ryan healthcare

mr. carney: wow. good crowd. how is everybody?good afternoon. thanks for being here. i hope you all had a great weekend and that someof you still have a decent bracket underway after all those upsets. before i take your questions, i wanted tostart with a statement by the president: "last week, the senate passed a bipartisan transportationbill that will keep construction workers on the job and keep our economy growing. nowthe house of representatives needs to take bipartisan action so i can sign this intolaw. an economy built to last depends on a world-class infrastructure system that allowsus to transport our people and goods as quickly and effectively as possible. that's why weneed to continue to make investments that

will create jobs by rebuilding and modernizingour roads, bridges and railways. and that's why my administration will continue to fightfor the long-term investments needed to ensure that america continues to compete and succeedin a global economy." q is that to announce support for the bill? mr. carney: he is calling on -- we commendedthe senate last -- q commending -- are you supporting? mr. carney: we are calling on the house tofollow the senate's lead and pass bipartisan transportation legislation. the items andminutiae in the bill we'll let congress figure out. we commended the senate for acting ina bipartisan way on this important --

q but you still haven't said whether you supportthat bill or not. mr. carney: well, we commended the senatefor passing the bill. i'm not telling the house -- i'm not going to write the legislationfor them. what we are saying is the house, like the senate, should act in a bipartisanway and pass a bill. q -- suggest that if it gets passed it willget signed with a statement? mr. carney: well, the president looks forwardto signing into law a bipartisan transportation bill because of the absolute necessity thatwe continue to build and maintain world-class infrastructure. q it is fair that we're drawing a distinctionhere. you are not -- the administration is

not necessarily putting out a statement ofsupport of this bill? mr. carney: well, whatever distinctions -- q because you have done that before. mr. carney: no, i hear you. look, you candraw whatever distinctions you want. we strongly urge the house to pass bipartisan transportationlegislation, as the senate has. and the president looks forward to signing into law a bill thatis bipartisan in nature. q but you're not necessarily supporting thesenate bill? mr. carney: we commended them for passingit. i don't want to get caught in the semantics here. i just want to make clear that --

q -- you're introducing the semantics. (laughter.) mr. carney: we want to see action by congresson a piece of bipartisan legislation on this important topic. q you kind of like it? mr. carney: ben. q thanks, jay. a couple topics. on afghanistan,the nation has learned a lot over the past couple days about sergeant bales, the suspectin the mass shooting in afghanistan, and it's raised questions about his personal historyand about the strains of war, multiple tours of duty. is the president closely followingthe case -- not just the judicial side of

it but the personal story of sergeant bales? mr. carney: ben, i haven't spoken to the presidentabout the coverage of that nature that you mention. the president is obviously very awareof the incident. he’s spoken about it. and for details about the investigation andthe individual that you reference, you need to put those questions to the defense departmentbecause there is an active investigation. q but you haven’t heard him reflecting onsergeant bale’s story and the strains of war, any of the personal side of it? mr. carney: well, i would just say that thepresident is focused on two things: one, as he made clear last week, the incident, thekilling of these innocent afghan civilians

was a tragic and terrible event, and it didnot represent what our military stands for, what the american people stand for. he madethat clear. there is an investigation that's taking place,and we’re not going to wade into that from here. and then, there is the overall missionthat our men and women in uniform are implementing in afghanistan, which he is, of course, veryfocused on. i’m not -- the conversations the president may or may not have had aboutthis specific case i think i’ll keep private. q staying on that broader topic, when thepresident apologized to president karzai about the burning of the korean, he later explainedthat he did so in large part in the interest of the united states and its troops and inkeeping them safe. i’m sorry if you’ve

been asked this and i missed it, but can youexplain why that incident would necessitate an apology but a massacre of afghan civilians,which presumably could put troops in harm’s way, fear of reprisals, why that wouldn’trequire -- mr. carney: well, i think we made very clearboth the president’s feelings and our feelings, from the military and as a nation, about theterrible incident that occurred in afghanistan. there is an investigation, an active investigationongoing, and i would refer questions about that and ask you to appreciate how we wouldrespond to questions about it from here. the fact is that the vast majority of -- everythingthat we do there in afghanistan is focused on our goal of disrupting, dismantling anddefeating al qaeda; of stabilizing afghanistan

sufficiently so that we can train up and transferauthority to afghan security forces and withdraw our troops as we do that. the bravery andcourage of our men and women in uniform has been astounding throughout, and they continueto focus on that mission in very difficult circumstances. so the president is focusedon that. q one quick domestic question. friday, i believe,is the anniversary of the health care law, and i’m wondering if we should expect tohear from the president on that milestone, which, of course, comes right before the supremecourt arguments. or would he just as soon not make a public statement about the healthcare law and let outside groups -- the campaign and others -- do the politicking around thismoment?

mr. carney: well, i would say two things aboutthat. the president is focused on doing everything he can, with congress and independently, tohelp our economy grow and create jobs, to build an economy that’s built to last, andto make sure that we’re doing everything we can in washington to bring that about.the president does speak about health care on occasion and will continue to do that.but he’s focused on a forward agenda right now, and working with congress and doing thethings he can through executive action to grow the economy and create jobs. the administration is very focused on implementingthe affordable care act, which, as you know, has resulted already in benefits for millionsof americans, millions of seniors who have

benefited and saved tremendous amounts ofmoney because of the prescription drug provision related to the so-called doughnut hole, andthe millions of young americans who have insurance who otherwise would not because of the provisionwithin the affordable care act that allows young folks to stay on their parent’s policy.so we’re focused on implementing the law and on pursuing an aggressive, forward-leaningagenda with regards to the economy. q so no plans for any statement? mr. carney: i have no announcements to makeabout the president’s schedule in that regards. reuters. q jay, what does the president hope to achieveon his trip wednesday and thursday on energy?

and how do you hope or how do you plan tomake it -- to avoid making it into a pr move on the president’s energy background? mr. carney: well, let’s just be clear abouttwo things. one, energy in general, and the price of gas in particular, is on a lot ofpeople’s minds, understandably, right now. two, this president is aggressively advocatingfor and pursuing an all-of-the-above energy strategy as a matter of policy. we will begoing -- he will be going first to boulder city, nevada, where he will visit the coppermountain solar 1 facility, the largest photovoltaic plant operating in the country, with nearlyone million solar panels powering 17,000 homes. why is that important? because of the needto continue to pursue an all-of-the-above

energy approach that includes investmentsin alternative energy so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. next, he’ll be going to oil and gas productionfields located on federal lands outside of carlsbad, new mexico, an area home to morethan 70 active drilling rigs. why is that important? because an all-of-the-above energyapproach requires and necessitates that we aggressively expand domestic oil and gas productionin a safe and responsible way. this president has done that. we have seen oil and gas productionat eight-year highs. even on federal lands, oil production is up 13 percent over the lastthree years. and this president is committed to continuing that.

then he will travel to the cushing, oklahomaarea to discuss his administration’s commitment to improving and supporting infrastructurethat helps us leverage our domestic resources while also ensuring these projects are developedin a safe and responsible way. you all, of course, are familiar with thecushing-to-the-gulf pipeline, why that is necessary -- because we have actually a glutof oil that's bottled up because of the lack of infrastructure necessary to move the productto the gulf, to the refineries there. so he’s focused on that, and this part of an all-of-the-aboveapproach that is the only way we can enhance our energy security. drilling alone is not an answer. if it were,we would have solved the problem -- because

as i just said, we have been increasing domesticoil and gas production, increasing the amount of drilling that we’re doing in this countryon federal lands and in federal waters, and we will continue to do so, but with a verysmall portion of the world’s known reserves but a huge demand for oil on the world market,we need to diversify our approach. and that's an approach that i think a broad majorityof the american people would also support. q but he and you and others have been talkingabout that all-of-the-above strategy for a long time. is the point of going on a triplike this where he can be photographed in front of solar panels or pipes an opportunityto try and sell that more? is that essentially what you’re doing?

mr. carney: i think the president travelsaround the country -- whether it’s for the recovery act, or for the need to have a consumerprotection bureau, or investments in alternative energy, or investments in oil and gas production-- it’s to focus attention on an agenda that requires not just his leadership, butcooperation and leadership by members of congress, so that we can get more done to advance acomprehensive, all-of-the-above energy policy that is the only policy that will ensure thatwe have greater independence from the need for foreign sources of energy in the future. so this is an active agenda, an active policyagenda that he very much looks forward to highlighting.

q one more topic, just real quickly. tomorrownight -- or tomorrow is the fec filing deadline. obviously, white house officials have startedappearing at priorities usa action events. can you tell us how many events they have-- or who, number one, and how many events they’ve attended, and how it’s gone? mr. carney: i don't have that information.i’ll have to take the question. let me move around a bit. scott. q what is the active agenda he’s going tobe calling on congress to do on energy? mr. carney: look, we need congressional helpto continue to pursue the all-of-the-above approach. and whether that's increasing oiland gas production, increasing investments

and sustaining investments in alternativeenergy, the need to highlight this i think is apparent in this time when we are facinghigh gas prices at the pump. and a lot of people, rightfully, want to know what thestrategy is to ensure that this doesn't happen again and again, annually or biannually, asit’s been happening in the recent past. so the president is very focused on this,as i think a lot of americans would expect him to be. and the purpose of the trip isto make clear what we can do, what we are doing, and the kinds of approaches that arenecessary to enhance our energy security in the future. mr. carney: ann.

q thank you, jay. governor romney says todaythat the economy is coming back, something i don't think you’d disagree with. doesthe president think that the economic recovery has now reached a level where it’s kindof inevitable? it’s on a path where it’s only going to get better? does that make itless of an argument during the election year? mr. carney: the president absolutely doesnot believe that recovery is inevitable. we need to do everything we can here in washingtonto ensure that the recovery continues. it is certainly within the capacity of washington,as we have seen in the past, most recently last summer, to take action that can harmthe recovery. we can't let that happen. so, no, the recovery is not so far along now thatit can continue without leaders in washington

making the right decisions and taking theright actions to ensure that we can continue to grow. the transportation bill is a perfect exampleof that. failure to advance a bipartisan transportation bill, the kind of bipartisan transportationbill that -- as you know, ann, because you’ve covered this -- that has been passed frequentlyover the years, would result in the halting of numerous construction projects around thecountry, would result in job loss, instead of job creation. we can't let that happen. so, no, washingtonneeds to continue to focus on doing what it can to help the recovery continue. as we’veseen in the last three years, there are choices

you make in the face of a recession like theone we encountered in 2009 that can either double down on the policies that got you intothe mess to begin with, or chart a course towards recovery. the president made a lotof hard choices in his first couple of years in office that have led us to where we aretoday, which is a period of sustained economic growth that needs to continue and needs toexpand -- a period of 24 months or 23 months of private sector job creation that needsto continue because, as you know, even though we’ve in these past 24 months seen the creationof nearly 4 million private sector jobs, the hole dug by the great recession was somethinglike 8 million jobs. there’s more work to be done.

i think i promised chuck. yes. q to follow up on the question of legislation,so there isn’t a piece of legislation he’s -- you’re calling on congress to do what?come up with a piece of legislation on this -- mr. carney: look, i don't have a specificagenda to put forward to you for congress to take action on. congress has within itscapacity, as the transportation bill points out -- the opportunity to help economic growthcontinue and the opportunity to, at least potentially, restrain growth or reverse it. q i'm talking about scott's question --

mr. carney: no, i understand that. but, ingeneral. i don't have a list of items that congress could act on. but the fact is weneed to -- we've talked about this within the context of the president's we can't waitagenda, which is, he will act on all the things he can -- big, medium and small -- that don'trequire congressional collaboration -- often because we've had a paucity of congressionalcooperation and collaboration. but he -- but there are things that we need to do with congress,and he'll continue to do that -- whether it's on energy, or transportation, or the job creationmeasures of the jobs act that have yet to be passed, or the startup legislation thathe put forward. there's a whole host of areas where we need congressional cooperation.

q given what you're trying to do with thistrip, how much of this -- i mean, why shouldn’t we view it as solely a public relations stunt? mr. carney: you can view -- you can easily-- q -- i mean, not meant to be cynical aboutthis, but to look at -- it seems to be a point-by-point rebuttal of the attacks that you're gettingon capitol hill regarding -- whether it's keystone, regarding solar and clean energy.it seems that it's like this trip is designed to rebut political -- mr. carney: so the idea that the president'sfocus on an issue that has a lot of americans concerned i think is appropriate. the ideathat he has a comprehensive, all-of-the-above

approach to our energy challenges i thinkis appropriate to highlight. there is certainly a longstanding tradition of presidents travelingaround the country to highlight the agenda that they're pursuing, their policy agenda.and that's what he's going to be doing on this trip. because it is so important, both in the presentand for the future, that we pursue this all-of-the-above approach to our energy challenges, becauseif we don't, we're going to see these kinds of scenarios year after year, where pricesgo up, politicians say, well, i've got a plan -- especially in an election year -- to lowerthe prices at the pump. often the plan is just to drill more, which there's not a singleenergy expert out there who would argue that

that's a solution. we need something biggerthan that, and broader, and that's what the president is highlighting. q isn't that what you're actually doing? becausenow gas prices are up, so you're getting attention for it. it's not like you were out there doingthese trips when -- mr. carney: well, as a veteran of a lot oftrips focused on -- as part of this trip is -- on investments that this administrationhas made in alternative energy, i beg to differ. over the course of three years, the presidenthas made those trips, the vice president has made those trips. he has also -- they've alsomade trips focused on other aspects of his energy agenda, not just recently.

let me move around a little bit. victoria. q what is your message to the pakistani governmentas they meet tomorrow to talk about their relationship with the united states? mr. carney: our message hasn't changed, whichis that we consider that relationship very important, not least because of its importanceto our national security interests. it is a complicated relationship that requires alot of attention, and we give it that attention. and we will continue to work with pakistanon our shared goals of eradicating the threat of terrorism in the region. there is no question, as i've mentioned before,that the cooperation that we have had from

pakistan has contributed to some of the successesthat we have had in taking the fight to al qaeda, in eliminating senior al qaeda leadershipfrom -- removing senior al qaeda leadership from the battlefield. and we'll continue towork with pakistan to pursue that agenda. q the anger about drone attacks is not goingaway. is there anything that you can do about that with pakistan? and again, also with nightraids with afghanistan -- what is the situation on that with your negotiations with the afghangovernment? mr. carney: well, as i think i said on fridaywith regards to afghanistan and the president's phone conversation, recent phone conversationearly friday morning with president karzai, we continue to have conversations with theafghan government about that issue and are

focused very much on implementing a strategythat includes transferring combat lead to afghan security forces in 2013 with the aimof ultimately transferring all lead authority to afghan security forces by 2014, in accordancewith nato's agreement in lisbon. on pakistan, again, without addressing thespecifics of your question, we understand that there are challenges in the relationship.we work very closely with our pakistani counterparts and we are very clear about what our objectivesare in terms of american national security interests. ed. q may i just follow on the gas prices? becausewhen there was a jobs crisis in the fall,

the president decided, look, let's write abill, pass this bill now. now there's a gas price crisis. why is there not a bill thathe's traveling around the country saying, pass this now? mr. carney: well, i think as he's made clear,there's not a bill that will lower prices at the pump. there is not a 3-point plan,a 1-point plan or a 5-point plan that would lower gas prices at the pump, because oilis a global commodity; its price fluctuates globally. and what we need to do is not pretend thatthere is some silver bullet solution, but focus on a broad agenda that is aimed at increasingproduction of fossil fuels in the united states,

expanding our investments in alternative energy,taking the kind of administrative action he took, working with major automobile companiesto increase our fuel-efficiency standards to the point that american consumers willsave $1.7 trillion and 12 billion barrels of oil over the course of that program's implementation. so that's the kind of approach that we needto take. and that's the kind of approach that he's going to highlight on this trip. i thinkit's important because the american people need to know that there is no easy solutionto this challenge, that we need to maintain an across-the-board effort on all these areasof the energy economy, or else we will not get out of this predicament in the long run,which we have to do.

q two other quick things. on ben's questionabout health care -- it's supposed to be the president's signature domestic achievement,so the idea that he may not speak about this on the anniversary seems odd. and i wonder,with the polling data -- i think abc news has a poll out today -- when you add it up,67 percent of the public either wants to throw out the whole bill or just throw out the mandate,not the whole bill. the white house has been talking for two years about educating thepublic, talking about the benefits of this. doesn't this polling data suggest that peopleare not buying it? mr. carney: well, the polling data suggestin part the hundreds of millions of dollars that was spent attacking it. and what we'refocusing on is implementing it so that more

and more americans see the benefits that itbrings. i didn't make any announcement one way or the other about what the president'sschedule will hold on this issue, but we are focused on implementing the bill, not on discussinganniversaries, particularly -- although i'm sure others will want to discuss this. and i think if you look at or talk to americansand look at some of the data on this, if you ask them, is the alternative as proposed bysome folks who oppose the affordable care act -- giving power back to the insurancecompanies so that they can throw you off your insurance policy if you develop an illness,or prevent you from getting insurance if you have a preexisting condition, or prevent youngamericans from staying on their parent's insurance

policy -- i think the answer will be, no,we don't want that. and i think that efforts to -- calls to take that away, to take thosepositive changes away from average americans will be met with a great deal of skepticismwhen people talk about this and focus on it. so the president is going to continue to focuson the economy, on jobs, on energy policy, and let others have that debate if they wantto have it. q last thing. the president signed an executiveorder on friday about disaster preparedness. there's been some online commentary suggestingthis gives the executive branch power to allocate energy, food, water in either peacetime orwartime. and there are conservative blogs that are pushing the notion that this suggeststhe white house is preparing for war with

iran. can you explain what this executiveorder was? (laughter.) mr. carney: well, i cannot explain that reactionto it. i think it was a fairly standard and routine piece of business. the president'sapproach to our dealings with iran, i think, has been made clear. he has made it clear,most recently, when he discussed it at length a couple of weeks ago. we are aggressively pursuing a policy focusedon tightening sanctions against iran, increasing the pressure on iran, and increasing the isolationof the iranian regime, because this president believes we have the time and space to dothat, to see if that diplomatic approach and sanctions approach can produce the desiredresult -- because, as he said from this podium,

it's easy to talk about war, but you needto talk about the potential implications and consequences of war. he takes no option off the table in dealingwith iran, but he's focused on this diplomatic avenue because not only do we have the timeand space to do so, but it is ultimately the approach that has the best chance, if successful,of ensuring that iran does not ever build a nuclear weapon. so that's the approach he'staking. julianna. q thanks. after several weeks, now, of eventsand speeches and travel focused around the president's energy policies, polls seem tobe somewhat inconclusive. and i'm wondering

what evidence you've seen to show that it'sswaying public opinion, or what effect it's having with the broader public. mr. carney: the point is not -- i'm not surei get the point of your question. energy is an important issue. it is a huge issue forour economy going forward. it is a huge issue for our national security going forward. thepresident is focused on it for those reasons. there is no question that americans are veryconcerned, and should be, about the prices that they're paying at the pump. and thispresident is very focused on that, and he understands the hardship that that causes. one of the reasons why he fought so hard bothlast year and this year to have a payroll

tax cut for 160 million americans is so thatthat extra money could be in the pockets of everyday americans and enable them to dealwith the expense caused by higher gas prices. that was true at this time last year, andis true, obviously, this year. so it's a focus of this president's for that reason and thosereasons. it is also part of a broader argument aboutwhere we need to move economically as a country. and enhancing our energy independence is verymuch a part of a vision this president has for a stronger, more secure america in the21st century. so he's talking about it for those reasons as well. and that doesn't reallyhave much of an effect, i imagine, on today's polling data, but it does have an effect onour long-term economic viability.

q -- he is defending his energy policies inthe face of rising gasoline prices, and so, are americans buying that defense? mr. carney: again, i mean, i would just giveyou the same answer. it's not -- it is wholly understandable that americans are concernedabout the prices they're paying at their local gas station. prices are very high. and whati think this president has made clear is americans, i think, by and large, even though they'refrustrated, understand that politicians who tell them that if only they were in powerthey could fix it with a simple proposal -- most americans understand that that's baloney;that it's not plausible, it's laughable as policy; that "drill, drill, drill" will notget you anywhere, because if it could then

the fact that we've increased oil and gasproduction in this country would have resulted in a decrease in prices at the pump, not anincrease. the fact is there is not a direct correlationthere because it's a global commodity and the price of oil globally is affected by anumber of factors, including economic growth in china, india, brazil, and other countries,as well as this one, and by a lack of stability in various regions of the world. so to reducethe effect that fluctuations have in this country we need to take an all-of-the-aboveapproach to our energy policy, and that's what the president is focused on. jon-christopher, and then dan.

q we've seen the earlier statement by tommyvietor regarding the attacks in toulouse, france, this morning. has the president beenin contact with president sarkozy of france to express his thoughts and concerns regardingthis? mr. carney: i don't have any calls to readout to foreign leaders today. obviously, our thoughts and prayers go out to the familiesof the victims and to the french people over this incident. but beyond the statement weput out, i don't have anything else for you at this time on that. dan. q thank you. on syria, what is the next movefor the u.s. there? the president has frequently

talked about how we're keeping up the pressure,that it's just a matter of time before assad will go, yet the violence continues and assadremains in power. so what's the next move? mr. carney: well, we are continuing to workwith a broad international coalition to isolate the assad regime, put pressure on the assadregime. we are also strongly supportive of kofi annan’s mission. we are helping withour partners to ensure that sanctions against the regime are enforced globally, and we arecontinuing to work with our partners to provide humanitarian assistance. it is vital for every country to understandthat the kind of brutality perpetrated by the assad regime against the syrian peopleputs assad on the wrong side of history, and

supporting that regime is the wrong way togo, as we’ve made clear. we’re going to work with the “friends of syria” and ourinternational partners on this issue to continue to put pressure on assad, to continue to callon assad to cease the violence, and to provide q at what point are all of those things notenough -- putting on the pressure, calling on assad to cease the violence -- if the violencecontinues? mr. carney: well, again, i think the presidenthas addressed this issue as have i. specifically if you’re asking, for example, about providingarms, we still believe that it is not the right approach to take to contribute to themilitarization of the situation in syria. we make the point that as we deal with theupheavals and countries across the region,

we look at them very specifically. each countryis different. the circumstances in each country is different. the comparison is often madein questions that were asked to the situation in libya, and the differences i think areoften spelled out. so i don’t want to predict in the futureat what point, if certain things happen or don’t happen, additional strategies mightbe put in place. i would simply say that the approach we’re taking now is the one webelieve is the right one -- working with the “friends of syria,” working with the internationalcommunity -- to further isolate and pressure assad, helping with our allies to providehumanitarian assistance, and hopefully further uniting the international community againstthe assad regime because of its brutality.

q and then a quick question on gas prices.in this election year the president is not concerned that he’s getting the blame forthe $4.00-plus per gallon? mr. carney: if you want to -- i mean, electionquestions and campaign questions you should direct to the campaign. q okay, let's take out "election." is he concerned-- is he not concerned that he’s getting the blame from the public or from -- mr. carney: the president is not concernedabout who gets the blame. the president is concerned about making sure we have the rightpolicies to deal with this challenge for the long term. i think that a number of you andyour colleagues have clearly pointed out the

hollowness of some of the proposals put forwardby those who are critics of the president masquerading as energy policies. they're notplausible because you simply cannot drill your way out of this problem. under this president, oil and gas productionin the united states has increased significantly, both on private and on public lands. underthis president, we have signed a permit to build the first nuclear power plant in 30years. under this president, we have taken a path through investments that will ensurethat we double the amount of renewable energy produced in this country. under this president,we have put in place historic fuel-efficiency standards that will do more to reduce ourconsumption of oil and, therefore, our dependence

on foreign oil than a whole host of proposalsthat others have put out there, which they pretend will somehow lower the price at thepump next week. this is not an easy challenge, and the presidentis being very honest with the american people about what we need to do to ensure that wedeal with this challenge for the long term. so poll numbers and how people view this ithink are one thing. getting the policy right is another, and it is a more important thing. mark. q yes, jay, the ryan budget is going to becoming out tomorrow. can i ask you in advance of it about two things that are clearly goingto be in it? one is the call to basically

reopen negotiations on the spending caps tocut another $19 billion out of discretionary funding. and of course, the overall questionabout medicare, reaping very substantial savings off of that -- what do you think? mr. carney: well, we’ll wait to see what’sin it. i think that the calls to abrogate -- to violate an agreement that everybodysigned onto in august, i think as we’ve talked about before, has to raise questionsabout keeping your word, about where we are. this was the result of serious negotiationsthat ended in significant reductions in discretionary spending, nondefense discretionary spending,as well as defense spending. and i think a lot of elected officials in congress of bothparties have said we need to keep our word

and keep that agreement in place. there’s another aspect of this that hasbeen discussed about blowing up the sequester, another agreement -- handshake, signature-- that suddenly folks want to undo because they find it inconvenient. the sequester wasdesigned to be objectionable and onerous -- both the cuts in defense spending and nondefensespending. no one wants to see them go into place. they exist in order to force congressto try to deal with the challenge that is presented before it in the need to get ourfiscal house in order, to enact further legislation that would reduce our long-term deficits anddebt, and to do that, this president believes, in a balanced way.

that's the approach that needs to be takenhere. what we don't need -- and again, i will have to see the details of it -- what we don'tneed is another proposal that says we have to preserve and extend tax cuts for the verywealthiest of americans who have done extremely well in the last decade, we have to preservetax subsidies and breaks for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, subsidiesthat have been in place for a century -- that's taxpayers giving money to oil and gas companiesmaking record profits. i mean that -- think that's a tough sell. but we’ll see. and in order to pay for all that and achievesome modicum of deficit reduction, basically ending medicare as we know it, asking seniorsto pay a heck of a lot more -- that's just

not an approach this president supports. we’llsee what the specifics are when it comes out, but if the past is prologue, it’s not verypromising. mr. carney: bill. q jay, there was a lot of attention over theweekend to the killing of a florida teenager by a neighborhood watch -- the police knowwho shot him -- and under very troubling circumstances -- the police know who shot him. no arresthas been made, no charges filed. is the president aware of this case of trayvon martin, andhas he asked the justice department to look into it? mr. carney: well, we here in the white houseare aware of the incident, and we understand

that the local fbi office has been in contactwith the local authorities and is monitoring the situation. our thoughts and prayers goout to trayvon martin’s family, but obviously we’re not going to wade into a local lawenforcement matter. i would refer you to the justice department and to local law enforcementat this point. q has the president himself expressed anycomments about it? i mean, the case of professor gates up in cambridge pales compared to this,and the president did speak out about that. mr. carney: i don't have any conversationsto report to you. alexis. q you’ve been talking about -- on energy-- about the president is trying to be honest

and trying to ask the american people to understandthere’s no silver bullet, no instant fix. can you describe in the president’s policy,his strategy, when would the payoff materialize to smooth out for most americans those pricejumps? when does he envision the payoff would occur? mr. carney: well, i think it’s, if you keepat it, it’s a process that improves continually. we’ve already seen our reliance on foreignimports decline in the last three years. we’ve already seen an increase in domestic oil production.we’ve already seen increases in renewable energy production. we’ve put into placefuel-efficiency standards that will have significant impact in terms of reducing our demand forforeign oil. so all of these things will have

a cumulative effect to reduce the portionof our energy consumption that comes from foreign sources, and by doing that, reducethe impact of fluctuations in the global oil market on average americans. that's the overall goal, for economic reasonsand national security reasons. and it’s a goal that recognizes a simple fact, thatin the 21st century there is going to be huge demand for fossil fuels as rising economiescontinue to grow, and as this economy continues to grow, and there is going to be huge opportunitiesin -- economically, in industries that take advantage of and exploit the need for alternativeenergy sources. the president is committed to those industriesgrowing and thriving in this country, and

creating jobs in this country, so that wedon't get into a situation where we trade our dependence on other countries for foreignoil for a dependence on other countries for alternative fuels or alternative energy sources. so it’s obviously going to be -- this isa long-term focus that needs to result in less and less dependence on foreign sourcesof energy, and that’s what the president is focused on. and i want to be clear thatthe president is very concerned about the current dilemma, and he has talked about themeasures that he is taking -- asking his justice department to reconstitute the unit that looksinto potential speculation and fraud, and the other issues that we can address here.but he is also honest about the fact that

there is no magic wand you can wave to suddenlyreduce the price of gasoline at your local station. kristen. alexis, one more. q i thought last week that you said the presidentwas traveling to talk about health care, and today you’re not saying that again. is therea reason? mr. carney: i don’t remember saying that,actually. i don’t think i did. q you said that the reason that he would betraveling -- when you got questions about health care you said he would be traveling. mr. carney: i’ll have to look at that. imight have just --

q slipped? (laughter.) mr. carney: there was never a plan that i’maware of to have him travel. i’m not sure i said but i’ll check the transcript. kristen. q thanks, jay. afghanistan president hamidkarzai was quoted as saying there are two demons in our country right now -- talkingabout the taliban and u.s. forces. and then over the weekend the afghanistan ambassadorsaid on cnn that "karzai is simply reflecting what our people are saying." what’s thewhite house’s reaction to that? and what’s the level of concern that president karzaiis saying one thing to the president and something

different to the people of afghanistan? mr. carney: we have regular conversationswith president karzai, with the afghan leadership, and are fully aware of the concerns that hehas and has had about some of these issues. and obviously, the last several weeks havebeen very challenging, and that has brought these issues to the forefront again. we arefocused on implementing our strategy -- a strategy, which has at its core both the needto disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda, but the need to transfer security authority-- security lead over to afghan forces, which in turn will allow us to withdraw u.s. forces.we’re in the process of drawing down the surge forces.

and as the president has said, withdrawalsof u.s. forces will continue beyond that as we transfer more and more territory and moreand more of the security responsibility to afghan forces who are being built up as partof the implementation of his strategy. the specifics of the footprint and where the forceswill be deployed i’m sure will be worked out. we’re also engaged with the afghansin our strategic partnership discussions and we’ll continue to do that. but we’re very cognizant of the fact thatthe incidents of late have provided great challenges. and we’re working through them,but we’re remaining focused on what the mission is, the reason why we’re there tobegin with, which is because we were attacked

here in the united states as part of a planthat was hashed and conceived and authorized and executed out of afghanistan by al qaeda.that is the reason why we’re there and that is the reason why al qaeda is the principalfocus of our mission. q does that type of rhetoric complicate theu.s. efforts to implement your strategy and to withdraw forces ultimately by 2014? mr. carney: look, i think that we’re focusedon our strategy. we work with president karzai, as i said in reading out the conversationpresident obama had with president karzai early friday morning. the two men see eye-to-eyeon what the implementation of the strategy is in 2013, in 2014. there are a number ofissues that they’re working through with

regards to some of the things that you mentioned.and we’re just going to continue to be focused on that and the implementation of the strategy. yes, sir. q thanks, jay. back on syria, both the presidentand prime minister cameron made a point of emphasizing both the russia and china aspectof all this. can you talk about what kind of pressure is being exerted on both beijingand moscow to get past that point of the veto of the previous security council? mr. carney: well, i can’t read out to youconversations or diplomatic negotiations. i can simply say that we were very disappointedin the veto. we have made that clear. and

we are working with everyone to focus attentionon the heinous behavior of the assad regime, the futility of siding with assad, given thefact that his ultimate giving up of power is, we believe, only a matter of time, andthe fact that the syrian people will always remember who was with them in this terribletime and who was not. and so we’re working with everyone to try to unite behind a strategyto pressure assad, to isolate assad, and ultimately to get him to stop the violence and to stepaside. conversations continue with all countries, including those that you mentioned. thanks, all.