Author: WhiteHouse

03.15.10 10:30 AM

1:00 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Ohio! (Applause.) It is good to be here in the Buckeye State. Congratulations on winning the Big Ten Championship. (Laughter.) I’m filling out my brackets now. (Laughter.) And it’s even better to be out of Washington for a little while.

AUDIENCE: O-H-I-O.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that kid Turner looks pretty good. You guys are doing all right.

It is wonderful to be here —

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you!

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

Couple of people I just want to make sure I give special mention to. First of all, you already saw him, Governor Ted Strickland in the house. (Applause.) Ted is fighting every day to bring jobs and economic development to Ohio.

So is your terrific United States Senator Sherrod Brown. Love Sherrod Brown. (Applause.) Your own congressman, who is tireless on behalf of working people, Dennis Kucinich. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Vote yes!

THE PRESIDENT: Did you hear that, Dennis? Go ahead, say that again.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Vote yes!

THE PRESIDENT: A couple members of Congress are here: U.S. Representative Betty Sutton. (Applause.) U.S. Representative Marcia Fudge. (Applause.) U.S. Representative Tim Ryan. (Applause.) U.S. Representative Charlie Wilson. (Applause.)

I want to thank Mayor Tom Perciak here in Strongsville. Please, Mr. Mayor, you’re on. (Applause.) That’s a good bunch of folks we got here in Ohio, working hard. Which is why I’m glad to be back — and let’s face it, it’s nice to be out of Washington once in a while. (Laughter.)

I want to thank Connie — I want to thank Connie, who introduced me. I want to thank her and her family for being here on behalf of her sister, Natoma. I don’t know if everybody understood that Natoma is in the hospital right now, so Connie was filling in. It’s not easy to share such a personal story, when your sister who you love so much is sick. And so I appreciate Connie being willing to do so here today, and — (applause) — and I want everybody to understand that Connie and her sister are the reason that I’m here today. (Applause.)

See, Connie felt it was important that her sister’s story be told. But I want to just repeat what happened here. Last month, I got a letter from Connie’s sister, Natoma. She’s self-employed, she’s trying to make ends meet, and for years she’s done the responsible thing, just like most of you have. She bought insurance — she didn’t have a big employer who provided her insurance, so she bought her health insurance through the individual market.

And it was important for her to have insurance because 16 years ago, she was diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer. And even though she had been cancer-free for more than a decade, the insurance companies kept on jacking up her rates, year after year. So she increased her out-of-pocket expenses. She raised her deductible. She did everything she could to maintain her health insurance that would be there just in case she got sick, because she figured, I didn’t want to be — she didn’t want to be in a position where, if she did get sick, somebody else would have to pick up the tab; that she’d have to go to the emergency room; that the cost would be shifted onto folks through their higher insurance premiums or hospitals charging higher rates. So she tried to do the right thing.

And she upped her deductible last year to the minimum [sic], the highest possible deductible. But despite that, Natoma’s insurance company raised her premiums by more than 25 percent. And over the past year, she paid more than $6,000 in monthly premiums.

AUDIENCE: Boo!

THE PRESIDENT: She paid more than $4,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs, for co-pays and medical care and prescriptions. So all together, this woman paid $10,000 — one year. But because she never hit her deductible, her insurance company only spent $900 on her care. So the insurance company is making — getting $10,000; paying out $900. Now, what comes in the mail at the end of last year?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: A bill!

AUDIENCE MEMBER: A rate hike!

THE PRESIDENT: It’s a letter telling Natoma that her premiums would go up again by more than 40 percent.

AUDIENCE: Boo!

THE PRESIDENT: So here’s what happens. She just couldn’t afford it. She didn’t have the money. She realized that if she paid those health insurance premiums that had been jacked up by 40 percent, she couldn’t make her mortgage. And despite her desire to keep her coverage, despite her fears that she would get sick and lose the home that her parents built — she finally surrendered, she finally gave up her health insurance. She stopped paying it — she couldn’t make ends meet.

So January was her last month of being insured. Like so many responsible Americans — folks who work hard every day, who try to do the right thing — she was forced to hang her fortunes on chance. To take a chance, that’s all she could do. She hoped against hope that she would stay healthy. She feared terribly that she might not stay healthy.

That was the letter that I read to the insurance companies, including the person responsible for raising her rates. Now, I understand Natoma was pretty surprised when she found out that I had read it to these CEOs. But I thought it was important for them to understand the human dimensions of this problem. Her rates have been hiked more than 40 percent.

And this was less than two weeks ago. Unfortunately, Natoma’s worst fears were realized. And just last week, she was working on a nearby farm, walking outside — apparently, chasing after a cow — (laughter) — when she collapsed. And she was rushed to the hospital. She was very sick. She needed two blood transfusions. Doctors performed a battery of tests. And on Saturday, Natoma was diagnosed with leukemia.

Now, the reason Natoma is not here today is that she’s lying on a hospital bed, suddenly faced with this emergency — suddenly faced with the fight of her life. She expects to face more than a month of aggressive chemotherapy. She is racked with worry not only about her illness but about the costs of the tests and the treatment that she’s surely going to need to beat it.

So you want to know why I’m here, Ohio? I’m here because of Natoma. (Applause.) I’m here because of the countless others who have been forced to face the most terrifying challenges in their lives with the added burden of medical bills they can’t pay. I don’t think that’s right. (Applause.) Neither do you. That’s why we need health insurance right now. Health insurance reform right now. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!

THE PRESIDENT: I’m here because of my own mother’s story. She died of cancer, and in the last six months of her life, she was on the phone in her hospital room arguing with insurance companies instead of focusing on getting well and spending time with her family.

I’m here because of the millions who are denied coverage because of preexisting conditions or dropped from coverage when they get sick. (Applause.)

I’m here because of the small businesses who are forced to choose between health care and hiring. (Applause.)

I’m here because of the seniors unable to afford the prescriptions that they need. (Applause.)

I’m here because of the folks seeing their premiums go up 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 and 60 percent in a year. (Applause.)

Ohio, I am here because that is not the America I believe in and that’s not the America that you believe in.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: What’s your plan?

THE PRESIDENT: So when you hear people say “start over” —

AUDIENCE: No!!

THE PRESIDENT: — I want you to think about Natoma. When you hear people saying that this isn’t the “right time,” you think about what she’s going through. When you hear people talk about, well, what does this mean for the Democrats? What does this mean for the Republicans? I don’t know how the polls are doing. When you hear people more worried about the politics of it than what’s right and what’s wrong, I want you to think about Natoma and the millions of people all across this country who are looking for some help, and looking for some relief. That’s why we need health insurance reform right now. (Applause.)

Part of what makes this issue difficult is most of us do have health insurance, we still do. And so — and so we kind of feel like, well, I don’t know, it’s kind of working for me; I’m not worrying too much. But what we have to understand is that what’s happened to Natoma, there but for the grace of God go any one of us. (Applause.) Anybody here, if you lost your job right now and after the COBRA ran out —

(Audience member faints.)

THE PRESIDENT: It looks like we’ve got somebody who might’ve fainted down there, so if we’ve got a medic. No, no, no. Hold on. I’m talking about there’s somebody who might’ve fainted right down here, so if we can get a medic just back here. They’re probably okay. Just give her or him some space.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hope you have insurance. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: So let’s just think about — think about if you lost your job right now. How many people here might have had a preexisting condition that would mean it’d be very hard to get health insurance on the individual market? Think about if you wanted to change jobs. Think about if you wanted to start your own business but you suddenly had to give up your health insurance on your job. Think about what happens if a child of yours, heaven forbid, got diagnosed with something that made it hard for them to insure.
For so many people, it may not be a problem right now but it’s going to be a problem later, at any point. And even if you’ve got good health insurance, what’s happening to your premiums? What’s happening to your co-payments? What’s happening to your deductible? They’re all going up. That’s money straight out of your pocket.
So the bottom line is this: The status quo on health care is simply unsustainable. (Applause.) We can’t have — we can’t have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people. (Applause.)
And we know what will happen if we fail to act. We know that our government will be plunged deeper into debt. We know that millions more people will lose their coverage. We know that rising costs will saddle millions more families with unaffordable expenses. And a lot of small businesses are just going to drop their coverage altogether. That’s already what’s been happening.
A study came out just yesterday — this is a nonpartisan study — it’s found that without reform, premiums could more than double for individuals and families over the next decade. Family policies could go to an average of $25,000 or more. Can you afford that?
AUDIENCE: No!
THE PRESIDENT: You think your employer can afford that?
AUDIENCE: No!
THE PRESIDENT: Your employer can’t sustain that. So what’s going to happen is, they’re basically — more and more of them are just going to say, you know what? You’re on your own on this.
We have debated this issue now for more than a year. Every proposal has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. I know a lot of people view this as a partisan issue, but, look, the fact is both parties have a lot of areas where we agree — it’s just politics are getting in the way of actually getting it done. (Applause.)

Somebody asked what’s our plan. Let me describe exactly what we’re doing, because we’ve ended up with a proposal that incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans, even though Republicans don’t give us any credit. (Laughter.) That’s all right.

You know, if you think about the debate around health care reform, there were some who wanted to scrap the system of private insurance and replace it with government-run care. And, look, that works in a number of places, but I did not see that being practical to help right away for people who really need it.

And on the other end of the spectrum, and this is what a lot of the Republicans are saying right now, there are those who simply believe that the answer is to unleash the insurance industry, to deregulate them further, provide them less oversight and fewer rules.

AUDIENCE: Boo!

THE PRESIDENT: This is called the fox-guarding-the-henhouse approach to health insurance reform. (Laughter.) So what it would do is it would give insurance companies more leeway to raise premiums, more leeway to deny care. It would segment the market further. It would be good if you were rich and healthy. You’d save money. But if you’re an ordinary person, if you get older, if you get a little sicker, you’d be paying more.

Now, I don’t believe we should give the government or insurance companies more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your own health insurance. (Applause.)

And that’s what our proposal does. Our proposal builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. So if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I don’t want to interfere with people’s relationships between them and their doctors.

Essentially, here’s what my proposal would change: three things about the current health care system, but three important things.

Number one, it would end the worst practices of the insurance companies. (Applause.) All right? This is like a patient’s bill of rights on steroids. (Laughter.) Within the first year of signing health care reform, thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions will be able to purchase health insurance for the first time in their lives or the first time since they got sick. (Applause.) This year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. So parents can have a little bit of security. (Applause.) This year, under this legislation, insurance companies will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. Those practices would end. (Applause.)

With this reform package, all new insurance plans would be required to offer free preventive care to their customers starting this year — so free check-ups to catch preventable diseases on the front end. That’s a smart thing to do. (Applause.) Starting this year, if you buy a new plan, there won’t be lifetime or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care you receive from your insurance companies, so you won’t be surprised by the fine print that says suddenly they’ve stopped paying and you now suddenly are $50,000 or $100,000 or $200,000 out of pocket. That won’t — that will not happen if this becomes law this year. (Applause.)
I see — I see some young people in the audience. (Applause.) If you’re an uninsured young adult, you will be able to stay on your parents’ policy until you’re 26 years old under this law. (Applause.)
So number one — number one is insurance reform. The second thing that this plan would change about the current system is this: For the first time, uninsured individuals, small businesses, they’d have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. (Applause.) Understand if this reform becomes law, members of Congress, they’ll be getting their insurance from the same place that the uninsured get theirs, because if it’s good enough for the American people, it’s good enough for the people who send us to Washington. (Applause.)
So basically what would happen is, we’d set up a pool of people; millions of people across the country would all buy into these pools that give them more negotiating power. If you work for a big company, you’ve got a better insurance deal because you’ve got more bargaining power as a whole. We want you to have all the bargaining power that the federal employees have, that big companies have, so you’ll be able to buy in or a small business will be able to buy into this pool. And that will lower rates, it’s estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you’re currently getting. That’s money out of pocket.
And what my proposal says is if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, then we’re going to offer you tax credits to do so. And that will add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. That’s what we’re going to do. (Applause.)
Now, when I was talking about this at that health care summit, some of you saw it — I sat there for about seven hours; I know you guys watched the whole thing. (Laughter.) But some of these folks said, well, we just — that’s a nice idea but we just can’t afford to do that. Look, I want everybody to understand — the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is. The least well among us, the poorest among us, they get their health care through Medicaid. So it’s the middle class, it’s working people that are getting squeezed, and that’s who we have to help, and we can afford to do it. (Applause.)

Now, it is true that providing these tax credits to middle class families and small businesses, that’s going to cost some money. It’s going to cost about $100 billion per year. But most of this comes from the nearly $2.5 trillion a year that Americans already spend on health care. It’s just right now, a lot of that money is being spent badly.

So with this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we make — the dollars that we spend on health care are going to make insurance more affordable and more secure. And we’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance company. Insurance companies are making billions of dollars on subsidies from you, the taxpayer. And if we take those subsidies away, we can use them to help folks like Natoma get health insurance so she doesn’t lose her house. (Applause.)

And, yes, we will set a new fee on insurance companies because they stand to gain millions more customers who are buying insurance. There’s nothing wrong with them giving something back. But here’s the bottom line: Our proposal is paid for — which, by the way, is more than can be said for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they passed that big prescription drug plan that cost about as much as my health care plan and they didn’t pay for any of it and it went straight to the deficit. And now they’re up there on their high horse talking about, well, we don’t want to expand the deficit. This plan doesn’t expand the deficit. Their plan expanded the deficit. That’s why we pay for what we do. That’s the responsible thing to do. (Applause.)
Now, so let me talk about the third thing, which is my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses, and for the federal government. So Americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today — I already said this — would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent — that’s not my numbers, that’s what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says — for Americans who get their insurance through the workplace. How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent [sic], which means they could give you a raise. (Applause.)
We have incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising costs of health care. We go after waste and abuse in the system, especially in Medicare. Our cost-cutting measures would reduce most people’s premiums and bring down our deficit by up to a trillion dollars over the next two decades. Those aren’t my numbers. Those are the numbers determined by the Congressional Budget Office. They’re the referee. That’s what they say, not what I say.

Now, the opponents of reform, they’ve tried to make a lot of different arguments to stop these changes. You remember. First, they said, well, there’s a government takeover of health care. Well, that wasn’t true. Well, that wasn’t true. Then they said, well, what about death panels? Well, that turned out — that didn’t turn out to be true.

You know, the most insidious argument they’re making is the idea that somehow this would hurt Medicare. I know we’ve got some seniors here with us today — I couldn’t tell; you guys look great. (Laughter.) I wouldn’t have guessed. But want to tell you directly: This proposal adds almost a decade of solvency to Medicare. (Applause.) This proposal would close the gap in prescription drug coverage, called the doughnut hole — you know something about that — that sticks seniors with thousands of dollars in drug costs. This proposal will over time help to reduce the costs of Medicare that you pay every month. This proposal would make preventive care free so you don’t have to pay out-of-pocket for tests to keep you healthy. (Applause.)

So yes, we’re going after the waste, the fraud, the abuse in Medicare. We are eliminating some of the insurance subsidies that should be going to your care. That’s because these dollars should be spent on care for seniors, not on the care and feeding of the insurance companies through sweetheart deals. And every senior should know there is no cutting of your guaranteed Medicare benefits. Period. No “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts.” (Applause.) This proposal makes Medicare stronger, it makes the coverage better, and it makes the finances more secure. And anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed — or they’re trying to misinform you. Don’t let them hoodwink you. They’re trying to hoodwink you. (Laughter.)

So, look, Ohio, that’s the proposal. And I believe Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote. (Applause.) We need an up or down vote. It’s time to vote. And now as we get closer to the vote, there is a lot of hand-wringing going on. We hear a lot of people in Washington talking about politics, talking about what this means in November, talking about the poll numbers for Democrats and Republicans.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We need courage!
THE PRESIDENT: We need courage. (Applause.) Did you hear what somebody just said? (Applause.) That’s what we need. That’s why I came here today. We need courage. (Applause.)
We need courage. You know, in the end, this debate is about far more than politics. It comes down to what kind of country do we want to be. It’s about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved, by making health insurance more secure and more affordable. (Applause.) It’s about a woman who’s lying in a hospital bed who just wants to be able to pay for the care she needs. And the truth is, what’s at stake in this debate, it’s not just our ability to solve this problem; it’s about our ability to solve any problem.

I was talking to Dennis Kucinich on the way over here about this. I said, you know what? It’s been such a long time since we made government on the side of ordinary working folks — (applause) — where we did something for them that relieved some of their struggles; that made folks who work hard every day and are doing the right thing and who are looking out for the families and contributing to their communities, that just gave them a little bit of a better chance to live out their American Dream.
The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for these interests, for their future. So what they’re looking for is some courage. They’re waiting for us to act. They’re waiting for us to lead. They don’t want us putting our finger out to the wind. They don’t want us reading polls. They want us to look and see what is the best thing for America, and then do what’s right. (Applause.) And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. And I know these members of Congress are going to provide that leadership. I don’t know about the politics, but I know what’s the right thing to do. And so I’m calling on Congress to pass these reforms — and I’m going to sign them into law. I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing, Ohio. And with your help, we’re going to make it happen.

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END
1:33 P.M. EDT

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.15.10 11:01 AM

It has now been well over a year since the near collapse of the financial sector, and yet today the same failed system that brought on this crisis remains in place. The financial crisis has resulted in more than 8 million American workers losing their jobs, trillions in household wealth being wiped out and hundreds of thousands of small businesses without the credit they need to grow. We cannot wait any longer for real financial reform that brings accountability to the financial system and makes sure that the American taxpayer is never again asked to bail out the irresponsibility of our largest banks and financial institutions.

This proposal provides a strong foundation to build a safer financial system. It creates a new consumer financial protection agency to set and enforce clear rules of the road and establishes stronger supervision for the largest financial firms under the Federal Reserve. It brings transparency and oversight to derivatives and other financial markets that were central to the crisis and separates banking from proprietary trading and hedge funds. The proposal will also provide the government with essential tools to respond in a financial crisis, so that we can wind down and liquidate a large, interconnected failing financial firm. It allows us to protect the economy and taxpayers so that we can end the belief that any firm is "Too Big to Fail".

As the bill moves forward, I will take every opportunity to work with Chairman Dodd and his colleagues to strengthen the bill and will fight against efforts to weaken it.

American families deserve a strong, independent consumer financial protection agency that is accountable for setting and enforcing clear rules across the financial marketplace. And I will not accept attempts to undermine the independence of the consumer protection agency, or to exclude from its purview banks, credit card companies or nonbank firms such as debt collectors, credit bureaus, payday lenders or auto dealers.

I will oppose any loopholes that could harm consumers or investors, or that allow institutions to avoid oversight that is important to financial stability.

We need to ensure the ultimate bill provides strong, clear authority for setting and enforcing rules, limiting excessive risk taking in the financial system, and winding down the largest financial firms when necessary in a way that does not cause a financial panic. All derivatives must be regulated and shareholders should have a say not just on pay but also other compensation that rewards risk taking. We will stand firm against any attempt by the financial sector to avoid their responsibilities: in any future crisis the big financial companies must pay, not taxpayers.

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.14.10 06:34 AM

The President is deeply saddened and outraged by the news of the brutal murders of three people associated with the United States Consulate General in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, including a U.S. citizen employee, her U.S. citizen husband, and the husband of a Mexican citizen employee. He extends his condolences to the families and condemns these attacks on consular and diplomatic personnel serving at our foreign missions. In concert with Mexican authorities, we will work tirelessly to bring their killers to justice.

The President shares in the outrage of the Mexican people at the murders of thousands in Ciudad Juárez and elsewhere in Mexico. We will continue to work with Mexican President Felipe Calderón and his government to break the power of the drug trafficking organizations that operate in Mexico and far too often target and kill the innocent. This is a responsibility we must shoulder together, particularly in border communities where strong bonds of history, culture, and common interest bind the Mexican and the American people closely together.

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.14.10 08:51 AM

The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of North Dakota and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local response efforts in the area threatened by flooding beginning on February 26, 2010, and continuing.

The President’s action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, including flood fighting preparations, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the counties of Barnes, Benson, Burleigh, Cass, Dickey, Emmons, Foster, Grand Forks, LaMoure, Mercer, Nelson, Pembina, Ramsey, Ransom, Richland, Stutsman, Traill, and Walsh, and the Spirit Lake Reservation.

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent Federal funding.

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Justo Hernandez as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FEMA (202) 646-3272.

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.14.10 11:33 AM

I send my warmest wishes to all those that will celebrate the anniversary of the 1848 Hungarian Revolution tomorrow. That event was a defining moment in Hungary’s struggle for freedom, and continues to serve as inspiration for all those that advocate for freedom’s cause. Our two nations are bound by our shared values and our solemn obligations to each other through the NATO Article 5 commitment to one another’s security. On this occasion, I also wish to pay tribute to those many Americans that can trace their roots to Hungary. They continue to make important contributions to our society, enriching the character and culture of the United States.

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.13.10 03:00 AM

WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama announced that on Monday, his administration will send to Congress the blueprint for an updated Elementary and Secondary Education Act that will overhaul No Child Left Behind. The plan will set the ambitious goal of ensuring that all students graduate from high school prepared for college and a career, and it will provide states, districts and schools with the flexibility and resources to reach that goal.

The audio and video will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 am ET, Saturday, March 13, 2010.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
Weekly Address
March 13, 2010

Lost in the news of the week was a headline that ought to be a source of concern for every American. It said, “Many Nations Passing U.S. in Education.” Now, debates in Washington tend to be consumed with the politics of the moment: who’s up in the daily polls; whose party stands to gain in November. But what matters to you – what matters to our country – is not what happens in the next election, but what we do to lift up the next generation. And the fact is, there are few issues that speak more directly to our long term success as a nation than issues concerning the education we provide to our children.

Our prosperity in the 20th century was fueled by an education system that helped grow the middle class and unleash the talents of our people more fully and widely than at any time in our history. We built schools and focused on the teaching of math and science. We helped a generation of veterans go to college through the GI Bill. We led the globe in producing college graduates, and in turn we led in producing ground-breaking technologies and scientific discoveries that lifted living standards and set us apart as the world’s engine of innovation.

Of course, other nations recognize this, and are looking to gain an edge in the global marketplace by investing in better schools, supporting teachers, and committing to clear standards that will produce graduates with more skills. Our competitors understand that the nation that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow. Yet, too often we have failed to make inroads in reforming and strengthening our public education system – the debate mired in worn arguments hurled across entrenched divides.

As a result, over the last few decades, we’ve lost ground. One assessment shows American fifteen year olds no longer even near the top in math and science when compared to their peers around the world. As referenced in the news report I mentioned, we’ve now fallen behind most wealthy countries in our high school graduation rates. And while we once led the world in the proportion of college graduates we produced, today we no longer do.

Not only does that risk our leadership as a nation, it consigns millions of Americans to a lesser future. For we know that the level of education a person attains is increasingly a prerequisite for success and a predictor of the income that person will earn throughout his or her life. Beyond the economic statistics is a less tangible but no less painful reality: unless we take action – unless we step up – there are countless children who will never realize their full talent and potential.

I don’t accept that future for them. And I don’t accept that future for the United States of America. That’s why we’re engaged in a historic effort to redeem and improve our public schools: to raise the expectations for our students and for ourselves, to recognize and reward excellence, to improve performance in troubled schools, and to give our kids and our country the best chance to succeed in a changing world.

Under the leadership of an outstanding Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, we launched a Race to the Top, through which states compete for funding by committing to reform and raising standards, by rewarding good teaching, by supporting the development of better assessments to measure results, and by emphasizing math and science to help prepare children for college and careers.

And on Monday, my administration will send to Congress our blueprint for an updated Elementary and Secondary Education Act to overhaul No Child Left Behind. What this plan recognizes is that while the federal government can play a leading role in encouraging the reforms and high standards we need, the impetus for that change will come from states, and from local schools and school districts. So, yes, we set a high bar – but we also provide educators the flexibility to reach it.

Under these guidelines, schools that achieve excellence or show real progress will be rewarded, and local districts will be encouraged to commit to change in schools that are clearly letting their students down. For the majority of schools that fall in between – schools that do well but could do better – we will encourage continuous improvement to help keep our young people on track for a bright future: prepared for the jobs of the 21st century. And because the most important factor in a child’s success is the person standing at the front of the classroom, we will better prepare teachers, support teachers, and encourage teachers to stay in the field. In short, we’ll treat the people who educate our sons and daughters like the professionals they are.

Through this plan we are setting an ambitious goal: all students should graduate from high school prepared for college and a career – no matter who you are or where you come from. Achieving this goal will be difficult. It will take time. And it will require the skills, talents, and dedication of many: principals, teachers, parents, students. But this effort is essential for our children and for our country. And while there will always be those cynics who claim it can’t be done, at our best, we know that America has always risen to the challenges that we’ve faced. This challenge is no different.

As a nation, we are engaged in many important endeavors: improving the economy, reforming the health care system, encouraging innovation in energy and other growth industries of the 21st century. But our success in these efforts – and our success in the future as a people – will ultimately depend on what happens long before an entrepreneur opens his doors, or a nurse walks the rounds, or a scientist steps into her laboratory. Our future is determined each and every day, when our children enter the classroom, ready to learn and brimming with promise.

It’s that promise we must help them fulfill. Thank you.

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.11.10 08:15 AM

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for a new National Export Initiative (NEI) to double U.S. exports and support two million new jobs. Today, President Obama announced five steps the Administration is taking under the NEI to help U.S. firms expand sales of their goods and services abroad: creating a new Cabinet-level focus on U.S. exports, expanding export financing, prioritizing government advocacy on behalf of U.S. exporters, providing new resources to U.S. businesses seeking to export, and ensuring a level playing field for U.S. exporters in global markets.

A New, Focused High-Level Effort to Promote U.S. Exports

The President signed today an Executive Order instructing the federal government to enhance and coordinate Federal efforts to promote exports. The President ordered the following measures to ensure high-level coordination of U.S. export promotion activities:

Creating the Export Promotion Cabinet: The President has created the Export Promotion Cabinet to ensure that export promotion is a top-level priority of all relevant cabinet agencies, and that export promotion activities are incorporated in a wide array of government programs, not just existing dedicated export promotion offices. The Export Promotion Cabinet will coordinate with the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, an existing staff-level interagency body that supports U.S. trade and export efforts, to execute a new National Export Strategy. The Export Promotion Cabinet will hold its first meeting in April, and will meet regularly thereafter. Members of the Cabinet include the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Commerce, senior White House advisors, and the heads of key U.S. economic and trade agencies. Relaunching the President’s Export Council (PEC): The PEC has served as the principal private sector advisory committee on international trade. It advises the President of government policies and programs that affect U.S. trade performance; promotes export expansion; and provides a forum for discussing and resolving trade-related challenges among the business, industrial, agricultural, labor, and government sectors. Today, the President announced the relaunch of the PEC to be chaired by Jim McNerney, CEO of the Boeing Corporation, and Ursula Burns, CEO of the Xerox Corporation, who will serve as the vice-chair. More Financial Support for U.S. Exporters

In fiscal year 2009, Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) authorized $21 billion in support of U.S. exports, 50% more than the previous year. Under the Obama Administration, Ex-Im has further increased its authorizations to $10 billion in the first quarter of this fiscal year alone, three times the amount it did in the first quarter last year. Ex-Im projects that this pace of expansion will continue and ultimately double Ex-Im’s trade finance capacity within five years. Additionally, as part of the National Export Initiative, Ex-Im is expanding its efforts to work with small business by creating a new facility to provide up to $2 billion a year in trade finance to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Major Government-wide Export Advocacy Effort

Today, Secretary Locke issued Government-wide advocacy instructions for all senior level officials who work with foreign counterparts in the U.S. and abroad. This instruction ensures that our export promotion efforts will be conducted by U.S. officials who regularly communicate with other governments. This guidance is also instrumental to help ensure that our officials abroad are proactively looking for new export opportunities for U.S. businesses in their daily work routines. As part of our new advocacy efforts, the U.S. government is also:

Sponsoring an Unprecedented Number of Trade Missions this Year: U.S. trade missions bring senior U.S. officials and U.S. businesses in direct contact with export opportunities. Over 40 trade and reverse trade missions are scheduled in 2010 to promote U.S. goods, agriculture products and services. Creating a New Market Exporter Initiative: The Department of Commerce is launching a new public-private partnership that engages U.S. global shipping companies like FedEx, UPS and USPS as strategic partners to expand U.S. export opportunities. This effort will build on the knowledge and market reach of its private sector partners to focus on U.S. businesses that currently only export to one or two countries, and provide support to these businesses on how to proactively expand their customer bases to additional markets. Launching an International Business Partnership Program: The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) is launching a new program to bring 250 – 300 senior procurement officials from over 20 countries to the U.S. this year to meet with U.S. businesses seeking to gain access to emerging economies. Engaging our Ambassadors in a New Commercial Diplomacy Strategy: Secretary Clinton has directed U.S. ambassadors to emphasize commercial diplomacy in their work. The State Department will also require: Embassies to create Senior Visitor Business Liaisons to manage country advocacy efforts; and launch a program that sends U.S. Ambassadors around the U.S. to discuss export opportunities in their countries of assignment. Expanded Support and Resources for Potential U.S. Exporters

Many businesses want to export their products, but just don’t have the knowledge, experience and resources required to identify and enter new markets. As part of the National Export Initiative, President Obama has proposed increasing funding for export promotion programs by $134 million for FY2011. This funding will provide for the hiring of over 325 trade experts to provide advice to potential U.S. exporters, and expand agriculture export initiatives to provide producers with technical assistance for exporting specialty crops. The Administration is also working to streamline existing U.S. exporter resources by:

Creating One-Stop Export Promotion Shops: Ex-Im, Small Business Administration (SBA), the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, and USTDA will partner to provide potential exporters a comprehensive tool kit of services ranging from financing options to export counseling to market access intelligence through 109 Commerce Export Assistance Centers, 900 SBA Small Business Development Centers, 8 Ex-Im regional offices, 2,000 USDA Farm Service county offices, and more than 250 U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad. This effort will support U.S. exporters in every state and 168 countries around the world. Free and Fair Access to Markets around the World

Enforcing Trade Rights: USTR Ambassador Ron Kirk will continue to vigorously enforce the rights of American businesses under our trade agreements. His efforts have included filing suit over Chinese export quotas and duties on raw materials that harmed core U.S. industrial sectors from steel and aluminum to chemicals. Over the past year, our trade enforcement efforts have led to resolving the long-standing American claim against policies that restricted exports of American beef to the EU, ending more than 70 different measures in China that gave illegal subsides for exports and harmed U.S. companies, and working to end barriers to our poultry and meat exports during the H1N1 outbreak. Opening New Markets: Ambassador Kirk will continue to work towards an ambitious and balanced Doha agreement that creates meaningful new market access for U.S. exports and ensures fair access to agriculture, goods, and services markets for American businesses. USTR will pursue negotiations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership to develop a broad-based, high-standard 21st century trade agreement in the fastest growing region in the world. USTR will also work to resolve outstanding issues with Panama, Colombia and Korea with the objective of moving forward with the pending Free Trade Agreements at an appropriate time. Laying the Groundwork for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth: Building on the historic results of the Pittsburgh Summit, Secretary Geithner will continue to work within the G-20 and other international fora to pursue policies that will lead to stronger and better balanced global growth, fostering increased trade and job expansion. Export Control System Reform to Enhance National Security and the Competitiveness of Key U.S. Industries

Separately, the President announced the initial results of the Administration’s export efforts to reform the U.S. export control system – the set of policies and procedures that have developed over the past 50 years to restrict the export of sensitive technologies for national security purposes. The Administration’s reform program will enhance national security by focusing on the enforcement of strict controls around the export of the most critical technologies and products, while strengthening the competitiveness of key manufacturing industries in the U.S. by streamlining the regulations that apply to their exports. Secretary Gates will lay out the outline of these reform proposals in the coming weeks, and the President looks forward to continuing to consult with Congress on this important reform effort. In the meantime, the President announced two specific steps that the Administration is prepared to take to reform the export control system:

Reducing the Delay of U.S. Exports of Encryption Products from 30-60 Days to 30 Minutes: Currently, a U.S. exporter of a product with encryption capabilities (e.g., a cell phone or a network storage system) needs to file with the Department of Commerce for a technical review of the product before they can export. The review can take between 30-60 days. There are over 3,300 such filings each year. This proposed rule is intended to replace the current review-and-wait process with a more efficient one-time notification notification-and-ship process which may eliminate up to 85 percent of all the technical reviews of these products (about 2,800). The new process will continue ensure that the U.S. government still receives information it needs for its national security requirements while facilitating U.S. exports and innovation for new products and new technologies. Reducing the Delay of U.S. Exports of Encryption Products from 30-60 Days to 30 Minutes: Currently, a U.S. exporter of a product with encryption capabilities (e.g., a cell phone or a network storage system) needs to file with the Department of Commerce for a technical review of the product before they can export. The review can take between 30-60 days. There are over 3,300 such filings each year. This proposed rule is intended to replace the current review-and-wait process with a more efficient one-time notification notification-and-ship process which may eliminate up to 85 percent of all the technical reviews of these products (about 2,800). The new process will continue ensure that the U.S. government still receives information it needs for its national security requirements while facilitating U.S. exports and innovation for new products and new technologies.

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.12.10 01:04 PM

2:10 P.M. EST

PRESS CORPS: Yay!

PRESS CORPS: Ohhhh!

MR. GIBBS: Nice to see you. Let me get a few pictures over here. What was that groan for? Come on.

Q Show us again, come one.

Q You can’t go yet, I’m not ready.

MR. GIBBS: Don’t worry, we’ll do a couple of non-serious announcements in my —

Q What position did Gibbs play, anyway?

MR. GIBBS: This is — I am, first of all, as you can tell, not in my normal attire — though it does signify Friday here at the White House, casual Friday as we newly instituted. (Laughter.) I am making good on my aspect of my wager with Dimitri, my Canadian counterpart, who is somewhere several hundred miles north laughing.

Q Are you itching yet?

MR. GIBBS: I am not. No, I’m a little warm. The number 39 is for Ryan Miller, who of course was the United States goalie and the tournament MVP. I have one official government announcement: We’ve instructed the embassy, our embassy and our ambassador to make arrangements to deliver one case of Molson Canadian and one case of Yuengling lager from Pottsville, Pennsylvania, America’s oldest brewery, to the Prime Minister’s office today. I’m sure Dimitri will take most of that home and consume it.

Let me do the week ahead and then we’ll get back into more semi-serious attire for the rest of your hockey questions.

PRESS CORPS: No!

Q Fifteen minutes!

MR. GIBBS: Fifteen minutes — I thought we were doing this on the metric scale. (Laughter.)

Q That’s 30 minutes. (Laughter.)

Q Fifteen Canadian. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Exactly, right. (Laughter.) What’s the exchange rate?

The President has no scheduled public events this weekend. On Monday, as you know, the President will travel to Strongsville, Ohio, where he will deliver remarks on health insurance reform. On Tuesday the President will attend meetings here at the White House.

On Wednesday the President will meet with the Taoiseach of Ireland, Brian Cowen, at the White House. In the evening the President and First Lady will host the Taoiseach and Mrs. Cowen at the annual St. Patrick’s Day reception held in the East Room, and the event will be pooled press.

On Thursday and Friday the President will be here in Washington, D.C. and we’ll have a chance to talk, I’m sure, about the trip here in a few moments. Let me get a little bit semi-organized.

I will say — no offense to my Canadian friends here — but we couldn’t have done this fully without — (applause) — also — let me put my specs back on — of course this just has 10 for 2010 on it. Nick and U.S.A. Hockey — the happy providers of this jersey — it’s a little smaller in size, which I think Nick did on purpose so that at the conclusion of this I would give the jersey to him. (Laughter.)

Q What else are you taking off? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: No, that’s Rahm, ma’am. That’s the Chief of Staff. (Laughter.)

Q It’s lucky you didn’t make a bet about wrestling. (Laughter.)

Q One more fashion spin, please.

MR. GIBBS: You like the USA, 2010 USA. (Applause.)

So I don’t think I should take any questions wearing this, but — you know what, we’ll take a couple.

Go ahead, sir.

Q Okay. Now that the trip has been delayed, how is the President going to use those extra two days?

MR. GIBBS: Phil, the President has met with and talked with, as you know, many members of Congress over the past several days. I anticipate that he will talk with the leaders and members of Congress in — talking to them about the benefits of passing health care reform. So I anticipate that that kind of — that kind of thing will happen.

This came about as a result of a conversation that the President had with Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, who –all three agreed that it would be helpful to have a few extra days here, talking to members. But they also agreed that this was an extremely important trip for the United States of America for the President to go to Indonesia and to Australia.

Q But Congress is going to be around for a week after the President leaves. So is the 20th now the new 18th? (Laughter.) I mean —

MR. GIBBS: I don’t —

Q In terms of deadlines. Is now the 20th now the —

MR. GIBBS: Look, I’m simply going to say the President, as we announced today, will leave for the trip at 10:00 a.m. on the 21st.

Q So the President is okay with Congress continuing discussions of health care, even while he’s traveling, or does he want this all wrapped up with a bow by the 20th?

MR. GIBBS: I think — we’ve been talking about this for more than a year. I think the President wants, members of Congress want a vote as soon as possible that will lead to improved health care for millions of Americans.

Q But does the President expect to leave having the House pass —

MR. GIBBS: Look, I will leave deadlines up to the Speaker.

Yes, sir.

Q If the President fails — if Congress fails to get this across the finish line or very close to it before next Sunday’s scheduled — rescheduled departure date for Asia, is there a chance that this trip could be delayed again or even canceled altogether?

MR. GIBBS: In speaking with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, all three agreed this was an important trip for the President to make.

The Asia-Pacific region of the world is tremendously important to the United States for a number of reasons. We will — we’re going to visit, obviously, Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim population, an emerging democracy. The President will follow up on his speech from Cairo in a speech in Indonesia — a key partner, obviously in our counterterrorism efforts — before traveling to Australia, obviously a very important trading partner and an important ally in our efforts in Afghanistan.

I will say that if you — as the President said in Tokyo, that for years the United States has been absent from the Asia-Pacific region. We are — we can’t lead in this region of the world without strong bilateral relationships with Indonesia and Australia. They’re key in our ability to keep our country safe. They’re key in our ability to grow our economy through increased exports. And they’re key to tackling big challenges. Indonesia is the fourth-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world. Obviously they’ll be incredibly important to international agreements on climate change.

So the President believed it was important to give the issue of health care and the effort to get votes on health care a few more days, but also believes, as do those leaders in Congress, that it’s important to keep this trip on our schedule with two important partners.

Q One other issue. The President looks to be homing in on his Fed nominees. Can you confirm that Janet Yellen is the leading candidate for nominee as vice chairman, and that Sarah Raskin and Peter Diamond are under consideration for other vacancies? Can you give us any kind of sense of the timing, whether he’s going to make an announcement before the trip, after the trip?

MR. GIBBS: Look, we — she is obviously somebody who — a former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; somebody with great expertise in macroeconomic issues; the current president of the Fed in San Francisco. And she is a leading contender for the vice chair nomination.

As you know, we are hoping to fill the vacancy of the vice chair in time for the end of the current term, which is June. And I would say Sarah Raskin and Peter Diamond are also under strong consideration for additional vacancies. I don’t have a timing announcement, though, on any of those.

Q Are we speaking a matter of weeks?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t want to speculate on when the timing would be, except obviously for Janet Yellen, who’s under strong consideration, I would say anybody that is appointed to the vice chair would need to be done — our hope obviously, as I said, is to get it done before the current term expires.

Q And she is the leading candidate?

MR. GIBBS: I would say she is a leading contender, yes.

Q A leading contender?

Q Has it been 15 minutes yet? Do you want to put your jacket on?

MR. GIBBS: Do you feel uncomfortable, Jake?

Q I feel like if I show this to the viewers of ABC News, World News —

Q Then we have to explain the whole thing. (Laughter.)

Q — they’re going to be a little confused why on a story about health care you’re wearing a hockey jersey. I’m saying —

MR. GIBBS: It can’t be any stranger than some of the other stuff I see on the news, so I don’t — (laughter) — I’m not entirely sure what — somebody give Jake the Canadian one and we’ll just do a quick two-shot and we’ll —

Q Faceoff. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Yes. Would you feel more comfortable if I switched?

Q I’m just glad it was a hockey, not a wrestling, bet. (Laughter.)

Q Or sumo wrestling. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I was going to say something, but I —

Q Say happy birthday.

MR. GIBBS: True.

Q Other than talking to members of Congress, what is so important that the President needs to be here for those extra two days? I understand that the members of Congress were asking President Obama to do this, that you’re not imposing his presence, but what can he — what difference will it make?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, Jake, I think the President will use the time, as I said earlier, to speak either individually with or in small groups with members that may be at this point undecided on how they’ll vote. The President I think will take the opportunity to once again reiterate his case for why this reform is so important, why it’s important to do this now, why it’s important not to stop or to start over, why we’re dealing with dramatic spikes in health insurance right now, and why we have to deal with this problem.

Q Why do you think so many members — I mean, 216 members of the House who voted for it in November, voted for the House bill, are still there — and that’s a majority. Why do you think so many of them are having second thoughts?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, I think some of them are likely waiting for finished CBO scoring. I think that’s a natural thing to wait for and I think they’ll have time to evaluate that scoring and to evaluate the legislation in full.

But, again, I think the President believes that he can make a very strong case for why this is important to do right now.

Q And, lastly, as you know, a lot of House Democrats are distrustful of the Senate — of Senate Democrats, and they’re worried that with the way the parliamentarian has ruled they’re going to be tricked somehow into passing the Senate bill and then the fixes to the Senate bill, and the Senate won’t pass the fixes and they will have been tricked into passing the Senate bill that a lot of them don’t like without those fixes.

Is President Obama reassuring them, telling these House Democrats that if the reconciliation, if the fix doesn’t pass the Senate bill in itself, he won’t sign that bill? Or —

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, again — and I mentioned some of this yesterday — I think some of this — I don’t want to wade into the parliamentary politics on Capitol Hill, except to say this, the President is talking with — not just with members of the House on the vote that they’re going to have to make, but also with members of the Senate to ensure that the corrections that the President sees as so important — not just the House, but the President sees as so important — are also acted on. And so I don’t — this is — it’s a dual track. It works together, but the President is working on both of those issues.

Q You think — will — is it possible, in any way you look at it, that one would happen — that the Senate bill would pass but the fixes would not, and the Senate bill would become law? Because that’s what House members are worried about.

MR. GIBBS: They’re concerned. I think that’s why the President is spending time also dealing with senators to ensure that they are supportive of those legislative fixes on their side of it, too.

Q Thanks, Robert. Representative Dreier, in referring to the President’s delay, said today, “We know that they are doing everything within their power to try and twist arms and encourage people to vote for something that is extraordinarily unpopular and I believe would be devastating for our nation’s economy.” What do you say to Americans who are still having a difficult time buying the President’s plan?

MR. GIBBS: Like Mr. Dreier? (Laughter.)

Q Well, Dreier and others. He’s not the only one.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I would probably tell Mr. Dreier the same thing Mr. Dreier from California. People in his state are getting the letters that we’ve talked about here for the past several weeks; the letters that say, “I know you’ve paid your premiums, I know you haven’t gotten sick, but you’re in the individual health insurance market, and your health insurance rates are going up 39 percent next year.” That’s what we’re dealing with. That’s what we have to take on.

We have to provide the ability for a small business in the state of California and throughout this country, or in Mr. Dreier’s district, or a family that’s struggling with the high cost of health care, to get them some help.

The President is doing this because he believes that this is the right thing to do for our country — to have a health care and health insurance network that works not just for health insurance companies but works for average, everyday working Americans. That’s why he continues to pursue this, and that’s why he’ll see it to passage soon.

Q Does it frustrate the President at all that he’s been making this big push, pointing out what the insurance industry has been doing with the premium hikes — does it frustrate him that the message still isn’t getting through to some?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t think the message — I think the President is — I think the President feels some momentum on this issue. I think the President believes that while many thought this issue was going to go away or was dead a few weeks ago has gotten new life, I think largely because we’ve seen insurers send out the letters that I’m talking about.

Q On the AfPak meeting, can you tell us more about that?

MR. GIBBS: Let me give you a quick readout, and then we can go through a couple of questions. The President met with his national security team as part of the regular updates that he receives on Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was part of the monthly video teleconferencing. The next one I believe is scheduled for April 16th. The meeting began with a briefing from General McChrystal, who noted a continued progress in the Marja offensive and the strengthening partnership with Afghan national security forces.

The President and his team discussed a range of issues related to security and governance. The President also received a briefing from Ambassador Patterson, our ambassador in Islamabad, on our security cooperation with Pakistan and support for the Pakistani people.

Of note that General McChrystal told the group, including obviously the President, that we were on schedule on our force flow in getting additional forces approved by the President into Afghanistan by the end of the summer. They discussed in surrounding Marja that we were largely through the clearing phase and more rapidly moving to a phase of hold, which puts a premium obviously on good governance. And we spent quite a bit of time discussing the Afghan national security forces, the army and the police forces, the training and some adjustments that the President and the team have been working on around recruitment and retention of police and army forces dating back to the President’s original meetings in the Situation Room prior to his decision in December.

Q And one quick thing. Is the administration pleased with the Pakistani government in the effort fighting terrorism, or does Pakistan need to do more?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, we have had — we’ve enjoyed I think a almost unprecedented level of cooperation with them, dating back probably almost a year now, to extremist movements that threatened the Pakistanis and I think in many ways alerted them to many of the concerns that we had long had. We feel like we’re making progress each and every day, and I think in the update that he got from Ambassador Patterson that was conveyed.

Yes, ma’am.

Q I’m sure the President is aware that it’s against international law to annex occupied land. Why do we keep giving, as Vice President Biden did, iron-clad commitments to Israel when it violates international law? And the President says that our relationship is unshakeable. How can that be?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we enjoy a strong and important relationship with the country and the people of Israel. And we are —

Q Even when it violates the law? I mean, you go into this whole thing — why should they be — get this reprieve?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, we enjoy a strong relationship with the country and the people. We are committed to their security in a very important and dangerous —

Q How about the Palestinian security?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me finish my answer, Helen — in a very important region of the world. I think the Vice President, though, could not have been clearer on, as I said and as the Vice President said, on both the timing and the substance of the announcement that was made during his trip, that we have asked each side to refrain from the type of announcements that would shake the trust needed to sit down together and make some decisions on moving forward on a peace process.

So I think the Vice President was extremely clear on his trip there. I know the President looks forward to speaking with the Vice President. He’s — he’ll get back very, very early tomorrow morning, and I anticipate that they’ll either — they’ll likely talk either later in the weekend or first thing on Monday about what the Vice President saw, not just in Israel but in the region, as we try to move things forward.

Q We’ve already seen the violation on the part of one party. What is the U.S. going to do about it?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think that the Vice President was extremely strong in condemning what the Israeli government announced during his trip.

Chip.

Q You said that the President is feeling some momentum on health care. Congressman Weiner, who has long been urging the President to be more involved, said that as a result of the President’s recent increased involvement, there is now a tidal change in the last 72 hours up there. Do you agree that the change has been that great in degree? And if so, was it because of the President’s uptick in involvement? And if so, why didn’t he do it sooner?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I don’t — I probably said this a thousand times, but I’ll add another one to it. I doubt the President — I doubt we’d be where we are on health care, after this long, if the President wasn’t personally invested in, from the very beginning, on getting this done.

I think, Chip, as the President said at the State of the Union, it’s pretty clear, by some of the polling numbers, we’re not doing this out of — for sheer political benefit. I think there are — you don’t have to — you can swing a cat in this town and hit somebody that believes that the President should just give this up for political considerations.

The President, I think, has been pretty clear about why he’s made decisions during his time as President — not because they’re easy, not because they’re in the next day’s political interests, but because they’re the right thing for the country.

So I think what has provided health care with the most momentum, quite honestly, in the past several weeks, are the insurance company rate increases. I think they have crystallized for many across the country what happens. We’ve seen report after report from Wall Street about what happens if reform fails. They all agree that insurance companies, like the ones that raise rates, are likely to be the big winners out of this.

Q And in delaying the trip, to what degree was that because of pressure from Democrats in Congress? And did he — did Nancy Pelosi specifically ask him to do this?

MR. GIBBS: No, the President talked to the Speaker and the Majority Leader. They discussed what would be most beneficial for this process, and agreed together to move the trip back a few days. But the President and, as I said earlier, the Majority Leader and the Speaker believe it’s important that the President go on this trip. Again, this is a very important region of the world. If we don’t help lead in this region of the world, other people will. It is in our national interest to have strong bilateral relationships with emerging democracies like Indonesia and important partners like Australia.

I’ve seen some people say, you know, well, why does the President have to do this, because there’s not some big multilateral conference that he’s attending, or this — as I said, we’re at — we have long — long ago have been — for quite some time we’ve been absent from, again, this important region of the world. We have important partnerships that lead to increasing our security, increasing our economic growth, and increasing the likelihood that we deal with important problems in having strong bilateral relationships with places like Indonesia and Australia.

Q And the central reason that the three of them decided that delaying the trip was the thing to do?

MR. GIBBS: To give a little bit more time to get health care done.

Q One other question. You had said earlier in the week that the President was not calling individual members yet but —

MR. GIBBS: He had not at that point.

Q Okay, he has now.

MR. GIBBS: He has — I mean, obviously he’s talked to — he’s had meetings with. There have been other events that individuals have been here for. I know obviously on Monday he had talked to members who had visited for, like, a PAYGO reception or things like that. He has made individual calls now and I anticipate he’ll continue to do that.

Q Is he spending most of his day or a good portion of his day doing that?

MR. GIBBS: He’s spending part of his day. I mean, again, he spent — the Afghanistan meeting, Afghanistan/Pakistan update was scheduled for 60 minutes and the meeting went 90 today.

Q Any chance we could get a call list of who he’s called?

MR. GIBBS: Not likely. (Laughter.)

Q You said the President is leaving at 10:00 a.m. Sunday —

MR. GIBBS: I think it’s 10:00 a.m., yes.

Q — the 21st, regardless of whether the House has voted or not?

MR. GIBBS: The President is going on a trip on the 21st.

Q Regardless of whether the House has voted or not?

MR. GIBBS: The President is going on the 21st.

Q You announced on Twitter this morning that — this development and that the First Family would not be joining him.

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q Can you shed any light on why that particular decision was made?

MR. GIBBS: Scheduling-wise, the way now the trip sits in the week is not as good for two young girls who have to go back to school at the conclusion of that trip. I will say this: This was — and I should have said this yesterday, Chip, to your question — even under the old itinerary, the President was not scheduled to stop at the house that he spent time in when he lived in Indonesia, nor was he scheduled to go to the school that he attended. So I should have said that yesterday in answer to your question. But the way now the trip sits in the week, it’s not as conducive for them to go. And I will say when you get your renewed itinerary, you’ll see it’s a brisk trip.

Q Members of the House who met with the President last week said that he told them that success on other high-priority pieces of legislation is predicated on success on health care — energy, immigration. Does the President believe that he will have a diminished chance of passing other items this year if health care is not passed in Congress?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’ve not spoken directly with the President about what you’ve heard members say. I think the President — leaving aside what it does for any other issue, as I said earlier I think the President believes strongly in the desire to see progress on an issue that we’ve talked about for decades, to do something positive on behalf of those that are struggling with high costs, and dealing with insurance companies on preexisting conditions, and it’s important to get something done.

Q Finally, the immigration groups, the leaders that were out in the driveway yesterday, said that they pressed the President for a bill in the Senate by the end of April. Does the President want a bill in the Senate by the end of April? Does he buy into that deadline?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I will say that in addition to meeting with activists, in addition to meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, as you know, the President met yesterday with Senators Schumer and Graham, pleased to get an update on their progress in forging a proposal to fix our immigration system.

The President — they asked the President and he agreed to review their framework, and we’re in the process of doing that now.

Q Can I follow on Mike?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q Isn’t it more important for the girls to go to this trip and miss a few days of school, despite how brisk the trip is?

MR. GIBBS: Well, it’s a decision I would leave to the parents, and I think it’s — having a six-year-old, I think it’s important that they also spend some time — Lord knows we’ve had enough snow days — they spend some time in school.

But again, that’s way above — that is above my pay grade by many, many rungs on the ladder.

Q And by the way, that phrase “swing a cat,” if you swing most cats, you get scratched, you know.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I may do that right up here with the front row. (Laughter.)

Go ahead.

Q Robert —

MR. GIBBS: I’m getting a little warm so I may change here in a second. Go ahead.

Q Looking ahead to this Ohio stuff on Monday, is there going to be a retooled message? Will there be a — like, more of a sense of urgency in the closing days? What can we look for there?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think you’ll hear the President — I think the President will spend time hitting a lot of the themes that he hit on Wednesday and on last Monday: going through why reform is important; going through what it will do the minute he signs the legislation on behalf of millions of Americans; discussing what happens, again, if we decide now is not the time. And I think he’ll reiterate again what I said earlier, in the fact that we’re doing this not because it’s easy; we’re doing this not because the President is concerned about or looking to the next election, but looking to the next generation. And I think he’ll reiterate that it’s the important thing to do.

Q One housekeeping question. As Mike mentioned, you made this trip announcement on Twitter this morning. It still hasn’t shown up on any of our usual vehicles through your office officially. Is Twitter now going to become your vehicle of choice to tell us major things —

MR. GIBBS: Part of the reason — part of the reason I did that, I bet some of you got emails that I sent you several hours after I actually sent them to you because there were some email issues here at the White House and we felt like it was important to get a confirmation of that out.

I would say Twitter is a quick medium to get information out, and we’ll probably use it more often.

Q You know, there are about 20 or 25 other Robert Gibbses on Twitter — (laughter) — some of them who deign to use your picture — I don’t know why — (laughter) — or the presidential seal or the podium. Are you concerned that one of these guys is going to hijack your message and, you know, maybe burn you at some point?

MR. GIBBS: No. I will say this, I mean, again, I think if you go to — I don’t know how many Robert Gibbs there are, but if you go to @presssec, you’ll see that there is a verification for —

Q There is, indeed.

MR. GIBBS: So obviously —

Q Several of them use that — use a formulation with “presssec” in it, too.

Q They’re very funny.

MR. GIBBS: I think some of them are quite humorous. I would, again, look for the verification, and of course we only make big announcements in hockey jerseys. So I’d say look for that.

Yes, sir.

Q On the Fed announcements, you mentioned there are three that are leading contenders. Does that mean there are lagging contenders? How big is the pool?

MR. GIBBS: I wouldn’t get into characterizing. I would just — I put a few monikers on those names to describe where they are in the process.

Q But there are other names in the process?

MR. GIBBS: There are other names, sure.

Q And what does it mean to be a leading indicator? Does that mean they —

MR. GIBBS: A leading contender.

Q A leading contender.

MR. GIBBS: It means you’ve done well in your weight class, you’ve done — no. I would say — I would put those at the top of the President’s list.

Q Have they spoken to the President? Has the President offered them the job?

MR. GIBBS: When we have official announcements, we’ll put them on Twitter. (Laughter.) I’m joking. I’m joking. I’m joking. I’m joking. Come on, I’m wearing a hockey jersey, for God’s sake. (Laughter.)

Go ahead.

Q Well, it makes it funnier, I guess.

MR. GIBBS: It does.

Q Is it fair to say, Robert, that next Thursday and Friday the President will devote almost all of his attention to dealing with health care — the votes and the pending conversations he may be needing to have with House Democrats?

MR. GIBBS: Major, I’m sure he’ll dedicate a good — a portion of his day — look, understanding that the — there’s not a shortage of things that we could spend time with the President on that are very pressing. The President starts — generally starts each day with a daily intelligence briefing; almost always has an economic daily briefing; a series of meetings with senior advisors.

Again, I assume he’ll spend certainly a portion of his day dealing with the issues of health care, but I have no doubt that we’ll — we’ll put on additional meetings on other topics that are of importance, whether they’re the economy or whether they’re national security.

Q And the meeting yesterday, Senator Graham represented afterwards that he told the President face to face that if reconciliation is used for health care in the Senate, that will kill any hope of putting immigration on the agenda as a doable item for the remainder of this legislative session. Does the President have any reaction to that?

MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to him directly about that statement. I doubt the President would have agreed with that.

Q Why?

MR. GIBBS: As we’ve talked about in this instance and about this issue before, reconciliation is something that has — is a legislative tool that’s been used on many, many occasions, particularly as it relates to things like health care. And we talked about the fact that the Children’s Health Insurance Program was done through reconciliation; the COBRA program was done through reconciliation. I don’t know that Senator Graham believed that —

Q So would it be the President’s perspective that that would be an alarmist —

MR. GIBBS: Well, hold on, let me — I don’t believe that — I don’t believe that Senator Graham thought that it would do damage to the legislative priorities of a President when in 2001 and in 2003 tax cuts went through reconciliation. So I wouldn’t characterize it except to say I doubt the President agrees with it.

Q Okay. One issue that’s come up for Luis Gutierrez, who I believe attended the meeting with the President yesterday with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus —

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have a list of the — we had a list of — I think we put out a list of invitees. I do not know who was there. I can certainly check and see if Representative Gutierrez was there.

Q Okay. One issue he raised today — he still remains concerned, and he was when he voted for the House bill, about restrictions in the Senate bill, which of course is the underlying legislation, and there are no known fixes being proposed on immigration that I’m aware of — please tell me if I’m wrong — that the Senate language is simply too restrictive and it doesn’t allow undocumented workers, even with their own money, to purchase in the health exchange system, and would keep them — prevent them from doing that for five years. He now says publicly he will vote no. Is that a concern to the White House? Is there something that the White House is open to in dealing with that issue in fixing the legislation? Or is that something that needs to —

MR. GIBBS: Let me check with Legislative Affairs. I know that — I don’t know the degree to which — I was not in yesterday’s meeting so I can certainly try to check on that.

Q Robert, yesterday you said some of the President’s big priorities after health care are financial regulatory reform and the Citizens United case. What did you mean by that? In other words, what can you do specifically about that ruling?

MR. GIBBS: Well, the legislation right now with Senator Schumer and Congressman Van Hollen that would address some of the things that were opened up as a result of that Supreme Court ruling.

We’ve certainly looked at that legislation, and I think counsel and others are evaluating that and other vehicles in order to address — to address what the Supreme Court opened up in their ruling.

Q One more question while you have the USA sweater on there. I draw your attention to a Web site that’s posted a letter to “Barack the Red” — not what you think it means.

MR. GIBBS: Do I need to get my Canadian jersey back?

Q No. (Laughter.) They write, “These are trying times. Unemployment is in double digits … Audacity? Check out number eight, Alexander Ovechkin. Hope? This season has found the Capitals with better postseason prospects than any other year.” They plaintively write at the end here, “The Capitals bandwagon is filling up quickly, but we need a leader.” (Laughter.) Will the President commit to going to a Washington Capitals game this season?

MR. GIBBS: I can’t say —

Q It would be his first hockey game ever, right?

MR. GIBBS: I can’t say — no, I think he’s been to — I’ll check and see if he’s been to a game in Chicago or not — less so in Hawaii. I will check on whether he’s been to a game before. I don’t know whether he’ll do that before March 18th, but —

Q He’s got a couple extra days now. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Come on, guys. It’s Friday, for God’s sakes. (Laughter.)

Look, I think he would very much enjoy going. Obviously the last time he ventured out to a sporting event, Georgetown looked like they did yesterday, not like they did in the previous several weeks. So, look, I know he enjoys going out there. I know that — I think we’ve gotten invitations from the owner to go. And I know he’d be — he can borrow my jersey.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Robert, I wanted to ask you about the Afghanistan meeting today. Did the issue of reconciliation — not health care — (laughter) — but the reconciliation with the Taliban come up? Officials have said in the past that they think that the U.S. should only do that from a position of strength.

MR. GIBBS: I will say, Helene, I left with about two or three minutes to go in the meeting. They were just getting to — or I should I say I left when I thought two or three minutes were left in the meeting. I will find out if there were additional conversations. This was something the President was bringing up as I left the meeting after about an hour and a half. So let me see if there’s any additional information on that.

Yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Robert. Two questions on Pennsylvania. First, last week both major parties chose candidates for the western Pennsylvania seat of the late John Murtha. The President campaigned for Bill Owens in New York last year and for Ms. Coakley in Massachusetts. Does he plan to campaign for Mr. Critz?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have any scheduling information on that, and I can certainly check with Political Affairs.

Q And the other thing: Do you have an answer yet on Mr. Sestak’s charge?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have any more information on that.

Peter. Oh, I’m sorry, I’m sorry — go ahead.

Q Robert — thank you, Robert. When all is said and done, isn’t it really more for image that the President — are you going to take off your —

MR. GIBBS: Yes, it’s getting a little warm in here, and it’s not just me.

Q Looks pretty good.

MR. GIBBS: Go ahead, I’m listening. I can do two things at once, guys.

Q Absolutely. When all is said and done, isn’t it really a good argument that the President is going to go to — going to postpone his trip really for image and not really for substance? You said before that he does have a telephone — a cell phone on the plane; he’s in touch with everybody; he could do it here. But, frankly, there’s a lot of heat I think being generated that he’s away from maybe some people think he should be here. So how do you respond to those kinds of concerns?

MR. GIBBS: Look, the President shouldn’t go at all?

Q No, not that — yes, you’ve made the point it’s a good trip. But —

MR. GIBBS: Well, no, it’s an important trip; right.

Q An important trip.

MR. GIBBS: Maybe I don’t — I’m failing to understand — give me the first part of your question.

Q The President is now not going — now postponing his trip. Couldn’t the argument be made that it’s more for image, that he really can do everything, as you’ve said before, on the trip that he can do here, and now he’s reversing course?

MR. GIBBS: No, I — look, I — as I said, certainly the plane comes, in many ways regrettably, with all that equipment that would allow him to be in touch. I think everybody believed that him being here was more important.

The trip — we didn’t postpone the trip for any image sake. I think the — in the discussion that the President had with the Speaker and the Majority Leader in the Senate, it was agreed upon that, quite frankly, we could do — we could give a few extra days here to what they needed as well as keep — and I will say our scheduling guys have done a heroic job of keeping the trip intact in an important region of the world.

So this is not done for anything other than a few extra days to work on getting health care reform through the process, as well as keeping that important trip.

Q Has he got a few people that he’s specifically earmarking to talk to that he thinks might be able to change their minds, those who voted for and now might vote against, or people he thinks he might be able to —

MR. GIBBS: Look, without getting into a lot of names, I think we’ve all seen folks that have said they want to take a look at what the new legislation is. Again, I think people are rightly waiting for an evaluation from CBO as a way of answering some of the questions that they have. I think the President certainly will talk to people about, again, why he thinks the bill is important and why he thinks it does so many good things on cost and things like that.

Peter.

Q Thanks, Robert. On immigration reform, will the President work to round up more Republican co-sponsors for the bill that Schumer and Graham are working on?

MR. GIBBS: Let me not get ahead of the President’s evaluation process of the framework that they walked him through some yesterday.

Q And also, do you expect that the President may give a public statement or a speech of any kind on immigration, maybe before the rally in Washington on the 21st?

MR. GIBBS: Let me check with scheduling. I know the — look, I will say this, I know the President committed to Senators Schumer and Graham, to the Hispanic Caucus, and to activists, as I think you read in his statement yesterday, the importance of and his strong belief in getting comprehensive reform done. He’s a supporter of that, and obviously it is our strong hope that we can make progress on this.

Q Robert, there’s talk on the Hill about putting the President’s student loan proposal into the health care bill. What does that have to do with health care, and why would that go in there?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t think any final decisions have been made. Obviously one way of getting important reforms through the legislative process would be in this vehicle. I think this is — these are reforms that are good for students; they’re really good for taxpayers; they’re bad for special interests.

I don’t think — again, I don’t think any final decisions have been made on Capitol Hill. I would point you up there. I know the President is a strong believer in a reform system that would cut out the middleman on borrowing money for millions of kids to go to college.

Q Is it because — I mean, but it also would save money. Is it because it would bring down the overall cost of the package, including the health care part?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything on that. Again, I know this is an important reform for the President.

Yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Robert. On Afghanistan and the meeting this morning, as General McChrystal — is he satisfied with the NATO involvement in the Marja offensive — the British and the Canadians were involved. And knowing that NATO hasn’t been able yet to reach the goal of several thousand NATO soldiers on the ground, has the President or does the President intend to reach to NATO leaders, and the Canadian Prime Minister in particular, on this topic?

MR. GIBBS: NATO came up in the sense of discussing their contributions and in walking through the commitment that we need, quite honestly, from all of our partners, particularly in the realm of training. We did not discuss in the meeting any additional steps that the President might take.

Again, the President and many on the team understand the importance of what we have to do in — not just in force contributions. As I mentioned, General McChrystal believed that the pace of force flow from what the President had asked for was on schedule. But we have critical improvements that have to be made as it relates to an Afghan national army and critical improvements that have to be made in an Afghan national police and the importance of getting additional trainers from NATO countries to Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

We are — in these meetings, the President has gone through and looked at monthly recruitment and retention goals because at some point we’re going — we’re not going to be there forever. And the Afghan national army — and in many districts not only are we going to need improved governance but we’re going to need a police force that can keep the peace.

So that came up, but there were no — there was no discussion of additional calls by the President.

Yes, sir. Oh, Stephen, you didn’t have — I thought you had some.

Q Actually, just on that subject, will the President perhaps make a new request to Australia during his trip for more help in Afghanistan for perhaps trainers rather than combat troops?

MR. GIBBS: Let me check with NSC on that. That was not discussed.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Robert, back on the issue of the public option, now that it’s off of life support and it’s now one of the casualties of the fight for health care reform, is the President looking at passage and then possibly going back after the passage to tweak it? And the reason why I ask that — some members of the Congressional Black Caucus who were for the public option and now are saying, okay, there have problems before when we passed something and we’ve come back to tweak it, like on Medicare, Social Security. Is that the President’s mindset as well, and did he talk to them about that? Did they have that kind of discussion yesterday?

MR. GIBBS: I will check with folks that — I was not in that meeting because that was taking place during my briefing. I don’t know whether that was something that was discussed. I know that the — again, the President is focused on the legislation that we have at hand and in trying to get that through and I think that’s what, again —

Q So he’s not looking down at the road at re-tweaks. He’s just looking —

MR. GIBBS: Right now we’re focused on — we can’t re-tweak anything that we can’t get passed, and that’s what our focus is at the moment.

Q Robert, as you know, you had a little bit of a hiccup there at the end with the confirmation of Ben Bernanke at the Fed. Neither one of these three potential appointees seem to have a lot of small business experience; they’re fairly mainstream folks from the financial world. Five senators have just put out a letter to the President requesting that these three appointees have real-world experience, experience with the middle class and small business owners. Do these three folks have that kind of experience, and how do you respond to those concerns?

MR. GIBBS: I’m happy to look at the letter. I think that these are strong contenders. They have strong credentials. They have good experience. I’m happy to look at the letter and maybe have a better comment on it then.

George.

Q Boehner and McConnell have put out their names for the deficit commission. Do you have any reaction to those names? And when do you hope that commission gets up and working?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think it’s a positive development for the commission that while there was some concern about whether Republicans would put forward names they now have, and I think that’s an important and a positive development, we think and hope that the rest of those names will be coming forward soon.

Look, I think the President believes that this is an important — an important commission to look at all of the aspects of what this government spends money on and to evaluate its sustainability in the future.

Obviously you’ve got many — many of those choices have put forward, in the case of Congressman Ryan or in others, their own plans in the past, and I’m sure that will — that will govern many of the recommendations and advice that some of those members have. Again, our strong hope is that in the next few weeks, not only will the commission be filled out but we’ll have staff in place and that the commission can meet soon in order to generate recommendations, hopefully that Congress can act on quickly.

Ken.

Q Robert, my understanding is that they’re going to start marking up the reconciliation bill at the same time that we’re going to be dealing with trying to get the Senate bill passed. What’s the White House role in that? And also, won’t that be a little bit confusing to be working on sort of two tracks of health care at once?

MR. GIBBS: No, no, look, I think the — obviously the House will take up the measure. The Budget Committee has to take up in the House reconciliation, begin that process. I think the Speaker has said that that will be posted on the Internet for some period of time.

I don’t think it will be confusing because I do think that, at this point, people understand that this is a — this is a two-step process that has to get done before we can wrap health care up altogether.

Thanks, guys. Have a good weekend.

END
3:03 P.M. EST

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.12.10 01:46 PM

WASHINGTON — TODAY at 9:00AM EST, Mike Froman, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs will hold a background conference call to preview the President’s remarks at the Export Import Conference. The call is embargoed until delivery of the President’s speech at 11:15AM EST today. During his remarks, the President will discuss further details of the National Export Initiative he announced during his State of the Union address. The President set the goal of doubling our exports over the next five years to keep America competitive and support the creation of two million jobs.

A fact sheet, embargoed until 11:15AM EST, is attached.

WHAT: Background conference call on the President’s National Export Initiative with Mike Froman, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs

WHEN: Today, Thursday March 11, 2010
9:00AM EST

CALL WILL BE ON BACKGROUND AND EMBARGOED UNTIL SPEECH DELIVERY

# #

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.11.10 01:19 PM

1:47 P.M. EST

Q Where’s the jersey?

Q Is that a jersey, or another pinstriped suit?

Q It’s a hockey sweater.

Q When —

MR. GIBBS: Soon.

Q Isn’t there free trade or something?

Q Another broken promise.

MR. GIBBS: There we go. (Laughter.) Don’t worry, we won’t disappoint.

Q Another missed deadline.

Q Is it here yet?

MR. GIBBS: The jersey is —

Q It has arrived?

MR. GIBBS: — is in the White House.

Q Tomorrow, then.

MR. GIBBS: I will say this, I will probably — we’ll probably see this tomorrow. I do regret that — it has my name on it, the Canadians were very nice about — and I — Marvin is a big hockey fan, a big Canadian hockey fan, and I told him today that I greatly lament that I should have gotten Nicholson put on the back of this jersey and given it to him. He’s pretty cool with just getting the jersey that says Gibbs on the back. So we’ll — he’s altogether happy about that.

So we’ll probably do — I will likely make good on my wager tomorrow.

So —

Q Speaking of wagers, are we still betting on a March 18th deadline? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Good segue there. (Laughter.)

Q Speaker Pelosi only would say that the date is interesting. Hoyer is obviously not on board. We got a week — is this really going to happen?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think whether you traveled with the President over the last few days or whether you saw his remarks, his great interest is in getting this done as quickly as possible. We’ve been working on this for — the formal process of working on this for more than a year.

The President, again, said last night it is time for Congress to act; it is time for Congress to vote. That’s what the President wants. Quite frankly, that’s what Speaker Pelosi, that’s what Majority Leader Reid want. We are working toward that. We’re — I know that CBO is evaluating different aspects of the legislation. Our hope is to get this done as soon as possible. If it takes a couple extra days after a year, it takes a couple of extra days.

Q So you’re backing off the 18th date?

MR. GIBBS: No, I’m — I am saying that the President wants, as do — as does everybody here — wants to get this done as soon as possible.

Q Okay. Secondly, on the immigration meeting today, is there the political oxygen to get this done? I mean, you guys are fighting on cap and trade; your guys — you’re fighting on financial regulatory reform that Dodd came out on; health care is not a done deal. Why add yet another priority that doesn’t have a lot of bipartisan support on it, when the White House’s priority has been said to be jobs?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say this. Our priority — our main priority is jobs and on getting the economy focused on creating those jobs in both the short term and laying the foundation for long-term economic growth. The President had a very productive meeting, he believed, and I think many of the Democrats and Republicans left the meeting on comprehensive energy legislation — left that meeting feeling positive.

Today the President will meet with Senators Schumer and Senator Graham, a Democrat and a Republican, to see where they are in building that bipartisan coalition, because I think you hit the nail on the head by saying this is not something that’s not going to pass without strong bipartisan support. So the President is anxious today to get an update from them on the progress that they’ve made on seeking and gaining that bipartisan support. That meeting, I think, is a little bit later on the afternoon. We’ll have — likely have a readout after that.

Q Just to follow up on that.

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q You say that — is the White House aware that — or you guys are working with Capitol Hill independently to build support for immigration reform? It has been more than a year since the President made the promise to present legislation to Capitol Hill, and so far there’s nothing.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the two primary sponsors that are working on this legislation now — Senator Schumer and Senator Graham — the President is eager to hear from both of them today about the progress that they’ve made, aspects that they’re working on in their legislation, but more than introducing a bill, more than outlining the specifics of this proposal or that proposal, as was mentioned a minute ago, the only way that — the only way we get this through the House and the Senate is with bipartisan support.

So the President is going to ask each of them today the progress that they’ve made on lining that bipartisan support up. I think that’s the way the American people want us to deal with their problems, and that’s the update the President is anxious to get.

Jeff.

Q Speaking of bipartisanship — how’s that for another segue?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we’ll see what the question is. (Laughter.)

Q What is the White House’s reaction to the breakdown on financial regulatory reform talks? Senator Dodd — what does that mean for the chances of getting fin reg passed this year, both on a substance level and on a political level?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I — look, I think obviously Senator Dodd has done a tremendous amount of amount of work on financial reform. Legislation has passed the House. First, talks broke down between — with Senator Shelby leaving the process, and now Senator Corker has — is going to continue to talk to Senator Dodd but Senator Dodd is going to put out a piece of legislation that can be marked up prior to the upcoming recess so that we can move this process forward.

Jeff, our strong hope is that instituting rules for the road, ensuring that we don’t face the type of crisis we did a few years ago, that we have protections for consumers that don’t have carve-outs for things like payday lending — those are all important to the President on a substance level and I think quite frankly important to the American people.

So he’s going — the President will continue to work, as Senator Dodd said he would, on getting the support necessary to get this through Capitol Hill. I don’t think anybody wants to leave Congress this year, more than two years after — at that point, it will be two years after the economic collapse — without putting into effect new rules that would prevent the same type of reckless activity that got us in the mess to begin with. I don’t think people want to leave Congress without that having been done.

Q But to do that, you have to have votes, right? And so what does the fact that this has broken down mean for that?

MR. GIBBS: I think it means that we’re still likely, again, to get something that gets marked up and moves this process forward onto the floor, where I assume there will be a myriad of amendments on different aspects of the legislation. But I think the President has outlined the priorities that are strongest for him, as the Secretary of the Treasury has as well. We’re still very optimistic that this can get done. I think this will get done this year.

Again, I think it is going to be up to those that do not want to see rules in place to prevent what happened — I think it’s going to — if you’re not supportive of those new rules you’re going to get a chance to explain that opposition to the American people. And I think given what the American people have lived through as a result of that economic collapse, I don’t believe many are going to want to go home and face voters next November not having done something as it relates to those rules.

Yes, sir.

Q The President has talked quite a bit about wanting an up or down vote for health care reform legislation in the Senate. There’s some talk now among House Democrats of using a certain kind of rule so that the Senate bill could be adopted without ever actually having a vote taken in the House of Representatives. They’re calling this the Slaughter rule, after Louise Slaughter of the Rules Committee.

MR. GIBBS: I’m not familiar with this, so I would have to check with somebody about —

Q Well, I guess the larger question is just, would it be okay with the President for this to happen, without there ever being actually a vote?

MR. GIBBS: Let me — I have not looked at what the specifics of this are, so let me take a look.

Q One other question. In the House earlier today, Dr. Peter Mugyenyi, who was on hand when President Bush introduced PEPFAR, said that over the last two years PEPFAR funding has flat-lined. He said new PEPFAR contract awards emphasize treatment for “only those already on it and only very limited slots for new patients. Currently my institution, which pioneered antiretroviral therapy in Africa and treats a large proportion of AIDS patients in Uganda, is not taking new patients due to lack of funding. We’re forced to turn away desperate patients daily, often 15 to 20.”

There is a slight increase in funding for PEPFAR in the President’s budget, but it is less than the rate of inflation in Africa, which is why they say it’s flat-lined. The President, when he was running for President, at Saddleback said that he supported an increase of a billion dollars a year. Why has he chosen to break this promise?

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen the specific comments that you reference. The President obviously has been a big supporter of this program and I think when asked in the past has been very complimentary of former President Bush’s leadership in getting this type of program — not just coming up with it conceptually but getting it through Congress. The President obviously is committed to that. As you mention, there’s an increase in the budget. I would have to take a look at the exact figures and get back to you on what the exact PEPFAR funding dollars are for that.

Q I can tell you if you want.

MR. GIBBS: I’m happy to take a look at it and talk to the budget folks.

Q A $180 million increase, and that’s about 2 or 3 percent —

MR. GIBBS: Jake, I don’t have the budget in front of me, but I’m happy to take a look at that.

Q I did the research before.

MR. GIBBS: I don’t —

Q You don’t go by my numbers?

MR. GIBBS: I’d prefer to look at the budget.

Yes.

Q In the last few days the President has obviously launched on this road show to push health care reform and has been beating up on the insurance industry. Has the White House seen any benefit at all from that so far?

MR. GIBBS: Benefit —

Q In terms of support? Have you seen numbers just — you know, hearing from people on the ground — that people are starting to buy this?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think people are starting to — look, I think the insurance rate increases that people have seen over the course of the past four to six weeks, I think have crystallized this debate in a way that broke through and really localized what people were facing.

And we understood that as it looked like health care reform might not happen, we got a sense of what happens if we don’t get meaningful health care reform. We are going to see the type of rate increases that patients have gotten in the mail when their insurers take their insurance rates and increase them exponentially seven, eight, nine, 10 times that of health care inflation. I think members are hearing from constituents who are getting those letters. I think you have seen media coverage of those increases in a way that I think has, like I said, really crystallized for many people the problem, because you heard the mantra of let’s not do this now, let’s start over. Well, as I’ve said here a lot, these insurance companies are not starting over, right? They’re not pushing pause on a health insurance increase of 40 percent or 39 percent when health care inflation is going up 4 or 5 percent. They’re not starting over — they’re exponentially increasing what individuals in that market are facing.

So I think it has had a very positive effect for moving and providing some health — momentum for health care reform.

Q And is the President still planning to launch his Asia trip on time? Any chance of a delay?

MR. GIBBS: I have — if we have any changes in the schedule, we’ll certainly let you know, but the President believes it is an extremely important trip with — it’s an important region of the world and these are important partners. Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, obviously has seen, as many countries including ours have seen, the impacts of horrific terrorist activities. Australia is a country we enjoy a trade surplus with, something the President is anxious to highlight, as well as a strong supporter of ours in providing support for Afghanistan.

So it’s two important partners in two — in a very important region of the world and the President looks forward to making the trip.

Chip.

Q You seemed to back off on the March 18th deadline a bit there by saying it could — if it’s a day or two — but does the President still want this thing passed by — that Senate bill passed by the House before he gets on the plane?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, if it takes a couple of days extra, Chip, we’d be happy to have it passed then, too.

Q Even if he’s already taken off on the trip.

MR. GIBBS: Even if he’s already gone.

Q So he’s not necessarily going to delay this takeoff.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t have any updates for you right now on the trip, except to say the President is going on that trip.

Q Henry Waxman has said that the goal — the plan of Democrats now is to get this thing passed, get the 216 votes without trying to change the abortion provision; simply include the Senate provision, and if Stupak and company vote against it, so be it, if they think they can get the votes without that. Is that your understanding, and is that the strategy the way —

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know if Nancy-Ann or others have spoken with Congressman Waxman about that or not.

Q Nancy Pelosi today said — getting back to the issue of the 18th and when this thing gets through — she said, “We” — meaning the House — “will spend at least a week on it among ourselves.” And a week from today is the 18th. Are you concerned that she seems to be in less of a rush —

MR. GIBBS: No, I don’t think she’s in less of a rush. I think everybody that’s been involved in this for more than a year is plenty energized to get this done.

Q Are you concerned — has the President expressed concern or have Nancy-Ann and other people that if it doesn’t get passed buy — get signed into law by the 26th, then people go home for recess, that it will be another August all over again?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think you saw the support for health care reform, if you looked at the polling in August, increase, so I don’t think that’s a fear.

Q So you wouldn’t be worried about people going home —

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q One other thing. Indonesia has been portrayed by some, in some articles, as more of a vacation trip than a policy and diplomacy trip. How much of it is vacation, taking the family along?

MR. GIBBS: It’s not a vacation at all. I don’t — I have not seen the criticism that you’re referring to.

Q It’s not criticism. Nobody is criticizing. They’re simply saying that part of what he’s doing is taking the family to show where he grew up for four years of his life. It’s kind of an educational trip for the family.

MR. GIBBS: This is the — as I mentioned earlier, it’s the largest Muslim country in the world. The President will build off the speech he gave in Cairo. The President will attend a democracy conference in Indonesia; will highlight counterterrorism. That’s the focus of the trip. This is not a — that’s the focus of the trip, not anything else.

Q It’s not a family education trip, too?

MR. GIBBS: No, no, not at all.

Q Is there anything about the trip that couldn’t be delayed if you needed to?

MR. GIBBS: Sorry?

Q Is there anything about — is there something on the trip that you have to do in that week, or could you put it off a couple of weeks to finish up health care?

MR. GIBBS: The trip won’t be put off a couple weeks. The President will be traveling to Indonesia and be traveling to Australia.

Q And the President doesn’t have a concern about leaving here if it hasn’t been completed?

MR. GIBBS: I appreciate all the hypotheticals, but I’m — we’re trying to get health care done, and we’re going to go on an important trip.

Q But he’s willing to leave before the Easter recess if they’re not done.

MR. GIBBS: The President is going to go on the trip, yes.

Q On the financial reform, is there a concern that the same thing that happened — that you could lose the trust of Corker — Corker is the one Republican you guys are negotiating with right now — is there a concern that if you have this dual track of a bill, that you could lose the —

MR. GIBBS: What do you mean a dual track?

Q Well, if Dodd does his own bill himself sort of without —

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, Chuck —

Q — without Corker completely, are you concerned that you lose Corker?

MR. GIBBS: No, I mean, if Senator Corker — if Senator Corker can’t agree to some adjustments in his positions in order to sign on to a bipartisan bill, this is a better question for Senator Corker in terms of what he’s willing to meet people part of the way on.

Again, you —

Q Were you concerned with a delay tactic, is that —

MR. GIBBS: No, look, I — look, I think many of us read yesterday’s newspaper about carving out payday lending from consumer financial protections, and I don’t think many people in the White House or at the Treasury Department thought that was a great idea.

Q Do you have any other Republicans that you think will come on board on financial reform? Because you need at least one, assuming —

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the better question is, to Republicans, why would you filibuster financial regulatory reform? Why would you — why would you, when lobbyists are being hired hand over fist to kill financial reform, why do you seem to side with high-priced lobbyists instead of putting strong rules in place to prevent what happened before? If that’s — I can’t imagine that’s a fight they really want to have.

Q There’s no bipartisan support of a bill that comes out of that committee — is that okay with the White House? Obviously you want bipartisan support, but if you don’t get it, you’ll accept —

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think Senator Dodd has, first, spent an awful lot of time with the ranking member, Senator Shelby, and then at some point Senator Shelby decided he couldn’t be part of that process anymore. He spent a lot of time with Senator Corker, and now Senator Corker has decided he can’t be part of that process.

Again —

Q You don’t think he’s negotiating in good faith anymore?

MR. GIBBS: No, no, I didn’t say that. Senator Dodd and Senator Corker are going to continue to talk about these problems. But, again, this is a better question for Senator Corker about what is it that — what is it that he has to see to come on board.

Again, I think Republicans in the Senate are going to have to ask themselves why they would stand in the way of financial reform.

Q I want to follow up on Jake’s question. Do you think it’s appropriate that the House find a way not to pass — to make sure the Senate bill doesn’t become passed if they don’t do the reconciliation?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have any — I have not read what Jake was talking about, so —

Q It’s been reported for two weeks.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I have not seen it and don’t have any comment on it.

Q On financial regulation, how would you respond to Senate Republicans who say that the use of reconciliation on health care has poisoned the atmosphere out there and that’s hurting bipartisan cooperation on this issue?

MR. GIBBS: It’s the same old tired spin they were using last week and the week before. I’m always struck by comments like when Senator Gregg says 51 votes is 51 votes, unless he’s on the other side, apparently, of 51 votes. I mean, these are — it’s helpful — helpfully contrived answers to justify delay tactics.

Q And on immigration, you said that the President wants to hear what they’ve been doing to build a bipartisan coalition. What has the President been doing to build a bipartisan coalition? To what extent does he view this as his responsibility to bring some other Republicans on board?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, he’s been — the President worked in the Senate in both 2005 and 2006 with a bipartisan coalition to see comprehension immigration reform happen. The President is strongly supportive of comprehensive reform. I think he’s anxious to talk to Senator Schumer and Senator Graham as to — some of the colleagues that he worked with that they’re in contact with each and every day, where are they on — where are they now on reform? Where are Republicans that were for reform in 2005, in 2006, in 2007, in 2008 — where are they now in 2010?

Q But just how actively is he personally working it or is he leaving it to his allies on the Hill at this point?

MR. GIBBS: Look, he’s going to get an update and we’ve had — we’ve certainly had meetings, several meetings, here. He’s meeting with activists on these issues and he’ll talk with the CHC later today about it.

Q And one more thing, just on the scheduling of the trip, just ask you one other way I guess — I understand you’re not going to put it off by a couple weeks, but are you aware of any contingency planning to move it back even a day or two if necessary?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have any announcements on today’s trip.

Mark.

Q Robert, if the House were to pass the Senate health care bill, would the President sign it right away or wait for a fix-it bill to be enacted?

MR. GIBBS: I think this gets into parliamentary issues that may well be decided by the parliamentarian on Capitol Hill, not by the President of the United States.

Q If a bill arrives here, though, wouldn’t he sign it or —

MR. GIBBS: I don’t see why we wouldn’t, no.

Q And did the President react in any way to what Chief Justice Roberts said yesterday about using his State of the Union speech to take a swipe at the Supreme Court decision?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President, in many ways, responded to the Supreme Court decision at that State of the Union address. Look, we — we’re heading into an election season, and to open up and change the — the President fundamentally disagrees with that decision, as, I would say, do the vast majority of the American people. And I don’t think the President thought it was anything but perfectly acceptable — I mean, they’re there, but he and the American people disagree with the decision that they made. And we’re actively working with Congress to close any of the loopholes that have been open to ensure that the special interests don’t have a greater hold on our electoral system.

Q Do you know if Chief Justice Roberts and the President spoke to one another since that night?

MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of, not that I’m aware of.

Q What Roberts complained about was the fact the State of the Union has become a political pep rally and he said — “wonders why we’re there. We can’t respond to it.” I don’t believe the Chief Justice —

MR. GIBBS: I think Mr. — if I’m not mistaken, many of you showed footage of Justice Alito responding to it.

Q Well, let’s go back to the question that Mark asked, though. He said — he asked about Chief Justice Roberts. Does the President disagree with Chief Justice Roberts? Does he think it has not taken on a pep rally political air in the State of the Union address?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President believes that the State of the Union is an important venue to lay out his agenda for the year and to update the American people on the work that the Congress and the President do.

Q He doesn’t see any reason for the justices to sit there and feel uncomfortable?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know why they’d feel uncomfortable. They made the decision. I don’t — I guess I don’t understand the criticism of feeling uncomfortable if they’re — look, the President disagreed and polls show 80 percent of the country disagrees with that decision. The President would have said that in that room had they been sitting in that row or not been there at all. The President is — the President just disagrees, quite frankly, with the decision that they made.

Q But he also disagrees — he doesn’t think the State of the Union has become just a political rally?

MR. GIBBS: He’s only done one of them. We did obviously address the first year — it didn’t seem like a pep rally to me.

Q Robert, can I just follow up on something Mark asked about?

MR. GIBBS: Let me just try to get through a few more.

Q You may have just made news and I’m not sure if you’re aware. I mean, a lot of members of the House are very worried that what’s going to happen with health care is that they’re going to sign the Senate bill and the Senate is never going to pass the fix. You’re saying the President would sign the — would sign it.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, I think Mark’s question was if the bill was here —

Q You’re assuming the bill won’t get here.

MR. GIBBS: Well, no, what I said earlier was that I think likely the parliamentarian will make some rulings about how bills go and where they go, and we will wait, certainly, for those rulings.

Q Is the White House concerned that during the Senate confirmation hearing Eric Holder didn’t disclose that he signed a brief asking the Supreme Court not to uphold President Bush’s claim that he could imprison American citizens as enemy combatants?

MR. GIBBS: I think the Justice Department has said that they take responsibility for that not having been included, and I think they addressed that in a statement yesterday and I would point you over to them.

Q Why didn’t he include it?

MR. GIBBS: That’s a question for the Attorney General and the Justice Department.

Q And is there a chance of reviving a standalone consumer protection agency now that Dodd is introducing his own legislation?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, we’ll see what happens I think Monday when Senator Dodd rolls out a piece of legislation. I think what’s important is not simply where and the address of an agency that would protect consumers but what’s the scope, what’s the independence, what’s their ability to set their own budget and make rules. That’s what we’ll evaluate. And if the President believes that the legislation that leaves the committee doesn’t meet those standards, then we’ll seek to strengthen the bill on the floor of the Senate.

Q Would you be happy if it were at the Fed?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t want to get ahead of where the bill might place it.

Q Robert, what side deals additionally would the White House like to see removed from the Senate bill in addition to the ones already outlined by the President on the Web site? There are ones in Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire. Can you list any others? Would those be the three that we would be most directed towards?

MR. GIBBS: I know that the legislation that the President put on the Internet removed many of the special provisions that initially were in the legislation. And we’ve made it clear to the Senate that the President’s position in the final legislation should not contain provisions that favor a single state or a single district differently than others. Across the board we’ve — I don’t —

Q Can you list any others that I did not mention?

MR. GIBBS: Which ones did you —

Q New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Vermont.

MR. GIBBS: I know that — Massachusetts —

Q I’m sorry, I said New Hampshire —

MR. GIBBS: Massachusetts and Vermont I’m told are not in there. The Medicare Advantage stuff for New York and Florida is not in there. There’s a provision I think that benefited Michigan that is not in there, and I think as the story said today, and as I’ve said earlier, there are additional things like maybe Montana and Connecticut that we’ve asked the Senate to take out.

Q And how has that been communicated? Because when asked about that on the Hill today, some Senate leadership aides and senators involved were unaware of it. Was this communicated by the chief of staff in any of the two meetings that have gone on on the Hill this week?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know if they talked about it specifically in those two meetings, but I’ll see.

Q Okay. There was a Post story this morning — I’ve got the survey here in front of me — about employers and what they expect to have — what they expect to happen as they deal with health care — these are employers who provide health insurance — with health reform: 69 percent say in a survey that they expect their costs to go up, and a third or more of them expect a decrease in the amount of employer-provided health care as a result of reform, not with things at the status quo. And I’m curious if those who are providing health care now, looking at reform legislation, as they understand it, fear their costs will go up, and in some cases, the insurance they’re able to provide will decrease — what should American people conclude from their fears about what health reform will mean for them?

MR. GIBBS: Major, I think we — you’d certainly have to evaluate the individual businesses and the circumstances that are involved. I would say that as we set up an exchange that provides choice and competition, one of the provisions that the President added also was a rate authority to look at what’s happening to insurance as we’ve seen in the individual market and in other places, to assure that as insurance companies are looking at their customer base right now they’re not increasing the cost of their insurance at a way that isn’t justifiable. That’s what the Secretary of Health and Human Services has asked those major insurers to provide actuarial data to demonstrate exactly what would justify those price increases.

Q Is there something they’re misunderstanding about reform, though? I mean, these are pretty solid numbers — 69 percent fear that their own costs will go up as a result of what health reform will mean for them; their administrative costs, they say, they fear will go up because of health care reform.

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, there are strong provisions in health care reform that would require a lot less paperwork, a lot more of premium dollars going to cover health care and not to — through a series of selection maneuvers — try to figure out who not to cover and who to cover and whose rates to jack up and how to try to game the system a little bit. I think there are strong provisions in the legislation that would prevent that.

Q They just misunderstand this —

MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to them, Major. I don’t know what — I don’t know, again, what they’re basing some of that on.

Q Two other issues. This is related to Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court decision. One of the things that appears to have happened as a result of that is the Chamber of Commerce is now growing in its lobbying efforts and raising money and exercising a more aggressive political voice in the entire process. Is the White House concerned about the Chamber, and does it see any result of its increased ability to raise funds, increased ability to get involved in grassroots political activity as an outgrowth of the Citizens United case?

MR. GIBBS: This isn’t — our disagreement with the decision isn’t directed at one entity’s use of loopholes; it is directed at anybody’s use of enhanced loopholes. This is — whether this is an organization that normally aligns itself with Republicans or with Democrats. The President fundamentally disagrees with a decision that provides more power in our elections to big money and special interests regardless of what side of the political spectrum they’re on.

Q Considering the clash, or the apparent clash, between the White House and the Chamber last year, does this —

MR. GIBBS: I think I dismissed the Chamber argument a minute ago.

Q One other thing, because last Tuesday you told us, “I don’t have the update with me on Sestak.” Two things have happened since then. Two things have happened.

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have any —

Q Darrell Issa sent a letter to the White House Counsel —

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything additional on that.

Scott.

Q Are you ever going to have anything additional on that?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have it today.

Scott.

Q A question about the timing of the immigration and energy meetings this week. Health care is in a kind of endgame here. Financial regulatory reform is about to take another step. And you’re having meetings this week, updates, as you describe them, on two major pieces of legislation. Why this week? Are you trying — are you triaging in a sense of what’s possible for the rest of the year?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think — I think two things that we’ve already discussed are big priorities for the President after we get health care reform done. First is financial reform, as we’ve talked about, and that’s moving its way through the process. Secondly, we’ve talked about the Citizens United case. We’ve got important elections coming up, and the question is, are the special interests going to have — play a bigger role in those with their contributions than they normally would?

Obviously there are a series of — a series of legislative activities around tax credits for small business and hiring, small business lending, and different job creation programs that the President is focused on.

Immigration is something that the President has supported for quite some time, and energy has made it through the House, and my guess is there will be a clamoring for an energy bill when gas prices go up, as they normally do, as we get closer to more driving as we get closer to the summer.

So I think the President is trying to get an update on each of these issues to see what the pathway forward is.

Q Robert, can I follow on that?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q It seems like you’re saying that immigration and energy, while important to the President, clearly aren’t on the top of his priority list for this year. Does he want to see something done on energy or immigration this year?

MR. GIBBS: Absolutely, Sam, but again, what I said I think to the very first question, it’s got to be more than the President wants to get something done. The President is going to ask, as he did in the energy meeting and as he will when he meets with Schumer and Graham, to see what progress they’ve made in aligning their colleagues for the type of reform that all three support. That’s what’s going to be key to moving any of these issues forward.

Q Robert, a follow on the follow-up. (Laughter.) Senator Graham said to me a couple of days ago that he felt that the onus was really on the President and that he sort of wanted an update from the President and “the President needed to step it up.” How could the President step it up, and do you think — and Graham also said that it was hard to line up that elusive second Republican without the President weighing in on, say, the biometric ID card. Does he have any intention of stepping forward on this stuff?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think the President is going to get an update specifically on the provisions that they mention on ID cards. We’re not — my guess is we’re more than one more Republican away from immigration reform. So, I mean, I appreciate that the President is — I’m pretty sure the President will be effective in talking to many of our friends on immigration reform. I think it is — and I’m not lumping this all onto Senator Graham. We can all name many Republicans that have been for immigration reform at different parts in their career.

Q Can you name them?

MR. GIBBS: You can. But the question is, where are they? I think Senator Graham is certainly pretty well positioned to get — to take their temperature and see what it’s going to take for them to make progress on this issue.

Q But are you open to the idea — is the President open to the idea of the ID card?

MR. GIBBS: I think he’s going to get an update on that today and I think he will be interested in hearing from both of them on the nature of their proposal and whether that’s a proposal, again, that can garner increased bipartisan support.

Do you have anything?

Q On immigration, this has been going for many, many years, and this was really a Republican bill which President Bush pushed hard personally. And also, don’t you think the President believes that immigration is related directly with health care and also economy because it will bring billions of dollars as far as these people living, almost 20 million plus, under a shadow, and —

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t know how directly it’s linked to all those issues. I know — as you mentioned, former President Bush was a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, and we made progress on that issue. Again, I think the President is anxious to hear from others and from Graham and Schumer as to where they are.

April.

Q Robert, on the Congressional Black Caucus meeting today, what specifically on health care is the President going to discuss with those members at that meeting?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he’s going to discuss and outline the proposal that he’s put forward, the reason that he believes that the time is now to get it done, and ask not simply for their support on that but also for them to talk to their fellow members and build support in the House to get this done.

Q Are there concerns about the lack of a public option? What does the President — is the President going to be open to hearing them at that meeting?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, we are at a point in the process where the President has outlined a proposal. Different aspects of that proposal are being scored by CBO and looked at and evaluated by others. The legislation does not include a public option. It does include strong provisions for choice and competition.

I think you heard the President pretty clearly the other — last night. It’s time to — it’s time to put the debate and the discussion to rest. It’s time to vote. I think he’s going to ask them to come to the table and support moving forward on this in a vote.

Q A follow-up on — a follow-up on the CBC, please. According to reports and from hearing in the past, is there tension between the Congressional Black Caucus and this President, and does the CBC have the ear of this President?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I’ve read the same stories you have.

Q These stories have been circulating for a while.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think the President — look, the President used to be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. I think the President — I think the President has first and foremost used every bit of his power and done everything that he possibly could to help change the economic circumstances of this country.

Q On that —

Q Wait a minute, wait a minute, let me finish, please.

MR. GIBBS: Hold on. Lester, Lester, Lester, hold on, let me — come on.

Q Let me finish.

MR. GIBBS: I was on a roll, too. (Laughter.)

Q Please let me finish.

MR. GIBBS: Don’t worry, I’m trying. No, the President has done everything in his power to do what he can to get our economy moving again, to put people back to work, to take the steps necessary to try to replace the jobs — some of the jobs that we’ve lost, and build, as I’ve talked about before, a foundation for jobs in the future. We’ve talked about education. I think we — I think the President has worked on — worked on, throughout his time here, issues of great importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, and to many in the Democratic Party since being elected.

Q Now —

Q On that —

Q Wait a minute, wait a minute. One that note, on that note, though, many in the civil rights community are concerned that this President — there’s word after that meeting that the President had with the civil rights leaders during the snowstorm that he was emphatic, saying, “I do not have an urban agenda.” Did this President say he’s not going to have an urban agenda?

MR. GIBBS: I was shoveling my driveway during that meeting. I don’t know the answer to — I, April, doubt seriously that the President said that, because I think putting people back to work, keeping their health care costs low, improving our schools, I think in every way, shape or form, that’s an agenda that helps urban America, it helps rural America. I think the President has been very proactive on an agenda that helps members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Q Robert, on that subject —

MR. GIBBS: I said I would take your question.

Q Robert, on that subject — I think I was next.

MR. GIBBS: Hold on, hold on, Lester. You weren’t, but anyway.

Q I was.

Q On immigration, after the meeting today, would the President say or give some kind of statement that’s going to be hopeful for the immigrants that are waiting for him to do something? They are saying that the President promised, and they really voted for him because they believed in him. Now it has been a long time, and they have gotten nothing. And what they’re saying is that it has gotten worse because the families are being torn apart, more now than before.

MR. GIBBS: Right. Well, look, we’ll have a readout after the meeting. I’ll try to include something from the President in that. Look, the President believes that the system that we have right now is unworkable and unsustainable; that we have to have a comprehensive solution to a problem that we’ve dealt with for many years. His commitment to that is unchanged, and if we can see a path to getting this done in the Congress with bipartisan support I can assure you the President is anxious to get this and many other things done.

We’ll do one more, Lester, and then I’ll —

Q Thank you very much. A two-part. (Laughter.) Why is the President —

MR. GIBBS: How come — it used to be two questions. Is this one question with two parts?

Q Yes. Why is the President meeting today in the White House with the racially segregated Congressional Black Caucus, which rejected the membership applications of Democrat Congressmen Pete Stark of California and Steve Cohen of Tennessee because of their white skin?

MR. GIBBS: Lester, I don’t — the President was a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and looks forward to —

Q Does he approve of racial segregation like this? (Laughter.) Does he or not?

MR. GIBBS: The President is not in charge of the membership of the Congressional Black Caucus, Lester.

Q But does he disagree with it?

MR. GIBBS: He is anxious to meet with their members and —

Q That’s a very charming evasion.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I appreciate the compliment.

Q Wasn’t so charming. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: But I think — I think given that charm, I’m going to skip on out on your second part.

Thank you.

END
2:35 P.M. EST

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.10.10 03:35 PM

3:58 P.M. CST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Missouri! (Applause.) It is good to see you. I know you guys have been a little bit here; it’s a little bit warm in here — you’re all fanning yourself off, whoo! It is good to see everybody here today. How’s everybody doing? (Applause.)

I’ve got a couple of acknowledgments I want to make. First of all, Mayor of St. Charles, Patti York — where’s Patti? (Applause.) Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks for the great weather.

We also have the St. Charles School District Superintendent, Randy Charles, is here. Where’s Randy? I just saw him — there he is back there. (Applause.)

It is great to be here, great to be back in the Show Me State, great to be back in St. Charles. Some of you may remember that it was from this town that Lewis and Clark began their journey into a harsh and unforgiving landscape. I can relate — (laughter) — because the first time I came here, I was trying to get to Washington, D.C., a harsh and unforgiving landscape. (Laughter.)

A big part of our campaign was about changing the way Washington works. It was about transforming a politics that’s driven by cynicism and a 24-hour news cycle, and the cable chatter, and always focused on the next election instead of the next generation. Our campaign was about meeting the looming challenges — in education and in energy, in our health care system, in our financial system — that helped bring about the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And it still threatens our prosperity. It was about making our government actually work for you, the people: a government that lives up to its responsibilities, including the responsibility to live within its means.

Now, there’s been a lot of discussion about government over the last several months — and let’s face it, people have lost faith in government. They had lost faith in government before I ran and it’s been getting worse. You know, President Lincoln said that “the legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not … do at all, or do so well, by themselves.” That pretty much sums up my attitude. You let people do for themselves what they can do for themselves; and then if there are some things that we do better together, we should do them together. And I believe that in everything government does, we’ve got a special responsibility to be wise stewards about how Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars are spent. And I know you agree with that, too. Doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you don’t like seeing your money wasted — or an independent, don’t like seeing your money wasted.

That’s a responsibility my administration is seeking to fulfill every single day. Over the last year, we’ve gone through the budget line by line looking for places to trim the fat out of government. And we’ve found a lot of fat to trim. I got to admit. Last year, we pushed Congress to cut nearly $20 billion by streamlining or eliminating more than 120 government programs. This year, we put another $20 billion in cuts on the table, targeting dozens of additional programs that were wasteful or duplicative or in some cases just plain ridiculous.

For example, we decided not to fund an office maintained by the Department of Education — in Paris, France. (Laughter.) Now, I’m sure that was nice work if you could get it. (Laughter.) But I didn’t think that was a real good use of our money. We eliminated a decades-old radio navigation system which cost $35 million a year. And some people might say, well, why did you do that? We need that navigation system. Well, the thing is, we got this thing call GPS now, and satellites. (Laughter.) So the whole radio navigation thing wasn’t working so well.

So we’ve been pushing for cuts on things that we don’t need, that government doesn’t do so well. And we’re also reforming the way government contracts are awarded. Think about this, between 2002 and 2008, the amount spent annually on government contracts more than doubled to half a trillion dollars. Those are contracts with private contractors. And the amount spent on no-bid contracts jumped by 129 percent — no-bid contracts. That’s an inexcusable waste of your money. So last March, I ordered federal departments to come up with plans to save as much as $40 billion a year in contracting.

Now, this brings me to the person standing right over here, the lady in pink. (Applause.) You know before Claire was your senator, she was your state auditor. She just pinches pennies. I mean, she’s just — (laughter) — you think I’m — I don’t like waste, but Claire, she just — every dime, she’s — (laughter.)

So thanks to Claire, we’re going to have a new tool to help us meet this goal of eliminating some of these wasteful contracts and no-bid contracts. In the coming weeks we’re going to be rolling out a new online database, which Claire McCaskill proposed and helped pass into law. (Applause.) And we’ll be able to see, before any new contract is awarded, whether a company plays by the rules, how well they’ve performed in the past: Did they finish the job on time? Did the company provide good value? Did the company blow their budget? It’s your money, so you deserve to know how it’s spent and who these contracts are going to.

And that’s an example of the kind of service that Claire McCaskill is providing, not just to the people of Missouri, but people all across the country. And in every way but one, Claire McCaskill is the new Harry Truman — (laughter) — in the United States Senate. (Applause.) The one difference is she’s a she. (Laughter.)

But just as the Truman Commission prevented billions of dollars of wasteful spending during the war and saved lives in the process, through tough and fair-minded oversight of contracting during World War II, Claire has been a relentless force for rooting out scams and making government more efficient. Harry Truman also said in the commission’s final report that in completing the mission, “[w]here necessary, heads must be knocked together.” And let me tell you, Claire loves knocking some heads together. (Laughter.) She’s never been afraid to do that. (Applause.)

As we were driving in, I was saying, boy, it’s just good to be back in the Midwest, this is about as close as I’ve been to home in a while. And part of the reason it’s just good to be back is because Washington is a place where tax dollars are often treated like Monopoly money — they’re bartered and traded, and they’re divvied up among lobbyists and special interests, and where waste — even billions of dollars of waste — is accepted as the price of doing business. When we proposed, by the way, those $20 billion in cuts last year, we were ridiculed by the press, said, “Ah, that’s just a spit in the bucket.” Now, I don’t know about here in St. Charles, $20 billion, that’s real money, isn’t it?

AUDIENCE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s real money. But Claire doesn’t accept business as usual. I don’t accept business as usual. You don’t accept business as usual. The American people don’t accept business as usual, especially when we’re facing these enormous long-term deficits that threaten to leave our children a mountain of debt.

Now, this brings me to the primary topic I want to talk about today. Nowhere is reform more needed than when it comes to our health care system — nowhere. (Applause.) Nowhere. (Applause.) The health care system has billions of dollars that should go to patient care and they’re lost each and every year to fraud, to abuse, to massive subsidies that line the pockets of the insurance industry.

Let me just give you one example — this is a long recognized but long tolerated problem called “improper payments.” That’s what they call them. Washington always has a name for these things. “Improper payments.” And as is often the case in Washington, the more innocuous the name, the more worried you should be. So these are payments mostly made through Medicare and Medicaid that are sent to the wrong person, sent for the wrong reason, sent in the wrong amount. Sometimes they’re innocent errors. Sometimes they’re because nobody is bothering to check to see where the money is going and they’re abused by scam artists and fly-by-night operations.

(The President coughs.) Look, health care. (Laughter.) This health care debate has been hard on my health, I got to tell you. (Laughter.)

It’s estimated that improper payments cost taxpayers almost $100 billion last year alone. Think about that. That, by the way, just that abuse in improper payments is more than we spend on the Department of Education and the Small Business Administration combined. If we created a “Department of Improper Payments” it would be one of the largest agencies in our government.

Now, for the past few years, there has actually been a pilot program that uses a system of tough audits to recover some of this lost money. And even though these audits, they were just operating mainly in three states, they already found a billion dollars in improper payments. So these results were both disturbing and encouraging. They’re disturbing because it shows you how much waste there is out there in the health care system. But it’s encouraging because we can do something about it.

So earlier today, with Claire looking over my shoulder — one of our auditors-in-chief — I signed an order calling on all federal agencies to launch these kinds of audits all across the country. All across the country. (Applause.) So agencies would hire auditors to scour the books, go through things line by line. Auditors are paid based on how many abuses or errors they uncover. So it’s a win-win. The auditor, if they do a good job they get a small percentage as a reward. And the taxpayer wins by getting huge sums of money that would otherwise be lost that we can then spend to provide care to people who really need it, or we can use to reduce the deficit.

Now, through this effort, we expect to more than double the amounts we would’ve otherwise recovered — a couple of billion dollars over the next few years. And I’m announcing my support for the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act — that’s a mouthful — but this is a bipartisan bill — (applause) — is a bipartisan bill to expand our ability to do these audits, so we can prevent even more fraud and abuse and waste.

Now, the reason I’m bringing all this stuff up is because there’s been a lot of talk about health care lately. And look, I’ll be honest, a lot of people, they’re confused, they’re saying, well, how can you help people get insurance who don’t have it without it adding to our deficit? It’s a legitimate question.

Well, the reason is, is because so much of the money currently in our health care system is being misspent. (Applause.) Look, if you’ve got — if you’ve got a house and the roof is leaking and the windows are all letting through a bunch of draft and you get that cold winter and all the heat seeping out, and if you decide to spend on some new windows and fix your roof, that’s going to spend a little money, but you’d save money in the long run because you don’t have heating expenses, and those leaks aren’t ruining your furniture.

The same thing is true with our health care system. We’ve got leaks everywhere — that you pay for, directly or indirectly. And if we can have a smarter health care system, then yes, we can provide help to middle-class folks who need it, and at the same time actually reduce the burden on taxpayers.

Now, I know that during the health care debate opponents have tried to scare people, especially our seniors, into thinking that we are going after seniors’ Medicare benefits; that’s how Obama is going to pay for his plan.

When you look at the facts, that’s just plain wrong. In fact, by saving billions of dollars of the sort we just talked about — waste and abuse — in Medicare, reining in waste and inefficiencies, we’re going to be able to help ensure Medicare’s solvency for an additional decade. (Applause.) This is just one example that speaks to how we’re going to stop wasting money through the health care system on things that don’t make people healthy — in fact, often take away from the care we receive, and take that money and make it work for the American people. So Medicare will work better, provide better care because of these reforms. Senior citizens who are dealing with the doughnut hole in the prescription drug plan — that plan will be filled in part because we’re not wasting money on stuff that doesn’t work. (Applause.) That’s common sense.

You know, I get a lot of letters from constituents. I get about 40,000 every day, and I don’t read all 40,000 — somebody does — but what I’ve done is I’ve asked my staff to collect a sampling of 10 letters that I read every night. And I will tell you that my staff is very evenhanded, because about half of these letters call me an idiot. (Laughter.)

And at least half of them talk about health care. And when the health care reform debate was really heating up, one of the things that I heard from a lot of seniors was, “Keep your government hands out of my Medicare.” (Laughter.) I heard this from a bunch of seniors. They say, “I don’t want your government-run health care plan, and don’t touch my Medicare.”

And so I’d have to write back and I’d say, “Ma’am,” or “Sir, Medicare is a government program.” (Laughter.) “But we’re not going go weaken it. We’re going to make it stronger.”

But I think those letters tell you something about what sometimes happened in this health care debate, because people have been hit with a lot of bad information. And health care is really important. And so people get worried and they get nervous. But when you get past the divisive and the deceptive rhetoric, it turns out that most Americans are happy that two generations ago we made the decision that seniors and the poor should not be saddled with unaffordable health care costs or forced to go without needed care. That was a decision that we made decades ago. And it was the right decision to make. (Applause.)

And by the way, when we made those decisions, folks were saying the exact same thing about Medicare: “That’s socialized medicine, this is government-run care,” and blah, blah, blah.

Now, today we face a different choice, but it’s a similar choice to the one that previous generations faced, and that is whether we should help middle-class families and business owners that are being pummeled by the rising costs of health care. See, back when the Medicare debate was taking place, seniors were having problems because they were no longer working, and people were getting their health care through their jobs. And so it made sense to help them. It made sense to help the poor who might not be employed. But back then, middle-class folks, they were pretty secure. If you were working, you had health care that was affordable.

But you know what’s happened over the last several decades. What’s happened is, is that more and more businesses are saying, we can’t afford to provide health care to our workers because the costs are skyrocketing. So they just drop health care altogether. A lot of small businesses, they don’t provide health care to their employees anymore. And large businesses, what are they doing? They’re saying to you, we’re going to jack up your premiums, we got to increase your deductibles. If you’re self-employed, you are completely out of luck. If you’ve got a preexisting condition, you are completely out of luck. And by the way, those of us who are lucky enough to have health care today, we don’t know if we’re the ones who are going to lose our job tomorrow, or suddenly it turns out that our child has a preexisting condition. And we’ll be stuck in the exact same situation, even if we’ve got good health insurance. (Applause.)

Now, everything I just said, if you talk to my opponents, they’ll agree. They’ll say, you’re right, the health care system is broken. For too many people it’s getting worse. They will acknowledge that the status quo is unsustainable. But you know what they tell me? We had that big health care summit. I know you guys watched all seven hours of it. (Laughter.) Yes, absolutely. It was scintillating. (Laughter.) But you heard what they said. They said, well, we agree with you that the current system is unsustainable, but this is just not the right time to do it. They said, let’s start over, that’s what they said. We just got to start from scratch.

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me tell you something. The insurance industry is not starting over. They just announced a 39 percent rate increase in California and a rate increase of up to 60 percent right across the border in my home state of Illinois — 60 percent in one year. That’s the future. That’s the future if we fail to act.

And by the way, I don’t recall any of these Republicans trying to do anything about insurance companies’ abuses during all the years they were in charge. (Applause.) Do you, Claire? I don’t remember. I don’t remember them doing anything about folks who needed some help when the government was running surpluses.

So I get a sense with some of these folks, it’s just never going to be the right time. But the truth is, we have debated health care in Washington not just this past year, we’ve been debating it for 70 years. You know who was pushing health care reform? Harry Truman. (Applause.) Harry Truman was pushing health care reform. And by the way, you know what they said? They said, he’s pushing socialized medicine. Harry Truman.

And over this past year we’ve been talking about it, every proposal has been put on the table. Every argument has been made and everybody has made it. And I know that people view this as a partisan issue, but the truth is, is that if you set aside the politics of it, and what was good for Election Day, it turns out that parties have plenty of areas where they agree. And the plan that I’ve put forward is a proposal that’s basically somewhere in the middle — one that incorporates the best ideas of Democrats and Republicans, even though the Republicans have a hard time acknowledging it.

Now, there are some folks who wanted to scrap the system of private insurance and replace it with a government-run health care program, like they have in some other countries. (Applause.) We’ve got a couple — some applause here. And look, it works well for those countries. But I’ll just be honest with you: It was not practical or realistic to do here, to completely uproot and change a system where the vast majority of people still get their health care from employer-based plans.

And on the other side of the spectrum there are those who believe that the answer is to simply unleash the insurance industry, and provide less oversight and fewer rules.

AUDIENCE: Boo!

THE PRESIDENT: And that somehow that’s going to drive down prices for everybody. This is called the “putting the foxes in charge of the hen house” approach to health care reform. (Applause.) So whatever state regulations were in place, we’d get rid of those and so insurance companies could basically find a state that had the worst regulations and then from there sell insurance everywhere. And that somehow that was going to be helpful to you. All this would do would give insurance companies more leeway to raise premiums and deny care.

So I don’t believe we should give either the government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I want to give you more control over health care in America. (Applause.)

So my proposal builds on the current system where most Americans get their health care from their employers. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. But my proposal would change three important things about the current health care system. Now I want everybody to pay attention — I know it’s a little warm in here, but I want you to pay attention, so that when you are talking to your friends and your neighbors and folks at work and they’re wondering what’s going on, I want you to be able to just say, here are the three things Obama is trying to do.

First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies — and it would begin to do so this year. This year. (Applause.) Thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions will be able to purchase health insurance for the very first time in their lives or since they got sick. (Applause.) This year. Insurance companies would be banned from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions this year. (Applause.) Insurance companies would be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. (Applause.) Insurance companies would no longer be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums. They would be subject to review.
Those practices will end as a consequence of health care reform. (Applause.)

All new insurance plans would be required to offer free preventive care to their customers. And if you buy a new plan, there will be no more lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive from your insurance company — (applause) — all that fine print that ends up getting folks into trouble. If you’re a uninsured young adult, you’ll be able to stay on your parents’ insurance policy until you’re 26 years old. (Applause.) So a lot of folks, as they’re transitioning into the workplace, will have insurance. (Applause.) All right, so that’s part one of the plan: insurance reform.

Part two. For the first time, uninsured individuals and small businesses will have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get. (Applause.) If it’s good enough for members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries. (Applause.)

This should not be a controversial idea. The reason that federal employees usually have pretty good insurance is because they’re part of a pool of millions of people. So what happens is they can negotiate for really good rates because the insurance companies really want those millions of customers. So what we’re talking about is setting up a pool for people who don’t work for the federal government — you, individuals, small businesses; they can be part of this pool. And this is an idea that a lot of Republicans embraced in the past until I said it was a good idea. (Laughter.)

So all this would drive down rates for those individuals and small businesses who aren’t part of a big company that get good rates. And my proposal says if you still can’t afford it, even though now the premiums are lower than you can buy on your own, then we’ll offer you some tax credits to make it affordable. And those tax credits would add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history. (Applause.)

So it’s estimated that this would drive down the costs for folks who don’t work for big companies — so they don’t get as good of a deal — by 14, 20 percent. This is before the subsidies, before the tax credits.

Now, it’s true that this will cost some money. It’s going to cost about a hundred billion dollars per year. That’s real money, that’s a lot of money. But most of that money comes from the nearly $2.5 trillion a year that America already spends on health care that we’re not spending well; that we’re spending badly right now.

So we pay for this proposal by getting at the abuse that we just talked about. We eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that go to the insurance companies. Do you know that through the Medicare program, we are giving insurance companies close to $20 billion a year, about $18 billion every year of taxpayer money through the Medicare system. And we’re saying, well, why do we do that? They’re making a profit on their own. And while some of what we save goes to helping the uninsured, most of it goes back to small businesses and the middle class who right now just aren’t getting a good deal. It doesn’t make sense to me that people who are really poor are able to get Medicaid, but people who are working really hard and just not quite as poor, they don’t get a decent deal. That doesn’t make sense to me. (Applause.)

All right. That’s the second part. First part: insurance reform. Second part: creating this marketplace where small businesses and individuals can get a good deal.

Third part: bringing down the cost of health care for families and businesses and for the federal government. Cost control. Now, when you listen to the other side, they’ll tell you, we want to do more about cost, we want to do more about cost. Well, let me tell you, we’ve incorporated almost every serious idea from across the political spectrum about how to contain rising health care costs. There’s not an idea out there that we have not worked on, that we have not included in this proposal.

And according to the Congressional Budget Office — this is the office that is supposed to be the independent referee for how things cost, it’s not supposed to be Democrat or Republican — according to the Congressional Budget Office, people buying health plans in the individual market right now, they’d see their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent. (Applause.) I already mentioned that.

Now, here’s another thing. A recent study by the Business Roundtable — that’s made up of all these big companies out there, they don’t — they’re nonpartisan, but it’s not like they’re just dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrats, let’s put it that way; these are company CEOs — they commissioned a study and said the reforms could reduce premiums by as much as $3,000 per employee. That’s their study, not mine.

Then the Congressional Budget Office said that the government would save a trillion dollars, reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars. So think about it: You’re saving money, employers are saving money, the federal government is saving money — not according to me, but according to these studies that were done by independent analysts.

So here’s the bottom line, St. Charles. There’s no government takeover, unless you consider reining in insurance companies a government takeover — and I think that’s the right thing to do. (Applause.) There’s no cutting of Medicare benefits. There’s just cutting out fraud and waste in Medicare to make it stronger. (Applause.)

What we’re proposing is a common-sense approach to protecting you from insurance company abuses and saving you money. That’s the proposal, and it is paid for. And I believe that Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care reform. (Applause.) The time for talk is over; it’s time to vote. (Applause.) It’s time to vote. Tired of talking about it. (Applause.)

Now, of course, folks in Washington, they like to talk. And so Washington is doing right now what Washington does. They’re speculating breathlessly, day or night, every columnist, every pundit, every talking head: “Is this proposal going to help the Republicans or is this proposal going to help the Democrats?” “What’s going to happen to the President’s poll numbers if the vote doesn’t go forward?” “If it does go forward?” “What will it mean for November?” “What will it mean for 2012?” “How’s the politics going to play?”

I heard the Republican Leader of the Senate the other day — he’s warning Democrats, you better be careful about voting for this; it could hurt you. I don’t know how sincere the Republican Leader is about the best interests of Democrats. (Laughter.) He’s been very generous with advice. (Laughter.)

You know what, here’s the bottom line, St. Charles. I don’t know how the politics play. I don’t know. This is a hard issue. It’s a complicated issue. There is a lot of information floating around out there. A lot of it is inaccurate. The opponents have spent millions of dollars fighting it. And people during recessionary times, they’re anxious and sort of thinking, gosh, can we really afford to change things right now? Maybe we should just kind of stick with the status quo, even though we know it’s not working for us.

So I don’t know how the politics plays. But here’s what I do know: The American people will be more secure with this reform. Our country will be stronger because of this reform. (Applause.) I don’t know about the politics. But I know it is the right thing to do, and that’s why I’m fighting so hard to get it done. (Applause.)

We’ve seen years — decades — where Washington just puts off dealing with our toughest challenges because it’s too hard, because we don’t know how the politics works. And the will and the capacity to act, to do serious things in this country, starts just getting sucked away. Just gets sacked by partisanship and political gamesmanship and debates about who’s up and who’s down, and how does this play politically — instead of asking what’s right and what’s wrong. And we’ve seen terrible consequences — not just these last two years of turmoil, but a decade of struggle for middle class families. (Applause.)

We can’t accept the status quo. We can’t accept the same old/same old. I won’t accept it. Claire McCaskill won’t accept it. Not when it comes to how we manage taxpayer dollars. Not when it comes to how our health care system works. Not when it comes to meeting the difficult challenges that we face. And that’s why Claire and I are fighting to stop waste and abuse in our government. That’s why Claire and I are fighting to pass these health insurance reforms. (Applause.) Now is the time. Now is the moment. Now is the time for us to leave for the next generation and generations to come a stronger and more prosperous country. We are not backing down. We are not quitting, St. Charles. And we are going to get this done. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END
4:37 P.M. CST

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.10.10 03:38 PM

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama nominated Judge Catherine Eagles, Judge Kimberly Mueller and John J. McConnell, Jr. to the United States District Court. Judge Eagles is a nominee for the Middle District of North Carolina, Judge Mueller is a nominee for the Eastern District of California and McConnell is a nominee for the District of Rhode Island.

“I am honored to put forward these highly qualified candidates for the federal bench,” President Obama said. “They will be distinguished public servants and valuable additions to the United States District Court.”

Judge Catherine C. Eagles: Nominee for the United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina
Judge Catherine C. Eagles sits as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge of the North Carolina Superior Court, 18th Judicial District. She has been Senior Resident Judge since 2006 and previously was Resident Judge since 1993. From 1984 to 1993, she was a civil litigator with the firm now known as Smith Moore Leatherwood in Greensboro, North Carolina, where she became a partner in 1990. From 1982 to 1984, Judge Eagles was a clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, first as a staff attorney in St. Louis, Missouri, and then for Circuit Judge J. Smith Henley in Harrison, Arkansas. She received her J.D. in 1982 from the National Law Center at George Washington University and her B.A. in 1979 from Rhodes College.

Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: Nominee for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of California, a position she has held since 2003. Previously, she was in private practice specializing in intellectual property work, first as an associate attorney with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and then as a sole practitioner in Sacramento. Judge Mueller has taught as an adjunct faculty member at Pacific McGeorge School of Law and at the U.C. Davis School of Law. Prior to earning her J.D. from Stanford Law School in 1995, Mueller served a five-year term on the Sacramento City Council and was Health and Safety Director of the California Firefighter Foundation. She received her B.A. from Pomona College in 1981.

John J. McConnell, Jr.: Nominee for the United States District Court, District of Rhode Island
Jack McConnell is the managing partner of the Providence, Rhode Island office of Motley Rice LLC, where he directs the environmental practice group. He received his A.B. from Brown University in 1980 and his J.D. from Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 1983. After law school, McConnell clerked for The Honorable Donald Shea of the Rhode Island Supreme Court. After his clerkships, McConnell spent two years in private practice at the Providence firm of Mandell, Goodman, Famiglietti & Schwartz. In 1986, he joined the firm that is now Motley Rice LLC. McConnell is Chairman of the Board for the Trinity Repertory Company, Vice-Chair for Crossroads Rhode Island, and Chair of the Providence Tourism Council.

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.10.10 03:51 PM

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama nominated Cathy J. Jones for United States Marshal for the Southern District of Ohio. Jones currently serves as the Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Ohio.

“Throughout her career, Cathy Jones has been an exceptional public servant,” President Obama said. “She has dedicated herself to the protection of her fellow Americans and in so doing has always put the public good first. I am confident that she will be a distinguished Marshal and I am honored to nominate her today.”

Cathy J. Jones: Nominee for United States Marshal, Southern District of Ohio
Cathy Jones currently serves as the Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Ohio, supervising the day-to-day activities of 36 U.S. Marshals Service employees throughout the district and overseeing a budget of nearly $1.4 million. She has risen through the ranks since becoming a Deputy U.S. Marshal in 1992. Jones has served as a Supervisory Deputy in the Western District of Pennsylvania and from 2002 to 2006 was the Assistant Chief Deputy Marshal for the Northern District of Ohio. From 1991 to 1992, she was a Federal Police Office with the Department of Defense. Jones graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Criminal Justice from Ohio Dominican College in 1991.

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.10.10 07:29 PM

Renaissance Grand Hotel
St. Louis, Missouri

7:25 P.M. CST

THE PRESIDENT: What’s going on, St. Louis? (Applause.) Thank you! (Applause.) It is good to be back in Missouri. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Obama! Obama! Obama!

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, guys. Thank you. I got the same reception when I went to the Republican caucus. (Laughter.) They were chanting and cheering. (Laughter.) You don’t remember that?

Give it up for Governor Jay Nixon, one of the finest governors in the country. (Applause.) Give it up for Mayor Francis Slay, who’s in the house. (Applause.) He’s around here somewhere. There he is over there.

And give it up for my dear, dear friend, Claire McCaskill. (Applause.) I love Claire McCaskill. Love, love Claire McCaskill. Now, Claire and I both agree it’s nice to get out of Washington once in a while. (Laughter.) Now, don’t —

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Come more often!

THE PRESIDENT: I’m going to. (Laughter.) Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of nice things about Washington. I like the monuments —

AUDIENCE MEMBER: How is the house?

THE PRESIDENT: House is okay. (Laughter.) It’s got a bowling alley. What?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: How’s your bowling?

THE PRESIDENT: My bowling has not gotten any better. (Laughter.) But here’s the thing about Washington —

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!

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

But here’s the thing about Washington. Look, it’s a town where everybody is spending all their time worrying about staying reelected, what’s good for their poll numbers, instead of thinking about what’s right. (Applause.) I mean, they are just — you walk into — you walk in somebody’s office and they got, like, five TVs — CNN, MSNBC, FOX News —

AUDIENCE: Oooh!

THE PRESIDENT: I’m just saying. (Laughter.)

SENATOR McCASKILL: Smart crowd, smart crowd.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they’ve got all the tabloids, the little gossip — you know — papers in Washington. So it’s like a hall of mirrors. But folks don’t spend enough time thinking about what’s right and what’s going on outside of Washington. (Applause.)

Now, this is not a new phenomenon. Harry Truman said something to the same effect. He had an interview, he said, “Washington is a very easy city to forget where you come from and why you got there in the first place.” (Laughter.)

Let me tell you something. Claire McCaskill doesn’t forget where she came from. (Applause.) And she doesn’t forget why she got to Washington. She got to Washington to serve you, to fight for you, to fight for families all across America. That’s why you’re here tonight, because you know Claire McCaskill is on your side. (Applause.)

You’ve known that ever since she was a prosecutor. You’ve seen her as a state auditor, just pinching pennies, just looking through — (laughter) — making sure folks aren’t wasting your money. She’s turned into one of the finest senators Missouri has ever had. (Applause.) She’s following in Harry Truman’s footsteps.

She’s a standout because she speaks truth to power. She’s not afraid of anybody. Speaks her mind. Sometimes she tells me things. (Laughter.) And I’m the President. (Applause.) But that’s — that’s what you need, is somebody who’s got the courage of their convictions. They’re not a weathervane, putting their fingers out to the wind, seeing, well, is that thing popular, is that going to win, is that good for me? She’s thinking about, is it good for you. She’s focused on solving problems.

No matter what party, she’ll work with anybody if she thinks it’s going to solve a problem. She’s willing to challenge old assumptions and worn-out ideas. And she’s a great role model for that.

I’ll just give you an example. Some of you remember the — Harry Truman made his name with the Truman Committee that went after waste and abuse during World War II, saving taxpayer dollars and lives. Well, Claire is doing the same thing, fighting for transparency and accountability in government. She understands that the money we spend doesn’t belong to us, it belongs to you. It belongs to the American people, so it’s got to be spent responsibly. (Applause.)

So just today, just today, I announced a plan that Claire proposed, pushed through Congress, that’s going to be coming online — it’s a database where Americans can track spending on contracts: who’s getting it, are they doing it on time, are they doing it on budget. (Applause.) If companies aren’t doing it on budget, then they stop getting contracts.

But that’s an example of the kind of work she’s been doing since she got there, the same way Harry Truman saw it. You don’t govern by the polls; you govern by principles. You don’t put your finger to the wind; you put your shoulder to the wheel. (Applause.) Because Claire assumes that if she’s doing what’s right the politics will sort itself out.

See, I’ve got the same philosophy. I have so much faith in the American people that — I have so much faith in the American people that I figure, you know what, if I do the right thing, then the politics will work itself out. (Applause.)

Now, that’s puzzling to Washington. So they’ve been writing over the last couple months, “Oh, my goodness, look at Obama. His poll numbers have dropped. Oh, the sky is falling!” (Laughter.) No, I mean, you see articles, you know, “Can you imagine what’s happened? What a catastrophe.” I’m looking around, and I feel okay. (Laughter.) I feel pretty good. (Applause.)

And the reason I feel pretty good is because I wake up every day trying to figure out what’s going to help — what’s going to help American families have some control over their lives? What’s going to help them be able to save a little more for their retirement? What’s going to help them be able to find a job? What’s going to help them deal with a health care crisis in their lives? What are we going to do to make sure young people can afford to go to college? (Applause.)

Now, sometimes the decisions we make in the short term are not going to be popular, and the folks in Washington don’t understand that I know they’re not going to be popular. They can’t believe I’m doing them. See, they just think I’m an idiot — (laughter) — because I’m doing something that’s not immediately popular. But I’ve got pollsters. I’ve got very good pollsters. They send me the polls. They say, you know what, shoring up the financial system, not popular. (Laughter.) Helping out the auto industry, not popular. Passing the Recovery Act, not popular.

That’s okay. Because my job is not being popular. (Applause.) My job is solving problems for the American people. I’ve got a greater responsibility. I’ve got a deeper mission. (Applause.) I’m looking at 10 years from now, will you look back and say that what he did made sense for the American people; not whether tomorrow people are going to be looking and saying, that made him popular. (Applause.)

So, today — listen, you remember — you remember a year ago, everybody was saying — we had only been there for two months. (Laughter.) They said, “Oh, his financial plan is a disaster.” Stock market had dropped. Remember that? Everybody is like, his presidency is over; he’s been in three months. (Laughter.)

Now, suddenly you look up, financial system is stabilized. (Applause.) People said, “Oh, you know what, why is he getting involved in this auto thing? Big mistake.” Now, suddenly General Motors is hiring again. (Applause.) They said, “Well, I don’t know about this Recovery Act.” Except all over Missouri and all across the nation, roads are being repaved and bridges are being repaired and waterways are being rebuilt. And we’re putting Americans back to work. We’re laying the foundation for tomorrow. And instead of the economy contracting 6 percent it’s now growing 6 percent. (Applause.)

So I think about what’s right and then figure out — whether the politics will work out or not, I’m confident in the American people. (Applause.)

Now, look, here’s the bottom line — Claire and I know this — as much progress as we’ve made, there are still millions of Americans, and too many all across Missouri, who are out of work; too many people who are still stretched to the limits on their mortgages, their credit cards, their student loans. So we’re on the road to recovery, but we’re not there. We will not be there until folks who want to find a job can get a job; not until people feel some sense of security again.

We are fighting every day, Claire and I, for an America where every single person can compete and win. If they’re willing to work hard, if they’re willing to apply themselves, then they’ve got a shot at the American Dream. (Applause.) We’re fighting for an economy where entrepreneurship and hard work and some sweat can result in success, and that we can rebuild this middle class that has been the backbone not just of our economy but also our democracy.

So we’re going to have some more fights. We’ve won some fights. People don’t — people tend to forget — we won them so fast those first six months, everybody’s forgotten about it. (Laughter.) We banned tobacco advertising to kids. We passed credit card legislation to make sure that the worst abuses no longer happen. (Applause.) We passed housing fraud laws that will crack down on predatory lending. We passed equal pay laws so that women are getting paid the same for doing the same work as men. (Applause.) We expanded health care to 4 million children. We passed national service legislation. We are bringing our troops home from Iraq. (Applause.) We have delivered on our promises. (Applause.)

But we’ve got work left to do. The country that educates its children the best will compete the best in the 21st century — (applause) — and that’s why we’re going to keep on pushing to reform our education system, make sure that college is affordable.

Because the nation that leads in clean energy will also lead in the 21st century economy, we’re going to keep on pushing — (applause) — for solar and wind and biodiesel and create millions of jobs in the process.

And, yes, because we know that this economy cannot work if we’ve got a broken health care system, we are going to get health care reform done this year, right now. (Applause.)

Everybody remembers that person yelling to Harry, “Give ‘em hell, Harry!” But folks don’t remember Harry’s response, which was “I’m going to tell the truth and they’ll think it’s hell.” (Laughter.) So let me tell you the truth about health care reform. The system is broken. Out in California, one of the biggest insurers there just raised rates up to 39 percent on millions of people. Right across the river, in Illinois, 60 percent hikes in some of the individual markets. It’s not sustainable and everybody knows it.

So what have we done? There’s nothing radical about what we’ve proposed. We have said, look, some countries have a government-run system; that’s not going to work for here in the United States. Some people — most of my Republican colleagues in Washington — seem to think that the best health care plan is just to let ‘er rip when it comes to the insurance companies, deregulate further, and that that’s somehow going to give you more of a break. This is the “foxes guarding the chicken coop” theory of health care reform.

What I’ve said is, look, we don’t need government or insurance bureaucrats controlling your health care. We’re going to put you in control. And we’re going to do that in three simple ways: Number one, we’re going to have the toughest insurance reforms in history. (Applause.) A patient’s bill of right on steroids, so they can’t deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition; so that they’ve got to cover young people up to the age of 26; so they don’t have fine print that will prevent you from getting the care that you need or allow them to drop you when you get sick. (Applause.) Insurance reform.

Number two, what we’re saying is, you know what, members of Congress have a pretty good deal on health care. You know why? Because they’re members of a big pool of federal employees. They’ve got millions of people in their pool, so like any big company, they can negotiate for the best rates. What about you? (Applause.) What about you? Why shouldn’t you be able to do the same thing that members of Congress can do? So we’re going to create a pool for you that will drive down your premiums so that you’ve got leverage, so that you can get a better deal. (Applause.)

(Lights go out momentarily.)

Whoa! All right, who was — was that Mitch McConnell back there trying to — (laughter.) Yes, see, they don’t like when we start telling the truth. (Laughter.)

So that’s number two. Number three, we’re going to drive down costs. We are going to drive down costs. Now, let me tell you, some of you may have heard of the Congressional Budget Office. This is the office that basically decides, it’s the referee on how many — how much things cost. According to the Congressional Budget Office, our plan passes and folks right now who have to buy insurance in the individual market or small markets because they don’t have a big employer that’s looking out for them — they will save 14 to 20 percent on a comparable plan to what they’re purchasing right now. That’s money out of your pocket. That’s money that right now is going out of your pocket that would go back in if this health care reform passed.

Employers, according to the Business Roundtable, would save up to $3,000 per employee in reduced premium costs if health reform passed. (Applause.) That’s their numbers, according to the Business Roundtable; not my numbers. The deficit over the next two decades will be reduced by a trillion dollars if health care reform passes — (applause) — and that’s why it can’t be “if,” it’s got to be “when.” (Applause.) We are going to get this done and we’re going to get it done soon. (Applause.) And it’s time for an up or down vote in Washington on health care reform. Tired of talking about it; let’s get it done. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

THE PRESIDENT: See, I want every member of Congress to hear this chant —

AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

THE PRESIDENT: We got to start this chant up in Congress — because what ends up happening in Washington is that right about now, when it’s time to actually just go ahead and get this done, this is when folks get the most nervous. Oh, there’s just so much noise out there, just the echo chamber. It’s getting people all stressed out.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Stay the course!

THE PRESIDENT: Stay the course, is what I tell them. (Applause.) And you know, we were meeting with some supporters back here, and a couple of them said the same thing. They said, “Don’t let them wear you down.” And I tried to explain I don’t get worn down; I wear them down. (Applause.) I don’t get worn down.

You know why I don’t get worn down? Because of the woman I met in Pennsylvania this past week who found out that her health insurance premium has just gone up a hundred percent; or the mother up in Green Bay who I met last year, who’s got two small kids, breast cancer has metastasized, and instead of just worrying about how she can get well, she’s having to fight off the incredible debt that’s coming because of these limits that are placed on her insurance coverage. She’s got insurance and is still worrying about her family going broke.

Now, if she’s not tired, if she’s still fighting, then I’m fighting. (Applause.) If they’re not getting worn down, then I’m not going to be worn down. And if I’ve got somebody like Claire McCaskill next to me — (applause) — if I’ve got Claire McCaskill in the foxhole with me — (applause) — if I’ve got somebody like Claire McCaskill in the Senate bucking people up and telling them, we don’t give up, we don’t get worn down, then I guarantee you we’re not just going to pass health care; we are going to do what is required to make sure that the middle class here in America once again has the ability to control its own destiny. (Applause.)

We don’t shirk from a challenge, we don’t shrink from responsibilities; we embrace them — for our children and the next generation. We don’t worry about the next election; we worry about a longer term. And that’s why you’re here. That’s why you supported me in this campaign. That’s why you supported Claire McCaskill. Don’t give up on me now. We’re just getting started.

Thank you, St. Louis. God bless you. (Applause.)

END
7:47 P.M. CST

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.11.10 08:33 AM

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Mr. President, thank you for that lovely introduction. And thank you for hosting me at such a world-class center for higher learning. It’s been a long time since I’ve been back on campus. I was a mere child, a 31-year-old Senator when I was here the first time. But it’s a privilege to be back.

The past few days being back in Israel has been wonderful. It’s — it’s been an honor to be here, and it’s been — I wanted everyone to know with whom I spoke, and all of you to know, the deep friendship and kinship I feel as well as President Obama feels for this magnificent country. I should probably be used to it by now, but I’m always struck every time I come back by the hospitality of the Israeli people. No matter how long I’ve been away — and I imagine you’ve experienced this yourself — the instant I return, I feel like I’m at home. I feel like I never left. I feel like things just picked up where they left off the day that I left being here. So please accept my warmest gratitude, as well that of President Obama, who knows as well as I do that the United States has no better friend in the community of nations than Israel. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

I see some of my U.S. friends down there in the front row. I won’t identify them and ruin their reputations. But they — they know where my love for this country comes. It started at my dinner table with my father, who you would refer to as a righteous Christian. My father — my dinner table was a place where we gathered to have conversation and incidentally eat, as opposed to the other way around. And my father — my father’s support for Israel is outrage for what had happened in the ‘30s and the failure of the world to act, his support for the creation of the state of Israel. It generated a feeling for Israel that began in my gut and went to my heart, and the older I got matured in my mind.

During those sessions, my other — my father often spoke passionately about the special connection between the Jewish people and this land. Like many of my countrymen, I experienced the magic of Israel at a relatively young age — at least it looks young now from my perspective. When I first visited here in 1973 on the eve of the Yom Kippur War, your nation was only a quarter-century old, and I was not much older. Already, Israel had a tragic as well as triumphal history behind it, and as we all know, some very difficult days ahead. Already, there was a sense here that anything was possible.

My very first meeting in Israel was maybe the one that I carry closest to my heart. My first meeting in Israel — I was invited by a woman named Golda Meir, who I admired from afar as millions of Americans did. We sort of claimed her as our own. I know she is Israeli, but we claimed her. We claimed her as our own in America. And I remember walking into her office as a young senator being literally in awe as she was so gracious the way she accepted me and gave me a hug more like my mother would, sat down behind her desk and while chain-smoking — she had a series of maps behind her. And there were six or seven maps. She kept flipping the maps up and down, and explaining to me what exactly had happened in the Six-Day War. And there was a young man sitting next to me, a guy named Yitzhak Rabin, who I met for the first time. And as she pulled those maps up and down, educating this young senator as to the — to the threat that this young nation of Israel was facing, I guess she could see the sense of apprehension on my face. I found myself being — the more she talked about 2 million Jews — and back then, by the way, there were not that many Arabs compared to today. The numbers were much smaller, but they were still exponentially larger than the Jewish population. And she went through the threats that were faced, and how it had come through the battles of the Six-Day War. She spoke so passionately about her country.

And I was concerned. I guess it showed in my face. I was concerned that surrounded by the neighbors who denied the very right of the nation to exist, how were you going to do this? The Prime Minister caught me off guard. After about an hour and a half, she looked at me and she said. “Senator, would you like a photo opportunity?” And I thought, what the hell is a photo opportunity? And I said, “Well, yes, Madam Prime Minister.” We opened those double doors and we walked out into the ending room of her office and there was a lot of press there — a lot, half a dozen photographers and cameras. (Laughter.)

For me, that was a lot, not like today. And they started snapping pictures. And while looking straight ahead, she talked to me without turning her head. She said, “Senator, don’t look so worried.” She said — I said, “Well I am, Madam President, and because I just had this hour and a half.” And she said — she said, “We Israelis have a secret weapon.” And I thought she only had said this to me, no one else in the whole world. She said, “We have a secret weapon in our struggle with the Arabs.” And I thought she was going to tell me about a new secret weapon. (Laughter.) And I found myself turning and looking at her, and the press — because this was all just a stand-up photo opportunity. And she said, “We have a secret weapon. We have nowhere else to go.”

That trip was almost four decades ago, but I remember it as clearly as if it happened yesterday. And it drove home all that my father had spoken of — randomly, occasionally but consistently — over the previous 15 years. And he told me as a young boy, that Israel and Jews in the world had no place else to go with absolute certitude. This place, it gets in your blood. It never really lets you go.

I expect that there are several people in the audience today who have had similar experiences who first came here as tourists or religious pilgrims and ended up making aliyah and launching a new life in northern kibbutz, or a small town in Negev, or in the beautiful city by the sea. Throughout my career, Israel has not only remained close to my heart but it has been the center of my work as a United States Senator and now as Vice President of the United States.

I have had the privilege of returning many times, and to know every one of your prime ministers over these past three and a half decades, including your current leader who is a close, personal friend of over 33 years, Bibi Netanyahu.

Israel’s history is a tale of remarkable accomplishment. On a perilous patch of desert with sparse natural resources, you have built perhaps the most innovative economy in the world. You have more start-ups per capita than any nation on the planet, more firms on the NASDAQ exchange than anyone except the United States, and more U.S. patents per capita than any country, including my own. You have cultivated the gifts of 11 Nobel laureates, the great — and as well as those of the great Itzhak Perlman, and in recent years you have Shai Agassi, whose path-breaking work on electric automobiles began not very far from where I stand.

Israel owes this remarkable and yet improbable success, I believe, to your democratic traditions, to its patriotic and pioneering citizens, and as with my own country, to its willingness to welcome the persecuted and the downtrodden from far-flung corners of the globe. All this gives life to Theodor Herzl’s famous slogan, which I was reminded of this week while visiting his grave on this 150th anniversary of his birth. He said, “If you will it, it is no dream.”

I had said in a speech in the United States some years ago for which I got some criticism, I said were I a Jew, I would be a Zionist. And it got a lot of national publicity, how could I say that, until I was reminded by my father you need not be a Jew to be a Zionist.

Ladies and gentlemen, just over 60 years ago, Israel’s founders gave life to Herzl’s dream by willing Israel into being. Since then, this nation has become more than an undeniable fact, more than just a legacy of age-old ties between a people and a land, though it is both of those things. Your very existence is also a hard-won and inviolable right.

Israel’s unique relationship with the United States means that you need not bear that heavy burden alone. Our nations’ unbreakable bond borne of common values, interwoven cultures, and mutual interests has spanned the entirety of Israel’s history. And it’s — it’s impervious to any shifts in either country and either country’s partisan politics. No matter what challenges we face, this bond will endure. As a result, generations of Israelis and Americans and American-Israelis have kept a foot in each country, enriching both our nations and peoples. I met with some of your leading high-tech leaders earlier, prior to coming to the stage. And they have a foot in both countries, many of them.

While these close relationships span the realm of commerce and education, medicine and technology, culture and the arts, at its core is an ironclad commitment to security — Israel and my own country’s. Every day, Israel faces bravely threats no country should have to endure. No parent should their child to schools equipped with air raid sirens in the year 2010. No government should be expected to turn a blind eye while an enemy calls for its destruction.

I am here to remind you, though I hope you will never forget, that America stands with you shoulder-to-shoulder in facing these threats. President Obama and I represent an unbroken chain of American leaders who have understood this critical, strategic relationship. As the President said recently, “I will never waver from ensuring Israel’s security and helping them secure themselves in what is a very hostile region.”

President Obama has not only stated those words, he has translated that vow into action in his first year in ways both known to the public and not known to you, as Prime Minister Netanyahu eloquently acknowledged the other day when he and I were meeting and had a short press conference that followed. Beyond providing Israel nearly $3 billion in military aid each and every year, we have reinvigorated defense consultations and redoubled our efforts to ensure that Israel’s — that Israel’s forces will always maintain a qualitative edge.

We lead the fight in international institutions against the insidious campaign to challenge Israel’s legitimacy and question its right to self-defense. Since our administration came into office, our militaries have expanded cooperation — not maintained, expanded — cooperation on joint exercises and missile defense. Last fall, more than 1,000 American troops participated in Juniper Cobra ballistic missile defense exercises, the largest such drill to date.

And it should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway so there’s no doubt, the United States stands resolutely beside Israel against the scourge of terrorism, from which both of our countries have suffered badly. No one in this audience needs to be reminded of the fear and devastation caused by suicide bombers or by rockets from Southern Lebanon or from Gaza. The band of Israeli territory outside the rocket’s range grows narrower all the time. And I, as an American, continue to marvel — continue to marvel at the residents in the region being able to resolutely get up every morning of the communities — other communities that in fact are within the bulls eye, the crosshairs, how you respond to that with defiance and not fear. American support for Israel is not just an act of friendship; it’s an act of fundamental national self-interest on the part of the United States, a key component to our broader efforts to secure this region and a wider world, as well as our own security.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve heard it raised occasionally in editorials in this country and others wondering about our resolve. Make no mistake about America’s resolve. Make no mistake about America’s resolve. We have 200,000 young women and men — we are spending a quarter of a trillions a year. We have had tens of thousands of fallen angels and multiple times more injured in the service of our nation deployed far from home in Iraq and Afghanistan. There, and elsewhere, we are aggressively confronting violent extremism and radical ideologies that threaten not only you and the United States, but our allies as well.

But our approach consists of more than the awesome military might we possess and are willing to use. From the very start, President Obama has called for a new era of diplomatic engagement with both our friends — some of whom we had alienated the previous years — as well as — as well as those who are not viewed as our friends.

In Cairo last June, he launched a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim communities around the world. Later this month, the President will continue this engagement by visiting Indonesia, home of the world’s largest Muslim population where he lived as a boy. We are absolutely convinced that this approach will improve not only our security, but as a consequence, your security.

A new generation of Muslims is coming to age, more numerous than its predecessors, more dispersed geographically, and because of technology, more closely connected with each other and with the forces and events that shape the world we share. If we can rollback recent tensions and redirect crude stereotypes — theirs and our own — it will make America safer and our closest allies, like Israel, safer as well in our view.

We are returning an ambassador to Damascus and elevating our diplomatic contacts. We do so with our eyes wide open both to our deep concerns with Syrian actions that has threatened your security and the stability of the region, and also to the hope of a better relationship and peace between Israel and Syria. And we will continue to help strengthen the institutions in Lebanon and work to implement the U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at ending the flow of weapons to Hizballah and disarming this threat to Israel, as well as to the civilian Lebanese.

With other Arab and Muslim countries, we are revitalizing a partnership in education, science, technology, business, culture; because the best way to counter the lure of extreme ideology is to offer future opportunity. In speaking with your Prime Minister recently, he talked about the high birth rates in neighboring poor countries, including Yemen, and the need for us to provide economic outlets and opportunities so there is an option.

Looming over all our efforts in this region is the shadow cast by Iran, home of a — home of a great civilization and proud people who suffer from a leadership that flouts the will of the world by pursuing nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism and terrorists. Over the past decade, Iran has become more, not less dangerous, building thousands of centrifuges that churn out nuclear material, funding and arming dangerous proxies like Hizballah and Hamas, intimidating both its neighbors as well as its own citizens.

From the moment we were elected, President Obama decided that we needed a new approach. He has sought to engage Iran’s leaders for the purpose of changing their conduct, knowing full well how difficult that may be, but also knowing that if they fail to respond, we would be in a much stronger position to rally the international community to impose consequences for their actions.

Iran thus far has refused to cooperate, as the whole world has witnessed. Instead it has engaged in more violations of international obligations, like undeclared enrichment facilities that were recently exposed by the United States, and the decision to enrich uranium to 20 percent to build more — and to build more enrichment facilities, all violations. It rejected a good-faith offer to exchange its low enriched uranium for fuel that could power a research reactor to produce medical isotopes. And it continues to deploy thugs to lock up and beat down those who bravely take to the streets in a quest for basic justice in their own country.

The Iranian leadership’s continuing defiance has set the stage for our efforts to mobilize the world to impose meaningful sanctions that clarify for the Iranian leadership the stark choice: follow international rules or face harsh penalties and further isolation.

You have to acknowledge that today Iran is more isolated with its own people as well as the region and in the world than it has been at any time in the past two decades. The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, period. I know — I know that for Israel — (applause) — I know that for Israel, there is no greater existential strategic threat. Trust me, we get that. It’s also a threat — the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is also a threat to the security — short-term, mid-term, and long-term — to the United States of America.

And many other countries in this region and around the world strongly oppose a nuclear-armed Iran. It would threaten them, trigger an arms race in this region, and undermine the efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, which would be a sorry outcome for such a promising beginning of the 21st century. For all those reasons, confronting this challenge is and must be a top national priority for the United States of America.

We are determined to keep the pressure on Iran so that it will change its course. And as we do, we will also be seeking to improve relations between the Israelis and Palestinians. They are connected indirectly, but there is a relationship. We call on Arab states who share a mutual concern about Iran — we call on Arab states to support the effort to bring peace between Palestinians and the Israelis, and to take their own steps forward for peace with Israel.

These are critical goals in their own rights. Their pursuit also denies Tehran the opportunity to exploit the differences between Israelis and Palestinians, and Israelis and the Arab world, and to distract the many countries that stand united against Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the support of terrorism. Building peace and security between a Jewish democratic state of Israel and a viable, independent Palestinian state is profoundly in Israel’s interest, if you will forgive me for suggesting that. (Applause.)

I’ve learned never tell another man or another country what’s in their own interest, but it seems so — it’s also profoundly in the interest of Palestinians. And it’s fundamentally in the national security interest of the United States of America.

Ladies and gentlemen, in my experience one necessary precondition for progress is that the rest of the world knows this. There is no space — this is what they must know, every time progress is made, it’s made when the rest of the world knows there is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to security, none. No space. (Applause.) That’s the only time when progress has been made.

And I applaud Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent call for two states for two people, lending a vital voice to what the Israelis, Palestinians, their Arab neighbors all know in their heart to be true. Ladies and gentlemen, the status quo is not sustainable.

It’s no secret the demographic realities make it increasingly difficult for Israel to remain both a Jewish homeland and a democratic country in the absence of the Palestinian state. Genuine steps toward a two-state solution are also required to empower those living to live in peace and security with Israel and to undercut their rivals who will never accept that future.

For Israel, then, this is about both preserving your identity and achieving the security you deserve, lasting security.

For Palestinians, statehood will not just fulfill a legitimate and long-sought aspiration common to all peoples; it will restore the fundamental dignity and self-respect that their current predicament denies them. I understand why both sides are skeptical. I’ve been doing this for a long time, not as long as my friend, Dennis Ross who is with me — Ross, who is with me — Ross who is with me. He is with me. (Laughter and applause.) He has even more experience in the nitty-gritty of this than I do. We understand why both sides are skeptical. We’ve been down this road before and so have you, which every time makes it a little harder to go down the road again.

But I know — I know that Israel’s faith in the prospects for peace have been shaken by the searing experience of withdrawing from Lebanon and from Gaza, only to be rewarded with rocket fire and ambushes across your border. I know you’ve been frustrated by the unwillingness of some Palestinian leaders to curb incitement and take the risk that peace requires, just as when the West Bank checkpoints proliferate and settlements grow, the Palestinians experience their own crisis in confidence and come to doubt Israeli intentions.

And we all know what happens when cynicism festers — distrust, harsh words, and eventually violence. The cycle of unintended consequences, which has happened more times than I can count, has led you to build more walls that may offer short term relief, but will not bring the sustained security that you seek. This is no way to live. This cycle must be broken.

In the Middle East — in the Middle East that I first visited, peace between Israelis and its neighbors seemed absolutely impossible even to discuss. Those who suggested a two-state solution — and no one did that, actually. But had someone suggested a two-state solution, they would have been considered either demented or dreamers. But then, Israel, Egypt and Jordan all acted boldly to end decades of conflict. Over time, other contacts have emerged between Israelis and Arabs.

And there is now an Arab Peace Initiative that makes an important contribution by envisioning a future in which Israel is secure and at peace with its Arab neighbors. Turning these visions into reality is among the hardest challenges we face, but we have to face it. There is no alternative. (Applause.)

As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “all sides” — “all sides need to take action in good faith if peace is to have a chance.” But it’s hard, my words, it’s hard. While it’s always easier to point fingers, it’s time for Israeli and Palestinian leaders to acknowledge each others’ steps to heed this call, even when more remains to be done — and for the world to do the same thing.

Your Prime Minister is roundly criticized in other parts of the world, but your Prime Minister has endorsed the idea of a Palestinian State. He has removed roadblocks and checkpoints that choked the West Bank. These were difficult decisions — not all that was asked for on the other side, but these were difficult decisions.

It was also difficult for the Palestinian Authority to take a step that it has to take to combat incitement and reform the institutions it’s reforming. Of an even greater note, it’s building an effective — for the first time a genuinely effective security force to uphold law and order, in my view, with the potential to do it throughout the West Bank and throughout the Palestinian territories.

President Obama and I believe that — believe that in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, men who I’ve known for a long time, Israeli leaders finally have willing partners who share the goal of peace between two states and have the competence to establish a nation. Their commitment to peace is an opportunity that must be seized. It must be seized. Who has there been better to date, to have the prospect of settling this with? But instead, two days ago the Israeli government announced it would advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. I realize this is a very touchy subject in Israel as well as in my own country. But because that decision, in my view, undermined the trust required for productive negotiations, I — and at the request of President Obama condemned it immediately and unequivocally. (Applause.)

Now, some legitimately may have been surprised that such a strong supporter of Israel for the last 37 years and beyond, but 37 years as an elected official, how I can speak out so strongly given the ties that I share as well as my country shares with Israel. But quite frankly, folks, sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth. And I appreciate, by the way, the response your Prime Minister today announced this morning that he is putting in place a process to prevent the recurrence of that sort of that sort of events and who clarified that the beginning of actual construction on this particular project would likely take several years — a statement he put out. That’s significant, because it gives negotiations the time to resolve this, as well as other outstanding issues. Because when it was announced, I was on the West Bank. Everyone there thought it had meant immediately the resumption of the construction of 1,600 new units.

Look, folks, as we move forward I promise you this: The United States will continue to hold both sides accountable for any statements or any actions that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks. The most important thing is for these talks to go forward and go promptly and go forward in good faith. We can’t delay, because when progress is postponed, extremists exploit our differences and they sow hate.

These indirect talks everyone knows are just that, indirect talks, indirect negotiations. The only path, though, to finally resolving the permanent status issues, including borders, security, refugees, and Jerusalem are direct talks. Our administration — (applause) — but you’ve got to begin. The process has to begin. Our administration fully supports this effort led by our Special Envoy, Senator George Mitchell, a seasoned negotiator and a proven peacemaker in whom the President, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and I have complete and utter confidence.

We believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ‘67 lines with agreed swaps and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements.

Many challenges remain. Gilad Shalit is still in captivity and we pray every day for the day when he will come home and be reunited with his family. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen, incitement against Israel continues as do attacks on the legitimacy of Jewish ties to this ancient land.

And the ongoing threat from Gaza still in Hamas’s grip, and from Hizballah in Southern Lebanon, remind us that your security is far from assured. Meanwhile, though, our policy and our concerns about Israel’s settlements remain unchanged. And while Hamas has condemned Gaza’s populace to misery and hopelessness, Israel too has a responsibility to address their many needs. That’s why we’re working with the Israeli government to do just that and address some of legitimate needs without — without further endangering Israel’s security.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m a Roman Catholic. And no one — and I’m no expert on the Old Testament. But I know we’re gathered today between Purim and Passover, holidays that teach us about salvation and redemption. It was written in the Book of Isaiah that Israel shall be “a light unto the nations.” And yet, for more than six decades, Israelis have often sought but never found the salvation of a lasting peace. And it is very hard — it is very hard to be a beacon for others, when you are constantly at war. To end this historic conflict, both sides must be historically bold, because if each waits stubbornly for the other to act first, this will go on and we’ll be waiting for an eternity.

Back home, I am sometimes called an optimist, but I am an optimist about the prospects for peace because I am a realist. And to paraphrase Golda Meir, there is nowhere else to go. There is nowhere else to go. I cannot tell you that peace will come easily, you know better. In human history, it rarely has. But I can promise you, both Israelis and Palestinians, that the rewards for success will be boundless and that so long as well-intentioned people are engaged in this struggle, the United States will be your partner.

Thank you. And may God protect you, and may God protect Israel. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.11.10 08:58 AM

EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
NATIONAL EXPORT INITIATIVE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Export Enhancement Act of 1992, Public Law 102-429, 106 Stat. 2186, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, in order to enhance and coordinate Federal efforts to facilitate the creation of jobs in the United States through the promotion of exports, and to ensure the effective use of Federal resources in support of these goals, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The economic and financial crisis has led to the loss of millions of U.S. jobs, and while the economy is beginning to show signs of recovery, millions of Americans remain unemployed or underemployed. Creating jobs in the United States and ensuring a return to sustainable economic growth is the top priority for my Administration. A critical component of stimulating economic growth in the United States is ensuring that U.S. businesses can actively participate in international markets by increasing their exports of goods, services, and agricultural products. Improved export performance will, in turn, create good high-paying jobs.

The National Export Initiative (NEI) shall be an Administration initiative to improve conditions that directly affect the private sector’s ability to export. The NEI will help meet my Administration’s goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years by working to remove trade barriers abroad, by helping firms — especially small businesses — overcome the hurdles to entering new export markets, by assisting with financing, and in general by pursuing a Government-wide approach to export advocacy abroad, among other steps.

Sec. 2. Export Promotion Cabinet. There is established an Export Promotion Cabinet to develop and coordinate the implementation of the NEI. The Export Promotion Cabinet shall consist of:

(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the Secretary of the Treasury;
(c) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(d) the Secretary of Commerce;
(e) the Secretary of Labor;
(f) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
(g) the United States Trade Representative;
(h) the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy;
(i) the National Security Advisor;
(j) the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;
(k) the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States;
(l) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration;
(m) the President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation;
(n) the Director of the United States Trade and Development Agency; and
(o) the heads of other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President may, from time to time, designate.

The Export Promotion Cabinet shall meet periodically and report to the President on the progress of the NEI. A member of the Export Promotion Cabinet may designate, to perform the NEI-related functions of that member, a senior official from the member’s department or agency who is a full-time officer or employee. The Export Promotion Cabinet may also establish subgroups consisting of its members or their designees, and, as appropriate, representatives of other departments and agencies. The Export Promotion Cabinet shall coordinate with the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), established by Executive Order 12870 of September 30, 1993.

Sec. 3. National Export Initiative. The NEI shall address the following:

(a) Exports by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). Members of the Export Promotion Cabinet shall develop programs, in consultation with the TPCC, designed to enhance export assistance to SMEs, including programs that improve information and other technical assistance to first-time exporters and assist current exporters in identifying new export opportunities in international markets.
(b) Federal Export Assistance. Members of the Export Promotion Cabinet, in consultation with the TPCC, shall promote Federal resources currently available to assist exports by U.S. companies.
(c) Trade Missions. The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the TPCC and, to the extent possible, with State and local government officials and the private sector, shall ensure that U.S. Government-led trade missions effectively promote exports by U.S. companies.
(d) Commercial Advocacy. Members of the Export Promotion Cabinet, in consultation with other departments and agencies and in coordination with the Advocacy Center at the Department of Commerce, shall take steps to ensure that the Federal Government’s commercial advocacy effectively promotes exports by U.S. companies.
(e) Increasing Export Credit. The President of the Export-Import Bank, in consultation with other members of the Export Promotion Cabinet, shall take steps to increase the availability of credit to SMEs.
(f) Macroeconomic Rebalancing. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with other members of the Export Promotion Cabinet, shall promote balanced and strong growth in the global economy through the G20 Financial Ministers’ process or other appropriate mechanisms.
(g) Reducing Barriers to Trade. The United States Trade Representative, in consultation with other members of the Export Promotion Cabinet, shall take steps to improve market access overseas for our manufacturers, farmers, and service providers by actively opening new markets, reducing significant trade barriers, and robustly enforcing our trade agreements.
(h) Export Promotion of Services. Members of the Export Promotion Cabinet shall develop a framework for promoting services trade, including the necessary policy and export promotion tools.

Sec. 4. Report to the President. Not later than 180 days after the date of this order, the Export Promotion Cabinet, through the TPCC, shall provide the President a comprehensive plan to carry out the goals of the NEI. The Chairman of the TPCC shall set forth the steps taken to implement this plan in the annual report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives required by the Export Enhancement Act of 1992, Public Law 102-249, 106 Stat. 2186, and Executive Order 12870, as amended.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof, or the status of that department or agency within the Federal Government; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 11, 2010.

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.11.10 09:18 AM

11:30 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. And thank you, John, for that generous introduction. Congratulations to you and Fabienne and Luis for the recognition your companies so richly deserve. And thank you to the Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, Fred Hochberg, for having me here today, and for all the important work the Ex-Im Bank is doing to help American businesses sell their ideas to the world. I also want to recognize the Secretary General of the OECD, Angel Gurría, for his leadership at that institution. (Applause.)

Let me also acknowledge some members of my economic team who are here today –- my Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, who’s just returned from a trip to Brazil. Where are you, Gary? There he is, right here. (Applause.) Our U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk, who’s been putting in a lot of miles. (Applause.) They are both doing a great job in the work of moving this country forward in tough times.

Now, it has been our most pressing priority over the first year of my administration to deal with an unprecedented economic crisis — one that has been as serious as anything since the Great Depression. To do that required difficult and sometimes unpopular steps to rescue our financial system and to jumpstart an economic recovery. But we took those steps. And because we did, we can stand here just over a year later, and say that we prevented another depression, we broke the back of the recession, and the economy that was shrinking a year ago is growing today.

What’s also clear is that we’ve got a long way to go. More than 8 million Americans have lost their jobs since the start of the recession. Millions more remain underemployed, including those doing part-time work or odd jobs. And the middle class across this country has felt their economic security eroding for longer than they care to remember. That’s why we continue to do everything we can to foster private sector job creation and to restore some sense of security.

But the fact is, if we want to once again approach full employment; if we want to create broad, shared, and lasting wealth for our workers and our families; if we want an America that is ready to compete on the global playing field in the 21st century –- then we can’t slide back into an economy where we borrow too much and put off tough challenges. We can’t return to an economy where too much of our prosperity is based on fleeting bubbles and rampant speculation. We have to rebuild our economy on a new, stronger, more balanced foundation for the future –- a foundation that will advance the American people’s prosperity at home, and support American leadership in the world.

And that’s precisely what we’ve begun to do. We’re catalyzing a new clean energy industry that has the potential to employ millions of workers in good jobs. We’re investing in the skills and education of our workers, and reforming our education system with a goal to once again lead the world in the proportion of college graduates by the end of this decade. We’re building a better health care system that works for our people, our businesses, and our government alike. We’re establishing clear, common-sense rules of the road for Wall Street that encourage innovation and creativity instead of recklessness and irresponsibility; rules that prevent firms from taking risks that threaten to bring down the entire economy. And we are rebuilding an economy where we generate more American jobs in more American industries by producing and exporting more goods and services to other nations.

Now, in my State of the Union address I set a goal of doubling America’s exports over the next five years -– an increase that will support 2 million American jobs. And I’ve come to the Export-Import Bank Conference today to discuss the initial steps that we’re taking to achieve that goal.

I know the issue of exports and imports, the issue of trade and globalization, have long evoked the passions of a lot of people in this country. I know there are differences of opinion between Democrats and Republicans, between business and labor, about the right approach. But I also know we are at a moment where it is absolutely necessary for us to get beyond those old debates.

Those who would once support every free trade agreement now see that other countries have to play fair and the agreements have to be enforced. Otherwise we’re putting America at a profound disadvantage. Those who once would once oppose any trade agreement now understand that there are new markets and new sectors out there that we need to break into if we want our workers to get ahead.

And meanwhile, if you ask the average American what trade has offered them, they won’t say that their televisions are cheaper, or productivity is higher. They’d say they’ve seen the plant across town shut down, jobs dry up, communities deteriorate. And you can’t blame them for feeling that way. The fact is other countries haven’t always played by the same set of rules. America hasn’t always enforced our trade rights, or made sure that the benefits of trade are broadly shared. And we haven’t always done enough to help our workers adapt to a changing world.

Now, there’s no question that as we compete in the global marketplace, we’ve got to look out for our workers. But to look out for our workers, we’ve got to be able to compete in the global marketplace. It’s never been as important an opportunity for America as it is right now.

In a time when millions of Americans are out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative. Our exports support millions of American jobs. You know this well. In 2008, we exported more than $1 trillion of manufactured goods, supporting more than one in five manufacturing jobs -– and those jobs, by the way, pay about 15 percent more than average. We led the world in service exports, which support 2.8 million jobs. We exported nearly $100 billion in agricultural goods. And every $1 billion increase in exports supports more than 6,000 additional jobs.

So it’s critical in the short term, but it’s also critical for our long-term prosperity. Ninety-five percent of the world’s customers and the world’s fastest-growing markets are outside our borders. We need to compete for those customers because other nations are competing for them.

They’re investing in the skills and education of their people. They’re investing in the high-demand industries of the future. They’ve benefited from American consumers. They’ve made themselves into export-based economies, and positioned themselves for the jobs of the future. They’re pursuing trade agreements with growing markets –- and those agreements would give their companies access to those markets and put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage.

So if we stand on the sidelines while they go after those customers, we’ll lose out on the chance to create the good jobs our workers need right here at home. That’s why standing on the sidelines is not what we intend to do. We need to remind ourselves, we still have the most innovative economy in the world. We still have the most productive workers in the world. We have the finest universities in the world. We have the most dynamic and competitive markets in the world.

We remain the number one exporter of goods and services in the world. So we’ve got a terrific foundation to build on. But we can’t be satisfied with being number one right now. We shouldn’t assume that our leadership is guaranteed. When other markets are growing, and other nations are competing, we’ve got to get even better. We need to secure our companies a level playing field. We need to guarantee American workers a fair shake. In other words, we need to up our game.

And that’s why, for the first time, the United States of America is launching a single, comprehensive strategy to promote American exports. It’s called the National Export Initiative, and it’s an ambitious effort to marshal the full resources of the United States government behind American businesses that sell their goods and services abroad.

This morning, I signed an executive order instructing the federal government to use every available federal resource in support of that mission. That order has created an Export Promotion Cabinet, made up of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor, along with our USTR, our Small Business Administrator, the Export-Import Bank President, and other senior U.S. officials whose work impacts exports. That cabinet will convene its first meeting next month.

I’ve also re-launched the President’s Export Council, the principal national advisory committee on international trade. And I named Jim McNerney, the President and CEO of Boeing, as its chair, with Ursula Burns, the CEO of Xerox, as vice chair, and I look forward to their recommendations.

Let me talk a little bit about what the National Export Initiative will do. First, we will substantially increase access to trade financing for businesses that want to export their goods but just need a boost –- especially small businesses and medium-sized businesses.

Some of the biggest factors limiting a firm’s decisions to export are the high upfront costs of establishing a foothold in a new market, and the ability of the customers in that market to finance the purchase of their products.

So during the financial crisis, as trade finance dried up, the Export-Import Bank lived up to its mission and stepped up to fill the void. In fiscal year 2009, as part of a broader effort of G20 nations to mobilize trade financing worldwide, this institution authorized $21 billion in loans in support of American exports –- that’s an increase of nearly 50 percent over the previous year. So I applaud Fred’s efforts to increase that pace with the authorization of about $10 billion more in the first quarter of this year alone. And under the National Export Initiative, we’ll continue to increase the amount of trade financing Ex-Im offers, including a new $2 billion per year effort to increase support for our small and medium-sized businesses.

But another obstacle that our exporters face is that the federal government frankly just hasn’t done a good enough job advocating for them abroad — at least compared to the advocacy that other countries are engaging in. And that’s why, as the second part of the National Export Initiative, the United States of America will go to bat for our businesses and our workers.

As an example, last week, I signed the Travel Promotion Act, a law that will establish active promotion and marketing efforts to encourage foreign citizens to come visit the most dynamic cities, the most entertaining destinations, and the most beautiful natural resources in the world. Well, that same principle applies for all of our businesses. We’ve got some of the most innovative companies in the world –- and we should be advocating on their behalf to boost local economies and create jobs here.

This is an effort I will personally lead as President. Next week, I’ll take my second trip to the Asia Pacific –- a region that will be fundamental to America’s ability to create jobs and to thrive in the 21st century. We can’t be on the sidelines -– we have to lead, and our engagement has to extend to governments and businesses and peoples across the Pacific. So while I’m there, I’ll visit Indonesia and Australia, two vibrant economies and democracies that will be critical partners for the United States. And in both countries, I’ll highlight the role that American businesses play there, and underscore how strong economic partnerships can create jobs on both sides of the Pacific while advancing both regional and global prosperity. Going forward, I will be a strong and steady advocate for our workers and our companies abroad.

And this effort will extend throughout my administration. Secretary Locke is issuing guidance to all senior government officials who have foreign counterparts on how they can best promote our exports. Secretary Clinton is mobilizing a commercial diplomacy strategy, directing every one of our embassies to create a senior visitors business liaison who will manage our export advocacy efforts locally, and when our ambassadors return stateside, we’ll ask them to travel the United States to discuss export opportunities in their countries of assignment.

We’re also announcing more than 40 trade and reverse trade missions that are scheduled for this year. The Department of Commerce, for example, has sent a trade mission to India this week; Secretary Vilsack is off to Japan on April 15th. So advocacy is going to be critical.

Third, we’ll unleash a battery of comprehensive and coordinated efforts to promote new markets and new opportunities for American exporters.

Many businesses want to export their products but just don’t have the resources required to identify new markets or set up shop overseas. And that’s where we can help. We’ll bring together the Ex-Im Bank, the SBA, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, and the Trade Development Agency to set up one-stop shops across the country and in our 250 embassies and consulates abroad, to help American businesses gain a foothold in the fastest-growing markets with the most demand. And we’ll provide a comprehensive toolkit of services –- from financing to counseling to promotion –- to help potential exporters grow and expand.

We’ll create public-private partnerships to help firms break into new markets with the help of those who have been there –- shipping and supply-chain companies, for example. And we’ll increase funding for existing promotion efforts. We’ll increase funding for the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce, and strengthen the USDA’s ability to connect farmers with new overseas markets.

So we’re going to increase financing, advocacy, and assistance for American businesses to locate, set up shop, and win new markets. Those are the first three aims of the National Export Initiative.

The fourth focuses on making sure American companies have free and fair access to those markets. And that begins by enforcing trade agreements we already have on the books.

When I ran for President, I promised that when the United States of America puts its name to an agreement, that agreement will be as good for workers as it is for businesses, including strong labor and environmental protections that we’ll enforce. My administration is living up to that promise. Ambassador Kirk has been doing an extraordinary job as our United States Trade Representative, and he’s been working to knock down barriers that unfairly keep American companies from markets we belong in, hold our trade partners to their labor and environmental obligations, and crack down on practices that blatantly harm our companies.

But keep in mind, the United States offers some of the world’s lowest barriers to trade. That’s why we can often get more out of a trade deal, because our borders are largely already open. And when we give other countries the privilege of that free and fair access, we can expect it in return. That’s the spirit in which we’ll move forward.

So we’re going to continue to work towards an ambitious and a balanced Doha agreement -– not just for the sake of any agreement, but for one that enhances market access for American agriculture and goods and services. We’re going to strengthen relations with key partners, specifically South Korea, Panama, Colombia, with the goal of moving forward with existing agreements in a way that upholds our values. And we will pursue negotiations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership that we launched last year with some of the most dynamic economies in Asia -– negotiations that I believe will result in a new standard for 21st century trade agreements that aren’t just good for workers, businesses, and farmers, but also consistent with our most cherished values.

What’s more, we’re going to aggressively protect our intellectual property. Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it’s only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can’t just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor. There’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies, we welcome it –- we just want to make sure that it’s licensed, and that American businesses are getting paid appropriately. That’s why USTR is using the full arsenal of tools available to crack down on practices that blatantly harm our businesses, and that includes negotiating proper protections and enforcing our existing agreements, and moving forward on new agreements, including the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

We’ll also work within the G20 to continue global recovery and growth. Last year, when the G20 met to coordinate the international response to our global economic crisis, we agreed that in order for that growth to continue, we needed to rebalance our economies. For too long, America served as the consumer engine for the entire world. But we’re rebalancing. We are now saving more. And that means that everybody has got to rebalance. Countries with external deficits need to save and export more. Countries with external surpluses need to boost consumption and domestic demand. And as I’ve said before, China moving to a more market-oriented exchange rate will make an essential contribution to that global rebalancing effort.

I want to commend Secretary Tim Geithner for his extraordinary work and his tremendous leadership throughout this past year within the G20. And I know he’ll keep encouraging other nations to rebalance global demand — and those are efforts that will be good for our exports, good for our job growth, good for the world economy as a whole.

Finally, we’re working to reform our Export Control System for our strategic, high-tech industries, which will strengthen our national security. What we want to do is concentrate our efforts on enforcing controls on the export of our most critical technologies, making America safer while enhancing the competitiveness of key American industries. We’ve conducted a broad review of the Export Control System, and Secretary Gates will outline our reform proposal within the next couple of weeks. But today, I’d like to announce two steps that we’re prepared to take.

First, we’re going to streamline the process certain companies need to go through to get their products to market -– products with encryption capabilities like cell phone and network storage devices. Right now, they endure a technical review that can take between 30 and 60 days, and that puts that company at a distinct disadvantage to foreign competitors who don’t face those same delays. So a new one-time online process will shorten that review time from 30 days to 30 minutes, and that makes it quicker and easier for our businesses to compete while meeting our national security requirements.

And second, we’re going to eliminate unnecessary obstacles for exporting products to companies with dual-national and third-country-national employees. Currently, our exporters and foreign consumers of these goods have to comply with two different, conflicting set of standards. They’re running on two tracks, when they could be running just on one. So we’re moving towards harmonizing those standards and making it easier for American and foreign companies to comply with our requirements without diminishing our security. And I look forward to consulting with Congress on these reforms, as well as broader export control reform efforts.

So that’s how we’re going to double our exports, open up new markets, and level the playing field for American businesses and American workers. I have every confidence that we can success in this effort. I have every confidence that we will succeed in this effort.

This is a difficult time for our country. And in times like these, questions have always arisen about whether or not America’s best days are behind us. That’s standard fare. It happens every so often. There have always been naysayers and skeptics. There were always those who’ve waxed fatalistic, fearing that we lacked the capacity to adapt, to succeed –- at times even to survive –- in a changing world.

But what makes America great, what continues to make America the envy of our competitors, what makes this a place where people come not just to invest but to start lives and businesses and families, is something that has been inexorable and enduring, especially in times of great challenge and great change. It’s that spirit of adventurousness and entrepreneurship that has for generations turned wild-eyed tinkerers into world-changing entrepreneurs; that led us westward and skyward; that led to roads and railways cutting through wilderness, and ships and planes and fiber optic lines carrying American goods and services around the world. It’s the spirit that has advanced America’s leadership in the world and held aloft the American Dream for generations. And it is, ultimately, that spirit that’s given us the tools and the toughness to overcome every obstacle and adapt to every circumstance –- and today is no different.

It hasn’t always been easy. Our success is by no means guaranteed. But if we summon a sense of national purpose equal to the seriousness of these times; if we combine our creativity, our innovation, and our eternal optimism; if we come together in common cause as we have so many times before –- we will succeed. We will define our destiny once again. And we will make this century another American Century — with your help.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END
11:55 A.M. EST

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.10.10 03:55 PM

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama nominated Justice Thomas Delahanty II and Wendy Olson to be United States Attorneys for the District of Maine and the District of Idaho, respectively. Justice Delahanty currently serves as a Justice for the Maine Superior Court and Olson is currently Senior Litigation Counsel in the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Idaho.

“I am honored to nominate Justice Thomas Delahanty and Wendy Olson today to serve as United States Attorneys,” President Obama said. “They will be resolute in their pursuit of justice and I am confident they will serve the people of Maine and Idaho with distinction.”

Thomas Edward Delahanty II: Nominee for United States Attorney, District of Maine
Justice Thomas Delahanty has been a Justice for the Maine Superior Court since 1983, where he served as Chief Justice from 1990 until 1995. From 1981 until 1983, he was a partner in the firm Delahanty & Longley. Prior to that, Justice Delahanty worked for the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maine as a United States Attorney. From 1975 until 1980, he worked for the District Attorney’s Office of the Prosecutorial District 3 for Androscoggin, Franklin and Oxford Counties as a District Attorney. Preceding that, Judge Delahanty had been County Attorney with the Androscoggin County Attorney’s Office from 1973 until 1975, and Assistant County Attorney from 1971 until 1973. From 1970 until 1974, he was an associate at Marshall, Raymond & Beliveau. Justice Delahanty graduated from St. Michael’s College in 1967 and from the University of Maine School of Law in 1970.

Wendy J. Olson: Nominee for United States Attorney, District of Idaho
Wendy Olson has been with the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Idaho since 1997, where she was an Assistant United States Attorney until 2006, when she became Senior Litigation Counsel. Olson was an Adjunct Professor of Legal Writing at the George Washington University School of Law from 1994 until 1997. Prior to that she worked for the Civil Rights Division of the Criminal Section of the United States Department of Justice, where she was a trial attorney from 1992 until 1996, and Deputy Director of Operations and Assistant to the Director on the National Church Arson Task Force from 1996 until 1997. Olson served as a law clerk for the Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Olson earned her undergraduate degree at Drake University in 1986 and received her J.D. from the Stanford University School of Law in 1990.

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.10.10 03:58 PM

Thomas Edward Delahanty II, of Maine, to be United States Attorney for the District of Maine for the term of four years, vice Jay Patrick McCloskey.

Catherine C. Eagles, of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, vice Norwood Carlton Tilley, Jr., retired.

Cathy Jo Jones, of Ohio, to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Ohio for the term of four years, vice James Michael Wahlrab, resigned.

Raymond Joseph Lohier, Jr., of New York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, vice Sonia Sotomayor, elevated.

John J. McConnell, Jr., of Rhode Island, to be United States District Judge for the District of Rhode Island, vice Ernest C. Torres, retired.

Kimberly J. Mueller, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California, vice Frank C. Damrell, Jr., retired.

Wendy J. Olson, of Idaho, to be United States Attorney for the District of Idaho for the term of four years, vice Thomas E. Moss.

Kathleen M. O’Malley, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, vice Alvin A. Schall, retired.

Mimi E. Alemayehou, of the District of Columbia, to be Executive Vice President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, vice John A. Simon, resigned.

Elizabeth A. McGrath, of Virginia, to be Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense. (New Position)

White House.gov Press Office Feed

03.10.10 04:04 PM

NOTICE
– – – – – – –
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAN

On March 15, 1995, by Executive Order 12957, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iran. On May 6, 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12959 imposing more comprehensive sanctions to further respond to this threat, and on August 19, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13059 consolidating and clarifying the previous orders.

Because the actions and policies of the Government of Iran continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must continue in effect beyond March 15, 2010. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iran. Because the emergency declared by Executive Order 12957 constitutes an emergency separate from that declared on November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, this renewal is distinct from the emergency renewal of November 2009. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 10, 2010.

White House.gov Press Office Feed