About : standard furniture tuscaloosa
Title : standard furniture tuscaloosa
standard furniture tuscaloosa
mr. carney:the associated press, start us off. i have no announcements. welcome. the press:edward snowden hassaid he would like to have asylum in russia,that he's willing to agree to their demandthat he not continue to release information to them. what is your messagetoday to russia about what the implications of granting that to him would be
for their relationswith the united states? mr. carney:our position on mr. snowden and the felonycharges against him, and our belief thathe ought to be returned to the united states toface those felony charges is as it was. and we have communicated itto a variety of countries, including russia. so it's no differentthan it was.
and i would simply say thatproviding a propaganda platform for mr. snowden runs counterto the russian government's previous declarationsof russia's neutrality and that they have no control over his presencein the airport. it's also incompatiblewith russian assurances that they do notwant mr. snowden to further damageu.s. interests. but having said that,our position also remains
that we don'tbelieve this should, and we don't wantit to do harm to our importantrelationship with russia. and we continue to discuss withrussia our strongly held view that there is absolutelegal justification for him to be expelled, for him to be returnedto the united states to face the charges that have been brought against him for the unauthorized leakingof classified information.
the press:can you tell us a little bitabout the president's session today withthe attorney general? and has he acceptederic holder's report on media relationsand investigations? mr. carney:the president did meetwith the attorney general today in the oval,and the attorney general did discuss with himand present to him that report. i believe the department ofjustice will be releasing that report this afternoon,but i'd refer you to them.
the press:so if they're releasingit this afternoon, that indicates that thepresident did accept it as it was presented? mr. carney:yes, i think that'sa fair assessment to make. we won't have anystatement or comment on it before it's released, but i believe the department of justice is releasing it today. the press:and on secretary napolitano's departure, do you have any informationfor us on who her replacement
might be or any timelinefor that decision? mr. carney:i have no namesto float, if you will. i would say that thepresident greatly appreciates secretary napolitano'sfour-plus years of service. and if you think about it,those four and a half years account for almosthalf the existence of the departmentof homeland security. and she's done a remarkable job. and on her watch there havebeen just numerous issues
that have requiredher expert attention, from the h1n1 virus to the recent bombings in boston, to hurricane sandy to the devastating tornadoes in joplin and tuscaloosa and elsewhere; the deepwater horizon oil spill; floods that we'veseen in this country. and her department,with her leadership, has functioned ata very high level. and it's also the case thatwith secretary napolitano
at the helm, we have greatlyenhanced our border security, including the doublingof border patrol agents. and that is due in somemeasure to her leadership, and the president appreciatesthat and wishes her well. on the timelinefor a replacement, i believe it's been put outthat she remains in her position until early september. and the president will be verydeliberate about looking at potential successors forthat very important position.
but i have no announcementsto make on it. the press:jay, are you saying therewould be no repercussions to u.s.-russian relationsif he's granted asylum there? mr. carney:i think that i'mnot going to speculate about somethingthat hasn't happened. what i would sayis that we don't believe this issue should do harm to the relations betweenrussia and the united states. and we are working with therussians and have made clear
to the russians our viewsabout the fact that mr. snowden has been chargedwith very serious crimes, and that he should be returnedto the united states where he will be granted full due processand every right available to him as a united states citizenfacing our justice system under the constitution. and we'll continue tohave those conversations, and we've made veryclear our views. the press:have the russians communicated
anything to yourecently about him? mr. carney:well, i don't have anyspecific conversations to read out except thatobviously we are in conversation with russian officials, as weare with other officials from other nations when we've talkedabout issues of where -- what nations might be transitpoints or potential destinations for mr. snowden were heto leave the transit lounge of the sheremetyevo airport. but the conversationsthat have been held reflect
everything thati'm telling you now in terms of ourviews on this matter. the press:and snowden wrote in an openletter that the u.s. government is engaged in an unlawfulcampaign to deny him his right to seek asylum. is that how you see it? mr. carney:no, it is not. he has been charged underthe law with three felonies, very serious crimes.
and every aspect of the unitedstates system of justice is available to him uponhis return to the u.s. to face those charges. and that's how our system works. we have communicated with nations around the world our view that mr. snowden should be returned to the united states because of the charges filedagainst him and because -- which is normal practice when you've beencharged with felonies
and the revocationof his passport, because he does not have travel papers or a valid passport, that he ought to be returnedto the united states, and where he will facejustice in a system that affords defendantsall the rights that every americancitizen enjoys. yes, jim. the press:how does the next homelandsecurity secretary nominee not get tangled up in thepolitics over immigration reform
in this debate that'shappening up on the hill, and for that matter, this wholemess that started yesterday with the nuclear option betweensenate majority leader reid and minority leader mcconnell? it just seems like itcould be a complicated mix. mr. carney:complicated asa potential nominee. let me address the firstquestion related to immigration. as i noted earlier,secretary napolitano has done a remarkablyeffective job
in fulfilling one ofthe major responsibilities that that position requireswhen it comes to overseeing the border security functionof our federal government, the cbp, and overall enforcement. and we've seen -- again, as i've talkedall week about, we've seen all the metrics by which you can measure effective enforcement; and changes inenforcement demonstrate
that there have beengreat improvements. and that is -- anothermeasure of that is the fact that the number ofborder security agents has increased so dramaticallyin the last five years. i don't expect that thetransition that will take place at the department will --when it comes to enforcing immigration laws will becomeentangled in the politics over legislation that hasbroad bipartisan support, and support from law enforcementcommunities when it comes
to enforcement issues,and from faith communities when it comes to themorality of immigration reform, and business communities whenit comes to the economic and business benefits ofimmigration reform. so we don't expectthat to be an issue. on the other matter, look,we have made clear that the president is frustrated with theobstructionism that we've seen from republicans when it comesto the confirmation process. not only has he made it clear,he included sections about it
in two state of the unionaddresses, including in 2012. and so we share the frustration that senator reidhas talked about. we have highly qualifiedexecutive branch nominees up on the hill, their nominations upon the hill today who continue to be obstructed, who have beenheld up for over a hundred days. and that's not how thesystem should work. so when it comes to next steps,we defer to senator reid.
we are very appreciativefor all he has done, all he is doing and will doto ensure that the president's qualified nomineesare confirmed. the press:does the president believethat the majority leader should go through withthe nuclear option? because when senator obamawas over there in the senate, he once said when the roles werereversed and the majority was threatening to use thatoption at one time, he said, "i fear that the partisanatmosphere in washington
will be poisoned to the point where no one will beable to agree on anything." and that is not what thefounding fathers had in mind. so given his previousstatement on this, he would agree with senatormcconnell on this, right? mr. carney:i think he would agree with this statementfrom senator mcconnell: "i think the presidentis entitled to an up or down -- that is a simple majorityvote on nominations,
both to his cabinet andto the executive branch, and also to the judiciary." that's senator mcconnellin the spring of 2005. the fact is, citingthen-senator obama's comments, is that the situation hasgotten exponentially worse since republicans gained -- since in the lastseveral years, under senator mcconnell's leadership of the republican minority,
the obstructionismhas doubled. the number of days thatnominees have to wait, the kinds of obstaclesand gridlock created by this refusal totake up and consider and confirmhighly qualified nominees. i look at gina mccarthy -- there is no questionabout her qualifications. she is, by any measure,enormously qualified for the position to whichshe has been nominated.
in fact, it's a position verysimilar to the one she held in the state of massachusettsfor then-governor mitt romney. more than a hundreddays her nomination has been pendingfor a floor vote. richard cordray,here is somebody with support from republicans and democrats -- someone who has republican state attorneys generalwho support him, someone about whom nota single republican senator
has had a bad thing to say when it comes to his qualifications for the job to runthis very important agency, the consumer financialprotection bureau. and he has done an amazing jobas he has held that position and waited for actualconfirmation by the senate. it's been two years. but why has it been blocked? because republicans in thesenate simply don't like the fact thatthe cfpb's existence
is the law of the land. they lost that battle. the president insistedthat the cfpb be created and that it had strong powers to protect consumerswhen it came to their rights using credit cards,on student loans and mortgages. and there's an enormous numberof examples that demonstrate how effective alreadythat bureau has been in protecting consumer rights.
republicans don't like that. the press:but shouldn't the presidentbe urging senator reid to be cautious here? because exercising that optionwould potentially fundamentally change the nature of the senate. it would --people say it would become essentially like the house. this is sort of playingwith fire, is it not? mr. carney:the president said in 2012,
in the state ofthe union address, "some of what's broken hasto do with the way congress does its business these days. a simple majority is no longerenough to get anything -- even routine business --passed through the senate. neither party has beenblameless in these tactics. now both parties shouldput an end to it. for starters, i ask the senateto pass a simple rule that all judicial and public servicenominations receive a simple
up or down vote within 90 days." unfortunately, thatrecommendation has not been taken up by republicanleadership in the senate. and contained within that, thoseremarks that the president made in the well of the house ata state of the union address, was an acknowledgement that thisis a problem that has existed when -- and has been exacerbatedin some ways by both parties. but there is no questionthat it has gotten -- the world today is quite different than it was in 2005
when it comes to thisissue in the senate, and the waythat it's been run, and the obstructionismthat we've seen from republicanleaders in the senate and republicanmembers in the senate. it is not the same andit is a real problem. when it comes to senator reid,we defer to him on senate procedure, but we appreciatethe support he's given and will giveto the confirmation
of the president'squalified nominees. susan. the press:thank you. back to snowdenjust for a moment. you said that the administrationis working with the russians. what does that mean? what does that look like? is the president directlyinvolved in these conversations? is the vice president?
mr. carney:we've had conversationswith russian officials at a varietyof high levels, and the president actuallydoes have a call scheduled with president putin for later today. that is a call that has beenon the books for several days. so he will havethat conversation. the press:will you read it out? mr. carney:i'm sure we'll havesomething for you on it. the press:you could putit on the mult --
save you some readout time. [laughter.] mr. carney:you think that's a good idea? the press:i do. mr. carney:yes, i expect you do. but, susan, the point is,is that we've made clear both in public andin our conversations at a variety of levels -- including through lawenforcement channels,
which is the normal mechanism through which something like this would be resolved -- that mr. snowden is wantedon three felony charges. we have a history of effectivelaw enforcement cooperation with russia, with therussian government, including very recently in thewake of the bombings in boston at the boston marathon, and that through those channels and through thenormal procedures,
we believe mr. snowden oughtto be expelled from russia and to make his way hometo the united states, where as a u.s. citizenhe is afforded all the considerable rightsthat defendants are afforded when they are chargedwith crimes. and he has been chargedwith three felonies and with very serious crimesin the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive,classified information. the press:there's an importantsummit later this summer.
what impact would thishave with their decision on whether the presidentgoes to that summit? mr. carney:well, the presidenthas and plans to -- has said and plansto travel to russia for the g20 summit in september, and i certainly don'thave any updates on his travel schedulebeyond what we've said already. wendell. the press:did the president accept
the entire reportfrom secretary holder? did he make -- ask any changes? mr. carney:we'll have a statementor some comment on it. the report hasn't been released, so i'm not going tocomment on it at this time. i shouldn't be --the report hasn't been released, so when it is released we'llhave something to say about it. the press:you cannot say whethermr. obama objected to any parts of it at all?
mr. carney:no, the presidentaccepted the report, but i think we'll have somethingto say about it later once it's been released. i don't want to have adiscussion about a report that none of you have seen. i want to be helpful and wait to have that discussion after you've seen it. the press:did he acceptwith reservations? mr. carney:no.
yes, he accepted the report. that's all you got for me? bill? the press:about it. mr. carney:excellent. the press:friday. mr. carney:i like that. madam welker. the press:i want to ask youabout afghanistan.
earlier this weekyou said that a decision about post-2014 trooplevels was not imminent. can you be more specific? does the president want to makea decision by a specific time, or is there a timeline? mr. carney:i really can't be more specific because it's just not imminent. i think that we're talkingabout troop levels beyond the end of 2014, which is18 months from now. and we are in the process offurther drawing down the troops
that are in afghanistan --roughly 60,000 currently -- and we will be continuallydrawing those down as we hand over more and moreresponsibility for security to afghan forces. the president will be discussingwith his national security team the issue of a potentialresidual force post-2014. but as i've saidearlier in the week, the range of options dependson a number of things, and the rangeis full from --
i mean, it goes to zero, as we've discussedas a possible option, because the issueisn't a number, it's the fulfillment ofour policy objectives. and the two policy objectiveswe have when it comes to a post-2014security relationship have to do withcontinuing to counter the remnants of al qaeda, and to continue to train andequip the afghan national
security forces. and we will -- the presidentwill, with his team, examine our options in how wefulfill those policy objectives, working, of course,with the afghan government in those discussions. and we have discussionsongoing with the afghans about a bilateralsecurity agreement, we have a very importantstrategic partnership agreement that we continueto implement with them
that has to do with our --what will be regardless a very substantial commitmentto afghanistan and afghanistan'sfuture, including a strongcivilian component. the press:jay, on thursday,a number of lawmakers, including robert menendez, made the argument that the president should make a decision soon to reassure afghansthat the united states would continueto support them.
does that add to the urgency? is there a sense of urgency? and does he agreewith that assessment? mr. carney:there is not. the president is going to bevery deliberate about this, as he has been when itcomes to assessing our options and our policy posture withregards to afghanistan. we have, when itcomes to assurances, 60,000 approximatelymen and women in uniform
in afghanistan today fighting for and bleeding forthe fulfillment of a policy that is aimed at riddingthat region of al qaeda and preventing afghanistanfrom becoming a safe haven for al qaeda or al qaeda-like extremist organizations in the future. the press:but i think the argumentthat lawmakers are making is that the uncertainty -- mr. carney:it's 18 months from now.
i think that it isentirely proper, and i think the americanpeople would expect that we would be very deliberate about these decisions as we continueto draw down troops in keeping withthe president's promise and his policy objectives. and when the president hasan announcement to make, he'll make it. but it is not imminent.
the press:and has president karzaigiven any indication that he's getting closer toresuming peace negotiations? mr. carney:i don't speak forthe afghan government, but i haven't heardany updates on that. the press:and has president obamabeen working actively to try to resumethose negotiations? mr. carney:we have an excellent team that works on these issues andcontinues to work on them. the press:is the president workingon it specifically?
mr. carney:i'm not sure what that means. as you know,we've talked about this issue several times this week. the president is always focusedon and concerned about our troopsin harm's way in afghanistan and the fulfillmentof his policy in the region. but that's something he thinksabout and deals with every day. when it comes to ournegotiations with afghanistan and the afghan government,
we have very ablepersonnel in kabul. we have very ablepersonnel in the pentagon and at the department of state who engage in thosediscussions regularly. mark. the press:jay, can you elaborate beyond what was inthe readout yesterday about what presidentobama told chinese officials about the failure of hongkong to extradite ed snowden?
mr. carney:i can tell you thatwe've been very clear about our disappointment with the way that thatsituation was handled. i think deputy secretary burnsraised this and discussed this during the s&ed i thinkyesterday or earlier today. i think he said yesterday, quote-- this is a paraphrase rather: we were very disappointed withhow the authorities in beijing and hong kong handledthe snowden case, which undermined our effortto build the trust needed
to manage difficult issues. at the u.s.-china strategic andeconomic dialogue this week, we made clear that china'shandling of this case was not consistent withthe spirit of sunnylands or with the typeof relationship, the new modelthat we both seek to build. the president alsoexpressed his disappointment and concern with china's handling of the snowden case in his meeting yesterdaywith the s&ed co-chairs.
the press:did china respond in any way? mr. carney:well, i would referyou to the chinese. i think it's very -- we've been very clear and candid about our views on this. we've also been veryclear and candid, as i think the s&ed reflects,that we have a broad and important relationship withchina and we have had -- that these conversations,this dialogue was very useful andproductive on many fronts.
but that fact does not take --or does not diminish our concern about the way the snowdencircumstance was handled. yes, in the back. going back to the afghanistanquestion on the zero option, why is this being consideredin the first place itself? and isn't thisopposed or contradictive to what the presidenthas been saying of committing to afghanistan people that they have -- the u.s. would have an enduring commitment to afghanistan?
mr. carney:we do have an enduringcommitment to afghanistan, and whether we havea residual force there or not, that commitment will continue. and the commitmentwill continue through our strategic partnership agreement, it will continue througha security relationship, which will involveour efforts to continue to go after the remnantsof al qaeda in the region and to help train and equipthe afghan security forces.
the questionof whether or not there's a residualu.s. troop presence is something wehave to negotiate with the afghan government. we're not going to make apromise about a residual force if we haven't negotiatedthe circumstances of that with afghanistan. so it has to be the case, aswe've said as long back as -- as far back as january, thatone option is no troops.
i'm not saying that'sa preferred option, i'm just saying to suggestotherwise would be to make assumptionsabout negotiations that have notreached a conclusion. the press:is the last optionthat the u.s. would have for afghanistan? mr. carney:i'm sorry, what is that? the press:is the zero optionthe last option? the last --
mr. carney:i'm not going toexpress preference, because the purpose here is notto check a box and fulfill a quota in termsof the numbers of -- these are u.s. menand women in uniform who would be in a difficult assignment in harm's way, as they are today. and the choices we make aboutthat are made very carefully and have to do with veryspecific policy objectives. and when it comesto a residual force
in a country like afghanistan, that is something thatwould have to be negotiated it is not somethingthat we would presuppose until it's decided. april, and then bill. the press:i want to go to thetrayvon martin case. the jury will be readinstructions after lunch today. is there any concernfrom the white house about what could happen afterthe jury makes its decision,
particularly as therewas a lot of news right after thesituation happened, after his murder,after his death, it was racially charged? about reaction to a verdict? mr. carney:well, april,i would simply say that this is an ongoing trial,as you just mentioned. and i'm not aware ofthe timeline exactly, but you just saidthat the jury
is going to beread instructions. to suggest our views on --or anyone's views here, whether it's the president's oranyone else's views here -- on an ongoing trial that'sabout to go to jury i think would be a mistake, and potential outcomes and whatmight happen in an outcome. this is a jury in florida,in the united states that's fulfillingits function -- a trial and a jury.
and we'll obviously be madeaware of the results of that when they happen. but i wouldn't want tocharacterize our views about it or the president'sviews about it, because it's an ongoing trial. the press:but it was such a -- mr. carney:no, i understand that it was -- the press:it was racially charged. mr. carney:-- obviously, it got a lotof attention at the time,
and there were a numberof issues around it. and the presidentcommented on it. but we're in a trial phase andapparently, soon a jury phase. and at this time, i just don'thave any further comment. the press:and the last thing -- i'm going to go back towhat i asked you yesterday on the justice department. they were investigating -- mr. carney:i just don't --
again,whether the justice department is investigating other matters is something that the justice department would answer. i don't have an answer to that. the press:well, let me ask you this. would the attorney generalever, at any point -- even at the timewhen the president even commented on it -- would the attorney generalhave made the president aware
of what their plans arein this, or is that something that they can do by themselves? mr. carney:well, it's certainly somethingthey can do by themselves. but i'm commenting on somethingthat i just don't know about, so i would refer you to justice. bill. the press:a couple of things. first, on food stamps,yesterday as you know, the house of representativespassed a bill,
which zeroed out the snap,or food stamp program. would the president sign a farmbill without some continued funding in therefor food stamps, which has been there since 1973? mr. carney:we put out a statementof administration policy on this specific bill --deeply, deeply flawed bill. and that says,"the administration strongly opposes h.r. 2642,the federal agriculture reform and riskmanagement act of 2013."
and it is --just reading further -- "it's apparent that the bill does not contain sufficient commodityand crop insurance reforms, and it does not investin renewable energy." i mean, i can -- "the bill alsofails to reauthorize nutrition programs," which goes towhat your question is about, "which benefit millionsof americans in rural, suburban and urban areas alike. the supplemental nutritionassistance program
is a cornerstone of our nation's food assistance safety net and should not be left behind as the rest ofthe farm bill advances. if the president werepresented with this bill, his senior advisorswould recommend that he veto the bill." that's a standardform of statement of administration policy. for decades, congress has workedin a bipartisan fashion
to pass real,comprehensive farm bills. the senate continuedthat tradition this year. and unfortunately, houserepublicans decided instead to pursue an exercisein partisanship. they passed a bill thatlacks real commodity and crop insurance reforms, does not invest in jobcreation in rural america, and fails to reauthorize,as i said, nutrition programs whichbenefit millions of americans.
and for that reasonwe oppose it. i think there's been somepretty interesting comment on the house action,including by conservatives, and pretty damning comment. it is i think fairlyremarkable -- i know that these aretwo different issues, but the congress has before, and the house in particular, a comprehensiveimmigration reform bill
that would reduce the deficit,according to the cbo, by $850 billion -- would help our economy grow; would help our labor forcebecome more productive; would introduce intoour business stream new entrepreneurs withjob-creating ideas; would further secure ourborder significantly. huge upside, an upside witha lot of conservative goals achieved within thiscomprehensive immigration bill,
including deficit reduction. and then, at the same time,they pass a farm bill that cuts out this nutritionassistance program to millions of americans inthe name of deficit reduction, far less significantdeficit reduction. it smacks a little bitof hypocrisy to me, but not just me. the press:a second just quickly. the other sideof the snowden issue
is that there have beenmore and more comments this week from members of congress that the intelligence community, starting with director clapper, either lied to congressor misrepresented what the nsa programis all about. is there any attemptor will there be on the part of the administration to explain, okay, exactly here'swhat we're doing and here's why weneed to do this?
mr. carney:first of all, directorclapper has addressed this specific instance andi refer you to his comments. director clapper is doing -- the press:but they're saying -- mr. carney:well, here are the facts. congress has been briefedin numerous venues on these programs,including public testimony, paper briefings,and classified sessions. i have seen reports of 22briefings on the 702 program --
22 briefings -- and nearlyas many on the 215 program. but if you don't believe me,hear what leader reid and senator chambliss and senatorfeinstein and congressman rogers and congressman kinghave said about this. they have all said that members were fully briefedon these programs. and there are notthat many things that those particularmembers of congress -- republicans anddemocrats alike -- agree on,
but this is one of them. they have been briefedon these programs. and i think a lot of --representative mike rogers: "the committee has been extensively briefed on these effortsover a regular basis as a part of our ongoing oversight responsibility over the 16 elements ofthe intelligence community and the nationalintelligence program." the collection efforts underthe business records provision
in section 702 of the foreignintelligence surveillance act "are legal, court-approved, and subject to an extensive oversight regime." that's the republicanchairman of the house. so we are verymuch interested in, and the president is veryinterested in, as he has said, in a dialogue about these issuesand a debate about these issues, and in providingas much information as we can about these programs,
mindful of thevery sensitive nature, by definition of intelligenceprograms that are designed to, as their main goal, thwartpotential terrorist attacks against the unitedstates and our allies. but it is simplynot the case that congress and the relevant committees and individual membershave not been informed about these programs. the press:but, jay, you knowthere are senators --
senator merkley, senator udall,senator whitehouse, others -- severalmembers of congress -- mr. carney:i know that there are somemembers who missed briefings -- the press:-- who said that, yes -- mr. carney:i know that there are somemembers who missed briefings in order to -- the press:but they said theyasked specific questions and they were told misinformation -- mr. carney:well, again, i think --
again, the fact is they'veknown about these programs, they've approved these programs, they've provided oversightover these programs. i know that some members don'tshow up for these briefings. i know that some memberschoose appearances on cable televisionover these briefings, but the briefingsexist and have happened. ann. mr. carney:i'm sorry, and then lisa.
go ahead. the press:thanks very much, jay. does the president think thatfolks like human rights watch or amnesty international are being used by edward snowden when they show upat a meeting with him in the secure partof the airport? does the president haveany message for groups that stand up for what theydescribe as human rights -- mr. carney:i would say a coupleof things about that.
one, those groupsdo important work, but mr. snowden is not a humanrights activist or a dissident. he is accused of leakingclassified information, has been charged withthree felony counts, and should be returnedto the united states, where he will be accordedfull due process. and on the issue of humanrights organizations in russia, meeting with mr. snowden, i think we would urgethe russian government
to afford human rightsorganizations the ability to do their work inrussia throughout russia, not just at themoscow transit lounge. the press:and on the meeting withthe attorney general today, do you know whether the attorneygeneral brought to the president any information about whethercommunities in florida have asked for justicedepartment help or support? mr. carney:the meeting todaywas about the report the department of justiceis going to issue.
i wasn't in the meeting,but i don't have any further information about it beyondthat specific subject. the press:but did it come up at -- mr. carney:not that i'm aware of,but i wasn't in the meeting. again, it was about thisparticular subject that we discussed and the deadline forthe release of this report. the press:if the communityasked for help, would the -- mr. carney:i would refer you tothe justice department, as i said before.
yes, lisa, sorry. the press:when did the president find out that secretary napolitanowas going to be leaving? and did he make thecase that she should stay through theremainder of the -- mr. carney:i don't have a specific -- obviously, the secretaryadvised the president of her intentions, but idon't have a date for that. i can tell you the presidentbelieves secretary napolitano
has done an excellentjob and is enormously appreciative of her service. she's been doing itfor four-plus years. and while all of these seniorpositions in a white house or an administrationare very demanding, hers is particularly so. and so those fourand a half years represent a lot of hard workand a lot of -- the dealing with a lot of very stressful issues, no question.
and secretary napolitanohas met every challenge. so i think he's veryunderstanding when someone who has devoted so much ofher time and focus and energy to the fulfillment of herresponsibilities in that job wants to move on. and he is very appreciative ofthe fact that she has left a legacy as a secretary of adepartment for nearly half of its existence that hersuccessor will be able to build on in a positive way,
and in fact will be ableto build on even more if comprehensive immigrationreform is passed; if the senate bill that we haveseen emerge from the senate becomes law, because thatbill provides substantial new resources for border enforcementand substantial and important changes to our legal immigrationlaws that allow for enhanced legal immigrationin a way that will bring enormous benefitsto our economy. so the president is veryappreciative for her service --
of her service. the press:and is he concernedabout how having this -- having a confirmationhearing for this post while the immigration debateis going on could influence the debate or anything -- mr. carney:the president will nominate a very qualified personto fill that job. and as we'vediscussed in general, the president believesthat qualified nominees
for executive branch positions ought to be considered and confirmed expeditiously. the press:and finally,senator schumer recommended raykelly for the job. is he under consideration? mr. carney:i think it is fartoo premature on the day that secretarynapolitano announced that she's leavingin a month and a half to speculateabout successors.
we will be -- the presidentwill be very deliberate in examining his options. chris. the press:thanks, jay. i have a questionabout russia, actually. a big concern among theinternational lgbt community about anti-gay legislationand anti-gay violence in that country,there were some calls to boycott the 2014 winterolympics in sochi.
at the end of last month,russian president vladimir putin signed into law a billthat bans the promotion of homosexuality to minors. is the president aware ofthese calls for a boycott? and is he open to theidea of withdrawing u.s. participation forthe winter olympics? mr. carney:i'm not aware of the calls. i can tell you thatthe president and this administration makes clear toour allies and partners
and nations around the worldour belief that lgbt rights need to be respected everywhere. but i don't have a specific -- i haven't discussedthis with him. the state department mayhave more information, but i don't have a specificresponse from him or from the white houseon that particular issue. but broadly speaking, we makeour concerns about these issues known to countriesaround the world.
and i think this came up in thepresident's trip to africa and he made that clear. the press:can you tell me if he cameup in the bilateral talks between president obamaand president putin? mr. carney:not that i'm awareof, but, again, we make our concerns aboutissues like this known to countries where appropriate. the press:one other topic. i know you've answered a lotof questions about that lgbt
workplace nondiscriminationexecutive order, but there's one more thingi wanted you to address. in an email that was leakedto me in june, last month, the treasurer of thedemocratic national committee, andrew tobias, told lgbt donorsthat he's spoken with people in the administration aboutit and everyone is for it, and it will get done, but theholdup is a process that is broader thanjust this one very important and long-delayed agenda item.
do you dispute that a process isholding up this executive order? mr. carney:i've been very clear inanswer to your questions, and questions the other day, that our firm beliefis that we think that an inclusive employmentnondiscrimination act, which would enshrineinto law strong, lasting and comprehensiveprotections against employment discrimination on thebasis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessary.
and the president and hisadministration will continue to work to build support for it. and we saw an importantstep taken this week when enda passed out of committee in the senate with some republican support. we're not there yet, and i willnot argue with you if they say that there are obstacles thatenda faces to becoming law. but the fact is thiswas a good week in progress towards passing enda,
and the president stronglysupports the efforts undertaken by senate democrats and somesenate republicans to encourage the passageof this legislation, and we'll continue to work with the congress to see it done. and the rest of that -- ourposition has been well known about enda as the best means topursue lasting and comprehensive protections againstemployment discrimination of lgbt individuals. the press:i understand that, but whydo you think the dnc treasurer
would saythat a process -- mr. carney:i'm not familiar with an emailthat you said was leaked to you. i can tell you whati know here in the west wing of the white house. the press:one last question on this. there are three senate democratswho don't co-sponsor the employmentnon-discrimination act -- bill nelson, mark pryorand joe manchin. as we get closer to the floorvote in the senate on enda,
do you expect the presidentwill reach to them to try to get them on boardwith support? mr. carney:i expect that we will tryto encourage every member of the senate todo the right thing and support that legislation. voice of america. the press:syria question, if i may. in these discussions you'rehaving with the committees on the hill, jay, what are yousaying about the confidence --
as we heard fromben rhodes last month -- confidence in the relationshipswith the opposition council -- the military counciland the channels for aid in terms of thoseall being stronger. is there stronger confidence nowthan there was when we all heard from ben rhodes where heoutlined the broad parameters of the lethal aid effort? mr. carney:well, first of all, as we said at the time weannounced the expansion
of our assistance to thesupreme military council, we cannot detail every type ofsupport that we are providing, nor can we provide details aboutthe timeline or logistics of delivery for everytype of assistance. our assistance covers arange of different purposes, and the goal of our assistance is to strengthen both the cohesion of the opposition and the effectiveness ofthe supreme military council and its effortsto defend the syrian people
against a repressive regimethat has shown no boundaries in its willingnessto kill civilians. we have, with ourallies and partners, worked to strengthenthe elements of the syrian oppositionthat have, in our view, the best interestsof the syrian people in mind and the future of syria in mind. and we continue to workwith those elements. and we, as i saidthe other day, believe
that the enhanced assistance that the president announced is very important given the assault that assad has been wagingof late with the assistance of hezbollah and iran. and that's why the presidentbelieves it's necessary to move forward withthat assistance. the press:is there headway being madein terms of conversations up on the hill aboutspeeding up the process? mr. carney:i can simply tellyou that we continue
to consult closely withmembers of congress. mike. the press:thank you, jay-- two quick issues. the first one, i want toapproach the doj report from a slightly different angle. setting aside whatever is init, can you tell us about the president's commitmentto make changes in this area on the executive side? i know you've talked aboutsupporting the shield law.
and should we see this as thelast word on this subject or part of a continuingconversation? mr. carney:i think the presidentmade pretty clear his views about this issue and thismatter on several occasions earlier when it was a focus ofa lot of attention here in the briefing room and, broadly,with the press in washington. i don't wantto characterize next steps until everyone has had a chance to see the report. but the president's views aboutthis remain what they were,
and i think heexpressed them publicly, so i can't improve on them. the press:and the part aboutwould it be the end of the conversation or justpart of the conversation? mr. carney:i don't think theconversation ends. i think the conversation on thisissue and other issues are -- i would expect them to continue. i'm not sure what you meanby the conversation to end. this is an effort to examine anissue in a way that reflects
the president's beliefabout the importance of the job that reporters do. and i'll let the justicedepartment speak to its report and then we'll have somecomment or statement afterwards. the press:and the other issue -- i don't want to jumpto the week ahead here, but can you saya little bit about the visit of bush 41 on monday? mr. carney:i can tell you that thepresident and first lady
will host formerpresident george h.w. bush and former first ladybarbara bush, and members of the bush familyfor an event to honor the winner of the 5,000th dailypoint of light award. the points of light is --those of you might remember from the george h.w. bush administration -- the world's largestorganization dedicated to volunteer service. it mobilizes millions of peopleto take action that is changing
the world, and recognizesindividuals who are making a difference throughservice and volunteerism. the president very muchlooks forward to this event and he has a very high regardfor president george h.w. bush and former first ladybarbara bush and the bush family. so i know he and the firstlady are looking forward to this event and always looking forward to an opportunity to be with the former president and the former first lady.
victoria. the press:on guantanamo,on forced feeding, the judge ruled thatshe couldn't stop it but the president could. it's ramadan, and as you know,one of the principles of ramadan is it's a time of reflectionand not a time for conflict. these detaineesare being strapped down and are having tubes insertedinto them against their will. so they are being forcedinto a conflict situation.
so it's going againstthe principle of ramadan. mr. carney:well, appreciate -- i don'thave anything new for you on our position. the president obviously does notwant these individuals to die. he is understanding of thecircumstances around this issue. he believes very stronglyand is working to make happen that we needto close guantanamo bay. and as you know, he talked aboutthis not that long ago and is taking steps to double --redouble our efforts to bring
that about mindful of the fact that we face obstaclesfrom congress. on the specific handling ofdetainees at guantanamo bay, i'd refer you to thedefense department. the press:so let me come atit from a different way if you don't want toaddress the ramadan issue. the president believes ina woman's right to choose and a woman's right to privacy. does he also accepta man's right to privacy
and a man's right to choosecontrol over his own body? in other words,that if a man chooses that he doesn't wish to eat, that he has that right? mr. carney:well, again, i understandthe complexity of these issues, victoria, but i don'thave anything more to say beyond what i saidearlier in the week, which is the president isobviously concerned about this, but is also concernedthat he does not want to see individual detainees die.
and for more details aboutthe handling of detainees, i would refer you tothe defense department. the press:does he believe thatthey have the right to -- mr. carney:again, victoria,i just don't have anything more for you on that. yes. the press:back to syria for a second. can you detail any assistancethat is in the hands of the rebels at this point inthe last month and what it is?
mr. carney:well, i think i just saidwe're not going to detail all types of assistancethat we provide, and that's the case. if you're asking hasnew assistance arrived, i would refer you to the defensedepartment about the assistance programs that they oversee,or the state department about the assistance programsthat they oversee. the fact is we're workingwith congress on the issue of the president's announcement of enhanced military assistance,
but i don't have anythingabout specific shipments to provide to you. the press:can you say yes orno if assistance is -- any kind of assistanceis in syria? mr. carney:well, we've been providingassistance to syria, including the syrian militarycouncil, for some time now. so the answer is, yes,there is and has been. mr. carney:all right, last one, yes. the press:on july the 19th, the fisacourt order that enables
the collectionof verizon data expires. does the administration planto renew or amend that order? mr. carney:that's a questioni think best addressed to the department of justice. i don't have anythingfor you on it. but, thank you. the press:can you do the week ahead, jay? the press:jay, one last one -- mr. carney:yes, steve.
is it breaking news from your -- the press:the phone call -- no, no, the phone callwith president putin, is it specificallyabout snowden, or is it a myriad of topics? mr. carney:well, i don't thinkthat's the only topic that will be discussed. i'm sure that will be discussed. i just want to makeclear that it was something
that we put on the booksa couple of days ago for today, and i'm sure we'llhave some sort of readout about it for you. the press:and he'll askto return snowden? mr. carney:i don't want to predict orput into the president's mouth words thathaven't been spoken. i'm sure president putinis aware of our views about mr. snowden, and i know thatissue has been discussed at a variety of levelsbetween our two governments.
if i may, i willread the week ahead. as i just mentioned, on monday,the president and the first lady will host formerpresident george h.w. bush, former first ladybarbara bush, on tuesday and wednesday, thepresident will attend meetings here at the white house. on thursday, the president willparticipate in an ambassador credentialing ceremonyhere at the white house. on friday, the presidentand the first lady
will host the diplomaticcorps reception for the foreign diplomaticcorps at the white house. and that's your week ahead. have a great weekend, everybody. thank you.