Author: WhiteHouse

  • Presidential Memorandum– Deferred Enforced Departure for Liberians

    03.19.10 09:20 AM

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    SUBJECT: Deferred Enforced Departure for Liberians

    Since 1991, the United States has provided safe haven for Liberians who were forced to flee their country as a result of armed conflict and widespread civil strife, in part through granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The armed conflict ended in 2003 and conditions improved such that TPS ended effective October 1, 2007. President Bush then deferred the enforced departure of the Liberians originally granted TPS. I extended that grant of Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to March 31, 2010. I have determined that there are compelling foreign policy reasons to again extend DED to those Liberians presently residing in the United States under the existing grant of DED.

    Pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States, I have determined that it is in the foreign policy interest of the United States to defer for 18 months the removal of any Liberian national, or person without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia, who is present in the United States and who is under a grant of DED as of March 31, 2010. The grant of DED only applies to an individual who has continuously resided in the United States since October 1, 2002, except for Liberian nationals, or persons without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia:

    (1) who are ineligible for TPS for the reasons provided in section 244(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(B);
    (2) whose removal you determine is in the interest of the United States;
    (3) whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States;
    (4) who have voluntarily returned to Liberia or his or her country of last habitual residence outside the United States;
    (5) who were deported, excluded, or removed prior to the date of this memorandum; or
    (6) who are subject to extradition.

    Accordingly, I direct you to take the necessary steps to implement for eligible Liberians:

    (1) a deferral of enforced departure from the United States for 18 months from March 31, 2010; and
    (2) authorization for employment for 18 months from
    March 31, 2010.

    BARACK OBAMA

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Vice President Biden Announces 10,000 Recovery Act Transportation Projects Now Under

    03.18.10 09:05 AM

    As Spring Construction Season Begins, Active Transportation Projects Totaling $29.8 Billion are Creating Jobs Across the Country

    DURHAM, NC – Vice President Joe Biden today announced that 10,000 transportation projects are now under way in all 50 states and the District of Columbia thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Projects are considered under way when a contractor has been hired, the project has received official notice to proceed, and work has begun. This milestone comes just over a year after the Recovery Act was signed into law and as the spring construction season is getting into full swing.

    The Vice President made the announcement as part of a visit to North Carolina – the state where the 10,000th project, the Sanford Bypass, will break ground. The contractor, DHG Infrastructure, says they are hiring more than 45 employees to work on the project. The $26 million project, which was accelerated by the Recovery Act, will redirect commercial truck traffic away from the heart of the city of Sanford, relieving congestion and maintenance problems, and increasing access for businesses to relocate and expand in the area.

    “The 10,000 transportation projects under way are already helping put us on the road to economic recovery, but there is even more to come,” said Vice President Biden. “This spring, Recovery Act projects will pick up the pace across the country, providing even more jobs improving America’s roads, highways and bridges.”

    In just one year, the Recovery Act has improved more than 33,000 miles of pavement across the United States; helped purchase nearly 12,000 buses, vans and rail vehicles; helped construct or renovate more than 850 transit facilities and provided more than $620 million in preventive maintenance. This helped save and create jobs, and maintained and enhanced the nation’s transportation network. In addition to the 10,000 projects already under way, construction activity is expected to ramp up even further in the next few months as temperatures warm and new projects break ground.

    “Every new Recovery Act project means workers back on the job, paying their rent or mortgage, putting food on the table for their families,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “These 10,000 projects are strengthening our economy and creating jobs right now, and there are more projects still to come this spring.”

    During the first week of March, the U.S. Department of Transportation successfully met an aggressive deadline to “obligate” – or commit funds to specific projects – 100 percent of their Recovery Act highway and transit formula dollars. That important milestone means that for every Recovery Act project, contracts can be bid, workers can be hired and construction can begin on projects that create jobs and drive economic growth.

    In addition to the Sanford Bypass Project, some other major Recovery Act-funded projects under construction include:

    I-4/Selmon Expressway in Tampa. Because of $105 million in Recovery Act funds, construction began earlier this month on the $653 million I-4/Selmon Expressway Crosstown Connector in Tampa. The project will provide direct access for the more than 12,000 commercial trucks that travel through downtown to and from the Port of Tampa every day.

    DART Orange Line in Dallas. Recovery Act funds totaling $61.2 million are helping Dallas Area Rapid Transit construct the 14-mile Orange Line, which will eventually link Downtown Dallas and the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

    Nelsonville Bypass in Southeast Ohio. Ohio is constructing a new, 8.5 mile, four-lane highway to divert freight traffic from U.S. 33, which bottlenecks in the town of Nelsonville. Recovery Act funds totaling $138 million are helping fund this final upgrade of the U.S. 33 corridor in southeast Ohio that will take traffic off local roads, which carry 1,700 trucks a day on one of the busiest truck routes in the state.

    Merritt Parkway, near Fairfield, Conn. Recovery Act funds in the amount of $67 million are improving safety for the estimated 60,000 daily drivers who use the Merritt Parkway by widening shoulders and installing or updating guard rails along 9.3 miles of one of the East Coast’s most congested commuter routes.

    South Westnedge Avenue Interchange on I-94 near Kalamazoo, Mich. Last fall, the Recovery Act fully funded this $47.7 million project to reconstruct the interchange and ease traffic congestion along this key Midwest corridor that serves an estimated 87,000 drivers daily. One additional lane will be added in each direction to widen the road from four lanes to six, allowing cars and trucks to move through Kalamazoo more safely and easily.

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 3/18/2010

    03.18.10 11:06 AM

    12:52 P.M. EDT

    MR. GIBBS: Thank you guys for coming to class being moved outside. I hope you’re wearing your sunscreen. I put SFP 30 on three times, so that’s 90, for any of you keeping track at home.

    This will not be a regular thing. I just thought it’s been a long winter and why not get outside and have a little fun for once in a while.

    So let’s start with a few quick announcements. Obviously we’re enjoying some beautiful weather here, but out in the upper Midwest, there’s the possibility of bad flooding again this year along the Red River. Lots of good work and preparation have gone into efforts out there to prevent flooding and damage with state and local officials. And Administrator Fugate is traveling to the region over the weekend to ensure that all resources are there that could be necessary.

    The President — second announcement — the President is pleased that the House will soon post the health care legislation on the Internet, and then a final vote is coming. Since the House rules rightly provide for a 72-hour public review period, it is clear that a final vote on health insurance reform cannot take place before Sunday afternoon. As a result, the President telephoned the leader of Indonesia and will call the leader of Australia later this afternoon, and told them that he must postpone his planned visits for a later date so that he can remain in Washington for this critical vote. The President now expects to visit Indonesia in June.

    The President greatly regrets the delay. Our international alliances are critical to America’s security and economic progress. But passage of health insurance reform is of paramount importance, and the President is determined to see this battle through.

    Lastly, want to announce that in recognition of the deep ties and strong relationship that President Obama has forged with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, President Obama and the First Lady will host President Calderón and the Mexican First Lady in a White House — at the White House for a state dinner on Wednesday, May 19th. The dinner will take place in the context of an official visit by President Calderón, during which the President will have an opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues with President Calderón, including economic competitiveness, our growing security cooperation, clean energy opportunities, immigration, and other key issues.

    And with that —

    Q Thanks, Robert. Did the President have a hand in when this health care legislation was going to be posted? I mean, theoretically, he could have urged leadership to post this yesterday, getting him out of town on Sunday. Is this a delay that he welcomes?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, look, this has, Phil, has been a long, hard process, taken more than a year. I think the President believes that the House leadership wanting to talk to the full caucus and get a CBO score was the right thing to do. Again, we greatly regret the delay in the trip, but at the same time have told the leaders this is an important priority for the President and have — we’ll reschedule that trip for June.

    Q Does he still have confidence this is going to pass?

    MR. GIBBS: The President still believes we will have the votes, yes.

    Q How close are you? Are you within a handful, or a dozen votes? What do you think?

    MR. GIBBS: I don’t have a number to predict. I think the President, in the calls and the meetings that he’s having with individual leaders, is making great progress. I will say I think today’s CBO score provides a significant boost to health reform. It proves that this legislation, if you look at it compared to the previous Senate legislation, provides better consumer protection, greater affordability, greater deficit reduction, and more coverage for the uninsured. So I — again, I think the President’s case is strengthened.

    Q And what is the President going to be doing over the next 72 hours to try to push this over? And kind of walk us through the flavor of some of these conversations, if you don’t mind.

    MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has spent in the Oval Office and on the telephone over the last several days — he’ll continue doing so today; met with more than two dozen — met and called more than two dozen members of Congress.

    But Steve, I think the case the President has made to them is very much the case that he’s made to the American people over the last couple of weeks. We know what happens if we do nothing. We know what happens to rate increases — with rate increases. We know — we know we have an opportunity to provide small businesses with a tax cut to provide insurance for their employees. We know what this does for families with children that are suffering from what an insurance company considers a preexisting condition.

    I think all of those are — all of those are part of the case that he’s making, as well as continuing to say that this is important to get done now.

    Yes, sir.

    Q Robert, just as more details about those conversations — understanding you can’t give us the names of who he’s talking with — but in terms of the content of those conversations, what is he saying that he hasn’t already said already? The President has been having conversations like this for over a year. There’s obviously a new sense of urgency; the foreign trip has been cancelled. Can you give us any kind of characterization of the specifics of those conversations? Has the President said, “Listen, the future of my agenda is on the line unless we get this through”?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the President would be the first to tell you that there will be — after health care passes, there will be many big issues with which we have to tackle. We’ve talked about a few just over the past week: Financial reform, obviously, is something that is going to take up a great amount of the administration’s time; the Citizens United case and campaign finance, again, being just two of those.

    I think partly the urgency of getting this done now — and this always happens as we get closer to a vote. And I would say this, and I’ve said it before: Undoubtedly the insurance increases that we’ve seen by WellPoint and Anthem over the past many weeks and many other insurance companies in the individual market where insurance coverage is — where the health care costs are going up 4 or 5 percent but rate increases are going up 40 or 60 percent. I think that has crystallized people’s desire to get something done this year, because that’s a good preview of what happens if we don’t do anything — more letters like that, more stories like Natoma Canfield get told. And I think the President believes these are the type of problems that he and his administration were sent here to solve. So I think that’s the flavor of that intensity.

    Q So more of the same, he hasn’t articulated any kind of personal stake and repercussions if this doesn’t get through.

    MR. GIBBS: Look, very clearly the President wants to get this done. I think — I doubt any member that’s spoken with the President would in any way doubt his strong desire to see this through. So I have no doubt that that’s coming through as well.

    Ed.

    Q Thanks, Robert. Democrat Stephen Lynch, who supported the health bill last year, is now saying he’s probably a “no” vote because he thinks it’s disingenuous to do this deem and pass maneuver. I know the Speaker has still not really told everyone how it’s going to work, but the President last night wouldn’t tell FOX one way or another whether he supports it. Can you just tell us, yes or no, does the President support using this maneuver?

    MR. GIBBS: Ed, again, as I’ve said, and as you just reiterated, it’s unclear what legislative process the Speaker will use, and I’ll let her decide and announce that. I think the President was pretty clear yesterday, just as I was the day before that, that everyone knows what this vote is, everyone knows what this vote is about.

    Q Why can’t he just tell the American people yes or no, I want the Speaker to do this or I don’t? Some Democrats are saying it will harm the credibility of the process.

    MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that the President is of the strong belief, and quite frankly watching CNN it appears as if you all are of the strong belief that the vote that we’re going to have on Sunday is about whether we’re going to have health care reform or not. Again, I don’t sense that the stories that are coming out are where you are on the rule.

    Q Okay. And the President also last night basically said everybody knows what’s in the bill, but as you said it’s just being put online now. We haven’t really seen it. Since he says everybody knows what’s in the bill, can you tell us whether some of these special deals are still in — the Connecticut hospital, et cetera?

    MR. GIBBS: I think what he stated, Ed, was that the outlines of what the national — I’m sorry, the outlines of the exchanges and many of the things like that are based on the Senate bill. I have not had a chance and I will wait for something to be posted online to go through any of those individual aspects.

    Q Last thing, on the CBO numbers that you were talking about, obviously the most important thing, it seems, to conservative Democrats who are deciding or still on the fence is the long-term budget projections, and specifically CBO says that these numbers are imprecise; even though they’re good in the short-term, they’re imprecise, especially in the long term “because there’s a greater degree of uncertainty” about the second 10 years of all of this. So how can —

    MR. GIBBS: I think, quite frankly, Ed, in most cases the CBO tends to underfactor, quite frankly, the savings that you generally see on the back end of these things.

    Q Well, but giving the spending that’s going on in Washington right now, how can the President assure the American people that these projections, which are so far off, are going to turn out to be true? I mean, we’ve seen numbers change in Democratic and Republican administrations repeatedly.

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Ed, I think our reading of this is that CBO has tended to underfactor savings that you’re likely to see over the long term. This is their best estimation. It’s the guidepost with which Congress uses for each and every piece of legislation.

    Chip. Go ahead.

    Q Thank you, Robert. In the meetings the President is holding with members of Congress — and by the way, is he having meetings today?

    MR. GIBBS: Sure.

    Q Jason Altmire was here today. Is he meeting with him? He was here for the bill signing.

    MR. GIBBS: I have not talked about names. Obviously there were — I assume there have been a number of people that were at a bill signing that probably were spoken to by — with staff. I don’t know who the President has met with today.

    Q And Congressman Cao of Louisiana was here too. Were they invited to try to get them to vote for this bill?

    MR. GIBBS: I think they played roles in getting the bill — the very important legislation that the President signed right here just a few hours ago to provide tax credits for small businesses that hire the unemployed. So that’s why they were invited to that ceremony, I think, along with many dozen members of Congress.

    Q It wasn’t to twist their arms on health care reform?

    MR. GIBBS: I don’t doubt that somebody mentioned health care reform while they were here. I don’t — my sense is there are probably not many conversations happening in any place in this town that don’t involved something about health care.

    Q In his conversations with members, to what degree is he stressing — is the President stressing the importance of passing health care to his strength as President, the health of his presidency?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Chip, I think the — I don’t think anybody doubts the desire for the President — the President’s desire to see this through, the President’s desire to get this done. He spent quite a bit of time in the first 15 months of his presidency tackling a problem that he believes we have failed to deal with adequately for 70 or so years.

    Again, after health care passes, I think that we will move on to many other extremely important issues. We’ve got several more bites at the economic apple in terms of small business lending, zero capital gains for small business on the economic side; as I mentioned, financial reform, the Citizens United campaign finance case, comprehensive energy legislation. I think there’s no doubt there will be many, many more big issues with which the President deals with. Obviously this is one he wants to see through.

    Q There’s a report out there that says the President told some members that the fate of his presidency depends on passing health care reform. Is that true? Has he said that?

    MR. GIBBS: I have — I’m not aware of that, but I can certainly check again.

    Q Would it be out of character for him to say that? Or is that one of the arguments that they’d make?

    MR. GIBBS: No, again, I think nobody doubts his desire to see this through.

    Q On the trip, why not just delay it one day? If it’s going to happen Sunday, does that signal that he’s concerned about what’s going to happen in the Senate?

    MR. GIBBS: No. Scheduling worked throughout the night when it became apparent that the bill wasn’t going to post yesterday to see about moving the trip back. We looked through and pulled out what very little padding remained from having moved the trip from Thursday to Sunday, and without — unless we took off basically extremely early in the afternoon on Sunday, it wasn’t going to be possible to do. And we had a speech to the Australian parliament that you don’t want to call on Sunday and say, hey, is there a way we can move this back a day? So it just at that point seemed obvious to us that the best course of business was to reschedule Indonesia and Australia for June.

    Q I talked to one expert on Indonesia today who said there’s tremendous disappointment there that the President had cancelled plans to bring his family. Do you think that might be reconsidered, given that he did spend four years of his life as a child there?

    MR. GIBBS: I don’t know. I mean, obviously I think those plans will be made as we look toward scheduling in June. I think the President is disappointed based on the relationship that we have with a growing democracy, with an important country in our counterterrorism relationship, in a country that’s the largest Muslim country in the world. The President looked forward to building off of what he talked about in Cairo. But we’ll get a chance to visit both the countries in June.

    Q And final question. On deem and pass, or the “Slaughter rule,” the President is a constitutional law expert himself. Does he believe it’s constitutional? Would he sign a bill that —

    MR. GIBBS: He would sign a bill, yes.

    Q He’s not worried that it’s constitutional?

    MR. GIBBS: He would sign that bill, yes.

    Yes.

    Q Robert, are you worried that the sort of calendar vice grip that you have the House in, with this trip now being gone, that they will take advantage of this delay and maybe dilly dally a little bit?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, judging from what I’ve seen on television and in news reports today, I think this is — you’ll see a vote on — the best I can tell you, you’ll see a vote on Sunday.

    Q And then the Senate calendar, you feel confident that everything is going to get done before the Easter recess?

    MR. GIBBS: That’s our strong hope. That’s our strong hope.

    Q And delay — not an option in your mind, or —

    MR. GIBBS: Well, look, Chuck, I think the President would tell you that this has — we’ve been working on this quite a long time. We want to get this done.

    Q Are all of these calls right now to House members, or are there some senators now he’s having to call to get them to sign this letter, this potential letter that they would send over to guarantee —

    MR. GIBBS: He has spoken with a handful of senators over the past several days. And as I said over the weekend, this is a — the President is involved in talking to both the House and the Senate because this is a two-step process.

    Q Are you confident you have the 51 votes in the Senate? You don’t have it now — you know you don’t have the House votes, I know that. Do you have the Senate votes?

    MR. GIBBS: I’ve not talked with Legislative Affairs about the latest vote count, but again I believe that we will — this bill will pass the House and then it will pass the Senate.

    Q Did any Senate leadership ask you to delay this trip? We know plenty of House members have. Did the Senate?

    MR. GIBBS: None that I’m aware of.

    Q Can you rule out that the President has offered anything in exchange for a vote — whether it’s a reelection campaign thing or some sort of bill that they want to take up or immigration or anything like this?

    MR. GIBBS: Chuck, we will — I expect this President will spend a lot of time on the campaign trail when it’s time to spend time on the campaign trail.

    Q No, I understand that, but anything —

    MR. GIBBS: Chuck, I don’t think a member of Congress is going to say I’ll vote for health care if you come visit my district and campaign for me. I don’t — I just don’t — I don’t see that.

    Q And finally, on the trip, sort of what it sends — messaging, how concerned are you that a domestic political – “crisis” is not the right — a domestic political issue, problem, whatever you want to call this right now, delays a international visit like this in a very important region in the world? Are you worried the message that sends to a China or to Indonesia, and how concerned is the President?

    MR. GIBBS: The readout that we got from the calls that the President has made — again, he’ll talk with Prime Minister Rudd later today — the readout that we’ve gotten from those calls is that each of these two countries understands what the President has been working on, what’s been involved in, and the importance that he has in seeing it through.

    So — and again, we’ve outlined when this trip would be rescheduled, but I will tell you the President believes — believed it was an important trip now and believes it will be an important trip based on many of the things that we’ve discussed, whether it’s counterterrorism, whether it’s our export agenda — a whole host of things that —

    Q I know I said that was the last question, but you largely have said before, the President can walk and chew gum at the same time. Are you worried that this sends —

    MR. GIBBS: I can confirm that.

    Q — sends a message that in this case you guys are just choosing to stay here and do health care?

    MR. GIBBS: No, look, again, I think that the President believed — again, understand this, that we did not want to wake up on — or we did not want at 10:00 on Sunday morning to make a call to the Indonesians and the Australians and say, I know we were going to be there in a matter of hours, but we’re not going to be there. That’s — I think that — I think that would cause some problems just on common sense and manners. But, again, I think the President believed that this was something that was important to him. Both the trip and the legislation are — I think the President believes that right now the place for him to be is in Washington seeing this through.

    I’ll wind my way.

    Q Robert, this one is on the jobs bill. When the White House was unrolling these various initiatives, the point was made frequently that these were all interlocking integral pieces of one package to create jobs. This is a partial move. Is the White House concerned that given the health care debate and other items that are waiting on the agenda that this is just too slow in coming and that these integral pieces will in fact not be passed by Congress?

    MR. GIBBS: No, I mentioned just a few minutes ago I think that the President will soon — the President and the economic team will soon start working through the next step of this. I know there have meetings already here this past week to talk about the small business aspects, whether it’s, as I mentioned, zero capital gains, whether it’s depreciation, whether it’s $30 billion in lending to small businesses through smaller community banks.

    So we talked about this I think many weeks ago, that the — we understood that this was not all going to be engrossed in one big bill. And the President will continue to work through the plans that he’s outlined, either at the — toward the end of December or in the State of the Union, about ideas that we have to create jobs and create an environment where businesses are hiring again.

    Q The $30 billion lending facility sort of looms as the next big fight, given that the proposition is that TARP will be used. Do you think the health care debate sort of damages the landscape for that to pass? And now with the Easter recess coming, you’re moving it at least two weeks down the road.

    MR. GIBBS: Look, I take everybody at their word. I think there is not a member on Capitol Hill that when they talk about the economy, doesn’t talk about small business. I can’t imagine that — I can’t imagine that you’d truly want to see politics played with small businesses getting access to greater capital when that’s what many of them tell the President and I think tell members of Congress they need in order to meet their payroll and expand their business.

    Q Why do you think that politics won’t be played with this, given the politics that are being played with health care for 30 million people?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the voters will have their say on the politics. I note that 11 Republicans decided not to play politics with final passage of a jobs tax credit, despite warnings of what happens if health care goes forward. Again, I think that the President was and the Congress were sent here to address the problems that people face in this country and that’s what voters want us to see — want to see us do.

    Yes, sir.

    Q Robert, when Dennis Kucinich announced his decision to vote for health care reform yesterday, he said that one of the big motivating factors was his concern about attempts to check quote delegitimatize the President. Do you sense that?

    MR. GIBBS: I did not — I was in a meeting when Congressman Kucinich made his —

    Q Those were his exact words.

    MR. GIBBS: I don’t know what in its entirety that meant. Again, I don’t think anybody would question the strong desire of the President to get this done.

    Q You keep saying that.

    MR. GIBBS: I think that’s largely proven by events. (Laughter.) I don’t think — I think his desire to get it done extends far beyond what I say.

    Q Well, let me take another crack at the enormity of this challenge as viewed from the White House. How much does passage of all of the other future issues that you’ve outlined here today hinge on success on health care reform?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, at the risk of repeating myself, I think health care is going to pass the House on Sunday. I believe shortly it will pass the Senate and the President will be able to sign all of it into law. And we will wake up a week or two weeks from now with what we talked about a minute ago — the need to get credit flowing to small businesses. We will discuss financial regulatory reform so that the rules of the road are different than what caused the type of greed and risk-taking on Wall Street. So we will wake up and there will be more to do. I think that’s true and safe to say about every day you’re here.

    Q One more on the fallout from this debate. What are the legal and political assessments here of all of these actions by Idaho, Virginia, different states that say that they’re not going to accept rules that require people to have health insurance? And even on gun sales and other federal issues?

    MR. GIBBS: I’d have to look specifically at what they’re arguing on gun sales. Certainly the belief here is that a provision that requires responsibility and accountability in health care is important, that that would certainly meet any constitutional argument.

    And I would say that — again, I think you’ve heard the President discuss this — some people say, well, why don’t you just do half of this? Well, in order to institute provisions that will phase in in the bill for preexisting conditions, ensuring that preexisting conditions don’t affect anybody ever, you need to have people in the system. If not, you’d have the system be gamed — you’d have insurance companies, even more than they’re doing now, pick winners and losers to the point where you wouldn’t have reform.

    So, again, the President and the team believe strongly that what we’re about to pass and sign into law will meet constitutional muster.

    Yes.

    Q As Peter mentioned, there are — a couple of states have actually passed measures saying that we’re not going to let a universal mandate go through in our state. Dozens of others are poised to pass similar measures. So can you explain what the disconnect is? When the administration and Democratic leadership says this is going to save states overall billions of dollars, why don’t they see that? Where can you — what’s the disconnect when they’re saying this is unconstitutional and dozens of states have lined up against it?

    MR. GIBBS: You’re asking me to explain the physics of politics. I think the CBO discusses in great detail the type of savings that the system is going to see from this. Whether or not the politics is — whether people’s political agendas are speaking more than what’s on — what’s best for their constituents, I think that will ultimately be for voters to decide.

    Roger.

    Q Thank you. Shift topic just a little bit — Mr. Netanyahu is going to be in town next week. Now with the trip postponed, what are — can you walk us through plans for bilats?

    MR. GIBBS: We have not gotten that far down that road yet. We’ll have a week ahead tomorrow but I have — I am not sure they’ve gotten that detailed into next week.

    Q There will be some bilats, won’t there?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, let me have a fuller conversation when scheduling has a chance to breathe a little bit.

    Q The New York Times reported this morning some talk within the White House of a American plan in the wake of the stalled talks right now. Is that correct? Is there talk within the White House —

    MR. GIBBS: Roger, our focus is on — and our focus for the past several days has been on restarting the proximity talks and calling on both sides to take steps to return to the table and to refrain from any type of actions or announcements that would undermine the trust that’s necessary to get them there. That’s what our focus is.

    Q No American plan?

    MR. GIBBS: Our focus is on returning to proximity talks.

    Major.

    Q Robert, from the podium either indoors or outdoors you’ve taken the opportunity at times when the President has been misquoted or there’s been a misimpression left about what the President has said in a various conversation, and you haven’t availed yourself of that opportunity today to say he has not told members in their conversations about health care that either the fate of his presidency or the strength of his presidency rides on this. Do you wish to correct that impression?

    MR. GIBBS: No, I have not asked him. I generally don’t —

    Q So you don’t know?

    MR. GIBBS: I think I said that earlier — I generally don’t —

    Q No, you just said that everyone understands he wants to get it done. I’m just trying to find out if it would be wrong —

    MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t think those are mutually exclusive. Again, I don’t — I’ll leave it to your own reporting rules whether you want to — how you want to report certain things. I have not talked to the President about whether or not — whether or not he said that.

    Again, the President strongly wants to get this done, Major — wants to get this done in the House this weekend. I think we’re going to get that done. And as I said earlier, we will wake up sometime next week with a whole set of issues, some of which none of us were thinking about and none of you all were writing and reporting on that we’ll have to deal with.

    Q And when you wake up, if health care is passed, will you wake up in a stronger legislative and political position or a weaker one?

    MR. GIBBS: An equally sunny day as this.

    Q Makes no difference, in other words?

    MR. GIBBS: No, again —

    Q Because I don’t think the American public, seeing the stakes as they’re playing themselves out, would naturally conclude that it makes no difference one way or the other to for the President’s legislative calendar agenda?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t normally engage in hypotheticals and I think I’ve said from the sunny confines of the Rose Garden several times today that I believe that health care is going to pass.

    Q Okay. On the issue of the CBO scoring, there are a couple of sentences in there that note this is a preliminary analysis and that full reconciliation language hasn’t been fully vetted. Isn’t that any numerical or political concern to the White House as it tries to get the final votes in the House? Do you think that has any implications?

    MR. GIBBS: I’m not a budget expert, Major, but I think that this is a pretty strong indication of the type of sense this makes fiscally. I think that you see that in the first 10 years, this legislation will save more than $100 billion, and over the 10 years after that, more than $1 trillion; greater affordability; greater coverage for the uninsured; stronger consumer protections.

    Look, I have no doubt that CBO will continue to evaluate and provide scores for a long time to come, but I think the President is and the administration are strongly encouraged by exactly what CBO reported today.

    Q Did you also note the one caveat — the additional caveat that this only deals with mandatory spending and has not had time or the requisite data to analyze these discretionary spending implications of this legislation?

    MR. GIBBS: I have not read the full 25 pages that —

    Q Is that a concern?

    MR. GIBBS: — that I’m sure many of you have. I have not talked to anybody on that.

    Q Okay. Secretary of State Clinton is overseas in Moscow. There is some suggestion that perhaps the START talks are reaching a moment of culmination. Do you have a general bit of guidance, any readout on that? Should we anticipate something in the near future? Is this something you think will culminate closer to the summit here in mid-April?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, we have always talked about this in a way that — the negotiations we want to see produce a deal that moves forward the President’s goal of nuclear security and reducing the amount of nuclear weapons in our world; at the same time ensuring that that works for the best interest of the United States. So that has clearly taken some time to do.

    I think it is safe to say that the President has been more personally involved with these negotiations than you’ve probably seen in 20 or 25 years. So we’re certainly hopeful that we get something done. I know the Secretary of State will go to Moscow; I have no doubt that this will come up along with the important meetings that —

    Q The Quartet?

    MR. GIBBS: — that she has with the Quartet. But, again, I think the President — the President has spent an awful lot of his own time working directly with Mr. Medvedev to ensure that we make the progress that we need on these — on this START treaty.

    Q On the trip, is it understood that it would just be a re-creation of this trip, you would not be expanding it to places like India or something like that in June, or is it a possibility?

    MR. GIBBS: I don’t want to make any announcements about the scope of the trip beyond the two countries. That’s not to say that it might not happen. I just know that —

    Q It’s possible, in other words?

    MR. GIBBS: — that in discussing our cancellation with Indonesia and Australia we mentioned that — we gave them a window for coming back in June.

    Q This might be self-evident but I’m a bit dense — is it necessary you think for the President to be here next week for the Senate part of this process? Because the reconciliation process is not guaranteed and there are some anxieties among House Democrats as to what they do will be replicated and passed in the Senate. Is part of his reason for staying here to be available for that process as well?

    MR. GIBBS: Obviously that helps. I don’t — I think our focus was most immediately on the vote in the House, and understanding that as a result of the change — as I mentioned to Chip — as a result of the likely change in our departure time, that in many ways made the rest of the discussion somewhat moot. It was a very short meeting on whether or not, based on the available evidence we had to make that determination, despite the great importance of the trip. So as a result of it we have the opportunity to be here the rest of this week and all of next.

    Q Thank you, Robert.

    MR. GIBBS: Yes.

    Q Major covered most of the ground that I — (laughter.)

    MR. GIBBS: Density aside, he covered it all?

    Q Two quick questions on the trip. Did the President actually make —

    MR. GIBBS: Now he’s got his sunglasses and his Coke out. Do you see —

    Q Leaning back —

    MR. GIBBS: I know, it’s — margarita for Mr. Garrett, please, margarita. Sorry, go ahead. (Laughter.) Oh, double. Easy. It’s early yet.

    Go ahead, I’m sorry.

    Q That’s okay. The President actually made the decision to cancel the trip? And when was that made? Was that this morning or last night?

    MR. GIBBS: About 9:45 this morning.

    Q Okay. And both sides, all sides that have been working on the trip have been trying to produce some agreements on a variety of things, some of which had been, I guess, getting closer, and others had not. Was any — was that any consideration in terms —

    MR. GIBBS: No, no, this was —

    Q — of like not having time to finish some of the —

    MR. GIBBS: Again, the only thing we discussed this morning — it was, as I said, a very quick conversation based on what every — the scheduling knowledge that we all brought to the discussion that pushing our departure past a very early window in the afternoon, a drop-dead time in the afternoon, would quite frankly have just — would have affected everything else. We just didn’t have that kind of padding left.

    Q Thanks, Robert. A couple of quick health care questions. First, did the President call Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid after he made the decision to cancel the trip to let them know that he was staying?

    MR. GIBBS: I have not gotten a readout that he has, no.

    Q Okay. Secondly, I believe Representative Stupak was here earlier for the —

    MR. GIBBS: For the bill signing, right.

    Q — for the bill signing. Is it safe to assume that he met with the President over health care or —

    MR. GIBBS: I don’t know who he might have met with. I don’t know.

    Q Does the President think that he can still get Representative Stupak’s vote?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think over the past 24 hours, we have seen strong indications from those in the Catholic Church that support our belief that the legislation is about health care reform, and that it shouldn’t and doesn’t change the existing federal law. The Catholic Health Association, the order of nuns support — I think is very important. I think you saw Congressman Kildee’s statement yesterday regarding those developments and how it affected some of his thinking.

    So, again, I think the President remains engaged on that issue.

    Q And so that leads into my next question, which is that was very significant what the Catholic — especially what the nuns said yesterday, and I’m wondering, is the President or anyone else from the White House engaging in outreach to groups like that? Did the President speak with members of the nuns group or the health associations personally?

    MR. GIBBS: The President met earlier this week with Sister Keehan of the CHA.

    Q Where was that meeting?

    MR. GIBBS: I believe the meeting was in the Roosevelt Room. I don’t know if she also made it into the Oval Office as well.

    Q And can you share with us any — the pitch that he perhaps made to her or —

    MR. GIBBS: The only thing that — I did not get a detailed run-down of what the pitch was that he made. I know he was effusive about her support and about her as a person for making the courageous statements that she has.

    Q And so fair to say, as a result of that meeting and the letter yesterday, that he does have in fact optimism that he could gain the vote even of someone like Bart Stupak?

    MR. GIBBS: I think the President again remains very engaged on this in his discussions with members of Congress.

    Q And then one last one, sorry.

    MR. GIBBS: Sure.

    Q But part — was part of the thinking of staying on, or is part of the benefit that he can be here to actually sign the bill? Because once the House acts, the Senate — the bill will become law, and in fact it’s my understanding the parliamentarian has ruled that the Senate needs to reconcile two existing laws. So does he have a plan to sign the bill after the House acts?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, we would — I would describe this much as I have earlier this week that, depending on what the parliamentarian rules and depending on what’s driven down here, if the President need sign a bill, he’ll certainly do that.

    Again, the discussion that we had about the trip was, as I said, very, very short, because what — the developments of the timing of a likely vote and the President’s desire to be here for that, that there wasn’t a lot of discussion about different aspects of the Senate — being here for the Senate or for the signature largely because, again, that was all mostly moot when we got to the point that — with a drop-dead time it was impossible to move the trip.

    Q So assuming passage, do you envision the big bill signing with all the hoopla after the Senate reconciliation or —

    MR. GIBBS: Again, I don’t want to get ahead of where the parliamentarian is. If the President needs to sign legislation for this process to continue, many of us would loan him a pen.

    Q Robert, sorry, very briefly on the jobs bill again. I know you spoke and the President spoke obviously with delight about having 11 Republicans on board. That’s not a tremendous amount, and do you —

    MR. GIBBS: For the Republicans this year, it is. (Laughter.) For where — I’m somewhat struck reading a profile of the leader of the Senate Republicans yesterday — I think many of you all or your news organizations have quoted his strong desire for bipartisanship, despite the fact that the profile led with what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated plan well before the President was ever involved in the economic recovery package at doing each and every thing humanly and senatorially possible to slow to a grinding halt the progress on the President’s agenda.

    So I would say given the fact that the bar set apparently before the President was sworn in to not have any Republicans support anything the President does, I’d say 11 is pretty darn good.

    Q So you accept that, that that has been the Republican plan all along to not support him on anything?

    MR. GIBBS: I don’t — Ms. Stolberg, has anybody from the leader’s office sought a correction on the beginning of that profile?

    Q I’m not the author of that story.

    MR. GIBBS: I’ll follow up later. (Laughter.)

    Q But my question was about — but my question was about the jobs bills going forward. Do you have any reason to believe you’re going to even get that number of Republicans for these other measures that you are looking to pass?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, I think if you look at virtually every — every member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, talks about the importance of small business. If we have the ability to have community banks lend an additional $30 billion to small businesses to meet payrolls and to expand, it’s somewhat hard for me to think what your objection to that would be.

    Q But have you had an actual indication from Republican leaders? Have they come down here and said, “But you can get on this possibly”?

    MR. GIBBS: I think generally they’ve been supportive of small business, but I don’t know whether specifically there have been, to some degree, vote counts on that.

    Ann.

    Q Robert, on the Democrats who have come in to see the President, what retribution have they been told they will face if they walk out of the West Wing, go back and vote against the health care bill?

    MR. GIBBS: None. I mean, I addressed this the other day. There was this —

    Q A lot has happened since the other day.

    MR. GIBBS: Tell me about it. There was a much ballyhooed Internet report that the President wouldn’t campaign or support anybody that voted against the bill. The President has never made any such declaration.

    Q Have any of his advisors?

    MR. GIBBS: No.

    Q Robert, just to follow up on Sheryl’s questions. Have you — has the White House made a request to the parliamentarian to find out if he has to sign a —

    MR. GIBBS: I can check with health care staff. I have not — I don’t know the answer to that.

    Q And you don’t know when you’re going to get an answer from him?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t know if we’ve asked so I don’t know —

    Q But would you have to ask, or is this a matter for Congress to ask? I’m just wondering how it works.

    MR. GIBBS: My sense is that they’ll make a ruling and nobody will have to ask. But I don’t know what that —

    Q (Inaudible.)

    MR. GIBBS: Again, I’ve simply said that we will —

    Q Sign it if you have to to get the process to continue is what you said.

    MR. GIBBS: I would not stray from those wise words.

    Q But what I’m trying to get at is there’s a certain amount of awkwardness of the President signing a law that includes all the things that the Speaker has been kind of tying herself up in knots to avoid her members voting on.

    MR. GIBBS: We discussed this yesterday, Mara. That’s — the corrections bill —

    Q I know, but what I’m asking you is do you —

    MR. GIBBS: — I think deals with much of that almost instantly.

    Q Right — well, instantly in the House, but quite a few days later, perhaps, in the Senate, or not at all. So what I’m wondering is, does he consider health care passed as soon as the House votes?

    MR. GIBBS: He will consider it passed the House.

    Q Well, actually, that’s not true. It will be passed, period, if they accept the Senate bill. It’s not passed the House; it’s passed, period.

    MR. GIBBS: Well, I’m talking about — again, we’ve always discussed this as a two-step process. The Senate will also be part of this process. Mara, I will let —

    Q But legally, is it really a two-step process, or is it over once the House votes?

    MR. GIBBS: No, the President has — look, I wouldn’t have made it through a semester of law school, so this is not based on some grand legal understanding except to say that there are — the President has set out things that were in the original Senate bill that will not be in what is ultimately — what he wants ultimately approved as law. So, again, I don’t know what —

    Q So he won’t be satisfied until the Senate acts? Is that what you’re saying?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, that’s what we’ve — I’ve talked throughout the weekend of the fact that, and mentioned to one of the questions up here, that he’s been actively engaged in discussions with senators. So again, this is something that we’ve always considered to be a two-step process.

    Q But so should we understand that he will not be taking any victory laps or making kind of any statements about the historic significance of this until the Senate acts?

    MR. GIBBS: Look, I think in many — I will say this, Mara, when the bill passed both the House and the Senate, the President found it be a historical act because that had never happened before. I think it’s likely that we will — when this bill passes on Sunday, I think you’ll likely hear from the President, as you have at many — many of the different stops in this process.

    Yes, ma’am.

    Q Hi, Robert. Last time around this year the President recorded a video message to the people and government of Iran in honor of Nowruz, the Persian New Year, which happens to fall this Sunday. I’m just wondering how he plans to recognize that holiday this year. Is he going to do another video?

    MR. GIBBS: Let me check with NSC on that.

    Q Okay, if you could get back to me.

    MR. GIBBS: Yes.

    Q Thank you, Robert. Mark Levin with the Landmark Legal Foundation has prepared a suit against the President that if he signs the health care bill passed by the House without a recorded yea or nay vote required by Article I, Section 7 — my question on that is, would the President rule out signing future bills such as immigration reform or finance reform you mentioned earlier that are not subject to a yea or nay vote in both chambers?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, this is — I think we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, certainly the last time we met inside, that this was — this is the type of thing that — the type of rule that you’ve seen pass on any number of instances. So I understand that there are those that want to discuss this as being a unique thing. It is not. I stated earlier that when this bill passes the House the President will be happy to sign it.

    Q Well, is that still a constitutional argument in favor of it, that it’s been done before?

    MR. GIBBS: I’m unaware — again, I didn’t go to law school — I’m unaware that — I’m unaware of legal suits filed by a similar organization when the Republicans did similar things on legislation.

    Q So the President wouldn’t rule out signing future bills that didn’t pass both houses by a yea or nay vote?

    MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to get into a series of legal hypotheticals that both of us seem unprepared to discuss.

    Margaret. I’m kind of enjoying the sun. With my skin tone, I’ll probably have a golden tan by the time we’re done. Go ahead, Margaret. (Laughter.)

    Q Has the President been in more than normal contact with the Clintons in the last few days as the passage of this approaches in terms of their experience? I mean, has that caused them to talk more with either President Clinton or with the Secretary of State? And I have a second question too.

    MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of. Mike, do you remember if the President was over here — she was — I don’t know if she was over here earlier in the week or not — I forget based on the schedule — but I do not — I have not gotten a —

    Q Not about this.

    MR. GIBBS: — an e-mail that has — that would denote that. Obviously he talked with Senator — Secretary Clinton yesterday as she was over here with the Irish Prime Minister.

    Q And in light of the legal challenges that are most likely expected, is the White House looking at putting together any kind of a special legal team to deal with health care?

    MR. GIBBS: None that I’m aware of. None that I’m aware of.

    Q Okay, thanks.

    Q Robert, the Republicans — maybe you can put this to rest too, I don’t know.

    MR. GIBBS: I’ll try.

    Q The Republicans put something out saying that Bart Gordon and John Tanner have been promised cushy government positions in exchange for their votes.

    MR. GIBBS: And what were those positions?

    Q Those positions are NASA administrator and U.S. ambassador to NATO. (Laughter.)

    MR. GIBBS: Well, that’s —

    Q At some point.

    MR. GIBBS: I think those are — I think those jobs are currently filled, but — and I’m not sure that anybody would think — certainly the current occupants — that those are otherwise cushy jobs. So that’s just not true.

    Stephen.

    Q Has the White House yet received the communication from Israel on whether it is willing to take the kind of steps that were laid out to show commitment to the peace process? And can you talk about the — can you kind of characterize the ongoing negotiations, which the White House said the Vice President and the Prime Minister talked about in their phone call yesterday?

    MR. GIBBS: I’m not aware of any conversations besides the one you mentioned with the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday. So I don’t have anything else to add on that.

    April.

    Q Robert, who, if any, beyond the President, is meeting here at the White House with other Hill lawmakers on health care?

    MR. GIBBS: I imagine that the chief of staff is. I’m sure Nancy-Ann DeParle is. Those are the most immediate names that come to mind.

    Q Axelrod, Jarrett, by any chance, as well?

    MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of.

    Q Well, what’s the —

    MR. GIBBS: Well, I take that back. I know that — I think Valerie has met with groups of people.

    Q What’s the criteria to say who meets with the President or who talks with the President, versus talking to Nancy-Ann or Valerie or —

    MR. GIBBS: I mean, I think in many ways it depends on — it depends on what questions. You know, obviously I think sometimes members will come over. Their staff will meet with Nancy-Ann as members meet with the President. Legislative Affairs decides who meets with whom.

    Q And on another topic, the last question, Black Farmers — March 31st deadline — they are very upset, they’re very antsy. They’re saying, you know, they can’t get anything through. The bill is — the monies are attached in the Senate bill, but they’re saying they’re hearing very negative things; that Hispanics should be paid off as well from these settlements. So what say you?

    MR. GIBBS: Let me check with OMB on where this is.

    Q Does the President still stand by this for the March 31st deadline?

    MR. GIBBS: Absolutely.

    Q Is he showing them that they’ll get their money?

    MR. GIBBS: The President is supportive of the settlement that was reached.

    Mike.

    Q Robert, in response to Ann’s question, you said that the President does not engage in any threats of retribution over this coming vote. Would you encourage Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to also forswear any kind of retribution?

    MR. GIBBS: I would encourage news media not to do that too. I don’t know what you’re asking me to do. I don’t —

    Q Well, I mean, typically during —

    MR. GIBBS: Look, again, I think the President is talking about and the team here is talking about the merits of making historic progress on health insurance reform.

    Q Right, and my only question is, is there sort of — could there be sort of a good cop/bad cop dynamic here? The President doesn’t need to make those threats because he knows that the leaders will.

    MR. GIBBS: I have no evidence that that’s — that that’s the case.

    Q What is the line between appropriate persuasion and inappropriate pressure on a lawmaker?

    MR. GIBBS: That’s — seems hazardous for me to get into different examples on. Do you have something specific?

    Q Well, I’m thinking of the ’93 Medicare prescription drug vote. There were some questions —

    MR. GIBBS: 2003.

    Q I’m sorry, 2003, right. And so I’m wondering, in light of that and in light of past precedent, have you examined what might be appropriate pressure and inappropriate pressure?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the President has — and the team here are focused on why this legislation is good for the American people, why it’s good for the constituents with the member that they’re meeting with. This is — that’s the focus of what these meetings are, not coercion or inappropriate — I forgot what your term was.

    Q Okay. And finally, on Sunday, how do you envision administration resources and people being deployed around? Do you expect to send people to the Capitol? Will the President be here physically?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, the President lives right there, so I can assure you he’ll be here.

    Q I understand. I mean, there’s no chance that he would go to the Capitol, in other words?

    MR. GIBBS: I’ve not heard plans for the President to go to the Capitol —

    Q And what about Cabinet Secretaries and so forth?

    MR. GIBBS: I can check with Legislative Affairs on that.

    Glen.

    Q Robert, Stephen Lynch, the congressman from Massachusetts, yesterday mentioned that he was getting calls from administration folks wanting to talk with him and that he was not particularly eager to engage in those conversations. Have you found — either the President personally or any of the surrogates that have been reaching out to members — that people are just simply trying to duck you and don’t want to talk?

    MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of. I mean, again, the President has had an otherwise pretty full schedule on this.

    Q Robert, a couple of questions. First of all, while we’ve been out here, apparently Lieutenant Dan Choi has handcuffed himself to a fence on the White House grounds, according to a report. I was wondering if the White House was given any heads-up that there would be any kind of civil disobedience like that and whether or not the President has any plans to meet with him?

    MR. GIBBS: No heads-up that I’m aware of, and I don’t believe there’s any meeting scheduled today, no.

    Q To follow up on Ann’s question, some labor unions have said that they’re willing to take some pretty rough steps, if necessary, going so far as to run a third-party candidate against some folks who would vote — Democrats who would vote no. We have one up in the city who feels that — who’s going to vote no, and may face some pressure. What’s the White House opinion of this kind of tactic and is this something the President would support?

    MR. GIBBS: Ken, I can only speak for what the President has actively tried to do to get members to support a bill that he thinks provides small businesses and families with far more affordable coverage, reduces our deficit over the next 20 years by more than $1 trillion and covers 32 million more people.

    Yes, sir.

    Q Robert, when — you said you’d given Australia and Indonesia a window for rescheduling. When would you hope to have this nailed down?

    MR. GIBBS: Scheduling has been busy nailing and un-nailing for the better part of several days, so I don’t — I think, again, we’ve — we have communicated to them our strong desire to come back quickly, to do so in June. I don’t have the dates of that specific window, and I doubt that we would have that trip completely laid out, even at this point — at this point anyway.

    Tom.

    Q I have two quick questions.

    MR. GIBBS: Yes.

    Q First, earlier this week — sorry, I have two questions. First, earlier this week, both Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore pointed out that the preexisting condition provision of the legislation doesn’t take effect for another four years, and I’m wondering if you could tell us, was that a concession, and if so, who fought for that and what did they — what did you get in return?

    MR. GIBBS: There is —

    Q For adults, that is.

    MR. GIBBS: Right. Well, again, the — as I described earlier and as the President has described, there are certain things that cannot be instituted until you have everyone in the system. Obviously this is a piece of legislation that phases in over the course of many years those changes. And as a result of that phasing in, when that’s done, preexisting conditions for adults will be outlawed. But understand this — when this becomes law, an insurance company will no longer be able to discriminate against a child that has — that they believe or says that has a preexisting condition.

    Q That’s on day one.

    MR. GIBBS: Right.

    Q Children. And so it’s pegged to the mandate then, is that fair to say?

    MR. GIBBS: Yes.

    Q And my second question was, during the President’s interview with Bret Baier last night, he seemed rather perturbed by both the number of interruptions and to a lesser degree the process-heavy nature of the questioning. I was wondering if you, watching that interview, what your reaction was to the conduct and the substance of it.

    MR. GIBBS: Again, I will simply say that I think it’s always better if you — when you interview the President that you let the President give his answer. I’ve always found that to be the most effective way to conduct an interview.

    Thanks, guys.

    END
    1:52 P.M. EDT

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Statement from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the Delay of the President’s Trip

    03.18.10 11:28 AM

    The President is pleased that the House has posted the health care legislation on the Internet and that a final vote is coming.

    But since the House rules rightly provide for a 72-hour public review period, it is clear that a final vote on health insurance reform cannot take place before Sunday afternoon.

    As a result, the President telephoned the leaders of Indonesia and Australia and told them that he must postpone his planned visits there for a later date so he can remain in Washington for this critical vote. The President expects to visit Indonesia in June.

    The President greatly regrets the delay. Our international alliances are critical to America’s security and economic progress. But passage of health insurance reform is of paramount importance, and the President is determined to see this battle through.

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Statement by the President Praising the Bipartisan Immigration Reform Framework

    03.18.10 12:25 PM

    In June, I met with members of both parties, and assigned Secretary Napolitano to work with them and key constituencies around the country to craft a comprehensive approach that will finally fix our broken immigration system. I am pleased to see that Senators Schumer and Graham have produced a promising, bipartisan framework which can and should be the basis for moving forward. It thoughtfully addresses the need to shore up our borders, and demands accountability from both workers who are here illegally and employers who game the system.

    My Administration will be consulting further with the Senators on the details of their proposal, but a critical next step will be to translate their framework into a legislative proposal, and for Congress to act at the earliest possible opportunity.

    I congratulate Senators Schumer and Graham for their leadership, and pledge to do everything in my power to forge a bipartisan consensus this year on this important issue so we can continue to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform.

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • President Obama Signs Arizona Disaster Declaration

    03.18.10 01:02 PM

    The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of Arizona 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 January 18-22, 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 Apache, Coconino, Gila, Greenlee, La Paz, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai and the Gila River Indian Community, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Carlos Apache, Tohono O’odham Nation, and White Mountain Apache Tribe.

    Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures for all counties and Tribes within the State.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Mark A. Neveau 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.

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Remarks by the President before Signing the HIRE Act

    03.18.10 07:58 AM

    11:20 A.M. EDT

    THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. Please have a seat.

    Well, on this beautiful morning, we are here to mark the passage of a welcome piece of legislation for our fellow Americans who are seeking work in this difficult economy. But first, let me say a few words about the latest development in the debate over health insurance reform. I don’t know if you guys have been hearing, but there’s been a big debate going on here.

    This morning, a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office concludes that the reform we seek would bring $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next two decades. (Applause.) That makes this legislation the most significant effort to reduce deficits since the Balanced Budget Act in the 1990s. (Applause.) And this is — this is but one virtue of a reform that will bring new accountability to the insurance industry and greater economic security to all Americans. So I urge every member of Congress to consider this as they prepare for their important vote this weekend.

    And I want to welcome all the members of Congress who are here, those who are on stage — Madam Speaker, Majority Leader Reid — as well as some of my Cabinet members who are here.

    In a few moments, I’ll sign what’s called the HIRE Act — a jobs bill that will encourage businesses to hire and help put Americans back to work. And I’d like to say a few words about what this jobs bill will mean for workers, for businesses, and for America’s economic recovery.

    There are a number of ways to look at an economic recovery. Through the eyes of an economist, you look at the different stages of recovery. You look at whether an economy has begun to grow; at whether businesses have begun to hire temporary workers or increase the hours of existing workers. You look at whether businesses, small and large, have begun to hire full-time employees again.

    That’s how economists measure a recovery — and by those measures, we are beginning to move in the right direction. But through the eyes of most Americans, recovery is about something more fundamental: Do I have a decent job? Can I provide for my family? Do I feel a sense of financial security?

    The great recession that we’ve just gone through took a terrible toll on the middle class and on our economy as a whole. For every one of the over 8 million people who lost their jobs in recent years, there’s a story of struggle — of a family that’s forced to choose between paying their electricity bill or the car insurance or the daughter’s college tuition; of weddings and vacations and retirements that have been postponed.

    So here’s the good news: A consensus is forming that, partly because of the necessary — and often unpopular — measures we took over the past year, our economy is now growing again and we may soon be adding jobs instead of losing them. The jobs bill I’m signing today is intended to help accelerate that process.

    I’m signing it mindful that, as I’ve said before, the solution to our economic problems will not come from government alone. Government can’t create all the jobs we need or can it repair all the damage that’s been done by this recession.

    But what we can do is promote a strong, dynamic private sector — the true engine of job creation in our economy. We can help to provide an impetus for America’s businesses to start hiring again. We can nurture the conditions that allow companies to succeed and to grow.

    And that’s exactly what this jobs bill will help us do. Now, make no mistake: While this jobs bill is absolutely necessary, it’s by no means enough. There’s a lot more that we’re going to need to do to spur hiring in the private sector and bring about full economic recovery — from helping creditworthy small businesses to get loans that they need to expand, to offering incentives to make homes and businesses more energy efficient, to investing in infrastructure so we can put Americans to work doing the work that America needs done.

    Nevertheless, this jobs bill will make a difference in several important ways. First, we will forgive payroll taxes for businesses that hire someone who’s been out of work at least two months. That’s a tax benefit that will apply to unemployed workers hired between last month and the end of this year. So this tax cut says to employers: If you hire a worker who’s unemployed, you won’t have to pay payroll taxes on that worker for the rest of the year. And businesses that move quickly to hire today will get a bigger tax credit than businesses that wait until later this year.

    This tax cut will be particularly helpful to small business owners. Many of them are on the fence right now about whether to bring in that extra worker or two, or whether they should hire anyone at all. And this jobs bill should help make their decision that much easier. And by the way, I’d like to note that part of what health insurance reform would do is to provide tax credits for over 4 million small businesses so they don’t have to choose between hiring workers and offering coverage.

    The second thing this bill does is to encourage small businesses to grow and to hire by permitting them to write off investments they make in equipment this year. These kinds of expenses typically take years to depreciate, but under this law, businesses will be able to invest up to $250,000, let’s say, in a piece of factory equipment, and write it off right away. Put simply, we’ll give businesses an incentive to invest in their own future — and to do it today.

    Third, we’ll reform municipal bonds to encourage job creation by expanding investment in schools and clean energy projects. Say a town wants to put people to work rebuilding a crumbling elementary school or putting up wind turbines. With this law, we’ll make it easier for them to raise the money they need to do what they want to do by using a model that we’ve called Build America Bonds — one of the most successful programs in the Recovery Act. We’ll give Americans a better chance to invest in the future of their communities and of the country.

    And finally, this jobs bill will maintain crucial investments in our roads and our bridges as we head into the spring and summer months, when construction jobs are picking up.

    I want to commend all the members of Congress, and their leadership is what made this bill possible. Many of them are here today. I’m also gratified that over a dozen Republicans agreed that the need for this jobs bill was urgent, and that they were willing to break out of the partisan morass to help us take this forward step for the American people. I hope this is a prelude to further cooperation in the days and months to come, as we continue to work on digging our way out of the recession and rebuilding our economy in a way that works for all Americans and not just some Americans.

    After all, the jobs bill I’m signing today — and our broader efforts to achieve a recovery — aren’t about politics. They’re not about Democrat versus Republican. This isn’t a game that we’re playing here. They’re about the people in this country who are out of work and looking for a job; they’re about all the Americans — of every race and region and age — who’ve shared their stories with me over the last year.

    The single mother who’s told me she’s filled out hundreds of job applications and been on dozens of interviews, but still hasn’t found a job. The father whose son told me he started working when he was a teenager, and recently found himself out of a job for the very first time in his life. The children who write to me — they’re worried about their moms and their dads, worried about what the future holds for their families.

    That’s who I’m thinking about every morning when I enter into the Oval Office. That’s who I’m signing this bill for. And that’s who I’m going to continue to fight for so long as I am President of the United States.

    So with that, let me sign this bill and let’s get to work. (Applause.)

    (The bill is signed.)

    END
    11:27 A.M. EDT

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Remarks by the President, the Vice President and the Taoiseach of Ireland at St. Patr

    03.18.10 05:59 AM

    7:47 P.M. EDT

    VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Good evening, everyone. Mr. President, Mrs. Obama, the Taoiseach, Mrs. Cowen. Welcome to the White House and welcome, all of you, to the White House.

    You know, as I said to some of my friends at the Vice President’s residence this morning at a breakfast, there’s an old saying — there’s an old saying that goes like this: If you’re lucky enough to be Irish, well, you’re lucky enough. (Laughter and applause.)

    I was telling the Taoiseach earlier today, one of my favorite cartoons to explain to the Irish-Irish what we American-Irish are like was one handed to me, Mr. President, by Pat Moynihan about 15, 18 years ago. It was The New Yorker Magazine and it was a picture of Pat and Mike sitting in a pub in New York. And Pat looks at Mike and says, “Mike, don’t you wish you were in a pub in Dublin wishing you were in a pub in New York?” (Laughter.) You understand that about us, you got it all straight, Taoiseach.

    But the Taoiseach knows a lot about it. His mom lived in Long Island for 10 years or so — God rest her soul and — although, wait, your mom is still alive, it’s your dad passed. God bless her soul. (Laughter.) I got to get this straight.

    You know, there are nearly 40 million of us who claim to be Irish-American. That’s considerably larger than the entire population of the Emerald Isle. But 40 million, many of you in this room, have made incredible, incredible contributions to our country. Perhaps the greatest contribution collectively we Irish have made is that we have the same set of values both in Ireland and here: family, faith, pride and courage.

    And these are the values, in my view — and I mean this sincerely — that define the man I work with every day, Barack Obama. (Applause.)

    The President is always kidding me because I’m always quoting Irish poets. He thinks I quote them because I’m Irish. I don’t do it for that reason — I do it because they’re simply the best poets. And the best of them in my view is Yeats. Yeats once said, “In dreams begin responsibility.” Well, ladies and gentlemen, the dreams that President Obama has awakened and have awakened in the American people are generating a new sense of responsibility that I think is going to serve this nation well. It’s going to be a more peaceful world, a more prosperous nation, and, at the same time, an awful lot of people who haven’t had hope are going to get it.

    There’s an old Irish proverb, as some of you know, that I heard my grandfather use but never really applied to me before. He said, it goes, “A silent mouth is sweet to hear.” (Laughter.) Well, I’m going to yield to that proverb — (laughter) — and introduce you to the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama. (Applause.)

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good evening, everybody.

    AUDIENCE: Good evening.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Welcome to St. Patrick’s Day at the White House, on a day when springtime is in the air –- and this is — even though the Taoiseach hasn’t even shared his shamrocks yet, but we can feel spring coming.

    Before I say anything else let me just say that I could not have a better partner in a difficult job than the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden; he does a great job each and every day. (Applause.) And I couldn’t have a better partner in life than the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama. (Applause.)

    Welcome back, Mr. Prime Minister, First Lady. We are thrilled to have you.

    The Irish and Irish-Americans are out in force tonight. I believe, if I’m not mistaken that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is here. (Applause.) A couple of my Cabinet Secretaries are here, as well –- Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. (Applause.) I would love to acknowledge all the members of Congress who are here tonight, but there are a few dozen of you, including three or four Murphys. (Laughter.) There’s one right there. (Laughter.) You’re everywhere.

    Governor Martin O’Malley — (applause) — who’s been known to be the lead in an Irish rock band. Governor Bob McDonnell is here, of the great Commonwealth of Virginia. And Mayor Tom Menino shipped down from Boston. (Applause.) My dear friend, the United States Ambassador to Ireland and the person who is singly responsible for converting the entire country to become Steelers’ fans, Dan Rooney. (Applause.) And his counterpart, the Irish Ambassador to the United States, Michael Collins. (Applause.) So welcome, everybody.

    This has been a wonderful day filled with good reminders of just how deeply woven the ties between our two countries are. We welcomed back a friend, the Taoiseach. He and I remarked once again of our shared ties to County Offaly. (Applause.) He was born there, and when I was running for President, it was brought to my attention that — I want to make sure I get this straight — it was my great-great-great-great grandfather on my mother’s side who hailed from Moneygall. I wish I knew about this when I was running in Chicago. (Laughter.)

    I also had the pleasure of welcoming back First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness of Northern Ireland — (applause) — two men who have stood together with conviction to chart a historic path towards peace. They are here tonight. We were thinking about sending them up to Congress tomorrow — (laughter) — to see if they can share some of their secrets. (Laughter.)

    I also just met with Andrew Sens and Brigadier General — I want to make sure I get this right — Tauno Niemenen, who, because of their successful leadership, are winding down the work of the Independent Commission on Decommissioning after 12 years. (Applause.) And Matt Baggott, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, whose fairness and impartiality is keeping the peace across all of Northern Ireland’s communities. So thank you. (Applause.)

    Twelve years ago, America was inspired by the brave men and women who found the courage to see past the scars of a troubled past so that their children would know a better future. And we are watching you and continue to be inspired by your extraordinary work.

    It’s wonderful to have everybody here at the White House here tonight. During his last visit, the Taoiseach mentioned that the Irish Diaspora is some 70 million strong — which is obviously impressive for a small island. And it’s even more impressive that they all find their way to America for St. Patrick’s Day. (Laughter.) I can make that joke as somebody of Irish heritage. (Laughter.)

    I should mention by the way that — we were discussing this with my mayor from Chicago, Mayor Daley, and I told him that I had this Irish heritage. And he said that he had actually Kenyan blood in him also. (Laughter.)

    It just goes to show that in recent decades it has become cool to be Irish. (Laughter.) It’s the phenomenon the Irish poet, and Joe Biden’s favorite poet, Seamus Heaney, once described in stunned fashion as “the manifestation of sheer, bloody genius -– Ireland is chic.” (Laughter.)

    And obviously we know, though, that that wasn’t always the case. After centuries of oppression, the Irish began coming to America -– even before America had been won. Many came with no family, no friends, no money -– nothing to sustain their voyage but faith. Faith in the Almighty. Faith in a better life over the horizon. And faith that in America, you can make it if you try.

    And in the wake of a Great Hunger, that migration intensified. And the Irish carved out a place for themselves in our nation’s story -– America and Ireland, our brawn and our blood, side by side in the making and remaking of this nation; pulling it westward, pushing it skyward, moving it forward -– even if it was a nation that was not always as welcoming as it could be.

    But with hard work and toughness and loyalty and faith, the Irish persevered. And in the process they secured the future for generations of Irish-Americans free to live their lives as they will -– and today, free to argue openly and proudly about who is more Irish than whom. (Laughter.)

    So it can be easy to forget that there was a time when “No Irish Need Apply.” Particularly when it was half a century ago this year that John F. Kennedy walked through the doors of this house as the first Irish Catholic President of the United States. (Applause.)

    One person who never forgot this history -– someone who frequently recalled his grandfather’s vivid stories of those days; who through his office window could see the Boston Harbor steps where his eight Irish grandparents first set foot in America –- was the President’s youngest brother and our dear friend, Ted Kennedy. (Applause.)

    He knew, as we do, that our nation is infinitely richer for not only the contributions of the Irish throughout history -– but the contributions of people from around the world. That’s why I’m pleased that there’s bipartisan progress being made in an area that I know was close to his big heart -– and that’s fixing our broken immigration system. (Applause.) And that’s why my own commitment to comprehensive immigration reform remains unwavering.

    In this and every other battle for progress, Ted was a tireless warrior. And I know that we could use him this week. I am so glad that we’re joined tonight by his wife Vicki; his daughter, Kara; his son, Congressman Patrick Kennedy; and his sister-in-law, Ethel Kennedy, as well as a whole bunch of nieces and nephews. Please give them a big round of applause. (Applause.)

    Both of our nations are down one friend, a champion, and peacemaker. But it wouldn’t be Irish mourning without some undercurrent of joy. So while Teddy’s laughter may not shake the walls of this house tonight, as it did so many times over the past half-century, ours will not be diminished. While his singing may not fill these rooms, I suspect that won’t stop some of you from trying. (Laughter.) You don’t have to try, though — that’s why we brought in the entertainment. (Laughter.)

    This is rightly a day for celebration and good cheer between America and one of her oldest friends -– and it’s a partnership that extends to our earliest days as a Republic. So before I turn it over to the Taoiseach, let me leave you with all the words from those early days that speak to why this has been such an incredible relationship between our two countries. These are words spoken by the father of our country, George Washington:

    “When our friendless standards were first unfurled, who were the strangers who first mustered around our staff? And when it reeled in the light, who more brilliantly sustained it than Erin’s generous sons? Ireland, thou friend of my country in my country’s most friendless days, much injured, much enduring land, accept this poor tribute from one who esteems thy worth, and mourns thy desolation. May the God of Heaven, in His justice and mercy, grant thee more prosperous fortunes, and in His own time, cause the sun of Freedom to shed its benign radiance on the Emerald Isle.”

    To all of you from near and far, and over all the years and tests ahead, may America and Ireland forever brilliantly sustain one another’s sons and daughters.

    And with that, to our guest, the Taoiseach of Ireland, on behalf of the American people we want to thank you for your presence here. We are proud to call you a friend this day and every day. And we are looking forward to planting this little piece of Ireland in the garden here in the White House.

    Happy St. Patrick’s Day, everybody. (Applause.)

    The Taoiseach, the Prime Minister of Ireland, Brian Cowen. (Applause.)

    TAOISEACH COWEN: Thank you very much, President Obama. I made one solemn promise to myself when I’ve come to the White House for the second time: I intend reading my own speech tonight. (Laughter.)

    Mr. President, First Lady Mrs. Obama, Mr. Vice President, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank you, Mr. President and Mrs. Obama, for your warm and gracious welcome to the White House tonight for so many of us. Mary and I and all of our delegation are delighted to be here with you again this year.

    We’ve had a great day of celebrations today at your nation’s Capitol, starting of course, with a very gracious invitation from the Vice President — great Irishman, Joe Biden — to a St. Patrick’s Day breakfast at is house. Himself and Jill gave us a wonderful start to a wonderful morning and we deeply appreciate that wonderful gesture. Thank you. (Applause.)

    In fact, Mr. President, it’s almost as nice as your home here. (Laughter.) Joe Biden said he always voted for public housing — he never thought he’d get into one as good. (Laughter.)

    So I extend to you all our greetings for St. Patrick’s Day from the home sod. This occasion is an honor not only for those of us present this evening, but for all Irish people — at home and across America. We feel very much at home here. And as we gather here tonight we remember that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the election of President Kennedy, in whose legacy we Irish take great pride.

    On one occasion, speaking in your home city of Chicago, John F. Kennedy described Ireland’s Diaspora as a “fraternal empire.” He said that “whether we live in Cork or Boston, Chicago or Sydney, we are all members of a great family which is linked together by that strongest of chains — a common past.”

    The bonds between Ireland and America run deep in our shared history. St. Patrick’s Day is celebrated in every state and corner of this great land. And it is so pleasing to us that this day has come to be appreciated and enjoyed by all Americans, not just those of Irish heritage.

    The great blending of our people and our history has been shown in all its glory by those who are entertaining us tonight, including the City of Washington Pipe Band, the President’s Marine Band, Irish Combo, and the magnificent Celtic Dreams from New York City. (Applause.)

    Next year we will be having a special year of celebration of Irish arts and culture here in the United States, so I can assure you that we will have many more artists who will be ready and willing to return here at any time.

    And I am delighted in that context that we are joined here tonight by that great Irish actor, Gabriel Byrne. Gabriel this week accepted an appointment as Ireland’s first Cultural Ambassador and I wish him well in that wonderful endeavor. (Applause.)

    And of course, Mr. President, when the Irish are finished looking after your entertainment needs — (laughter) — Pádraig Harrington, who also joins us tonight can help you with your golf game. (Applause.)

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I need help. There he is. I need some tips.

    TAOISEACH COWEN: Mr. President, this year on St. Patrick’s Day we are particularly mindful of the absence of our dear and loyal friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. Ted loved to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, and at times like this we miss his enthusiastic presence. He took great pride in his Irish heritage and he cared deeply about peace on our island. I know that he would be especially pleased to acknowledge the crucial and decisive step forward taken in recent weeks by First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, and all the leaders in Northern Ireland. We congratulate them on all that has been achieved and promise them our support. (Applause.)

    In conclusion can I say that we hope to see you, the First Lady and your family in Ireland soon, Mr. President. (Applause.) It is important that we get visits from prestigious people of the American constituency from time to time. (Laughter.) I’m sure you have heard that the great welcome accorded to your predecessors is available to you as well. (Laughter.)

    And we’ll never forget the historic visit by President Kennedy to his home place in 1963. And I can assure you of an equally warm welcome, especially in County Offaly, where I may have some influence. (Laughter.)

    I also want to thank you very much, Mr. President, because we’re delighted and touched to know that not only will you plant shamrock in the children’s garden, but it will grow from soil from my own County of Offaly. Not only is the soil from Offaly, but it’s also from Moneygall — the place of your own family’s Irish heritage. I believe, of course, that this soil will have special properties that will ensure that the garden flourishes. At least I hope so. (Laughter.)

    And I know that when you trace your ancestry back to that place where I have lived all my life you’ll find a hearty welcome and many people waiting to see you there and to reconnect with your Irish heritage in a very real and personal way.

    It’s amazing, you know, how many O’Haras, O’Sullivans and O’Neills are frantically searching to see if there’s any way they can be linked to the Obamas. (Laughter and applause.)

    I want to say to you one search — I am very closely acquainted with the electorate registered in County Offaly — and there are no Obamas on it. (Laughter.)

    However, Mr. President, it’s now my great honor to present you with a bowl of shamrock. I do so in celebration of the achievements of the Irish in America and of the everlasting friendship between the people of Ireland and the people of the United States of America. You will always have a loyal and faithful friend in me as long as I lead this government. (Applause.)

    (The bowl of shamrock is presented.)

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: This is wonderful. Beautiful. Thank you so much. And I think in addition to all the fertilizer we put down this will bring good luck to the garden. (Laughter.) Thank you very much, that is lovely. Thank you. (Applause.)

    So I want to thank everybody for being here. I want you to have a wonderful time — not that I need to tell you that. If anybody wants pictures taken, Patrick Leahy is here — (laughter) — he always has a camera. (Laughter.)

    Have a wonderful time. Happy St. Patrick’s Day, everybody. (Applause.)

    END
    8:12 P.M. EDT

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate, 3/17/2010

    03.17.10 03:11 PM

    Leonard Philip Stark, of Delaware, to be United States District Judge for the District of Delaware, vice Kent A. Jordan, elevated.

    Amy Totenberg, of Georgia, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, vice Jack T. Camp, Jr., retired.

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Letter from the President to Congress Concerning a Strategic Communications Report

    03.17.10 03:25 PM

    TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
    TO THE CHAIRMEN AND RANKING MEMBERS
    OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES ON
    ARMED SERVICES AND APPROPRIATIONS AND
    THE CHAIRMEN AND RANKING MEMBERS OF THE
    HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
    THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

    March 16, 2010

    Dear Mr. Chairman: (Dear Representative:) (Dear Senator:)

    Pursuant to section 1055 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), I am providing a report on my Administration’s comprehensive interagency strategy for public diplomacy and strategic communication of the Federal Government.

    Sincerely,
    BARACK OBAMA

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Statement from the Press Secretary on the “Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendme

    03.17.10 03:35 PM

    ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010, THE PRESIDENT SIGNED INTO LAW:

    S. 2968, the “Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010”, which amends trademark law to extend the grace period from 3 months to 6 months for international registrants filing “affidavits of use” to extend trademark registration and to allow international registrants.

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Letter from the President to Congress Concerning Declarations to the IAEA

    03.17.10 03:45 PM

    TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
    TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

    March 17, 2010

    Dear Madam Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

    This letter submits additions and deletions to the list of sites, facilities, locations, and activities in the United States declared in 2009 to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under the Protocol Additional to the Agreement between the United States of America and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the United States of America, with Annexes, signed at Vienna on June 12, 1998 (the "U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol"). This letter constitutes the report and notifications required by section 272 of Public Law 109-401 and the resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the United States Senate of March 31, 2004. Further, I hereby certify that:

    (1) each site, location, facility, and activity included in the list has been examined by each agency with national security equities with respect to such site, location, facility, or activity;
    (2) appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that information of direct national security significance will not be compromised at any such site, location, facility, or activity in connection with an IAEA inspection; and
    (3) any additions to the lists of locations within the United States that are provided to the IAEA pursuant to Article 2.a.(i), Article 2.a.(iv), Article 2.a.(v), Article 2.a.(vi)(a), Article 2.a.(vii), Article 2.a.(viii), and Article 2.b.(i) of the U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol will not adversely affect the national security of the United States.

    None of the deletions to the list of locations that was previously declared to the IAEA pursuant to Article 2.a.(i), Article 2.a.(iv), Article 2.a.(v), Article 2.a.(vi)(a), Article 2.a.(vii), Article 2.a.(viii), and Article 2.b.(i) of the U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol were due to such locations having direct national security significance.

    The IAEA classification of the enclosed declaration is "Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive." The United States regards this information as "Sensitive but Unclassified." Under Public Law 109-401, information reported to, or otherwise acquired by, the United States Government under this title or under the U.S.–IAEA Additional Protocol shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code. Therefore, none of the enclosed documents should be printed, published, posted on any website, or otherwise made publicly available.

    Sincerely,
    BARACK OBAMA

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Remarks by the President at the Friends of Ireland Luncheon

    03.17.10 09:58 AM

    1:10 P.M. EDT

    THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please, everybody be seated. To Speaker Pelosi; distinguished members of the House and Senate; Republican Leader Boehner; Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; my outstanding Vice President and his newest chief of staff — (laughter) — to Prime Minister Cowen and the entire Irish delegation, as well as the extraordinary leaders from Ireland and Northern Ireland — it is my privilege to welcome all of you for this wonderful St. Patrick’s Day tradition.

    And, Governor O’Malley, thank you for that outstanding rendition of our two national anthems. (Applause.) I had asked if Martin was going to do a rock-and-roll version. (Laughter.) Some of you know he’s got a rock band and is in much demand.

    This tradition, as most of you know, was begun by Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan, two men who agreed on their love of all things Irish — including a good scrum. But they also knew how to set aside time just to enjoy one another’s company. President Reagan himself said that the two men could be friends after six o’clock. And I imagine they also made a midday exception for this luncheon every year.

    Today is a day we speak with pride of being Irish-American — whether we actually are or not. (Laughter.) I am pleased to say that I can actually get away with it, and I’ve got the Taoiseach here to vouch for me. Prime Minister Cowen was born in County Offaly, and I can trace my ancestry on my mother’s side there as well. I believe it was my great-great-great-great-great grandfather. (Laughter.) This is true. (Laughter.) He was a boot maker, if I’m not mistaken.

    Someone actually discovered my Irish lineage when I was running for President, and my first thought was why didn’t anyone discover this when I was running for office in Chicago? (Laughter.) I would have gotten here sooner. (Laughter.) I used to put the apostrophe after the “O” but that did not work. (Laughter.)

    So it is nice to have a little Irish blood today. It is, after all, a day to celebrate and give thanks for the profound and enduring relationship between Ireland and America. And it’s also a day to thank the Irish people for all that they’ve done for America.

    Few nations so small have had such an enormous impact on another. They came to our shores in waves by choice as well as by necessity, building new lives even as they were building a new nation, enriching our heritage, enriching our culture in their own way. And in so doing, alongside so many others who sought a better life in America, they forged a better future for all of us.

    But the truth is they weren’t always welcomed. There were times where the Irish were caricatured and stereotyped and cursed at and blamed for society’s ills. So, naturally, it was a good fit for them to go into politics. (Laughter.) Made sense. (Laughter.)

    When the fictional Mayor Skeffington of Edwin O’Connor’s “The Last Hurrah,” spoke of his life as an Irish-American, he said, “When I began, it was long ago, and the situation around here was a bit different. I had no education to speak of, a good many roads were closed to our people — and politics seemed the easiest way out.” (Laughter.)

    Today, of course, we all feel the heavy absence of one of our greatest Irish-Americans; a man who loved this day so much; a man who I believe is still watching this body closely, particularly this week — and that is our beloved Ted Kennedy. And I’m so grateful that Vicki and Patrick are here. Thank you for your presence. (Applause.)

    I confess that one of my fondest memories of Teddy has been on my mind lately — it’s one that I shared before. Just a few years ago, on St. Patrick’s Day, so it would probably be maybe five years ago, when I had just gotten to the Senate, Teddy cornered me on the Senate floor for my support on a piece of legislation. And I told him, “You’ve got my vote, Teddy, but I got to tell you, this is not looking good. I do not think this thing is going to fly.” But it did, with votes to spare. And so I grabbed Teddy, pulled him aside. I said, “How did you pull that off?” And he just patted me on the back and he said, “Luck of the Irish!”

    And it’s nice when the luck of the Irish can bring to the Senate and to Congress such an extraordinary leader as Ted Kennedy. I think it’s a little providence, as well as a little luck. It’s also nice when the luck of the Irish can bring us all together, Republicans and Democrats. That was one of Teddy’s talents. Even as he waged epic and unyielding battles in this building, he, too, was a believer that we were all friends after six o’clock.

    And more importantly, he was a believer in building consensus, in forging compromise, in the idea that the only way that we can accomplish the work of the American people is to work together. And one of the greatest testaments to his life and his work, I think, was that so many of his colleagues, past and present, Republican and Democrats, came forward to honor him in similar terms.

    That work — the work of setting aside old differences and softening hardened positions, taking the tough steps to do what’s right in the long run over what’s easy in the moment — has also paid dividends in terms of the remarkable progress that we’ve seen in Northern Ireland, particularly in recent months. And so I want to salute First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness for their outstanding leadership, their continuing example. (Applause.) We are grateful for that. Thank you.

    It is such leadership that keeps me convinced that our best days — for this legislative body, for this nation, for Ireland, and for Northern Ireland, and for the friendship between our peoples — those best days are still ahead.

    So, Taoiseach, I thank you and your lovely wife for coming. To you and to the people of Ireland, America is grateful for our shared past, hopeful for our common future, and I assure you we will be a faithful partner in the work of progress and prosperity, and a just a lasting peace.

    Happy St. Patrick’s Day to all of you. And with that, please welcome the Prime Minister of Ireland, Brian Cowen. (Applause.)

    END
    1:18 P.M. EDT

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Remarks by the First Lady at Newsweek Q&A Event

    03.17.10 11:06 AM

    12:39 P.M. EDT

    Q Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Weymouth, for your hospitality, and thank you all for coming. This is our cover subject. We tried to make the picture a little bigger.

    MRS. OBAMA: I know, right. (Laughter.)

    Q But I will say Newsweek has been publishing for 77 years, and I believe this is the first time within six weeks or so we’ve had both a husband and a wife write the cover story. So — (laughter) — I know you’ll —

    MRS. OBAMA: So whose was better, though? (Laughter.) That’s ultimately how spouses operate, right? (Laughter.)

    Q That’s a very good point, that’s a very good point. So with all this “first” stuff and living in the White House, forget it. It’s the Newsweek —

    MRS. OBAMA: This is the one.

    Q It’s the Newsweek cover.

    MRS. OBAMA: I agree.

    Q Why this issue? Why childhood obesity, of all the things you could have picked?

    MRS. OBAMA: Well, first of all I think it’s absolutely relevant right now. The statistics are clear, you know. We’re seeing rates of childhood obesity go up like never before. And I think the country is also at a point where we’re ready. And I think that’s one of the reasons why the “Let’s Move” initiative has been so well received by so many industries and parents and teachers, is because I think we know there’s a problem, and we’re going to have to come together to solve it.

    Now, personally, the issue for me is a personal one. I’ve spoken about this often, how in my busy lifestyle, before coming into the White House, I was living like most busy mothers — a husband traveled a lot, I had a full-time job, I bought for convenience and cost. And I saw some changes — or my pediatrician saw some changes in my children’s diet that caused him to say, “Hold on.” And I think I was like most mothers — I thought I was doing absolutely everything that I was supposed to be doing. And to me my kids looked fine. They were perfectly — hey, you know, they’re my kids, they’re gorgeous.

    But I made some changes. And they were very simple changes in our lifestyle, but it made significant differences — made a significant difference in how the kids felt, how we felt as a family.

    And I started thinking, well, if I didn’t know these things — and I’m educated, have resources, I have the support that I need — what are other families doing? How are other mothers, people who live in communities that don’t have grocery stores — how are they making these decisions? How are we teaching kids how to eat? What’s happened to our habits?

    So even before coming to the White House, this issue moved me in a way that made me think we need to explore this a little bit more.

    And then we planted this beautiful garden, 1,100 square feet of pure joy. And that gave us an opportunity in a very sort of non-confrontational way to begin exploring the questions of how do kids respond to nutritious food and vegetables if they’re part of the process of growing and getting involved. That’s one of the reasons why getting the kids in the D.C. area involved in the work was critical. And their response really sent us the message that we might be ready to begin this conversation in a more comprehensive way.

    So, you know, the time is right. It’s also important in my husband’s administration, which is something that I try to do with the issues that I take on. I mean, I say this a lot: I am here to support the President of the United States, and health care is one of the most important issues that this country is facing. We are spending $147 billion on obesity-related conditions that are preventable. And if we can make ourselves healthier, that’s going to go a long way to helping find some solutions to this problem. And these issues intersect in a very important and compelling way.

    Q How did we get here? What is the history of this?

    MRS. OBAMA: Well, you know, I don’t think there’s any one path to how we got there. I know I have my theories. I think lifestyles have changed significantly. I reminisce with people about what it was like for me growing up on the South Side of Chicago in a simple working-class community. You went to the school around the corner from your house because all the schools were solid enough that you just went to the school in your neighborhood. So you walked to school, number one.

    And there was recess and gym. I was talking to one of my staff members just about how lunchtime, it was an hour. And my mother was one of the mothers that didn’t work, so me and all my friends, we’d come back to our house, we’d watch soap operas, we’d eat lunch. (Laughter.) We’d complain about our teachers.

    Q Which ones?

    MRS. OBAMA: “All My Children,” I have to say. (Laughter.) That was a big one.

    Q We just made news, ma’am. (Laughter.)

    MRS. OBAMA: But that was a lunchtime treat, and it was a way — you know, I thought — so we ate, we had time to eat our food, have a conversation with our parents, and then go back to school, catch that last minute of play. So it was a lot of activity.

    We didn’t — we had seven channels, not 107. Internet, video games were not a part of the culture. You had to go outside to play. So I think kids were naturally more active than they are today. And now kids are going to schools where they have to take a bus, a car ride. Some neighborhoods are not safe. And no matter what you say, in some neighborhoods you can’t tell parents, “Just let your kids go out and play,” because it isn’t safe. Some kids don’t even have friends in their own neighborhood because they live in different communities.

    So things have changed, and we are a busier culture. Parents — two parents working in the household, so you’re coming home, you’re tired. We all do it, right? You know you shouldn’t go to that drive-thru, but you’re just tired, and you know they’ll eat the food without complaining.

    We’re also a culture and a society right now that snacks a lot more. Just some of the statistics I talked about in my speech yesterday was that the average snack amount when I was growing up was one snack a day, if you were lucky. And now it’s averaging two to three. They say the average school-age kid is getting six snacks a day. So we’re taking 200 more calories than we were 40 years ago, 30 years ago just from snacks alone.

    So I think some of that convenience, you know, makes it very easy. You pick up a little bag of chips, you throw it in, the kids are hungry, they’re grabbing this, they’re grabbing that, and before you know it, they’ve snacked their way through the day.

    So I think those are just some of the things. But there are many, many, many — physical education, the level of activity. All of that is I think a part of it.

    Q What’s an analogous public health campaign that you think has been successful that could be a kind of model for this?

    MRS. OBAMA: Oh, that’s a —

    Q Is it smoking? Is it seat belts?

    MRS. OBAMA: Well, you know, I think seat belts is one of those. And I actually was talking to Mike Huckabee about this, because he actually made the analogy that this is one of those issues where culturally folks have to be ready to make the shift, you know. You cannot mandate, legislate seat belt wearing. You could, but does it really work? The same thing is true for how we eat and how we live. You can’t tell people what to do in their own homes, and nor should you. But there comes a point when we start seeing enough statistics, we sort of get aware of the problems in our own homes, and we start — we get emotionally ready to make some of those changes.

    So we’re at a point now where I think the society is ready for more information. Parents are looking for the answers. They know that something is off, and they just now want to figure out, well, what do I need to know? What am I doing wrong?

    Had a conversation with a girlfriend at dinner last night, and we were talking about, “Well, is apple juice okay? And what about chocolate milk?” I mean, and this is an educated woman who is confused about what beverage is actually going to be okay, outside of water, which we know is fine. But parents, societies, schools, we’re now ready to figure that out so that we can make good choices.

    We all care about our kids — that goes without saying, and that’s why this is not a “blame game” kind of issue. People are just trying to figure out how to survive, how to make sure their kids are happy and healthy. And sometimes we just don’t get the information that we need. And seat belt laws are a similar — one of those similar challenges, that once we were ready, we were ready to take in the information and make the changes.

    Q It has worked. How much — you’ve talked about the cultural shift — how much of this is regulatory? What is government’s role in these issues, which I suspect is both a federal and a state, even local question too?

    MRS. OBAMA: Right, right, right. Well, as I said, there is no expert that will tell you that having government tell people what to do is going to make a difference in this issue. So the role of government is not to mandate. And I think the roles are different. I think at the federal level, at this level, we can highlight and inform. There are things that we can do at this level, with the FDA, for example, working with food manufacturers to have better front-of-package labeling, things like that. We can finance and leverage money to try to get more groceries into underserved communities. We can make sure that we pass legislation that gets us a strong Nutrition Authorization Act so that we get better food in our schools and that there are guidelines that the private sector and schools can follow.

    But I think the real work happens on the ground. It’s our governors, our mayors, our schools, our communities. And that’s one of the reasons why I’ve been traveling so much, is that a lot of the answers are already out there, even in states like Mississippi who struggle more with this issue than most. I did some visits with the governor and his wife, terrific folks. They care about this issue; they know it’s a problem. And they’re doing some great work to really ramp up physical education in the schools. You’ve got teachers who are redesigning play spaces and they’re getting kids hula-hooping and jumping rope and they’re making teachers do more work and having them think about their diets. They’ve created requirements where teachers have to eat lunch with the kids, and they’ve seen vegetable and fruit consumption go up because — not just with the kids but with the teachers as well. (Laughter.)

    So you can go into many states and see some wonderful examples of things that work in those communities, because there isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer. What works in Mississippi may not work in Arizona, may not work in Connecticut. So we really need to look to the governors and mayors who know their communities, who understand their issues, their challenges, and that we work from there, and that we highlight those things that work — like in Pennsylvania. They’ve done an amazing job to deal with the issue of food deserts that I’ve talked about; you know, the 23.5 million Americans that live in communities without access to a supermarket. And there were neighborhoods like that when I was growing up.

    There’s one community in Philadelphia — we went to visit a grocery store — that community hadn’t had a grocery store in a decade. So you think about — you know, that’s a child’s life, right? Ten years of a child’s life where their mother couldn’t walk down the street and buy some fruit and a head of broccoli.

    So they’ve structured a financing initiative that leverages government dollars with private sector dollars, and they’ve been able to incentivize getting grocery stores into underserved communities, not just in urban areas but in some of the more rural areas in the state.

    So we need to — we can highlight those successes and hopefully give other states an example of what they might try, what might work.

    Q On Tuesday, you spoke to the Grocery Manufacturers Association. They sell not only in those supermarkets, those grocery stores, they sell vegetables and fruit; I hear that there’s also some sugary stuff around — (laughter.)

    MRS. OBAMA: A few things, a few things.

    Q My five-year-old has briefed me on this.

    MRS. OBAMA: Yes, yes. (Laughter.)

    Q And my question is, one logical extension, if the epidemic is as significant and widespread as it seems to be, what would you think about a warning label on Twinkies or Froot Loops that says —

    MRS. OBAMA: “Warning.”

    Q — “This is known to cause obesity in the absence of other kinds of eating and exercise”?

    MRS. OBAMA: You know, that strikes me as extreme, because a Twinkie is not a cigarette, you know. And what — what parents need is just information about what’s in the Twinkie and how much of this can we eat. It’s not that we can’t have a Twinkie. And our kids would be pretty upset. And I am not supporting that. (Laughter.) So all the kids out there — right?

    Q It’s called triangulation, ma’am. (Laughter.)

    MRS. OBAMA: I’m all in favor of good snacks. We grew up with snacks and chips. We did. But we have to exercise more, parents have to understand what’s in the Twinkie; again, how does it fit into the overall diet. So we don’t need a warning, we need information. And we need information that’s easy to understand. That’s something that I said yesterday in the speech. You read labels now and it’s like the small print and it’s all “oleosutomay” — or I don’t — the chemicals, you can’t even pronounce them, and the portion sizes compared to one, and you’ve got a small one and a big one. And then, before you know it, you don’t know what to buy and how much to give to your kids and in what amounts. That’s the kind of information that families need.

    And I think that the Grocery Store Manufacturers who are — they have been magnificent. And I know that there are those who say, well, are they going to really make changes? Look, the people who run those companies are parents and grandparents, too. They care about their kids. They’re trying to figure out how to meet the demand and how to give information.

    And we know that they’re going to sit down — you know, we know they’re going to sit down and help us figure this stuff out. You know, what are the facts that parents need to know; how do we structure it in a way that they can understand; and how do they meet the demands that we are now going to make — because it’s really up to us, as the parents and the consumers, to change the demand.

    They will make what we tell them we want to buy. And if we want healthier foods for our kids, and that’s what we’re purchasing, our power will shift their market. We don’t need much more than our own demands to change, and we need to work with our kids to also get them to change their eating habits as well.

    So it’s going to require all of us to do their parts, and then we don’t need the warning labels. We just need common sense and good information.

    Q Twinkies are safe in the Obama administration. (Laughter.)

    MRS. OBAMA: Yes, we are — (laughter) — yes, I think I’m — I feel good going on record. (Laughter.)

    Q Okay. We don’t have to pass a special rule. (Laughter.)

    MRS. OBAMA: No.

    Q Where do you stand on a beverage tax for sugary beverages?

    MRS. OBAMA: You know, the “Let’s Move” initiative doesn’t — we’re not — doesn’t involve a tax. But there are communities that believe that taxing sodas and other things works for them. And again, because, you know, we believe that those ideas and those approaches need to come from the bottom up, there are going to be cities and states and towns who believe that that’s what they need in their communities. And, again, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. And I think that’s where mayors, governors, citizens, schools, you know, working in your own states and communities — to figure out really what’s going to work and what’s going to move the bar on this issue.

    Q What’s your sense of posting calorie counts? It happens in New York — actually, where I live, and it’s very depressing, actually. (Laughter.) The mayor of New York has made it very hard to go to Dunkin’ Donuts. (Laughter.) But it works. Is that something else that should be a weapon in the arsenal?

    MRS. OBAMA: I think the more information we can give to consumers, families, parents, the better. There are examples outside of New York — in Somerville, Massachusetts, the mayor there has been working with some of the local restaurant owners to get them to change their menus so that there are healthier options and customers have more information about what’s in stuff. I think that’s a good thing.

    But also in Somerville they’re going beyond just what we eat and they’re also thinking more creatively about how in every aspect of what they do to run that city, they’re thinking about the health and well-being of kids. So that comes down to how many parks they have; and what their roads look like; and if they’re building a new street, making sure there’s a sidewalk and a place for kids to ride their bikes. I mean, again, this isn’t just about what we eat, this is about how we live.

    In some of the towns in Mississippi they have to think creatively about where they don’t have places to play — you know, maybe you take an old field and turn it into a soccer field and let the city pay a dollar for it. And you find ways, creative ways, to make sure there are spaces for families to live in a healthy way.

    Those are the kind of ideas that we want to promote. Those are the kind of things that are working. We just need to do more of it and we need to do it faster.

    Q There’s also, both in rural areas and in urban areas, there’s an economic issue, which is — you mentioned convenience, but often the fast food can be even less expensive sometimes than getting healthy food.

    MRS. OBAMA: Absolutely.

    Q Can you talk about that disparity and what we can do about it?

    MRS. OBAMA: That disparity is very real. I mean — no, I talked about it with the grocery manufacturers as well. It’s not just making healthy food, but it’s making healthy food that’s affordable. And that’s a challenge, as well, but we have to recognize that we need to move in that direction. There are — you know, we can’t look families in the face and say, “You fix this problem,” but then you can’t afford the food that they need to fix the problem; they don’t have access to it. We have to figure this out.

    The school lunch program is a major — is going to be a major player in the whole resource issue because many kids are getting the majority of their meals at school. So that’s one of those areas where we have some control over as a society because, you know, we’re going to feed these kids for two out of three or four of their meals, depending upon how many they have. So we need to make sure that we pass legislation that makes sense, that sets clear basic nutritional guidelines, not just in the school lunch lines, but in the vending machines and a la carte lines; that we have the resources to help schools bring their standards up.

    Things like — in Mississippi, what Governor Barbour did with some of his stimulus money was to remove fryers and put in ovens. I mean, it’s just something as simple — the school nutritionist will tell you, we want to do better, but all we have is a fryer, which means when you have a fryer then you have to fry stuff. (Laughter.) So we need to make sure that the schools have the resources they need to make the changes to get healthier food into the schools.

    But we also have to make sure that every single child that is eligible for free and reduced lunch actually gets it, that we reduce the paperwork to make sure that — if you look at some of the paperwork that families get to sign up, and then they have to re-sign up and then they have to fill it out. You know, you look at that, you’re busy and, you know, you just brush it under the rug, you don’t complete it. We have to make those processes and procedures easier. And I think we can go a long way to helping underserved families with the school lunch program.

    Q How does obesity affect classroom learning?

    MRS. OBAMA: I think, you know, this week it opened this up, right, to the audience. I mean, we know — in our own kids, in our own lives — how kids respond when they have a good meal, they’ve eaten the right things. We know what happens to kids when they are hyped up on sugar and they’re operating on too much sugar and not enough substance. We see it in our own lives.

    So you just imagine if you send a kid to school with a sugary breakfast and a sugary drink, and they have to learn for a few hours and they stop maybe for 10 minutes for lunch — maybe — and they haven’t had a chance to run and run off that energy. And then they start dropping because they’re coming down from all that sugar. And they don’t even know it. They don’t even know why they feel lethargic, why they get sleepy at about eleven o’clock during the day — just like we all do when we don’t eat right. I mean, we all experience it.

    So it definitely affects how kids feel throughout the day, which is something that we have to remember. This issue is not about looks and appearance. This is about how our kids feel and how they feel about themselves, because how you feel inside affects the way you approach the day; even the way you tackle the challenge. If you feel like, you know, you’re full and you’ve eaten some fruit and you’ve gotten some grains, that affects the way you think.

    So this isn’t an image issue. This is truly an overall health issue. And kids, in addition to needing to eat well, have to run. They have to run around during the day. They have to get the energy out, you know? I mean, you’ve got kids. You imagine trying to teach your child sitting still for hours —

    Q Oh, in our house (inaudible) the time. (Laughter.)

    MRS. OBAMA: Right. All right, okay, Jon. (Laughter.)

    Q We read “Newsweek” aloud. (Laughter.) They love the Obama collection.

    MRS. OBAMA: Oh, good. It’s very good. (Laughter.)

    Q No, you’re right, absolutely. But why isn’t — I mean, we’re lucky in that our kids — where our kids go to school, they run around. That’s not true in a lot of places. Physical education is often the first thing to go. Recess has been cut back. From a policy perspective, is that simply a financial issue? Is it because the standards, classroom standards have been set at a point where they can’t afford a single moment of classroom time? What’s your analysis of the end of recess?

    MRS. OBAMA: I think that educators, administrators, parents would say it’s all of it. Some of it feels like a resource issue. And some of it is when you’re testing so much and you’re meeting requirements, you feel like the first thing that goes — if your money is tied to a test score and not to recess, you know, and whether your kids can run around, then the choice is already made for you, some administrators feel.

    But there are also examples where schools are figuring out how even in this current climate of testing and lack of resources, how to put that stuff back into the curriculum. The Department of Agriculture has the U.S. Healthier School Challenge, which is an initiative that we’re promoting as part of the “Let’s Move” initiative. We’re going to — we want to double the number of schools in this country that qualify as U.S. Healthier Schools. There are currently about 600 of them around the country. Our goal under “Let’s Move” is to double that, because these are schools that are the models for what we’d like to see happening with nutrition and physical education, because without any additional resources, they figured out how to restructure their curriculum, how to use nutrition education as part of math and science; they found ways to mandate and reincorporate recess and gym back into their classrooms.

    I mean, there are schools — wonderful, public schools — all over the country that are figuring how to restructure the day. But what I’ve found when I’ve talked to principals, administrators who’ve made that choice, they have decided as a school community that exercise and nutrition isn’t an extra; that it is an essential part of what a good curriculum has to look like.

    So in one school that I visited in Virginia, they don’t allow teachers to take recess or gym away as a punishment because their feeling is that’s counter-productive. So now you’ve got a problem, so you’ve taken away the one thing that may help the kid wind out of the problem. So they’ve — you know, they’ve said you can’t take that away, because that’s part of the curriculum. That’s like telling the kid, well, you didn’t do well in spelling, so you’re not going to be able to do math today.

    Q In addition to the Twinkie thing, that might be a very good political move — (laughter) — pull them out of math.

    MRS. OBAMA: Right, right. (Laughter.) But I am not — now, I did not say that. (Laughter.)

    Q No, ma’am, just me. (Laughter.) It was me.

    MRS. OBAMA: That’s your idea.

    Q Yes, ma’am.

    MRS. OBAMA: But there are schools that are figuring out how to make this happen. Our job is to give them the resources they need, hold them up, celebrate those successes and help other school districts figure out how do they do the same thing. How have they managed in the current climate? What’s the difference? Why does one school manage to do it and another can’t? Is it at the regional level? Is it the superintendent support? I mean, we could probably talk to educators in this room right now who are — just they know the answer to this, and they’re ready to jump on it.

    But there are schools that are doing it. And we need to make sure that more are doing it. This should be the standard of how our kids get an education in this country.

    Q Last question, ma’am. How will you measure success, as you look at the lifetime of the administration, of your own ongoing work, presumably?

    MRS. OBAMA: Well, the goal for “Let’s Move,” the whole goal of this initiative, is to end the problem of childhood obesity in a generation. So this is a generational issue. And our view is that we want kids born today to grow up at a healthy weight. And it will take a generation to see how that’s going.

    But one of the things that the administration is doing now — the President signed an executive order creating the first ever Council on Childhood Obesity. They are now reviewing every single program and policy, not just in the government but in the country, that focuses on education and nutrition. And we need to figure out how to use the resources we have more smartly.

    But we’re going to get that report in May. We’re looking forward to that. And part of that — the interesting thing about that approach is that we’re saying we need real, measurable outcomes. And the foundation that was set up as part of this initiative — and we’ve got some wonderful foundations who have been researching and investing in this issue for decades — RJW, Kellogg — I don’t want to begin to name all of them, because I’ll miss some — but they are going to be sort of the future arm of this, so that when I’m gone, when the President is gone and the next administration comes in, you’ve got an independent group that’s going to continue to look at these goals and help us figure out whether we’re reaching the goals, and keep our feet to the fire, because, again, this isn’t something that’s going to happen in this administration.

    This is — we are looking at this as a forever proposition, because fundamentally, as I said in my speech to the food manufacturers, we have to change the way we view food and health forever. And we can start with kids, because they haven’t — their habits haven’t been ingrained. We can shift the way they think, even the way they taste food. We can do that. Us, you know, grownups — (laughter) — not so much. We’re a little stuck in our ways.

    But we can still guide our children. I still think of my mother, who said — you know, she had no problem doing things that she told me I couldn’t do. (Laughter.) So even though we, as parents, haven’t conquered it and maybe we don’t — we’re not doing it, we can still help our kids get to a different place. And it’s going to take time. And it’s going to take patience. And we’re going to need everyone involved.

    But I think about where we started a year ago with the planting of this little garden. And now, we have this wonderful initiative that has the food industry coming together; and bipartisan support all over the country; parents feeling excited and support it; kids — (laughter) — you know, they’re coming. (Laughter.) We’ve got the professional sports community standing by.

    This is an issue that can unite the country. And it can unite us with the rest of the world, because the truth is there isn’t a single head of state or spouse of a head of state who I have met who has not been fascinated by our garden and our conversations around nutrition, because so many other countries are beginning to see some of the effects as they develop. They’re seeing their rates go up.

    So this is an issue for the world. And we can truly be a leader, but we have to be patient. And we also have to be clear that we need to work really hard and stretch. So when we talk to the food industry, we say, you have to do more. When we talk to ourselves as parents, we have to push ourselves. We have to talk to Congress. And we have to say, you have to push to ensure that we’re getting the kind of regulations and support so that our school meals are healthy.

    We all have to stretch on this one. And if we do, I think we can — we will see a change in our kids that we can be proud of.

    Q Well, thank you so much for your work, for your piece this week —

    MRS. OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you for investing in this conversation.

    Q — and for this remarkable presentation. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

    END
    1:02 P.M. EDT

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • President Obama Nominates Judge Leonard Stark and Amy Totenberg to the United States

    03.17.10 11:18 AM

    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama nominated Judge Leonard Stark and Amy Totenberg to the United States District Court. Judge Stark is a nominee for the District of Delaware and Totenberg is a nominee for the Northern District of Georgia.

    “Leonard Stark and Amy Totenberg are distinguished candidates for the United States District Court,” President Obama said. “They have both displayed an exceptional commitment to public service and they will be thoughtful and esteemed additions to the federal bench. I am honored to nominate them today.”

    Judge Leonard P. Stark: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
    Judge Leonard P. Stark is a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware, a position he has held since 2007. Previously, he was an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Delaware and an associate in the Delaware office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. He began his legal career in Wilmington, Delaware, as a law clerk to the Honorable Walter K. Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Stark graduated from the University of Delaware in 1991 with three degrees: an M.A. in History, a B.S. in Economics, and a B.A. in Political Science. In 1993, he received a doctorate degree in Politics from the University of Oxford, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. He earned his J.D. from Yale Law School in 1996.

    Amy Totenberg: Nominee for the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia
    Since 2000, Amy Totenberg has been a sole practitioner and arbitrator based in Atlanta. She serves as a special master in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and as a court monitor in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. From 1994 to 1998, Totenberg served as the first in-house general counsel for the Atlanta school system. Before that, she focused on civil litigation, primarily as a sole practitioner. She also served as a part-time Municipal Court Judge for the City of Atlanta from 1988 to 1993. Totenberg received her J.D. in 1977 from Harvard Law School, and her A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard-Radcliffe in 1974.

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Remarks by President Obama and the Taoiseach of Ireland Brian Cowen

    03.17.10 09:10 AM

    11:26 A.M. EDT

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning, everybody. First of all, I just want to congratulate this sound person right here for having the green earmuffs. (Laughter.) Now, I haven’t seen that before. Happy St. Patrick’s Day, everybody.

    Before I talk a little bit about the strong and enduring bond between the American and Irish people, I just want to thank Congress for passing this morning the HIRE Act. It is the first of what I hope will be a series of jobs packages that help to continue to put people back to work all across America.

    This bill will provide tax cuts to small businesses that are willing to begin hiring right now, putting people back to work. It’s also going to provide significant tax breaks to businesses for investing in their business, and so, hopefully, at a time when we’re starting to see an upswing in the economic growth, that will help sustain it. And the bill also will continue to improve our ability to finance infrastructure projects all across the country.

    I also want to say to the Republicans who voted for this bill that I appreciate their willingness to work with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion to get America moving again. And as I said, I hope that on a series of future steps that we take to help small businesses get financing, to help improve our infrastructure around the country, to put people back to work, that we’re going to see more progress on that front.

    I want to thank the Taoiseach for coming here today. Last year we had the opportunity to get to know each other and had a wonderful time during St. Patrick’s Day. Thirty-six million Americans claim Irish ancestry -– I’m sure more do on St. Patrick’s Day. And it’s a testament I think to how close our two countries are that America has been shaped culturally, politically, economically by the incredible contributions of Irish Americans. Those bonds endure. And in our meeting we reaffirmed how important it is for us to continue a strong partnership across a whole host of issues.

    I thanked the Taoiseach for the assistance that they’ve provided on critical international issues. We use the facilities in Ireland for transit for our military troops to Afghanistan. The Irish police are providing training in Afghanistan. As the Taoiseach indicated, the Irish government punches above its weight on a whole host of critical issues. We’re going to be working together to enhance food security around the world. Even in these difficult times it’s important for us to make sure that we’re tackling big issues like world hunger.

    I congratulated the Taoiseach and his government for the extraordinary work that they engaged in, working with Gordon Brown and the British government, as well as Secretary Hillary Clinton, in reaffirming the progress that’s been made in Northern Ireland and to get a ratification of continued devolution. It’s a sign of his leadership, and we want to be as supportive as possible in advancing the Northern Ireland peace process.

    We also discussed the economy. And on both sides of the Atlantic we are seeing stabilization of the economy, but obviously we want more than just stabilization. There are a lot of people out there that are still hurting, still out of work. And so we will continue to coordinate in international fora as well as bilaterally to see how we can spur investment and private sector growth on both sides of the Atlantic.

    So I just wanted to say how grateful we are for the friendship and the partnership between the United States government and the Irish government. We wish you and everybody who is here a happy St. Patrick’s Day, and are looking forward to the reception that we’ll have in the White House later this evening.

    TAOISEACH COWEN: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And we are — I and my delegation — delighted to be able to join you here at the White House this morning on this wonderful St. Patrick’s Day morning. And I think the sun shining outside and the light coming in I think typifies the excellent relationship that Ireland enjoys with the United States not only now, but as you say, over many generations. And that contribution to America by Ireland is a continuing one, one that we have to find and give modern expression to all the time.

    And certainly the level of cooperation and common cause we enjoy together in terms of the issues of today in the economy and how we can ensure that our economies recover as quickly as possible is something that’s very important to both our countries. And certainly in Ireland’s context the resurgent U.S. economy will be a strong indicator of our return to prosperity. And we very much commend the very decisive steps that you have taken in terms of the economic issues and the banking issues, which have been so successful.

    I think we are seeking to replicate ourselves in our own context as a recapitalization of our banking system and making sure that we have a banking system fit for purpose that will assist recovery and grow jobs again in the future, and provide investment and credit, working credit for businesses that are hard pressed in the very difficult trading environment.

    In that context I’ve been delighted to head a delegation here to the United States and having visited Chicago, the West Coast, Silicon Valley and now Washington, D.C. over the last couple of days; 70 small- and medium-sized enterprises have been over with us, doing trade with American companies. I’m glad to say that the two-way relationship in terms of investment is continuing. Over 34 billion euros have been invested by Irish companies in the United States, employing 85,000 people directly.

    And that, if you like, mirrors the very significant U.S. investment that’s taking place in Ireland, employing directly of the order of 90,000 people. So that important two-way mutual benefit to this trade is very, very important, one I know that you’re equally cognizant about in terms of finding jobs for your people as we seek to provide jobs for ours.

    On Northern Ireland, we are deeply grateful for the continuing and deep commitment shown by the Obama administration, by the President, himself, and by Secretary of State Clinton in recent months. We’ve been very grateful for that continuing interest which has influenced an outcome that has been so positive. As I said to the President, for a place that has been known for its disagreements, a 98-17 vote was a very good vote to get. I’m sure he’s looking forward to a good outcome in what he’s doing during the course of this week.

    We decided to come on a quiet week — we knew there wasn’t much going on. (Laughter.) But in that context, it reinforces the fact that we are so, so grateful that the President gives so much of his time — both himself as President, his administration, and, indeed, the people on the Hill from both parties are very welcoming of us. And we deeply appreciate that, as both a recognition of the contribution of Ireland thus far to America, but also the continuing important relationship we enjoy.

    So on all these fronts, again, it’s a great pleasure to meet with the leader of the free world. We are deeply grateful for his sense of mission not only in terms of how America is progressing, but America’s position in the world. And we will always be supportive of the very progressive stands and positions that President Obama has taken — not only in terms of the economic issues, but on development issues. We will have a co-chairing by Secretary Clinton and Micheál Martin, our foreign minister, at the U.N. Conference on Hunger and Food Security. And these are another indication of the values we share and our ability to cooperate and provide leadership positions is one that we’ve very grateful and privileged to enjoy with you.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you.

    Thank you, everybody.

    Q — that Representative Kucinich will vote for the health care bill —

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: That’s a good sign.

    Q What did you tell him?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I told him thank you.

    Q Will you be going to Ireland, Mr. President?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I would love to be going to Ireland.

    END
    11:35 A.M. EDT

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Statement from the President on the National Broadband Plan

    03.16.10 12:16 PM

    America today is on the verge of a broadband-driven Internet era that will unleash innovation, create new jobs and industries, provide consumers with new powerful sources of information, enhance American safety and security, and connect communities in ways that strengthen our democracy. Just as past generations of Americans met the great infrastructure challenges of the day, such as building the Transcontinental railroad and the Interstate highways, so too must we harness the potential of the Internet. Expanding broadband across the nation will build a foundation of sustained economic growth and the widely shared prosperity we all seek.

    I commend Chairman Julius Genachowski, the Commissioners, and the FCC staff for their hard work in developing the National Broadband Plan.

    My Administration will build upon our efforts over the past year to make America’s nationwide broadband infrastructure the world’s most powerful platform for economic growth and prosperity, including improving access to mobile broadband, maximizing technology innovation, and supporting a nationwide, interoperable public safety wireless broadband network.

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 3/16/10

    03.16.10 01:00 PM

    1:47 P.M. EDT

    MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. I think as the weather gets nicer we might want to move this — like class, we should move this outside and —

    Q Absolutely.

    MR. GIBBS: Oh, wow, everybody is —

    Q Go for it.

    MR. GIBBS: All right, I will — wow, I didn’t think that would be so easily accepted. (Laughter.) Without objection, so ordered, and I will have WHCA start setting that up. That sounds like a great idea. Wow. That sounds good.

    Mr. Feller.

    Q Thank you, sir.

    MR. GIBBS: Now we’ve broken all the news, let’s move forward.

    Q On health care, a few questions. Does the President support the idea of the House passing the health care bill without actually ever voting on it?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, Ben, I think as you’ve heard the President discuss repeatedly over these past couple of weeks, this week there will be a final vote on health care. There will be an up or down vote on where we are on health care, on the President’s plan to reform our health care system. And I think that is — that’s what he’s focused on. That’s what — that’s why he’s talking to members to gain their support for.

    Q But there’s a scenario unfolding in which the House would vote on the fix it bill, as you know, but never actually vote on the underlying Senate bill. And the House Speaker has been candid about that. If that happens, would the President be okay with that?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Ben, I — there’s going to be a vote on health care reform this week. You’re going to know where people are on health care reform. There, I’m sure, are those that are going to want to make this about the legislative process rather than the heart-wrenching stories of people like Natoma Canfield that the President discussed yesterday. But the vote that we have on health care this week — and I’m not under the impression that the House has made up its mind on what that process is going to be, I haven’t read it — but I don’t think there’s any doubt that people — this would be a final vote on health care. You’ll know where health care is.

    Q Well, the President, along with policy, has said that process is important, too, to the American people — transparency. So when you say a vote — I think — don’t you think it’s important that there be a vote on the bill?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t think anybody is going to be — I don’t think anybody is going to misinterpret the outcome as to where people are on health care. I anticipate I’ll get questions today on who the President is speaking with and who’s he meeting with, and you’re going to ask me —

    Q Who?

    MR. GIBBS: Right. But — and you want to know that —

    Q That’s what —

    MR. GIBBS: Hold on, let me finish my point. And you’re going to want to know where they are on health care. When you do your whip counts, you’re trying to figure out who’s where on health care. I don’t imagine there’s many Republican strategists that you all will interview this week that will say — we won’t look at the vote that’s going to be had on Friday or so and it’s not about health care.

    So, again, the President is focused on, after having worked on this for a year, getting this done; focusing on the stories that he repeated yesterday outside of Cleveland on behalf of people like Natoma Canfield; and believes that the stakes are higher than the next election or somebody’s poll numbers next week.

    Q So just to follow, who’s the President meeting with and speaking with?

    Q Since you brought it up.

    MR. GIBBS: Undecided members of Congress who will vote later this week on health care reform.

    Q And what is he — just to follow up on that, when he does meet with lawmakers, particularly one on one, what is he offering them in exchange for their votes, if anything?

    MR. GIBBS: Offering the case for why health care reform should be passed this year; offering the case of why 60 percent of small businesses will receive a tax cut in helping provide their employees with health care; offering the case for why the mother of a young child won’t sit on the phone anymore with an insurance company arguing about a so-called preexisting condition.

    Those are the types of anecdotes that the President will be offering members of Congress about why it’s important to put aside the day-to-day politics, put aside the next election, put aside your poll numbers, and instead focus on the problems that the American people have.

    Q So you’re saying he’s just making that case for the bill? No quid pro quo?

    MR. GIBBS: No.

    Q Is he making headway?

    Q On China —

    MR. GIBBS: Yes.

    Q Robert, a quick follow please?

    MR. GIBBS: Let me get around. We’ll be here for a while, I presume.

    Q I’d like to move to China, and if the administration has any reaction to the bill that’s being put to the Senate by Schumer and Graham.

    MR. GIBBS: I don’t know that we’ve seen the text of the legislation. I think you saw the President mentioned just a few days ago that he wished and hoped that China approached their currency using a more market-based interpretation, and I would point you to the Treasury for any further announcements on that.

    Q And there does seem to be rising rhetoric here. I mean, is the President concerned this could undermine efforts to get China to collaborate in the G20, or even escalate into a trade war?

    MR. GIBBS: No, I think the President, as I’ve said before, believes that diplomatic relationships sometimes come with disagreement. We’ve been reading about a few recently. But that doesn’t curtail our ability to work on problems of mutual concern like the global economic recovery.

    Q But does the President still believe, as he said in the campaign, that China does manipulate its currency?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I would refer you to what the President said just a few days ago.

    Ed.

    Q Thanks, Robert. I just want to push a little bit on this up or down vote. I mean, just again yesterday the President said, “So look, Ohio, that’s the proposal. And I believe Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote.” He didn’t say a final up or down vote plus — using a deem and pass procedure. He is promising the American people repeatedly in the last couple of weeks, including in the East Room with the doctors in the white coats, a straight up or down vote. Why are you not being clear with the American people about what you want the House to do?

    MR. GIBBS: Ed, we’re being clear. We’re being clear with the people of the United States and with Congress that there is going to be a vote this week, and you’re going to know how people are — where they stand on health care.

    Q But it may not be a vote on the actual legislation.

    MR. GIBBS: Again, this I think is a legislative process game that people play —

    Q It’s a process —

    MR. GIBBS: No, no, no. Let me just —

    Q Why won’t Democrats go on the record about this legislation?

    MR. GIBBS: But, Ed, let me just make this point. I am sure that CNN is going to be filled with stories between now and when that vote happens about where people are on that vote. You’re asking people where they are on health care reform. You’re trying to get — find out what meetings are happening here so you can ask people where they are on health care reform. That’s what this vote is going to be about. That’s — you’re going to know where people are on health care reform, on where they are on the President’s proposal on health care reform, not on where they are on a rule.

    Q Sure, but it’s also — that part is true, leading up to the vote, but it’s been a fundamental part of this republic that basically at the end of a long debate like this, there is an up or down vote —

    MR. GIBBS: Well, first and foremost, let’s understand —

    Q — and the American people want to know what people are doing.

    MR. GIBBS: Let’s understand this is a — again, I’m not under the impression the House made a final decision. That announcement, a decision —

    Q — off the table then?

    MR. GIBBS: Because I’m not the Speaker of the House. She’ll make that announcement. She’ll make that decision. But understand, Ed, again, we hear the same process arguments from the same people that used very similar arguments on their side of this in many previous Congresses. So again, it’s a little bit like reconciliation — I was against it; before I was for it; and now you point out that it’s —

    Q But if the weight of your arguments are so much on the right side of history, why not just go before the American people and say here’s an up or down vote on legislation?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, Ed, I don’t think you’re going to — I don’t think when you go out into the public next week after the legislation passes and ask people how they feel about their congressman’s vote — you’re going to be asking them how they feel about their congressman’s or congresswoman’s vote on health care reform. That’s what you’re going to be asking them because that’s what this vote is about.

    Yes, ma’am.

    Q Robert, without getting into specific numbers, can you tell us what percentage of the President’s day he’s actually devoting to making these calls and what kind of a reception he’s getting? I mean, is he getting a lot of pushback? Are these long conversations? Are they short? What are the nature of these calls?

    MR. GIBBS: Longer with some than others.

    Q In English?

    MR. GIBBS: Pardon me?

    Q In English? (Laughter.)

    MR. GIBBS: As opposed to other words? No, this is children-approved programming, Helen. Let’s be good.

    I have not gotten a list of members that he’s called today, but I know he reached out — well, obviously he talked with Representative Kucinich yesterday on Air Force One. He’s talked with and called — either met with or called members over the past several days and, again, made the case for why reform is important now; why this has to be the time where we finally do something about health care.

    Q And how is that argument being received?

    MR. GIBBS: I think we are making steady progress toward passage of the bill this week.

    Q Do you think that this is — his entire day is devoted to making these calls? Is it half the day? I mean, I’m just trying to get a sense since we’re not seeing him at all.

    MR. GIBBS: I’d have to go back and look at his — at the in-depth schedule to give you an educated guess on percentage, but — no, I mean, look, the President, again, has a PDB every day; we had a senior advisors meeting and he’s got stuff later today that doesn’t deal with health care.

    Yes, ma’am.

    Q Has the President considered pulling out of these horrible wars where innocent people are killed, and take care of the desperate needs in this country — in the cities, on health, education and welfare?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, Helen, obviously relating to Iraq, we have — we’re on a path to getting our combat troops out of there by the end of August. You’ve seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan we obviously are — we have apologized on numerous occasions for the loss of innocent life.

    Q — replace a human life?

    MR. GIBBS: No, it certainly does — those are the type of actions that you obviously regret. I think that you’ve seen Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal say those exact things to civilians in Afghanistan. But I would say that we would not be in Afghanistan if the President didn’t think it was in our strong national interest to do so.

    As it relates to the other part of your question, I think the President has outlined a robust agenda for improving health care reform in this country — or improving health care in this country for — we’ve laid out many ways to improve our educational system and make our children more competitive and ready for either a career or college at the end of high school, and to address other problems that the President believes have been neglected for quite some time.

    Q There’s no money for these needs, no money.

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, we’ve made some tough decisions about how to pay for health care reform, different than has been done in the last few years in Washington. We believe there are priorities the President should pay for, and we have.

    Chip.

    Q Thank you, Robert. You talked earlier about what the President is offering people when he makes these calls. Is he offering to campaign in their districts and to come out and raise money for them?

    MR. GIBBS: The President is focused on the case that he will make and the case that he hopes everyone makes on why this legislation is important for the American people, and important for the constituents of their district.

    Q There have been numerous reports that he and/or the White House have made specific offers to campaign and raise money for wavering Democrats. Are these reports incorrect?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, there’s also been reports that we won’t campaign for people that don’t, which are also —

    Q Are those incorrect?

    MR. GIBBS: Those are incorrect.

    Q So the President has not made any —

    MR. GIBBS: I’ve not been in every meeting, Chip. Again, the President is focused on outlining the merits on behalf of the legislation and the policy that, again, will cut costs for the American people, make health care more affordable and —

    Q I understand he’s focused on that, but is he also, at the end of the call, saying, hey, I’ll campaign for you, I’ll raise money for you?

    MR. GIBBS: I assume we’ll campaign for many people. Some will vote for it, and some will vote against it. The President doesn’t spend his time doing scheduling and political events.

    Q But is there a quid pro quo?

    MR. GIBBS: No. I said that earlier to Ben that that was not the case.

    Q Absolutely not a quid pro quo?

    MR. GIBBS: No.

    Q And he’s not going to make campaigning or raising money contingent upon how they vote?

    MR. GIBBS: He is focused on the legislation at hand.

    Q You said Speaker Pelosi will make the decision or will announce the decision on how the House proceeds procedurally on this. Is the President involved in any way in making that decision?

    MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of, no.

    Q And are people in the White House involved in making that decision —

    MR. GIBBS: I assume that we have been involved for many, many months on getting health care done. I don’t know of all the conversations, whether they’ve weighed in on process.

    Q You say the final decision is hers, though, not the White House?

    MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think the final decision is the Speaker’s.

    Q Finally, on the special deals, last week one day you went through the different states where there had been special deals — Nebraska and Louisiana and Vermont and Montana. Do you stand by the list of deals that were taken out of the legislation last week?

    MR. GIBBS: I’m happy to look at it again. I don’t have any reason to believe —

    Q Is the President still fighting to keep those special deals out of this?

    MR. GIBBS: I think we’ve taken quite a bit out of there and have asked the Senate to take anything else out that, again, I think as you saw people outline, would benefit one place or one state rather than something that can be — that can affect a broader group of people.

    Q How about Montana, for example? Does the President support keeping that in?

    MR. GIBBS: I think I addressed that last week on that.

    Q Right, but do you stand by it now still?

    MR. GIBBS: I do.

    Q Do you believe this deem and pass scenario constitutes an up or down vote?

    MR. GIBBS: I think that — I think that you’re going to ask people how they stand on health care. You’re not going to ask them how they stand on deem and pass. You’re going to have a vote count that constructs not the process for the rule but where you are on health care.

    Q But you guys would be satisfied. Since you’ve extolled the virtues of an up or down vote, you would be satisfied with this deem and pass scenario?

    MR. GIBBS: I think this is — I think that — again, I think there are many that would want to conflate this process into something that’s different than the product; that is different than the heart-wrenching stories of people, as I’ve said, like Natoma Canfield, who made decisions to give up her — who made a decision to give up her health care to keep her house, a gamble that she’s lost.

    Q Well, I ask about the up or down vote because Speaker Pelosi said — I’m quoting — “I like it, this scenario, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”

    MR. GIBBS: I would ask one of her —

    Q I’m interested in how you would square those two concepts.

    MR. GIBBS: I would ask one of her capable spokespeople on what she had to say.

    Q Okay, but wait — all right, but would you agree that there seems to be some inconsistency between what she said and the notion of an up or down vote?

    MR. GIBBS: I haven’t talked to one of her capable spokespeople.

    Q Another topic?

    Q Okay, then real quickly, just — do you — would you agree that it exacerbates the perception —

    MR. GIBBS: No, I wouldn’t.

    Q — that this is a dirty or underhanded process?

    MR. GIBBS: No.

    Q Another topic?

    MR. GIBBS: Yes.

    Q Thank you, Robert. There’s been some reporting today that the Israelis are considering even more settlement activity after their announcement during the Vice President’s trip there last week. What is the reaction of the Obama administration to this latest increase in settlement activity?

    MR. GIBBS: These are reports of? I don’t want to base my comments off of would-be reports of. I’m certainly happy to comment at some point based on whether or not the “reports of” are actual.

    I would say this. I think that last week, the Vice President was in Israel to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and its people. As I said earlier mature, bilateral relationships can have disagreements. And this is one of those disagreements. It does not break the unbreakable bond that we have with the Israeli government and with the Israeli people on their security.

    We have, throughout this process, hoped to engender the type of trust between the two sides that would lead to sitting down and discussing directly these issues. Events on either side that complicate that we condemn on either side. And we’ll continue to do that.

    Q May I follow on that?

    MR. GIBBS: I’ll come back around.

    Jonathan.

    Q The President has said that the problem with the politics of the health care bill is not with policy but with process. So what is the difference between a deem and pass or a self-enacting rule, and the kind of process that the President was condemning when he made those statements?

    MR. GIBBS: I think we were — I think the President was talking about the end of the Senate bill on some of the deals that Chip asked me about that are gone.

    Q So the deals are different from the final enactment?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Jonathan, this is a process that has been used — again, I’m struck by the richness with which people can pivot to believing what they used four out of 10 times in a previous Congress to pass things now have great objections to using so.

    Q I thought you guys wanted to hold yourselves to a higher standard.

    Q And the fact is —

    MR. GIBBS: No, I’m not holding — I’m not changing the standard we’re holding ourselves to. I’m pointing out the, quite honestly, low standards with which many of the people that you’re asking me about have been quoted as saying. When Republicans use these types of rules four out of 10 times in a previous Congress and then vociferously object to the use of that rule now, I think that is — I think that is — again, the standard is to embrace something and then find it objectionable a pivot that requires something few figure skaters in the Olympics are able to pull off.

    Q But is this the first — is this the most significant social policy legislation to pass in 30 years, or is this just another run-of-the-mill bill going through a process like that has been used —

    MR. GIBBS: Well, that’s a quantitatively different argument I would assume you’re making now, right? So you’re saying that it’s —

    Q You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say it’s the same —

    MR. GIBBS: No, no — no, but neither can — Jonathan, but neither can somebody else have the argument. So you’re saying that it’s not whether that is used; you’re talking about — you’re saying that the use is based on the scope — is that right?

    Q Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

    MR. GIBBS: So that it doesn’t any more have to do with the use of the rule. You’ve now switched the argument to be the rule can only not be used if the scope exceeds some arbitrary barrier, right?

    Q Would you agree with that?

    MR. GIBBS: Look, it’s not whether I would agree with it.

    Q No, I’m asking you.

    MR. GIBBS: I’m asking you whether your agreement to the previous scenario extends to the latter scenario.

    Q Well, I mean, if you look at the —

    MR. GIBBS: I’ll come back to you. (Laughter.) You can think about that and we can — yes, go ahead.

    Q On the Schumer and the China currency stuff, Schumer and Graham said today it helps to put pressure on the Chinese. Do you guys agree that this congressional pressure helps go towards the goal the President has been very clear about, which is to have a more market-oriented appreciation of the yuan?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, not having evaluated the legislation or their proposal — again, I think the President has been clear recently, the President was clear with the Chinese in Beijing, about a market-oriented approach to their currency. So I think that —

    Q Well, without getting into the specifics of the legislation, just the language, the body language from Capitol Hill, is that helpful? Does the President think that helps with leverage with the Chinese?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the most leverage that the President has is sitting face to face with leaders in Beijing and telling them that a market-oriented approach to their currency — I think that’s about as much leverage as one can bring to bear in a single sitting.

    Q So would you prefer that some of the rhetoric gets toned down from Capitol Hill?

    MR. GIBBS: I didn’t pass judgment on their proposal.

    Q Eric Cantor called Rahm Emanuel a couple of days ago, asked him to tone down the rhetoric —

    MR. GIBBS: I think it was yesterday.

    Q — against Israel. He said when you scold Israel, basically you take some of the pressure off the Palestinians to do their own negotiating. Do you disagree with that?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, as I said earlier today and as I said last week when asked about this, there are actions that each side takes that hurt the trust needed to bring these two sides together. The State Department reiterated — or I will reiterate what the State Department said yesterday about the deep concern that we have around inflammatory rhetoric around the rededication of a synagogue in Jerusalem. That’s not helpful on that side of the ledger.

    Again, Prime Minister Netanyahu has apologized and found regrettable the timing of the decision that was announced during the Vice President’s trip.

    I think what is important to understand — and I believe Congressman Cantor understands — is that despite a disagreement that you might have, our commitment to Israel’s security is unchanged. Our commitment to its people is unchanged. The Vice President —

    Q How about the Palestinians?

    MR. GIBBS: The Vice President reiterated that at the beginning of his trip. That was the reason for his trip. He reiterated that in a speech — after the Prime Minister found cause for regret, the Vice President reiterated our commitment to Israel’s security.

    Q Also on health care, in order to get the Senate bill through the House, if there is a specific vote, you’re going to have to change the minds of some of the 31 Democrats who voted against the House bill in November. What gives you confidence that you can do that? What gives you confidence, especially since there are a number of Democrats who voted in favor of the House bill who now say they can’t support the Senate bill?

    MR. GIBBS: On?

    Q Health care.

    MR. GIBBS: Right, but based — you’re talking about somebody like a member who is more — well, I’ll say this. Look, there are — I think there are those that voted against the legislation for any number of reasons — not believing that there was enough cost control in the legislation, or disagreeing with the mechanisms that were set up around choice and competition — that they may find the Senate bill more to their liking in terms of that.

    I think that — again, I think the case that the President will make — I also think the case — one of the strong cases the President will make, as we get to the end of this debate, I do think it becomes far more crystallized in people’s minds that this is the last chance to do something. And what does our health care system look like if we do nothing? We know. Letters come with skyrocketing rate increases on the individual market. Families will see over the course of the next several years average premiums for a family go from $13,000 to $24,000. That’s what happens if we walk away. And I think that, in many ways, is having a positive effect on the idea of doing something now.

    Q Is that the case the President made to Dennis Kucinich?

    MR. GIBBS: I think that’s probably part of the case that he made to him. And then he was helped by somebody in the crowd that the President asked that person to repeat so the congressman could hear.

    Yes, sir.

    Q Robert, by your way of thinking, by the end of the week, Friday or Saturday, we’ll have a vote and either health care will have passed or it will have failed. Is the —

    MR. GIBBS: I think that — just, by the way, I think — I’m not going to go way out on a limb here, but I moderately believe most in the room would agree with that.

    Q Okay. So given that, is the President prepared then for his voice to be largely absent in the week following that as the reverberations from whatever happens on — one way or the other, that he will be halfway around the world?

    MR. GIBBS: You all will be asking him, ad nauseum, about Indonesia and Australia and democracy over here and exports and —

    Q Well, it’s more —

    MR. GIBBS: Yes, exactly, all the —

    Q I’ve got my questions written —

    MR. GIBBS: I — we better get a much better Indonesia briefing for the President. (Laughter.)

    Q Tell us about the yuan —

    Q But I mean, he is prepared to be there during that week, whichever way it happens? You’re not thinking about —

    MR. GIBBS: Yes. And I’ll say this, Michael, more seriously, that when the President — as I said last week, when the President talked to the Speaker and the Majority Leader, while there was an agreement to give both sides a few extra days of the President’s time to help passage, the President was also — the President and the leaders agreed also of the importance of this trip.

    I went through some of that reasoning last week. Indonesia is critical to — and we’re critical to Indonesia — in helping on counterterrorism and, ultimately, in protecting our country; the type of trading relationships that we have with these two countries, and that we hope to expand with these two countries; help grow our economy. So it is — it is an important trip that the President will take and I think he looks forward to it.

    Q Can I just follow up?

    MR. GIBBS: Sure.

    Q Are there people that you all are leaving behind that you would normally — who would normally take that trip, but are staying here to deal with that week? And do you have any plans for the trip to make adjustments to allow —

    MR. GIBBS: I hope the schedulers aren’t watching. (Laughter.) Your scenario might have caused some heart palpitations in a certain few rooms. No, look, I — the Vice President will be — obviously be here as this next goes to the Senate. And I think, obviously, the President believes that’s enormously important. I do believe that — I’m not sure, honestly, whether some of the staff that will stay would necessarily have gone.

    Q Some of them?

    Q Rahm?

    MR. GIBBS: I believe the Chief of Staff will be here and I don’t know that the Chief of Staff had plans — in fact, certainly under the previous trip schedule, he was not planning on going for a whole host of commitments.

    Q Two things, Robert. It’s Sunshine Week and the President has —

    MR. GIBBS: I noticed the beautiful weather.

    Q The beautiful sunshine outside and the President has —

    MR. GIBBS: Coordinated by Ben LaBolt in order to —

    Q — has praised his administration for openness. So in that spirit, I’m wondering if you will release in real time a list of the people that the President is talking to about health care this week. Can we have the names?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, the President will meet with undecided members of the House, meet with senators —

    Q Is that a no?

    MR. GIBBS: — looking to make the strongest case possible for health care reform.

    Q A follow-up — I’m taking that as a no, you won’t — you won’t be giving us the names of the people that he’s talking to.

    MR. GIBBS: I’m happy to sit in on some of your assignment meetings just as I’m sure you would like to be the pool reporter for some of the Oval Office —

    Q Well, you usually know what I’m working on, so why can’t it be in return? It’s not — I’m mean, why not? Why not tell us who he is reaching out to? And he’s talked about opening the process.

    MR. GIBBS: I’ve read many of your stories and I think you’ve narrowed down many of the people that the President is likely to see this week.

    Q And as a follow on that, I understand he’s going to be on FOX News, talking about health care reform. And the administration’s tussles with FOX News are well known, so can you talk to us a little bit about why he’s going on FOX now and what he thinks he can accomplish by reaching out to their audience in particular?

    MR. GIBBS: Obviously they have a pretty big audience share and I think it’s safe to say that a lot of members that are undecided are going to be — they watch and their constituents watch this news. So we’re happy to continue the argument on why health care reform is important to pass this year on FOX.

    Q Does he really think he’s going to change the minds of FOX viewers, many of whom I suspect are opposed?

    MR. GIBBS: It’s certainly worth a shot.

    Q You partially answered this, but Israel claims over the years it’s tried to protect holy sites — Christian, Muslim and Jewish holy sites. Have you ever discussed this with the Palestinians and asked them to refrain from attacks on either people’s holy sites?

    MR. GIBBS: We have — I would say — I’m taking this a little bit broader — I would say the types of things that you’ve heard us and, quite frankly, administrations in the past discuss as unhelpful to moving this process along are — is any call for the incitement of violence. Again, I mentioned the State Department — reiterated the State Department’s guidance on what we believed was unhelpful rhetoric around the rededication of a synagogue in Jerusalem as a real-time example of the type of action and rhetoric that is not in any way productive and undermines the trust that’s needed for both of these sides to sit down and directly address their issues and move forward on peace.

    Q To be precise on health care, when you talk about an up or down vote this week, you are talking about the Senate bill passing the House, or being passed in some way by the House. Would the President then sign that? How quickly could he sign it? And would he wait for secondary — the fixed legislation to come along?

    MR. GIBBS: As I understand this, that’s a decision that will largely — that will be governed largely by a decision by the parliamentarian to — that might require that signature prior to the taking up of reconciliation — if that’s, as I understand it, that’s what the President would do.

    I will say this, and I said this over the weekend, that the President has and is spending time talking with senators, understanding that, again, this is a two-step process; that they have a very important role to play, and the President has and is continuing to work with the Senate on their part of this, as well.

    Q And the Senate language as it was passed last December, would he be able to sign that right away?

    MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry?

    Q The Senate language, if it goes to the House, would he be able to sign that right away, like before he’s wheels up on Sunday morning?

    MR. GIBBS: I think that’s — this is a better question for the House. The President would make himself available to do that, yes.

    Q If he was told he needed to by the parliamentarian, you’re saying?

    MR. GIBBS: Yes.

    Q Otherwise he would wait for the reconciliation?

    MR. GIBBS: No, no, no. Again, I’m going to — this is — I don’t want to get into hypotheticals. Again, the answer I outlined — let me — I think I can break this up and answer your question. The procedure outlined, as I understand what the parliamentarian has either — has decided or is likely to decide — what I was saying a minute ago on the second part, pushing back, is I assume that bill can be gotten down here quickly, though. It will take some time to enroll and what have you. But if the President — if that process requires that the President sign that bill, he’ll be happy to do so prior to leaving.

    Q Will he sign it —

    Q The President — and did the President offer —

    MR. GIBBS: Say it again?

    Q He’ll sign it in this country, then?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, a lot of this would depend first and foremost on the parliamentary decision, and secondly, on the quickness with which a bill can be enrolled and moved down here. It’s only Tuesday. We’ve got plenty of time to get it to that.

    Q Did he offer Tim Kaine a job during lunch?

    MR. GIBBS: I think he offered him salt. (Laughter.) I don’t know. He had — I would say this. I would say that he offered Governor Kaine a job a few years and he gladly accepted it, and he is doing a great job.

    Q Can I — just one little housekeeping thing, then a subsequent question on health care. Is he going to have another public event on health care this week? And what might it be?

    MR. GIBBS: Let me double-check with scheduling. I believe — I believe he will — I believe he is likely to have at least one more, if not more than one.

    Q Here?

    MR. GIBBS: In town, yes. We’ve got a lot of assets overseas. We’re not — nobody would go and say —

    Q No, I mean —

    MR. GIBBS: — we’d love to fill up the bird and go somewhere.

    Q — not overseas, I meant —

    MR. GIBBS: Yes. No, no, even outside, even in the continental United States, I think they would look at us like we were crazy.

    Q In terms of your arguments about this deem and pass scenario, what you’re kind of saying is this discussion is kind of silly, because everybody is going to look at their votes as either for or against the health care bill.

    MR. GIBBS: I think that’s not only how they’ll look at it, I think, quite honestly, that’s how you’ll look at it.

    Q Yes, absolutely.

    MR. GIBBS: Okay.

    Q So what you’re saying is it’s kind of a silly exercise to pretend that you’re not voting for the Senate bill and the Cornhusker Kickback when you vote for the rule?

    MR. GIBBS: Just as when you vote for the reconciliation that corrects that, you will have done that.

    Q Right. But so anybody who votes for the rule —

    MR. GIBBS: And since those, I think, in this bill will be simultaneous, I’ll leave to you and your editors how you would work that out.

    Q Except for the reconciliation part won’t be finalized for quite —

    MR. GIBBS: No, the corrections — some of the corrections — right.

    Q — for quite a while — quite many days after that.

    MR. GIBBS: Maybe you’ve proved my earlier point. (Laughter.)

    Q So Nancy Pelosi can’t — what you’re saying is that she can’t provide any cover for her members to act as if they didn’t vote for the Senate bill?

    MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the process, Mara, again, as I mentioned to Ann, is a two-step process — right? They’re going to vote on legislation; they’re going to vote on a series of corrections. The President will sign — looks forward to signing all of that and reforming our health care system.

    Margaret.

    Q Thank you. If or when the legislation passes, if it comes under the sort of cloud of controversy — very tight votes, criticism over the whatever — at what cost is that going to be to the President’s ability to govern going forward, and to the Democrats’ position heading into the midterms? I understand it’s a risk you’re willing to take that getting this done —

    MR. GIBBS: Flesh out for me just a little bit. I don’t — I didn’t —

    Q If this passes, but it’s ugly, right — if the health care overhaul becomes law but there’s a lot of bad feelings about it, and all your Republican friends are mad at you and — don’t feel good about it and all this sort of stuff, will it impair the President’s ability to govern going forward, and to what extent — and the caveat being that from where you’re coming from, it’s better to have this than not to have this — totally get it — but if it’s sort of not clean and everyone’s unhappy at the end?

    MR. GIBBS: Look, I think that — taking this in two separate ways — again, I think the President has made clear through his commitment the importance of getting this done. That having been said, we will wake up next week, next month, several months from now with many critical and important issues. Senator Dodd introduced financial reform yesterday to put in place strong rules governing the way our financial system should work that it didn’t 18 months ago when we watched Wall Street collapse and the dreams of many in America collapse. That’s an important issue that is going to be on the plates of legislators, regardless of the outcome of health care.

    We’ve mentioned in here over the past several days the Supreme Court case around Citizens United that the President has serious reservations about. In financial reform, we have — the President has outlined a fee on banks to pay taxpayers back completely for the money that they lent financial systems through the TARP program.

    Regardless of the outcome of health care, those problems still exist and they have to be addressed throughout the remainder of the year.

    I think that those are important issues not just for Congress and the administration but I outline them as important issues for the American people. And I don’t think that — I don’t think that they want that process to stop because of health care reform.

    Q But as you look to build coalitions that you’re going to need both within the Congress and the goodwill of the American people on all these issues — on financial reform, on cap and trade, looking maybe way down the road now — what I’m saying is do you think that your ability to get the votes that you need on those things and to have the goodwill you need on those things will be somehow impaired because of sort of the political costs of getting this big, important bill through?

    MR. GIBBS: I honestly don’t — I don’t believe that’s true. I don’t think that’s true either in Congress and I certainly don’t believe that’s true on behalf of the American people. Again, there are important problems that will exist. There will be important solutions that the American people will want to see their Congress act on. I cannot imagine that we want to celebrate the two-year anniversary of the collapse of our financial system because of reckless behavior by announcing that we’re not going to have new rules of the road going forward.

    I don’t — and I think that elections — I don’t think anybody wants to go — I said this last week — I don’t think people want to go home saying that those rules of the road haven’t changed, and it’s — we’re back to the wild, wild west. I think the American people, their constituents, are not going to accept that a disagreement that was had in March affects your ability to institute strong rules of the road on Wall Street in September.

    Q Robert, to sort of follow up on that, SEIU had a poll that was released yesterday that sort of talked about the bad taste people have in terms of some of these process issues — the Cornhusker Kickback — and said that was actually more dangerous to the Democrats in the midterms than what was actually in the bill. And that comports with what we heard out of Massachusetts from voters who voted for Scott Brown. Isn’t there a very real danger, if not for the White House, but for Democrats on the Hill, that the spinning of this, the deals — we’ve gotten this torrent of press releases from Republicans in the last two days — kickbacks, deals, this kind of talk harms —

    MR. GIBBS: Again, the one you mentioned specifically is the one the President specifically has taken out of the legislation. I don’t think you would — I don’t think the President would disagree that the process that ended late last year didn’t affect the way people viewed the product at the beginning of this year. That’s why the President has asked that that type of stuff be taken out. That’s why the President has engaged Republicans and Democrats alike in a process that puts the focus back on what the legislation does for the American people. I do think that the rate increases by the insurance companies have had a galvanizing effect in letting people know what happens again if we walk away.

    Q Is this perception, though, that you were talking about last year into this year, is that informing these conversations you’re having with undecided members? I mean, if they’re coming to you and asking for specific things, is the President now more likely to say, no, I’m not willing to make those kinds of deals?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the President is making the case based on the legislation. And I think the process that the President has been engaged in over the past several months has in many ways been to clean up where that process went wrong at the end of last year.

    Q Just a clarification on the FOX News thing — he is going on with Bret Baier? Is this going to be live?

    MR. GIBBS: Likely taped.

    Q Today?

    MR. GIBBS: Tomorrow.

    David.

    Q On financial reform, the President has met recently a few times I believe with Jamie Dimon. Has he asked him, and other executives, to ease up on their opposition to having a consumer financial protection agency? And also — I’ll do two at once here — has Larry Summers and Tim Geithner been brought in to talk to their former Wall Street colleagues about their opposition to having such a bureau or agency?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, I’ll just say this. The President used the occasion of them being here last year on small business lending to talk about not only the consumer financial protection agency but also overall financial reform. We believe it is in the interest of the American people to set rules of the road to give — to empower consumers with the information they need, and to do so in a way that doesn’t carve out certain lenders like payday lenders or things like that in protecting consumers.

    I don’t know whether Larry and Tim have talked with anybody on Wall Street in the past 24 hours since Senator Dodd introduced his legislation. I do know that the NEC and the Treasury Department were indeed working with, and have been working with, Senator Dodd over the past many weeks on the legislation that he introduced yesterday.

    Q But you do know there’s a tremendous lobbying effort on the part of banks and other Wall Street firms targeting this.

    MR. GIBBS: Absolutely.

    Q Will the President continue to sort of try to beat that back?

    MR. GIBBS: The President, I think you saw in his statement, is committed to a strong consumer agency. He will seek opportunities as it relates to the overall bill to strengthen it, and will fight, as he said yesterday, any effort to weaken the legislation that he believes, again, provides very clear, common-sense rules of the road so that the American people are never on the hook for the excesses of Wall Street banks.

    April.

    Q Robert, talk — I want to ask you a question about tradeoffs for the health care reform bill. HBCU has been saying that they got word from Hill leaders last week that funding — $2 billion worth of funding for HBCUs over 10 years — was on the chopping block, and it was put back in yesterday. Now, there’s a concern that this President put all this money in, had this big ceremony to help fund HBCUs — Historically Black Colleges and Universities — and the money was —

    MR. GIBBS: Right. I know what — Tuskegee being here —

    Q Morgan State, we had Hampton — okay, anyway — Howard — but going back — going back to the issue, they are concerned that if it was able to linger and be on the chopping block once, what’s to say it’s not going to happen in the next few days before a vote?

    MR. GIBBS: I get where you’re going. I don’t — I guess I’m lost on the — I’m lost on the — you said why it was on the chopping block, why it was added back in, and why it would —

    Q The Hill leaders were saying that they had to shave some money for reconciliation, and that was one of the areas that they tried to shave — HBCU money, that the President is definitely — he said he was standing by, and he even reiterated that to the CBC.

    MR. GIBBS: Let me get DPC to look into — I just don’t have enough on the HCBU process on this.

    Q But this President — but does this President stand by HBCUs and the funding that he put in —

    MR. GIBBS: Absolutely.

    Q — and would he stand up to these lawmakers?

    MR. GIBBS: Well, again, let me — I want to get — obviously the President is supportive of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Around the specific instance that you mentioned, let me get some guidance from DPC.

    Bill.

    Q Robert, perhaps a sore point, but Congressman Darrell Issa has accused you, Robert Gibbs, of being part of a cover-up because you will not say whether the White House offered Joe Sestak a job for not running against Arlen Specter. Guilty or not guilty?

    MR. GIBBS: Look, I’ve talked to several people in the White House; I’ve talked to people that have talked to others in the White House. I’m told that whatever conversations have been had are not problematic. I think Congressman Sestak has discussed that this is — whatever happened is in the past, and he’s focused on his primary election.

    Stephen.

    Q Did the White House Counsel’s Office look into whether this was a crime —

    MR. GIBBS: I’d refer you to my previous lines.

    Q Sestak says he was offered something.

    MR. GIBBS: I’ll refer you to what I just said a minute ago.

    Stephen.

    Q Are there any plans for anyone from your administration to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu next week while he’s in town for AIPAC? The President is away but the Vice President might be around.

    MR. GIBBS: Well, we are obviously away while they’re here. I will check with NSC and see whether it’s the Vice President or whether others in the administration —

    Q Thanks, Robert.

    Q About the relationship with the Turkish administration, Turkey recalled its ambassador two weeks ago because of the genocide resolution passed, and Turkish Prime Minister said last week that unless they see some steps taken by the U.S. administration, Turkey is not going to send its ambassador. So my question is, absence of the Turkish ambassador in Washington, is it a matter of concern for the U.S. administration? And second, are there any steps being taken by the U.S. administration to assure Turkish administration?

    MR. GIBBS: Let me — on the second part, let me check with the NSC on that. Obviously we believe that Turkey is a valuable partner. The President traveled there on one of his first trips abroad to demonstrate the importance of that partnership; on that trip, worked on a process that has now resulted in — or resulted in the announcement of more normalized relations, pending parliament passes a protocol, and we’re certainly hopeful that that will happen.

    Thanks, guys.

    END
    2:37 P.M. EDT

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Statement from the President on Sunshine Week

    03.16.10 08:03 AM

    As Sunshine Week begins, I want to applaud everyone who has worked to increase transparency in government and recommit my administration to be the most open and transparent ever, an effort that will strengthen our democracy and ensure the public’s trust in their government. We came to Washington to change the way business was done, and part of that was making ourselves accountable to the American people by opening up our government. We’ve put our White House visitor records on the Internet for the first time in history; opened up more government information than ever before on Data.gov, Recovery.gov and USAspending.gov; and issued an Executive Order fighting unnecessary secrecy, to name a few.

    We are proud of these accomplishments, but our work is not done. We will continue to work toward an unmatched level of transparency, participation and accountability across the entire Administration.

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Press Briefing on the President’s Upcoming Trip to Guam, Indonesia and Australia by D

    03.15.10 01:13 PM

    Via Conference Call

    2:20 P.M. EDT

    MR. RHODES: Thanks, everybody, for joining today. With me is Jeff Bader, Senior Director for Asia here at the NSC, who you know well; and Denis McDonough, Chief of Staff for the NSC, as well.

    I’ll just give a kind of brief outline of the trip and walk you through the schedule and then turn it over to Jeff, and then we can answer your questions.

    First and foremost I’d just say that this trip to Indonesia and Australia is an important opportunity to advance America’s security and economic interests in a very vital part of the world. The Asia-Pacific region is of growing importance to our interests. And as the President said on his trip there last fall, in many ways America has been somewhat absent from the region over the last several years and we are committed to reestablishing that leadership in advance of our interests.

    The Asia Pacific is fundamental to our ability to achieve some of our top priorities, whether it’s doubling exports and achieving balanced and sustainable growth or fighting terrorism and combating climate change. In that effort, Indonesia and Australia are both essential partners to the United States.

    I’ll just start with Indonesia. Of course, within Indonesia you see the convergence of many issues that are of common interest to both of our nations. Indonesia is of course the third largest democracy in the world, has the world’s largest Muslim majority population. And it’s also playing an increasingly important role in the international effort, such as the G20 and the effort against climate change.

    They also have been a very effective partner when it comes to security issues such as fighting terrorism, as well as the President’s broader efforts to advance relations with the Muslim world. And they’re also, of course, important economic partners, an emerging economy to the United States as well.

    So we want to underscore with this trip that the deepening and comprehensive partnership that we’re developing with Indonesia in the region and the world, and as well highlight Indonesia’s positive example to — as a strong democracy, a developing economy and a committed partner on a range of issues.

    So with that I’ll just take you through the schedule that we currently have. This obviously had to be adjusted as we’ve moved back the beginning portions of the trip, which you’re well aware of. But I’ll go through what we currently have slotted.

    The first stop on the trip for the President is in Guam. We’ll be in Guam Monday, March 22. And that evening, Guam time, the President will be hosting a public event where he’ll be able to speak to both our — the community in Guam and of course some of the military personnel that the United States has in Guam. Later in the call Dennis can field questions about this portion of the trip.

    The next day, on Tuesday, the 23rd, we’ll be making our way to Indonesia. The President will be greeted with an arrival ceremony and there will be several events associated with that arrival ceremony, which we’ll be giving you more specifics on as we get closer to the day. But that first day he’ll have a bilateral meeting with the President of Indonesia. And following that bilateral meeting they’ll host a joint press conference. Then that night the President will be hosted at a state dinner by the Indonesians, which he very much looks forward to.

    The following day, Wednesday, the 24th, the President will be giving a speech. This speech, of course, will be an opportunity for him to discuss the comprehensive partnership that we’re developing with Indonesia and with the Indonesian people. Of course this is a country that the President has personal experience in, having lived there for four years as a child; having a sister who’s half Indonesian; and his mother of course worked extensively in Indonesia for 20 years. So he’ll be able to speak to his connections to the country.

    And he’ll also be able to discuss the efforts that the United States cooperates with Indonesia on as it relates to democracy and as it relates to Indonesia’s position as a country with the world’s largest Muslim-majority population, as well as a country with a strong history of pluralism. And in some respects it will be of course his first trip to a Muslim-majority country since he was in Egypt and delivered his speech in Cairo, so he’ll be able to speak to some of the progress that’s been made and that needs to be made on the issue that he spoke to in Cairo, as well.

    The rest of that day — we look forward to making some additional cultural stops as well as the President will be meeting with some business leaders in the region to highlight again America’s growing economic ties with Indonesia. We believe that this can be an economic relationship that can serve our mutual interests and will be part of, of course, the President’s efforts to deepen our economic relationship across the region.

    He’ll also be meeting with Indonesian parliamentary leaders as a part of his effort to, again, reach out and speak to a broad cross-section of Indonesia’s government and society.

    Then we’ll be moving on to Bali. And on Thursday, March 25th, the President will host a civil society event in Bali. The reason that we’re choosing Bali to highlight this particular issue is that Bali is host to the Bali Democracy Forum, which is a signature initiative of the President of Indonesia’s and a very positive effort, again, to advance democracy and civil society in the region and around the world.

    So President Obama will have an opportunity in Bali to meet with a group of civil society leaders in order to highlight the important role of civil society in the emergence of Indonesia’s democracy, and also how that might — that effort might support civil society across the region. And to that end, we’ll be inviting civil society groups from other parts of Southeast Asia as well to discuss issues related to political participation, freedom of information, and human rights, broadly speaking.

    After the President is in Bali, we will move on to Canberra. And here I’d just stop and say that, of course, Australia is increasingly — is a longstanding ally of the United States, an increasingly important ally in both the region and the world. In many ways it’s a model alliance for the United States. We have very robust cooperation with the Australians on security issues, economic issues, environmental issues. They’re obviously a close partner of us in Afghanistan, where they’ve been steadfast in their support there. We run a very positive trade relationship with Australia that supports American jobs and supports economic prosperity for both Australians and Americans. And of course, we’ve cooperated closely on clean energy issues and efforts to combat climate change, Australia also being a partner through the G20. And the President will be underscoring this alliance throughout his time in Australia.

    He’ll begin that night with a dinner with Prime Minister Rudd, who’s been a particularly close partner of the President’s both bilaterally on a personal basis, and also in international forums. So the President is looking forward to the opportunity to share this time with Prime Minister Rudd in Canberra.

    The next day, on Friday the 26th, we will have a very robust program of events. The President will meet with the Governor General in the morning. Then he will have a series of — he’ll have a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Rudd, building on the work, the discussions they’ll have at dinner. Following that bilateral meeting, we anticipate a joint press conference.

    Then, as I think some of you know, the Australians have been generous enough to invite the President to address a session of the Australian parliament. So the President will address the parliament and he’ll speak to the depth of our alliance with Australia, the 70th anniversary of that alliance, and discuss several areas in which we can deepen our partnership in security, economic and environmental issues.

    After addressing the parliament, he will have the opportunity to participate in some other events to mark, again, the historic landmark of this being the anniversary of the alliance and the cooperation that we share before departing that night to return to the United States.

    So we have a very busy five days in the Asia-Pacific region. And again, I’ll just turn it over to Jeff now who can speak a little bit to the importance of the region to the United States and how Indonesia and Australia in particular are key and emerging partners for the United States on many of our top priority issues. So, Jeff, I’ll just hand it over to you.

    MR. BADER: Thanks, Ben. Ben covered the ground fairly thoroughly. I’ll just add a few points. First of all, as Ben noted, this trip is designed to highlight the importance of the Asia-Pacific region to the U.S. The members of APEC, to which Australia and Indonesia both belong, are responsible for 55 percent of global GDP and 50 percent of global trade. And this will be the first time in at least 10 years that a President has gone to the Asia Pacific for a trip other than an APEC meeting, except for President Bush’s trip in 2008 for the Beijing Olympics.

    This is a part of the world that’s marked by a number of rising powers, namely China and India; a number of existing powers, Japan and South Korea; and some emerging important countries and powers like Vietnam and Indonesia.

    In the context of a region that is evolving in this fashion, where there are shifts of power and influence, the U.S. presence is a crucial stabilizing force. It is welcomed by pretty much everyone in the region. And it’s important for — and that’s why the President is reaching out to one of our most important allies and one of our most important partners in the region, Australia and Indonesia.

    The second point I’ll highlight, which Ben also touched on, is that this trip highlights the changing global governance that we face in the world in the 21st century. When we were in Copenhagen, we saw the decisive meeting at the end of the conference. The players in the room were China, India, South Africa, Brazil and the United States. This is something that wouldn’t have happened — would not have happened 20 years ago. And this is a — this is a sign of the change that has occurred in the number of countries that are participating in major global decisions.

    In that context there are a number of important middle powers — middle powers, countries like Australia and Indonesia — who are significant players on these kinds of decisions. The G20, which is the emerging economic governance instrument — major economic emerging governance instrument — Australia and Indonesia are both important players in this body.

    Australia has, for quite some time, I’d say punched above its weight. Indonesia was held back for years by poverty, by governance issues, by corruption, and it is now, in the last few years, emerging and beginning to perform in the fashion that a power of that rank deserves.

    Just a few words specifically on Australia and Indonesia. Australia has been mentioned as an ally. We have a special relationship with them. They’ve fought in all wars with us. Australia has lost something like 100,000 people — 100,000 lives in wars since the First World War, which is a quite extraordinary number for a country of that size. They have more troops in Afghanistan than any other non-NATO country — 1,500. And Prime Minister Rudd stepped up to the plate after the President — after the President spoke to him and increased the Australian component by upwards of 40 percent.

    They are a major global partner on climate change, in the G20, on terrorism, on non-proliferation, on clean energy.

    Indonesia, as Ben mentioned, a number of interests. Third-largest democracy in the world. For 12 years they’ve been a stable and impressive democracy with a history — with a modern history of tolerance after tough times in the 1960s. Protection of human rights has been particularly impressive. They are a majority Muslim country, but there are other religious and ethnic groups there. Our trip to — our stop in Bali, Bali is a Hindu — traditional Hindu religious center.

    They are a regional and global player — key player in ASEAN and G20 member. And we will be announcing on this trip a comprehensive partnership with Indonesia, which was President Yudhoyono’s personal initiative, and that shows just how far the Indonesia — how far Indonesia has moved since its earlier days of an adversarial relationship with the United States, that President Yudhoyono would feel comfortable proposing a comprehensive partnership with the United States that will cover political security issues, economic issues, and people to people.

    MR. RHODES: Thanks, Jeff. With that, I think we’ll just move to take your questions.

    Q Thank you, gentlemen, for taking the time to brief us on this trip. I’m wondering, outside of the comprehensive agreement, are there any deliverables — concrete documents that you expect to sign or things you expect to bring back? And as a quick follow-up, I’m wondering if Assistant Secretary Campbell is going on this trip, and if not, why not. Thank you.

    MR. RHODES: Just on your first question, Josh, associated with a comprehensive partnership will be I think a series of announcements that speak to specific issues. But we will wait until the Presidents have the opportunity to meet to address that.

    What I will say is that we’ve been discussing throughout the year an advancement of our partnership with Indonesia on a series of issues that I think are, again, top priorities for both the United States and Indonesia and the region. They’re a close economic partner through the G20 and we’re looking to deepen our ties in that regard.

    As Jeff said as it related to Copenhagen, Indonesia played a — it’s one of the world’s largest emitters, but they’ve also stepped up to the plate and played a very responsible role through the Copenhagen process and other venues on climate and energy. And so as we’re looking in order to advance some of the ambitious targets that have been made, we’ll of course have to deepen our partnership with Indonesia and countries like it around the world. I think they’re the fourth-largest emitter.

    And then in addition to that, we’re looking to deepen our partnership in a range of areas from education to science and technology and multiple other areas of common interest.

    So I think we’ll be filling in the details of the comprehensive partnership that we’re forging with Indonesia. I think a key point here is that we will be collaborating with them across a very broad range of issues. We of course — we have had — they have been a key security partner. You’ve seen them have some very important successes actually this year through their own initiative in taking out leaders, for instance, of Jemaah Islamiyah, the al Qaeda-affiliated group in Indonesia. So we enjoy a robust partnership with them in that respect and it’s one that we would like to carry forward.

    And again, of course, as the world’s largest Muslim-majority country and as an emerging democracy, we’re looking to advance in specific areas our partnership to facilitate the President’s efforts to build a new beginning with Muslim communities around the world as well as our ability to highlight democratization and the empowerment of civil society, which is why we’re going to Bali.

    I don’t know if Jeff wants to add anything on that.

    MR. BADER: Yes, just one point that I should have mentioned in my earlier comments. We’ll also be highlighting trade and investment with both Indonesia and Australia on the trip. This week there will be the first round of negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership trade agreements in Melbourne, Australia. So we’ll be arriving right on the heels of the first round of that. The President spoke to his goal of moving rapidly towards agreement among the eight countries in the trans-Pacific partnership.

    Indonesia is a country with whom our trade has lagged — I think it’s something like $23 billion two-way trade. There are obstacles to trade. We need to do better. We need to talk to the Indonesians about how we can make our trade with Indonesia come up to the level that it should be as it is with many of the other ASEAN countries.

    MR. RHODES: Yes, I’d just echo that last point by saying we’ll — in both countries I think we’ll be looking to highlight the export potential for the United States, which is of course a part of the President’s commitment to doubling exports. We run a positive trade balance with Australia that, again, supports U.S. jobs, and we want to be deepening those partnerships because, as the President has done, has laid out a very aggressive and ambitious export agenda. We believe that the Asia-Pacific region, broadly speaking, will be critical to our success in that regard.

    On your second question, Josh, I anticipate the Assistant Secretary will be coming on the trip.

    Q Thank you very much for taking my call. I’m calling from the National Education Association and we have relations and projects that we share in common with the PGRI education union of Indonesia with its 2.3 million members, as well as with the Australian education union, both of which serve public education. I’m interested in the plans for discussion on education, and also specifically with the Bali Democracy Forum. Is there plans to discuss specifically student assessment as well as quality training and professional development for teachers? Thank you.

    MR. RHODES: I appreciate the call and I think there’s probably more consultation that we can provide through direct contact with you all, but what I will say is — again, I don’t want to preview announcements, but I do think that we are looking to expand and deepen our educational relationship with Indonesia. The President I think believes strongly in the value of international educational exchange as a tool of deepening our engagement in a way that serves our people and people throughout the world.

    At the back end of the Cairo speech, for instance, I think he spoke about the value of educational exchanges and other educational programs that have been a key component, really, of American leadership around the world for many decades. So I think you’ll see he — speaking to a deeper educational partnership with Indonesia.

    As it relates to the civil society efforts, I believe we’ll be looking at a range of ways that we can empower civil society around the world, quite frankly. They play a key role, civil society does, in Indonesia — a very robust democracy — a very positive role. And civil society is often on the front lines of the effort to advance democracy, to combat corruption, to support the rule of law, to speak out for people’s rights.

    So we’ll be wanting to explore ways in which the United States can support those efforts, can support the kind of efforts that Indonesia is leading by taking on the Bali Democracy Forum.

    So some of your — the more specific concerns I think we can probably best address directly, but I do think, again, education and civil society will be key parts of the kind of partnership that we’re developing with the Indonesians.

    Q Thank you. You said the President wants to highlight the fact that the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus with Australia. Could you say which areas the President is thinking of in particular, and which sectors would the Obama administration like to see an expansion of trade, in light of the free trade agreement between the two countries?

    MR. RHODES: I’ll just say a few words, and then Jeff will I think want to jump in.

    I think what he’ll be wanting to highlight is just the fact that it’s a very robust and mutually beneficial trade relationship that, again, speaks to the kind of deepening partnerships that we’d like to have around — across the region. And of course, we believe that that is fundamental to both a healthy and growing American economy and Australian economy.

    As it relates to sectors — Jeff may speak to this — I’ll just say, to start off, that clean energy is an area where both I think Prime Minister Rudd and President Obama recognize that there is a growth potential. So that’s a particular area. But I think more broadly speaking, whether it’s the trade — robust trade relationship we have and the efforts we’re exploring through the TPP, we’re looking to frankly build upon the success of the U.S.-Australian relationship, both bilaterally and across the region.

    So Jeff, you might want to —

    MR. BADER: All I’d add is that the U.S. and Australia both have very open markets, and in that sense — that’s what we’re highlighting rather than the fact that the U.S. has a surplus. The surplus is a reflection of the wishes of consumers and companies on both sides, not a managed outcome.

    As for specific sectors, Australia’s got great beef, but we want to make sure that there are not obstacles to the import of U.S. beef. They also — the aviation sector is one where the U.S. has found good customers in Australia in the past. Those are two that I would particularly mention, in addition to the ones that Ben mentioned.

    Q Thank you. Which events do you expect the President to be focusing on energy and climate issues? And more specifically, do you expect with the address to the Australian parliament he will be focusing on those issues, given the difficulty in passing climate legislation there?

    MR. RHODES: Sure, I’ll just begin by saying that I expect that this will be a subject for both of his bilateral meetings on this trip. So the bilateral meeting with the President of Indonesia will certainly have a component that focuses on energy and climate issues. Similarly, the bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Rudd, I’d expect this to be an issue that together they address. And so to the extent to which the President will be reading out those meetings and following through both his public remarks, press conferences and in speeches, I think this will be a subject that he’ll be addressing throughout the trip.

    And again I’d just underscore points that Jeff made, which is that climate — our climate initiatives, particularly some of the commitments captured at Copenhagen, will demand very broad international cooperation, and it will demand, again, close coordination with countries like Indonesia that are increasingly playing a responsible role in this area, as well as countries like Australia that have deliberately and very productively sought out a positive role in international climate forums.

    And we also frankly believe that clean energy holds out great economic potential, and we continue to believe that there’s great job creation potential and the development of clean energy partnerships with emerging economies like Indonesia and close trading partners like Australia. So we’ll be speaking to the economic potential of partnership in this area, as well.

    But I don’t know if you have much to —

    MR. BADER: Just a point — just one point. The President of the United States admires Prime Minister Rudd’s leadership on the climate change issue both in the run-up to Copenhagen, in being one of the leaders in coming up with the idea of a “political agreement,” which ultimately allowed us to achieve consensus in Copenhagen. And he’s also the creator of a carbon capture and storage institute. The President was pleased to be present in Italy when the inauguration of this institute was announced and to be a founding member.

    Q Hi, thanks. Obviously when you’re talking about issues like economics and trade in Asia, the unspoken player apart from the U.S. is China. Will the President at any stage of his trip bring up the current tensions with China? Do they have an implication for the sort of success of the effort to expand U.S. ties in Asia-Pacific region? And can you comment on Premier Wen Jiabao’s remarks yesterday in which he put the blame for the deterioration of the relationship down to the U.S.?

    MR. BADER: Well, we have a mature relationship with China. There are — it is steady in its objectives. I think that the relationship is in good shape. We have a number of areas of difference and we’re talking about them, but I would not describe it as a relationship of tension.

    We will be talking about a number of third-country issues on the trip, I’m sure. We will be talking about — I’m sure we’ll be talking about Afghanistan, Afghanistan/Pakistan. We will I’m sure be talking about Iran. It’s impossible to go to Asia and for the subject of China not to arise. So certainly Prime Minister Rudd is deeply knowledgeable on the subject, has much insight. So I certainly expect that that is a subject we’ll discuss.

    And our perceptions of China are fairly similar to those of Australia. We both see China’s emergence as a major economy, a driving economy in the world, as offering great potential to both our countries — potential for growth, potential for prosperity of our citizens. We’re also looking to reshape the international regulatory systems through the G20 in a way that ensures that new actors, such as China, are acting consistent with international norms.

    As for Wen Jiabao’s comments, he was talking about currency — I think I’d leave those to the — that’s the Secretary of Treasury’s domain, so I don’t think I’ll go there today.

    MR. RHODES: Yes, the only thing I’d add to what Jeff said is that this is obviously our second trip to the region; the last time we traveled to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea. And again, as Jeff said in his opening comments, we believe that it’s very important that the Asia-Pacific region is fundamental to the economic and security interests of the United States in the 21st century, and that in order to effectively advance those interests, we need to deepen and broaden our engagement and our leadership in the region, which is why we’ve taken a more — we’ve taken a more aggressive role in engaging groups that APEC and ASEAN, and it’s why we set out to go — to travel to Indonesia and Australia; to, again, build partnerships that we believe will be fundamental to our ability to deal with our top-priority issues.

    And to ours — to those press like you, Steven, who’ve followed us through the year, I think one thing you can look to on this trip is we laid down a framework for how we deal with a set of issues last year: terrorism, energy and climate, achieving balance and sustainable growth, and of course nuclear proliferation. And I think what you’ll see in this trip is that the issues that we’re addressing through these partnerships are very much in line with our broader international priorities. So we’ll be discussing our deepening — our deep counterterrorism cooperation in both stops. As Jeff said, Afghanistan — Australia is a key partner with us in Afghanistan, and again, Indonesia has had some successes in some of the global pressure that’s been applied to al Qaeda and its affiliates this year.

    We’ll be following up on Copenhagen, building on a momentum that we generated last year, to implement this commitment through our partnerships with countries like Indonesia and Australia.

    And we’ll be following up on the balance of sustainable growth agenda that came out of the G20’s efforts last year, which was an unprecedented international economic collaboration. But it’s going to demand sustained action by major economies in order to ensure that the global recovery is sustained.

    So I’d just highlight that to point out that the President sees China, of course, as a fundamental — fundamentally important bilateral relationship as it relates to advancing these interests, but he also believes it’s very important to have not just the bedrock of our strong alliances in the world but also developing partnerships with countries like Indonesia as well, which will be fundamental to our ability to advance our mutual interests.

    So to that end, we believe that these relationships are absolutely critical.

    Q Has there been progress to include the training of Kopassus Special Forces as part of the military component of the comprehensive partnership?

    And number two, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said that it’s disappointed by growing protectionism on the part of Indonesia. Will the administration express this disappointment? Thank you.

    MR. BADER: First on Kopassus, as you know, there was a delegation from Kopassus, the counterterrorism — the Special Forces component of the Indonesian military, in Washington last week. They met with administration officials. We have a very good cooperation with the Indonesian government on counterterrorism issues. It would be good if we could move to full cooperation, fuller cooperation, to include the Special Forces — the counterterrorism capabilities within the special forces of Kopassus.

    There is a certain history that needs to be overcome. There were human rights violations in the 1990s in former East Timor. We have been talking to the Indonesians and to the Indonesian government and to Kopassus, and we hope to be able, at some point, to move past and resolve those concerns. I can’t predict at this point when that — when that day might arrive, but we have been talking to the Indonesian government about it.

    And the second question: The President, in his discussions with President Yudhoyono, will, I am fairly confident, talk about the kinds of things that we hope will be done so that our trade relationship can achieve its full potential, including removing the — moving expeditiously to remove access — market access barriers that the Chamber of Commerce highlighted that you just mentioned.

    Q Steve literally took the words right out of my mouth. I appreciate the question, Steve, and I also appreciate the answer. Thank you.

    MR. McDONOUGH: I would just add one thing to Jeff’s comments about Kopassus. Obviously as we’ve been in discussions with our Indonesian partners, we’ve also been in close discussions with Congress and consultation with Congress on this matter so that when we are in a position to move forward on it we’re in a position to have a unified posture across the branches of the U.S. government on this important issue.

    Q Hi, thanks for the call, guys. I think this question is for Denis — a question on Guam. In addition to speaking to the Guam community and service members, what message is trying to be sent to the Pacific region overall and to Japan and China specifically with that? Thanks.

    MR. McDONOUGH: Thanks. Well, obviously the President’s decision to visit Guam now demonstrates a commitment to underscore our — obviously our responsibilities in Guam in the first instance, and underscores a very visible presence of the United States in this vital region, as both Jeff and Ben have outlined.

    While there he’ll not only visit with commanders but also with local Guam authorities. And he’s going to make sure that we have a very realistic and sustainable and well thought out approach to Guam. He has a vision which we refer to here as “one Guam, green Guam,” which is apropos of many of the questions heretofore, designed to make sure that we’re investing in capabilities on Guam that are sustainable over the course of time, that are clean energy focused, that do take very concrete steps to reduce the high price of energy on the island, and obviously will lead to an end state that’s politically, operationally, and environmentally sustainable.

    So the President, while there, will also take a hard look at the project and infrastructure needs on Guam. We’ll obviously be looking at base-related construction that must take into accounts the needs of not only of an increased troop presence or Marine presence, but also the needs of the people of Guam, the impact on the environment, and the important role that the United States plays within the region.

    So I wouldn’t read a particular set of — just to respond to the last part of your question — I wouldn’t read a specific or even general message to Japan or to China into the stop; I’d rather just make clear that we have a commitment to the people of Guam, and that as part of our ongoing plan for our presence in the region, are going to make very common-sense and important investments in the infrastructure there.

    Q Question for both Jeff and Denis, if I could indulge you. Obviously we all understand the mantra about Treasury and currency — no argument there. But surely the President himself has raised the fundamental issues often enough, and the events over the last few days certainly seem to indicate that the currency issue is becoming a fundamental relationship management problem. And I’m wondering if this issue will be on the discussion agenda with Prime Minister Rudd. Is it perhaps too soon to be talking about coordinated action or coordinated reaction? I think we’re all interested to know, aren’t we moving past the point where it’s just a Treasury management issue? Thanks.

    MR. BADER: You thought I was kidding when I said this was an answer for Secretary Geithner. I wasn’t.

    MR. McDONOUGH: Let me vigorously agree with Jeff; reference of the question to the Department of Treasury.

    MR. RHODES: Well, thanks, everybody, for joining the call and, again, we look forward to a very important and packed schedule for these five days in the Pacific region and look forward to seeing some of you there. And we’ll provide you with any more detail as it becomes locked and look forward to fielding your requests.

    END
    3:02 P.M. EDT

    White House.gov Press Office Feed