government healthcare plans

mr. carney: so much -- so much to talk about.hello, everyone. welcome back from a holiday weekend. i hope you had a great three daysoff. before i take your questions, let me begin with a couple of items. first, we are pleased to announce that thepresident will address this year's annual aipac policy conference in washington, d.c.,on sunday, march 4. the president welcomes this opportunity to speak to the strengthof the special bonds between israel and the united states. as you know and has been previouslyannounced, the president has a bilateral meeting with prime minister netanyahu on march 5th,the day after. and then also, if i could give you a readoutof the president's call this morning with

chancellor merkel of germany. the presidentand german chancellor angela merkel spoke by phone this morning to discuss the latestdevelopments concerning the financial situation in the eurozone. the president thanked thechancellor for her leadership, and welcomed last night's agreement in europe on a newrescue program for greece to help reduce its debt to sustainable levels. the presidentand the chancellor agreed that the planned eu fiscal pact, recent actions by the europeancentral bank, and reforms by spain and italy have also been positive steps in addressingthe eurozone crisis. the president and the chancellor also discussed preparations forthe upcoming g8 summit, and agreed that the emphasis there should be on growth and jobs.

those are my top-of-the-briefing announcements.i'd be happy to take a few questions. ben. q thanks, jay. two topics please. can youtell us, did the president have any personal reaction to the news of the korans being burnedat the u.s. military base in afghanistan? mr. carney: i have not discussed that withhim. i'm confident that he is aware of it and been briefed on it. i know that this isan issue we're following closely. general allen and secretary panetta have both madestatements this morning, and i can only echo what they say, which is that we apologizeto the afghan people and disapprove of such conduct in the strongest possible terms. thiswas a deeply unfortunate incident that does

not reflect the great respect our militaryhas for the religious practices of the afghan people. our military leaders have apologized,as i mentioned, for these unintentional actions, and isaf is undertaking an investigation tounderstand what happened and to ensure that steps are taken so that incidents like thisdo not happen again. q do you know if president obama plans tocall president karzai on this? mr. carney: i don't have any calls to announce.the president did speak with president karzai yesterday on issues of reconciliation. q we're reporting that the koran were removedfrom a library in a jail there because detainees were using them to exchange extremely secretmessages. do you have any comment on that?

mr. carney: i would refer you to isaf or tothe defense department for specifics about that matter. q and just kind of more broadly on this, fromthe white house perspective, is this stunning that this event, this kind of incident stillhappens at all? mr. carney: i don’t have -- i don’t knowenough about it to provide that kind of context. i would simply say that it’s regrettable.it does not represent the views of our military, and it certainly does not represent the conductof our men and women in uniform, or our general respect for the religious practices and beliefsof the afghan people. q thanks for that. i just wanted to ask youalso about something the president said today.

in the payroll tax cut extension context,he was pressing congress to take action on other matters and said that congress needsto make the buffett rule a reality. and the way he framed it seemed to suggest that thisis something before congress right now like the small business tax cuts and so forth.but the white house isn’t actually asking for the buffett rule to be put into law rightnow, is it? i mean, that’s a principle for tax reform. are you asking them to act now? mr. carney: well, it is a principle for overallindividual tax reform. he is calling on congress to make it a reality within the context oftax reform. the overall principle should be adhered to as we look at issues of the balancewe have in our tax code going forward. we

have a -- as you know, the bush tax cuts expireat the end of the year. this president believes that, short of overall tax reform, that themiddle-income tax cuts need to be extended, made permanent. that’s long been his position. he’s opposed to the extension again of thehigher-income tax cuts, which we simply cannot afford. and the president’ overall approachto this is informed in part by the buffett principle, by the buffett rule, that millionairesand billionaires should not be paying a lower effective tax rate than hardworking, averagefolks out there. q but he’s not asking congress to turn thatinto a law right now, is he? mr. carney: well, i think if you -- it dependson how -- what congress’ approach is to

issues of the tax code this year. if theyaddress income tax, individual income tax, then they ought to ensure that the buffettrule is made law, if you will, through that practice -- through that legislation. yes. q jay, on the greek debt crisis, does theadministration believe that the europeans have done enough to solve that crisis anddo you believe that that’s reduced the risk of spillover from the european debt crisisfrom hindering the recovery here? mr. carney: alister, i would say that theeuropeans have taken important steps to deal with the crisis. that was reflected in thepresident’s telephone conversation with

the german chancellor. it also remains the case that additional stepsshould be taken, and we encourage our european friends and allies to take those steps tostrengthen the firewall, to ensure that the reforms that have been taking place in countrieswithin the eurozone are furthered and carried out in a way that helps ease the situation.so progress still needs to be made, and we will continue to work with our european friendsand allies to do that, and to offer advice and counsel based on our own experience withthese kinds of issues. as you know, certainly, secretary geithnerhas spent a lot of time in recent months interacting with his counterparts in europe, discussingthese various issues and offering his perspective

based on his experience here in the unitedstates. q on one other topic, mr. donilon visitedjerusalem over the weekend. can you talk about the message that he took there? was he thereto try and persuade the israelis to give sanctions more time and talk them out of taking militaryaction against iran? and did his -- was he persuasive on that issue? mr. carney: mr. donilon, the national securityadvisor, was in israel, discussing security matters and our important relationship withisrael, and specifically iran; discussing the fact that israel and the united statesshare the same objective, which is to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon; anddiscussing the fact that the approach that

this administration has taken has led to asituation where iran is isolated as never before, where it is under pressure economicallyas never before, where there is an international consensus around the idea that it is -- theproblem here is iranian bad behavior, their refusal to live up to their internationalobligations. now, we feel as i’ve said and others havesaid, as, most importantly, the president has said, that there is time and space fordiplomacy to work, for the effective sanctions to result in a change in iranian behavior,an agreement by iran to live up to its obligations, to engage in negotiations and resolve thismatter peacefully. we do not, of course, as we’ve said manytimes take any option off the table. and that

was the context of the discussions that mr.donilon had with his counterparts in israel. jake, then i’ll move back. yes. q i was wondering if you have any reaction-- republicans are -- i know you haven’t said that you’ll be tapping the strategicpetroleum reserve, but you have said it’s on the table. the president did it last summer.republicans have legislation that would tie the president’s hands, would make him haveto okay the keystone pipeline in order for him to be able to tap the strategic petroleumreserve. and i’m wondering if you have a reaction to that. mr. carney: well, i'll make a couple of pointson that. in terms of keystone, as you all

know, the history here is pretty clear. andthe fact is, is that because republicans decided to play politics with keystone, their actionessentially forced the administration to deny the permit process because they insisted ona timeframe within which it was impossible to appropriately approve the pipeline. therewasn't even an alternate route proposed yet through nebraska, an alternate that was deemednecessary based on the request of many in nebraska, including the republican governor. so the fact that the process ended the wayit did in terms of that permit request is wholly the responsibility of the republicanswho insisted on playing politics with the payroll tax cut extension back at the endof last year.

going forward, let's just talk a little bitabout oil prices. there are no magic solutions to rising oil prices and the pain that americansfeel at the pump. this is a -- the fact is, is that the president is very aware of theimpact that the global price of oil has on families. and this is not something that thisadministration discovered or rediscovers every spring, as some politicians do. as you'reaware, jake, oil production in the united states has increased every year that thispresident has been in office. and right now -- q is that all because of his actions? isn'tthat -- some of that because of the previous administration?

mr. carney: well, it is now a combinationof both. and the fact is, is that american oil production is at its highest now thanit has been in eight years. moreover -- and this goes to our actions -- over the pastthree years we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration. as part of ourfocus on continuing to expand responsible domestic production, last month the presidentdirected his administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil andgas reserves -- resources, including a 38-million-acre lease sale in the gulf of mexico scheduledfor this summer, which could produce up to 1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubicfeet of natural gas. and then, also, let's step back. when youlook at this as a long-term issue and not

magic solutions that politicians propose inthe spring and forget about come summer and fall, this president put into place historicfuel efficiency standards, that will more than nearly double the efficiency of the vehicleswe drive over the next decade. and that alone will save american families $1.7 trillionat the pump, and cut oil consumption by 12 million billion barrels. ** the president is also committed to -- i mean,he takes an all-of-the-above approach. we've approved new nuclear reactor development -- firsttime i believe in 30 years. we are focused on increasing domestic oil and gas production.but we're also focused on developing alternative sources of fuel; whether they're biofuelsor wind and solar, alternative energy is another

means by which we can reduce our relianceon foreign oil, reduce our vulnerability because of global oil -- changes in the global priceof oil. that's the kind of approach we have to take to ensure our economic future. q give your reaction to republicans tying-- trying to tie -- mr. carney: i don't have reaction to a specificproposed piece of legislation, or even any legislation that's been submitted now. i wouldsimply point you to the actions that this president is taking to increase domestic oilproduction, increase domestic gas production, reduce our reliance on foreign sources ofenergy, and suggest to you that that's the right approach, and that this record -- therecord the president has here is -- speaks

for itself. q how can you say you have an all-of-the-aboveapproach if the president turned down the keystone pipeline? and you blame the republicansfor making a political -- mr. carney: but the president didn't turndown the keystone pipeline. there was a process in place with long precedent, run out of thestate department because of the issue of a pipeline crossing an international boundary,that required an amount of time for proper view after an alternate route was deemed necessarythrough nebraska, at the request of the republican governor of nebraska and other stakeholdersin nebraska and the region, that needed to take its -- that needed to play out to bedone appropriately. you can't review and approve

a pipeline, the route for which doesn't evenexist. the republicans were the ones, unfortunately,who decided, because they were looking for scalps, i guess, or looking for wins in asituation where somehow they found themselves on the wrong side of cutting taxes for 160million americans last december -- they decided to play politics with this decision and attachit to the payroll tax cut extension. that essentially -- even though it had been madeclear by the state department that doing so would make it impossible for them to conducta review responsibly, they did it anyway, knowing what the result would be. q i don't want to relitigate the whole thing.the republicans say that the president was

playing politics first, by delaying a decisionuntil after the election. mr. carney: well, i appreciate that and wehave been through this. but i would note that the delay was the result of a decision madeto honor the concerns of those in nebraska, including the republican governor, who feltthat the proposed pipeline associated with the permit request ran through a portion ofnebraska that would threaten the aquifer -- threaten the water supply in nebraska. the decisionwas then made to delay approval, delay the process to allow for examination of alternateroutes. \ that's the way the process should work. itis unfortunate that the process was artificially halted because of the decision to play politicswith the payroll tax cut extension.

kristen. q jay, thanks. as you know, this weekend therewere fresh calls from senators mccain, graham, and some others to arm the opposition movementin syria. i know the white house has said consistently that this is not something thatthey are currently considering seriously, but given these fresh calls, might you startto reconsider? mr. carney: well, kristen, i appreciate thequestion. we still believe that a political solution is what's needed in syria. we don'twant to take actions that would contribute to the further militarization of syria becausethat could take the country down a dangerous path. but we don't rule out additional measuresthat -- working with our international partners

-- that the international community mighttake if the international community should wait too long and not take the kind of actionthat needs to be taken to ensure that assad steps aside, to ensure that a peaceful democratictransition can take place in syria. so i’m not ruling out potential future actions,but there is an opportunity that still exists we believe for a peaceful transition to occurin syria. and we don't want to contribute to the further militarization there. q also on the issue of syria, the internationalcommittee of the red cross is calling for a daily, two-hour cease-fire so that it candeliver humanitarian aid. what’s the latest information that you have about that situation?and how concerned is the white house that

aid is not getting to the people who needit most there? mr. carney: well, we remain -- we are veryconcerned about the humanitarian situation in syria. we support calls for cease-firesto allow for the provision of humanitarian supplies to syrians who desperately need it. the fact is the reprehensible actions takenby the assad regime, the brutal violence perpetrated by the syrian leader against his own peoplehas led us to this situation where basic supplies, humanitarian supplies are in -- are very scarce,and therefore action needs to be taken. so we would certainly support the calls for thosekinds of cease-fires. q some reporters on the ground have lookedat the situation and said that it seems to

be moving toward a civil war. in fact, onereporter said that it’s careening toward an all-out civil war. is that how the whitehouse sees the situation? mr. carney: well, there’s no question thatthere is an intense level of violence, largely one-sided, because of the brutal attacks bythe syrian forces against the syrian people in certain parts of the country. the fact is, as we’ve seen, the assad regimedoes not control the entire country, is gradually losing control of parts of the country. webelieve that we are in a situation where the international community needs to act in orderto allow for the transition from assad to a more democratic future for syria to takeplace before the situation becomes too chaotic.

so that's why we were so disappointed in thefailure of the united nations security council to pass that resolution that was vetoed bytwo members. i would point you to the general assemblyresolution and the enormous support for that resolution. the opposition to it was minimaland included countries that certainly can't claim to be friends of the syrian people. q would you use the term "civil war"? mr. carney: i wouldn’t characterize it thatway at this time, but there’s no question that the situation continues to get worse.and as long as assad shows no regard for the very people he purports to govern, the situationwill continue to get more dire.

yes, sir. q two quick topics. one, the white house hasspoken out about congressional earmarks and how they’ve been abused. the heritage foundation,which is obviously a conservative think tank, has a report out saying they looked at federalgrants that the administration had put out on the eves of -- on the eve of big voteson the president’s agenda -- health care plan, cap and trade, dodd-frank -- and theyclaim that the money mostly goes to lawmakers who are in districts that -- that they’refolks who are on the fence over a number of these issues. they’re charging you’rebeing hypocritical because you go after congressional earmarks but essentially you’re doing thesame thing. what do you say to that?

mr. carney: this is the heritage foundation? q yes. mr. carney: where the individual responsibilityprovision was born before it was adopted by massachusetts and then taken up by the affordablecare act? i would simply say that the president’s opposition to earmarks is well known. thefact of the matter is i’m confident that the issuance of grants through agencies, thatprocess is done on a merit-based -- in a merit-based way. and i would simply suggest that the reportitself, given some of the authors, is not particularly credible. q i want to talk about the issue of faithbecause robert gibbs on abc was talking to

jake on sunday and basically said that ricksantorum crossed the line in questioning the president’s faith. but then santorum wenton fox last night and brought up reverend wright, which is now a four-year-old story.not to relive all of those details and repeat them, but this man might be the republicannominee. what does the white house make of the fact that he appears to not be backingdown from questioning the president’s faith? mr. carney: well, ed, i would simply pointyou and others to the statements the president made at the national prayer breakfast notlong ago where he spoke very explicitly about his own christian faith. and then i wouldsay that this president is focused on doing the things that he believes the american peopleelected him to do, which is work with congress

or independently to take every measure andevery action he can to grow the economy and create jobs, to protect the middle class,to help this country recover from the worst recession since the great depression. you guys can decide, and your editors andyour bookers, what’s a story and what’s not. this president’s focused on his jobas president, getting this country moving in the right direction, ensuring that therecovery -- which is underway -- continues forward; that we continue the positive economicgrowth that we’ve had; that we continue the 23 straight months of private sector jobgrowth that we’ve had -- over 3.7 million jobs created -- private sector jobs createdin the last 23 months.

those are the issues that the president isfocused on. those are the issues that the president believes the america people arefocused on, and want their representatives in washington and those who would representthem in the white house to focus on. q last thing, you mentioned the prayer breakfast.in that speech, the president also went after his critics a little bit and said -- he usedthe phrase, he said, “we should listen to our creator and avoid phony religiosity.”how does the white house think "phony religiosity" in talking about your critics is differentthan what rick santorum said when he was talking about “phony theology”? mr. carney: look, i would again point youto what the president said in his remarks

at the national prayer service, the expressionof his own faith, it’s importance to his life. and i think what the president was describingis in some ways what you’re asking me about. and these are decisions that, in the end,those of you who decide what the american people are most interested in, what they wantto see on your air or what they want to read about in your paper, you decide what’s news.and we’ll leave those judgments to you and your editors. q can i follow on that? mr. carney: let me get back to you. cheryl.

q thanks, jay. back to taxes, will the whitehouse this week release the president’s corporate tax reform plan? and will that includethe buffett rule, or is that separate? mr. carney: i do not have specifics for you,but we will release the corporate reform -- corporate tax reform proposal before the end of themonth. i think that takes us potentially into next week, if today is the 21st. so i don'thave a specific date for you, and no specifics on what will be included and what won’t.i don't want to steal anybody’s thunder. jessica. q the reverend billy graham -- sorry -- thereverend franklin graham made some astonishing comments this morning on “morning joe,”including that he can't say categorically

that the president is not a muslim, islamhas had a pass under this president, and the muslims of the world -- the president seemsmore concerned about them than the christians that are being murdered in muslim countries.i wonder if the president -- because he took this man seriously enough to meet with himpersonally -- has a reaction to this, is astonished by this. and what the white house’s positionis in response to these comments? mr. carney: well, strangely enough, goingto my response to ed’s question, i did meet with the president this morning for about45 minutes, and amazingly he didn't bring this up because he was actually talking aboutpolicy issues that he believes are the most important things he can do and he can focuson as president, and that they are the most

important things to the vast majority of theamerican people who are concerned about paying the rent or the mortgage, sending their kidsto school, making ends meet. i mean, you heard him speak earlier todayat the payroll tax cut extension event where he firmly believes that getting an extra $40in every paycheck is of vastly greater significance to most americans than someone’s opinionexpressed on cable television about his personal faith, which, again, he has spoken about explicitlyas recently as a few weeks ago at the national prayer service. thanks. norah.

q on gas prices, you talked about meetingwith the president today. are there some things that the president and the white house isconsidering, though, to deal with the rising gas prices? mr. carney: well, we don't rule anything out.i think that was mentioned by jake -- or perhaps q that was me. mr. carney: it was you. it was jake. i justwant to give credit where credit is due. we are doing -- the president is doing a varietyof things, and has been, since he took office to increase domestic oil and gas production;to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy; to increase our generation of alternativeenergy, which, again, helps reduce our reliance

on foreign sources of energy, which is importantnot just for national security reasons but also for -- because of the fact that you have-- in a global oil market, you have spikes in prices, and the more we -- the more actionwe take to create domestic energy, the most insulated we are from those kinds of changesin the market. but i’ll also say that this is a broaderissue because we have to do everything we can. and i remember talking about this whenwe weren’t in a period of a price surge in oil prices, but we had seen them in thepast and were likely to see them again in the future. it just underscores why this president’sapproach is that we have to do everything we can that we can control to grow the economyand create jobs.

that's why we have to extend the payroll taxcut. that's why we have to extend unemployment insurance. that's why congress should actimmediately to pass the elements of the american jobs act that they have not yet passed -- becausethose are the things we can absolutely control. because the surest hedge, if you will, thesurest insurance against the effects on the economy from the global marketplace are theactions that we take to make the american economy stronger and to put money in people’spockets. that means extending the payroll tax cut,which the president looks forward to signing. that means congress acting on his refinancingproposal, which for responsible homeowners would result in an extra $3,000. and thatmoney obviously would help ease the pain at

the pump that higher oil prices and gas pricesare causing. q can i ask you, secretary vilsack had a conferencecall this morning with reporters, talking about the increased use of bio-based products.and he said about gas prices, “our hope is that oil companies will work with us andwith the country to ensure that the recovery that we’re now seeing is not jeopardizedby energy costs that get out of control.” our hope is that oil companies will work withus -- is the white house speaking with oil companies about something new? mr. carney: well, i didn’t see those remarksby the agriculture secretary. i mean, he was talking about our efforts to promote a bio-economy,to the fact that the president will issue

a presidential memorandum directing the federalgovernment to take decisive steps to dramatically increase the purchase of bio-based productsover the next two years. and that's part of his all-of-the-above approach to america'senergy needs, that we can ensure -- we can reduce our reliance on foreign sources ofenergy if we expand in every direction -- if we increase oil production, increase gas production,increase our investments in alternative energy, and take dramatic action, like he did withthe fuel efficiency standards, the dramatically reduce our consumption of oil and save americans$1.7 trillion in costs. so, again, i don't have the transcript anddidn’t see what the secretary's remarks were, so i'll have to take that and get backto you.

q and can i ask you about newt gingrich? hewas on cbs this morning, and he said the president has had a policy that's been "outrageouslyanti-american." he said the president does want more expensive gas, and he cited thatsecretary chu in 2008 said he wanted gasoline prices to get to the european level, whichis $9 or $10 a gallon, and last year he said people shouldn’t complain about high gasprices, that they ought to buy more efficient cars. the president said he wants to get there-- mr. carney: he said "outrageously"? q yes. he said the policy has been "outrageouslyand anti-american policy." mr. carney: he loves his adverbs, there'sno question about that. (laughter.) i would

-- i enjoyed them a lot when i covered him.i would simply say that -- i would point you to the fact -- and it is an extensive listof facts -- all of the actions the president has taken since being sworn into office toincrease domestic oil production, to increase domestic gas production, the lease sales thati just talked about, the efforts to increase our fuel efficiency to reduce our dependenceon foreign energy. again, as i mentioned in response to anotherquestion earlier, there are -- this kind of situation that comes periodically becauseof a rise in the price of oil globally often results in magic solutions being put forwardby politicians who may or may not know what they're talking about. but the fact is youhave to have an approach that's comprehensive,

that takes a long-term look at reducing ourdependence on foreign sources of energy, increasing domestic production, and developing alternativesources of fuel. and that's the approach the president is taking. q is the rise in gas prices the president'sfault? mr. carney: look, the rise in gas prices isclearly the effect of a variety of factors on the global price of oil. they include unrestin certain regions of the world. they include growth in areas like china and india. youknow this well, you've covered it. the fact that this is happening only underscores theneed, as it did last year when prices went up, and as it did two years before that -- underscoresthe need to have a comprehensive energy policy,

which this president has and has been puttinginto place. and that has causes -- that has resulted in more domestic oil production thanwe've had in the past eight years, greater sales of leases in the gulf and elsewhereto increase our production, the reduction in our reliance on foreign energy sources. i mean, these are the kind of policies thathave long-term, positive impact on the american economy and on our national security. andthat's why the president has taken the actions he has. q the president just today had this eventon the payroll tax cut. why wasn’t it -- why weren’t republicans included? did they notwant to come because it was their supposed

surrender on this issue? or did you not invitethem, or was it not a priority to hold a signing ceremony? mr. carney: well, first of all, we don't havea bill to sign yet. congress works in mysterious and often slow ways to pass paper from onebuilding to another. but we expect that to arrive soon and the president will sign itas soon as it does. the event today was meant to highlight theimpact that regular folks had by raising their voices on congress to get them to act in theway that resulted in the extension of the payroll tax cut. as the president said, thiswas -- it happened late last year and it happened again, where congress, after exploring otheralternatives, decided to act in a rational

way, to compromise, where everybody didn’tget everything they wanted, but the result was what was necessary for the american peopleand what was necessary for the american economy. and that's a positive thing. so his event today was meant to say, thisis how the system can work and should work if the focus is on helping americans and helpingthe economy grow and helping it create jobs. and if congress keeps that as its focus, itshould then move on to other important things, like the president's refinance proposal tohelp americans, help the economy -- and help the economy create jobs.that was the purpose of the event. it wasn’t a celebration; it was an exhortation.

q i was curious about how -- when you decideto hold a signing ceremony and when you don't decide, because there is that issue of (inaudible.)and i understand -- i did talk to members on the hill, and they said that it could havegotten here by today. mr. carney: we don't control when the billarrives. we just don't. that's a congressional prerogative. q it could have gotten here by today, fromwhat i understand, so it wasn’t like taking advantage of a time -- mr. carney: again, the point was, whetherit was here this morning or gets here this afternoon or tomorrow, or whenever it arrives,the point of the event wasn’t to have a

signing ceremony. the point of the event -- orto celebrate action that was simply congress doing the right thing and acting rationallyon behalf of the american people, and being willing to compromise on behalf of the americanpeople. it was meant to say, that's not enough, let's do more -- and to note, as the presidentdid, that we do not accept the conventional wisdom oft expressed by the various outletsrepresented here, that congress can't do anything this year because it's an election year. they've already proven otherwise. and we believethat they have an excellent opportunity in the weeks and months ahead to do so again-- to show that the fact that it's an election year does not mean that important things can'tget done.

so we look forward to working with congressand disproving the experts on this, because it's the right thing to do for the americanpeople. all the way in the back. q back to oil prices. do you think the agreementthat was signed yesterday with mexico will help the president -- and what is he goingto do to convince the u.s. congress to ratify that agreement? mr. carney: well, i don't have a legislativestrategy for you. but absolutely, the agreement reached with mexico represents, again, thepresident's all-of-the-above approach to safely and responsibly develop domestic sources ofoil and gas, and in partnership with other

countries, develop oil and gas. because hebelieves that the right thing to do. it's the only way, because there's not a singlesolution to the problem of our reliance on foreign sources of energy, or the problemof spikes in oil prices. you have to take a holistic, broad, all-of-the-above approach.and that's what he's doing. q do you think he will have the support ofcongress on the agreement? mr. carney: well, we certainly would hopethat in the interest of production of oil and gas, and in the interest of our energysecurity, that we would have that support, yes. fox radio.

q thanks, jay. there's a group of 2,500 pastorsand evangelical leaders that sent a letter to the white house yesterday expressing theirconcern about the contraception policy. i know you haven't received that yet. but inlight of that, i wanted to ask you what the status was of the administration's dialoguewith faith leaders on that issue, who's been contacted and that sort of thing. mr. carney: i don't have a list of contactsfor you. i know that there have been contacts, especially as we work with stakeholders onthe issue of a the self-insured, the element that we will resolve in this same contextthat we resolved, we believe -- or found the right balance, we believe, in terms of ensuringthat religious institutions like universities

and hospitals that have an objection do nothave to pay for or directly provide contraceptive services, but the women who work for thoseinstitutions will get the same coverage and preventive services coverage that women acrossamerica will get. and we are continuing to have those conversationsto work out a solution as it relates to self-insured institutions. q and just to follow up, what is the whitehouse perspective on this controversy? do you feel that it's being -- that the concernsare being addressed and contained? or in light of this letter and some of the suits thathave popped up -- lawsuits that have popped up recently, do you feel that it's widening?

mr. carney: well, the president's focus wason finding the right balance. you heard him say so from this very podium that he was absolutelycommitted to ensuring that these important services were provided to women, regardlessof where they work. but he was also very committed to ensuring that it was done in a way thatrespected religious beliefs and religious concerns. he knows from his own experience that theseissues matter and they need to be respected. and that is the balance he sought and thesolution that was put forward. and we are continuing to work with stakeholders to implementthat solution in a way that we believe satisfies the concerns -- or should satisfy the concernsof those in terms of their religious beliefs.

the approach was to find that balance, toensure that the coverage was provided, and to respect religious beliefs. it was not toensure that everybody said that they were okay with it -- because you often cannot finda solution to difficult issues if that’s the approach you take. you guys can decide whether the issue is -- asa political issue or even a policy issue -- is expanding or contracting. it is sometimesamusing to read how one week, what is viewed as a colossal error by the white house, thenext week is viewed as some brilliant political move -- when, in fact, the approach all alonghas just been an effort to find the right policy.

mr. carney: mr. landler, how are you? q i’m fine. thanks jay. back to iran fora moment. there’s been this series of strong statement about iran from israeli leaders.there’s been obviously a long series of retaliatory statements by the iranians. iranhas become a very big topic on the campaign trail, with republicans arguing that the presidentmay not be doing enough to back up israel, and some media critics have likened this periodto sort of the period leading up to the iraq war. i’m wondering whether the president,the white house feels that there’s been too much emphasis on military options andwhether there’s a bit too much of a drumbeat of war that perhaps gets in the way of seeingwhether the sanctions strategy will work out?

mr. carney: well, i guess one part of yourquestion has to do with media coverage, and that is what it is. but we take very seriously-- we, a, share the concerns strongly that israel has about the potential developmentby iran of a nuclear weapon. we share those concerns. and we certainly understand theheightened concern that israel has, given its geographic location and other circumstancesthat are involved here for israel. having said that, we believe that the approachthis administration has taken has resulted in a level of consensus within the internationalcommunity regarding iranian behavior that has never been attained before. it has resultedin a level of punitive sanctions that have never been attained before, that in turn,have resulted in a level of disruption to

the iranian economy and the iranian leadershipthat have never been achieved before, and that that is having an impact. we believe that there is time and space toattempt to resolve this peacefully. and we are endeavoring to do that with our internationalpartners and allies. having said that, as the president never fails to make clear, heis not removing any option off the table. we are very -- we are committed to tryingto prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. we share that goal with israel. q is there any danger that the issue couldbecome overly politicized in this country? do you think it's time, as some other senior-- former senior officials have suggested,

that people on the campaign trail think carefullyabout the things they say on this subject? mr. carney: well, look, i think that any issuecould become over politicized. and again, we'll have to let reporters in many ways decidewhether that is what's happening in this case, or with regards to any other issue. our focusis on -- an important matter like this is on american national security and the securityof israel and other allies, and that's the approach we've taken. and, again, just to review some of the historyhere -- that when the president came into office we had a situation where iran had pursuedits nuclear ambitions, and yet, broadly viewed, there was division about whether iran wasresponsible or the united states, and whether

the united states had taken the right approachto this. and what this president did was unify, through his actions and his policy, unifythe international community to focus the world's attention on iranian behavior and the factthat the iranian regime had refused to live up to its international obligations, and thatit was iran that was causing the problem here and not the united states. that has resulted in punitive sanctions thathave been ratcheted up continuously, and continue to this day to be ratcheted up. and that hasput immense pressure on the economy and on the leadership. and i think sometimes, whenyou hear from iran provocative statements or other things -- actions taken -- it's oftendriven by a desire to distract attention from

the very significant impact that this policyhas had on their economy and on their politics. ann. q the supreme court has agreed to take upanother affirmative action case. what does the president think about colleges and universitiesusing race as one of the factors for admission? mr. carney: well, ann, i'll say a couple ofthings. first of all, i'm not going to comment on the supreme court's decision to take upa case or not take up a case. i think as the supreme court has recognized in the past,diversity in the classroom has learning benefits for students, campuses and schools. presidentobama has said that while he opposes quotas and thinks an emphasis on universal and notrace-specific programs is good policy, considering

race along with other factors can be appropriatein certain circumstances. but again, i want to make sure that's viewedas a broad statement of where he has been and what his position is broadly, not a referenceto this specific case. q and on gas prices, what does he think theimpact of $5-a-gallon gasoline? has he asked mr. carney: well, i think that -- you’respeculating about where markets may go, and i’m not able to engage in that. q some gas stations are charging that now. mr. carney: well, that may be true, but thefact of the matter is this president is keenly aware of the effect that, and the impact,that high gas prices have on average americans

as they're trying to make ends meet. one ofthe reasons why passing the payroll tax cut last year was so important is that it helpedaverage american families, hardworking americans, deal with the spike in oil prices in 2011. there is no question that the fact that thispresident has led, and this congress has acted, on extending the payroll tax cut for the fullcalendar year in 2012 will help insulate americans from higher gas prices this year as it didlast year. it’s just another reason why we need totake every step we can. we need to work with congress where congress will work with us,and then the president will take every action he can independently to grow the economy andcreate jobs, to put more money in people’s

pockets and to give middle-class americansgreater economic security. we have to act on the things we can controlto protect ourselves from the things that we can't. and i think that that is an approachthat dictates the need for congress to act on the president’s refinance proposal, forcongress to pass infrastructure investments that would put construction workers back towork while our infrastructure is being rebuilt in a way that solidified our economic foundation.there are a host of things that congress can do, and that this president will do to keepthe economy recovering and to keep it creating jobs. mr. knoller.

q jay, when you were speaking a minute agoabout the slow and mysterious ways of congress were you saying that congress or congressionalleaders were delaying -- mr. carney: no, not at all. q okay. mr. carney: i was simply commenting on thefact that it sometimes -- it takes a certain amount of time -- hours, days, whatever -- forbills to be enrolled and processed and -- q delivered. mr. carney: -- delivered. and that was all.but my point was that this event was never meant to be a bill-signing event. this wasan event designed to highlight the impact

that americans had by raising their voicesand pushing congress to pass a payroll tax cut extension, and the impact that passingit has on average americans, and to -- in making that point, to show -- and to callon congress to do more, to take action, continued action to help american families as we recoverthe from recession. q thanks, jay. mr. carney: all right, thanks, all. appreciateit.