The President:
Good afternoon, everybody. I know you are all eager to skip
town and spend some time with your families. Not surprisingly, I am, too. But you know what they say --
it's the most wonderful press conference of the
year -- right now. (laughter) I am eager to take
your questions, but first, I just want to say a few
words about our economy. In 2013, our businesses
created another 2 million jobs, adding up to more than 8 million
in just over the past 45 months. This morning, we learned
that over the summer, our economy grew at its
strongest pace in nearly two years. The unemployment rate has
steadily fallen to its lowest point in five years. Our tax code is fairer, and
our fiscal situation is firmer, with deficits that are now less
than half of what they were when I took office. For the first time in
nearly two decades, we now produce more oil here at
home than we buy from the rest of the world, and our
all-of-the-above strategy for new American energy
means lower energy costs. The Affordable Care Act has
helped keep health care costs growing at their slowest
rate in 50 years. Combined, that means bigger
paychecks for middle-class families and bigger savings for
businesses looking to invest and hire here in America. And for all the challenges we've
had and all the challenges that we've been working on diligently
in dealing with both the ACA and the website these
past couple months, more than half a million
Americans have enrolled through healthcare.gov in the first
three weeks of December alone. In California, for example,
a state operating its own marketplace, more than 15,000
Americans are enrolling every single day. And in the federal website, tens
of thousands are enrolling every single day. Since October 1st, more than one
million Americans have selected new health insurance plans
through the federal and state marketplaces. So, all told,
millions of Americans, despite the problems
with the website, are now poised to be
covered by quality, affordable health insurance
come New Year's Day. Now, this holiday season, there
are mothers and fathers and entrepreneurs and workers who
have something new to celebrate -- the security of knowing
that when the unexpected or misfortune strikes,
hardship no longer has to. And you add that all up and what
it means is we head into next year with an economy that's
stronger than it was when we started the year. More Americans are finding work
and experiencing the pride of a paycheck. Our businesses are positioned
for new growth and new jobs. And I firmly believe that 2014
can be a breakthrough year for America. But as I outlined in
detail earlier this month, we all know there's a lot more
that we're going to have to do to restore opportunity and
broad-based growth for every American. And that's going to
require some action. It's a good start that
earlier this week, for the first time in years,
both parties in both houses of Congress came together
to pass a budget. That unwinds some of the
damaging sequester cuts that created headwinds
for our economy. It clears the path for
businesses and for investments that we need to strengthen
our middle class, like education and
scientific research. And it means that the American
people won't be exposed to the threat of another reckless
shutdown every few months. So that's a good thing. It's probably too early
to declare an outbreak of bipartisanship. But it's also fair to say that
we're not condemned to endless gridlock. There are areas where
we can work together. I believe that work should begin
with something that Republicans in Congress should have done
before leaving town this week, and that's restoring the
temporary insurance that helps folks make ends meet when
they are looking for a job. Because Congress didn't act,
more than one million of their constituents will lose a
vital economic lifeline at Christmastime, leaving a lot of
job-seekers without any source of income at all. I think we're a better
country than that. We don't abandon each
other when times are tough. Keep in mind unemployment
insurance only goes to folks who are actively looking for work --
a mom who needs help feeding her kids when she sends
out her resumes, or a dad who needs help paying
the rent while working part-time and still earning the skills
he needs for that new job. So when Congress
comes back to work, their first order of business
should be making this right. I know a bipartisan group
is working on a three-month extension of this insurance. They should pass it, and
I'll sign it right away. Let me repeat: I think 2014
needs to be a year of action. We've got work to do to
create more good jobs, to help more Americans earn the
skills and education they need to do those jobs and to make
sure that those jobs offer the wages and benefits that let
families build a little bit of financial security. We still have the task of
finishing the fix on our broken immigration system. We've got to build on the
progress we've painstakingly made over these last five years
with respect to our economy and offer the middle class and all
those who are looking to join the middle class a
better opportunity, and that's going to be where I
focus all of my efforts in the year ahead. And let me conclude by saying
just as we're strengthening our position here at home, we're
also standing up for our interests around the world. This year, we've demonstrated
that with clear-eyed, principled diplomacy, we can
pursue new paths to a world that's more secure -- a future
where Iran does not build a nuclear weapon; a future
where Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles are destroyed. By the end of next year, the
war in Afghanistan will be over, just as we've ended
our war in Iraq, and we'll continue to
bring our troops home. And, as always, we will remain
vigilant to protect our homeland and our personnel overseas
from terrorist attacks. Of course, a lot of our men
and women in uniform are still overseas, and a lot of them are
still spending their Christmas far away from their
family and their friends, and in some cases, are
still in harm's way. So I want to close by saying
to them and their families back home, we want to thank you. Your country stands united
in supporting you and being grateful for your service
and your sacrifice. We will keep you in our thoughts
and in our prayers during this season of hope. So, before I wish a
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night, I
will take some questions. Jay prepared a list of who's
naughty and nice -- (laughter) -- so we'll see who made it. Julie must be nice. (laughter) Julie Pace. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. Despite all of the data points
that you cited in your opening statement, when you
look back at this year, very little of the domestic
agenda that you outlined in your inaugural address and your State
of the Union have been achieved. Health care rollout obviously
had huge problems and your ratings from the public are
near historic lows for you. When you take this altogether,
has this been the worst year of your presidency? The President:
I've got to tell you, Julie, that's not how I think about it. I have now been in office five
years -- close to five years -- was running for President
for two years before that, and for those of you who've
covered me during that time, we have had ups and
we have had downs. I think this room has probably
recorded at least 15 near-death experiences. And what I've been focused on
each and every day is are we moving the ball in helping the
American people -- families -- have more opportunity, have a
little more security to feel as if, if they work hard,
they can get ahead. And if I look at this past year,
there are areas where there obviously have been
some frustrations, where I wish Congress had
moved more aggressively. Not passing background checks in
the wake of Newtown is something that I continue to
believe was a mistake. But then I also look at because
of the debate that occurred, all the work that's been done
at state levels to increase gun safety and to make sure that we
don't see tragedies like that happen again. There's a lot of focus on
legislative activity at the congressional level, but even
when Congress doesn't move on things they should move on,
there are a whole bunch of things that we're still doing. So we don't always
get attention for it, but the ConnectEd program that
we announced where we're going to be initiating wireless
capacity in every classroom in America will make a huge
difference for kids all across this country, and for teachers. A manufacturing hub that
we set up in Youngstown, something that I talked about
during the State of the Union, is going to create innovation
and connect universities, manufacturers, job training to
help create a renaissance -- build on the renaissance that
we're seeing in manufacturing. When it comes to energy, this
year is going to be the first year in a very long time where
we're producing more oil and natural gas here in this
country than we're importing. That's a big deal. So I understand the point
that you're getting at, Julie, which is that a lot of our
legislative initiatives in Congress have not moved
forward as rapidly as I'd like. I completely understand that,
which means that I'm going to keep at it. And if you look at, for
example, immigration reform, probably the biggest thing that
I wanted to get done this year, we saw progress. It passed the Senate with
a strong bipartisan vote. There are indications in the
House that even though it did not get completed this year that
there is a commitment on the part of the Speaker to try to
move forward legislation early next year. And the fact that it didn't hit
the timeline that I'd prefer is obviously frustrating but it's
not something that I end up brooding a lot about. The Press:
But, sir, it's not
just your legislative agenda. When you look at polling
and you talk to Americans, they seem to have lost
confidence in you, trust in you. Your credibility
has taken a hit. Obviously the health care
law was a big part of that. So do you understand that the
public has changed in some way their view of you
over this year? The President:
But, Julie, I
guess what I'm saying is if you're measuring this by
polls, my polls have gone up and down a lot through the
course of my career. I mean, if I was
interested in polling, I wouldn't have
run for President. I was polling at 70 percent
when I was in the U.S. Senate. I took this job to deliver
for the American people. And I knew and will continue to
know that there are going to be ups and downs on it. You're right, the health care
website problems were a source of great frustration. I think in the last press
conference I adequately discussed my
frustrations on those. On the other hand, since that
time I now have a couple million people, maybe more, who are
going to have health care on January 1st. And that is a big deal. That's why I ran
for this office. And as long as I've got an
opportunity every single day to make sure that in ways large
and small I'm creating greater opportunity for people -- more
kids are able to go to school, get the education they need;
more families are able to stabilize their finances; the
housing market is continuing to improve; people feel like
their wages maybe are inching up a little bit -- if those
things are happening, I'll take it. And I've said before, I've
run my last political race. So at this point, my goal every
single day is just to make sure that I can look back and say
we're delivering something -- not everything, because
this is a long haul. Mark Felsenthal. The Press:
Thank you Mr. President. One of the most significant
events of this year was the revelation of the surveillance
by the National Security Agency. As you review how to rein in
the National Security Agency, a federal judge said
that, for example, the government had failed to
cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk
metadata actually stopped an imminent attack. Are you able to identify any
specific examples when it did so? Are you convinced that the
collection of that data is useful to national security
and should continue as it is? The President:
Let me talk more broadly, and then I'll talk specifically
about the program you're referring to. As you know, the independent
panel that I put together came back with a series of
recommendations, 46 in total. I had an extensive meeting with
them down in the Situation Room to review all the
recommendations that they had made. I want to thank them publicly,
because I think they did an excellent job and took
my charge very seriously, which is I told them I want you
to look from top to bottom at what we're doing and evaluate
whether or not the current structures that we have and the
current programs that we have are properly addressing both
our continuing need to keep ourselves secure and to
prevent terrorist attacks, or proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction or other threats to the homeland, and are
we also making sure that we're taking seriously rule of law and
our concerns about privacy and civil liberties. So what we're doing now
is evaluating all the recommendations
that have been made. Over the next several weeks,
I'm going to assess based on conversations not just with
the intelligence community but others in government and outside
of government how we might apply and incorporate their
recommendations. And I'm going to make a pretty
definitive statement about all of this in January where
I'll be able to say, here are the recommendations
that we think make sense; here are ones that we think are
promising but still need to be refined further; here's how it
relates to the work we're doing not just internally but also
in partnership with other countries. And so I'm taking this very
seriously because I think, as I've said before, this is a
debate that needed to be had. One specific program, the
215 program, is the metadata, the bulk collection of phone
numbers and exchanges that have taken place that has probably
gotten the most attention, at least with respect
to domestic audiences. And what I've said in the
past continues to be the case, which is that the NSA, in
executing this program, believed, based on
experiences from 9/11, that it was important for us to
be able to track if there was a phone number of a known
terrorist outside of the United States calling into
the United States, where that call might have gone,
and that having that data in one place and retained for a certain
period of time allowed them to be confident in pursuing
various investigations of terrorist threats. And I think it's important to
note that in all the reviews of this program that have
been done, in fact, there have not been actual
instances where it's been alleged that the NSA in some
ways acted inappropriately in the use of this data. But what is also clear is
from the public debate, people are concerned
about the prospect, the possibility of abuse. And I think that's what the
judge and the district court suggested. And although his opinion
obviously differs from rulings on the FISA Court, we're
taking those into account. The question we're going to have
to ask is can we accomplish the same goals that this program is
intended to accomplish in ways that give the public more
confidence that, in fact, the NSA is doing what
it's supposed to be doing. I have confidence in the fact
that the NSA is not engaging in domestic surveillance
or snooping around, but I also recognize that as
technologies change and people can start running algorithms and
programs that map out all the information that we're
downloading on a daily basis into our telephones
and our computers, that we may have to refine this
further to give people more confidence. And I'm going to be working
very hard on doing that. And we've got to provide more
confidence to the international community. In some ways, what has been more
challenging is the fact that we do have a lot of laws and checks
and balances and safeguards and audits when it comes to making
sure that the NSA and other intelligence agencies are
not spying on Americans. We've had less legal constraint
in terms of what we're doing internationally. But I think part of what's been
interesting about this whole exercise is recognizing
that in a virtual world, some of these boundaries
don't matter anymore, and just because we can do
something doesn't mean we necessarily should. And the values that we've got as
Americans are ones that we have to be willing to apply beyond
our borders I think perhaps more systematically than
we've done in the past. Okay? Ed Henry. The Press:
Thank you Mr. President. I want to follow up on that
because -- and merry Christmas, by the way. The President:
Merry Christmas to you. The Press:
When Edward Snowden
first started leaking the information, you made a
statement on June 7th in California, and you claimed
to the American people that you had already reformed many of
these surveillance programs. You said you came into office
-- "my team evaluated them, we scrubbed them thoroughly, we
actually expanded some of the oversight," and you
did expand some of it. The President:
Yes. The Press:
You also said we
may have to rebalance some, there may be changes. But you concluded with, "You can
complain about Big Brother and how this is a potential
program run amok. But when you actually
look at the details, then I think we've struck
the right balance." That was only six months ago. Now this judge is saying no,
your own panel is saying no, even you're saying no, we
haven't really struck the right balance perhaps, that
changes have to be made. My question is: Were you wrong
then because you were not fully read in not just on these
programs but on other programs outside of the ones
you just talked about, where we were potentially
listening in on the German leaders, the Brazilian
leaders and others, that suggest there were abuses? Number one. And number two, if you were
fully read in on these programs, is it another example of what
Julie was getting at with this question of credibility
with the American people, that just like on health
care, "you like your plan, you can keep it"? On surveillance, you looked the
American people in the eye six months ago and said, "We've
got the right balance," and six months later
you're saying maybe not. The President:
Well, hold on a second, Ed. I think it's important to note
that when it comes to the right balance on surveillance, these
are a series of judgment calls that we're making
every single day, because we've got a whole bunch
of folks whose job it is to make sure that the American
people are protected. And that's a hard job,
because if something slips, then the question that's coming
from you the next day at a press conference is, "Mr. President,
why didn't you catch that? Why did the intelligence
people allow that to slip? Isn't there a way that we could
have found out that in fact this terrorist attack took place?" The Press:
So why were you so
-- why did you say we struck the right balance? The President:
So the point is, Ed, not that my assessment of the
215 program has changed in terms of technically how it works. What is absolutely clear to me
is that given the public debate that's taken place and the
disclosures that have taken place over the last
several months, that this is only going to work
if the American people have confidence and trust. Now, part of the challenge is,
is that because of the manner in which these disclosures took
place, in dribs and drabs, oftentimes shaded
in a particular way, and because of some of the
constraints that we've had in terms of declassifying
information and getting it out there, that that trust in how
many safeguards exist and how these programs are run
has been diminished. So what's going to be important
is to build that back up. And I take that into account in
weighing how we structure these programs. So let me just be very
specific on the 215 program. It is possible, for example,
that some of the same information that the
intelligence community feels is required to keep people safe
can be obtained by having the private phone companies keep
these records longer and to create some mechanism where they
can be accessed in an effective fashion. That might cost more. There might need to be different
checks on how those requests are made. There may be technological
solutions that have to be found to do that. And the question that we're
asking ourselves now is, does that make sense not only
because of the fact that there are concerns about potential
abuse down the road with the metadata that's being kept by a
government rather than private companies, but also does it make
sense to do it because people right now are concerned that
maybe their phone calls are being listened to,
even if they're not? And we've got to factor that in. So my point is, is that the
environment has changed in ways that I think require us
to take that into account. But the analysis that I've been
doing throughout has always been periodically looking at
what we're doing and asking ourselves, are we doing
this in the right way? Are we making sure that we're
keeping the American people safe, number one? Are we also being true to our
civil liberties and our privacy and our values? The Press: I understand it's
a tough job, and, God forbid, there's another terror attack,
every one of us is going to be second-guessing you, and that is
extremely difficult to be in the Oval Office. The President:
That's okay. I volunteered. The Press:
But as you
said, you took that on. The President:
Yes. The Press:
You put it on your back. And so my question is do you
have any personal regrets? You're not addressing the fact
the public statements you've made to reassure the public
-- your Director of National Intelligence, James
Clapper, months ago went up, got a question from a
Democrat, not a Republican, about whether some of this was
going on, and he denied it. Doesn't that undermine
the public trust? The President:
Ed, you're conflating, first of all, me and Mr. Clapper -- The Press:
He's the Director of
National -- he's still on the job. The President:
I understand. But what I'm saying
is this, that, yes, these are tough problems that I
am glad to have the privilege of tackling. Your initial question was
whether the statements that I made six months ago are
ones that I don't stand by. And what I'm saying is, is that
the statements I made then are entirely consistent with the
statements that I make now, which is that we believed that
we had scrubbed these programs and struck an
appropriate balance, and there had not been evidence
and there continues not to be evidence that the particular
program had been abused in how it was used, and that
it was a useful tool, working with other tools that
the intelligence community has, to ensure that if we have a
thread on a potential terrorist threat, that that can
be followed effectively. What I've also said, though, is
that in light of the disclosures that have taken place, it is
clear that whatever benefits the configuration of this particular
program may have may be outweighed by the concerns
that people have on its potential abuse. And if that's the case, there
may be another way of skinning the cat. So we just keep on going
at this stuff and saying, can we do this better? Can we do this more effectively? I think that the panel's
recommendations are consistent with that. So if you had a chance to read
the overall recommendations, what they were very clear about
is we need this intelligence. We can't unilaterally disarm. There are ways we can do it
potentially that gives people greater assurance that there
are checks and balances, that there's
sufficient oversight, sufficient transparency. Programs like 215 could be
redesigned in ways that give you the same information when you
need it without creating these potentials for abuse. And that's exactly what
we should be doing, is to evaluate all these things
in a very clear, specific way, and moving forward on changes. And that's what I intend to do. The Press:
So you have no regrets? You have no regrets? The President:
That's what intend to do. Jon Karl. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. It's been a tough year. You may not want to call it the
worst year of your presidency, but it's clearly
been a tough year. The polls have gone up and down,
but they are at a low point right now. So what I'm asking you -- you've
acknowledged the difficulties with the health care rollout. But when you look back and you
look at the decisions that you have made and what you
did, what you didn't do, for you personally, what do
you think has been your biggest mistake? The President:
With respect
to health care, specifically, or just generally? The Press:
The whole thing,
back at this tough year. The President:
Well, there's no
doubt that when it came to the health care rollout, even though
I was meeting every other week or every three weeks with folks
and emphasizing how important it was that consumers
had a good experience, an easy experience in getting
the information they need, and knowing what the choices and
options were for them to be able to get high-quality,
affordable health care, the fact is it didn't
happen in the first month, the first six weeks, in a way
that was at all acceptable. And since I'm in charge,
obviously we screwed it up. Part of it, as I've said
before, had to do with how IT procurement generally is done,
and it almost predates this year. Part of it, obviously, has to
do with the fact that there were not clear enough lines of
authority in terms of who was in charge of the technology and
cracking the whip on a whole bunch of contractors. So there were a whole bunch of
things that we've been taking a look at, and I'm going to be
making appropriate adjustments once we get through this year
and we've gotten through the initial surge of people
who've been signing up. But having said all that,
bottom line also is, is that we've got several
million people who are going to have health care that works. And it's not that I don't engage
in a lot of self-reflection here. I promise you, I probably beat
myself up even worse than you or Ed Henry does on any given day. But I've also got to wake up in
the morning and make sure that I do better the next day, and
that we keep moving forward. And when I look at the
landscape for next year, what I say to myself is, we're
poised to do really good things. The economy is stronger than it
has been in a very long time. Our next challenge then is
to make sure that everybody benefits from that,
not just a few folks. And there are still too many
people who haven't seen a raise and are still feeling
financially insecure. We can get immigration
reform done. We've got a concept that
has bipartisan support. Let's see if we can break
through the politics on this. I think that, hopefully, folks
have learned their lesson in terms of brinksmanship,
coming out of the government shutdown. There have been times
where I thought about, were there other ways that
I could have prevented those three, four weeks that hampered
the economy and hurt individual families who were not getting
a paycheck during that time -- absolutely. But I also think
that, in some ways, given the pattern that we had
been going through with House Republicans for a while, we
might have needed just a little bit of a bracing sort of
recognition that this is not what the American people
think is acceptable. They want us to try to solve
problems and be practical, even if we can't
get everything done. So the end of the year is always
a good time to reflect and see what can you do
better next year. That's how I intend
to approach it. I'm sure that I will have even
better ideas after a couple days of sleep and sun. Brianna. The Press:
Thank you Mr. President. On the debt ceiling, your
Treasury Secretary has estimated that the U.S. government will
lose its ability to pay its bills come late February or early March. House Budget Committee Chairman
Paul Ryan has said that "Republicans are going to decide
what it is they can accomplish on this debt limit
fight" -- his words. Will you negotiate with House
Republicans on the debt ceiling? The President:
Oh, Brianna,
you know the answer to this question. No, we're not going to negotiate
for Congress to pay bills that it has accrued. Here's the good news -- I want
to emphasize the positive as we enter into this holiday season. I think Congressman Ryan and
Senator Murray did a good job in trying to narrow the
differences and actually pass a budget that I can sign. It's not everything that
I would like, obviously. It buys back part of these
across-the-board cuts, the so-called sequester,
but not all of them. So we're still
underfunding research; we're still
underfunding education; we're still underfunding
transportation and other initiatives that would
create jobs right now. But it was an
honest conversation. They operated in good faith. And given how far apart the
parties have been on fiscal issues, they should take
pride in what they did. And I actually called them after
they struck the deal and I said congratulations, and I hope that
creates a good pattern for next year, where we work on at
least the things we agree to, even if we agree to disagree on some of the other big-ticket items. I think immigration potentially
falls in that category, where let's -- here's an area
where we've got bipartisan agreement. There are a few
differences here and there, but the truth of the matter is,
is that the Senate bill has the main components of comprehensive
immigration reform that would boost our economy, give us an
opportunity to attract more investment and high-skilled
workers who are doing great things in places like Silicon
Valley and around the country. So let's go ahead
and get that done. Now, I can't imagine that having
seen this possible daylight breaking when it comes to
cooperation in Congress that folks are thinking actually
about plunging us back into the kinds of brinksmanship and
governance by crisis that has done us so much harm over
the last couple of years. To repeat: The debt ceiling is
raised simply to pay bills that we have already accrued. It is not something that
is a negotiating tool. It's not leverage. It's the responsibility
of Congress. It's part of doing their job. I expect them to do their job. Although I'm happy to talk to
them about any of the issues that they actually
want to get done. So if Congressman Ryan is
interested in tax reform, let's go. I've got some proposals on it. If he's interested in
any issue out there, I'm willing to have a
constructive conversation of the sort that we just had in
resolving the budget issues. But I've got to assume folks
aren't crazy enough to start that thing all over again. The Press:
If I may just quickly, on a more personal note, what
is your New Year's resolution? The President:
My New Year's resolution is to be nicer to the White House Press Corps. (laughter) You know? Absolutely. The Press:
All right. The President:
Major Garrett. The Press:
That's quite
a lead-in, Mr. President, thank you. Rick Leggett, who is the head
of the NSA task force on Edward Snowden, told "60
Minutes" that it was, "worth having a conversation
about granting Edward Snowden amnesty." To what degree, sir, were you
pleased that he floated this trial balloon? And under what circumstances
would you consider either a plea agreement or amnesty
for Edward Snowden? And what do you say
to Americans, sir, who after possibly being alerted
to Judge Leon's decision earlier this week, reading the
panel recommendations, do you believe Edward Snowden
set in motion something that is proper and just in this country
about the scope of surveillance and should not be considered
by this government a criminal? The President:
I've got to be careful here, Major, because Mr. Snowden
is under indictment, he's been charged with crimes. And that's the province of
the Attorney General and, ultimately, a judge and a jury. So I can't weigh in specifically
on this case at this point. I'll make -- I'll try to see if
I can get at the spirit of the question, even if I can't
talk about the specifics. I've said before and I believe
that this is an important conversation that
we needed to have. I've also said before that the
way in which these disclosures happened have been damaging to
the United States and damaging to our intelligence
capabilities. And I think that there was a way
for us to have this conversation without that damage. I'll give you just
one specific example. The fact of the matter is
that the United States, for all our warts, is a country
that abides by rule of law, that cares deeply about
privacy, that cares about civil liberties, that cares
about our Constitution. And as a consequence
of these disclosures, we've got countries who actually
do the things that Mr. Snowden says he's worried about very
explicitly -- engaging in surveillance of
their own citizens, targeting political dissidents,
targeting and suppressing the press -- who somehow are able to
sit on the sidelines and act as if it's the United States
that has problems when it comes to surveillance and
intelligence operations. And that's a pretty distorted
view of what's going on out there. So I think that as important and
as necessary as this debate has been, it is also important to
keep in mind that this has done unnecessary damage to U.S.
intelligence capabilities and U.S. diplomacy. But I will leave it up to the
courts and the Attorney General to weigh in publicly on the
specifics of Mr. Snowden's case. The Press:
Sir, if I could follow up, Mr. Leggett is setting
this in motion, at least raising this as
a topic of conversation. You, sir, would I'm certain
be consulted if there was ever going to be a conversation about
amnesty or a plea bargain with Edward Snowden. The President:
I think that's true, Major, and I guess what I'm
saying is there's a -- The Press:
Would you rule it
out forever that you would never consider it? The President:
What I'm saying is, is that there's a difference
between Mr. Leggett saying something and the President
of the United States saying something. The Press:
That's why I'm trying to get at you. The President:
That's exactly right. (laughter) Chuck Todd. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President, and Merry Christmas
and Happy New Year. You talk about the issues with
health care and the website rollout, but there have
been other issues -- the misinformation about people
keeping their policies, the extended deadlines,
some postponements. We have a new waiver that
HHS announced last night. How do you expect Americans to
have confidence and certainty in this law if you
keep changing it? This one here, this
new waiver last night, you could argue you might as
well have just delayed the mandate. The President:
Well, no, that's not true, because what we're talking about
is a very specific population that received cancellation
notices from insurance companies. The majority of them are either
keeping their old plan because the grandfather clause
has been extended further, or they're finding a better deal
in the marketplace with better insurance for cheaper costs. But there may still be a subset
-- a significantly smaller subset than some of the numbers
that have been advertised -- that are still
looking for options, are still concerned about what
they're going to be doing next year. And we just wanted to make sure
that the hardship provision that was already existing in the law
would also potentially apply to somebody who had problems
during this transition period. So that's the specifics
of this latest change. You're making a broader point
that I think is fair and that is that in a big project like
this, that what we are constantly doing is looking, is
this working the way it's supposed to, and if there are
adjustments that can be made to smooth out the transition, we
should make them. But they don't go to
the core of the law. First of all, the
core of the law is, is that for 85 percent
of the population, all they've been getting
is free preventive care, better consumer protections, and
ability to keep their kids on their insurance plan
until they're 26, thousand-dollar or five
hundred-dollar discounts on prescription drugs for
seniors on Medicare. So 85 percent of the population,
whether they know it or not, over the last three years have
benefited from a whole set of the provisions of the law. And, by the way, if it
were to be repealed, you would be taking away all
those benefits from folks who already are enjoying them. You had this sub-portion of
the population, 15 percent, who either don't have health
insurance or are buying it on the individual market. And that's still
millions of people. And what we're doing is creating
a marketplace where they can buy insurance and we can provide
them some tax credits to help them afford it. The basic structure of that
law is working despite all the problems -- despite
the website problems, despite the messaging problems. Despite all that, it's working. And again, you don't have
to take my word for it. We've got a couple million
people who are going to have health insurance just in
the first three months, despite the fact that probably
the first month and a half was lost because of problems with
the website and about as bad a bunch of publicity
as you could imagine. And yet you've still got 2
million people who signed up, or more. And so what that means then is
that the demand is there and, as I said before,
the product is good. Now, in putting something
like this together, there are going to be all
kinds of problems that crop up, some of which may have
been unanticipated. And what we've been trying to
do is just respond to them in a common-sense way. And we're going to
continue to try to do that. But that doesn't negate the
fact that a year from now or two years from now,
when we look back, we're going to be able to say
that even more people have health insurance who
didn't have it before. And that's not a bad
thing, that's a good thing. That is part of the reason why
I pushed so hard to get this law done in the first place. And I've said before
this is a messy process, and I think sometimes when I say
that people say, well, A, yes, it's real messy; and B, isn't
the fact that it's been so messy some indication that there are
more fundamental problems with the law? And I guess what I'd
say to that, Chuck, is when you try to do
something this big, affecting this many people,
it's going to be hard. And every instance -- whether
it's Social Security, Medicare, the prescription drug plan under
President Bush -- there hasn't been an instance where you tried
to really have an impact on the American people's
lives and wellbeing, particularly in the
health care arena, where you don't end up having
some of these challenges. The question is going
to be ultimately, do we make good decisions
trying to help as many people as possible in as efficient
a way as possible. And I think that's
what we're doing. The Press:
But with 72 hours to go, you make this change where
people are buying the junk -- frankly, a junk-type policy that
you weren't -- you were trying to get people away from. The President:
Well, keep in
mind, Chuck, first of all, that the majority of folks are
going to have different options. This is essentially a additional
net in case folks might have slipped through the cracks. We don't have precision
on those numbers, but we expect it's going to
be a relatively small number, because these are folks who want
insurance and the vast majority of them have good options. And in a state like North
Carolina, for example, the overwhelming majority of
them have just kept their own plans -- the ones that
they had previously. But we thought and continue to
think that it makes sense that as we are transitioning to
a system in which insurance standards are higher, people
don't have unpleasant surprises because they thought they had
insurance until they hit a limit, and next thing you
know they still owe $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 for
a hospital visit -- that as we transition to higher
standards, better insurance, that we also address folks who
get caught in that transition and there are
unintended consequences. And I'll be -- that was
the original intent of the grandfather clause
that was in the law. Obviously, the problem was it
didn't catch enough people. And we learned from that, and
we're trying not to repeat those mistakes. The Press:
So does the
mandate need to be enforced? The President:
Absolutely. Yes. Let's see, Phil Mattingly. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. What was the message you were
trying to send with not only your decision not to
attend the Sochi Games, but also with the people you
named to the delegation to represent the United
States at those games? The President:
Well, first of all, I haven't attended
Olympics in the past, and I suspect that me
attending the Olympics, particularly at a time when
we've got all the other stuff that people have been talking
about, is going to be tough, although I would love to do it. I'll be going to a lot of
Olympic Games post-presidency. (laughter) I think the
delegation speaks for itself. You've got outstanding
Americans, outstanding athletes, people who will represent
us extraordinarily well. And the fact that we've got
folks like Billie Jean King or Brian Boitano, who themselves
have been world-class athletes that everybody acknowledges for
their excellence but also for their character, who also
happen to be members of the LGBT community, you should take that
for what it's worth -- that when it comes to the Olympics
and athletic performance, we don't make distinctions on
the basis of sexual orientation. We judge people on
how they perform, both on the court and off the
court -- on the field and off the field. And that's a value that I think
is at the heart of not just America, but American sports. I'm going to just roll down
these last few, real quickly. Ari Shapiro. Last day at the White House. He deserves a question. (laughter) The Press:
Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senator Max Baucus was widely
seen as the best hope for a large-scale deal to
overhaul the tax code. What does your decision to
nominate him as ambassador to China say about your hopes
for major tax bill in your second term? The President:
It says that
Max Baucus is going to be an outstanding ambassador
to China, and I'd like a swift confirmation. And my expectation and hope
is, is that if both the Senate Democrats -- or if Democrats and
Republicans in the House and the Senate are serious
about tax reform, then it's not going
to depend on one guy, it's going to depend on
all of us working together. And my office is ready, willing,
and eager to engage both parties and having a conversation about
how we can simplify the tax code, make it fairer, make it
work to create more jobs and do right by middle-class Americans. Jackie Calmes. The Press:
Thank you Mr. President. And how do you say it in Hawaii? Mele Kalikimaka? The President:
Mele Kalikimaka. (laughter) The Press:
Since we've been
looking back at the year, I'd like to ask you what your
reaction was to the nonpartisan truth-telling group, PolitiFact,
when it said that the lie of the year was your statement that if
you like your health care plan, you can keep it. And related to the health care
problems that we've seen over the past year, the fallout
from that seems to be making Democrats, particularly
in the Senate, a little rambunctious
and independent of you, which is evidenced most clearly
in the debate over the Iran sanctions. It looks like Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid has expedited consideration of an Iran
sanctions bill for January, even as your administration --
and you have been trying to get them to lay off
sanctions while your -- The President:
Jackie, I've got to say, you're stringing a bunch
of things along here. Let's see if we can
hone in on a question. I mean, I -- The Press:
Two questions. That's a lot less
than Ed Henry had. (laughter) The Press:
Oh! I thought we were trying
to get along for Christmas. (laughter) The President:
How about I
separate out the Iran question from the health care question? On the health care
question, look, I think I've answered several
times -- this is a new iteration of it -- but bottom line is that
we are going to continue to work every single day to make sure
that implementation of the health care law and the
website and all elements of it, including the
grandfather clause, work better every single day. And as I've said in
previous press conferences, we're going to make mistakes,
and we're going to have problems, but my intentions have
been clear throughout, which is, I just want to help as many
people as possible feel secure and make sure that they don't
go broke when they get sick. And we're going to just
keep on doing that. On Iran, there is the
possibility of a resolution to a problem that has been a
challenge for American national security for over a decade now,
and that is getting Iran to, in a verifiable fashion,
not pursue a nuclear weapon. Already, even with the interim
deal that we struck in Geneva, we had the first halt
and, in some cases, some rollback of Iran's nuclear
capabilities -- the first time that we've seen that
in almost a decade. And we now have a structure in
which we can have a very serious conversation to see is it
possible for Iran to get right with the international community
in a verifiable fashion to give us all confidence that any
peaceful nuclear program that they have is not going to
be weaponized in a way that threatens us or allies in
the region, including Israel. And as I've said before
and I will repeat, it is very important for us to
test whether that's possible, not because it's guaranteed,
but because the alternative is possibly us having to engage
in some sort of conflict to resolve the problem with all
kinds of unintended consequences. Now, I've been very
clear from the start, I mean what I say: It is my goal
to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But I sure would rather
do it diplomatically. I'm keeping all
options on the table, but if I can do
it diplomatically, that's how we should do it. And I would think that would be
the preference of everybody up on Capitol Hill because that
sure is the preference of the American people. And we lose nothing during
this negotiation period. Precisely because there are
verification provisions in place, we will have more
insight into Iran's nuclear program over the next six months
than we have previously. We'll know if they are violating
the terms of the agreement. They're not allowed to
accelerate their stockpile of enriched uranium -- in fact,
they have to reduce their stockpile of highly
enriched uranium. Ironically, if we did not have
this six-month period in which we're testing whether we can get
a comprehensive solution to this problem, they'd be advancing
even further on their nuclear program. And in light of all that, what
I've said to members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans
-- is there is no need for new sanctions legislation. Not yet. Now, if Iran comes
back and says, we can't give you assurances
that we're not going to weaponize, if they're not
willing to address some of their capabilities that we know could
end up resulting in them having breakout capacity, it's not
going to be hard for us to turn the dials back, strengthen
sanctions even further. I'll work with members of
Congress to put even more pressure on Iran. But there's no reason
to do it right now. And so I'm not surprised that
there's been some talk from some members of Congress about
new sanctions -- I think the politics of trying to look tough
on Iran are often good when you're running for office
or if you're in office. But as President of the
United States right now, who's been responsible
over the last four years, with the help of Congress, in
putting together a comprehensive sanctions regime that was
specifically designed to put pressure on them and bring them
to the table to negotiate -- what I'm saying to them, what
I've said to the international community, and what I've said
to the American people is let's test it. Now is the time to try to see
if we can get this thing done. And I've heard some logic that
says, well, Mr. President, we're supportive of
the negotiations, but we think it's really useful
to have this club hanging over Iran's head. Well, first of all, we still
have the existing sanctions already in place that are
resulting in Iran losing billions of dollars every
month in lost oil sales. We already have banking and
financial sanctions that are still being applied even as the
negotiations are taking place. It's not as if we're
letting up on that. I've heard arguments, well, but
this way we can be assured and the Iranians will know that if
negotiations fail even new and harsher sanctions will
be put into place. Listen, I don't think the
Iranians have any doubt that Congress would be more than
happy to pass more sanctions legislation. We can do that in
a day, on a dime. But if we're serious
about negotiations, we've got to create an
atmosphere in which Iran is willing to move in ways that
are uncomfortable for them and contrary to their ideology
and rhetoric and their instincts and their suspicions of us. And we don't help get them to a
position where we can actually resolve this by engaging
in this kind of action. Okay, everybody, I think I'm
going to take one more question. Colleen McCain Nelson. And that is it. The Press:
Thank you Mr. President. The President:
There you are. The Press:
Some of your longtime
advisors are leaving the White House and new folks
are coming in. Others are taking on new
roles in the West Wing. As you reshape your team a bit,
how does that change the dynamic here and how does it impact what
you think you can accomplish going forward? The President:
I just had
lunch with Pete Rouse, who is leaving me. And that's tough. The Press:
He says so. The President:
He says
so right now at least. I love that guy and that
will be a significant loss, although he'll still be
in town and, hopefully, I'll be able to consult with
him on an ongoing basis. I think the fact that John
Podesta is coming in will be terrific. He may deny it, but I've been
trying to get him in here for quite some time. He ran my transition office. I asked him when he was running
the transition office if he would be willing to join
us, and at that time I think he was still feeling that he wanted
to develop CAP and other organizations. But John is a great strategist,
as good as anybody on domestic policy. And I think he'll be a huge
boost to us and give us more bandwidth to deal
with more issues. I suspect that we may have
additional announcements in the New Year. There's a natural
turnover that takes place. People get tired. People get worn out. Sometimes, you need fresh legs. But what I can tell you is that
the team I have now is tireless and shares my values, and
believes the thing that I think I've repeated probably four
or five times in this press conference, which is we get
this incredible privilege for a pretty short period of time to
do as much as we can for as many people as we can to help
them live better lives. And that's what drives them. That's the sacrifice they make
being away from families and soccer games and birthdays, and
some of them will end up working over Christmas on
issues like Iran. And the fact that they make
those kinds of sacrifices I'm always grateful for. And if they then say to me after
making those sacrifices for three, four, five
years, I need a break, then I completely understand. All right? Have a great holiday, everybody. Appreciate you. The Press:
Merry Christmas. The President:
Merry Christmas. Happy New Year.
