. and clearly, if north korea wereto commit itself in a verifiable way to denuclearization andcommit itself to abiding by its international obligations withregards to its nuclear program
and to its missile program, thatwould be a positive thing and would result in steps that weand our international partners would take also to help bringdown tensions in the region. but first things first -- north korea knows whatpath is available to it. pyongyang and the leaders thereunderstand that they need to embrace as a principle thatthe korean peninsula should be denuclearized. they need to demonstratein a verifiable way that
they are committed to that. and they need to abide by theirinternational obligations on their nuclear program as wellas their missile program. so that's the path available. and if north korea shows thatit's serious about pursuing that path, then negotiations arethe course through which that can be achieved. but i don't think that thestatement that you cited is inconsistent with where we'vebeen for quite some time.
and the actions that we've takenon the anti-missile defense arena have been in directreaction to these provocations. the press:and then just one quick follow,which is in the short time since the secretary was in china, haveyou seen any evidence that the chinese have taken some ofthis on board in terms of the communications, the warningsthat they may or may not be issuing to north koreans? mr. carney:i don't have anything new,so nothing to convey to you in the last day or so.
we have certainly seen in thestatements by the new chinese president, president xi,an indication that -- a welcome indicationthat china is frustrated, as so many nations are,with north korea's provocative behavior. and so we are urging the chineseto use their influence to prevail upon the north koreansto cease this course of action and to take steps toreassure china, russia, the united states, theinternational community
that it would prefer a path thatcan lead to denuclearization and fulfillment of itsinternational obligations. ari. the press:on friday, congress quietlypassed changes to the stock act, and government transparencygroups say the changes basically gut the law. they're urging thepresident to veto it. does he plan to signit into law or veto it? and why?
mr. carney:i think the presidentwas scheduled to sign the legislation today. let me get my language here. as you know, withregards to this, both houses of congress passedthis bill unanimously and it was not done in a vacuum. congress changed the onlineposting provision only after a panel of experts from thenational academy of public administration studied thisissue and issued a report
recommendingindefinite suspension. in fact, one author of thereport was someone we all know well -- martha kumar,who is not here today -- for her shout-out. if you take some timeto read the report, which i would recommend doing,the napa points to substantial national security,personal security, and law enforcementissues on this matter. and it is also worth notingthat napa concluded that in the
context of the executive branch,that posting requirements had no positive impact inidentifying conflicts. the independent officeof government ethics also recommended thischange to the congress, pointing to the findings of thenapa study and noting that this information is alreadyavailable to the public. so that's our position on thisand the president was scheduled to sign it today. mr. collinson.
the press:just a quick one. do you have any informationon the u.s. delegation to the thatcher funerallater this week? mr. carney:i have no information. i expect that we'llhave something for you relatively soon. but i can't evenput a time on that. once we do, we'll besure to let you know. leslie.
the press:president obama in his stateof the union address promised more details on thetargeted killing program. and some of the congressionalpanels said they have not been able to get whitehouse officials, administrationofficials to testify. do you plan on sendingit to anybody -- up to the judiciaryor to the house? mr. carney:well, i think the presidentwas referring to himself. and i would point you to thepresident's comments about how
he has addressed this issueand how senior members of his team have addressedthis issue publicly, and how we willcontinue that progress. and the fact is we have workedwith congress in terms of providing information aboutour counterterrorism efforts and we'll continue to do that. and the president believes,as he has said publicly, that this is an important issueand that the questions about it are legitimate.
and that's why he has pursuedthese matters the way he has, because he believes it's veryimportant to have a kind of architecture in place thatlives on beyond his presidency, because our efforts in thecounterterrorism sphere will be with us forsome time to come. the press:so is that a maybe on gettingsomething up to the hill? mr. carney:i don't have anything aboutcongressional testimony. we've been very cooperativein general with congress on this issue.
i don't have anythingfor you specifically with regards to that. i can tell you that thepresident's commitment has been kept and willcontinue to be kept, which is to provide as muchinformation and transparency as possible on these matters bothto congress and to the public. yes, alexis. the press:jay, there was a hearingon the hill today about the veterans disability claims.
i was just wonderingif you could update us. i know last week there were somemeetings here at the white house on that subjectwith va officials. what is the president doingto try to either address that immediately orthrough his budget? mr. carney:well, i appreciate the question,because this administration will continue its unwaveringcommitment to serve our veterans. currently, too many veteransare waiting for far too long to
receive the benefits they haveearned and that they deserve, and it's simply unacceptable. that's why the president hasdirected secretary shinseki to fix the problem and to eliminatethe va backlog by 2015. the president has been clearthat he expects results. this administration is engagedin an all-out effort to complete this critical mission. and as denis mcdonoughsaid recently, eliminating the va backlogis a national priority.
the president is kept abreastof this problem regularly. it's one he considers asignificant priority of his. and he is veryimpatient for results. in the back. the press:you mentioned earlierabout guantanamo, that the administration is doingthings every day to close it and that most of the roadblocksare from congress. can you talk a little bit aboutwhat the administration is doing to close guantanamo orto mitigate the number
of people there? mr. carney:well, again, i think isaid despite the legislative roadblocks, progresshas been made. and since the beginning ofthis administration we have repatriated or resettledto third countries over 70 detainees. and we remain committed toclosing the facility and we will not send more individualsto be held in prison there. the press:has the president's droneprogram mitigated the need
to send more people there? mr. carney:i think that the president'scommitment to closing guantanamo has been and remains clear. it's in keeping with ournational security interests, as a number of leading figuresin the national security establishment have said, inagreement with the president; as senator mccain andpresident george w. bush have said. and the presidentremains committed to
this policy objective. we do have constraintsplaced on us by congress, but that doesn't lessen inthe president's view the need to pursue this agenda. cheryl, last one. the press:just to follow upquickly on budget -- is the white house seeking aformal budget reconciliation process this year? mr. carney:well, as we have said allalong, we have heard the
call from congressional leadersfor a return to regular order. we encourage the process thatled to the passage in the senate of a budget and that, ofcourse, led to the passage of a budget in the house. and we urge congress to thenmove forward in trying to reconcile those efforts. we'll see how thatprocess proceeds. in the meantime, the presidentis engaging with lawmakers of both parties, and most, ithink noticeably to you,
in recent weeks with republicanson this issue to see if there's common ground -- to see ifrepublicans will cross that fundamental threshold toaccept the idea that balance has to be employed aswe reduce our deficit; that we can't simply do itby asking seniors to bear the burden, or by askingmiddle-class families or students to bear the burden,and we don't have to. the president's budget -- which is a compromisedocument, as we've made clear,
contains within the offer hemade to the speaker of the house, contains within itentitlement reforms that were two of the three demandsmade by republican leaders -- demonstrates that you can reduceour deficit in a responsible way, protect our middleclass, protect our seniors, and make the investments thatwill allow our economy to grow in the future and createjobs in the future. because the president'sobjective is not balance for balance's sake, when wetalk about balanced budgets.
i mean, it is -- when the house republicanspass a bill with no details, a budget bill with no detailsthat simply says zero at the end and therefore theyclaim it balances, nobody takes that seriously. there's no -- they don't say how they're goingto achieve that when they give a $5.7 trillion tax cutmostly to the wealthy. they just declare it so.
but if balancewere the objective, we could balance it tomorrow. we could eliminate defensespending, eliminate medicare, eliminate social security. you get to balance pretty fast. but that's not the point. the point is to have policiesthat protect our citizens, protect our seniors, ensure thatwe have a growing and thriving middle class, and that we'reinvesting in areas like
education, and research anddevelopment and infrastructure that allow our economy to grow. and while we're going that,we reduce our deficit in a responsible way, in a way thatbrings our deficits down and puts our debt on a path thateconomists say is essential. and that's what thepresident's budget does. thanks, all.
