Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 5/16/14

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

May 17, 2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:18 P.M. EDT

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.Ã� HappyFriday.Ã� Before I take your questions, I have something at the top here.Ã� As I think some ofyou, or most of you saw, on Thursday, May 29, President Obama will host a summit at the WhiteHouse on youth sports safety and concussions, where he will be joined by stakeholders, includingyoung athletes, parents, coaches, experts, professional athletes, and military servicemembers.Ã�Â

� � � � At the White House Healthy Kids and Safe Sports Concussion Summit, thePresident will announce new commitments by both the public and private sectors to raise awarenessabout how to identify, treat and prevent concussions, and conduct additional research in the field ofsports-related concussions that will help us better address these problems.

� � � � As both a parent and an avid sports fan, the President appreciates the role thatsports play in the lives of young people.� And this administration is committed to helping ensurethat children continue to be active and play sports safely.

� � � � And now Iâ��ll go to your questions.� Jim.

� � � � Q� � � Thanks, Jay.� On immigration, Valerie Jarrett was quoted inLas Vegas as saying that thereâ��s a window between now and August to get immigrationoverhaul done.� And she says, â��We have a commitment from Speaker Boehner,whoâ��s very frustrated with his caucus.â��� Now, the Speakerâ��s office hasdenied that thereâ��s a commitment.� And in a tweet today, Valerie herself said that thiswas lost in translation and that she actually meant that it was a commitment to trying.� But Iguess the question is -- a commitment to trying what and when?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Speaker Boehner, other House Republican leaders andleading Republicans outside of the House of Representatives have all expressed deep interest inmoving forward on immigration reform.� And we have found those comments and that interest tobe encouraging and indicative of some movement among Republicans in the House towards supportfor comprehensive immigration reform.

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� What the President has said and others have said is that the opportunity beforeus is something very rare and we ought to seize it here in Washington, all of us.Ã� The Houseought to follow the SenateâÂ�Â�s lead and pass comprehensive immigration reform.Ã� In theSenate, a comprehensive bill passed with Democratic and Republican support.Ã�Â

Republicans across the country, business leaders across the country, faith leaders and lawenforcement leaders across the country are behind this effort.� They recognize that passingcomprehensive immigration reform will provide a huge boost to our economy, to our security, toprinciples of fairness.� And for those reasons we ought to move forward, and what we hope isthat the House will move.� And thatâ��s a message that Valerie was carrying and that wehave all been carrying for some time now.

Q� � � Is the suggestion here that if doesnâ��t happen by August, or at the end ofAugust -- have an August recess -- that the President will take matters into his own hands, he hassome authority to do some things -- that we do something beyond just tweaking the margins?

MR. CARNEY:� Well, Iâ��m not going to speculate about the future.� What we havealways said will always remain true, which is comprehensive immigration reform requires action byCongress.� The President is always interested in moving the ball forward on his agenda where hecan, even if Congress refuses to act.� But there are some things that require congressionalaction, and this is one of them.

So the Senate acted in this Congress, and has put a bill forward that enjoys broad bipartisan supportacross the country in communities and among interest groups that donâ��t often get togetherbehind the same priority.� And we hope that Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor,Chairman Ryan and others hear all the voices of support, including traditional Republican voices,traditional conservative voices for comprehensive immigration reform and move forward with it.� Thatâ��s what Valerie was talking about.� Thatâ��s what the President has talked aboutand I have talked about and others.

We should get this done for our economy.� We should get this done for our security.� Weshould get this done because it will allow us to innovate more here in this country in ways that willbuild our economy and create high-paying jobs in this country.� So the opportunity is there forthe taking, and we hope that the Speaker and other Republican leaders in the House availthemselves of the opportunity.

Q� � � A question on Ukraine -- reports today of pro-Russian insurgents pulling out ofbuildings, government buildings in the city of Mariupol.� And this is because steelworkersemployed by one of the wealthiest men in Ukraine are patrolling the streets with police officers.� Iâ��m wondering, is that a welcome development at the White House?� Or is there aconcern that the government in Kyiv is relying on oligarchs to essentially run the government inthese tense regions?

MR. CARNEY:� Well, Iâ��m not sure thatâ��s how I would interpret the story thatyouâ��re referring to.� We certainly welcome any indication that separatists that haveseized buildings, who have set up roadblocks, stockpiled weapons, are vacating buildings andceasing the kinds of activities that have only destabilized the situation in Ukraine and led toconfrontations and violence.� So that would certainly be a good development.

And the fact that significant portions of the population in Ukraine, including in eastern Ukraine, donot support the agenda of Russian-backed separatists but support a united Ukraine and support a

process by which decisions around constitutional reform and devolution of power from the centerare made in an appropriate way -- thatâ��s a good thing.� These are the kinds of issues thatthe Ukrainian government in Kyiv has promised will be discussed in dialogue with Ukrainians fromall parts of the country at roundtables that are facilitated by the OSCE.� Thatâ��s a goodthing.

And all of this comes as we move closer now to a presidential election on May 25.Ã� And our focusand the focus of the OSCE and the Ukrainian government and all of our partners in this effort is onensuring that those elections are able to go forward.Ã� And the OSCE has reported that thepreparations, the technical preparations for the elections are proceeding well.Ã�Â

Separatists have disrupted preparations in some isolated areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, but in thevast majority of the country, as you know, Jim, the situation is calm and preparations are ontrack.� And thatâ��s certainly a good thing and a welcome development.

Jeff.

Q� � � Jay, General Motors was assessed a $35 million fine today over its ignition switchissues.� Does the President believe that fine is enough?

MR. CARNEY:� I havenâ��t discussed it withhim.� I would refer you to obviously the agencyinvolved here, the Department of Transportation andthe National Highway Safety and Traffic -- NTSB,whatever that acronym stands for.� (Laughter.)� But theyâ��re the bodies that you should addressquestions about it to.

Q� � � Has he been following that issue?

MR. CARNEY:� Well, heâ��s certainly broadly been following it.� Itâ��s been anissue thatâ��s received a lot of attention, understandably.� But in terms of that process,thatâ��s not something that I would have a lot to say about.

Q� � � Two quick foreign policy questions.� Youâ��ve talked a lot about the issuewith China and Vietnam, and wanting that to be resolved in a way that is diplomatic and withoutprovocation.� Do you want China to move the oil tanker?

MR. CARNEY:� Hereâ��s what Iâ��d say about that -- and I appreciate thequestion.� First of all, weâ��re closely following, out of our mission to Vietnam, the protestsin Vietnam around this issue.� But regarding the broader issue of Chinaâ��s unilateraldecision to introduce an oil rig accompanied by numerous government vessels for the first time inwaters disputed with Vietnam, we would say what we have said repeatedly, which is this is aprovocative act and it raises tensions in the region, and by raising tensions makes it more difficult toresolve claims over disputed territory in a manner that supports peace and stability in the region.

So we consider that act provocative and we consider it one that undermines the goal that we share,which is a peaceful resolution of these disputes and general stability in the region.� Weâ��revery concerned about dangerous conduct and intimidation by government-controlled assets

operating in this area.� And we call on all parties to conduct themselves in a safe andprofessional manner to preserve freedom of navigation and overflight, to exercise restraint, to takesteps to lower tensions, and to address competing sovereignty claims peacefully and in accordancewith international law.

As you know, sovereignty over these islands, the Paracel Islands, is disputed.Ã� This is occurringin waters claimed by both Vietnam and China near those islands.Ã� These events highlight theneed for claimants to clarify their claims in accordance with international law and to reachagreement on appropriate behavior and activities in disputed areas.Ã�Â

As I�ve said before, the United States does not take a position on these competing sovereigntyclaims, but we do take a position on the conduct of the claimants who must resolve their disputespeacefully, without intimidation, without coercion, and in accordance with international law.

Q� � � Thank you.� And one last foreign policy question.� Do you have a reaction tothe election in India?

MR. CARNEY:� I do.� First of all, we congratulate India and the people of India on an historicnational election, which saw more voters cast their ballots freely and fairly than in any election inhuman history.� We congratulate Narendra Modi and the BJP on winning a majority of seats inthis historic election.� Once the government is formed, we look forward to working closely withthe Prime Minister and the Cabinet to advance our strong bilateral relationship based on shareddemocratic values.� We would also like to thank Prime Minister Singh for the role he played intransforming our strategic partnership during his 10 years in office.

� � � � Q� � � Thank you, Jay.� Mr. Narendra Modi was banned the U.S. visafor the last 10 years.� Do you think that was a step which could not have been taken -- was notthe right step in the direction at the time?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Iâ��m sorry, the question -- I understand about the visa,but whatâ��s the question?

� � � � Q� � � Do you think that was a wrong step taken by the previousadministration, or do you stand by that?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Well, I would refer you to the State Department for generalanswers to questions about the issuance of visas.� I can tell you that the Prime Minister of Indiawill be welcomed to the United States.� And I would also note that U.S. officials, includingAmbassador Powell, have met with Mr. Modi so he is certainly not unknown to us.

� � � � Q� � � And does the President have any plans to call him?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� The President does plan to reach out to Mr. Modi, andIâ��m sure weâ��ll let you know when thatâ��s happened.

� � � � Q� � � Just a follow-up, quickly?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Yes, Goyal.

� � � � Q� � � One -- if the President preparing to invite Prime MinisterNarendra Modi to the White House.� And second, if you can confirm if the President has received

a farewell letter from outgoing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh -� Dr. Manmohan Singh.

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I donâ��t have anything on any correspondence thePresident may have received, and I think itâ��s a little early to talk about a visit.� ThePresident will be reaching out to Mr. Modi and, as I noted, we congratulate him and the BJP onwinning a majority of seats in these historic elections.� So, again, this is an importantrelationship, a strong, bilateral partnership, and the President looks forward to building on theprogress weâ��ve made with Prime Minister Singh in our relationship, in our bilateralrelationship with the next Prime Minister.

� � � � Q� � � And finally, the entire Presidentâ��s administration, all theseeight years, Mr. Modi was banned from coming to the U.S. -- because there were several occasionswhen he was going to attend several functions in the U.S.� Do you think thereâ��s abitterness there between the two countries because of this?� And now there is a landslide victoryby the BJP and Mr. Narendra Modi, and the sweep-out of the outgoing government.� What is thefuture of the U.S.â��India relationship?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I think the future is bright.� We have long said that welook forward to working with whomever the Indian people choose in these elections.� And theU.S.â��India partnership enjoys broad support across party lines in both of our countries.� And I am confident that we will continue our successful and productive partnership with the newIndian government.� The President looks forward to speaking with Mr. Modi and to working withthe new government once it is formed.

� � � � Let me move on.

� � � � Q� � � A follow-up on that?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Let me get to â��- I promise Iâ��ll get to you.

� � � � Jon.

� � � � Q� � � Jay, a follow-up on the immigration question.� Iâ��m justwondering where the White House stands now on the issue in what is acceptable and what isnot.� Is it essential still to the White House that whatever finally emerges from Congress includea path to citizenship?

MR. CARNEY:Ã� ThatâÂ�Â�s the PresidentâÂ�Â�s position.Ã� It is elemental to theprinciples that he put forward.Ã� It is reflected in the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate.Ã� And the President strongly believes that it needs to be a part of comprehensive immigrationreform.Ã�Â

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� We have long said that the House would necessarily pursue its own path in theconstruction of an immigration reform package, but comprehensive immigration reform is essentialbecause the whole works together in a way that achieves all of the important benefits to theeconomy and to the country that we are looking for with the passage of this legislation.Ã� SoIâÂ�Â�m not going to get into a lot of parsing of âÂ�Â�what ifsâÂ�Â� because wehavenâÂ�Â�t seen a thing out of the House yet, and weâÂ�Â�re looking forward to the Houseacting on the urges weâÂ�Â�ve heard expressed and the interest and desire that weâÂ�Â�veheard expressed by Republicans, including Republican leaders on this matter.Ã�Â

And we want to see comprehensive immigration reform.� We want to see comprehensiveimmigration reform that meets the test set by the President when he laid out his principles a numberof years ago.� And those principles are reflected in the Senate bill, as Iâ��ve said manytimes.� That bill does not exactly mirror what the President would have written if he were towrite a bill and see it pass through Congress, and he doesnâ��t expect that what emerges fromthe House, if the House has the courage to act on this, to match word for word what he wouldprefer.� But what he does insist is that comprehensive immigration reform adhere to theprinciples he laid out in the beginning.

� � � � Q� � � So whatever the legislative process, not parsing that, the final billthat he would sign into law must include a path to citizenship?� I just want to be --

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Weâ��ve said all along that comprehensive immigrationreform needs to include a path to citizenship.

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� QÃ� Ã� Ã� And he will not sign a law that is short of that?Ã�Â

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Not sign a law -- there are just so many different --

� � � � Q� � � He will not sign a bill that does not include a path to citizenship --thatâ��s my question.

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� He signs a lot of bills that donâ��t include paths tocitizenship.� (Laughter.)

� � � � Q� � � You know what I mean.

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I know what you mean, too, but what Iâ��m not going todo is -â��

� � � � Q� � � So youâ��re saying -- so heâ��s open to signing animmigration bill that falls short of a path to citizenship?� Is that still --

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� His position, unlike the position of others, has been absolutelyconsistent from beginning to end -- or to this point.� Unfortunately, weâ��re not at the endyet, and I donâ��t expect it to change.

� � � � Q� � � Okay.� And then on the VA, Iâ��ve heard you andIâ��ve heard others at the White House talk about the VA as having a good record on dealingwith the backlog of claims and actually praising the VA on this issue.� In light of the way this --as we learn more about problems and not just in the Arizona office, but in other parts of the country,are you still saying you think that the Veterans Administration has done a good job in dealing withthe backlog of claims?� I mean, are you still going to say that?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� I appreciate the question, Jon, and I think itâÂ�Â�simportant to note -- and I tried to the other day when this came up -- youâÂ�Â�re conflating twoseparate things.Ã� The disability claims, the backlog and disability claims -- this is a specificproblem and challenge that the VA and the White House and others in the administration have beenaggressively attacking.Ã� And that is where you have seen a 50 percent reduction in the size ofthe backlog year over year, from this point to a year ago.Ã� And that has been importantprogress.Ã�Â

And the size of that backlog increased significantly when this administration, because our veteransdeserve it, made the decision that there would be a presumption of acceptance of a claim if you werea veteran claiming problems associated with exposure to Agent Orange.� Thatâ��s the firsttime thatâ��s ever been done; thatâ��s what this administration did.� If you were aveteran of the first Gulf War and you felt that you were a victim of problems associated withexposure in that war, and if you were a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan and you experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, again, your claim would clear a hurdle automatically under this processthat we established in this administration because we believe our veterans deserve it.� Thatimmediately increased the population of people who had disability claims added to the backlog, andthat backlog has been a focus of intense work and attention by the VA and the administration ingeneral.

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� On the matter of the absolute requirement that our veterans get the health careand services that they deserve and they get that in a timely fashion, the revelations or at least theallegations that have emerged from the situation in Phoenix I think have been greeted, in terms ofreaction in the manner that Secretary Shinseki suggested yesterday, with a great deal of anger andfrustration.Ã� And if they prove to be true, people will be held accountable.Ã�Â

But these are matters -- and other issues that have been discussed in the wake of those allegations --that are properly under review at the order of Secretary Shinseki, under investigation at therecommendation of Secretary Shinseki by the independent inspector general.� And as you know,the President and Chief of Staff here have responded to Secretary Shinsekiâ��srecommendation by sending one of the Presidentâ��s most trusted aides over to VA to help withthat review, to work with Secretary Shinseki on that review.

So I think that reflects the seriousness with which we approach this matter, our concern about someof the allegations that have been made.Ã� But I just wanted to make sure that it was understoodthat there is a -- that the disability claims issue is not the same issue that is being discussed when wetalk about the allegations in Phoenix.Ã�Â

� � � � Q� � � I think part of the confusion is when you and others have beenasked about the problems in terms of veterans getting the health care that they need and deserve,youâ��ve answered with talking points on the disability claim backlog.� So are you really -- Imean, are you suggesting that this is a problem that is limited to the Phoenix office?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� I think that there is an active review, as well as aninvestigation by the IG that will determine both what happened in Phoenix and, IâÂ�Â�m sure,what happened elsewhere if some of the other allegations that weâÂ�Â�ve seen meritinvestigation.Ã�Â

What Iâ��ve been saying is that under Secretary Shinsekiâ��s leadership there has been afirm dedication to providing the kind of services that our veterans deserve.� Itâ��s reflectedin some of the decisions that were made to increase access to disability claims and to healthcare.� We have under his leadership reduced veterans homelessness by 24 percent.� Weâ��ve provided Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits to more than 1 million students.� And we have decreased the disability claims.

� � � � My point is that when I talk about the progress that has been made, I have beenreferring to questions about Secretary Shinseki and his leadership of the Veterans AffairsDepartment, and that progress has come on his watch and he certainly deserves credit for it.

� � � � Q� � � Do you think it sounds strange, though, that given the evidencethat weâ��re seeing coming out and suggestions that veterans have actually died waiting to gethealth services --

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I think the word you used is essential because you said theâ��suggestion.â��� And this matter is under investigation -- I would point you to whatthe IG said yesterday.

� � � � Q� � � But hereyou are praising the VA for all the thingsthat have been done underShinsekiâ��s leadership.� Thereseems to be a --

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Letme just explain the way you just asked thatquestion.� Youâ��re sayingthereâ��s a suggestion that somethingterrible happened in Phoenix -- andthatâ��s under investigation.� Allwe know is that itâ��s a suggestion.

� � � � Q� � � But you donâ��t think thereâ��s evidence that there hasbeen a real problem with the quality of health care that our veterans are getting?� Youdonâ��t think that this is going to be -- we still need to study this further?� You donâ��tthink thereâ��s enough to act on right now to say that our veterans arenâ��t getting thecare that they need?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� We are acting on the allegations and the suggestions that youpointed out, and I would point you to what the IG said yesterday about his ongoing investigation intothe� --

� � � � Q� � � -- youâ��re going to investigate more?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Youâ��re saying we shouldnâ��t?� We should justaccept allegations as true without investigating them?� I donâ��t think that would be anormal procedure.� Meanwhile, we are moving aggressively in a host of areas to ensure that ourveterans are getting the services and the care that they deserve.� And thatâ��s reflected notleast in the fact that the President has requested increases in the budget for the VA every year hehas been in office in a time of very tight budgets.� And he has insisted when it came to theserious matter of the disability backlog that we attack that problem with aggression and withsubstantial resources, and thatâ��s resulted in the reduction in the backlog.� And thatreduction needs to be eliminated -- I mean, the backlog has been reduced, but it needs to beeliminated, and thatâ��s an important part of making sure that our veterans are being takencare of.

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� Let me move around a little bit.Ã�Â

� � � � Q� � � To follow-up on what Jon was asking, if General Shinseki is

â��mad as hellâ�� about what went on, why is it the White House position that itâ��sjust allegations and suggestions?� It seems to me he has made a conclusion in his mind thatsomething bad happened.

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I think I would refer you to his testimony.� The fact is, ifwhat has been alleged is true, that would be an outrage.� And that is an opinion shared by thePresident, by Secretary Shinseki, and I think everyone else who has looked at this matter and workson these issues.

� � � � Q� � � Why hasnâ��t he expressed it?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� The President was asked about the allegations and answeredforthrightly and expressed his concern about it.Ã� The actions that weâÂ�Â�ve taken reflect theconcern that we have about it.Ã� And the fact that he has sent one of his most trusted and topaides from the White House over to the VA to assist the Secretary in his review reflects theseriousness with which we take this matter.Ã�Â

But, again, I would simply say that it stands to reason that when allegations are made, itâ��simportant that they are investigated to find out the truth behind the matter before we just assumethat what happened or whatâ��s said to have happened is true.� Iâ��m not in any wayprejudging, because I donâ��t think we ought to prejudge.� I do think that itâ��s amatter of enough concern that the actions that Secretary Shinseki has taken and the actions that thePresident and the White House have taken are merited, and weâ��ll continue to aggressivelytackle this problem.

� � � � Q� � � Should the American people be able to trust -- the President saysheâ��s -- you said the President is sending over one of his most trusted aides to overseethis.� Wasnâ��t General Shinseki one of his most trusted aides?� Why should theAmerican public look at that and say, well, thatâ��s the right thing to do instead of bringingsomebody in from the outside perhaps to look at whatâ��s going on at the VA?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� Jon, what I can tell you is the President has confidence inSecretary Shinseki, someone with an incredibly admirable record in the military and in service toour veterans.Ã� And, again, under Secretary Shinseki there has been significant progress.Ã� There remains a lot of work to do when it comes to making sure that our veterans get the servicesand care that they deserve, but Secretary Shinseki is aggressively tackling the challenges that weface on these matters.Ã�Â

And when we see revelations like or accusations like what we�ve seen with regards to theoffice in Phoenix, it was certainly our view when Secretary Shinseki suggested it to our Chief of Staffthat it was the right thing to do to add capacity, if you will, in order to make the effort more intenseand more rapid to Secretary Shinseki�s team by sending Rob Nabors over to the VA.

� � � � Ed.

� � � � Q� � � Jay, on that point about the President speaking out -- today, forthe second time this week alone, he talked about transportation funding, infrastructure fundingbecause itâ��s a priority for him.� If fixing this VA problem is a priority for him, why have wenot heard from him since April 28th?� A lot has happened since he spoke out at that newsconference.

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Right, a lot has happened.� There have beenallegations.� The Veterans Affairs administration has responded to those allegations bylaunching a review and suggesting and recommending and soliciting that the independent IGinvestigate.� The President has asked his Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, one of his most trustedadvisors, to temporarily take an assignment over at the VA to assist Secretary Shinseki in thateffort.� And Secretary Shinseki, as you know, was testifying on Capitol Hill just yesterday aboutthis.

� � � � This is something that, again, the President cares deeply about when it comes toour veterans and ensuring that we provide for them in a way that honors the service they providedus.

� � � � Q� � � Why is he not speaking directly to veterans on this and saying,this is how much it matters and weâ��re going to fix it?� Your words are important, but ifyouâ��re -- on transportation funding, for example, he doesnâ��t just have you do it; he getsout there and says, Congress has to move on this.� Why is he not out directing veterans on this?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Well, again, he is taking action, Ed.� He has responded tothis.� He has spoken about it.� Iâ��m sure there will be an opportunity for him to speakabout it again.� I think you would be the first to say that if -- and maybe you would, sinceCongress isnâ��t acting yet on transportation -- that speaking alone does not get the job done;acting gets the job done.� When it comes to transportation --

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� QÃ� Ã� Ã� Sure, but you push them along.Ã� But he pushes themalong.Ã� He doesnâÂ�Â�t give up if Congress hasnâÂ�Â�t done.Ã�Â

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� If I may, Ed, when it comes to transportation funding, thatrequires action by Congress so to ensure that hundreds of thousands of Americans arenâ��tthrown off the job come August.� When it comes to taking the actions that weâ��ve taken asan administration in response to allegations, thatâ��s something we can do and thatâ��ssomething that the President is directing.

� � � � Q� � � How do you react directly to House Majority Leader EricCantor?� He put out a statement yesterday saying he believes thereâ��s a pattern at theWhite House where the Cabinet Secretaries take all the heat and the President ultimately is just notheld accountable.

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Well, I would say that this briefing suggests otherwise.� Iwould say --

� � � � Q� � � Itâ��s you, itâ��s not the President.� A briefing isnot -â�� the point is that the Cabinet Secretaries --

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I think that in the time that since those allegations emerged inthe press, the President has given four or five press conferences, so I think he has had theopportunity to address this and has been asked about it.� I think there will be other opportunitiesfor him to address this.� But what he has also done is acted on it and so has Secretary Shinseki.

� � � � Q� � � Last one is -- you were talking about immigration earlier and thatthe clock is ticking, and minimum wage, a lot of other important priorities that the President hasbeen pushing â��- transportation funding as well.� Is there any fear at all with Congress

having hearings, that IG is having an investigation, there was talk yesterday that the FBI may getinvolved because there may be criminal charges in the VA scandal if, in fact, people did die becauseof this.� My question being is there any fear that this is a big â��- I struggle to use the worddistraction because itâ��s an important issue that veterans get their health care, but is thissomething that overshadows the attention of Congress right now so you canâ��t getimmigration and other stuff done?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I would simply say that itâ��s an important matter andthat the resources necessary to tackle it so that we are providing the services and benefits thatveterans deserve are merited, and the attention that is paid to it by those who are concerned aboutthe problem as opposed to politics is absolutely appropriate.� Thatâ��s how the Presidentviews it.

� � � � Bill.

� � � � Q� � � Does the government have any confidence, this administrationhave any confidence that the Nigerians can ever retrieve the young women, particularly in light oftodayâ��s news that President Jonathan was supposed to go to the village from which they werekidnapped and decided at the last minute not to go?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Well, I would say that, first of all, a couple of things.� There is no question that the Nigerian people, the Nigerians face a real threat in Boko Haram.� Boko Haram has demonstrated it has no regard for human life and it has demonstrated an increasedability to conduct attacks, and those attacks have increased in frequency and lethality.� So thisorganization poses a serious threat in that country.

� � � � When it comes to the efforts undertaken by the Nigerian government to findthese girls, weâ��ve made clear that, in our view, time is of the essence and that we can and areassisting the Nigerian government in the search, but the Nigerian government has the lead andneeds to act accordingly.� Now, we are -â��

� � � � Q� � � But they donâ��t seem to be making any progress.

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� You mean the girls havenâ��t been found?� I mean, Ithink what we -- I think the --

� � � � Q� � � No, signs from Nigeria are not encouraging.

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� Well, I think a circumstance -- I mean, I think that it wasimportant -- and I tried to do this when we first started talking about the assistance the UnitedStates was going to provide -- to understand that despite the expertise we have, the capacities wehave, and the kind of assets that we can bring to bear in this, that this is a tremendouschallenge.Ã� WeâÂ�Â�re talking about fewer than 300 people who are being searched for in anarea at least the size of West Virginia, portions of which are very densely forested, as I understandit.Ã� So this is a difficult challenge.Ã�Â

And, again, this is a population of kidnapped girls that we hope remains intact and together, butobviously if they have been separated that makes the challenge even greater -- which doesn�tmean that we won�t provide all the assistance and assets that we can in that effort in helpingNigeria conduct this search, but it is certainly a challenge.

� � � � Q� � � But the security situation is apparently so bad that the Presidentof the country cancelled a visit to the area today.

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� Is that a question?Ã� I think the fact that the securitysituation, because of Boko Haram, is real is one that is self-evident and which I discussed momentsago.Ã� But that doesnâÂ�Â�t mean that we canâÂ�Â�t and that they canâÂ�Â�t conduct asearch, and thatâÂ�Â�s certainly whatâÂ�Â�s happening.Ã� WeâÂ�Â�ve already, as Idiscussed earlier this week, launched both manned and unmanned aircraft as part of thereconnaissance effort, and we have a team of personnel assisting the Nigerian government in avariety of ways.Ã� Other nations have lent their support to the effort and we hope that it will bearfruit and we will find the girls.Ã�Â

� � � � Q� � � Jay, has President Obama spoken to President GoodluckJonathan, or does he plan to?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� I don't have any conversations to read out.Ã�Â

� � � � Q� � � Did he have a reaction to canceling his trip?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I havenâ��t spoken to him about it.

� � � � Q� � � And Nigerian officials, U.S. officials, officials from Britain andFrance are going to meet over the weekend and discuss their strategy moving forward.� What isthe anticipation on the part of this White House about the tangibles that might come out of thatmeeting -- the series of meetings?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� I think that we are focused on assisting the Nigerians indeveloping a concrete plan and a concrete approach to finding out where the girls are andrecovering them so that they can be returned to their families.Ã� And that requires coordinationand it requires strategy.Ã� And I assume that these conversations will be focused on thateffort.Ã�Â

� � � � Q� � � Going back to Billâ��s line of questioning, you have AliceFriend, whoâ��s the Director of African Affairs, talking about some of her frustrations,frustrations on the part of the United States with the Nigerian governmentâ��s â��slow toadapt with new strategies and new tactics.â��� Can you flesh out what some of the otherfrustrations are that the U.S. feels in terms of working with the government of Nigeria?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� Well, look, I think that the challenge that Nigeria faces fromthis group is a serious one, and there are all sorts of issues that she and others have identified thatmake the challenge even greater and that we try to address as a friend of Nigeria in the assistancethat we provide.Ã�Â

That's why we provide security assistance, to increase NigeriaâÂ�Â�s capacity to meet the threat,including by helping professionalize its military and helping it carry out responsiblecounterterrorism operations.Ã� It's why we provide law enforcement assistance, to help Nigeriabring those responsible for attacks on civilians to justice.Ã� It's why we support programs andinitiatives that are aimed at combating violent extremist ideology, including by creating economicalternatives for those vulnerable to being recruited by terrorist organizations.Ã�Â

� � � � So we have a coordinated effort that is designed to help strengthenNigeriaâ��s ability to respond responsibly and effectively to these challenges in a way thatensures civilians are protected and human rights are respected.� And responding responsiblyand effectively is important because that's, in effect, how you provide support for and reassurance tothe population that is also having to deal with the threat posed by an organization like Boko Haram.

� � � � Q� � � Just one on Rob Nabors.� Is there a timeline for the reviewthat he is conducting?� Has the President said, I want you to --

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� For questions like that, I would refer you to the VA.� Theyare obviously conducting the review.� So I don't have a timeline on Robâ��s stay over at theVA except to say that it is temporary and he will be coming back and returning to his responsibilitiesas Deputy Chief of Staff here when that assignment is finished.

� � � � Michelle.

� � � � Q� � � The White House has repeatedly expressed confidence inShinsekiâ��s leadership, progress under his watch.� But the way that this all came out --even if you're going to keep calling them all allegations and they seem to be more widespread thanone hospital -- doesnâ��t that in itself indicate a major shortfall in his oversight and leadershipof the administration?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Michelle, I think I've addressed this question. What we haveseen in response to the allegations that have been reported is a review instigated by the Secretary,one that we are now providing a senior White House official to assist --

� � � � Q� � � My question is the way it came out, that this was all

-- all of these problems that have been built up and widespread, it all came out through reporting bythe press, that some of this wasnâ��t even known about.� So doesnâ��t that, in and ofitself, indicate a major shortfall there?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� Well, I'd say a couple of things about that.Ã� First of all,there are active reviews and investigations into what happened, and I think, again, I'm not going topass judgment on what happened until we've seen the conclusion of an investigation.Ã� And Ithink that's generally a wise approach to take.Ã�Â

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� Separately, should some of these allegations prove to be true, Secretary Shinsekihas made clear that he would be outraged by that and angry by that -- the President certainly wouldbe -- and he would expect people to be held accountable.Ã� That's why thereâÂ�Â�s aninvestigation.Ã� That's why thereâÂ�Â�s a review.Ã�Â

� � � � On the role of the press, I think the press, in general -- and again, I'm not goingto pass judgment on whether or not the allegations are true because we don't know, but the role ofthe press is important in general as a -- on matters like this and in so many other areas.� So Iwouldn't sell the press short when it comes to the important role they play.

� � � � Q� � � And on Iran, these reports that have come out this week that Iranis actively pursuing ballistic missiles, what is the White Houseâ��s view of that and thepossibility of eventually reaching a nuclear deal?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Well, on the question of ballistic missiles, we have made clearthat all issues of concern are on the table during the P5-plus-1 negotiations aimed at reaching acomprehensive agreement.� And we're not going to get into details of specific items ofnegotiations because negotiating in public wouldn't serve the goal here, but I would point you to thefact that the Joint Plan of Action lays out very clearly the elements for a comprehensive agreementand it talks about all concerns needing to be addressed, and it talks about making sure that we knowthat, in fact, this is an entirely peaceful program.� It also talks about U.N. Security Councilresolutions needing to be addressed, including provisions relating to ballistic missiles capable ofdelivering a nuclear warhead.

� � � � So ballistic missiles fall into the topics under discussion that would need to bepart of a comprehensive resolution of this dispute and this challenge.� So that's the view wetake.� Without sort of teasing out any individual item and talking about how that concern wouldhave to be addressed in the final product, what we will do is point you to those U.N. Security Councilresolutions, the fact that the Joint Plan of Action explicitly calls for those concerns to be resolved,and make clear that everything in the JPA is on the table and has to be resolved for a comprehensiveagreement to be reached.

� � � � Alexis.

� � � � Q� � � Jay, I have two questions.� On the Ukraine elections, astatement that the Vice President put out this week used the word, â��delegitimizeâ�� inthe statement, that Russia would face additional costs should it disrupt or delegitimize the electionresults.� My question is a follow-up on a question earlier, which is who is the arbiter for theresults of the election, whether theyâ��re disrupted or delegitimized, since sectoral sanctionswould be so important to determine a range. � Who decides that?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� Well, first of all, there will be international observersorganized by the OSCE who will be able to make judgments about the conduct of the election andany efforts to undermine the election or delegitimize it.Ã� The United States and the rest of ourpartners in the international community who have taken one side on this matter, and Russia, whichhas taken another side, I think will make judgments about how the elections proceed.Ã�Â

President Putin, back when he also said or suggested that the so-called referenda should not be heldon May 11, also said that the May 25 election might be a good step.� And we certainly agree withthat -- not just might be, but a necessary and important step -- for the Ukrainian people because itwould -- successful implementation of that election would allow the Ukrainian people to freelyexpress their will when it comes to choosing their leader, their president.� And we are veryfocused on ensuring, with our partners, that the election takes place.

� � � � Q� � � This is a small matter, but the President has a minor cold.� I'm not suggesting that heâ��s ill, but hereâ��s the question -- I can't find any public recordthat the President has had his full medical workup, his usual exam, since before the election.� And maybe I missed it.� Can you tell us, update us when --

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I'll have to take the question.� I haven't looked into that.

� � � � Zeke.

cheap business class fares

� � � � Q� � � Hey, Jay.� Yesterday the FCC voted to create what they callInternet â��fast lanes.â��� I'm wondering, the President, as candidate in 2007, 2008,said he would oppose such efforts.� Is the President disappointed by the FCC decision, or is hecontemplating going back on his campaign promise from six years ago?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� The President has made clear since he was a candidate, Zeke,that he strongly supports net neutrality and an open Internet.Ã� As he has said, theInternetâÂ�Â�s incredible equality of data, content and access to the consumer is what haspowered extraordinary economic growth and made it possible for once tiny sites like eBay andAmazon to compete with brick-and-mortar operations.Ã�Â

� � � � The FCC is an independent agency, as you know, and we will carefully reviewtheir proposal.� The FCCâ��s efforts were dealt a real challenge by the Court of Appeals inJanuary, but Chairman Wheeler has said his goal is to preserve an open Internet, and we are pleasedto see that he is keeping all options on the table.

� � � � We will be watching closely as the process moves forward in hopes that the finalrule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality.� The President is looking at every way to protect afree and open Internet and we will -- and he will consider any option that might make sense.

� � � � Q� � � Does the rule that was passed yesterday meet thePresidentâ��s standards for net neutrality?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Again, I think the rule -- what was passed yesterday wassomething that kept options on the table.� And that's what --

� � � � Q� � � That's not a yes or no, though.

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Well, if you have all options on the table, then the Presidentwill be looking very closely to see that the outcome of this results in a final rule that stays true to thespirit of net neutrality, which he supports.

� � � � Q� � � I've got a couple questions.� Yesterday, Secretary Johnsonsaid on PBS Newshour that you might be looking at changes -- or the President might be looking atchanges to the Secure Communities program thatâ��s part of reforming the deportationpolicy.� Does the White House have anything on that?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I didnâ��t see that comment.� What I think you knowis that the President asked Secretary Johnson to address -- to review procedures when it comes toenforcement, and that review is underway.� I would refer you to the department for any statusupdate they might have.

� � � � Q� � � And also this week, there were some documents released toJudicial Watch through FOYA -- a lawsuit -- that did appear that the Washington office of IRS didhave more to do with targeting some of the tea party groups in this.� Does that --

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I didnâ��t see that report, so I don't have a response.

� � � � Q� � � Okay.� Well, does the White House still believe that this wasentirely out of the Cincinnati office, as the President said during the Super Bowl interview?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Our position hasnâ��t changed and I certainly haven'tseen any facts that suggest otherwise.� But I haven't seen the report that you mentioned.

� � � � Scott.

� � � � Q� � � Thanks, Jay.� I'm just curious about this sports concussionevent.� It will be a public event?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Yes.

� � � � Q� � � And what is the President hoping to get out of it?� Will therebe a list of recommendations?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� We hope to see and expect to see some public and privatecommitments made towards the study of and education� about this problem.� I think thePresident, as a father who also has on his staff others who are parents, knows that this is a topic thata lot of families are discussing right now as more and more information is provided about theproblems associated with concussions in sports, especially for our young.� And we have theability here, because it's the White House and because heâ��s the President, to help elevate thisissue and help draw attention to it and support for efforts to make progress on it so that we canensure that our kids are being able to get all the benefits that come from participating in sports butare able to do so in as safe a way as possible.

� � � � Q� � � Was Roger Goodell invited?� Will he be attending?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� I don't have a list of attendees at this time.Ã� What I cantell you is we arenâÂ�Â�t prepared to announce participants or commitments at this time, but thePresident recognizes that raising awareness of and better protecting children and student athletesfrom concussions, and better identifying and treating them when they do occur requires a teamapproach.Ã� And professional sports leagues, including the NFL, are certainly vital members ofthat team.Ã�Â

� � � � So this is an effort that a lot of people can be involved in and should be involvedin.� And this is something that is often talked about within the context of football.� I have ason whoâ��s expressing interest in playing tackle football, so it's something that I'm particularlyinterested in, but it doesnâ��t limit itself just to football.� Obviously we've seen a lot ofreports about concussions in other sports, including soccer.� So this is something that I think alot of families spend a lot of time worrying about and want to know as much as they can about, andwant to be sure that theyâ��re taking all the precautions they can on behalf of their children sotheir children can get all the great experiences that come from participating in sports.

� � � � Q� � � And last question on this.� How does he prepare for an eventlike this?� Is he reading books?� Thereâ��s been some good ones -- League ofDenial.� Frontline has done some documentaries.� I'm curious about how he prepares for --

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I know that it's something that he has addressed when askeda couple of times in interviews where he's noted that if he had a son he would have to think twiceabout saying yes to having him play football.� There have been -- obviously the report that cameout last fall that helped spark this conversation, and thereâ��s a lot of research that's been donewithin the government, including within the military, on some of these issues.

� � � � So I don't have specific reading lists, but I know that it's a topic of conversationhere just like it is around the country.

� � � � Tejinder.

� � � � Q� � � I have two follow-ups.� The first one is the ambassadoralready has retired and is expected to leave during this month.� Who is going to be the topdiplomat in Delhi?� You're sending somebody from here to start the dialogue?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� I don't have any personnel announcements to make.Ã� It'sobviously a very important post, but when the President has an announcement to make he'll makeit.Ã�Â

� � � � Q� � � Are you sending somebody from here, one of your diplomats, tostart?� Because if you see the baggage of nearly 10 years of visa denial, just a statementwelcoming him may not bring him here.� So will the U.S. go beyond?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� You would have to speak to him about his views on thismatter.� First of all, I think we've made clear that we congratulate the Indian people and Mr.Modi and his party on their victory.� We await the formation of a government, and we absolutelylook forward to continuing all the progress that we have made in our bilateral relationship, and fullyexpect to be able to do so.

� � � � Q� � � But just looking at the personal level, will it be kind of a hiccup,and if we are ready to do something to address that on a personal level?

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� MR. CARNEY:Ã� Again, the Prime Minister of India will receive a visa to travelto the United States.Ã� We look forward to working with the new government and the new PrimeMinister, and we congratulate Mr. Modi and his party on their victory.Ã� I don't anticipate anyproblem in that regard.Ã� What we do anticipate is moving forward with the new government andstrengthening a relationship that has already been strengthened significantly over the past yearswith Prime Minister Singh at the helm in India.Ã�Â

� � � � Q� � � Thank you, Jay.� Do you have any result on thePresidentâ��s call today to President Erdogan regarding the mine disaster?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I don't have a readout for you.� When we do we'll get it toyou.

� � � � Justin.

� � � � Q� � � Thanks, Jay.� Earlier this week, Secretary Hagel said that hewas open to a review of the militaryâ��s ban on transgender servicemembers.� I waswondering if the President would back that review and whether or not he's had any conversationswith the Defense Secretary about that issue.

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Well, the President speaks with Secretary Hagel regularly,meets with him weekly.� I don't have a readout on all his conversations, but I would certainlypoint you to what Secretary Hagel said and certainly we support his efforts in this area.

� � � � Q� � � And the President I don't think has ever spoken out on this issue

before.� Does he think that that ban should eventually be lifted?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� I would simply at this point leave it to SecretaryHagelâ��s comments.� I haven't spoken to him directly about this issue, but I would notewhat Secretary Hagel said and that we support him.

� � � � Jessica.

Q� � � Does the White House agree with Chinese PLA General Fang who said yesterdaythat the Asia rebalance strategy has emboldened Vietnam in its territorial dispute with China in theSouth China Sea?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� No.� I would simply say what I said earlier about the needfor parties to these disputes to address them in a peaceful and diplomatic way, in keeping withinternational norms and international law.� I would note what I said about the unilateral decisionand provocative one when it came to the -- when it comes to the oil rig and our calling on all sides torestrain -- refrain from taking actions that inflame tensions, as opposed to actions that calm thesituation and allow for peaceful dialogue about it and resolution about the dispute.

� � � � Q� � � Week ahead?

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Week ahead, Jim, youâ��re right.

� � � � Q� � � Jay, before you give us the week ahead, can you just� --

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� You got breaking news on your device?

� � � � Q� � � No, no, this is not breaking news.� Can you give us thePresidentâ��s reflections as we approach the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board ofEducation?� Heâ��s obviously meeting with some of the family members of the plaintiffstoday.

� � � � Q� � � And maybe tell us why that event is closed to press.

� � � � MR. CARNEY:� Itâ��s a private meeting that the President is having withfamilies.� I would note that the First Lady will be speaking publicly about the anniversary of thislandmark Supreme Court decision this evening in Topeka, Kansas.� The President feels, as Ithink so many people do around the country, that this decision was historic, that it enabled millionsof Americans to get a better education.

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� There was a good story this morning about the First Lady and how that decisionaffected her life, which I think speaks to why it is so appropriate for her to be speaking on ittonight.Ã� We have more work to do, and that's why the President has the aggressive educationagenda that he has.Ã� That's why he is focused on making pre-kindergarten education available toall in this country, because that early start is so essential for a childâÂ�Â�s future.Ã�Â

So I think that weâ��ve come a long way in 60 years, and this is an important anniversary tonote.� But the Presidentâ��s views are that that is true and that also we need to keepmoving forward when it comes to ensuring that weâ��re doing everything we can to provide aquality education to all of our kids.

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� Let me give you the week ahead.Ã� On Monday, the President will have lunchwith combatant commanders.Ã� In the evening, the President will attend a DCCC event.Ã�Â

On Tuesday, the President will attend meetings here at the White House.Ã�Â

On Wednesday, the President will participate in an ambassador credentialing ceremony in the OvalOffice.Ã� At this event the President will receive the credentials from foreign ambassadorsrecently posted in Washington.Ã� The presentation of credentials is a traditional ceremony thatmarks the formal beginning of ambassadorâÂ�Â�s service here.Ã� Afterward, the President willwelcome the Super Bowl Champion Seattle Seahawks to the White House to honor the team andtheir Super Bowl victory.Ã�Â

On Thursday, the President will travel to Chicago to participate in two events for the DSCC.� ThePresident will remain in Chicago overnight.

On Friday, he will return to Washington from Chicago.

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� And I would be remiss in noting -- in not noting as I leave here that today is KathyRuemmlerâÂ�Â�s last day, and we at the White House will all miss her wisdom and goodhumor.Ã� And we wish her well.Ã�Â

Ã�Â

Ã� Ã� Ã� Ã� Thanks, everybody.Ã�Â

Ã�Â

END� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 2:15 P.M. EDT