On Thursday, March 25, 2010 the President signed into law:
H.R. 3433, which amends the North American Wetlands Conservation Act to allow up to 50 percent of the required non-federal match for wetlands conservation projects in Canada to be comprised of funds from Canadian sources.
On Friday, March 26, 2010, the President signed into law:
H.R. 4938, which extends temporary authority under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to guarantee up to 90 percent of loans in the Small Business Administration’s section 7(a) Loan Program through April 30, 2010; and permits the use of previously appropriated funds to cover the costs of temporary fee reductions and eliminations and of increased guarantees authorized under ARRA for specified Small Business Administration loan programs;
S. 3186, the “Satellite Television Extension Act of 2010,” which extends though 4/30/10, authorities for the retransmission of television broadcasts by satellite television providers.
WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key administration posts:
Steve A. Linick, Inspector General, Federal Housing Finance AgencyThomas Hicks, Commissioner, Election Assistance CommissionPresident Obama said, “The expertise and commitment to public service these individuals bring to their roles will make them tremendous assets to my administration. I look forward to working with them in the coming months and years.”
President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key administration posts:
Steve A. Linick, Nominee for Inspector General, Federal Housing Finance Agency
Steve A. Linick is a career Federal prosecutor who currently serves in dual roles as the Executive Director of the National Procurement Fraud Task Force at the Department of Justice, and the Deputy Chief of the Fraud Section, Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. As Deputy Chief, Mr. Linick manages and supervises the investigation and prosecution of white-collar criminal cases involving procurement fraud, public corruption, corporate fraud, telemarketing fraud, mortgage fraud, and money laundering, among others. In addition, Mr. Linick is the primary point of contact at the Department for contract fraud cases relating to the wars and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In October 2008, Mr. Linick received the Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award for his efforts in leading the Department’s procurement fraud initiative. Previously, Mr. Linick was an Assistant United States Attorney, first in the Central District of California (1994-1999), and then subsequently in the Eastern District of Virginia (1999-2006). Between 2004 and 2006, Linick was Deputy Chief of the Fraud Unit in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Before joining the federal government, Mr. Linick was an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia from 1992 to 1994, and an associate at Newman & Holtzinger in Washington, D.C. from 1990 to 1992. Linick holds a J.D. (1990), a M.A. in Philosophy (1990), and a B.A. in Philosophy (1985), all from Georgetown University.
Thomas Hicks, Nominee for Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission
Thomas Hicks has been the Senior Elections Counsel on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration since 2003 where he oversees all Committee matters relating to Federal elections and campaign finance. Prior to that, he was a Policy Analyst for Common Cause, a non-profit, public advocacy organization working in support of election and campaign finance reform. He also previously served as a Special Assistant in the Office of Congressional Relations at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. He received his J.D. from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law and his B.A. in Government from Clark University (Worcester, MA).
In a phone call this morning, President Obama and President Medvedev agreed to meet in Prague, the Czech Republic, on Thursday, April 8, to sign the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures to Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (the “New START Treaty”).
This landmark agreement advances the security of both nations, and reaffirms American and Russian leadership on behalf of nuclear security and global non-proliferation. This was the 14th direct meeting or phone call between the Presidents addressing New START, and represents their shared commitment to “reset” U.S.-Russia relations so that we cooperate substantively and effectively on issues of mutual interest along many dimensions.
The new Treaty will contain limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear forces significantly below the levels established by the START treaty signed in 1991, and the Moscow Treaty signed in 2002. The new START Treaty will specify limits of:
1,550 deployed warheads, which is about 30% lower than the upper warhead limit of the Moscow Treaty;800 deployed and non-deployed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons; and700 for deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons. The New START treaty’s verification regime will provide the ability to monitor all aspects of the Treaty. At the same time, the inspections and other verification procedures in this Treaty will be simpler and less costly to implement than the old START treaty. In part, this is possible due to the experience and knowledge gained from 15 years of START implementation.
The Presidents agreed that the new Treaty demonstrates the continuing commitment of the United States and Russia – the world’s two largest nuclear powers – to reduce their nuclear arsenals consistent with their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Such actions invigorate our mutual efforts to strengthen the international non-proliferation regime and convince other countries to help curb proliferation.
As articulated by President Obama in his Prague speech one year ago, this Treaty is one of a series of concrete steps the United States will take to reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons and to set the stage for further reductions in global nuclear stockpiles and materials.
Treaty Structure: The New START Treaty is organized in three tiers of increasing level of detail. The first tier is the Treaty text itself. The second tier consists of a Protocol to the Treaty, which contains additional rights and obligations associated with Treaty provisions. The basic rights and obligations are contained in these two documents. The third tier consists of Technical Annexes to the Protocol. All three tiers will be legally binding. The Protocol and Annexes will be integral parts of the Treaty and thus submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.
Strategic Offensive Reductions: Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force. Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty. These limits are based on a rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
Aggregate limits:
1,550 warheads. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit.This limit is 74% lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty. A combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.A separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. This limit is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit of the START Treaty.Verification and Transparency: The Treaty has a verification regime that combines the appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty with new elements tailored to the limitations of the Treaty. Measures under the Treaty include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the Treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the Treaty also provides for the exchange of telemetry.
Treaty Terms: The Treaty’s duration will be ten years, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement. The Parties may agree to extend the Treaty for a period of no more than five years. The Treaty includes a withdrawal clause that is standard in arms control agreements. The 2002 Moscow Treaty terminates upon entry into force of the New START Treaty. The U.S. Senate and the Russian legislature must approve the Treaty before it can enter into force.
No Constraints on Missile Defense and Conventional Strike: The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities.
10:47 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. I just concluded a productive phone call with President Medvedev. And I’m pleased to announce that after a year of intense negotiations, the United States and Russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades.
Since taking office, one of my highest priorities has been addressing the threat posed by nuclear weapons to the American people. And that’s why, last April in Prague, I stated America’s intention to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, a goal that’s been embraced by Presidents like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
While this aspiration will not be reached in the near future, I put forward a comprehensive agenda to pursue it — to stop the spread of these weapons; to secure vulnerable nuclear materials from terrorists; and to reduce nuclear arsenals. A fundamental part of that effort was the negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.
Furthermore, since I took office, I’ve been committed to a “reset” of our relationship with Russia. When the United States and Russia can cooperate effectively, it advances the mutual interests of our two nations, and the security and prosperity of the wider world. We’ve so far already worked together on Afghanistan. We’ve coordinated our economic efforts through the G20. We are working together to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations. And today, we have reached agreement on one of my administration’s top national security priorities — a pivotal new arms control agreement.
In many ways, nuclear weapons represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time. Today, we’ve taken another step forward by — in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future for our children. We’ve turned words into action. We’ve made progress that is clear and concrete. And we’ve demonstrated the importance of American leadership — and American partnership — on behalf of our own security, and the world’s.
Broadly speaking, the new START treaty makes progress in several areas. It cuts — by about a third — the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy. It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies.
With this agreement, the United States and Russia — the two largest nuclear powers in the world — also send a clear signal that we intend to lead. By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities.
I’m pleased that almost one year to the day after my last trip to Prague, the Czech Republic — a close friend and ally of the United States — has agreed to host President Medvedev and me on April 8th, as we sign this historic treaty. The following week, I look forward to hosting leaders from over 40 nations here in Washington, as we convene a summit to address how we can secure vulnerable nuclear materials so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. And later this spring, the world will come together in New York to discuss how we can build on this progress, and continue to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime.
Through all these efforts, cooperation between the United States and Russia will be essential. I want to thank President Medvedev for his personal and sustained leadership as we worked through this agreement. We’ve had the opportunity to meet many times over the last year, and we both agree that we can serve the interests of our people through close cooperation.
I also want to thank my national security team, who did so much work to make this day possible. That includes the leaders with me here today — Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen. And it includes a tireless negotiating team. It took patience. It took perseverance. But we never gave up. And as a result, the United States will be more secure, and the American people will be safer.
Finally, I look forward to continuing to work closely with Congress in the months ahead. There is a long tradition of bipartisan leadership on arms control. Presidents of both parties have recognized the necessity of securing and reducing these weapons. Statesmen like George Shultz, Sam Nunn, Henry Kissinger, and Bill Perry have been outspoken in their support of more assertive action. Earlier this week, I met with my friends John Kerry and Dick Lugar to discuss this treaty, and throughout the morning, my administration will be consulting senators — my administration will be consulting senators from both parties as we prepare for what I hope will be a strong, bipartisan support to ratify the new START treaty.
With that, I’m going to leave you in the able hands of my Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, as well as Secretary of Defense Gates and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen. So I want to thank all of you for your attention.
Hillary.
END
10:53 A.M. EDT
10:53 A.M. EDT
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you all very much. This is a good day for America and our security. And as President Obama just reiterated, it is one of the highest priorities of the Obama administration to pursue an agenda to reduce the threat posed by the deadliest weapons the world has ever known. President Obama set that forth in his speech at Prague last year. And today, he and President Medvedev reached an agreement to make significant and verifiable reductions in our nuclear arsenals.
Long after the Cold War’s end, the United States and Russia still possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. We do not need such large arsenals to protect our nation and our allies against the two greatest dangers we face today: nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
This treaty represents a significant step forward in our cooperation with Russia. We were committed from the beginning to reset the U.S.-Russia relationship, because we saw it as essential to making progress on our top priorities — from counterterrorism, to nuclear security and non-proliferation.
Now, we will continue to have disagreements with our Russian friends. But this treaty is an example of deep and substantive cooperation on a matter of vital importance. And more broadly, it shows that patient, principled diplomacy can advance our national interests by producing real results, in this case results that are good for us, good for Russia, and good for global security and stability.
The treaty also shows the world — particularly states like Iran and North Korea — that one of our top priorities is to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime and keep nuclear materials out of the wrong hands. The new START treaty demonstrates our commitment to making progress toward disarmament under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the so-called NPT.
So as we uphold our commitments and strengthen the NPT, we can hold others accountable to do the same. I know that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen will say more about the details of the treaty, but I want to make clear that we have adhered to the Russian proverb that President Reagan frequently employed, “trust, but verify.” Verification provides the transparency and builds the trust needed to reduce the chance for misunderstandings and miscalculations.
President Obama insisted on a whole of government effort to reach this result, and that’s exactly what this was. He and President Medvedev met several times and spoke often by phone. Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Jones worked closely with their Russian counterparts. Foreign Minister Lavrov and I met in person, most recently last week in Moscow, and we spoke on the phone too many times to count. Assistant Secretary Rose Gottemoeller worked tirelessly in Geneva for many months as our chief negotiator. Under Secretary Ellen Tauscher, who is here with us, joined her at a crucial time to help complete the agreement, assisted very ably by our State Department expert team, including Jim Timby. Teams of people at the State Department, the White House, DOD, elsewhere worked tirelessly to make this happen.
Let me conclude by saying that I look forward to working with my former colleagues in the Senate. They will be our partners in this enterprise. I know President Obama had an excellent meeting, as he reported to you, with both Senators Kerry and Lugar. And Rose, Ellen and General Jones and others of us have briefed members along the way. I look forward to working toward ratification to bring this treaty into force.
Now it’s my great pleasure and honor to turn the podium over to my friend, Secretary Bob Gates.
SECRETARY GATES: This treaty strengthens nuclear stability. It will reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons that both Russia and the United States are permitted to deploy by a third, and maintains an effective verification regime.
America’s nuclear arsenal remains an important pillar of the U.S. defense posture, both to deter potential adversaries and to reassure more than two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security.
But it is clear that we can accomplish these goals with fewer nuclear weapons. The reductions in this treaty will not affect the strength of our nuclear triad. Nor does this treaty limit plans to protect the United States and our allies by improving and deploying missile defense systems.
Much of the analysis that supported the U.S. negotiating position was provided by the Defense Department’s nuclear posture review, which will be released shortly.
As the number of weapons declines we will have to invest more heavily in our nuclear infrastructure in order to keep our weapons safe, secure and effective.
I look forward to working with the Congress to make sure that Departments of Defense and Energy have the funding necessary to properly accomplish this mission.
The subject of America’s nuclear deterrent and this treaty carries special personal meaning for me. My professional career began as a junior Air Force Officer under the Strategic Air Command, and my first assignment 43 years ago was at Whiteman Air Force Base, then home to 150 Minuteman ICBMs. Since 1971, I have been involved in strategic arms negotiations in different capacities at CIA and here at the NSC. And I particularly recall the day President Reagan signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Treaty, which marked the transition from arms control to disarmament. That process accelerated with START and reaches another important milestone with this treaty.
The journey we have taken from being one misstep away from mutual assured destruction to the substantial arms reductions of this new agreement is testimony to just how much the world has changed and all of the opportunities we still have to make our planet safer and more secure.
Admiral Mullen.
ADMIRAL MULLEN: Good morning, everyone. I would only like to add that I, the Vice Chairman, and the Joint Chiefs, as well as our combatant commanders around the world, stand solidly behind this new treaty, having had the opportunity to provide our counsel, to make our recommendations, and to help shape the final agreements.
We greatly appreciate the trust and confidence placed by us — placed in us by the President and by Secretary Gates throughout this process. And we recognize the trust and confidence this treaty helps foster in our relationship with Russia’s military — a trust complementary to that which the President has sought to achieve between our two countries.
Indeed, I met with my Russian counterpart, General Makarov, no fewer than three times during the negotiation process. And each time we met, we grew closer not only toward our portion of the final result, but also toward a better understanding of the common challenges and opportunities our troops face every single day.
The new START deals directly with some of the most lethal of those common challenges — our stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons — by dramatically reducing these stockpiles. This treaty achieves a proper balance more in keeping with today’s security environment, reducing tensions even as it bolsters non-proliferation efforts. It features a much more effective, transparent verification method that demands quicker data exchanges and notifications. It protects our ability to develop a conventional global strike capability should that be required. And perhaps more critically, it allows us to deploy and maintain strategic nuclear forces — bombers, submarines, missiles; the triad which has proven itself over the decades — in ways best suited to meeting our security commitments.
In other words, through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States. I am as confident in its success as I am in its safeguards.
Thank you.
MR. GIBBS: All right, guys. We’re going to take three or four questions here and then let these guys get back to work.
Yes, sir.
Q Quickly for Secretary Clinton, how confident are you of early ratification in the Senate? And if I may ask, Secretary Gates, you mentioned no limits on missile defense. Do you foresee, in the future, engaging with Russia more broadly in any kind of limitations on U.S. missile defense?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Bob, let me say that we are focused on ratification. We’re working hard. We’re going to engage deeply and broadly with all of the members of the Senate. And we’re also informing members of the House as well. I’m not going to set any timetables, but we’re confident that we’ll be able to make the case for ratification.
In fact, I think if you look at the last three major nuclear arms treaties, the SORT Treaty of 2003, 95-0; START I Treaty, 1992, 93-6; the INF Treaty, 1988, 93-5. So I think when it comes to the goals of this treaty, and as both Bob and Mike outlined the great balance that it strikes — there should be very broad bipartisan support.
SECRETARY GATES: I would say that we will continue to try and engage the Russians as partners in this process. One of the technical benefits of the phased adaptive approach that the President announced last year is that it actually makes it easier to connect the Russian radars and capabilities to those in Europe. So we think that there’s still broad opportunity to not only engage the Russians, but hopefully make them a participant in a European-wide defense capability.
MR. GIBBS: Jeff.
Q Thank you. For Secretary Clinton, first of all, do you believe these reductions are enough? And, second, could you expand a little bit more on what this means for the U.S.-Russia relationship? Is the reset complete?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jeff, I think that this was, in and of itself a major achievement in our relationship. And equally importantly, it builds to that foundation of trust and confidence that we are establishing between the United States and Russia. This is a very complex relationship, and it’s one that we have given a great deal of attention to from the President all the way through the national security team, because we believe that there are so many other areas of mutual cooperation that we can pursue.
Bob mentioned one: We continue to look for ways to engage with Russia on missile defense in a way that is mutually beneficial and protective of our country’s security against these new threats we face in the world.
But our relationship coming out of the bi-national commission that President Obama and President Medvedev announced last summer has covered so much ground. And we’d be glad to give you all an in-depth briefing on that because I think it demonstrates that we’re not just talking about the big ticket items — like START, like Iran sanctions, like European security, like missile defense — we’re back in the business of trying to create more people-to-people contacts and more business investment opportunities. So we are very committed and we’re going to continue to work together on it.
Q One for the Russian press?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q Thank you. And thanks for doing this and congratulations on your success. I wanted to ask, you are facing a difficult task of convincing the U.S. Congress to ratify the treaty. And the Russians will face the same task. So I assume the process was bilateral, mutually beneficial. Please tell me how the Russian interests were taken into account in the negotiations and final documents.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, obviously, the Russian leadership will be in the best position to speak to the Russian interests and how those were met. But what we both believed as we went through this difficult negotiation was that cutting our arsenals by 30 percent was in the best interest of both of our countries, increasing more confidence between us with respect to our nuclear programs. The kind of decisions that the Russian leadership authorized to be made in this negotiation are clearly, in their view, in Russia’s security interests.
And you’re right, just as we have to go to our Congress, President Medvedev has to go to the Duma. And I think President Obama has said that he would send Rahm Emmanuel to Moscow — (laughter) — and we all immediately endorsed that offer. (Laughter.) So if it — you know, if President Medvedev wants to take us up on it, we’re ready. (Laughter.)
Q Madam Secretary, congratulations. Obviously a couple of deadlines were missed on the way to today’s announcement. What were the sticking points and how were they ultimately resolved? And then what’s your message to Europeans who are still concerned about the nuclear missiles aimed at them from Russia?
SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Jake, in any complex negotiation there are going to be points along the way where negotiators have to go back to their capitals; where the negotiators need to delegate in-depth conversations — you heard Mike Mullen say what he had to do with his counterpart, Bob, I had to talk to my counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, many times, because the Presidents’ — President Obama and President Medvedev’s directions were very clear: We want to do this, and we want to get it done in a timely manner.
But it took a lot of work. Just a few weeks ago I dispatched Under Secretary Tauscher to Geneva because we needed to make it absolutely clear that this was a priority at the highest levels of our government. The Russians responded to that very positively. And we began to just work out the last details.
In addition, though, it’s important to note that we made a decision that we wanted not just to have the treaty agreed to; we wanted the protocols agreed to. Sometimes treaties in the past have been submitted while the work on the protocols still goes on. But we thought it was important that we really went through all the technical work in the protocols so that when we went to our Senate or when the Russian government went to the Duma, it wasn’t just, okay, so what’s going to be in the protocols; it was, okay, we can look at the treaty, we can look at the protocols. So that was also some of the time that had to be taken in order to really get to the point where we both felt like we had the package necessary to go to our legislative bodies.
Q And the message to the Europeans? I’m sorry.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have consistently conveyed to our European friends and allies America’s absolute commitment to our NATO partners and to their defense. The phased adaptive approach that the President concluded was the best way forward on missile defense we think actually makes Europe safer from what are the real threats that are out there.
There is still work to be done in the NATO-Russia Council to build confidence in our Central and Eastern European partners with Russia. But everybody is aware that that is something that is still ongoing. One of the reasons why it’s so significant that the Presidents will meet in Prague is because we want to send exactly that signal, that this is good for Europe as well as for the United States and Russia.
Q Thank you, Madam Secretary. I think the average American, when they hear talk of strategic arms reductions, their eyes glaze over. The two things they really worry about are loose nukes getting in the hands of terrorists, which you touched on, and nations like Iran getting nuclear weapons. Could you explain how this treaty paves the way for progress on those two issues?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Chip, you know, as the President said in his remarks, we have a vision, a long-term vision, of moving toward a world without nuclear weapons. We are absolutely realistic about how long that will take to convince everyone that this is in the world’s interest. But the steps we are taking add up to something that makes a very clear statement of intent.
So the START treaty, it says to our country, the Cold War really is behind us and these massive nuclear arsenals that both our countries maintained as part of deterrence no longer have to be so big; we can begin to cut that. That’s not only in our security interests, but it also is a commitment by the United States and Russia toward non-proliferation and toward the eventual goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
The nuclear security summit that the President will host in two weeks — largest gathering of international leaders probably since the end of World War II in the United States — devoted to the idea of how do we keep nuclear materials out of the hands of rogue regimes and of terrorists. We come with more credibility, Russia comes with more credibility, having negotiated this treaty.
Then the Non-Proliferation Treaty in May takes it one step further, about how do we bring the non-proliferation regime into the 21st century, when we know, unfortunately, that terrorist groups are seeking nuclear weapons and states that are not — they don’t have the confidence of the international community in their ambitions, like Iran and North Korea, are also pursuing nuclear weapons.
So you have to look at this as part of our whole approach toward non-proliferation.
Q Did Iran come up in the conversation today?
MR. GIBBS: Let me just — it was a fairly brief conversation finalizing the treaty. President Medvedev mentioned to President Obama that he wanted to speak with him when they met next in the Czech Republic.
Savannah.
Q You mentioned the bipartisan overwhelming majority these treaties have passed with in the past. Is there anything that concerns you about this particular political environment that you won’t be able to get those 67 votes? You can opine on health care while you’re at it, since we haven’t had an opportunity. (Laughter.)
And for Secretary Gates, is the Pentagon uncomfortable at all about the President’s go-to-zero campaign, considering we do depend on nuclear weapons for our national security? Thanks.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, I think that national security has always produced large bipartisan majorities and I see no reason why this should be any different. We’ve had a very dynamic political debate in our country over health care, which was brought to a successful conclusion this week to the betterment of the American people going forward.
But I don’t believe that this ratification effort will be affected by anything other than individual senators’ assessments of whether this is in the best interest of American security. And I think that, as you heard from Bob and Mike and you will hear from many other experts in the administration over the weeks ahead as we testify and make the case to the press and the public for this treaty, we are absolutely united in our belief that this is in America’s interest. It’s in America’s interest in the particulars of this treaty and it’s in America’s interest because it puts us in a very strong leadership position to make the case about an Iran, about a North Korea, about other countries doing more to safeguard nuclear materials.
So I believe that a vast majority of the Senate at the end of the day will see that this is in America’s interest and it goes way beyond politics.
SECRETARY GATES: Let me first say a word about ratification from my perspective. There has been a very intense continuing consultation on the Hill as the negotiations have proceeded. Two of the areas that have been of concern in the Senate, among senators, are, are we protecting our ability to go forward with missile defense and are we going to make the investment in our nuclear infrastructure so that the stockpile will remain reliable and safe.
We have addressed both of those. Missile defense is not constrained by this treaty. And we have in our budget, the President’s budget that went to the Hill for FY ’11, almost $5 billion for investment in the nuclear infrastructure and maintaining the stockpile. So I think we have addressed the concerns that there may have been on the Hill and so I echo the sentiments of Secretary Clinton, that I think the prospects are quite good.
In terms of going to nuclear — to zero nuclear weapons, the President has been very realistic in terms of — you know, when he originally discussed this — perhaps not in his lifetime. And we realize that other countries have substantial numbers of nuclear weapons; others are attempting to develop them. So we will do this in a realistic way.
But what this treaty does, and some of the other steps — trying to get control of fissile material, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and so on — are concrete steps to move in that direction. But I don’t think anybody expects us to come anywhere close to zero nuclear weapons anytime soon.
Q Madam Secretary, to what degree in the preamble will missile defense be addressed? And did the Russians in any way, shape, or form insist upon some kind of linkage on future missile defense plans with the United States? And is there any concern that you have about Russian dissatisfaction with the Bulgaria-Romania component that they believe was not adequately conveyed to them before it was released in those two countries?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Major, if I could — Robert, could I ask Under Secretary Tauscher to address this?
MR. GIBBS: Sure.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Just fresh from Geneva.
UNDER SECRETARY TAUSCHER: Thank you, Madam Secretary. President Obama and President Medvedev met in July and discussed and had an agreement that this is a strategic offensive weapons treaty, and that there is an inter-relationship between strategic offensive and defensive. But that is the discussion — where the discussion ended. So I think when you see the treaty and the protocol, there are no constraints on missile defense.
When it comes to Romania, the phased adaptive approach is in phases, as you can see — 2011, 2015, and 2018 deployments. And we have gone to extensive lengths to brief the Russians. Frankly, the phased adaptive approach has been up on the Web. The Ballistic Missile Defense Review has been up on the Web for weeks and months. So we’ve gone through extensive briefings with the Russians. We don’t pre-clear any kind of conversations we have with allies and friends when we do things with them — with anyone, including the Russians. But we certainly talked to the Russians soon afterwards, and they knew about the Romanian invitation for the 2015 SM-3 deployment.
MR. GIBBS: Roger, do you have one? Did you have one?
Q Well, yes, I’d like to follow up with the Secretary of State on Iran — you’ve touched on a little bit — and with that, Russia’s cooperation now. What does that portend going ahead with Iran and the sanctions and getting them onboard?
SECRETARY CLINTON: We’ve had very constructive talks with all of our partners, and in-depth consultations with the Russians — most recently last Thursday and Friday when I was in Moscow. We are working on language. The Russians are involved in — being consulted on that drafting process.
So we are pursuing the plan that we set forth from the very beginning of this administration — a two-track process where the first track was engagement, which the President has fulfilled in every way as he has reached out to the Iranians; and the other track of pressure in the event that the Iranians would not engage or refuse to comply with their international obligations.
The recent IAEA report that Director General Amano put out, summarizing many of the questions that raise concerns about Iran’s behavior was I think widely viewed as an authoritative source — not coming from the United States — that summarized why the international community needs to move on this second track.
So I believe that you’ll see increasing activity in the very near future as we work to bring to fruition a resolution that can muster the votes that are necessary in the Security Council.
Q And Medvedev was going to talk with the President in Prague on this?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, President Medvedev and President Obama have talked about this continuously.
Q He’s going to talk to the President in Prague?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think as Robert Gibbs said, when they are together they talk about this.
MR. GIBBS: We’ll take one more from Ms. Thomas.
Q In view` of the pressure on Iran, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Helen, I’ve missed you. (Laughter.)
Q Thank you. (Laughter.) We both got honorary degrees.
SECRETARY CLINTON: We did. We were — Helen and I were out on the new Yankee Stadium field for the NYU commencement last —
Q Don’t step on the grass. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, we didn’t step on the grass, we were very careful. But, you know, she was, as always, in the center of activity.
You know, Helen, one of our goals is to try to move, as we have said, the world toward a recognition that nuclear weapons should be phased out. So from our perspective, that is our goal in fulfilling the President’s vision. It is what we are doing with the nuclear security summit, where a number of countries from the region of the Middle East will be present. It’s what we’re doing with the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in June. And it remains one of our highest priorities.
So I’m going to reaffirm our commitment to convincing countries that the path of non-proliferation, of lowering the temperature when it comes to nuclear weapons — which we are doing with this treaty — is the path they want to be on.
Q Verification is such an important part of this whole process. And for the American people, when they hear you talking about the new treaty, how can you assure them or what would you say to them about your level of confidence in the verification process that says that everyone will be working in good faith here? Secretary Gates?
SECRETARY GATES: Sure. The verification measures for this treaty have been designed to monitor compliance with the provisions with this treaty. So, for example, because their — our throw-weight of missiles was not an issue, for example, telemetry is not nearly as important for this treaty as it has been in the past. In fact, we don’t need telemetry to monitor compliance with this treaty.
Nonetheless, there still is a bilateral agreement to exchange telemetry information on up to five missile launches a year. I think that when the testimony of the intelligence community comes on the Hill, that the DNI and the experts will say that they are comfortable that the provisions of this treaty for verification are adequate for them to monitor Russian compliance, and vice versa.
MR. GIBBS: Thanks, guys.
END
11:23 A.M. EDT
I join the American people in sending my best wishes to those, abroad and here at home, that are celebrating Bangladesh Independence Day. 39 years ago, the people of Bangladesh earned their independence, and since then, our two nations have shared a commitment to democratic values and created an enduring friendship. Here at home, those Americans that can trace their roots to Bangladesh continue to be active in all industries, and are an important part of our communities. On this Independence Day, I wish them all the best.
12:23 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Fire away.
Q Anything new about the Russians?
MR. GIBBS: No, nothing new from yesterday. I expect that — well, we’re hopeful to have a call with President Medvedev in the next few days and hope that we can wrap up a new treaty on the next call.
Again, the President has been enormously involved personally in moving this process along. The two Presidents last spoke on the 13th of March and we think we’re getting — moving toward good progress on something that will be important for the American people.
Q Is that call on the 13th kind of a breakthrough?
MR. GIBBS: It certainly helped move a number of issues along, yes.
Q On health care, what about the Caterpillar and Deere companies saying it’s going to be so costly to them?
MR. GIBBS: Let me describe a little bit — I got the health care guys to give me a little briefing on this.
This is a loophole that was created in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. Businesses get a 28 percent subsidy to help cover the cost of prescription drugs. That subsidy they get from the government is now currently not counted as income. When they spend that money they currently get a deduction on that.
So basically they get a subsidy and what amounts to two deductions. Right? It’s not — they get the subsidy that’s not counted as income, then they get to write off the spending.
This bill, our bill simply closes the loophole and allows them to deduct that money one time by not counting it as income. So I would say that to ensure that this is not something that’s done without any time period or planning, this doesn’t go into effect until 2013, which is two years later than the original Senate bill. There’s $10 billion in health care reform for support for businesses with early retirees.
Again, this is — instead of there being a subsidy in what amounts to two deductions, there’s now a subsidy and one deduction for businesses to use.
Q Are they overreacting by taking them?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t — I can’t tell you what their motives are in terms of how they may react to their shareholders.
Q Anything on the Osama bin Laden tape?
MR. GIBBS: I would simply say that the President has rightly increased our tempo and put pressure on the al Qaeda network. We see that al Qaeda has nothing to spread but hate, and that’s why the administration will continue to keep up the pressure to destroy the al Qaeda network.
Q Any type of reaction to the threats that are going on with the Congressmen and how they voted on health reform and now the Senate parliamentarian?
MR. GIBBS: Look, I think as strongly as your beliefs are held in a country as free as America, we ought to be able to have a debate that is done in a way that’s civil without any threat of violence. We’ve done that for a good portion of our country’s history. And I think there’s absolutely no reason to believe that we can’t debate big issues that people are passionate about but leave any threat of violence out of those passionate discussions.
Q Do you have any reaction to the story on Social Security running out?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it’s important to understand that obviously the President is committed to ensuring the security of Social Security, to pay out benefits for current and future retirees. The latest actuarial report puts the Social Security Trust Fund solvency to 2037. And certainly we’ll get in the not too distant future updates on that solvency, but the President is committed to keeping Social Security strong and solvent for current and future retirees.
I would say this, one of the things that health care reform did was help to extend the life and the security of the Medicare Trust Fund through important reforms. That, along with deficit reduction, helped to address the longer-term problems that we have on a path toward fiscal responsibility.
Q Robert, does the President agree with the Vice President’s comments last night, that if it wasn’t for health care going through that the administration would have been absolutely done — that was the Vice President’s comments — on future issues, whether it be immigration, cap and trade?
MR. GIBBS: I think health care was a big deal.
Q How big? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Big. (Laughter.) Let the transcript reflect that I did not mouth anything else besides “big deal.”
I think that — I’ll say this. I think what people have seen is a President that laid out a vision and is persistent in seeing that vision through. I think that’s strong leadership. I will say I think that the President also believed that regardless of what happened with health care, there would still be many issues to tackle. I’m certainly happier, as I know many in the administration, and I think, quite frankly, millions of Americans will be, for having passed health care reform.
I will say, look, there are many important issues left to deal with this year. I think it’s important that we figure out a way to respond to what the American people want, and that is two parties working together to ensure financial reform, to continue to make progress on an economy that creates jobs, to deal with things like campaign finance reform and ensuring that special interest money doesn’t dominate our political system this November. And I think quite frankly the American people understand that we can do big things, but they want to see two parties do it together.
Q Did you want to add anything to the Pentagon’s announcement on “don’t ask, don’t tell”?
MR. GIBBS: I think that obviously Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and others I think summed it up quite well today.
Q There are reports that when the President left the meeting with Netanyahu he went upstairs and had dinner with his family. That was sort of interpreted as a snub. Could you talk about that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I’ll say this, his family wasn’t there so I don’t know that I’d read a whole lot into reports that he had dinner with his family.
Q Can we get a readout now on Netanyahu’s meeting of yesterday with Mitchell? I mean, have any differences on East Jerusalem been narrowed?
MR. GIBBS: I’d say that the staffs from — our staff and the Prime Minister’s staff again worked quite late into the evening. I don’t have the exact time. But again I think we’re making progress on important issues. But nothing more on substance to report than that.
Q Any reaction to the reconciliation bill being sent back to the House?
MR. GIBBS: I’ll say this, I think you’ve seen over the course of the last many hours attempts to do anything possible to try to delay health care reform and the important corrections that many that are trying to delay the bill have pointed out need to be fixed — pulling out things like the deal for Nebraska, many of the important things that the President outlined that are in the reconciliation bill.
However, we’re quite confident that this process will soon pass the Senate then the new bill will be approved rather quickly by the House and will make further progress on the issues that are in the reconciliation bill.
Q The President is famously pretty level, but is there any extra, kind of, spring in his step since Sunday?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think he was no doubt enormously happy for what happened on Sunday. I think he was counted out a lot of times. And as I said, I think he was enormously persistent.
I will say this, what motivated him the entire time — whether he was asked what this would do to Democratic poll numbers or his poll numbers or his political future — he was always far more concerned about what this meant for the very people that we’re going to go see today and the very benefits that we’re going to talk about today on how health care helps small businesses that are doing the right thing now and providing health care for their employees. That’s what motivated him throughout this entire time.
There’s no doubt that if we failed to act, we knew what was going to happen. Small businesses and people that found themselves in the individual market were facing health insurance cost increases of 30, 40, 60 percent. And now as a result of this, small businesses, families and our seniors will get some much deserved support in their health care.
Q What about Iran? The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration softened its stance on sanctions to get the support from Russia and China. Any comment, anything on that at all?
MR. GIBBS: No, we continue to work closely with our P5-plus-1 partners, making progress on the next steps if Iran is unwilling to take the steps it must take to live up to its international responsibilities and obligations. All right?
Q But — just to follow up on the Iranian question — but is the administration willing to take, like, the bite, as Secretary Clinton would say, out of some of the sanctions requirements just in order to get Russia and China onboard?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t want to get into the details of some of this, except to say we feel like we’re making progress with all of our partners in the P5-plus-1 and moving forward in a united fashion, and about taking some real steps if those steps are necessary.
I would say this: We are at a point in bringing the international community along and in bringing our partners along that we’ve never been at. And I think we’ve got strong relationships with our partners. I think if we get a START deal done, it will demonstrate a strong partnership between the United States and Russia being able to address not just the problems of nuclear security in their two countries, but the deadly spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world.
Look, each of the countries in the P5-plus-1 have — it’s in their own interests to act and to ensure that we don’t wake up to a Middle East that’s in the midst of an arms race that won’t just destabilize the region of the Middle East but has the danger of destabilizing security throughout the world. All right? Thanks — oh, one more.
Q Is the President prioritizing what Democrats he campaigns for in the fall, in terms of who voted yes and who voted no for health care?
MR. GIBBS: I’ve said on several occasions that we’re going to support Democrats. We’re going to support — there are going to be some that agreed with us on health reform, there are going to be some that didn’t agree with us on health reform. I think the President understands that we’re a big family that may not agree on everything, but the President will be out there helping Democrats get reelected this fall, regardless of health care votes. All right?
Q So there’s going to be equal treatment?
MR. GIBBS: There’s equal treatment.
Thanks, guys.
END
12:37 P.M. EDT
1:08 P.M. CDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Iowa! (Applause.) Are you fired up? (Applause.) Oh, it is good to be back in Iowa. (Applause.) I got to take off my jacket when I’m in Iowa. (Applause.) It is good to be back in Iowa. It’s a little colder than it is in D.C., I got to admit. (Laughter.) But I can feel spring coming.
I want to make a couple of acknowledgements. First of all, University of Iowa President Dr. Sally Mason and the entire Hawkeye community, thanks for hosting us. (Applause.) The outstanding governor of the great state of Iowa, Chet Culver and First Lady Mari Culver. (Applause.) There he is back there.
A couple of great friends, Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge. (Applause.) The cochairs of my campaign here in Iowa, Attorney General Tom Miller and Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald. (Applause.) The former governor of Iowa who is now I think going to end up being one of the greatest Secretaries of Agriculture in history, Tom Vilsack is in the house. (Applause.)
I want to acknowledge Iowa City Mayor Matt Hayek. (Applause.) The entire Iowa delegation could not be here because they are still busy finishing business, crossing “T’s” and dotting “I’s” in Washington. But I want every single person to know that this celebration would not be happening if it were not for your members of Congress, Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley, your own personal congressman, Dave Lopsak — (applause) — and Senator Tom Harkin. (Applause.)
Now, thank you Secretary Sebelius for the introduction, but more importantly, for all the amazing and tireless work that you’ve done to make health care reform a reality. I, too, feel your pain because in my bracket — (laughter) — I had Kansas winning it all. I feel a little bitter. The President of Northern Ireland came here and he was just, big smile, he was gloating — (laughter and applause) — I now — I’m sold. I want to congratulate all the Northern Iowa fans in this part of the state on their big win. (Applause.) And since you ruined my bracket I’m rooting for you now. I want you to just go ahead and take it. (Laughter.) Go all the way.
I also want to start things off — oh, there’s one other thing. Some of you know that I have a military aide that travels with me wherever I go. This is one of the things the President does, is carries a big satchel with all kinds of important stuff in there. And the military aide I have with me today is a guy named Lieutenant Colonel Dave Kalinske. And Dave was strong safety for the Hawkeyes. (Applause.) There he is right there — there’s Dave Kalinske. (Applause.) Strong safety. See, that briefcase is big so you got to have a former strong safety carrying it. (Laughter.)
I want to start off by telling folks here how inspired that I’ve been by your continued resilience in the wake of the floods that devastated this region a few years back. And I remember traveling here right after they happened and how tough things were.
I know — I know the rebuilding has been difficult, but you should know that you always have a committed partner in this administration to support the road to recovery. (Applause.) And we know that Iowa City is going to be as good as new and better; Cedar Rapids, all across the state we’re seeing that rebuilding take place.
So it’s just good to be back in Iowa. This is the state that first believed in our campaign. (Applause.) When all the pundits had written us off, when we were down in the polls, this is the state that inspired us to keep on going, even when the path was uncertain. And because of you, this is the place where change began. (Applause.)
Three years ago, I came here to this campus to make a promise. Just a few months into our campaign, I stood at the University of Iowa hospital right around the corner and I promised that by the end of my first term in office, I would sign legislation to reform our health insurance system. (Applause.)
On Tuesday, after a year of debate, a century of trying, after so many of you shared your stories and your heartaches and your hopes, that promise was finally fulfilled. (Applause.) And today, health insurance reform is the law of the land all across America. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Yes we did! Yes we did! Yes we did! Yes we did! Yes we did! Yes we did! Yes we did!
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we did. Yes, we did. Just like the campaign that led us here, this historic change didn’t start in Washington. It began in places like Iowa City, places just like this, with Americans just like you.
It began when people had the courage to stand up in town hall meetings and talk about how insurance companies were denying their families coverage because of a preexisting condition.
It began when folks wrote letters about how premium hikes of 40 and 50 and a hundred percent were forcing them to give up their insurance.
It began when countless small business owners and families and doctors shared stories about a health care system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people.
So this is your victory, because when the special interests sent an army of lobbyists to Congress, they blanketed the airwaves with millions of dollars of negative ads, you mobilized and you organized and you refused to give up. And when the pundits were obsessing over who was up and who was down and how is this affecting the Obama administration and what’s going on over in the House, you never lost sight of what was right and what was wrong. You knew this was not about the fortunes of one party — this was about the future of our country. (Applause.) And today, because of what you did, that future looks stronger and more hopeful and brighter than it has in some time — because of you. (Applause.)
Three years ago, we made a promise. That promise has been kept. Of course — of course, over the last year, there’s been a lot of misinformation spread about health care reform. There’s been plenty of fear-mongering, plenty of overheated rhetoric. You turn on the news, you’ll see the same folks are still shouting about there’s going to be an end of the world because this bill passed. (Laughter.) I’m not exaggerating. Leaders of the Republican Party, they called the passage of this bill “Armageddon.” (Laughter.) Armageddon. “End of freedom as we know it.”
So after I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there any — (laughter) — asteroids falling or — (applause) — some cracks opening up in the Earth. (Laughter.) It turned out it was a nice day. (Laughter.) Birds were chirping. Folks were strolling down the Mall. People still have their doctors.
From this day forward, all of the cynics, all the naysayers — they’re going to have to confront the reality of what this reform is and what it isn’t. They’ll have to finally acknowledge this isn’t a government takeover of our health care system. They’ll see that if Americans like their doctor, they’ll be keeping their doctor. You like your plan? You’ll be keeping your plan. No one is taking that away from you. Three months from now, six months from now you’re going to look around. You’re going to be sitting in a doctor’s office reading through the old People magazines. (Laughter.) And you’ll say, hey, this is the same doctor, same plan. It wasn’t Armageddon.
What this reform does is build on the system of private health insurance that we already have. So does that mean that it’s going to solve every health care problem that we have? No. But it finally tells — oops, it looks like somebody may have fainted. That happens sometimes in the crowd. Just give him some space. If the medics can make sure to check on them, in the meantime just make sure that they’ve got some air. And if anybody has some water down there, that’d be great. They’ll be all right.
But here’s what the bill does. It finally tells the insurance companies that in exchange for all the new customers they’re about to get, they’ve got to start playing by a new set of rules that treats everybody honestly and treats everybody fairly. (Applause.) The days of the insurance industry running roughshod over the American people are over.
So if you already — if you already have insurance, this reform will make it more secure and more affordable. If you can’t afford insurance right now or if you’ve been denied coverage — and I’ll bet there are some folks here who don’t have insurance or can’t afford it or have been denied coverage — you’re going to finally be able to get it. Costs will come down for families, and businesses, and the federal government, reducing our deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades. That’s what reform is going to do. (Applause.)
Now, it’s going to take about four years to implement this entire plan — because we’ve got to do it responsibly and we need to do it right. So I just want to be clear: that means that health care costs won’t go down overnight; not all the changes are going to be in place; there are still going to be aspects of the health care system that are very frustrating over the next several years.
But we have built into law all sorts of measures that in the years to come, health care inflation, which has been rising about three times as fast as people’s wages, is finally going to start slowing down. We’ll start reducing the waste in the system, from unnecessary tests to unwarranted insurance subsidies. So that over time, Americans are going to save money.
And meanwhile, there are a set of reforms that begin to take into effect this year, so I want to talk about this. This year, millions of small business owners will be eligible for tax credits that will help them cover the cost of insurance for their employees. (Applause.) This year, millions of small businesses will benefit.
So let me talk to you about what this means for a business like your own Prairie Lights Bookstore downtown. (Applause.) This is a small business that’s been offering coverage to their full-time employees for the last 20 years. Last year their premiums went up 35 percent, which made it a lot harder for them to offer the same coverage. On Tuesday, I was joined at the bill signing by Ryan Smith, who runs a small business with five employees. His premiums are going up too. He’s worried about having to stop offering health insurance to his workers.
So starting now, small business owners like Ryan and the folks at Prairie Light, they’re going to have the security of knowing that they’ll qualify for a tax credit that covers up to 35 percent of their employees’ health insurance. (Applause.) Starting today, starting today, small business owners — (applause) — so starting today, small business owners can sit down at the end of the week, look at their expenses, and they can begin calculating how much money they’re going to save. And maybe they can even use those savings to not only provide insurance but also create jobs. This health care tax credit is pro-jobs, it is pro-business, and it starts this year, and it’s starting because of you. (Applause.)
Starting this year, tens of thousands of uninsured Americans with a preexisting condition and parents whose children have a preexisting condition will finally be able to purchase the coverage they need. (Applause.)
On Tuesday, right after I signed the bill, I met David Gallagher, whose daughter Lauren had written me a letter last year. And when Lauren’s mom lost her job, the entire family lost their health insurance. And when they tried to get new insurance, David was denied coverage because he once had a complication-free hernia surgery.
So Lauren’s been worried sick about what would happen if her father became ill or injured. But now, because of this reform, David Gallagher can finally have access to health insurance again. That starts this year — because of you and the work that you did. (Applause.)
This year, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop people’s coverage when they get sick, or place lifetime limits or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care they can receive. (Applause.)
This year, all new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care. And by the way, for all the students who are here today — (applause) — starting this year, if you don’t have insurance or if you’re about to graduate and you’re not sure what your next job is going to be or there’s a little gap between getting that job with insurance, all new plans and some current ones will allow you to stay on your parents’ insurance policy until you’re 26 years old, starting this year. (Applause.) Because as you start your lives and your careers, the last thing you should worry about is whether you go broke just because you get sick.
This year, for the seniors who are in the audience, if you fall in the coverage gap known as the doughnut hole, you’re going to receive $250 to help pay for prescriptions, which will be the first step toward closing that doughnut hole, that gap completely. (Applause.) And I want seniors to know that despite what some have said, these reforms will not cut your guaranteed benefits. In fact, under this law, Americans on Medicare will receive free preventive care without co-payments and deductibles.
Darlyne Neff is here today. She’s a breast cancer survivor. She has fought her heart out for reform over the last few years. Today, the preventive care she needs will finally be covered without charge. That’s what this reform will do. That’s what’s happening because of you. (Applause.)
And once this reform is implemented, then health insurance exchanges are going to be created. This is the core — the core aspect of this bill that is going to be so important to Americans who are looking for coverage. Basically, we set up a competitive marketplace where people without insurance, small businesses, people who were having to pay through the teeth because they’re just buying insurance on their own, maybe you’re self-employed — you’re finally going to be able to purchase quality, affordable, health insurance because you’re going to be part of a big pool — by the way, with members of Congress. So you will be able to get the same good deal that they’re getting, because if you’re paying their salary, you should have health insurance that’s at least as good as theirs. (Applause.)
That’s what’s going to happen in the next few years. And when this exchange is up and running, millions of people are going to be getting tax breaks to help them afford coverage. And the credits add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.
This is a — that’s the basic aspects of reform.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: What about the public option?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s not in it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Why not?
THE PRESIDENT: Because we couldn’t get it through Congress, that’s why. So they — let’s — there’s no need to shout, young man, no need to shout.
Thirty-two people — 32 million people are going to have health insurance because of this legislation. That’s what this work is about. (Applause.) So that’s what’s going to happen.
Now, I want to just make this point. This legislation is not perfect, as you just heard. (Laughter.) This young man is dissatisfied with an aspect of it, which is fine. I mean, that’s part of what democracy is about. But what this is, is a historic step to enshrine the principle that everybody gets health care coverage in this country, every single person. (Applause.)
And it’s absolutely true — it’s absolutely true this is a middle-of-the-road bill. This isn’t single-payer, which some people wanted. It’s also not what the Republicans were looking for, which was basically to deregulate the insurance industry, arguing that somehow this would cut down costs — something that defies the experience of everybody who’s dealt with an insurance company out there. (Laughter.)
So, yes, this is a common-sense bill. It doesn’t do everything that everybody wants, but it moves us in the direction of universal health care coverage in this country and that’s why everybody here fought so hard for it. (Applause.)
This is the reform that some folks in Washington are still hollering about, still shouting about. Now that they passed it — now that we passed it, they’re already promising to repeal it. They’re actually going to run on a platform of repeal in November. You’ve been hearing that. And my attitude is: Go for it. (Applause.)
If these congressmen in Washington want to come here in Iowa and tell small business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest. If they want to look Lauren Gallagher in the eye and tell her they plan to take away her father’s health insurance, that’s their right. If they want to make Darlyne Neff pay more money for her check-ups, her mammograms, they can run on that platform. If this young man out here thinks this is a bad bill, he can run to repeal it. If they want to have that fight, we can have it. Because I don’t believe that the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver’s seat. We’ve already been there. We’re not going back. This country is moving forward. (Applause.)
The road to this victory, Iowa, has been long, it has been difficult. It’s a struggle that a lot of brave Americans have waged for years. For others, like our friend Ted Kennedy, it’s a struggle that was waged for nearly a lifetime. (Applause.)
But what this struggle has taught us — about ourselves and about this country — is so much bigger than any one issue, because it’s reminded us what so many of us learned all those months ago on a cold January night here in Iowa, and that’s that change is never easy, but it’s always possible. (Applause.) It comes not from the halls of power, but from the hearts of our people. Amid setbacks, it requires perseverance. Amid calls for delay, it requires the fierce urgency of now. In the face of unrelenting cynicism, it requires unyielding hope.
And when I came here three years ago, I told the story of when Lyndon Johnson stood with Harry Truman and signed Medicare into law. That wasn’t perfect either. I’m sure there was somebody who was dissatisfied with it at the time. And as he looked out over the crowd in Independence, Missouri, that day, he said, “History shapes men, but it is a necessary faith of leadership that men can shape history.”
What this generation has proven today is that we still have the power to shape history. (Applause.) In the United States of America, it is still a necessary faith that our destiny is written by us, not for us. Our future is what we make it. Our future is what we make it. Look, this is not the end of difficult times for America. From creating jobs to reducing deficits to making sure every child has a decent education, we still face enormous challenges in this country. And as we meet those challenges, we’re going to face more resistance. We’re going to face more doubt, we’re going to face more cynicism. We’re going to hear more voices who will warn us that we’re reaching too far, that we’re going too fast; who are going to tell us that we can’t, who are going to just make wild accusations about what we’re trying to do.
And when that happens, we’ve got to remember the promise that we have already fulfilled, and the people who fulfilled it, and the generations before us who made it possible. We’re going to have to respond with the creed that continues to define the character of this country we love, and it’s my favorite memory of Iowa, that creed that says: Yes, we can. (Applause.)
Iowa — yes, we did, because of you. (Applause.) And it’s because of you that we are going to keep on going to make sure that we fulfill every promise to every child in this country for a brighter future. Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END
1:37 P.M. CDT
The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of Maine and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in the area struck by severe winter storms and flooding during the period of February 23 to March 2, 2010.
Federal funding is available to State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe winter storms and flooding in the counties of Cumberland, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, and York.
Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.
W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named James N. Russo as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected area.
FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the State and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FEMA (202) 646-3272.
Recent events in Cuba, including the tragic death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, the repression visited upon Las Damas de Blanco, and the intensified harassment of those who dare to give voice to the desires of their fellow Cubans, are deeply disturbing.
These events underscore that instead of embracing an opportunity to enter a new era, Cuban authorities continue to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban people with a clenched fist.
Today, I join my voice with brave individuals across Cuba and a growing chorus around the world in calling for an end to the repression, for the immediate, unconditional release of all political prisoners in Cuba, and for respect for the basic rights of the Cuban people.
During the course of the past year, I have taken steps to reach out to the Cuban people and to signal my desire to seek a new era in relations between the governments of the United States and Cuba. I remain committed to supporting the simple desire of the Cuban people to freely determine their future and to enjoy the rights and freedoms that define the Americas, and that should be universal to all human beings.
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 24, 2010
Dear Madam Speaker:
I ask the Congress to consider the enclosed amendments to Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in my FY 2011 Budget. Included are amendments for the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury, as well as the United States Agency for International Development and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. These amendments would provide for costs associated with relief and reconstruction support for Haiti following the devastating earthquake of January 12, 2010, including reimbursement of obligations that have already been incurred by these agencies.
The proposed totals for FY 2010 in my FY 2011 Budget would increase by $2.8 billion as a result of these amendments.
This request responds to urgent and essential needs. Therefore, I request these proposals be considered as emergency requirements. The details of these amendments are set forth in the enclosed letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Sincerely,
BARACK OBAMA
GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY: A NATIONAL DAY OF CELEBRATION
OF GREEK AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, 2010
– – – – – – –
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Today, as we commemorate the 189th anniversary of Greece’s independence, we reaffirm the ties that link our nations together as allies and warm friends. We also honor the accomplishments of Greek Americans and their immeasurable contributions to the United States.
It was the genius of America’s forebears to enshrine the pre-eminent idea of democracy in our Nation’s founding documents. Inspired by the governing values of ancient Greece, they launched the great American experiment. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of our Declaration of Independence, later expressed his admiration for the Greeks and their heritage as they fought their War of Independence. Writing in 1823, he acknowledged Greece as "the first of civilized nations, [which] presented examples of what man should be."
The Hellenic influence on America’s scholarly traditions reflects our Nation’s high regard for Greece’s lasting heritage. Our physicians uphold the timeless ethics of Hippocrates, and our students learn the mathematics of Euclid and Pythagoras. Our law schools use the Socratic Method, and the structures of ancient Greece have inspired many of our most cherished buildings and monuments. Greek Americans have also shaped our Nation as leaders in every sector of American life, and their community has strengthened the fabric of our country with its vibrant culture and unique traditions.
Above all, we were blessed to inherit the Hellenic ideal of democracy, which lives on today in Greece and America, and reinforces the enduring bonds between our two nations.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 25, 2010, as "Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy." I call upon all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.
BARACK OBAMA
Just over one year after Recovery Act is signed, funds already putting Americans to work, making homes healthier for thousands of families across the U.S.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan today announced that over 3,100 public housing authorities across the U.S. successfully met a critical funding deadline outlined in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). As a result, the nearly $3 billion in Public Housing Capital Fund grants awarded through the Recovery Act one year ago are being used to make significant improvements to tens of thousands of public housing units nationwide; creating jobs and growing the economy.
“Strict deadlines, such as this one, were written into the Recovery Act to ensure that funds would be used to meet the top goal of putting Americans back to work as quickly as possible,” said Donovan. “I am proud of the work HUD and public housing authorities across the country did to meet this critical deadline. It speaks to the commitment they have to improve affordable housing and grow local economies. Families and communities are already seeing new windows, roofs, cost-saving energy-efficient appliances, and much-needed jobs.”
To date, as a result of this critical Recovery Act funding, public housing authorities reported creating or retaining nearly 9,000 jobs and developing or rehabilitating 150,000 public housing units in hard-hit neighborhoods throughout the country. Just one year after being awarded, Recovery Act public housing funds, which were intended to help jumpstart the economy during the worst recession in a generation, are also allowing housing agencies to address the long-standing capital needs of public housing, create jobs, and increase energy efficiency.
On March 17, 2009, less than 30 days after the Recovery Act was signed into law, HUD provided nearly $3 billion in Public Housing Capital funds to over 3,100 public housing authorities nationwide. The funds were allocated through an established formula, effectively more than doubling the Department’s annual support of local housing authorities. Specific guidelines in the law required that all funding awarded to public housing authorities through the Recovery Act be “obligated,” or committed to specific projects or activities, one year after it was awarded, or the funding must be recaptured by HUD and redistributed to other agencies in compliance with the requirements.
All public housing authorities were able to meet that deadline by either obligating 100 percent of their funds or voluntarily returning all or a portion of their funds by the deadline. Of the $2.985 billion that was awarded to 3,134 public housing authorities, $2.981 billion has been obligated and $3.246 million was voluntarily returned. HUD is currently determining the redistribution process for the funding returned. The 172 ‘troubled’ housing authorities that received funding all met the deadline as well, with only two troubled agencies returning all or a portion of their funds by March 17th.
HUD’s Capital Fund Program provides annual funding to public housing authorities to develop, finance, and/or modernize the public housing in their communities. This funding can be used to make large-scale improvements such as new roofs and for the replacement of plumbing and electrical systems to increase energy efficiency.
The Recovery Act included $13.61 billion for projects and programs administered by HUD, nearly 75 percent of which was allocated to state and local recipients only eight days after President Obama signed the Act into law, including public housing capital funding. The remaining 25 percent is being awarded through competitive grant programs. To date, 98 percent of HUD’s Recovery Act funds are in the hands of local communities, being used to improve housing and neighborhoods, while creating jobs. HUD is committed to implementing Recovery Act investments swiftly and effectively as they generate tens of thousands of jobs, modernize homes to make them energy efficient, and help the families and communities hardest hit by the economic crisis.
To learn more about the story of the Recovery Act, visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/Recovery. To follow Recovery Act dollars as they are put to work, visit www.Recovery.gov.
Adjunto va el decreto ejecutivo firmado por el Presidente reiterando que la Ley de Protección al Paciente y Cuidado de Salud de Bajo Precio coincide con restricciones que datan de hace mucho tiempo sobre el uso de fondos federales para el aborto.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa…ect-eo-rel.pdf
En el siguiente enlace pueden encontrar la foto del Presidente firmando el decreto ejecutivo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4460769992/
12:40 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Unusually quiet. One quick announcement before I take your questions. President Obama spoke today by video teleconference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, as part of continued consultations with our European partners. The President and his counterparts discussed the international community’s next steps on Iran, the Middle East peace process, and global economic issues.
The President looks forward to hosting President Sarkozy next week for a bilateral meeting and to continue collaboration with these three close colleagues to advance our shared agenda.
I should also mention they congratulated him on the passage and signing of comprehensive health care reform.
Q All three?
MR. GIBBS: They did, all three.
Mr. Feller.
Q Thank you, sir. Two foreign topics today. On the START treaty, can you just give us a good assessment on where that stands? Is a deal done?
MR. GIBBS: I have said on many occasions that we are making strong progress toward getting an agreement. We are, I think, very close to having an agreement on a START treaty and — but won’t have one until President Obama and his counterpart, Mr. Medvedev, have a chance to speak again.
Q Is that scheduled? What’s the time —
MR. GIBBS: I think they will likely speak in the next few days.
Q Next few days?
Q So we were hearing Friday as a possible — as the most likely day to pull all this together. How would you assess that?
MR. GIBBS: I would say, again, I would characterize this as having made very strong progress. You know the President spoke personally on March 13th to Mr. Medvedev and I think we’re very close to getting an agreement.
Q On Israel, I’d like to ask you briefly about the visit yesterday by Prime Minister Netanyahu. As you know, diplomacy involves not just the substance of the event, but how it’s handled. And in this case, there were really none of the normal trappings of a foreign visit, in terms of press coverage and even a readout. Can you explain a little bit about why the White House decided to handle it that way?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let me categorize — the President and the Prime Minister met, first off, the Oval, and had an honest and straightforward discussion about our relationship, about regional security and about comprehensive peace efforts. The President asked the Prime Minister to take steps to build confidence for proximity talks so that progress can be made towards comprehensive Middle East peace. There are areas of agreement, there are areas of disagreement, and that conversation is ongoing.
The Prime Minister arrived a little after 5:30 p.m. That meeting concluded a little after 7:00 p.m. last evening. The President went back to the residence. Prime Minister Netanyahu remained in the White House and consulted with his staff in the Roosevelt Room and then requested to see the President again, and they returned to the Oval Office at about 8:20 p.m. and met for a little more than half an hour.
Q On the substance, just one second on that — but back to my original question about the handling of this. Why did the White House decide to handle — that was so low profile.
MR. GIBBS: Well, we’ve handled different visits in different ways and this is the way we felt most comfortable handling this one.
Q Is there any concern about how it could be perceived — particularly by Jewish voters or Jewish donors — that this was a cold-shoulder kind of visit or there was anything less than a full extension?
MR. GIBBS: No, I — look, they spoke for over two hours last night, face to face, so I think — we have a strong relationship with a strong ally. There are areas that they discussed last night, some of which they agree and some of which they disagree. And as I’ve said, those talks are ongoing. And — but the conversation was honest and straightforward.
Q Just one follow on that. Particularly on the issue of settlements, what did the President ask of the Prime Minister, and how do you think that went?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I’m, at this point, not going to get into walking through the substance of what they discussed.
Yes, ma’am.
Q On the confidence-building measures, the Prime Minister made clear going into the meeting that he had no intention of backing down on the demand for freezing construction in East Jerusalem. And I’m wondering if there were any goodwill gestures or any concessions made?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I’m not going to get into the substance of what they talked about at each of the meetings. Again, we have asked the Prime Minister to take steps to build confidence for proximity talks to be able to make progress.
Q But can you explain why there were two meetings?
MR. GIBBS: Again, there was a meeting — the original meeting, the President — at the conclusion of that meeting, Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted not to leave but instead meet with staff — his staff here, his team here. They did so in the Oval Office [sic]. At some point, I don’t know exact timing, but at some point, they came — word was sent out of that meeting that the Prime Minister would like to see the President — requested to see the President again, and the —
Q Were there any presidential aides in the Roosevelt Room at the time?
MR. GIBBS: Not in the Roosevelt Room, no. I believe somebody was sent out to locate us.
Q So the Prime Minister met with the staff in the Roosevelt Room?
MR. GIBBS: With his staff, yes, yes — in the Roosevelt Room.
Q Does the President expect to see Netanyahu again today or tomorrow maybe?
MR. GIBBS: There’s nothing on the schedule right now, no. I think Prime Minister Netanyahu has some meetings scheduled later on today with administration staff. But there’s nothing on the schedule for —
Q But that’s here or —
Q But does he expect answers from Netanyahu?
MR. GIBBS: Oh, I don’t know if there — I don’t know exactly where those meetings are.
Q But does he expect answers from Netanyahu before he leaves town tonight or tomorrow?
MR. GIBBS: Again, the conversations that the Prime Minister and the President are having are ongoing.
Q Robert, Israel is confirming further plans to expand housing in East Jerusalem. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. GIBBS: I asked — specifically asked our team on this. They said they are seeking clarification on that announcement. And I will withhold comment until we have clarification based on some questions they have for the Israelis on that. I would say this: I think our position is fairly well known.
Q On financial regulatory reform, can you talk about the meeting with Dodd and Frank, and what the prospects are for a bipartisan deal? You’re going to need some Republican help in the Senate to get something done on this.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, quite frankly, I think you’ve seen comments today from Senator Corker saying that he believes there will be Republicans that do support financial reform. I think the President had a good meeting with Chairman Frank and Chairman Dodd, thanked them both for their work in moving this process through. Chairman Dodd has a bill now through the committee process. I think the President expects that we will finish financial reform in the next couple of months, certainly by the time we mark the second anniversary of the financial collapse in the early fall.
Q Do you think the President is going to be taking a hands-on role in trying to get this done as he did with health care in the final weeks? Is he going to meet with Republicans to try to get them on board?
MR. GIBBS: I think the President has been very hands-on regarding financial reform, and I think it is one of the President’s top priorities now, understanding, as I’ve said many times, that we need strong rules going forward to prevent the type of collapse we saw in the fall of 2008.
Ed.
Q Robert, I just wanted to follow up on the question about Israel and keeping that event closed with the Prime Minister. You also have an event today where you’re signing — the President is signing an executive order on abortion that is a pretty big national issue. Why would that be closed press, no pictures?
MR. GIBBS: We’ll put out a picture from Pete.
Q But what about a picture from the actual national media, not from —
MR. GIBBS: Oh, the picture from Pete will be for the actual event.
Q Right, but what about allowing us in, for openness and transparency?
MR. GIBBS: We’ll have a nice picture from Pete that will demonstrate that type of transparency.
Q Not the same, Robert. Never has been.
MR. GIBBS: I know you all disagree with that. I think Pete takes wonderful photos.
Q Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, don’t twist this —
Q — not an attack on Pete.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t know why you’d want to attack Pete, Chuck, but I’m going to stand up here and defend Pete’s —
Q It’s not transparent and it’s a vital issue.
MR. GIBBS: And you will have a lovely picture from Pete. Again, I don’t —
Q You really think that’s all it’s worth, is a photograph, on an issue this important?
MR. GIBBS: No, I think you’ll be able to see the President sign the executive order.
Q Not hear anything anybody has to say?
MR. GIBBS: You’ll have a nice picture.
Q Can I ask on another subject? On another subject I wanted to ask about — the President has been saying the last few days that one of the biggest benefits of the new health care law is that within six months children will no longer have preexisting conditions, and now various health experts are saying, well, when you read it more closely that’s not true. So was the public misled on that?
MR. GIBBS: No, the law is clear, Ed, that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to a child based on a preexisting condition. Under the act, the plan includes — plans that include coverage for children cannot deny coverage based on a preexisting condition. To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, is preparing to issue regulations next month making sure that the term “preexisting” applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan.
Q But if health insurance experts are already saying that they don’t believe it’s clear enough, then — and they might not follow with new regulations —
MR. GIBBS: Our lawyers are clear and the regulations — we believe the law is clear. The regulations will clear up any ambiguity from those experts.
Yes, sir.
Q You mentioned that the President asked Netanyahu for confidence-building measures with the Palestinians and you mentioned that they had areas of agreement and disagreement. Can you be any more specific on that?
MR. GIBBS: No, not right now.
Q When you — when the President holds events and does not allow photographers in it implies that the President is hiding something, is not — is embarrassed about something, is uncomfortable for photographs of that event to be made public.
MR. GIBBS: I disagree with all three of those characterizations.
Q What’s your response to people who say that the way that the President has welcomed Netanyahu to the White House has been as if he’s embarrassed to be seen with Netanyahu — with not even allowing one of Souza’s photographs of it.
MR. GIBBS: Again, we were very comfortable with the coverage for last night’s meeting. They had —
Q There was no coverage.
Q No coverage — there was no coverage.
MR. GIBBS: We were comfortable with that.
Q Are you only pleased when there’s no coverage? Is that what you’re —
MR. GIBBS: What?
Q You’re pleased when there’s no coverage?
MR. GIBBS: We’re pleased that — we were pleased with the way we set up the coverage for last night. Not every — I know this comes as a great shock to both you and to me —
Q — transparent.
MR. GIBBS: I think it comes as a great shock to you and me, but not everything the President does is for the cameras and for the press. It’s something —
Q Not the American people —
Q You don’t see any contradiction at all when the Secretary of State goes before AIPAC and says that the U.S. has no stronger, no closer ally than Israel — and then the President won’t even allow a photograph of him and the Israeli Prime Minister —
MR. GIBBS: No, I don’t see a contradiction at all.
Q — as if he’s embarrassed to be seen with him?
MR. GIBBS: That’s your characterization, not mine.
Q Is the President concerned about photographs of him and Netanyahu being seen in the world?
MR. GIBBS: No. I forget Mark Knoller’s statistics but —
Q This is the second visit that it hasn’t happened.
MR. GIBBS: — I think there have been many pictures of and —
Q Never of a one-on-one. Not a single one-on-one.
MR. GIBBS: No, that’s not true. There was —
Q There were just the trio pictures.
MR. GIBBS: No, that’s not true. There was a spray in the Oval Office with just the two of them.
Q That’s right — talking about Iran.
Q But not the last time. This is two times in a row —
MR. GIBBS: That’s true. Right.
Q Can I ask one other question about the executive order the President is signing today? Does the President think that this executive order is necessary? Does he think that there was ambiguity in the law? Or does he think that there wasn’t any ambiguity but this was just done because people like Bart Stupak wanted it done?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say the President believed that the law — the President has always believed that health care reform should be about that, not about other issues. The President did not, in health care reform, believe we did change the status quo and believes that this reiterates that it’s not changed.
Q So he doesn’t think it’s necessary, it’s just reiterating what is already in the law?
MR. GIBBS: I mean, it’s an executive order so this isn’t — I mean, it’s not a frivolous thing, Jake.
Q No, of course not. But does this executive order change anything that the law already didn’t do?
MR. GIBBS: It ensures that health care, the law the President signed yesterday, maintains the status quo of the federal law prohibiting the federal use — the use of federal dollars for abortion.
Q So it is needed, that the law was not clear enough?
MR. GIBBS: The President reiterated that in the executive order.
Q So all he’s doing is repeating what’s in the law?
Q So it’s just — I mean, you can’t have it both ways. Either the executive order is needed to clarify something that’s not —
MR. GIBBS: No, I — again, I would refer you to the executive order and the statements that we made about this over the weekend.
Q I read the executive order, and it says that’s a reiteration of what already exists.
MR. GIBBS: Well, there you go.
Q So it’s not necessary?
Q Not legally necessary?
MR. GIBBS: We reiterated —
Q Might have been necessary for other reasons, but it’s not legally necessary.
MR. GIBBS: No, we reiterated the status quo, and we’re comfortable reiterating that status quo.
Q — comfortable for a legal purpose?
MR. GIBBS: We’re comfortable reiterating that status quo.
Q Doesn’t it diminish the whole purpose of a presidential — of an executive order if all he’s doing is reiterating what’s already in the law? Why would he do that?
MR. GIBBS: No. No. We don’t see that as diminishing —
Q In Iowa, is — Iowa is on health care?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q So has he already made the hard pivot to jobs, or are we still waiting for that to happen?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we signed the jobs bill about a week ago, right?
Q Right, but in terms of the President’s time — signing a bill doesn’t take much time — but there was always this impression that at some point —
MR. GIBBS: Signing a bill doesn’t take much time, but —
Q Did he spend a lot of time on that?
MR. GIBBS: We talked — I think we laid out in December a plan for — one of the things was a tax break for companies that hire the unemployed. We talked in here extensively about the fact that there’s several different things that will go through Congress. The next bill that the House will take up relating to jobs includes the President’s plan for zero capital gains. There are additional plans that we have to increase lending through community banks to small businesses so that they have adequate access to capital and credit to meet payrolls and to expand.
Chip, the President has been working on the economy since day one.
Q So this pivot to jobs has already — I mean, you talk about this year —
MR. GIBBS: The President has been —
Q — he was going to make a big pivot to jobs.
MR. GIBBS: And the President has —
Q Has that happened or are we still waiting for it?
MR. GIBBS: No, the President has been focused on jobs. He works on jobs every day.
Chuck.
Q Stupak and company, there have been death threats against some of these, and just some — some children of these people have been used in advertisements. I mean, it really has been extraordinary, some of the attacks some of these people have been coming under. Does the White House — is the President aware of that and has he had a response to it?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the degree to which the President has seen some of that coverage, Chip. But, look, I don’t think the President would need to see the coverage to know that, as he has said countless times, regardless of the passion of your views — he has very passionate beliefs and views, and believes in a country as big and as free as America that people should have a right to those passionate views. But we ought to be — we ought to exercise those views not in a way that threatens anybody’s safety or security, not in any way that foments violence. We ought to be able to, in a country as proud and as rich in tradition as the United States of America, to have a debate in a way that is civil and in a way that demonstrates both the passion of our beliefs, but in the values that we hold dearly as a country.
Q Just to finish, does he have any plans for any job events coming up?
MR. GIBBS: He does.
Q Any details?
MR. GIBBS: No.
Q Any of these amendments that Republicans are offering on the Senate floor this week, any of them here that the White House finds that’s a good idea, and you know what, maybe that should be added in?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Chuck, we want the Senate to finish the corrections legislation so that the President can quickly sign it.
Q Sure, but there are a whole bunch of new amendments. Anything strike the President —
MR. GIBBS: I would say this. I think that when you go through the different swing of what these amendments are directed at, I think it’s pretty clear that there’s a lot of game-playing going on.
Q So you don’t take these amendments seriously?
MR. GIBBS: I think these are intended to create a political distraction. I don’t think they’re intended, quite frankly, relating to the budget deficit, relating to health care, and I think if people find things that they want to correct in the legislation, ultimately we can do that through the regular legislative process.
Q In Iowa City, does he have any plans to meet with any of the local leaders in Cedar Rapids that are in the middle of this rebuilding effort after the big flood that they —
MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of, but I will check on that.
Q And then, finally, on the Israeli meeting, it’s my understanding that the Prime Minister came with sort of a set of proposals for the first meeting. And is it — did he — was the whole point of him staying to tweak those —
MR. GIBBS: Chuck, I’m not going to get into —
Q — and offer a new —
MR. GIBBS: I’m not prepared at this point to read out or give substance for the meeting.
Q Would you characterize it as a negotiation?
MR. GIBBS: An honest and straightforward discussion that continues.
Q Negotiations?
MR. GIBBS: I’m happy with mine, but — no, I think — again, I think they had an honest and straightforward discussion about —
Q And the other administration officials, just to clarify, they’re going off campus to meet with the Prime Minister today?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the answer to that.
Q But it is meetings today?
MR. GIBBS: That’s my sense. I don’t know — like I said, I don’t know whether those meetings are here or elsewhere.
Q Staff to staff, they met all the way to 1:00 a.m. in the morning.
MR. GIBBS: 12:30ish a.m., yes.
Q What was the issue that the Israelis had to have two meetings with the President? And on related — does the President still believe in bipartisanship after this solid vote against health?
MR. GIBBS: Well, on the meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu, we —
Q I think we ought to know the substance.
MR. GIBBS: And we are — when we feel comfortable reading those meetings out, we will do so. We —
Q What are you hiding?
MR. GIBBS: We’re not hiding anything. The conversations and the discussions are ongoing. As Chuck mentioned, they continued into very early in the morning. And staff-to-staff, those discussions have not formally continued, but they continue right now. And, again, when we have something that we feel is able to be read out, we will do so.
In terms of bipartisanship, Helen, I would say that — Caren mentioned this earlier — there are — Senator Corker said that he thinks there are Republicans that will support financial reform. I think —
Q McCain said he’s going to oppose everything.
MR. GIBBS: Well, yes, I find it curious that not getting your way on one thing means you’ve decided to take your toys and go home. I don’t think — it doesn’t work well for my six-year-old; I doubt it works well in the United States Senate, because we have issues that are important for his constituents and for all of America.
Look, again, when it comes to financial reform people are going to have an opportunity to weigh in on behalf of the banks or on behalf of consumers. And I’ll let their vote on that dictate which side of that ledger they feel most comfortable on.
Q Are you comparing McCain to a six-year-old?
MR. GIBBS: I’m saying that I think the notion that if you don’t get what you want you’re not going to cooperate on anything else is not a whole lot different than I might hear from a six-year-old.
Q I think the argument is not that — it’s the reconciliation process that has Republicans upset, Lindsey Graham included as well. They’re saying that spoils the bipartisan atmosphere. It’s not not getting what you want.
MR. GIBBS: When reconciliation happened in 2001 with the Bush tax cuts I didn’t sense that it spoiled the ability for Congress to continue working together. I don’t see why that would happen now, unless people decided that they were going to take their toys and go home.
Q Could you clarify exactly why a regulation is needed for the preexisting condition issue for children?
MR. GIBBS: All I said was that regulations have to happen regarding a lot of aspects of the legislation in order to ensure that any ambiguity — if there is any ambiguity, that regulations will clearly denote that somebody that offers a plan that covers children cannot deny anybody coverage based on a preexisting condition.
Q Does the White House believe there is ambiguity right now?
MR. GIBBS: No. No. But we will seek to ensure that there — that nobody feels that there is any ambiguity, based on the regulations that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will put forward.
Q Is this a particular regulation on this one issue, or a regulation on the whole package that —
MR. GIBBS: Look, I think there will be regulations, obviously, surrounding any number of issues in this. This is — the answer that I gave on that is particular to preexisting conditions for children.
Q In the meantime, before the regulation is issued, is the President going to continue talking about that as an immediate benefit?
MR. GIBBS: Oh, absolutely. It is an immediate benefit.
Q Well, so, to segue from that, Robert, when will this rule kick in for the coverage of —
MR. GIBBS: The rules that — the immediate benefits that I described a couple of days ago — and I’ll find the exact number of days; there are differences for different things — keeping your coverage — a 26-year-old keeping — staying on their parents’ plan, a small business having —
Q How about children with preexisting coverage?
MR. GIBBS: Right, well, what I’m saying is, the several immediate benefits that I outlined over the course of the past couple of days phase in at different points in the year 2010.
Q Can an insurance company right now refuse to provide coverage for a child with preexisting condition?
MR. GIBBS: Again, my understanding is that that — this will phase in over a certain amount of time. When that phases in, they will not be able to.
Q When does that begin?
MR. GIBBS: That’s what I said I would check on.
Q Just wanted to just follow up on one point about this Obama-Netanyahu communication. You said — first of all, you said there are ongoing conversations, and then later you said there are ongoing conversations between the President and the Prime Minister. So are we to take that —
MR. GIBBS: No, I don’t — I’m sorry, I don’t think — I said — I may have been imprecise. The Prime Minister, I believe, will meet with — I believe he’s going to meet with Senator Mitchell. There may be other staff as well.
Q In town?
MR. GIBBS: In town.
Q Is that today?
MR. GIBBS: Yes. The President’s staff and the Prime Minister’s staff met until I think around 12:30-ish last night and have continued to be in touch as part of that ongoing discussion today.
Q So you meant his staff — you made a second reference.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, earlier I said that there’s nothing on the President’s schedule that involves a meeting with the Prime Minister at this point.
Q Would you rule out a phone conversation between — before the Prime Minister leaves?
MR. GIBBS: I do not know that one has been requested, no.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, for Iowa tomorrow, we have the state attorney general challenges, as you mentioned earlier. Is he going to talk about that tomorrow? How will he handle that? In his speech?
MR. GIBBS: I got a draft of the remarks, but I have not had a chance to look at them. I don’t know whether he addresses those in the remarks, Roger, but I’ll say this, that — I think you saw the statement from the Department of Justice, and you’ve seen lawsuits from several of these attorneys general, that we do not believe will be successful.
Q I assume Justice will be fighting those. I understand some of the appeals were filed yesterday.
MR. GIBBS: I saw many press conferences denoting that.
Q Another question. The cofounder of Google says that he has asked the White House for help in this battle with China. Is the White House offering any kind of help to Google?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything on the co-founder’s request. I will check on that.
Q He says he wants the White House to elevate it, make it a human rights issue.
MR. GIBBS: Well, we have — if that’s his request, I can tell you the President fulfilled that last November, as the Secretary of State has fulfilled in meetings also with the Chinese, saying that we believe free communication and a free Internet are rights that everyone should enjoy. The President said that quite clearly in Shanghai last year.
Q You don’t know of anything new, though, since then?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know, but I will check with NSC.
Yes, sir.
Q Was the envoy, Senator Mitchell, involved in the conversations here last night, the ones that went until 12:30 a.m.?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, he was here last night. Yes.
Q So he’s been part of this entire —
MR. GIBBS: Oh, absolutely.
Q Now, you have repeatedly used the word “discussion.” Is there something you’re uncomfortable with in using the word “negotiation”? Because most people would assume that if there is all this conversation, a negotiation might be taking place. But you don’t use that word. So is it fair to assume, therefore, that this is something the administration is asking of the Israelis and until it fulfills there really isn’t a negotiation, because some of the points are non-negotiable?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have any strong allegiance to different words. I’ll just say, again, Major, that the President has asked the Prime Minister for certain things to build confidence leading up to proximity talks that we think can make progress. These are discussions that are ongoing and, needless to say, we’ve had many of these discussions for many months relating to different issues.
Q From the President’s point of view, are the things requested non-negotiable?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I’m not going to get into the substance yet of the meeting.
Q You can’t even answer that, yes or no?
MR. GIBBS: I appreciate you trying to pin me down on me saying I’m not going to discuss the substance by putting me on one side of the ledger or not, but —
Q That’s actually not a substantive question — it’s about what the President has privately discussed with the Israelis and if they’re non-negotiable from his point of view.
MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to get into the substance. I think I’ve now said that on camera about eight times.
Q There are different variations to —
MR. GIBBS: I appreciate the atmospherics of parsing, but I’m not going to get into it.
Q This is not a topic that’s immune from parsing, as you well know.
MR. GIBBS: I’m learning just in the last, say, 20 seconds.
Q The Czechs have said that there is to be a signing ceremony in Prague on April 8th for the START treaty. Is that premature?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we’ve always discussed internally returning to the city the President outlined a speech in last year envisioning a world without nuclear weapons. We believe that a new START treaty begins to take many important steps between the two greatest holders of those nuclear weapons. So I would anticipate that when we have something to sign, it will be in Prague.
Q Is it premature to place that date for that event?
MR. GIBBS: Again, as I said earlier, the President I think hopes to speak to the Russian leader in the next several days, but there’s still some things that need to be worked out —
Q That would be the final conversation you would envision?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t want to get ahead of what the conversation might be.
Q Okay. The Commerce Department reported today housing sales fell 2.2 percent last month, attributed in some large measure to the terrible weather, but also this is the fourth consecutive month that house sales have declined. The homebuyers’ tax credit is going to expire in the very near future. To what degree is there a concern either here or the Commerce Department, the administration broadly, about this sector of the economy? And what other ideas or proposals do you intend to —
MR. GIBBS: Well, let me check on the expiration of the current tax credit. I know that the Vice President did an event earlier in the week demonstrating that tax returns will be bigger this year as a result of many of the tax credits in the Recovery Act as the homeowners’ — homebuyers’ one being one of the bigger ones.
Look, there’s no doubt that housing and real estate continue to be complicated problems for our economy. And we will continue to — continue our modification program and to strengthen that program in order to keep as many people as possible in their houses, and to continue to work towards building an economy that has a stable foundation and we can see a turnaround in that.
Yes, sir.
Q Did Prime Minister Netanyahu’s staff request a different coverage scheme for last night? Did they ask for a picture taken between the Prime Minister and the President?
MR. GIBBS: I honestly don’t know, to be honest with you.
Q What leverage is the United States, is the President bringing to bear on these discussions? When you see, again, new housing in East Jerusalem today announced — what is the leverage behind these talks?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I would say — I would categorize the — we have a strong partnership with a strong ally. We share great concerns about Israel’s security and we — as I’ve said here for probably the past almost two weeks, there’s an unbreakable bond between the United States and the Israeli people.
Q When they do so many wrong things.
MR. GIBBS: Well, as I’ve also said many times, there are areas in which we have agreements and areas in which we have disagreements. Those were discussed last night between the President and the Prime Minister.
Q Has the question of U.S. aid to Israel been linked to these talks at all?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of, no.
Yes, sir.
Q Two, Robert. Let me return to START real quickly — Senator Kerry and Lugar meeting this morning — did the President share language with those two senators? Does he have language on verification and missile defense that he’s convinced the Senate will actually ratify?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Mark, we’re not going to — I think we understand that ratification is what ultimately has to happen. We’re certainly mindful of that. The President took the opportunity to update the chair and the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee on the status of our negotiations with the Russians on START. Obviously they’ll play a very big role in Senate ratification.
Needless to say, this is — the President and Senator Lugar have had a relationship on this issue that dates back, in all honesty, to about a week after he was elected to the Senate. They had a phone conversation about the President joining the Foreign Relations Committee. In that phone call the President, in 2004, asked Senator Lugar to be part of a trip to Russia that next year in 2005.
Q On the two issues that I was asking about, though, is there language now that —
MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously we think we’re getting quite close to an agreement, so I would say language and interpretation is certainly part of that ongoing process, yes.
Q All right. Then, briefly, if you will, on Iowa City tomorrow — if this is such a great deal that the President has been talking about, why does he still need to sell it?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Mark, obviously the law that was signed yesterday will — as we’ve talked about here, there are some immediate benefits and then there are aspects that, as the President discussed yesterday, will be phased in over the next several years.
I think the President believes it is important to continue to talk about the many aspects of the law that will do precisely what he said they’re intended to do: help small businesses that provide health coverage for their employees. I’m sure there will be parents of those that attend the University of Iowa that will have some interest in keeping their children on a health insurance policy through the age of 26. So I think there are many aspects of this that the President will talk about not only tomorrow in Iowa City, but I anticipate will spend some time talking about for, in all honesty, the next several years.
Q Robert, I think you mentioned that the Presidents were expected to talk in the next couple of days, and then you said several days —
MR. GIBBS: No, I think I said the next few days. I think I need like a — can you guys make a real-time sort of — I think it’s in the next few days.
Q The next few days.
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have a schedule in front of me that would say which day that is.
Q By Friday?
MR. GIBBS: I’m just not going to say — I’m going to say the next few days. I don’t — I won’t guess on which day.
Q Robert, back to START. How would you characterize the Russians in their negotiating style for the past year or so, since this first commenced? Would you characterize it as respectful and honest in candor? And do you also, when this is signed, do you hope to use START as sort of a new sense of symbolism for other aspects of this important relationship?
MR. GIBBS: I think that ever since the two leaders got together in London, I think last March or April, early April — I forget the exact date — we have been focused on a new type of dialogue and a partnership where the two countries can address the issues that — the issues of mutual agreement. We have worked with them on our next steps on Iran. We’ve worked with them in different avenues relating to North Korea.
I’ve said several times that we wanted to get this treaty right. And I’m sure their perspective would be the same. But we wanted to get this treaty right for the United States of America. It’s taken a little extra time for us to get that. But I think the President believes we’re close. And I would say this: The President has been deeply involved personally in moving this process forward and along throughout that process, speaking directly, again, with — on March 13th, in order to move this process even further along.
Q Following on that, does the President think there’s been a risk having let the treaty lapse at the end of last year? Does he have any guarantees that the Russians haven’t taken advantage of this period of —
MR. GIBBS: Let me get some more detailed guidance from NSC on any type of bridging agreements that have been had. But I think we have — I think both sides have negotiated in good faith.
Q And does the President think that the — describe again the endpoint of this new treaty, what the President wants and has held out for in this new version of START.
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t — because we have not finished negotiations, I would prefer not to read out where we are on some of the individual aspects of this. We’ll have an opportunity, no doubt, to do that in the next several days pending an agreement.
Q But he wants reductions in both sides?
MR. GIBBS: Oh, absolutely — no, absolutely.
Q Eventually leading to no nuclear weapons in, what, a century or a lifetime?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t think he’s — I don’t — I think he said in Prague that he may not live to see this day. But former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger are some of the people that the President has spoken fairly regularly to and share the same goal he does of eliminating nuclear weapons from our planet and the risk that — which will be a great focus of the President’s nuclear security summit in April — in securing quickly loose nuclear material throughout the world to prevent that material from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Q And how confident are you that the agreement will be signed before the nuclear summit?
MR. GIBBS: I think we’re very close.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Thanks, Robert. The deficit savings outlined in the health care bill obviously depend on a series of future actions such as the Cadillac tax going into effect or doctor payments remaining unchanged, for example. And even the CBO has said that Congress rarely follows through on those sorts of fiscal restraint promises. So my question is, does the President plan to veto any bills that would undermine or reduce those cost savings?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I’m trying to — a broader point, it’s interesting the degree to which people either lean on or lean away from CBO based on whether they believe CBO has proved or not proved their point. Setting that aside, the President is confident in what he signed will come to fruition and that we’ll take actions to ensure that that happens. I think many of the team believe that cost saving that CBO can’t look into will actually exceed what has been outlined, as is often the case with legislation that they look at.
So the President is confident that we will be on a path toward meeting the more than $1 trillion in deficit savings that the Congressional Budget Office says will happen as a result of the President’s signature over the course of the next two decades.
Q So it sounds like he’s ready to stand up for it in case — you know, if Congress does come to him either now or in the future with a bill that would reduce any of those cost savings, it sounds like he’s prepared to —
MR. GIBBS: Look, the President throughout these negotiations was clear even when others either inside or outside of government did not want to be part of cost reductions as part of health care reform. So the President is very focused on ensuring that what he’s outlined comes to fruition.
Q How many of the Democrats — of the 219 Democrats who voted for “Obamacare” have invited the President to campaign for them in their districts this fall?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have a political schedule in front of me, Lester.
Q Since not one of the Republicans in the House voted for “Obamacare,” and 32 Democrats voted against —
MR. GIBBS: Do you mean — I’m sorry, I’m confused. Do you mean by that the law that the President signed yesterday?
Q “Obamacare,” yes.
MR. GIBBS: Okay, I just was — I didn’t know if that was the Internet vernacular or the name of the bill, Lester. I was a little confused.
Q That’s all right. Since not one of the Republicans in the House voted for this and 32 Democrats voted against it —
Q Thirty-four.
Q — 34, and it won by only —
MR. GIBBS: Thank you. (Laughter.)
Q — seven votes, how can you deny that this is a pyrrhic victory?
Q Trick question. (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I don’t — I was going to say, Lester, I’m a simple man, but I could not really — (laughter) —
Q You know what pyrrhic victory is, don’t you?
MR. GIBBS: I do. I have — I’m going to have — I’m not doing this on purpose — I’m going to have Pete print me a very nice picture that shows the President’s signature on a law yesterday that will benefit the lives of millions of people in this country for many, many years to come. I will let anybody decide what they’d like to call that victory. The President believes it was a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people in knowing that their station in life is not now determined by their access to health care.
Bill.
Q Thank you very much for your answer, Robert. I appreciate that very much.
MR. GIBBS: You’re welcome.
Bill.
Q Robert, Vice President — do you know if Vice President Biden is standing by to go up to Capitol Hill in case that —
MR. GIBBS: He is. He is.
Q And do you expect that he might have to go up there?
MR. GIBBS: If needed, he is ready to go.
Q It’s a big deal? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I am actually enormously shocked that it took us that actual amount of time for — (laughter) — I lost the pool, guys. (Laughter.) The money is back on my desk. I knew that — I know that these guys in the front row had to ask all these — whoo! — foreign policy questions and couldn’t — (laughter) — but I know that each one of them — yes, they’re all laughing, I know.
Q Two of them asked 13 questions apiece, 13.
MR. GIBBS: And explicable, Lester, in that 26 we didn’t get one of those jokes. A pyrrhic victory — right. Go ahead, David, I’m sorry — or Bill, I’m sorry.
Q Robert, has the President said anything to Biden about that?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of.
Q The Republican mantra today is “don’t retreat, repeal” the bill that the President signed yesterday. What is the White House’s response to this “repeal” campaign?
MR. GIBBS: This is — I think I got a similar question the other day, and I will say the same thing I said. If the message that Republicans want to take into a midterm election or in a presidential campaign in 2012 is “we want to take tax cuts away from small businesses”; that they get help in providing health care to their employees; if they’d like to campaign actively on taking help from seniors that fall into the doughnut hole as part of the prescription drug benefit; and if they’d like to take away the safety and security that that mother feels in knowing that the insurance that she pays premiums to each and every month can’t tell her that her child has a preexisting condition — if that’s the platform they want to run on, that would — that sounds like a heck of a good time.
David.
Q Thanks. In 2007, during the campaign, the President said that he does not support the Hyde Amendment and the federal government should not intrude onto a poor woman’s decision whether to carry to term or terminate her pregnancy. So my question today is, as he signs this executive order, which will further enshrine the Hyde Amendment, how does he feel about that?
MR. GIBBS: David, I would have to see what — I don’t know the comment that you’re referring to.
Q He was opposed to the Hyde Amendment.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I’d have to —
Q It was in a questionnaire, a pro-choice questionnaire.
Q It was in a questionnaire —
MR. GIBBS: And I’ll have somebody — I haven’t — you can just assume I haven’t looked at a questionnaire in quite some time.
Q But you stipulate that he opposed the Hyde Amendment, correct?
MR. GIBBS: I would stipulate that the President believes in a woman’s right to choose.
Glen.
Q Robert, you’ve said with a great deal of confidence that you believe that the health reform act will be able to withstand these legal challenges — Cuccinelli, et cetera. What is — specifically, can you sort of give us an idea of what’s the basis of your confidence? Have you gotten anything from Holder or the Counsel’s Office?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you’ve seen the statement that Justice put out yesterday. Obviously this — the argument of constitutionality was one that was brought up during the debate, but I think the Counsel’s Office here, the Department of Justice, and, quite frankly, legal experts throughout the country believe that the right — that the law does not — the law is not unconstitutional based on what these attorneys general are suing for. The notion that — we believe the President and the federal government does have the ability through the interstate commerce clause to ensure health care.
I mean, I — this was an article today quoting a law professor from Stanford. It says: “It would be surprising if the Supreme Court says Congress can’t regulate people who are participating in the $1 trillion health care market,” said David Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University Law School professor. “The lawsuit probably doesn’t have legs both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of common sense.”
Q Robert, as I’m sure you’re aware, there have been sort of counterarguments and talks about sort of disaggregating various parts, including the individual mandate. Can you provide us, in the interests of transparency, with some of the memos that have been provided to the administration in terms of justifying the legal foundation for your —
MR. GIBBS: I’d have to go back and see whether there’s been anything formal that’s been prepared on that.
Q Can I follow on this, please, for one second?
MR. GIBBS: One more and then I’ll —
Q Governor McDonnell in Virginia is signing legislation today to void — in a sense void his state from having to participate in the health care reforms, et cetera. In a broader sense, though, this is the first piece of legislation perhaps since the civil rights movement that so many states have lined up against. Is there some way of making an analogy on there?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know which attorneys — I don’t know which attorneys general in the 1960s were running for higher office, so I don’t know if I could draw the direct analogy that I’d like to draw.
Thanks, guys.
END
1:32 P.M. EDT
EXECUTIVE ORDER
ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (Public Law 111-148), I hereby order as follows:
Section. 1. Policy. Following the recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this order is to establish a comprehensive, Government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors — Federal officials, State officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers — are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.
The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, section 508(d)(1) of Public Law 111-8) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management.
Sec. 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires State health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.
I hereby direct the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this order, a model set of segregation guidelines for State health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that States should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to State health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.
Sec. 3. Community Health Center Program. The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using Federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or Presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 24, 2010.
Mark A. Griffon, of New Hampshire, to be a Member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board for a term of five years, vice Carolyn W. Merritt, term expired.
Rafael Moure-Eraso, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board for a term of five years, vice Gary Lee Visscher, term expired.
Rafael Moure-Eraso, of Massachusetts, to be Chairperson of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board for a term of five years, vice John S. Bresland, resigned.
Robert M. Orr, of Florida, to be United States Director of the Asian Development Bank, with the rank of Ambassador, vice Curtis S. Chin.
Carl Wieman, of Colorado, to be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, vice Sharon Lynn Hays, resigned.
Earlier today, I signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health insurance reform bill passed by Congress. In addition to reducing our deficit, making health care affordable for tens of millions of Americans, and enacting some of the toughest insurance reforms in history, this bill also permanently reauthorizes the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which was first approved by Congress in 1976. As a Senator, I co-sponsored this Act back in 2007 because I believe it is unacceptable that Native American communities still face gaping health care disparities. Our responsibility to provide health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives derives from the nation-to-nation relationship between the federal and tribal governments. And today, with this bill, we have taken a critical step in fulfilling that responsibility by modernizing the Indian health care system and improving access to health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives.