Author: Lynn Sweet

  • Obama in weekly address: Hits Supreme Court campaign finance ruling

    President Obama is critical of the Supreme Court campaign finance ruling in his weekly address. Click after video for transcript and a reply from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (a participant in the case).

    Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (a participant in the case) said about the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Citizens United case:

    “For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day. By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers. Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all.”

    +++++++++++++++++++++

    THE WHITE HOUSE
    Office of the Press Secretary
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    EMBARGOED UNTIL 6:00 AM ET, SATURDAY, January 23, 2010

    WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Vows to Continue Standing Up to the Special Interests on Behalf of the American People

    WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Barack Obama vowed to continue fighting for the American people to ensure their voices are heard over the special interests and lobbyists in Washington, despite this week’s Supreme Court decision to further empower corporations to use their financial clout to directly influence elections.

    The audio and video will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 am ET, Saturday, January 23, 2010.

    Remarks of President Barack Obama
    As Prepared for Delivery
    Weekly Address
    January 23, 2010

    One of the reasons I ran for President was because I believed so strongly that the voices of everyday Americans, hardworking folks doing everything they can to stay afloat, just weren’t being heard over the powerful voices of the special interests in Washington. And the result was a national agenda too often skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables.

    In my first year in office, we pushed back on that power by implementing historic reforms to get rid of the influence of those special interests. On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers. We barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials. We imposed tough restrictions to prevent funds for our recovery from lining the pockets of the well-connected, instead of creating jobs for Americans. And for the first time in history, we have publicly disclosed the names of lobbyists and non-lobbyists alike who visit the White House every day, so that you know what’s going on in the White House – the people’s house.

    We’ve been making steady progress. But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

    This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

    I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.

    All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.

    It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.

    It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.

    We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

    And we don’t intend to. When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.

    A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans. And as long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.

  • President Obama official schedule and guidance, Jan. 23, 24, 2010.

    THE WHITE HOUSE
    Office of the Press Secretary
    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    January 22, 2010

    WEEKEND GUIDANCE AND PRESS SCHEDULE FOR
    SATURDAY, JANUARY 23 AND SUNDAY, JANUARY 24, 2010

    The President has no scheduled public events this weekend.

    Saturday’s In-Town Travel Pool
    Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg
    Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP
    TV Corr & Crew: CNN
    Print: Houston Chronicle
    Radio: AURN
    Travel Photo: New York Times

    Sunday’s In-Town Travel Pool
    Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg
    Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP
    TV Corr & Crew: FOX
    Print: Huffington Post
    Radio: CBS
    Travel Photo: TIME

    Saturday, January 23, 2010

    EST

    7:45AM Pool Call Time

    Sunday, January 24, 2010

    EST

    11:00AM Pool Call Time

    Schedule for Week of January 25, 2010

    On Monday, the President will welcome the NBA Final Champion Los Angeles Lakers to the White House to honor their 2008-2009 season. Appearing at this event with the team will be Lakers coaches and staff, former Laker greats, and officials from the NBA.

    On Tuesday, the President will attend meetings at the White House.

    On Wednesday, the President will deliver the State of the Union at 9:00PM EST.

    On Thursday, the President and the Vice President will travel to the Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida area for an event.

    On Friday, the President will address the GOP House Issues Conference in Baltimore.

    ##

  • Obama at Elyria, Ohio Town Hall on challenges: ” I ran for President to confront them — once and for all.” Transcript

    Reply Reply Reply to all Reply to all Forward Forward Move Copy Delete Previous Item Next Item Close Help
    From: [email protected] on behalf of White House Press Office Sent: Fri 1/22/2010 3:31 PM
    To: Sweet, Lynn
    Cc:
    Subject: Remarks by the President during Town Hall Meeting in Elyria, Ohio
    Attachments:
    View As Web Page

    THE WHITE HOUSE

    Office of the Press Secretary

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________

    For Immediate Release January 22, 2010

    REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

    DURING TOWN HALL MEETING

    Lorain County Community College

    Elyria, Ohio

    1:45 P.M. EST

    THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) Hello, Ohio! (Applause.) Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Everybody, please relax. (Laughter.) We’re going to be here for a little bit. Everybody take a seat — if you have a seat. (Laughter.) It is great to see you — can everybody please give Jody a big round of applause for the introduction? (Applause.)

    Everybody is a special guest, but we’ve got a few that I just want to mention. First of all, obviously you’ve got one of the finest governors in the country in Ted Strickland. Please give him a round of applause. (Applause.) My former colleague when he was in the Senate — nobody fights harder for working people than Sherrod Brown. Give him a big round of applause. (Applause.)

    We’ve got a dynamo pair of members of the House of Representatives, who are so committed to their districts and committed to this state — Betty Sutton and Marcy Kaptur. (Applause.)

    I have been having just a wonderful time here in town, and your mayor has just been a really nice person. (Applause.) He and I shared a burger over at Smitty’s — (applause) — give Bill Grace a big round of applause. (Applause.)

    And somebody who I’m hugely impressed with because I’m just so impressed with this institution, and his leadership obviously has been critical to it — Dr. Ray Church, your school president here at Lorain County Community College. (Applause.)

    Well, listen, it is great to be here in Elyria. Thank you so much for the great hospitality, the wonderful reception. Look, it’s just nice being out of Washington, let me say. (Laughter.) I mean, there are some nice people in Washington, but it can drive you crazy. (Laughter.) Am I wrong, Sherrod? (Laughter.)

    For two years, I had the privilege of traveling across this country, and I had a chance to talk to people like you, and go to diners and sit in barbershops, and hear directly about the challenges that all of you are facing in your lives, and the opportunities that you’re taking advantage of, and all the things that we face together as a nation. And the single hardest thing — people ask me this all the time — the single hardest thing about being President is that it’s harder for me to do that nowadays. It’s harder to get out of the bubble.

    I mean, don’t get me wrong, the White House is a wonderful place to work. You live above the store — (laughter) — which means I’ve got a very short commute. I’m having — I see my daughters before they go to school and I see them at night for dinner, even if I have to go back down to the office. And that makes everything so much better. But the truth is, this job is a little confining, and that is frustrating. I can’t just go to the barbershop or sit in a diner. I can’t always visit people directly.

    This is part of the reason why I’ve taken to the practice of reading 10 letters, out of the 40,000 that I get, every night just so that I can stay in touch and hear from you. But nothing beats a day where I can make an escape, I break out. And so I appreciate the chance to come here and spend a day.

    Before I came here I visited the EMC Precision Machining plant. I saw the great clean energy job training program here at Lorain County Community College. And I’m obviously thrilled to be able to spend some time with you.

    AUDIENCE MEMBERS: We love you!

    THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.) Thank you.

    Now, look, let’s be honest. These are difficult and unsettling times. They’re difficult times here in Elyria; they’re tough in Ohio; they’re tough all across the country. I walked into office a year ago in the middle of a raging economic storm that was wreaking devastation on your town and communities everywhere. We had to take some very difficult steps to deal with that mess, to stave off an even greater economic catastrophe. We had to stabilize the financial system, which, given the role of the big banks in creating this mess, was a pretty tough pill to swallow.

    I knew it would be unpopular — and rightly so. But I also knew that we had to do it because if they went down, your local banks would have gone down. And if the financial system went down, it would have taken the entire economy and millions more families and businesses with it. We would have looked — we would have been looking at a second Great Depression.

    So in my first months in office, we also had to save two of the big three automakers from a liquidation bankruptcy, complete collapse. Some people weren’t happy about that, either. I understand that. They felt like if you’re in a business, you make a bad decision, you ought to reap the consequences, just like any business would. The problem was, if we let GM and Chrysler simply go under, hundreds of thousands of Americans would have been hurt, not just at those companies themselves, but at auto suppliers and other companies and dealers here in Michigan, up in — here in Ohio, up in Michigan, all across this country.

    So we said, if you’re willing to take some tough and painful steps to make yourself more competitive, we’re willing to invest in your future. And earlier this week, we heard that the auto industry planned to make almost 3 million cars and trucks here in North America in the next three months, which is up 69 percent from the first three months of last year. (Applause.)

    We also passed a Recovery Act to pull our economy back from the brink. Now, there’s been a lot of misunderstanding about this Recovery Act. Sherrod and Marcy and Betty and I were talking about this on the way over here. If you ask the average person, what was the Recovery Act, the stimulus package, they’d say, “the bank bailout.” So let me just be clear here: The Recovery Act was cutting taxes for 95 percent of working families — 15 different tax cuts for working families, seven different tax cuts for small businesses so they can start up and grow and hire. The Recovery Act was extending and increasing unemployment insurance and making COBRA available at a cheaper rate for people who had lost their jobs so they could keep their health care. (Applause.)

    We gave aid directly to states to help them through tough times. Ted can testify the help that it provided to the Ohio budget so we wouldn’t have to lay off teachers and firefighters and police officers all across this state. And we made the largest investment in infrastructure since the creation of the Interstate Highway System, putting Americans to work rebuilding our roads, bridges, waterways — doing the work that America needs to be done.

    Now, today, because we took those actions, the worst of this economic storm has passed. But families like yours and communities like this one are still reeling from the devastation it left in its wake. At one of the companies, at EMC, where I went today — wonderful company, passed on through generations — they have hung on with their precision manufacturing, high value added. They can do things that can’t be shipped off to China because they’re so attuned to their customers’ needs. But they had 77 employees; now they’ve got 44. They want to start hiring back, but it’s going to take a little time. The good news is they’re starting to see orders pick up just a little bit.

    But it’s tough. Folks have seen jobs you thought would last forever disappear. You’ve seen plants close and businesses shut down. I’ve heard about how the city government here is starting to cut into bone, not just fat. You can’t get to work or go buy groceries like you used to because of cuts in the county transit system.

    And this all comes after one of the toughest decades our middle class has faced in generations. I mean, think about what’s happened over the last 10 years, even before the crisis hit. This is a decade where some folks made tons of money, but so many others were just pedaling faster and faster, but they were stuck in the same place, sometimes slipping behind. The average wage, the average income over the last decade actually flat-lined; in some cases went down. That was before the crisis.

    So, for many of you, even as you found your paychecks shrinking, even as after the crisis you found the value of your biggest asset, your home, falling, the cost of everything else has gone up: the cost of groceries, the cost of sending your kids to college, costs of retirement. And you’ve also faced the breakneck, unrelenting climb of costs for your health care needs.

    Now, here’s the message I want you to take away — and we’re going to have a lot of time for questions, but I want to make this absolutely clear. I did not run for President to turn away from these challenges. I didn’t run to kick these challenges down the road. I ran for President to confront them — once and for all. (Applause.)

    I ran for this office to rebuild our economy so it works not just for the fortunate few, but for everybody who’s willing to work hard in this country — (applause) — to create good jobs that can support a family; to get wages growing and incomes rising; to improve the quality of America’s schools and lift up great community colleges like this one so that people are constantly learning, constantly retraining for the jobs of the 21st century; to make higher education affordable for the children of working families — and, yes, to deal with the problem of runaway health insurance costs that are breaking family budgets and breaking business budgets and breaking our national budgets. (Applause.)

    Now, since this has been in the news a little bit this week — (laughter) — let me say a little something about health care. I had no illusions when I took this on that this was going to be hard. Seven Presidents had tried it, seven Congresses had tried it — and all of them had failed.

    And I had a whole bunch of political advisors telling me this may not be the smartest thing to do. “You’ve got a lot on your plate: the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression; two wars. You may not get a lot of cooperation. you’re going to have a lot of pushback from the insurance companies and the drug companies. It’s complicated. Don’t do it.”

    Now, let me tell you why I did it. I knew that insurance premiums had more than doubled in the past decade. I knew that out-of-pocket expenses had skyrocketed. I knew that millions more people had lost their insurance, and I knew that because of that economic crisis that was only going to get worse. When you lose 7 million jobs, like we lost over the last two years, what do you think happens to those folks’ health insurance? What happens when their COBRA runs out?

    I took this up because I wanted to ease the burdens on all the families and small businesses that can’t afford to pay outrageous rates. And I wanted to protect mothers and fathers and children by being targeted by some of the worst practices of the insurance industry that I had heard time and time again as I traveled through this country. (Applause.)

    Now, let me dispel this notion that somehow we were focused on that, and so, as a consequence, not focused on the economy. First of all, all I think about is how we’re going to create jobs in this area. All I think about is how do we get banks lending again. I’ve been doing that the entire year. So have folks like Sherrod and Marcy and Betty. But what I also know is, is that health care is part of the drag on our economy. It’s part of the eroding security that middle-class families feel.

    So here’s the good news: We’ve gotten pretty far down the road. But I’ve got to admit, we had a little bit of a buzz saw this week. (Laughter.)

    Now, I also know that part of the reason is, is that this process was so long and so drawn out — this is just what happens in Congress. I mean, it’s just an ugly process. You’re running headlong into special interests, and armies of lobbyists, and partisan politics that’s aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done. And then you’ve got ads that are scaring the bejesus out of everybody. (Laughter.) And the longer it take, the uglier it looks.

    So I understand why people would say, boy, this is — I’m not so sure about this — even though they know that what they got isn’t working. And I understand why, after the Massachusetts election, people in Washington were all in a tizzy, trying to figure out what this means for health reform, Republicans and Democrats; what does it mean for Obama? Is he weakened? Is he — oh, how’s he going to survive this? (Laughter.) That’s what they do. (Laughter.)

    But I want you — I want you to understand, this is not about me. (Applause.) This is not about me. This is about you. This is not about me; this is about you. I didn’t take this up to boost my poll numbers. You know the way to boost your poll numbers is not do anything. (Laughter.) That’s how you do it. You don’t offend anybody. I’d have real high poll numbers. All of Washington would be saying, “What a genius!” (Laughter.)

    I didn’t take this on to score political points. I know there are some folks who think if Obama loses, we win. But you know what? I think that I win when you win. (Applause.) That’s how I think about it.

    So if I was trying to take the path of least resistance, I would have done something a lot easier. But I’m trying to solve the problems that folks here in Ohio and across this country face every day. And I’m not going to walk away just because it’s hard. We are going to keep on working to get this done — with Democrats, I hope with Republicans — anybody who’s willing to step up. Because I’m not going to watch more people get crushed by costs or denied care they need by insurance company bureaucrats. I’m not going to have insurance companies click their heels and watch their stocks skyrocket because once again there’s no control on what they do.

    So long as I have some breath in me, so long as I have the privilege of serving as your President, I will not stop fighting for you. I will take my lumps, but I won’t stop fighting to bring back jobs here. (Applause.) I won’t stop fighting for an economy where hard work is rewarded. I won’t stop fighting to make sure there’s accountability in our financial system. (Applause.) I’m not going to stop fighting until we have jobs for everybody.

    That’s why I’m calling on Congress to pass a jobs bill to put more Americans to work — (applause) — building off our Recovery Act; put more Americans back to work rebuilding roads and railways; provide tax breaks to small businesses for hiring people; offer families incentives to make their homes more energy-efficient, saving them money while creating jobs.

    That’s why we enacted initiatives that are beginning to give rise to a clean energy economy. That’s part of what’s going on in this community college. If we hadn’t done anything with the Recovery Act, talk to the people who are building wind turbines and solar panels. They would have told you their industry was about to collapse because credit had completely frozen. And now you’re seeing all across Ohio some of the — this state has received more funds than just about anybody in order to build on that clean energy economy — new cutting-edge wind turbines and batteries that are going to be going into energy-efficient cars.

    Almost $25 million of our investment went to a plant right here in Elyria that’s helping produce the car batteries of the future. (Applause.) That’s what we’re going to keep on doing for the rest of 2010 and 2011 and 2012, until we’ve got this country working again. (Applause.)

    So long as I’m President, I’ll never stop fighting for policies that will help restore home values, to redeem the investment that folks have made. We’ve seen some of those values return in some places, in some pockets, but it’s still tough out there. We’re going to have to do more this year to make sure that banks are responsive to folks who are working hard, have been paying their mortgage, but have found themselves in a tough situation.

    I’m not going to stop fighting to give our kids the best education possible — (applause) — to take the tens of billions of dollars we pay banks to act as middlemen on student loans and invest that money in students who actually need it. We don’t need the middlemen — cut them out. (Applause.)

    I won’t stop fighting to give every American a fair shake. That’s why the very first bill I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Act to uphold the principle of equal pay for equal work for men and women alike — (applause) — especially when families need two paychecks to survive. (Applause.)

    So long as I’m President, I won’t stop fighting to protect you from the kinds of deceptive practices we’ve seen from some in the financial sector. That’s why I signed a Credit Card Bill of Rights into law, to protect you from surprise charges and retroactive rate hikes and other unfair rules. That’s why I’m fighting for a tough consumer financial protection agency to protect you against those hidden overdraft fees that can make a single ATM withdrawal cost 30 bucks. (Applause.) That happened to you, didn’t it? (Applause.)

    I won’t stop fighting to open up government. Now, this is hard to do because we don’t control every branch. But I can tell you we have put in place the toughest ethics laws and toughest transparency rules of any administration in history. In history.

    By the way, this is the first administration since the founding of the country where all of you can find out who visits the White House. First time in history. And that’s just one example of how we’re trying to constantly open the process.

    And so long as I’m President, I won’t stop fighting to cut waste and abuse in Washington — to eliminate what we don’t need, to pay for what we do; to rein in exploding deficits that we’ve been accumulating not just last year but for the last 10. (Applause.)

    And I’m going to keep on fighting for real, meaningful health insurance reform. (Applause.) We expanded the Children’s Health Insurance Program to include four million kids — we already did that. But we are also going to fight to hold the insurance industry accountable, to bring more stability and security to folks who are in our health care system. And, yes, I want to make sure that people who don’t have health care right now can get some. (Applause.) It’s shameful that we don’t do that.

    Now, these are some of the fights we’ve already had, and I can promise you there will be more fights ahead. I’m not going to win every round. We’re having a fight right now because I want to charge Wall Street a modest fee to repay taxpayers in full for saving their skins in a time of need. (Applause.) We want our money back. (Applause.) We want our money back. And we’re going to get your money back, every dime — each and every dime.

    But it’s going to be a fight. You watch. I guarantee you when we start on financial regulatory reform, trying to change the rules to prevent what has caused so much heartache all across the country, there are people who are goIng to say, “Why is he meddling in government — why is meddling in the financial industry? It’s another example of Obama being big government.”

    No, I just want to have some rules in place so that when these guys make dumb decisions, you don’t end up having to foot the bill. (Applause.) That’s pretty straightforward. I don’t mind having that fight. (Applause.)

    You know, I said at the beginning how much it means to me to be able to travel this country, and how much it means for me to be here. And that is true now more than ever, because there’s no doubt that it’s easy to get a pretty warped view of things in Washington. But then you start talking to the guys working on those machines, creating products all across the country, you go into the diner and you meet folks who are raising their kids and working hard and trying to keep things together, and I’m reminded of the strength and the resilience and the perseverance of the American people. I’m reminded of the fundamental character of the Americans that I’m so privileged to serve.

    It’s that character that has borne our nation through the roughest of seas, a lot rougher than the ones we’re going through right now. That’s the character that will carry us through this storm to better days ahead. I am confident of that, because of you. And I’m very grateful for all of you taking the time to be here today. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.)

    All right. Let’s take some questions. You guys — everybody, sit down, sit back down. All right. So I’m just going to call on people. We’re going to do girl-boy-girl-boy — (laughter) — so that there’s no accusations of bias. But we’ll try to get as many questions in as we can.

    All right, this young lady right back here. Yes, you. There should be a microphone — wait till the mic comes so everybody can hear you. Oh, I’m sorry — that’s okay, I’ll call on you next. Well — (laughter) — one of you ask your question. (Laughter.)

    Q Thank you, Mr. President. It’s an honor to be here with you today. I work here in LCCC’s financial services office. I am proud to be part of finding pathways for students who attend college. I feel that a college education is a lifeline to the future of our citizens. We greatly appreciate the increase in the Pell Grant, which allowed our neediest students to access a college education. (Applause.) It increased buying power as college costs continue to rise. My question to you is, will your administration support continued increases to the Pell Grant so that our neediest students have access to higher education?

    THE PRESIDENT: The answer is yes. I want everybody to understand, we made — and this was the help — with the help of the members of Congress who are here — made an enormous investment in higher education, making sure that young people could afford to go to great institutions like this. So we significantly increased the level of each Pell Grant, and we also put more money so that we could have more Pell Grants.

    Now, we want to continue to do this. I mentioned during my formal remarks the fact that a lot of banks and financial institutions are still serving as middlemen in the financial aid process, and they take out several billions dollars’ worth of profits from that. It turns out that actually it can be administered in such a way where these loans go directly to the students. And if you do that, then you’re saving several billion dollars that can then be put back into the system. We want to get that finalized; we want to get that done. That will be an enormous boost.

    Now, one thing I have to say, though. Even as we put more money into the Student Loan Program, we are also trying to reach out to university presidents and administrators to figure out how can we reduce the inflation in higher education — because the fact is, is that the only thing that has gone up faster in cost than health care is — guess what. Higher education. And the problem is, if we’re not thinking about ways to curve the inflation, then even if we put more money in, what that money is buying becomes less and less. And so trying to find creative ways for universities to do more with less is going to be important.

    Now, in fairness to universities and colleges, part of the reason they’ve been having to jack up their costs is they used to get more support from the state. State budgets got into a hole, and then it became harder, and so they had to make it up on the tuition side. Nevertheless, what is also true, though, is just their general costs of operating have gone up in ways that I think we can improve. So we’re going to be working on that as well.

    All right? Okay, I’ve got to call a gentleman, then I got to go back to you because you thought that I called you and I feel bad. (Laughter.)

    All right. This gentleman right here in the tie. Yes, you look sharp. (Laughter.)

    Q Mr. President, thank you. It’s an honor to stand before you. Thank you. Earlier in your message, you mentioned our transit system. Obviously we do need help and we’re in dire need to have some assistance there. But what I didn’t hear in anything is your interest in our steel mill. That’s a big part of our community and we desperately need help there as well. (Applause.) We just wondered where Washington’s stance is on our steel mill. Thank you.

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, I was talking to your mayor about this. Obviously he’s a big advocate for manufacturing in the region. I do not have all the details in terms of what’s happening at the steel mill at this moment. But what we’ve done is we’ve set up an office in the White House just focused on manufacturing — because it’s my view that America’s got to make things. (Applause.)

    Now, we’re not going to make — I want to be honest. Not all the manufacturing jobs that have gone are going to come back. And if people tell you they are, that’s just not true — because a lot of that has moved to places where the wages are just much lower. And I know that some people say, well, then we should just set up tariffs so that folks can’t ship them in. But these days the economy, the global economy is so interconnected that that’s just not a practical solution.

    The solution is to find — and I don’t Know the details of the steel mill here — but I know that the ones that have been successful, they do what EMC is doing as well, which is you find what’s the high-end market. What’s the market that involves a lot of technology, specialization, highly trained workers, quick turnarounds to spec so that the customers really feel like they’re getting something special and different — that’s how you compete, because that’s something that a steel mill in China or in Brazil can’t do. They can’t compete with you being on the spot working closely with customers.

    So finding ways to develop specialty steels and so forth, that’s going to be the key. Our manufacturing office will be working with folks here in town to see what we can do.

    All right? Thank you. (Applause.) All right, back to this young lady here.

    Q First I want to start by saying that I am very grateful to be here to meet you in person. I absolutely support you and back you. I feel like Rome wasn’t built in a day, and I know that everybody is really impatient, but I know that with time things can be turned around. And I believe that your intentions are really honorable in that.

    THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.

    Q I am a single mother of three, and I have two quick issues that are very important to me — one being that I have a three-year-old, who has just turned three, who got lead poisoning last year and almost died. And I called everyone, including the EPA of Ohio, and I cannot seem to get any response to this.

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, guess what. I guarantee you that somebody from the EPA is going to call you in about — (applause) — in about five minutes. Before you sit down, there’s going to be a phone call from the EPA. (Laughter.)

    All joking aside — and I know you have a second question, but I just want to focus on this — lead poisoning, a lot of it from lead paint, from older homes all across the country and all across the Midwest is something that we have to be more aggressive on. This is something that I worked on when I was a U.S. senator, when I was a state senator. I’m working on it as President, and I will find out directly from them how they can help not only with your particular situation but what we’re doing in this area in terms of lead abatement.

    Q Okay.

    THE PRESIDENT: Okay?

    Q The second thing that I wanted to address to you is the unfair labor laws that they seem to have in some of these industries as far as discrimination and different issues of that nature that don’t seem to get addressed from the bigger companies. I have actually worked for Ford — I’m a full-time student now here at LC, gratefully — and even when I was working there and I have — my whole family has actually come up through Ford — and there’s a lot of very unjust situations that come about, but no attorneys will deal with it, no one will talk about it, and it’s always pushed under the rug. And I — I do owe my — what I have now to Ford because it was what was bread and butter for my family. But at the same time, it’s not fair that even at this point my mother still can’t retire, she has to continue to suffer.

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, let me just say generally, one of the things that my administration has been able to do over the last year that does not cost money is just enforcing laws that are on the books a little more aggressively, making sure — I mentioned earlier equal pay for equal work.

    We are so past the point where it should be debatable that women get paid the same as men for doing the same job. (Applause.) And it is something that — especially because there was a — it was just released I think last week showing that increasingly the wives are making more than the husbands in some circumstances. And whoever is making more, you’ve got to have two paychecks. So this is not just a “feminist issue” — you know, sometimes guys say, well, why do I — why should I care about it? Well, let me tell you something. If your wife is getting paid fairly, that means your family is getting paid fairly. (Applause.) And I want my daughters to be treated the same way as your sons. That’s something we shouldn’t be arguing about anymore. (Applause.)

    All right, gentleman right back here. Yes, it’s a guy’s turn. Yes, sir.

    Q I’m an inventor, and I hold U.S. patent number 7,397,731.

    THE PRESIDENT: Okay.

    Q And before I ask my question I’d like to make a sales pitch. (Laughter.) If you can use my patent in your next election, I think you can raise a ton of money worldwide. You should take a look at it.

    THE PRESIDENT: All right, we’ll take a look. All right.

    Q If you can’t use it, the government could use it, and I could build a multibillion-dollar business here in Ohio. (Laughter.)

    THE PRESIDENT: All right, we’ll take a look at your patent. Go ahead, what’s your question?

    Q Yes, okay, it has to do with international patent rights. With all this free trade and trade barriers falling, it’s really hard for an individual like me with a global-scope patent to file all over the world and get patent protection everywhere, and having to go overseas to fight infringement. So if you’re going to drop trade barriers, maybe you can extend my patent rights to the foreign countries.

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is a great question, and this is a huge problem. (Applause.) Look, our competitive advantage in the world is going to be people like this who are using their minds to create new products, new services. But that only helps us and helps you build a multibillion-dollar company if somebody can’t just steal that idea and suddenly start making it in Indonesia or Malaysia or Bangladesh with very cheap workers.

    And one of the problems that we have had is insufficient protection for intellectual property rights. That’s true in China; it’s true for everything from bootleg DVDs to very sophisticated software. And there’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies. We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.

    So I’ve given instructions to my trade offices — and we actually highlight this at the highest levels of foreign policy — that these are issues that have to be addressed because that’s part of the reciprocity of making our markets open. And so when I met with President Hu of China, this is a topic that, at dinner, I directly brought up with him. And — but as you point out, it’s got to be sustained, because a lot of times they’ll say, yes, yes, yes, but then there’s no enforcement on their end.

    And one of the things that we’re also doing is using our export arm of the U.S. government to help work with medium-sized businesses and small businesses, not just the big multinationals to protect their rights in some of these areas, because we need to boost exports.

    Can I just say, we just went through a decade where we were told that it didn’t matter, we’ll just — you just keep on importing, buying stuff from other countries, you just take out a home equity loan and max out your credit card, and everything is going to be okay. And it looked, for a lot of people, like, well, the economy seems to be growing — but it was all built on a house of cards. That’s what we now know. And that’s why if we’re going to have a successful manufacturing sector, we’ve got to have successful exports.

    When I went and took this trip to China, and took this trip to Asia, a lot of people said, “Well, why is he going to Asia? He’s traveling overseas too much. He needs to be coming back home and talking about jobs.” I’m there because that’s where we’re going to find those jobs, is by increasing our exports to those countries, the same way they’ve been doing in our country. If we increased our exports — our share of exports by just 1 percent, that would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the United States. Five percent — maybe a million jobs, well-paying jobs. So we’re going to have to pry those markets open. Intellectual property is part of that process.

    All right, great question.

    It’s a woman’s turn now. You guys just put down your hands. (Laughter.) Oh, okay, well, this young lady right in front. We’ve got a microphone over here. You know, I would give it to you if I could reach, but — go ahead. (Laughter.)

    Q I introduce myself. I’m 83 years old. I know I don’t look it. (Laughter.)

    THE PRESIDENT: You don’t. You don’t. You look great.

    Q Thank you. I’m very concerned about Social Security. I think there’s a few here who are probably living on that or supplementing that. I understand that Congress has given themselves a raise but has denied us COLA for possibly the next three years. At the time of the H1N1 thing, people over 65 were not given the right to have the shot. For some reason or other this health care crisis was left on our senior backs. What can we do about this?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me address all three of your issues, because you’re raising actually three separate issues.

    First is how do we make sure that Social Security is sustainable over the long term. Social Security is one of our entitlement programs that for now is stable, but will not be if we don’t make some changes. Now, here’s the good news. Compared to Medicare, Social Security is actually in reasonably good shape, and with some relatively small adjustments, you can have that solvent for a long time. So Social Security is going to be there. I know a lot of people are concerned about it. Social Security we can fix.

    Now, in terms of the COLA, the formula — COLA stands for Cost of Living Allowance, so it’s put in place to make sure that Social Security is keeping up with inflation. Here’s the problem. This past year, because of the severity of the recession, we didn’t have inflation; we actually had deflation. So prices actually fell last year. As a consequence, technically, seniors were not eligible for a Cost of Living Adjustment, to have it go up because prices did not go up in the aggregate. That doesn’t mean that individual folks weren’t being pinched by higher heating prices or what have you, but on average prices went down.

    Here’s what we did. Working with these key members of Congress here, we did vote to provide a $250 one-time payment to seniors, which, when you factored it in, amounted to about 1.8 percent. So it was almost the equivalent of the COLA, even though it wasn’t actually the COLA.

    So we didn’t forget seniors. We never forget seniors because they vote at very high rates. (Laughter.) Not to mention you changed our diapers and things. And so we appreciate that.

    The third point that you made had to do with the H1N1 virus. The reason that seniors were not prioritized was because, unlike the seasonal flu shot, H1N1 was deadliest in young people and particularly children. And because the virus came up fairly late in the time frame for preparing flu shots, we had a limited number of vaccines, and we had to decide who gets the vaccines first.

    Now, by the way, let me just do a little PSA here. Anybody who has not gotten a H1N1 shot, along with their seasonal flu, I would still advise you to get it, because historically there are two waves of this. Particularly make sure your kids have gotten it, because there have been a significantly higher number of children killed under H1 — who get H1N1 than those who just get the seasonal flu. It’s still a small fraction, I don’t want to make everybody afraid. But it’s just — it’s a little more serious than the normal seasonal flu.

    So it’s not that seniors were neglected here. What happened was, according to the science, according to the CDC, it was determined that we had to go to the most vulnerable groups the quickest, and that was children, particularly those who had underlying neurological disorders or immunity disorders.

    All right? We haven’t forgotten about you. And you don’t look 83. (Laughter.)

    Okay. This young man — he’s been standing up quite a long time. There you go.

    Q Mr. President, my name is Jordan Brown. Can you hear me?

    THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

    Q Okay.

    THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead and give him the mic. I don’t want to have him fall over there. (Laughter.)

    Q Okay. I don’t have a question but I do want to know if I would like — if I can shake your hand. (Laughter.)

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, yes, yes, you’ll be able to come up here. If somebody lets you through, I’ll definitely give you a handshake. (Applause.)

    All right, who — I want to make sure — you know, there’s another young man here so I’ll call on him.

    Q I’m 29 years old, and I’ve never had a job in my life. I went to jail when I was younger. It’s like hard to get a job as a felon. Is this — any programs that hire people with felonies like something that — because it’s sad, it’s like — 29 years old, I’m 29. (Applause.)

    THE PRESIDENT: All right. Jerome —

    Q And also I wanted to — I’m a poet and I wrote a poem for you and I’ve been dying to put this poem in your hand.

    THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Give me the poem. (Applause.) First of all, it’s never too late. It’s never too late. (Applause.) One of these gentlemen here will hand this poem to me. There you go. I won’t read it from the stage but — because it’s —

    Q I’d appreciate it, later when you get back to the White House.

    THE PRESIDENT: But I will definitely think about it.

    Look, I’m proud of the fact that you’re bringing this up because there are people who’ve made mistakes, particularly when they’re young, and it is in all of our interests to help them redeem themselves and then get on a straight path. Now, I don’t blame employers obviously for being nervous about hiring somebody who has a record. It’s natural if they’ve got a lot of applicants for every single job that that’s a question that they’d have in their minds. On the other hand, I think one of the great things about America is we give people second chances. (Applause.)

    And so what we’ve tried to do — and I want to say, this has been a bipartisan effort — when I was in the Senate, working with Sam Brownback; my Vice President, Joe Biden — passing a Second Chance Act that helps to fund programs that help the reintegration of ex-felons.

    It’s smart for us to do. You know, sometimes people say, well, that’s just coddling people. No; you reduce the recidivism rate, they pay taxes, it ends up being smart for taxpayers to do.

    I don’t know, Jerome, what particular programs may exist in this county, but I promise you I’ll find out. And we’ll see if we can get you hooked up with one of them. All right? (Applause.)

    Okay, right here. Yes. No, no, no. Right here. Yes. Go ahead.

    Q Mr. President, I started a Great Lakes Truck Driving School in 2008 in Lorain County.

    THE PRESIDENT: I’m sorry, what kind of school?

    Q Great Lakes Truck Driving School.

    THE PRESIDENT: Cross driving school? Oh, truck driving school, I’m sorry.

    Q Great Lakes Truck Driving School. Started in 2008. Our first year we trained 287 people and we placed over 70 percent of those people into jobs. At that time there was enough money, through the Workforce Investment Board, to train those people. In the past few months we’ve had a number of people on a daily basis coming into our school that’s unemployed, but there are no training funds for truck driver training. And I want to know why that has changed.

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Recovery Act put a huge amount of money into retraining. We are now preparing for next year’s budget, and I know that we have actually allocated additional money for retraining.

    I don’t know specifically what’s happening that would cause those dollars to dry up with respect to a truck driving school. Let me see if I can find out. I’ll have one of my staff get your card, and maybe we can provide you some information.

    Q Thank you very much.

    THE PRESIDENT: Here’s the broader point, though. The story of retraining has become so important. When I went to EMC, the precision tool-making place, there were a group of guys — and one guy who said I should call him “Jerry the Mechanic.” (Laughter.) He shakes my hand, and he and his buddy are talking to me. I said, “How long have you been working here?” They said, “Twenty years.” And I’d noticed that a lot of the equipment now is all digital and fancy, compared to the old machines on the other side of the building. I said, “Well, did you guys have to get additional training for this?” And they said, “Well, you know what happened was, we used to work in this old plant, and we got laid off. We came here to Lorain Community College and took a six-month, 12-hour-a-day course that completely retrained us, and that’s what got us these new jobs, and we’ve been working for over a decade now at these new jobs.” (Applause.)

    Now, here’s the thing. These guys were — these guys — first of all, they weren’t plants, as far as I know — unless the mayor is a lot slicker than I think. (Laughter.) But these guys did point out that it was JTPA funds — job training funds that the federal government and the state and local all work together to make sure that people have access to funds. They also said, though, during that time they were still working eight hours a day because they had found sort of lower-paying jobs just to pay the rent while they were getting retrained. I said, “Okay, so you’ve been working eight hours and going to class 12 hours?” “Yes.” I said, “Well, when do you sleep?” “Well, in between class and taking the shift.”

    They did this for six months. I tell this story, one, to emphasize how important the college system is in making our workforce prepared for the 21st century. I make the point because, number two, it only works if the government is providing some help for people to finance their educations, their retraining.

    But point number three is, even if you’ve got a great community college, you’ve got the financing, you’ve also got to want it. You’ve also got to want it. Think about these guys — you work eight hours, you go to class 12 hours, you’re working — you’re sleeping in between, doing that for six months. But because they were hungry and they had confidence about their ability to translate their old skills into new skills, they’ve had steady jobs ever since that allow them to support their families.

    Now, that’s the partnership between the government, the free market, businesses, individuals — that’s what we’re trying to forge. And that’s why I get so frustrated when we have these ideological debates in Washington where people start saying how, “oh, Obama is just trying to perpetrate big government.” What big government exactly have we been trying to perpetrate here? We’re trying to fund those guys who want to go to truck driving school. We want to make sure that they’ve got some money to get trained for a job in the private sector.

    When we passed the Recovery Act, these aren’t all a bunch of government jobs. These are jobs that private contractors contract with the state or the city or the county to build roads and highways, the same way that we built the Interstate Highway System and the Intercontinental Railroad System.

    I mean, I understand how people have become mistrustful of government. We don’t need big government; we need smart government — that works and interacts with the private sector to create opportunity for ordinary people. But it can’t be this constant ideological argument. People need help. We need to provide them a helping hand. That’s what we stand for. (Applause.)

    All right. I’ve got time for only, unfortunately, one more question. I’ve been having a great time. But it is a man’s turn here. All right. Is that you, Joe? Well, this is a ringer. I’m going to talk — I’ll talk to you separately. This is a friend of mine. People will say, ah, he called on a friend of his. I’ll talk to you over to the side here.

    Go ahead, this gentleman right here.

    Q Thank you for taking my question. Thank you for coming here. I’m a 52-year-old businessman from Akron, Ohio. I want to create 1,200 jobs. I spend $60,000 of my own money to do a due diligence, travel to China with a German-designed turbine, and they’re producing it now in China. I have rights to North America, primarily the Great Lakes.

    Two things that I’m challenged by — I’m having a very difficult time raising money. I’m not asking for a handout. All I’m asking is loan me the money; I’ll account for it, every dollar, I’ll pay it back.

    Secondly — and I’m willing to risk millions — 99 percent of my net worth. The second thing is that GE has a patent — and I believe in patents. I listened to this gentleman back here, and I can truly appreciate what he’s going through. But in this instance, GE inherited this patent from Enron, and it’s created a wall so that they won’t let people come in and build turbines in the United States. Now, the patent is going to expire very soon. But now they’re calling it a royalty but it’s really a gate to keep people out.

    Is there any programs — I’ve talked to Governor Strickland, I’ve talked to Sherrod Brown, I’ve talked to Lee Fisher. This company was identified by the city of Akron and Donald Plusquellic’s visionary leadership down in Akron. But I want to bring this to the United States. I want to bring these jobs — and this not about money for me. This is about creating jobs.

    I can feel for that gentleman that wants to work. He should have a right to work. God bless him. (Applause.)

    THE PRESIDENT: Let me respond — first of all —

    Q Is there any — is there any federal programs that can help me — I just want to borrow the money to create this factory and create these jobs.

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, obviously I don’t know about the particular situation so I’ll just speak generally to it. And if you want to get one of my team your card, then maybe they can follow up with you.

    But one of the things that we’ve done — or one of the things that we’ve seen coming out of the financial crisis is that banks are still not lending to small businesses enough. The mayor and I talked about this. The business owners that I talked to will confirm this. And if you ask why — if you ask the banks why, they’ll say, well, it’s a combination of, in some cases, demand really is down; businesses don’t have as many customers as they used to so revenues are down and — so they don’t want to lend. That’s some cases. But in some cases what you’ve got is very profitable businesses that are ready to go, ready to invest, got a proven track record — the banks feel as if regulators are looking over their shoulder and discouraging them from lending.

    So what I’ve said to Treasury Secretary Geithner and others is we can’t meddle with independent regulators — their job is to stay apart from politics and make sure the banking system is sound — but there should be a discussion about whether or not we have seen the pendulum swing too far, where it used to be they’d just lend anybody anything; then they lost all this money and now they won’t lend people with good credit anything. That is not good for the economy.

    So what we’ve tried to do is to fill some of these gaps in the meantime. For example, our small business lending through the SBA has actually gone up 70 percent. And we’ve been waiving fees, increasing guarantees, and what we’re trying to do is streamline the process for SBA loans because right now there’s just too much paperwork. It’s typical government not having caught up with the 21st century. And you can’t have a 50-pound application form. People just — after a while, it’s not worth it, in some cases. So we’re trying to do all those things.

    Now, with respect to patents, again, I don’t know the particular situation. I will say this. It’s important that we protect internationally intellectual property. It is also important though that we have a patent system that encourages innovation but doesn’t just lock in big monopolies that prevent new people from bringing new products into the system.

    The worst offender of this problem is actually the drug companies, because they will try to lock in their patents for as long as they can to prevent generics from coming onto the market, and that costs customers billions of dollars. And sometimes the drug company will redesign it so it’s a caplet instead of a pill, and then try to get a new patent, to get another seven or nine or 10 years of coverage. That is something that we’ve got to change. I don’t know whether that applies to your particular situation, but we have to have a patent system that doesn’t prevent competition. We want a patent system that encourages innovation.

    Now, I’m out of time, but I want to say one last thing. First of all, because there’s been so much attention focused on this health care issue this week, I just want to emphasize not the myths but the reality of what is trying to — that both the House and the Senate bill were trying to accomplish, because it’s actually very simple. There are a bunch of provisions in it, but it’s pretty simple.

    Number one, for those of you who have health insurance, we are trying to get in place reforms that make sure you are getting your money’s worth for the insurance that you pay for. That means, for example, that they can’t impose a lifetime cap where if you really get sick and suddenly there’s some fine print in there that says you’re not completely covered. We’re trying to make sure that there is a cap on out-of-pocket expenses so that you don’t find out, when you read the fine print, that you’ve got to pay a huge amount that you thought you were covered for. We’re trying to make sure that if you’ve got a preexisting condition, you can actually still get health insurance, because a lot of people have been banned from getting health insurance because of a preexisting condition. (Applause.)

    One of the provisions — one of the reforms we want is to make sure that your 26- or 27-year-old could, up until that age, could stay on your insurance, so that once they get out of high school and college, they can stay on their parents’ insurance for a few years until they’ve got a more stable job.

    So you’ve got all these insurance reforms that we’re trying to get passed. Now, some people ask, well, why don’t you just pass that and forget everything else? Here’s the problem. Let’s just take the example of preexisting conditions. We can’t prohibit insurance companies from preventing people with preexisting conditions getting insurance unless everybody essentially has insurance. And the reason for that is otherwise what would happen is people would just — just wouldn’t get insurance until they were sick and then they’d go and buy insurance and they couldn’t be prohibited. And that would drive everybody else’s premiums up.

    So a lot of these insurance reforms are connected to some other things we have to do to make sure that everybody has some access to coverage. All right?

    So the second thing we’ve been trying to do is to make sure that we’re setting up an exchange, which is just a big pool so that people who are individuals, who are self employed, who are small business owners, they can essentially join a big pool of millions of people all across the country, which means that when you go to negotiate with your insurance company you’ve got the purchasing power of a Ford or a GM or Wal-Mart or a Xerox or the federal employees. That’s why federal employees have good insurance, and county employees and state employees have good insurance, in part is because they’re part of this big pool.

    And our attitude is, can we make sure that everybody is part of a big pool to drive down costs. That’s the second thing we’re trying to do.

    Third thing we’re trying to do is to try to reduce costs overall because the system — how many of you, you go into the doctor’s office, you fill out a form, you get a checkup, you go fill out another form, somebody else asks you for the form you just filled out. Then the doctor fills out a form, you got to take it to the pharmacist. The pharmacist can’t read the doctor’s — this is the only industry in the country that still does that, that still operates on paper systems, that still orders all kinds of unnecessary tests.

    Because a lot of times, I walk in the doctor, I just do what I’m told — I don’t know what he’s doing. I don’t know whether this test was necessary or whether we could have had the test that I took six months ago e-mailed to the doctor so I wouldn’t have to take another test and pay for another test. Right? (Applause.) So there are all these methods of trying to reduce costs. And that’s what we’ve been trying to institute.

    Now, I just want to say, as I said in my opening remarks, the process has been less than pretty. When you deal with 535 members of Congress, it’s going to be a somewhat ugly process — not necessarily because any individual member of Congress is trying to do something wrong, it’s just they may have different ideas, they have different interests, they’ve got a particular issue of a hospital in their district that they want to see if they can kind of get dealt with and this may be the best vehicle for doing it. They’re looking out for their constituents a lot of times.

    But when you put it all together, it starts looking like just this monstrosity. And it makes people fearful. And it makes people afraid. And they start thinking, you know what, this looks like something that is going to cost me tax dollars and I already have insurance so why should I support this.

    So I just want to be clear that there are things that have to get done. This is our best chance to do it. We can’t keep on putting this off. Even if you’ve got health insurance right now, look at what’s happening with your premiums and look at the trend. It is going to gobble up more and more of your paycheck. Ask a chunk of you folks in here who have seen your employers say you’ve got to pick up more of your payments in terms of higher deductibles or higher copayments. (Applause.) Some of you, your employers just said, we can’t afford health insurance at all. That’s going to happen to more and more people.

    You asked about Social Security. Let me talk about Medicare. Medicare will be broke in eight years if we do nothing. Right now we give — we give about $17 billion in subsidies to insurance companies through the Medicare system — your tax dollars. But when we tried to eliminate them, suddenly there were ads on TV — “Oh, Obama is trying to cut Medicare.” I get all these seniors writing letters: “Why are you trying to cut my Medicare benefits?” I’m not trying to cut your Medicare benefits. I’m trying to stop paying these insurance companies all this money so I can give you a more stable program.

    The point is this: None of the big issues that we face in this country are simple. Everybody wants to act like they’re simple. Everybody wants to say that they can be done easily. But they’re complicated. They’re tough. The health care system is a big, complicated system, and doing it right is hard.

    Energy. If we want to be energy independent — I’m for more oil production. I am for — I am for new forms of energy. I’m for a safe nuclear industry. I’m not ideological about this. But we also have to acknowledge that if we’re going to actually have a energy-independent economy, that we’ve got to make some changes. We can’t just keep on doing business the same way. And that’s going to be a big, complicated discussion.

    We can’t shy away from it, though. We can’t sort of start suddenly saying to ourselves, America or Congress can’t do big things; that we should only do the things that are noncontroversial; we should only do the stuff that’s safe. Because if that’s what happens, then we’re not going to meet the challenges of the 21st century. And that’s not who we are. That’s not how we used to operate, and that’s not how I intend us to operate going forward.

    We are going to take these big things on, and I’m going to do it, and you’re going to do it, because you know that we want to leave a better America for our children and our grandchildren. And that doesn’t mean standing still; that means marching forward. (Applause.)

    I want to march forward with you. I want to work with you. I want to fight for you. I hope you’re willing to stand by me, even during these tough times, because I believe in a brighter future for America.

    Thank you, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.)

    END 3:00 P.M. EST

  • Obama week ahead: Monday, Lakers at the White House; Wednesday, State of the Union

    Here is week ahead courtesy of Bill Burton

    Monday, the President will welcome the Los Angeles Lakers to the White House.

    On Tuesday, the President will attend meetings at the White House.

    On Wednesday, the President will deliver the State of the Union at 9PM EST.

    On Thursday, the President and the Vice President will travel to the Tampa-St.
    Petersburg, Florida area for an event.

    On Friday, the President will address the GOP House Issues Conference in
    Baltimore.

  • Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom. Speech text, Q & A at Newseum

    Hillary Rodham Clinton
    Secretary of State
    The Newseum
    Washington, DC
    January 21, 2010

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Alberto, for not only that kind introduction but your and your colleagues’ leadership of this important institution. It’s a pleasure to be here at the Newseum. The Newseum is a monument to some of our most precious freedoms, and I’m grateful for this opportunity to discuss how those freedoms apply to the challenges of the 21st century.

    Although I can’t see all of you because in settings like this, the lights are in my eyes and you are in the dark, I know that there are many friends and former colleagues. I wish to acknowledge Charles Overby, the CEO of Freedom Forum here at the Newseum; Senator Edward Kaufman and Senator Joe Lieberman, my former colleagues in the Senate, both of whom worked for passage of the Voice Act, which speaks to Congress’s and the American people’s commitment to internet freedom, a commitment that crosses party lines and branches of government.

    Also, I’m told here as well are Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Ted Kaufman, Representative Loretta Sanchez, many representatives of the Diplomatic Corps, ambassadors, chargés, participants in our International Visitor Leadership Program on internet freedom from China, Colombia, Iran, and Lebanon, and Moldova. And I also want to acknowledge Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute, recently named to our Broadcasting Board of Governors and, of course, instrumental in supporting the work on internet freedom that the Aspen Institute has been doing.

    This is an important speech on a very important subject. But before I begin, I want to just speak briefly about Haiti, because during the last eight days, the people of Haiti and the people of the world have joined together to deal with a tragedy of staggering proportions. Our hemisphere has seen its share of hardship, but there are few precedents for the situation we’re facing in Port-au-Prince. Communication networks have played a critical role in our response. They were, of course, decimated and in many places totally destroyed. And in the hours after the quake, we worked with partners in the private sector; first, to set up the text “HAITI” campaign so that mobile phone users in the United States could donate to relief efforts via text messages. That initiative has been a showcase for the generosity of the American people, and thus far, it’s raised over $25 million for recovery efforts.

    Information networks have also played a critical role on the ground. When I was with President Preval in Port-au-Prince on Saturday, one of his top priorities was to try to get communication up and going. The government couldn’t talk to each other, what was left of it, and NGOs, our civilian leadership, our military leadership were severely impacted. The technology community has set up interactive maps to help us identify needs and target resources. And on Monday, a seven-year-old girl and two women were pulled from the rubble of a collapsed supermarket by an American search-and-rescue team after they sent a text message calling for help. Now, these examples are manifestations of a much broader phenomenon.

    The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. When something happens in Haiti or Hunan, the rest of us learn about it in real time – from real people. And we can respond in real time as well. Americans eager to help in the aftermath of a disaster and the girl trapped in the supermarket are connected in ways that were not even imagined a year ago, even a generation ago. That same principle applies to almost all of humanity today. As we sit here, any of you – or maybe more likely, any of our children – can take out the tools that many carry every day and transmit this discussion to billions across the world.

    Now, in many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.

    During his visit to China in November, for example, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that ground truth is what brings me here today.

    Because amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can either energize a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or for ill. The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights.

    In the last year, we’ve seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained. One member of this group, Bassem Samir, who is thankfully no longer in prison, is with us today. So while it is clear that the spread of these technologies is transforming our world, it is still unclear how that transformation will affect the human rights and the human welfare of the world’s population.

    On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it. Now, this challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the First Amendment to our Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone.

    Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. Now, at the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the troubles of his day. And years later, one of my heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, worked to have these principles adopted as a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have provided a lodestar to every succeeding generation, guiding us, galvanizing us, and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty.

    So as technology hurtles forward, we must think back to that legacy. We need to synchronize our technological progress with our principles. In accepting the Nobel Prize, President Obama spoke about the need to build a world in which peace rests on the inherent rights and dignities of every individual. And in my speech on human rights at Georgetown a few days later, I talked about how we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century.

    There are many other networks in the world. Some aid in the movement of people or resources, and some facilitate exchanges between individuals with the same work or interests. But the internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. And that’s why we believe it’s critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms. Freedom of expression is first among them. This freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. Blogs, emails, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for censorship.

    As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. Now, these leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain.

    The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum where they belong, and the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls.

    Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

    As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools. In the demonstrations that followed Iran’s presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman’s bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government’s brutality. We’ve seen reports that when Iranians living overseas posted online criticism of their nation’s leaders, their family members in Iran were singled out for retribution. And despite an intense campaign of government intimidation, brave citizen journalists in Iran continue using technology to show the world and their fellow citizens what is happening inside their country. In speaking out on behalf of their own human rights, the Iranian people have inspired the world. And their courage is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice.

    Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together. And we must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.

    The freedom of expression may be the most obvious freedom to face challenges with the spread of new technologies, but it is not the only one. The freedom of worship usually involves the rights of individuals to commune or not commune with their Creator. And that’s one channel of communication that does not rely on technology. But the freedom of worship also speaks to the universal right to come together with those who share your values and vision for humanity. In our history, those gatherings often took place in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. Today, they may also take place on line.

    The internet can help bridge divides between people of different faiths. As the President said in Cairo, freedom of religion is central to the ability of people to live together. And as we look for ways to expand dialogue, the internet holds out such tremendous promise. We’ve already begun connecting students in the United States with young people in Muslim communities around the world to discuss global challenges. And we will continue using this tool to foster discussion between individuals from different religious communities.

    Some nations, however, have co-opted the internet as a tool to target and silence people of faith. Last year, for example, in Saudi Arabia, a man spent months in prison for blogging about Christianity. And a Harvard study found that the Saudi Government blocked many web pages about Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam. Countries including Vietnam and China employed similar tactics to restrict access to religious information.

    Now, just as these technologies must not be used to punish peaceful political speech, they must also not be used to persecute or silence religious minorities. Now, prayers will always travel on higher networks. But connection technologies like the internet and social networking sites should enhance individuals’ ability to worship as they see fit, come together with people of their own faith, and learn more about the beliefs of others. We must work to advance the freedom of worship online just as we do in other areas of life.

    There are, of course, hundreds of millions of people living without the benefits of these technologies. In our world, as I’ve said many times, talent may be distributed universally, but opportunity is not. And we know from long experience that promoting social and economic development in countries where people lack access to knowledge, markets, capital, and opportunity can be frustrating and sometimes futile work. In this context, the internet can serve as a great equalizer. By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create opportunities where none exist.

    Over the last year, I’ve seen this firsthand in Kenya, where farmers have seen their income grow by as much as 30 percent since they started using mobile banking technology; in Bangladesh, where more than 300,000 people have signed up to learn English on their mobile phones; and in Sub-Saharan Africa, where women entrepreneurs use the internet to get access to microcredit loans and connect themselves to global markets.

    Now, these examples of progress can be replicated in the lives of the billion people at the bottom of the world’s economic ladder. In many cases, the internet, mobile phones, and other connection technologies can do for economic growth what the Green Revolution did for agriculture. You can now generate significant yields from very modest inputs. And one World Bank study found that in a typical developing country, a 10 percent increase in the penetration rate for mobile phones led to an almost 1 percent increase in per capita GDP. To just put this into context, for India, that would translate into almost $10 billion a year.

    A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity. In the early years of these technologies, many believed that they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. But that hasn’t happened. There are 4 billion cell phones in use today. Many of them are in the hands of market vendors, rickshaw drivers, and others who’ve historically lacked access to education and opportunity. Information networks have become a great leveler, and we should use them together to help lift people out of poverty and give them a freedom from want.

    Now, we have every reason to be hopeful about what people can accomplish when they leverage communication networks and connection technologies to achieve progress. But make no mistake – some are and will continue to use global information networks for darker purposes. Violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit these global networks. Just as terrorists have taken advantage of the openness of our societies to carry out their plots, violent extremists use the internet to radicalize and intimidate. As we work to advance freedoms, we must also work against those who use communication networks as tools of disruption and fear.

    Governments and citizens must have confidence that the networks at the core of their national security and economic prosperity are safe and resilient. Now this is about more than petty hackers who deface websites. Our ability to bank online, use electronic commerce, and safeguard billions of dollars in intellectual property are all at stake if we cannot rely on the security of our information networks.

    Disruptions in these systems demand a coordinated response by all governments, the private sector, and the international community. We need more tools to help law enforcement agencies cooperate across jurisdictions when criminal hackers and organized crime syndicates attack networks for financial gain. The same is true when social ills such as child pornography and the exploitation of trafficked women and girls online is there for the world to see and for those who exploit these people to make a profit. We applaud efforts such as the Council on Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime that facilitate international cooperation in prosecuting such offenses. And we wish to redouble our efforts.

    We have taken steps as a government, and as a Department, to find diplomatic solutions to strengthen global cyber security. We have a lot of people in the State Department working on this. They’ve joined together, and we created two years ago an office to coordinate foreign policy in cyberspace. We’ve worked to address this challenge at the UN and in other multilateral forums and to put cyber security on the world’s agenda. And President Obama has just appointed a new national cyberspace policy coordinator who will help us work even more closely to ensure that everyone’s networks stay free, secure, and reliable.

    States, terrorists, and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks. Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, and our civil society. Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation. In an internet-connected world, an attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all. And by reinforcing that message, we can create norms of behavior among states and encourage respect for the global networked commons.

    The final freedom, one that was probably inherent in what both President and Mrs. Roosevelt thought about and wrote about all those years ago, is one that flows from the four I’ve already mentioned: the freedom to connect – the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate. Once you’re on the internet, you don’t need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society.

    The largest public response to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai was launched by a 13-year-old boy. He used social networks to organize blood drives and a massive interfaith book of condolence. In Colombia, an unemployed engineer brought together more than 12 million people in 190 cities around the world to demonstrate against the FARC terrorist movement. The protests were the largest antiterrorist demonstrations in history. And in the weeks that followed, the FARC saw more demobilizations and desertions than it had during a decade of military action. And in Mexico, a single email from a private citizen who was fed up with drug-related violence snowballed into huge demonstrations in all of the country’s 32 states. In Mexico City alone, 150,000 people took to the streets in protest. So the internet can help humanity push back against those who promote violence and crime and extremism.
    In Iran and Moldova and other countries, online organizing has been a critical tool for advancing democracy and enabling citizens to protest suspicious election results. And even in established democracies like the United States, we’ve seen the power of these tools to change history. Some of you may still remember the 2008 presidential election here. (Laughter.)

    The freedom to connect to these technologies can help transform societies, but it is also critically important to individuals. I was recently moved by the story of a doctor – and I won’t tell you what country he was from – who was desperately trying to diagnose his daughter’s rare medical condition. He consulted with two dozen specialists, but he still didn’t have an answer. But he finally identified the condition, and found a cure, by using an internet search engine. That’s one of the reasons why unfettered access to search engine technology is so important in individuals’ lives.

    Now, the principles I’ve outlined today will guide our approach in addressing the issue of internet freedom and the use of these technologies. And I want to speak about how we apply them in practice. The United States is committed to devoting the diplomatic, economic, and technological resources necessary to advance these freedoms. We are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and every interest that spans the globe. Our foreign policy is premised on the idea that no country more than America stands to benefit when there is cooperation among peoples and states. And no country shoulders a heavier burden when conflict and misunderstanding drive nations apart. So we are well placed to seize the opportunities that come with interconnectivity. And as the birthplace for so many of these technologies, including the internet itself, we have a responsibility to see them used for good. To do that, we need to develop our capacity for what we call, at the State Department, 21st century statecraft.

    Realigning our policies and our priorities will not be easy. But adjusting to new technology rarely is. When the telegraph was introduced, it was a source of great anxiety for many in the diplomatic community, where the prospect of receiving daily instructions from capitals was not entirely welcome. But just as our diplomats eventually mastered the telegraph, they are doing the same to harness the potential of these new tools as well.

    And I’m proud that the State Department is already working in more than 40 countries to help individuals silenced by oppressive governments. We are making this issue a priority at the United Nations as well, and we’re including internet freedom as a component in the first resolution we introduced after returning to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

    We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely. The United States has been assisting in these efforts for some time, with a focus on implementing these programs as efficiently and effectively as possible. Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom.

    We want to put these tools in the hands of people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights, to fight climate change and epidemics, to build global support for President Obama’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons, to encourage sustainable economic development that lifts the people at the bottom up.

    That’s why today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can address deficiencies in the current market for innovation.

    Let me give you one example. Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy.

    If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target our foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial assistance to pursue that project on their own, and the State Department currently lacks a mechanism to make it happen. But this initiative should help resolve that problem and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We’re going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we’ll need the talent and resources of technology companies and nonprofits in order to get the best results most quickly. So for those of you in the room who have this kind of talent, expertise, please consider yourselves invited to help us.

    In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could already advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We’ll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we’ll work with the winners of the competition and provide grants to help build their ideas to scale.

    Now, these new initiatives will supplement a great deal of important work we’ve already done over this past year. In the service of our diplomatic and diplomacy objectives, I assembled a talented and experienced team to lead our 21st century statecraft efforts. This team has traveled the world helping governments and groups leverage the benefits of connection technologies. They have stood up a Civil Society 2.0 Initiative to help grassroots organizations enter the digital age. They are putting in place a program in Mexico to help combat drug-related violence by allowing people to make untracked reports to reliable sources to avoid having retribution visited against them. They brought mobile banking to Afghanistan and are now pursuing the same effort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Pakistan, they created the first-ever social mobile network, called Our Voice, that has already produced tens of millions of messages and connected young Pakistanis who want to stand up to violent extremism.

    In a short span, we have taken significant strides to translate the promise of these technologies into results that make a difference. But there is still so much more to be done. And as we work together with the private sector and foreign governments to deploy the tools of 21st century statecraft, we have to remember our shared responsibility to safeguard the freedoms that I’ve talked about today. We feel strongly that principles like information freedom aren’t just good policy, not just somehow connected to our national values, but they are universal and they’re also good for business.

    To use market terminology, a publicly listed company in Tunisia or Vietnam that operates in an environment of censorship will always trade at a discount relative to an identical firm in a free society. If corporate decision makers don’t have access to global sources of news and information, investors will have less confidence in their decisions over the long term. Countries that censor news and information must recognize that from an economic standpoint, there is no distinction between censoring political speech and commercial speech. If businesses in your nations are denied access to either type of information, it will inevitably impact on growth.

    Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend. The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent.

    The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it is fabulous. There are so many people in China now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century. Now, the United States and China have different views on this issue, and we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently in the context of our positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship.

    Now, ultimately, this issue isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It’s about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors.

    Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a foundation for global progress. Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it’s critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions.

    As it stands, Americans can consider information presented by foreign governments. We do not block your attempts to communicate with the people in the United States. But citizens in societies that practice censorship lack exposure to outside views. In North Korea, for example, the government has tried to completely isolate its citizens from outside opinions. This lopsided access to information increases both the likelihood of conflict and the probability that small disagreements could escalate. So I hope that responsible governments with an interest in global stability will work with us to address such imbalances.

    For companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground. It really comes down to the trust between firms and their customers. Consumers everywhere want to have confidence that the internet companies they rely on will provide comprehensive search results and act as responsible stewards of their own personal information. Firms that earn that confidence of those countries and basically provide that kind of service will prosper in the global marketplace. I really believe that those who lose that confidence of their customers will eventually lose customers. No matter where you live, people want to believe that what they put into the internet is not going to be used against them.

    And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.

    Now, we are reinvigorating the Global Internet Freedom Task Force as a forum for addressing threats to internet freedom around the world, and we are urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit.

    We’re also encouraged by the work that’s being done through the Global Network Initiative, a voluntary effort by technology companies who are working with nongovernmental organizations, academic experts, and social investment funds to respond to government requests for censorship. The initiative goes beyond mere statements of principles and establishes mechanisms to promote real accountability and transparency. As part of our commitment to support responsible private sector engagement on information freedom, the State Department will be convening a high-level meeting next month co-chaired by Under Secretaries Robert Hormats and Maria Otero to bring together firms that provide network services for talks about internet freedom, because we want to have a partnership in addressing this 21st century challenge.

    Now, pursuing the freedoms I’ve talked about today is, I believe, the right thing to do. But I also believe it’s the smart thing to do. By advancing this agenda, we align our principles, our economic goals, and our strategic priorities. We need to work toward a world in which access to networks and information brings people closer together and expands the definition of the global community. Given the magnitude of the challenges we’re facing, we need people around the world to pool their knowledge and creativity to help rebuild the global economy, to protect our environment, to defeat violent extremism, and build a future in which every human being can live up to and realize his or her God-given potential.

    So let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince. She’s alive, she was reunited with her family, she will have the chance to grow up because these networks took a voice that was buried and spread it to the world. No nation, no group, no individual should stay buried in the rubble of oppression. We cannot stand by while people are separated from the human family by walls of censorship. And we cannot be silent about these issues simply because we cannot hear the cries.

    So let us recommit ourselves to this cause. Let us make these technologies a force for real progress the world over. And let us go forward together to champion these freedoms for our time, for our young people who deserve every opportunity we can give them.

    Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

    MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, Madame Secretary. The Secretary has agreed to answer some questions. So if you would, there are going to be three microphones in the audience. If you would make your questions short, we’d appreciate it. And identify yourselves, please.
    Yes. Could you wait for the microphone?
    QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you talked about anonymity on line and how that’s something – oh, I’m sorry. I’m Robert (inaudible). I’m with Northern Virginia Community College. I’m sorry.
    STAFF: Could you hold the microphone up, please?
    QUESTION: Sorry.
    STAFF: Thank you.
    QUESTION: You talked about anonymity on line and how we have to prevent that. But you also talk about censorship by governments. And I’m struck by – having a veil of anonymity in certain situations is actually quite beneficial. So are you looking to strike a balance between that and this emphasis on censorship?
    SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely. I mean, this is one of the challenges we face. On the one hand, anonymity protects the exploitation of children. And on the other hand, anonymity protects the free expression of opposition to repressive governments. Anonymity allows the theft of intellectual property, but anonymity also permits people to come together in settings that gives them some basis for free expression without identifying themselves.
    None of this will be easy. I think that’s a fair statement. I think, as I said, we all have varying needs and rights and responsibilities. But I think these overriding principles should be our guiding light. We should err on the side of openness and do everything possible to create that, recognizing, as with any rule or any statement of principle, there are going to be exceptions.

    So how we go after this, I think, is now what we’re requesting many of you who are experts in this area to lend your help to us in doing. We need the guidance of technology experts. In my experience, most of them are younger than 40, but not all are younger than 40. And we need the companies that do this, and we need the dissident voices who have actually lived on the front lines so that we can try to work through the best way to make that balance you referred to.

    MODERATOR: Forty may be (inaudible).
    SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)
    MODERATOR: Right over here. Yes.
    QUESTION: Hi, my name is Courtney Radsch. I’m the Global Freedom of Expression officer at Freedom House. And I wanted to ask you – you spoke about business and relying on them to do the moral, right thing and not put profits first. But the goal of business is to make a profit. So what kind of teeth are going to be put into this? What role does the World Trade Organization play? And how are you going to encourage them to do the right thing?
    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I think this is one of the issues that we want to have a very vigorous discussion about. I know that asking business, which is in business to make a profit, to do the right thing is not always easily translated into practical practice. On the other hand, I think there is a broader context here. It’s – companies that don’t follow the sanitary and hygiene procedures of a prior generation pay a price for it. And government and business have to constantly be working together to make sure that the food and other products that end up on the shelves of consumers around the world are safe, because individual consumers in a global interconnected economy can’t possibly exercise that vigilance on their own.
    Similarly, when it comes to censorship, we believe that having an international effort to establish some rules over internet connectivity and trying to protect the basic freedoms I discussed is in the long-term interest of business, and frankly, I would argue, governments. I used the example from the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is very hard to keep information out. It was hard to keep it out at a prior age; it is even harder now. And trying to adjust to that, work with that, and learn from that about what could be done better is going to challenge every single government in the world.
    So I think business, as such a driver of economic growth globally, has to have that in mind, both when they go into countries and when they confront the kind of censorship that we’re hearing about around the world. It’s particularly acute for the technology companies, the media companies obviously, but it’s not in any way limited to them. Other companies are facing censorship as well. So this is an issue that we have to surface and we have to talk about and we have to try to find as much common ground and then keep claiming more common ground as we go forward.
    MODERATOR: We have a question way over here on the left.
    QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Aly Abuzaakouk. I’m the director of Libya Forum website, promoting democracy and human rights and civil society in Libya.
    We have been attacked and hacked many times. I would like Madame Secretary to tell me how can you help those voices which do not have, you know, the technology or the money to protect themselves, protect them against the hackers which are the silencers of voices from outside the countries which lacks freedom and freedom of expression.
    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is one of the issues that we are debating and we’re looking for ideas as to how we can answer it in a positive way. We would invite your participation. After I take the last question, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the Director of my Policy Planning unit inside the State Department and someone – the former dean of the Woodrow Wilson School who has written a lot about interconnectivity and how we have to begin to look at the world as the networked reality that it is, will be leading a discussion. And I hope some of you with ideas, suggestions, cautions, worries will stay and really get into an in-depth discussion about that.
    MODERATOR: Thank you. And right here in the mezzanine, right next to the microphone.
    QUESTION: Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang with BPSOS. We serve Vietnamese Americans and work with Vietnamese in Vietnam. While your initiative will take some time to take effect, just recently, in recent months, the Vietnamese Government sentenced several bloggers to five years all the way to 16 years in prison. So what does your office plan to do, and how the U.S. Government can confront such an emergency situation in Vietnam?
    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have publicly spoken out against the detention, conviction, and imprisonment of not only the bloggers in Vietnam, but some of the Buddhist monks and nuns and others who have been subjected to harassment.
    Vietnam has made so much progress, and it’s just moving with great alacrity into the future, raising the standard of living of their people. And we don’t believe they should be afraid of commentary that is internal. In fact, I would like to see more governments, if you disagree with what a blogger or a website is saying, get in and argue with them. Explain what it is you’re doing. Put out contrary information. Point out what the pitfalls are of the position that a blogger might be taking.
    So I hope that Vietnam will move more in that direction, because I think it goes hand in hand with the progress that we’ve seen in the last few years there.
    MODERATOR: Thank you. Up in the back.
    QUESTION: Nora von Ingersleben with the Association for Competitive Technology. Madame Secretary, you mentioned that U.S. companies have to do the right thing, not just what is good for their profits. But what if I am a U.S. company and I have a subsidiary in China and the Chinese Government is coming after my guys for information and, you know, we have resisted but now my guys have been taken to jail, my equipment is being hauled away. In that situation, what can the State Department do? Or what will the State Department do?
    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we obviously speak out on those individual cases. And we are, as I said, hoping to engage in a very candid and constructive conversation with the Chinese Government. We have had a positive year of very open discussions with our Chinese counterparts. I think we have established a foundation of understanding. We disagree on important issues with them. They disagree on important issues with us. They have our perspective; we have our perspective. But obviously, we want to encourage and support increasing openness in China because we believe it will further add to the dynamic growth and the democratization on the local level that we see occurring in China.
    So on individual cases, we continue to speak out. But on the broader set of issues, we hope to really have the kind of discussion that might lead to a better understanding and changes in the approach that is currently being taken.
    MODERATOR: Thank you.
    Up in the very back in the center, if you could come to the aisle so we can get a microphone to you, and then we’ll come back down here. Thank you.
    QUESTION: Imam Mohamed Magid from ADAMS Center in Virginia. My question for you, Madame Secretary: When you talk about social networking, we’re trying to address the issue of youth in the West, Muslim youth. Would you be open to the youth forum to speak about foreign policy? Because one of the reason that youth be radicalized, they don’t have a way to express themselves when they disagree with the United States Government or their own government overseas. Would you be open to those ideas?
    SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, we would. In fact, we – in the wake of the President’s speech in Cairo, we have been expanding dramatically our outreach, particularly to Muslim youth. I agree with you completely, sir, that not only young people in the Muslim world, but young people across the world are increasingly disconnected from authority, from government, from all kinds of institutions that have been historically the foundations of society, because they are so interconnected through the internet, something that my generation can’t really understand.
    In America, the average young person spends eight hours a day with media. The internet, cell phones, television – I mean, you think about that. Eight hours a day. That’s more time than they spend in school, that’s more time than they spend with their families. It’s often more time than they spend asleep.
    So when you think about the power of this information connection to young people, I don’t think it should cause panic in people my age. I don’t think we should begin trying to stop it and prevent it. We ought to figure out how better to utilize it. You go back to the millennia; how were values passed around? Sitting around a fire, how were values communicated? In the homes by parents and grandparents. Now, values are being communicated by the internet, and we cannot stop it.
    So let’s figure out how better to use it, participate in it, and particularly to focus on the needs of young people. They’re often looking for information. They’re looking for answers. At least until now, in most cultures that I’m aware of, despite all of the time that young people spend with technology, when they’re asked who do they look to for guidance about values, they still say their families. But if families increasingly feel disconnected from their highly connected young people and don’t know what their young people are doing online, then we see the problems that can result.
    And there are so many manipulators online right now, not just stoking the anxieties and the fears of Muslim youth, but youth everywhere, defined by all kinds of characteristics.
    So we have our own work to do, not just through our government but through our families, through our education systems, and every other institution to make sure we understand the power of this technology and to engage with young people through it and about it.
    MODERATOR: I see a lot of hands going up as you speak. Let’s try over here on the far right.
    Yes, the young lady there.
    QUESTION: Thank you very much, Madame Secretary. Bahgi Gilamichael with the Sullivan Foundation. And also, thank you for inviting us to apply for grants. Now I’m interested in knowing what are the procedures, what is the agency we need to deal with, and if you have someone in the room we can follow up with on that? Thank you so much.
    SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Well, in addition to our panel, we have a lot of the members of our team who are working on these initiatives, and we can certainly connect up. If we invited you, we know how to find you. So we will make sure you get information about all of these programs, the ones that already exist and the ones that we’re rolling out.
    MODERATOR: There’s no anonymity in this room. (Laughter.)
    We have actually time for one more question, but I really would encourage you to stay for the panel that Anne-Marie Slaughter will chair on connection technologies and diplomacy immediately following. And I’m sure some of the questions will get answered.
    So let’s do one last question over here on the far left, down below here. Can we get a mike? Thank you.
    QUESTION: Hello. Thank you so much. I appreciated your wonderful program speech. I’m Mary Perkins from Howard University, and at Howard University, we – very much interested in particular aspects of the internet with respect to the digital divide. Or – in your story about the young girl being pulled out of the rubble because of the text message she was able to send brings to mind – the question in my mind, how many others could have been saved had they had that technology?
    SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely.
    QUESTION: And so we’re very interested in knowing, in terms of access, the – not only internet freedom but free internet for all, the universal service aspect, and what can be done, particularly right now for Haiti, with this.
    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as – thank you for that. As you know, that is a continuing issue for us and for many countries around the world. We’re at 4 billion cell phones. And certainly, the cell phone is becoming the principal tool of communication, both through the applications that are on it, through the texting that it enables. And there are a lot of groups, NGOs, and even businesses that are passing out and providing cell phones at very low cost.

    We just have to keep incentivizing and encouraging the technology to be as low cost as possible so it can be as ubiquitous as possible.

    But I think we’ve made enormous progress. Ten years ago, we talked a lot about the digital divide even in our own country. We are overcoming it, but there are still questions of access, still questions of cost. Now, obviously, we have to recognize that a lot of the search engines are run by for-profit companies. They’re not – it’s not going to be free. But there are lots of ways of trying to encourage more universal access. And that’s part of the Obama Administration’s overall policy on technology, not just the diplomatic and development aspects of it.

    Thank you, Professor.

    MODERATOR: Thank you, Madame Secretary. Thank you very much.
    SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Alberto. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause)

  • Obama steps up focus on jobs: Valerie Jarrett releases job forum report

    WASHINGTON–President Obama visits Ohio on Friday as part of his throwing the spotlight on his administration job creation projects, with his plans expected to be highlighted in the Jan. 27 State of the Union address and his new budget. Meanwhile, White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett released a report on a jobs forum at the White House in December.

    In a note to the participants Jarrett wrote in an e-mail posted at whitehouse.gov, “As you can see, many of the ideas from the Forum informed his thinking, and some of them we have already put into action. You may also have heard that we broadened the efforts you initiated through Community Jobs Forums across the country involving more than 50 mayors, dozens of state legislators, and thousands of citizens – we’ll be completing the report based on their feedback in the coming weeks.

    “Moving forward, we are planning to continue the conversation through the President’s Cabinet, who remain heavily involved in this effort. Over the coming weeks, Cabinet officials will be reaching out to participants to schedule follow-up calls or meetings on specific ideas. As you have in the past, we hope that you will find time in your schedules to stay involved, and please keep us informed of your own job creation efforts and stories,’

    Obama has already led out the broad outlines of what is looking for in a jobs plan: more small business investment and access to credit so more workers can be hired: more money on big transportation infrastructure job-generating projects and creation of jobs through weatherization subsidies and grants to spur the “green” industry and employment.

  • Michelle Obama visits the Commerce Department: “The focus of this administration has always been but it really will be in this year on job creation”

    THE WHITE HOUSE

    Office of the First Lady
    ___________________________________________________________
    For Immediate Release January 21, 2010

    REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY
    DURING DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE VISIT

    U.S. Department of Commerce
    Washington, D.C.

    2:44 P.M. EST

    MRS. OBAMA: Hey! (Applause.) All right, so who would have thought that the Department of Commerce was so happening? (Laughter.) You guys are alive. There’s energy here. Thank you. I am thrilled to be here. It is exciting for me to come and see you. I’ve been planning to come for a little bit, but now I’m here.

    I want to thank your dear Secretary, Secretary Locke, for that kind introduction and for his outstanding work for this Department. And I want to take this moment to wish him a happy birthday, yes — (applause) — as a fellow Capricorn, right — (laughter) — that’s what you are, that’s what it is, yes. And he doesn’t look a day over 30, 35, right? (Laughter and applause.) Whatever the number, my husband and I wish you a happy birthday, and we are so proud of the work that you’re doing here at the Department of Commerce.

    You didn’t exactly start this job at a quiet time for the agency, right? From the economic challenges that we face, to the challenge of conducting our census, which I know many of you are involved in — let’s hear it for the census people — (applause) — I think that it’s fair to say that your Secretary has had a pretty busy year. But he’s risen to the occasion, leading by example, calling on more than 50,000 employees of this Department to give their jobs everything they’ve got. And it feels like, in here, that you all are doing just that. Am I right? (Applause.)

    And all of you, and your colleagues all across this city, the nation, across the world, quite frankly — and I know some of them are watching — you all have answered the call, and we’re proud of you.

    Some of you have been here for decades now — (laughter) — as we just heard, like these folks on stage, who are some of the longest serving employees here. I’m always excited to meet people who have worked at a place longer than I’ve been alive. (Laughter.) So that’s a good thing. And they look wonderful. (Applause.)

    And then there are others of you who may have started just this year in this administration, so we want to give the newbies a shout-out. (Applause.) Take a look onstage with responsibility, dedication, focus. This could be you. (Laughter.) Don’t laugh. It’s a job, right? (Laughter.) But we welcome you all.

    But I know that all of you are working, and working hard every day for the American people, and I’m here to do what I love doing most, and that is to say thank you to all of you for the work that you’re doing. This is something that I’ve been doing for an entire year now as First Lady, one of the many things, is coming to the agencies and thanking you for your work and your service, because a lot of times we forget that behind all the news headlines and the reports, there are people who are making sacrifices and working long hours and sometimes not feeling appreciated at all. And it’s been a wonderful part of my job to be a representative from the White House to tell you how much we value your work and your sacrifice over the years.

    But it’s been substantively useful for me, as well, coming here, listening, learning, getting a better understanding of what happens at each agency, using the spotlight to share with the rest of the country all that you do.

    So I’m pleased to have the chance to be here today at this Department to make one more stop, because what you all do to spur innovation, support America’s businesses, and keep our economy competitive is so very important. It’s important at any time, but it is particularly critical during the tough economic times that this nation is facing right now.

    And we know that there are a lot of families out there who are struggling. Some of you are struggling right here. You know people in your communities and your families and your churches who are struggling. We know that a lot of young people are worried about whether they’ll have the opportunities that they need to build their own careers, and make a life of their own, and to provide for their families, and to build their future dreams.

    But we also know this — that in difficult times like these, we have always as a nation come together, always. And as my husband says, these are not the most difficult times by far in this nation. In these times, we come together and we overcome and we’re able to face these challenges. And we have what it takes to do that again today. I’m sure of it.

    Right now, there are scientists and innovators who are working around the clock. You know them. You’re supporting them. They’re chasing the breakthroughs and the discoveries that are going to change the way we live and work from this point forward.

    There are entrepreneurs in garages and basements and college dorm rooms who are brainstorming late into the night about how they’re going to turn that good idea into a viable business.

    Workers across this country are pouring themselves into their jobs every single day, determined to offer the best products and services on the planet. That is the nation that we live in.

    And that’s where all of you come in, all of you here in this Department, because CEOs don’t just flip a coin to decide whether to set up shop here in America or overseas. You know that. Products don’t just sell themselves. And businesses don’t succeed by accident.

    These things happen in part when companies have the right conditions for growth and the right markets for their goods and the kind of support they need to get off the ground in the first place and keep growing and expanding.

    And that’s the kind of assistance that all of you do to support and provide these businesses with the opportunities they need — helping people protect their ideas and to make their businesses more productive; opening new markets for their products, and connecting them with resources and customers around the world. And that’s what it’s going to take for us to create new jobs and promote new prosperity.

    And it’s important for America to know how important this Department is in making all of that happen. And that is the real human story behind the work that you do.

    Again, it’s important for America to understand that connection — how every innovation that you spur here, every business you help, every dream that you nurture means a livelihood for another family out there somewhere; a source of income for another community; it means another building block for our economy.

    And you all aren’t just helping create jobs today. This isn’t just about right now. Your work doesn’t just strengthen our economy this year or this decade. You are laying the foundation for our economic prosperity for generations to come. You’re going to be helping my girls by connecting underserved communities to the Internet, for example; driving innovation in everything from nanotechnology to cyber security. I hear that you’re even fast-tracking patents for inventions that promote clean energy, something that my husband has talked about since the day he took the oath of office.

    And all of this speaks to the broader mission of this Department — again, something that people don’t know that you’re here doing. It’s the mission at the heart of the NOAA’s work — can I hear it from NOAA? — (applause) — to protect our oceans and our environments.

    It’s the mission of the Census Bureau’s work — yes, again for the Census Bureau — (applause) — to ensure that everyone is counted so that our government can truly serve all our people.

    And I learned that you have even hit the road with your Portrait of America Road Tour, which is really fascinating, covering more than 150,000 miles to encourage people across the country to participate in the census. What a wonderful idea to encourage people to engage, to paint that picture of why the census is so critical.

    In the end, everything that you do here at the Department of Commerce is in service of a common purpose, and that is to protect and promote what’s best about this nation — the industry and the ingenuity of all the people who live in this country; the vitality of our national resources; the success of our democracy.

    And for all of that, we should honor you and thank you. We’re very proud of you. And this year is going to be even more important. The focus of this administration has always been but it really will be in this year on job creation, because, again, people are hurting. So what you all will be doing over the next year, everything you do, will mean something to someone in this country.

    So we want to make sure that you feel good as we enter this new year, that you feel ready, that you feel inspired, and you feel passionate and engaged. (Applause.) And we look forward to working with you in the years to months to come. I’m going to be back. (Applause.)

    So thank you all again, and I’ll come out and shake some hands. Good luck with the year. (Applause.)

    END 2:54 P.M. EST

  • 2010 Census kicks off next week in Alaska

    WASHINGTON–The 2010 Census kicks off next week in Alaska. Most of us will get census forms in March. Census expert D’Vera Cohn keeps tabs on the count over at her new Pew Research Center blog, “All Things Census.”

  • President Obama official schedule and guidance, Jan. 22, 2010. To Ohio

    THE WHITE HOUSE

    Office of the Press Secretary

    _______________________________________________________________________________________

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    January 21, 2010

    DAILY GUIDANCE AND PRESS SCHEDULE FOR

    FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010

    In the morning, the President will travel to Lorain County, Ohio for the second stop on the White House to Main Street Tour. The departure from the South Lawn and the arrival at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport are open press.

    The President will tour the Wind Turbine Manufacturing and Fab Lab facilities at Lorain County Community College in Elyria. There will be travel pool coverage. The President will then hold a town hall meeting at Lorain County Community College, where he will discuss ways to grow the economy and put Americans back to work. This event is open press.

    During the visit, President Obama will make stops at local businesses in the Lorain County area to speak to Ohio workers and families about the challenges they are facing and their ideas for how we can rebuild the economy for the long term.. There will be travel pool coverage.

    The President will return to Washington, DC in the evening. The departure from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and the arrival at the White House are open press.

    In-Town Travel Pool

    Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg

    Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP

    TV Corr & Crew: CBS

    Print: The Hill

    Radio: AP

    Travel Photo: TIME

    Out-of-Town Travel Pool

    Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg

    Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP

    TV Corr & Crew: CBS

    Print: AFP

    Travel Photo: New York Times

    EST

    8:45AM In-Town Travel Pool Call Time

    9:35AM THE PRESIDENT departs The White House en route Andrews Air Force Base

    South Lawn

    Open Press (Pre-set 9:05AM – Final Gather 9:20AM – North Doors of the Palm Room)

    9:50AM THE PRESIDENT departs Andrews Air Force Base en route Cleveland, Ohio

    Out-of-Town Travel Pool (Call Time 8:35AM – Virginia Gate, Andrews Air Force Base)

    11:00AM THE PRESIDENT arrives in Cleveland, Ohio

    Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

    Open Press

    1:20PM THE PRESIDENT tours Wind Turbine Manufacturing and Fab Lab facilities

    Lorain County Community College, Elyria

    Travel Pool Coverage

    2:05PM THE PRESIDENT holds town hall meeting

    Lorain County Community College, Elyria

    Open Press

    4:55PM THE PRESIDENT departs Cleveland, Ohio en route Andrews Air Force Base

    Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

    Open Press

    6:00PM THE PRESIDENT arrives at Andrews Air Force Base

    Out-of-Town Travel Pool

    6:15PM THE PRESIDENT arrives at The White House

    South Lawn

    Open Press (Pre-set 5:45PM – Final Gather 6:00PM – North Doors of the Palm Room)

    Briefing Schedule

    Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton will gaggle aboard Air Force One

    ##

  • Two Guantanamo detainees transferred to Algeria; 196 remain

    Below, Justice Department release…..

    UNITED STATES TRANSFERS TWO GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES TO ALGERIA

    WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice today announced that two Algerian detainees, Hasan Zemiri and Adil Hadi al Jazairi Bin Hamlili, have been transferred from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to the custody and control of the Government of Algeria.

    As directed by the President’s Jan. 22, 2009 Executive Order, the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of these cases. As a result of that review, which examined a number of factors, including the potential threat posed by each individual and the receiving country’s demonstrated capabilities to mitigate potential threats posed by the individuals in their home country, each detainee was approved for transfer. The transfers were approved by unanimous consent among all the agencies involved in the review — including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Departments of Defense, State, Justice and Homeland Security.

    In accordance with Congressionally-mandated reporting requirements, the Administration informed Congress of its intent to transfer these detainees at least 15 days before their transfer. These transfers were carried out under an arrangement between the United States and the Government of Algeria. The United States coordinated with the Government of Algeria to ensure the transfers took place under appropriate security measures.

    Since 2002, more than 570 detainees have departed Guantanamo Bay for other destinations, including Albania, Algeria, Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belgium, Bermuda, Chad, Denmark, Egypt, France, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Palau, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom and Yemen.

    Eight detainees were transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Algeria under the previous Administration. Today, 196 detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay.

    ###

  • Obama on financial reform. Transcript

    THE WHITE HOUSE
    Office of the Press Secretary
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________
    For Immediate Release January 21, 2010

    REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
    ON FINANCIAL REFORM

    Diplomatic Reception Room

    11:34 A.M. EST

    THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. I just had a very productive meeting with two members of my Economic Recovery Advisory Board: Paul Volcker, who’s the former chair of the Federal Reserve Board; and Bill Donaldson, previously the head of the SEC. And I deeply appreciate the counsel of these two leaders and the board that they’ve offered as we have dealt with a broad array of very difficult economic challenges.

    Over the past two years, more than seven million Americans have lost their jobs in the deepest recession our country has known in generations. Rarely does a day go by that I don’t hear from folks who are hurting. And every day, we are working to put our economy back on track and put America back to work. But even as we dig our way out of this deep hole, it’s important that we not lose sight of what led us into this mess in the first place.

    This economic crisis began as a financial crisis, when banks and financial institutions took huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses. When the dust settled, and this binge of irresponsibility was over, several of the world’s oldest and largest financial institutions had collapsed, or were on the verge of doing so. Markets plummeted, credit dried up, and jobs were vanishing by the hundreds of thousands each month. We were on the precipice of a second Great Depression.

    To avoid this calamity, the American people — who were already struggling in their own right — were forced to rescue financial firms facing crises largely of their own creation. And that rescue, undertaken by the previous administration, was deeply offensive but it was a necessary thing to do, and it succeeded in stabilizing the financial system and helping to avert that depression.

    Since that time, over the past year, my administration has recovered most of what the federal government provided to banks. And last week, I proposed a fee to be paid by the largest financial firms in order to recover every last dime. But that’s not all we have to do. We have to enact common-sense reforms that will protect American taxpayers — and the American economy — from future crises as well.

    For while the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it’s still operating under the same rules that led to its near collapse. These are rules that allowed firms to act contrary to the interests of customers; to conceal their exposure to debt through complex financial dealings; to benefit from taxpayer-insured deposits while making speculative investments; and to take on risks so vast that they posed threats to the entire system.

    That’s why we are seeking reforms to protect consumers; we intend to close loopholes that allowed big financial firms to trade risky financial products like credit defaults swaps and other derivatives without oversight; to identify system-wide risks that could cause a meltdown; to strengthen capital and liquidity requirements to make the system more stable; and to ensure that the failure of any large firm does not take the entire economy down with it. Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is “too big to fail.”

    Now, limits on the risks major financial firms can take are central to the reforms that I’ve proposed. They are central to the legislation that has passed the House under the leadership of Chairman Barney Frank, and that we’re working to pass in the Senate under the leadership of Chairman Chris Dodd. As part of these efforts, today I’m proposing two additional reforms that I believe will strengthen the financial system while preventing future crises.

    First, we should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers. In recent years, too many financial firms have put taxpayer money at risk by operating hedge funds and private equity funds and making riskier investments to reap a quick reward. And these firms have taken these risks while benefiting from special financial privileges that are reserved only for banks.

    Our government provides deposit insurance and other safeguards and guarantees to firms that operate banks. We do so because a stable and reliable banking system promotes sustained growth, and because we learned how dangerous the failure of that system can be during the Great Depression.

    But these privileges were not created to bestow banks operating hedge funds or private equity funds with an unfair advantage. When banks benefit from the safety net that taxpayers provide — which includes lower-cost capital — it is not appropriate for them to turn around and use that cheap money to trade for profit. And that is especially true when this kind of trading often puts banks in direct conflict with their customers’ interests.

    The fact is, these kinds of trading operations can create enormous and costly risks, endangering the entire bank if things go wrong. We simply cannot accept a system in which hedge funds or private equity firms inside banks can place huge, risky bets that are subsidized by taxpayers and that could pose a conflict of interest. And we cannot accept a system in which shareholders make money on these operations if the bank wins but taxpayers foot the bill if the bank loses.

    It’s for these reasons that I’m proposing a simple and common-sense reform, which we’re calling the “Volcker Rule” — after this tall guy behind me. Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. If financial firms want to trade for profit, that’s something they’re free to do. Indeed, doing so — responsibly — is a good thing for the markets and the economy. But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.

    In addition, as part of our efforts to protect against future crises, I’m also proposing that we prevent the further consolidation of our financial system. There has long been a deposit cap in place to guard against too much risk being concentrated in a single bank. The same principle should apply to wider forms of funding employed by large financial institutions in today’s economy. The American people will not be served by a financial system that comprises just a few massive firms. That’s not good for consumers; it’s not good for the economy. And through this policy, that is an outcome we will avoid.

    My message to members of Congress of both parties is that we have to get this done. And my message to leaders of the financial industry is to work with us, and not against us, on needed reforms. I welcome constructive input from folks in the financial sector. But what we’ve seen so far, in recent weeks, is an army of industry lobbyists from Wall Street descending on Capitol Hill to try and block basic and common-sense rules of the road that would protect our economy and the American people.

    So if these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have. And my resolve is only strengthened when I see a return to old practices at some of the very firms fighting reform; and when I see soaring profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms claiming that they can’t lend more to small business, they can’t keep credit card rates low, they can’t pay a fee to refund taxpayers for the bailout without passing on the cost to shareholders or customers — that’s the claims they’re making. It’s exactly this kind of irresponsibility that makes clear reform is necessary.

    We’ve come through a terrible crisis. The American people have paid a very high price. We simply cannot return to business as usual. That’s why we’re going to ensure that Wall Street pays back the American people for the bailout. That’s why we’re going to rein in the excess and abuse that nearly brought down our financial system. That’s why we’re going to pass these reforms into law.

    Thank you very much, everybody.

    END 11:42 A.M. EST

  • Supreme Court eases federal ban on corporate campaign donations

    WASHINGTON–The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday opened the door to federal corporate political donations. “Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the
    addition of this speech to the public debate,” said the majority in the opinion. Read the entire decision here.

  • Daley rallies mayors to urge Supreme Court to uphold Chicago handgun ban

    mayor daley, nutter newsome.jpeg Mayor Daley flanked by Philadelphia Mayor Nutter (L) and San Francisco Mayor Newsom (photo by Lynn Sweet)

    mayor daley evanston.jpeg Mayor Daley and Evanston Mayor Tisdahl, left in white jacket (photo by Lynn Sweet)

    WASHINGTON–Mayor Daley revved up a coalition of mayors on Thursday to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Chicago’s handgun ordinance in the wake of the National Rifle Association challenge to be argued on March 2.

    “For many years, the City of Chicago has had strong handgun laws in place.

The gun industry’s challenge to our handgun laws has already been dismissed by two federal courts and now they have taken their case to the US Supreme Court,” Daley said at a press conference at the U.S. Conference of mayors. Daley was flanked by about 20 mayors who filed friend of the court briefs supporting the Chicago ban, including Evanston Mayor Elizabeth Tisdahl, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

    “This summer, the Court will decide whether Chicago’s guns laws are constitutional. The case could affect or open the door to countless — and needless — legal challenges to local and state gun laws across the country. Today, we stand here on behalf of the people of Chicago and the United States who have been victims of gun violence, on behalf of their families and loved ones and on behalf of all those who believe Chicago’s current gun law is constitutional,” Daley said.

    Daley added later, “America rose up about smoking…why can’t we have America rise up against gun violence?”

    “This is about real leadership, standing up to the National Rifle Association,” Daley said.

    “He’s been right on this issue for many years,” said Tisdahl. “I believe we have the right to determine what will keep our young people safe.”

    Newsom said mayors have enormous responsibility and “self-determination should be afforded those who are accountable for the people they represent.”

    Nutter said, “There is no reason to have an m-16 in an urban environment/. The NRA is out of control.”

    Below, text of Mayor Daley’s remarks on the National Rifle Association challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban, delivered at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, followed by briefing sheet on friend of the court filings and lists of other supporters of the Chicago and Oak Park handgun bans. UPDATED.Backgrounder on Evanston….

    Gun violence across America is a national disgrace.

    In one year on average, more than 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun.

    Americans of all backgrounds and from every part of our nation — big cities and small, urban and rural — needlessly lose their lives because guns are too easily available in our society.

    On college campuses, in malls, on our streets and in homes across our nation, gun violence has tragically ended the lives of people who were just going about their everyday lives.

    The victims are our mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters — and our children.

    Last year, 82 percent of Chicago’s homicides were committed with a gun.

    Just this week in Virginia eight people were killed by gun violence, the worst mass shooting there since Virginia Tech in 2007.

    Gun violence challenges the s