You are currently browsing the Obama Tweets weblog archives for the day 20. June 2009.
20. June 2009 by admin.
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Dr. Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) today introduced the Department of Defense Financial Accountability Act of 2009, which sets firm deadlines for the Department of Defense to undergo a complete audit of its financial statements.
Senators McCain, Coburn, and Grassley find it unacceptable that the Department of Defense (DoD), with a base budget of over a half trillion dollars, has never been completely audited. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has testified that DoD’s accounting problems cost the American taxpayers approximately $13 billion in one year – and the issue transcends money. Over the years, the GAO has reported that the Pentagon’s poor financial management has caused pay problems for National Guard and reservists; impeded delivery of food and other essential supplies to U.S. troops; and had the Pentagon scrambling to identify and locate 250,000 defective chem-bio suits.
“We owe it to our men and women in uniform and the American taxpayer to fix the Pentagon’s broken bookkeeping without further delay, and only by imposing hard legislative deadlines will this finally be accomplished,” said Senator John McCain. “While DoD has made progress in improving its financial management, much more needs to be done.”
“The consequences of not having an audited financial statement in the Department of Defense is costing lives. The waste from this lack of financial accountability, estimated in the billions, results in fewer weapons and less resources for our troops in combat. The Constitution demands financial accountability throughout the government, and the Financial Accountability Act will finally force the Department of Defense to comply with this requirement,” said Tom Coburn, M.D.
“The Defense Department needs to get its financial mess in order, and it’s time to let the department know that we’re serious about reform. The financial mismanagement at the Pentagon at times has left our men and women in uniform without pay and essential items. This is a tremendous disservice to the taxpayer and our service members. Weak or nonexistent internal controls leave billions of tax dollars vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse and outright theft,” Grassley said. “The Pentagon leadership needs to follow through on its promises and Congress needs to hold their feet to the fire. This legislation will lay the groundwork to do that.”
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
__________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 18, 2009
REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT
TO THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE AND
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
Mandarin Oriental Hotel
Washington, DC
12:36 P.M. EDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) It’s great to be here with you all. I look around this room, and Madam Speaker, this is the Democratic Party. This is the reason why you’re the Speaker and Harry is the Leader and I’m the Vice President.
And so I want to thank you for real. And Nancy, I called you earlier, but I just want to tell you I think — and I want to say it publicly, you don’t have to say it; I know you don’t have to — I think you are doing an incredible, incredible –- (applause) — I mean it. You know I mean it.
Folks, I don’t think any Speaker has had as much laid on her plate at the front end of a Congress — maybe there’s been a time in history, but I don’t — I can’t think of — for real, for real. It’s not hyperbole, literally. This President has had more laid on his plate than any President in modern history from the day he stepped into office. But that just flows not downhill; it flows up the hill. It’s the same deal. And, Nancy, you are remarkable. You are remarkable.
And tell you what, you don’t want to fool with a guy from Searchlight — (laughter) — because I’ll tell you what, Harry Reid — I mean, having been a senator for a long time; that is in one sense harder and easier, but in a sense, harder institutionally. Nancy has to get her leadership together and get things moving, which is not an easy thing to do, and take some real difficult positions for the good of the country.
But Harry operates, as Bob can tell you, under a different set of constraints under the way the Constitution is written. And God love him. I was kidding on the way out, I said, “Harry, the car is not worth it.” You all know what I mean by that? The Leader of the Senate gets an automobile and a driver. (Laughter.) The car is not worth the job, but thank God Harry thinks it is — (laughter) — because he’s doing a great, great job.
Look, thank you all for being here. (Applause.) And let me — and thank you for all your work and your support. And thank you for commitment to — the commitment you’ve made to the President. Many of you in this room, not only obviously, you’re the backbone of the House and Senate campaign operations, but you’re also — as I look around this room, many of you played incredibly vital roles in our general election campaign. And some of you played significant roles in the President’s early bid for the nomination.
And the 111th Congress, we think, is the vehicle through which we’re all going to be able to celebrate the things we all have fought for; the reason why we wanted Obama to be President of the United States of America, Pelosi to be the Speaker, and Harry to be the Leader. I mean, it’s all about not them; it’s all about why we’re involved in politics in the first place. These are big, big, big deal issues.
My colleagues kid me, Carl Levin says, “Joe has an awful lot of expressions,” when he introduced me out in — I was out in Michigan a little while ago. And he said, “Joe has a way of saying when he thinks something is important.” This is a big deal. This is a big, big deal, what we have underway now.
And you believed in the change that we said we could bring to America. I think some of you probably wondered whether or not we really meant it. And I mean it sincerely. Because what we’re doing is not on the margins. We’re not playing in the margins here. This is serious change. The House, Senate, the administration, the Democratic Party of Washington is trying to initiate here.
I think it’s fair to say that — as I repeat it again, no administration, no Congress in a long, long, long time has moved as fast to deal with so many monumental challenges facing our country as this Congress has moved on.
We’ve only been in the job about six months now, and as the President said, even our critics agree, we’ve been pretty busy. We’ve been pretty busy.
Here’s a quick recap: the Ledbetter Free Pay Act to deal with wage discrimination in the workplace, after arguing over that for years; children’s health insurance, 11 million kids; executive orders setting higher standards for government; shutting down Guantanamo Bay — none of this is easy stuff — a plan to redeploy our troops in Iraq, which is underway, on schedule, and will occur; and of course a series of decisive steps to deal with the economy.
You know, we moved into a circumstance that turned out economically to be even worse than even Democrat and Republican leaders thought would be the case in November or December during that interregnum period. We inherited — we inherited — it’s our responsibility, I’m not trying to move away from responsibility — but we inherited a very, very dire situation. We moved to stabilize our financial system, to begin to get credit flowing again. We moved to breathe life back into the housing market, to get our auto industry — with all the criticism — but back on track, and to coordinate a worldwide response, which, I might add, had never been done before, coordinating worldwide response.
Everybody talks about it, like, well, we did it — you know, the great thing about the President is, he does things so well when he does them, I kid him, it’s like an ice skater. Don’t you ever watch figure skaters in the Olympics and say, God, that’s looks — that’s okay, that looks easy? The really good ones make it look easy.
Well, the irony is, the idea that we got the world to agree on a general and basic approach to dealing with the worldwide economy was like taking for — “Well, yes, of course that was done.” Go back to a month before or two months before the meeting occurred. There’s nothing obvious about any of this except the incredible leadership of our three leaders: the President, Nancy, and Harry.
Within a matter of weeks — as I mentioned, we worked hard with the House and the Senate to pass into law the biggest Recovery and Reinvestment Act in American history. It’s a plan I believe, when all is said and done, we will in fact have created or saved 3.5 million jobs. It’s a plan that included cutting taxes for 95 percent of the people that get a paycheck. To anybody in this room, myself included, it’s not a big deal. But guess what? Somewhere between 60 to 80 bucks less a month is being taken out of their paycheck. To real people, that makes a difference, particularly in a very, very, very difficult economy.
We extended unemployment benefits, increased them; health coverage for people who lost their jobs. Now, it’s like, okay, so what are you doing for me tomorrow? (Laughter.) I mean, look at what they did — seriously. It’s not hyperbole to suggest how successful this Congress has been at the front end of this administration. Every one of those things we fought for before — before we controlled the Congress, and every one of them ran into a stone wall.
We’ve undertaken the biggest investment in the nation’s interstate highway system since Eisenhower built the system in the ’50s. We’ve done more — we’ve doubled our investment in rebuilding our schools. We’ve kept teachers in classrooms, cops on the street. When they say “You didn’t save any jobs,” go to New York. Fourteen thousand-plus school teachers got their pink slips; because of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, they’re going to be in the classroom in September. Our kids aren’t going to fall another half year behind because you had to increase class size by X percentage.
And that’s the case all across America. The cops that are on the streets in the cities you live in, they’re there, many of them, because of this Recovery Act: jobs saved that are consequential. (Applause.)
Look, we’re taking the first serious critical steps towards energy efficiency, investing in wind and solar energy, technologies for the future; simple things like weatherization, which is the single most immediate gain we could make of real consequence.
Look, we know how tough the challenge is. But we are beginning to see some, and you’re beginning to see some glimmers of hope. We’ve saved or created 150,000 jobs in the first 100 days, and as we accelerate our plans in the recovery, put more people — put more pace on the ball here, I’m telling you we will save or create in the second 100 days another 600,000 jobs.
Look, folks, we’re not going to stop this all-out assault on the problem until we brought the economy back to health. But just as important, the underlying rationale for what we’re doing here is also to begin to build a platform for a new economy. I don’t have to tell any of you sophisticated business people in this room. You can’t lead the 21st century built on a bubble of the — of a dot com bubble or a housing bubble. This President and our allies in Congress have been criticized for doing too much, being too ambitious. The President is being told that just getting this economic crisis under control, just getting the GDP to move into positive territory should be the goal, and that should be it.
But let me ask you something: Does anybody think we can lead the 21st century without a fundamental change in health care, a fundamental change in energy policy, a fundamental change in our education system where we no longer rank 13th or 17th, depending how your categorize it, in college graduates? Does anybody think that’s possible? And does anybody think we can wait four years or six years or eight years to tackle any of those problems? If we want to lead in this century, like we did in the 20th century, we can’t ask the question, are we doing too much? The question has to be, are we doing enough? What are the minimum things we have to deal with? And unfortunately, it’s a long list.
This is a change that we’re going to have to bring to this country. There’s a lot of reasons why. The economists will tell you what’s at stake; the budget experts will tell you what’s at stake; the political pundits will tell you what’s at stake. But let me tell you what I believe is so important. We have a lot of people out there in the country who are hurting very badly. Millions of people out of work; millions more who are worried about losing their jobs; millions of people who lost their life savings, their homes, their hopes, their dreams. And this is fundamentally about giving them back their dreams, giving them back something they can believe in again.
It’s about giving people who raise families and go to work, go to church, volunteer in their neighborhoods, a share in the prosperity of this nation.
Prosperity grew, productivity grew 20 percent from the turn of the century to ‘07. Middle-class people actually saw their share of that productivity decrease 3 percent. That’s breaking a fundamental bargain. The middle class was built on the notion: You help us increase productivity, you get a share of the increase in that productivity.
It’s about doing everything in our power to make sure it’s possible for parents all across this nation to do something they haven’t been able to do in a while — and I’m not exaggerating when I say this — our goal is to allow parents to be able to look their kids in the eye and say, “Honey, everything is going to be okay,” and have some reason to believe they can deliver on that assertion.
People kid me sometimes when I say the longest walk in America is a father or mother walking up a short flight of stairs to their kid’s bedroom to say, “Honey, I’m sorry, I lost my job.” Or, “Honey, we’re not going to be able to stay in this house, you’re not going to be able to be in that ball club next year. Everything is going to be okay.”
My father made that walk, like maybe your fathers did, back when I was a kid in the ’50s — and said, “When I get a job in Wilmington I’ll come back up and we’ll get you all, we’ll move from Scranton.” Too damn many people have had to make that walk. And they’re still making that walk.
So this is more than about GDP. This is more than about whether or not we have the sound — this is about people’s lives. I think that’s kind of what makes us Democrats. I mean that sincerely. I don’t mean to say Republicans don’t care; they care. But I think where it starts from us — it starts in the guts, goes to the heart, and comes out of the head. And for the first time in a long while, I think we’ve got them all in sync. They’re all in sync.
Look, folks, this administration has a great deal to do. We have a lot of people to help. And we can’t do it without you making sure we continue to have a robust representation in the United States Congress and in the United States Senate. It can’t be done. Imagine where we’d be in any of the things I suggested so far had we not regained control through your help of the House and the Senate, with the numbers we have. Imagine what prospects we’d have for any of the things that I mentioned without a Congress that shares our vision for a better, healthy, and more prosperous America.
Look, it sounds like hyperbole, but cut through it all, that’s what our President is fighting for. That’s what this is about. That’s what the Congress is fighting for. That’s what I’m fighting for. And with your help and together, that’s what we’re going to be able to accomplish.
So, folks, real simple — simple, simple notion I want — idea I want you to understand: We genuinely, genuinely appreciate you allowing us to be in a position to do the only thing that keeps all of us who are elected in this room — in this business in the first place, to actually have a chance to change the circumstance of ordinary Americans; to give them more security and give our nation greater certitude and security.
So thanks for your support. May God bless you all and may God protect our troops. I love you. Thanks an awful lot. (Applause.) I got a meeting with the President at 1:00 p.m., so I’m not going to get a chance to say hello. But thank you all very, very much. Nancy, thanks. (Applause.)
END
12:53 P.M. EDT
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
From the Library of Congress Website:
Since 2000, the Library of Congress has developed thematic or event-based Web archive collections. The following is a list of collections and projects that are in various stages of production. Where researcher access is available, a link to the archive is provided.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
| EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION | USDL 09-685-NAT |
| Program Contact: | TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN THIS |
| Scott Gibbons (202) 693-3008 | RELEASE IS EMBARGOED UNTIL |
| Tony Sznoluch (202) 693-3176 | 8:30 A.M. (EDT), THURSDAY |
| Media Contact : | June 18, 2009 |
| (202) 693-4676 | |
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA
In the week ending June 13, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 608,000, an increase of 3,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 605,000. The 4-week moving average was 615,750, a decrease of 7,000 from the previous week’s revised average of 622,750.
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 5.0 percent for the week ending June 6, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week’s unrevised rate of 5.1 percent.
The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending June 6 was 6,687,000, a decrease of 148,000 from the preceding week’s revised level of 6,835,000. The 4-week moving average was 6,757,500, an increase of 2,250 from the preceding week’s revised average of 6,755,250.
The fiscal year-to-date average for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment for all programs is 5.286 million.
UNADJUSTED DATA
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 554,405 in the week ending June 13, a decrease of 26,791 from the previous week. There were 349,255 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008.
The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 4.5 percent during the week ending June 6, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 6,058,847, a decrease of 85,499 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.1 percent and the volume was 2,799,719.
Extended benefits were available in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin during the week ending May 30.
Initial claims for UI benefits by former Federal civilian employees totaled 1,972 in the week ending June 6, an increase of 206 from the prior week. There were 1,874 initial claims by newly discharged veterans, an increase of 419 from the preceding week.
There were 15,924 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending May 30, an increase of 898 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 28,548, an increase of 1,793 from the prior week.
States reported 2,359,537 persons claiming EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) benefits for the week ending May 30, an increase of 102,946 from the prior week. EUC weekly claims include both first and second tier activity.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending May 30 were in Michigan (7.5 percent), Oregon (7.0), Nevada (6.3), Puerto Rico (6.3), Pennsylvania (6.2), Wisconsin (6.0), Arkansas (5.6), South Carolina (5.5), California (5.4), and North Carolina (5.4).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending June 6 were in Pennsylvania (+6,861), Florida (+6,469), Ohio (+5,104), California (+4,894), and New York (+4,795), while the largest decreases were in Arkansas (-1,206), Puerto Rico (-1,131), Wisconsin (-707), Arizona (-693), and Nebraska (-450).
| Advance | Prior1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WEEK ENDING | June 13 | June 6 | Change | May 30 | Year |
| Initial Claims (SA) | 608,000 | 605,000 | +3,000 | 625,000 | 390,000 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Claims (NSA) | 554,405 | 581,196 | -26,791 | 500,383 | 349,255 |
| 4-Wk Moving Average (SA) | 615,750 | 622,750 | -7,000 | 632,250 | 381,500 |
| Advance | Prior1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WEEK ENDING | June 6 | May 30 | Change | May 23 | Year |
| Ins. Unemployment (SA) | 6,687,000 | 6,835,000 | -148,000 | 6,757,000 | 3,097,000 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ins. Unemployment (NSA) | 6,058,847 | 6,144,346 | -85,499 | 6,033,603 | 2,799,719 |
| 4-Wk Moving Average (SA) | 6,757,500 | 6,755,250 | +2,250 | 6,693,250 | 3,106,750 |
| Ins. Unemployment Rate (SA)2 | 5.0% | 5.1% | -0.1 | 5.1% | 2.3% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ins. Unemployment Rate (NSA)2 |
4.5% | 4.6% | -0.1 | 4.5% | 2.1% |
|
Prior1 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WEEK ENDING |
June 6 |
May 30 |
Change |
Year |
| Federal Employees | 1,972 | 1,766 | +206 | 1,173 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newly Discharged Veterans | 1,874 | 1,455 | +419 | 1,613 |
|
Prior1 |
||||
| WEEK ENDING |
May 30 |
May 23 |
Change |
Year |
| Federal Employees | 15,924 | 15,026 | +898 | 10,844 |
| Newly Discharged Veterans | 28,548 | 26,755 | +1,793 | 19,893 |
| Railroad Retirement Board | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | 2,000 |
| Extended Benefits | 258,187 | 213,666 | +44,521 | 4 |
| EUC 20083 | 2,359,537 | 2,256,591 | +102,946 | 0 |
UNADJUSTED INITIAL CLAIMS FOR WEEK ENDED 06/06/2009
| State | Change | State Supplied Comment | |
| AR | -1,206 | Fewer layoffs in the automobile industry. | |
| PR | -1,131 | No comment. |
| State | Change | State Supplied Comment | |
| CO | +1,149 | No comment. | |
| NV | +1,187 | Return to a five day workweek. | |
| WV | +1,195 | No comment. | |
| OR | +1,239 | Layoffs in the construction, trade, and manufacturing industries. | |
| MD | +1,291 | No comment. | |
| GA | +1,692 | Layoffs in the construction, service, and textile industries. | |
| AL | +1,739 | Layoffs in the transportation equipment industry. | |
| MA | +1,811 | Layoffs in the trade, service, information, and finance industries. | |
| MN | +2,062 | No comment. | |
| MO | +2,342 | Layoffs in the transportation and warehousing industries. | |
| VA | +2,508 | No comment. | |
| KY | +2,547 | Layoffs in the automobile and manufacturing industries. | |
| IN | +2,927 | Layoffs in the automobile, transportation, service, and manufacturing industries. | |
| SC | +3,226 | Layoffs in the textile and fabricated metals industries. | |
| NJ | +3,321 | Return to a five day workweek, as well as layoffs in the construction, trade, service, and manufacturing industries. | |
| TX | +3,549 | Layoffs in the service, information, finance, and manufacturing industries. | |
| TN | +3,905 | Layoffs in the manufacturing industry. | |
| MI | +4,326 | Layoffs in the automobile industry. | |
| NC | +4,339 | Layoffs in the textile, furniture, construction, service, transportation, fabricated metals, and lumber/wood industries. | |
| IL | +4,378 | Layoffs in the trade, service, and manufacturing industries. | |
| NY | +4,795 | Layoffs in the construction, trade, and manufacturing industries. | |
| CA | +4,894 | Return to a five day workweek, as well as layoffs in the service industry. | |
| OH | +5,104 | Layoffs in the automobile industry. | |
| FL | +6,469 | Layoffs in the construction, trade, service, and manufacturing industries, and agriculture. | |
| PA | +6,861 | Layoffs in the construction, service, and transportation industries. |
State Detail Prior Week
UI Claims Series 1967 to current
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
Find more videos like this on obama
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 19, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT DSCC/DCCC FUNDRAISER
Mandarin Oriental Hotel
Washington, D.C.
June 18, 2009
7:06 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, it is nice to be among friends. I want to thank Bob Menendez, the DSCC chair. I want to thank Chris Van Hollen, the DCCC chair; my great leaders in Congress, Harry Reid and Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for their outstanding leadership. To all my colleagues and former colleagues who I see gathered around, thank you so much for your outstanding work. And also please give a big round of applause to Diana Krall for the wonderful entertainment. (Applause.)
It’s a pleasure to be here, on behalf of the men and women in Congress who have worked tirelessly — and I mean tirelessly — over the last five months to put this nation on a road back to prosperity. I want to especially thank the two leaders — two Americans who have, day in, day out, just been steering the ship, and without their leadership in Congress, we would just not get things done, Nancy and Harry. Every single day they are displaying the skill and tenacity and the fierce urgency of the challenges we face. So please give them another round of applause. (Applause.)
Chris Van Hollen and Bob Menendez, they’ve got a thankless job, which is to recruit and fund-raise and organize so we can expand our majority in 2010. And they’re doing exemplary work and we’re all grateful for them.
Now, we’ve been called to govern in some extraordinary times. We’ve been asked to confront challenges of a size and scope that are unmatched in recent history — a set of challenges that very few generations of Americans have ever been asked to confront: We’ve got two wars, a debilitating recession, a global financial crisis, issues like global climate change that threatens our planet. Meeting these challenges is not easy. If it was easy it would have already been taken care of. (Laughter.) And everyone here could kick back and spend more time at home with their families.
But that’s not the hand that we’ve been dealt. We’ve been called to lead not when it’s easy, but when it’s hard. That requires tough choices, and it requires doing what’s right, even what — even if what’s right isn’t always necessarily popular. It requires taking on the status quo in Washington. And let’s face it, the status quo in Washington favors inertia over action; and tinkering over real reform. It requires the courage to look beyond the immediate news cycle, which is very hard to do, and to look beyond the next election to the next generation — to do what we have to do to ensure that the American Dream is there for our children, and that the world that they inherit is better than the one that we did.
That’s what so many in Congress have done in these last five months, and that’s what we’re going to have to do in the hard months to come.
It’s not just a responsibility, I think it’s also a privilege — and it’s an extraordinary opportunity — for in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill.
Just think about what we’ve already achieved together. Five months. Now, people’s memories are short around here. Let’s just do a little — (laughter) — let’s do a little inventory. Not one month into this administration, we responded to this recession with the most sweeping economic recovery plan in our nation’s history. The plan has already provided tax relief to 95 percent of hardworking families, the most progressive tax cut in our history. It’s saving jobs and creating new ones in construction and clean energy and small businesses across the country. Before the summer’s end we will have created another 600,000 jobs.
Thanks to this Congress, we also passed a budget resolution that will help cut our deficit in half while laying the building blocks of a new foundation for lasting growth and prosperity — a budget that invests in clean energy and quality schools and reform that will finally bring down our health care costs.
With the help of the members of Congress, and with the help of everybody in this room, we’ve lifted the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. (Applause.) We expanded the Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover 11 million additional children in need. (Applause.) We passed a national service bill to create hundreds of thousands of opportunities for people to serve in their communities. (Applause.) We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — the first bill I signed into law — to make sure that women in this country get a fair shake on the workplace. (Applause.)
We passed a series of reforms that won’t just change policies in Washington; it changes the way we do business in Washington. We brought together auto executives and labor unions and environmental groups, Democrats and Republicans, to set a national fuel-efficiency standard for our cars and trucks for the first time in history. We passed bipartisan legislation to help homeowners and crack down on predatory lenders who seek to take advantage of them.
We passed a law that will protect consumers from the unfair rate hikes and abusive fees that are levied by many credit card companies; a law that will eliminate waste in our defense budget and save taxpayers billions of dollars. And after a decade of opposition, we passed legislation that will prevent tobacco companies from preying on our children. (Applause.)
Five months. Every member of Congress who helped make these reforms possible should feel proud of what we’ve accomplished. But we shouldn’t feel satisfied. We should feel confident in the future — but not content with the present, not when there are workers out there who are still looking for a job, and families who are still unable to pay their bills. Not when there are millions of Americans with are trying to figure out whether they can afford health care, and millions more of our children who are being left behind in our education system. We can’t be satisfied when our nation is not leading the world in developing a 21st century energy economy.
We’ve come a long way, we can see some light on the horizon, but we’ve got a much longer journey to travel. And this is when it gets hard — ironically, in part because the economy has stabilized somewhat; now suddenly everybody forgets. We introduced this financial regulatory bill; people start to say, why do we need all this regulation. I’m sorry, wasn’t it just in September — (applause) — that the financial system almost melted down? What are you talking about? (Laughter.)
But that’s the nature of things. This is when the criticism gets louder. This is when the pundits grow impatient. This is when the cynicism mounts. This is when we hear the same voices advocating the same old policies that got us into this mess in the first place. This is when we hear that the change we seek just isn’t possible. Can’t do it; system overload; circuits breaking down. (Laughter.) Right, George? (Laughter.) I mean, we’ve been hearing it — it’s so predictable.
So this is exactly the moment we need to fight the hardest. This is the time when we need to band together. This is the time when we have to do what we know is right for the country and deliver the change that we promised to deliver in November.
And that’s why all of you are here tonight. That’s why you’re digging deep again tonight, at a time when it’s not easy to dig deep. That’s why I know that you’re going to keep on making those phone calls and knocking on those doors. And that’s why we’ve got to get to those polls again next November to make sure that we send a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate back to Congress to finish the business of the American people. (Applause.)
And that’s why I’m here tonight — because I can’t bring about the change that I promised by myself in the Oval Office — or just me and Rahm. (Laughter.) I mean, Rahm is great, but you know — (laughter) — I need a little more help than that. It’s not how it works.
I need partners in Congress — leaders who are determined to make a difference for the folks they represent. And right now, more than ever before, we need their help — America needs their help. We need their help to build schools that meet high standards and close the achievement gap, and prepare our kids for the challenges of the 21st century; where we reward teachers for performance and give them new pathways for advancement. We need their help to reach the goal that I’ve set for higher education in this country, that by the year 2020, America once again will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. (Applause.)
We need their help to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill that will finally reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil — (applause) — and offer new energy incentives to reduce the pollution that threatens our health and our climate; a plan that will create millions of new jobs producing wind turbines and solar panels and biofuels. Because we know that the nation that leads the 21st century in clean energy technology, that’s the nation that’s going to lead in the global economy — and America can and must be that nation.
We need the leaders of Congress to create new rules of the road for Wall Street, to make sure that a crisis like this never happens again. As I said, yesterday I outlined a set of regulatory reforms that will encourage drive and innovation in our markets, but reforms that will also punish short-cuts and abuses. They’re reforms that will allow our market to function freely and fairly, but without the risks that brought our financial system to the brink of collapse.
I ask Congress to pass these reforms before the year is out. It is something that we have to do — and I’m confident we can do.
And right now, we need the help of this Congress to finally pass reforms that bring down the crushing cost of health care and give every American an opportunity to get decent health care in this country. (Applause.) I gave a speech about this earlier in the week. When it comes to the cost of health care, the status quo is unsustainable. Inaction is no longer an option. If we do nothing, more families will go bankrupt, more businesses will shut their doors, more debt will be passed on to our children.
It’s time to fix what’s broken about our health care system and build on what works. And I’ve said this before — if you like your doctor, you should be able to keep your health care. If you like your health care plan, you should be able to keep it. But we need a system where every American can finally afford their health care.
Let me be clear: I sincerely hope that there are members of both parties who will participate in reform. No party has a monopoly on the best ideas about how to get this done. I’ve said that before. But to those who simply criticize without offering new ideas of their own, I have to ask: What’s your answer? What’s your answer to all those families who now spend more on health care than on housing or on food? What’s your answer to those businesses that are choosing between closing their doors and letting their workers go?
What’s your answer to the woman I met in Wisconsin who introduced me the other day — has breast cancer that’s gone to her bones; got two little kids. She’s 36 years old. And she’s already got $50,000 worth of debt, and she’s spending time worrying about whether she’s leaving debt behind to her family that they’ll never be able to pay off.
Don’t tell me that all you’re offering is meager tax cuts to uninsured Americans. Don’t present that as a new idea. It’s the same idea that’s been proposed for the last eight years. Don’t tell me that we’re going to tinker around the edges and that nothing is going to change, and 46 million people won’t have health insurance, and you still have people who do have health insurance with their premiums tripling; doubling over the last nine years, going up three times faster than wages. That’s not acceptable.
If all we’re doing is subsidizing a health care system that can’t contain costs; if all we’re doing is putting more money into a system that is not working, that is broken, then we’re just throwing good money after bad. That’s not reform. We need to permanently bring down costs so we can eventually save more money than we spend. And that’s what I want to do.
Now, we’ve outlined a way to pay — (applause) — we’ve outlines a way to pay for this reform with cuts and savings in our budget. And as we make these and other investments, we have to restore fiscal discipline in Washington so that we don’t leave our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt. Already, my administration has identified more than 100 government programs that we can reduce or eliminate, saving taxpayers nearly $17 billion next year alone. (Applause.) And we’re going to go line by line through the budget, looking for even more places to cut.
We’re living through extraordinary times. We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face, but we are determined to answer the call to meet them. We’re going to cast aside the old arguments and overcome the stubborn divisions and move forward as one people and one nation.
And I know it won’t be easy. There are going to be setbacks. There are going to be times where we get weary. It’s like running that marathon, and you hit a wall and you’re going to say, my feet hurt and my knees are buckling. This is going to take time. But I promise you that I will always tell the American people the truth about the challenges we face and the steps that we’re taking, and I will continue to measure my progress by the progress the American people see in their own lives.
And I’m convinced that if we stand together, then I know years from now we will look back on this moment as the time when the American people reclaimed together their future and wrote the next great chapter in American history.
We’re doing that because of you, and I’m grateful to you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END
7:24 P.M. EDT
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 19, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO PARTICIPANTS OF YEAR UP CENTER
Year Up Center
Arlington, Virginia
1:40 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: How is everybody doing today? Doing good?
AUDIENCE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is good to see you. First of all, I want to thank Gerald for founding this extraordinary program. Give him a big round of applause. (Applause.) And I want to thank Tanisia for running this thing in an extraordinary way. It seems like she’s doing a great job. Give her a big round of applause. (Applause.)
I am just very excited to be here. I just met four of your fellow Year Up participants, and they represented you very well. And they told me a little bit about the program.
I know that so many of you are doing extraordinary things now, but you’ve had your bumps in the road and there have been some tough times. And part of the reason we wanted to come here is that Father’s Day is coming up, and a lot of young people in America these days are growing up without fathers in the house, and as a consequence, without direction. And I’m somebody who didn’t have a father in my house when I was coming up. And what we wanted to do was to highlight the fact that, first of all, there are all kinds of people who succeed despite the obstacles, but also to remind ourselves that there’s so much talent out there that is untapped because people don’t have pathways to success, and they don’t have somebody who is giving them a hand and giving them advice and giving them counsel.
And so, number one, we want to send out a message that our parents — that’s the first foundation –0. and fathers especially need to be involved with their children’s lives. So the young men who are here today, I just want you to know that even if your father was not there, you can be there for your child when you have a child — and it’s not a bad thing to wait to have a child — (laughter) — until you’ve got your act together.
But the second message was also to say that we as a community can help provide young people with support and direction. And I think that this Year Up program is a terrific example of that.
So I just want to thank all of you for being great models — role models for your peers and for younger people who are coming up — your brothers and sisters, people in the community, they’re all watching you. I want to remind you that things are going to get tough at times in your lives, and I don’t want anybody here to feel discouraged. Right now the economy is going through a very tough time, which means that the job market is more restrictive especially for young people entering the market. But the skills that you’ve obtained and the poise, character that you’ve been developing is something that will last you a lifetime and you will be successful as long as you stick with it.
So we’re just very proud of you. And that’s it from me. Now what I want to do is just open it up and have questions.
END
1:44 P.M. EDT
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 19, 2009
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:15 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Let me take 10 seconds to get organized. Let me quickly go through a week ahead for your planning.
The President will spend the weekend in Washington and has no scheduled public events. On Monday the President will sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in the Rose Garden. On Tuesday the President will meet with the President of Chile at the White House. On Wednesday the President will hold a town hall meeting here at the White House in the East Room on health care, which will be broadcast on ABC during prime time. On Thursday the President –
Q Do you know what time?
MR. GIBBS: I believe it’s taped at 8:00 p.m. and broadcast at 10:00 p.m., if I’m not mistaken.
Q Coverage? Are the rest of the press in there as well?
MR. GIBBS: I assume so. I assume we’ll put a pool in there at least.
On Thursday the President will participate in a service event in Washington. The President will also host a small group of Senate and House members from both sides of the aisle at the White House for an immigration meeting. The meeting is to continue the conversation with the hopes of beginning the debate in earnest later this year. In the evening the President will host a picnic for members of Congress and their families on the South Lawn. And next Friday the President will meet with German Chancellor Merkel here at the White House.
Ms. Loven.
Q The House resolution, it asks for a direct condemnation of the government in Iran’s use of violence against protestors. And that kind of direct condemnation has not come from the White House this week. Can you comment on the resolution?
MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously, we welcome the resolution and we believe despite the question that it echoes the words of President Obama throughout the week. I think he –
Q But you’ve been saying that you hope they don’t use violence and directly — it may be a small difference, but it’s a big difference to some people.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President was pretty clear on Monday in the avail with Berlusconi.
Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn’t say they shouldn’t do it or directly criticize them for doing it.
MR. GIBBS: That’s not the way I read it. I think when the –
Q I have the –
MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he’s: deeply troubled by what I’ve seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there’s a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy — I stand strongly with the universal principle that people’s voices should be heard and not be suppressed.
I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.
Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.
MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.
Q So comment on the resolution?
MR. GIBBS: As I said earlier, we welcome it. It’s consistent with what the President has said.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President’s reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on — saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I’ve said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that — to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.
Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.
I will say, as the President has said, we’re not going to be used as political foils and political footballs in a debate that’s happening by Iranians in Iran. There are many people in the leadership that would love us to get involved.
Q The leadership of Iran?
MR. GIBBS: Yes. And would love to trot out the same old foils they have for many years. That’s not what we’re going to do.
Q Let me ask you one non-Iran question. Do you have a reaction to the indictment of Allen Stanford?
MR. GIBBS: I would certainly — I obviously would point you for details to the Department of Justice. But I think whether it’s this indictment or previous indictments that we have seen over the course of many months — I know we’ve talked specifically about Mr. Madoff — there are those whose outsized greed robbed millions of people of their savings and created part of a culture that led us to parts of the economic disaster that we’ve seen in this country.
I think the President has tried to address some of that in different proposals as well as financial regulatory reform. And we hope that those that have lost their savings will see justice.
Yes, sir.
Q Earlier this year the special inspector general for TARP, Neil Barofsky, tried to get documents relating to AIG. The Treasury Department rebuffed that request, although ultimately I think they did turn over the documents — but the Treasury Department sought a ruling from the Justice Department on just how independent Neil Barofsky’s office is supposed to be. Please explain from the administration’s perspective what exactly is going on here and why it appears as though the Treasury Department is pushing back against an independent inspector general.
MR. GIBBS: Obviously, Jake, the President believes that inspectors general fulfill a unique and important role in ensuring that programs operate with efficiency. No attorney-client privilege on any of this stuff has been invoked. No documents sought have been or are being withheld. The DOJ review is not related to any particular investigation. It is sorting out the legal issues relating to the creation of the office.
Q Right, but could you explain — could you actually answer my question? I understand the talking points you’ve been given, but can you answer my question, which is, why would the Treasury Department push back against the inspector general trying to get the documents –
MR. GIBBS: Well, again –
Q I understand the –
MR. GIBBS: I would point you to DOJ on the specifics on the specifics of that, and point you to the fact that the documents haven’t been withheld.
Q But Robert, we’re only, what, 150-some days into this –
MR. GIBBS: A hundred and fifty one.
Q A hundred and fifty one days into this presidency. Already the President has fired one inspector general, and his Treasury Department is challenging the independence of a different inspector general. Can you understand why people who believed the President when he talked about the desire to be held accountable and the need for transparency would say –
MR. GIBBS: Jake, we outlined the reasons why the inspector general for the Corporation of National Service, acted upon by the bipartisan board, recommended that he not be retained. I think we’ve discussed that. I know you’ve discussed that with the staff in many ways, and there are issues that are being sorted out in terms of the creation of different offices, but no documents are being withheld.
Q Right, but why did the Treasury Department push back? I understand ultimately they gave the documents, but why did they not –
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything from Treasury. I can certainly look and see what legal issues they were concerned about.
Q Is the precedent that — do you believe, does the President believe that the inspector general should be able to get whatever documents he needs to –
MR. GIBBS: The inspector general has gotten those documents.
Q With a struggle.
MR. GIBBS: Jake, I don’t know how — more to say that the inspector — the answer to your question is the inspector general has the documents that the inspector general wanted.
Q Well, either the Treasury Department respects the office of this inspector general or it doesn’t.
MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, we can go back and forth on your question and my answer. I think I’ve answered the question.
Helen.
Q Is the President going to drop the public option in lieu of the opposition on the conservatives on the Hill –
MR. GIBBS: No.
Q — including the Democrats?
MR. GIBBS: No.
Q He’s going to fight for it?
MR. GIBBS: The President believes strongly that for the uninsured entering the market there has to be choice and competition. The American people, coincidently, believe that too. The President believes it’s an important aspect of any health care reform plan that has to go through Congress.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, in light of the Ayatollah’s comments and just the overall climate in Iran, is it more difficult now for the administration to have any kind of significant dialogue with Iran over the nuclear issue?
MR. GIBBS: The President and the team don’t believe so. This is — again, we’ve talked about this, our interests remain the same. We’re concerned about the Islamic Republic living up to its responsibilities as it relates to nuclear weapons.
Q But if they’re saying — the Ayatollah is saying, you know, the U.S. is giving mixed messages or the President, specifically — I mean, how will that complicate the dialogue?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t think anybody should be under the illusion that any of this will be easy, but our interests remain the same, I think the interests of the world remain the same. I think, again, we have a pretty good sense of what not engaging with Iran, what the results of that are, in the number of several thousand spinning centrifuges. The President discussed the notion that we have to do things differently and I think you see, as we’ve said, we’ve seen at least the ferment, as the President said, of productive change in Iran.
Q And I’m wondering if — you know, the fact that the President has said he doesn’t want to meddle in the election there, is it not possible to have very strong language in support of the Iranian people without meddling?
MR. GIBBS: Oh, it is — the President did it on Monday and Tuesday.
Q But some would believe that it’s not strong enough.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I know there are some Republicans that didn’t believe it was strong enough. There are some Republicans that did believe it was strong enough.
Q But is it possible for him to have stronger language without taking sides?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President feels comfortable with the strong language that he employed on Monday and Tuesday to discuss this very situation. But, Dan, let me repeat again, there are people in Iran that would love for us to get involved. There are people in Iran who would love not to make it about one side in Iran versus another, but to make this about Iran versus the West or Iran versus the United States of America. It worked great for years. The President is not going to do that. I think many others, Democrat and Republican, have discussed the wisdom in that stance and the President is quite comfortable with where he is.
Q Can I just follow, Robert?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q As far as Iran is concerned, President has been reaching to everyone in that part of the world, including his speech in Turkey, his speech in Cairo, and here a very clear message as far as democracy and changes in those part of the world was concerned. You think President’s voices are being heard and his message, because what he was expecting that we care for you, but you (inaudible), we will work with you and changes must come in that part of the world just like in the U.S. or elsewhere.
MR. GIBBS: I think that the actions that the administration has taken and the voice of this President in reaching out, whether it was interviews early in the administration, messages to the people, directly to the people of Iran, the speech in Cairo — I do think that people have heard the President’s message. The President understands that five months of activity or an interview, a message and a speech aren’t going to change everything overnight. But I think the President feels confident that we’re making progress in that region of the world.
Q One more, please?
MR. GIBBS: Let me go with Chip.
Q Maybe I missed this and maybe it’s redundant, but I just want to get it clarified. Does the President condemn the actions of the Iranian government?
MR. GIBBS: He has condemned the violence. He’s condemned –
Q But does he condemn the actions of the Ayatollah –
MR. GIBBS: Well, the violence is being conducted by the government, right? The Revolutionary Guard — the pictures that we saw on Monday that the President reacted to, that was them.
Q So he’s clearly condemning the government of Iran?
MR. GIBBS: I think if you look at what he said throughout the week, it’s clear.
Q On health care, some dire reports out there — I’m sure they’re much more dire than you think they ought to be — but there have been delays up there. There are a lot of Democrats who say that the price tag now is just eye-popping, especially in light of the CBO analysis. And there are — and Republicans feel they’re getting tremendous traction here on the cost issue and that the tide is turning in their favor. Is this coming off the rails to any degree?
MR. GIBBS: No. I’m reminded that in five short months of the administration, about every six weeks I’m asked if the current initiative is heading off the rails; if something has unwound. We did it with the recovery plan, we did it with our budget, we did it with the recent supplemental –
Q But this is much bigger and more difficult than any of those.
MR. GIBBS: I would love to have posited that in response to one of your questions in, say, early January, mid-March, or just a few weeks ago in the supplemental. Look, Chip, there is a legislative process that takes time to wind its way through. This is an issue –
Q What inning are we in? What inning are we in on health care?
MR. GIBBS: Early, right? Maybe second? You still got plenty of time to get a beer and a hot dog before last call. (Laughter.)
Q They don’t have hot dogs.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I was going to say maybe a better alternative than a hot dog. I’m going to get a hot dog.
But look, I think we had an introduction of a bill in the House today — or a release of a piece of legislation in the House today that upholds the President’s goal of cutting costs, increasing the quality of health care in America, broadening accessibility. The health committee that Senator Dodd is leading right now is marking up a bill and making progress. I think we continue to put one foot in front of the other in the march toward health care reform.
But as I’ve said before, there’s a reason this is an issue that’s been debated back and forth for 40 years. Again, I think some of the most important things that came out of CBO this week were underscoring — I know this doesn’t get a lot of news attention because there’s no conflict — but underscoring the notion that the President has outlined a series of steps that CBO believes must be taken in order to deal with the rising costs of health care as it relates to the government’s budget.
We think those are all positive developments and we have — I think if you look back at some of the efforts that have been done over the past few decades, we have stakeholders that are involved in this that are on occasion split up and on different sides and shooting back and forth at each other that are all at the table working on this. So I wouldn’t call it a game in the second inning.
Chuck.
Q I want to follow up on the Iran stuff. You said nothing would change — you know, sort of, nothing is going to change sort of what the President wants to do in a policy toward Iran and having to do with the nuclear situation. Does the administration believe there should be consequences, though, in any future dialogue that is started, or whatever, based on the actions that the Iranian government has taken in this time period?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t want to get ahead of any of the dialogue. I think the President has been clear in underscoring and deploring the violence. But as I’ve said, Chuck, we still have U.S. interests on many issues including the one on nuclear weapons.
Q So what message does that send? I mean, one of the things that you guys –
MR. GIBBS: The message that it sends is we’re very clear about dealing with their nuclear weapons.
Q Even if it means dealing with a regime that you think may have stolen an election, may have started violence, may have pushed back — set back freedom, potential for freedom?
MR. GIBBS: This is about — well, I think the President and the international community understand the importance of dealing with what they all believe is the danger of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon.
Q Are you going to look to the United Nations for some international capacity to sort of condemn — if there is — because of this violence that you now say that we should — that you guys have condemned the Iranian government — should there be some sort of U.N. action that maybe does this?
MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to anybody on our team at the U.N. I think what you see — I think you see the size of marches increase. I think you see the passion increase. But I don’t know of any steps that are happening at the U.N.
Q Quickly on immigration. He said something today in his speech at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, that he wanted to seek comprehensive immigration reform. In his hundred-day press conference he talked about — he seemed to step back from that. So what’s changed since — before he said, “We want to enforce some laws on the books, then we’ll start looking at trying to do some more.”
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that –
Q I mean, has something changed since the hundred-day –
MR. GIBBS: No, I think the meeting next week will continue this process. But as we’ve said before, Chuck, we know there’s — we know the votes aren’t there right now. This is a –
Q And that’s what’s dictating the timetable. (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I’ll point you ad nauseum to any number of the questions on health care that might — I mean, yes, if we can’t seek 50 plus one, it will be tough to pass.
No, I mean, to be more serious, I think there’s a seriousness in an effort, but in understanding that in — I think in 2005 and 2006, even in 2007, there was not a majority yet to do this. We want to work with those, both in favor and support of those previous efforts, to see where we can get comprehensive immigration reform to pass.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Back on health care for a moment. The Senate Finance Committee is trying to bring the total costs of the bill down to a trillion dollars or less, and I understand the White House supports that goal, as well. Are you willing to make the tradeoffs that would be needed specifically in order to bring the costs down? Forget about the pay-for, but just to bring the actual costs down you’re going to have to turn back the benefit package, turn back the number of people who qualify for subsidies, the size of the subsidies; that’s how you bring the costs down. Is that a tradeoff that you’re willing to make?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we continue to watch what’s going on as the finance committee works through this process. I would mention that the President has put, I think at last count, $950 billion on the table as — you’re shaking your head — it’s actually –
Q No, but that’s not really relevant to my question. My question is, how do you pay for it; my question is, how much do you need to pay for?
MR. GIBBS: Well, but you did talk about pay-fors, right? And if we’re going to talk about — if you’re going to talk about trimming the cost down to a trillion, then I’m going to tell you that $950 billion has been put on the table. I actually think $950 billion of a trillion is actually a relevant part of the conversation to have. The President believes it’s a relevant part of the conversation. He’s talked about the fact that this plan has to be deficit-neutral. I think in many ways that’s a good portion of the answer.
The President isn’t going to sign a health care bill — I know you’re shaking your head, let me just try to finish this. The President is not going to sign a health care bill that increases the size of the deficit. In fact, the budget resolution won’t allow him to do that, right? Right.
So $950 billion is indeed relevant because having a series and an amount of money in order to pay for that bill equaling the cost of that bill will be part of what has to happen in order to get that through the process.
Q I probably didn’t ask the question clearly enough. What I was trying to ask was not how are you going to pay for it, are you serious about paying for it. You’ve spoken to that extensively. What I’m saying is in order to bring –
MR. GIBBS: Hoping, persuasive — but yes, go ahead. (Laughter.)
Q I said –
MR. GIBBS: I was pressing my luck.
Q I said I don’t disagree –
MR. GIBBS: I put $950 billion on persuasive.
Q I don’t disagree that you have put $950 billion of offsets on the table. My question is, in order to get the price of the bill down to $1 trillion from an estimated, what the last finance markup was, over $1.6 trillion — in order to bring that cost down, there are consequences which are reducing the benefit package, reducing the subsidies. And I want to know whether those are tradeoffs that the White House is willing to make.
(Cell phone rings.)
MR. GIBBS: Yes. We are — whose phone is that? All right, I’m kind of itchy here on Friday, I would love to take somebody’s phone. (Laughter.)
Obviously this whole process is going to be about how do we get something that is paid for and gets through the legislative process. I think the President has discussed this throughout the campaign. And I don’t know what the structure, in all honesty, of what is contained in the finance committee’s markup package of what — all the details of what that benefit looks like, the degree to which it goes out in terms of incidence of — percentage of your income above some percentage of poverty.
But there’s no doubt that these are exactly the types of tradeoffs and decisions that are going to have to be made throughout this process in order to get something — whether it’s — regardless of what that ultimate number is — and, again, the President has been very forceful in saying that that number has to be paid for, and that in looking for those resources we have to take the steps necessary, as we talked about a little earlier ago, to bend the curve on the government’s cost of health care in the future; that if we’re not taking those steps, then we’re not getting health care reform.
So all of those things are what I think will be — will take up Congress’s time and the President’s time in the next few weeks.
Yes, sir.
Q On tobacco and this legislation he’s going to sign on Monday, to what extent can we expect him to fold his own experience into what he’s going to say, his own experience with smoking?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I anticipate he’ll have — he’ll mention that in the remarks. You know, as we talked about last week when the President discussed his pleasure in seeing a bill that has wound its way through a legislative process for more than a decade to land on the President’s desk for his signature — he understands the struggles of millions of Americans with tobacco.
Yes, sir.
Q When will the President sign the war supplemental?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have an answer on — I don’t know that we’ve received the legislation yet, but it will be — I don’t anticipate that it will take long after we receive it.
Q On Iran, Republican Leader John Boehner said today that the U.S. should lead an international embargo on gasoline sales to Iran as a way to encourage the government not to use violence against protestors. Does the President think that’s a good idea, or are there other concrete steps the U.S. could take to –
MR. GIBBS: I didn’t see those comments before I came out here. We can have somebody look into that. Sanctions is something we’ve discussed. The President authored a bill that I can get you the details on, that as I recall was blocked last year by a Republican to put some stronger sanctions on Iran, and we’ll get you some information on that.
Q But do you think that sanctions now are an appropriate response to the way the Iranian government is behaving towards protestors?
MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, I think the President — well, I don’t want to get into the tit-for-tat on that right now.
Major.
Q Just to follow up on that quickly, when you said, “Sanctions are something we’ve discussed,” you mean generally — not in the context of this crisis?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I’m sorry. Yes, thank you, yes.
Q Yes, I just wanted to clarify that.
All right, I’ve got three topics, but one question on each, I promise.
MR. GIBBS: Okay. Hey, don’t tell me. (Laughter.)
Q Does the White House believe the Congressional Budget Office is an effective and reliable arbiter of the scoring of health care proposals and does it have any –
MR. GIBBS: To you it certainly does. (Laughter.)
Q — sort of say about the House Speaker and Chris Dodd, who were significant players in this debate, both in the last 48 hours criticized CBO’s methodology and the scoring that has come up –
MR. GIBBS: Well, but remember — and I haven’t seen the exact comments, but remember that — and I think even –
Q The Speaker said she’s frustrated because the CBO, in her words, always comes up with a “worst case scenario.” And Dodd has said he’s never understood why we have to please the CBO instead of ourselves as legislators. Is there — and I just wondered if the White House is satisfied with that kind of commentary.
MR. GIBBS: Maybe some of that frustration is the fact that right now CBO is looking at older proposals or half measures. I think the Dodd legislation that originally was scored wasn’t a final product. I don’t think there were savings mechanisms in there about bending the cost of health care.
But look, the President, as I said pretty clearly today, the President is going to look for health care reform that’s fully paid for.
Q By the measurement of the Congressional Budget Office.
MR. GIBBS: Unless or until somebody comes up with something different, yes.
Q On North Korea, under the sanctions, any member nation that wishes to enforce either the tracking of a suspect vessel or its inspection or shepherding that vessel to port must obtain the permission from its own government at the political and military level. That’s the language within 1874. Has the President been asked for permission for the U.S. Navy to board –
MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of.
Q Okay. And is there anything about the cargo on this vessel that leads you to believe that request is likely to come?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t want to get into that sort of specificity.
Q Okay. Last topic. The prayer breakfast today reminded me of something the President said during the campaign, that he would hope to or he probably would have a church selected for his and the girls’ and Michelle’s attendance in January. We’re now in June — can you update us on either the President’s churchgoing habits or his process in selecting a church?
MR. GIBBS: I know they’re continuing to look for a permanent place, mindful of many things.
Q Such as?
MR. GIBBS: What it does when a President decides to walk out of this building and walk into a different building and disrupt worshippers that are attending for their own personal reasons. I think that is certainly — that’s not an exhaustive list, but certainly one of the things that the President has on his mind about that.
Q Anything else that he has on his mind about it?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think there’s wanting to ensure that he finds a church that he, Michelle, and the girls feel most comfortable in.
Q Robert, following on that –
Q Does he use the chapel in Camp David?
MR. GIBBS: He does.
Q Robert, a follow on church?
MR. GIBBS: Sure.
Q Is the President, since he has not found a church home here in Washington yet, is he — is a minister being brought in to the White House on Sundays to have a service with the family? And is that also happening at Camp David?
MR. GIBBS: Well, as I’ve just said to Major, the President has been and very much enjoys the chapel and the chaplain up at Camp David. I don’t know that anybody has been brought in here.
Q And also real fast on something, the Senate has unanimously passed a symbolic resolution apologizing for slavery and racial segregation, and sent the measure to the House. This being the first black President — Bill Clinton did not apologize for slavery; George W. Bush said he would not do it as Africans were also involved in the slave trade. Does this President think that that’s something that should indeed happen?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I have not spoken with him specifically about the Senate resolution and I’d want to get his view on that.
Q Okay, well, what is the President’s thought about slavery, especially since he invoked –
MR. GIBBS: Opposed. (Laughter.)
Q Excuse me?
MR. GIBBS: Opposed.
Q Especially since –
MR. GIBBS: April, you just asked me what the President’s view on slavery was. What did you think I was going to say? (Laughter.)
Q You didn’t let me finish my –
MR. GIBBS: Okay, look, this is a very serious topic –
Q Yes, thank you.
MR. GIBBS: — I just want to note that that was your question. Go ahead, I’m sorry.
Q Okay, but I want to finish the statement –
MR. GIBBS: And it does drive me crazy when one doesn’t get a chance to finish their entire statement before somebody else — I’m sorry, I’m off track, go ahead. (Laughter.) It is Friday, guys; I’m just trying to have a little fun.
Q Anyway, you know, especially dealing with this issue of slavery, especially since he invoked the issue of slavery over a year ago in his Philadelphia speech on race, is it something that this White House could indeed tackle? Bill Clinton tackled it and tabled it in his second term when he dealt with the race initiative. Is this something –
MR. GIBBS: Tackled and tabled what? I’m sorry.
Q The apology — the possibility of an apology for slavery.
MR. GIBBS: Well, one, I don’t know if this is even something that — just purely legislatively, I don’t know if the resolution per se ultimately comes here or not for signature. I don’t know the answer to that.
Look, I think the President has spoken on any number of occasions about the stain that slavery left on this country, that throughout our history we have sought to better perfect our union and have had many bumps along the way. And one of the most significant of those stains is that of slavery; that it is clearly something that we continue to struggle with. The President obviously hopes that we can make progress on race relations and that we all have a deeper and better understanding of backgrounds and beliefs.
Yes, sir.
Q We’ve heard senior administration officials say that what’s happening in Iran is not about us. And we’ve also heard them say that they’ve never seen anything like this in Iran before. Does the White House think that the President’s outreach to the Muslim world, in Cairo or to Iran specifically in the New Year’s greeting, is influencing events in Iran right now?
MR. GIBBS: I think — I wouldn’t in any way seek for the administration to take the credit for what we’re seeing in Iran. I don’t know that — as you said, I’m not sure that anybody, even a week ago or so would have expected to see the courageous images that we’re seeing now.
I will say that I think that there are those in Iran and those throughout the Middle East that have noticed a different way of operating by this country, and that they’ve seen — and I think we’ve seen some improved relations, and I think we’ve also seen some improvement in the way this country is thought of by many countries in that region of the world. And I think that’s tremendously important not because we all have to feel better, but because there are very important foreign policy and strategic interests that we’ve discussed a lot in that region of the world.
I do think that I think you are seeing in Iran — I think you’re definitely witnessing something extraordinary. I think you’re witnessing something that many people might not have presumed or imagined, like I said, just a few — even a few weeks or a few days ago. And I think part of that is sort of what we discussed earlier, and that is I think there are those in Iran that see the United States of America not as it has been described to them, not as those have wanted their people to believe. I think that is a positive development for this country and for the entire world.
Q A quick follow-up. Do you have any idea how the Cairo speech was consumed in Iran? In other words, was it shown on –
MR. GIBBS: I can have those guys pull and see if we have stuff in terms of some of the social networking sites, or what media it might have been shown in –
Q Farsi one of the SMS –
MR. GIBBS: Yes, yes. So let me see if we can get you some stats on that.
Yes, sir.
Q Just briefly, back on health care and the struggles of trying to figure out how to pay for what it is that is ultimately agreed on. Obviously there’s been some talk, at least among some of the Democrats, of additional taxes, various things that — and also the discussion of taxing the employer benefits. The Republicans, it probably won’t surprise you to hear, are accusing Democrats of preparing a tax fest to pay for the President’s plan, which is not affordable. What’s your reaction to that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, Mark, I think if you — if I’m not mistaken, I can think of at least one Republican off the top of my head that talked about changing the tax benefits for the exclusion. I think if I sat at Google for about five minutes I could probably get you several dozen. I think one of the major reform bills that’s up there right now that’s been written by Senator Burr includes, if not a complete ending of the exclusion, some cap of it. So maybe they –
Q The RNC is specifically suggesting that some of these taxes are going to break the President’s pledge of not taxing the middle class.
MR. GIBBS: I think the President was pretty clear on that in an interview earlier this week relating to financial regulation. I think the President believes, as he said in that interview, that he’s put forward a course of action that he thinks is best able at this point to put that skin in the game. The bulk of that is changing the way we pay for health care. It’s injecting — it’s taking subsidies out of — for Medicare middle men, and it’s going back to the charitable deduction rates of the Reagan era. So I think there are — the President feels confident about what he’s put on the table.
Let me just go back to it — I think I read this earlier, but wondered what the President said earlier this week: “I do believe that something has happened in Iran where there’s a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past and that there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see a greater democracy.”
Yes, sir.
Q Back on North Korea. Has the U.S. reached out to any other countries, as far as helping in tracking that wayward freighter out there that — and is the U.S. looking at options beyond the U.N. resolution or possibly boarding it one day?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t want to get into operational specificity. As Ambassador Rice said here just one week ago, we sought from the United Nations and the international community strict sanctions on the movement of — possible movement of this type of material, and we’re fully committed to implementing what’s in those resolutions right now and changing, hopefully, the course of some behavior.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, what kind of outreach was there to the House in shaping the Iran resolution?
MR. GIBBS: I assume some people talked — were in conversations, but I don’t know to what degree.
Q But definitely –
MR. GIBBS: I assume that –
Q Somebody in the White House –
MR. GIBBS: I assume so, yes.
Q And on immigration. What the President talked about this morning sounded similar to what was discussed in the summer of ‘07. You said the votes aren’t there for it now. How do you get –
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you get there through the continuation of this dialogue and see if you can come up with ultimately — I mean, obviously, look, if you put up just what was out there we’re going to have to look through that and other ideas. And I think the President looks forward to — keep in mind that there will be people at the White House next week that don’t agree with where the President and others are. There are going to be final invitations having gone out. There are going to be members from both sides of the aisle next week to discuss it.
Yes.
Q There’s The Wall Street Journal report that President Obama wants to include civil unions to be counted in the census. Can you talk about that? Is that something the President wants?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, obviously, as we’ve discussed, the President and the administration are committed to a fair and accurate count of all Americans. And as the piece said, we’re in the midst of determining the best way to ensure that gay and lesbian couples are accurately counted.
Q And just to follow up on John Berry’s call that we had the other day when the President signed the memorandum, he talked about the need for a specific number of votes to fulfill the President’s campaign promise of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, and he kept saying 60 votes in the Senate. But is the White House talking to Republicans that might favor the repeal of this? I know there are a few.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, look, I think the administration — well, obviously, for math purposes, we’re going to have to have a coalition of people that believe, on each of those interests, that the policy isn’t serving our nation well. And the President is committed to making progress on both of those issues.
Steve.
Q Robert, back on the question of this apology for slavery. The Senate resolution also includes a disclaimer of sorts. It said, “This should never be used to argue for reparations.” The Congressional Black Caucus is very unhappy about that; it may not win their support when it goes back to the House. Does the President think reparations should be ruled out?
MR. GIBBS: The President has not and does not favor reparations.
Yes, sir.
Q Thank you. In the spirit of the discussion on Iran, have the Russians shared with you the results of their own discussion with the Iranian leader who they hosted recently in their own country?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the answer to that, whether NSC had discussed –
Q I really wanted to ask you about the upcoming trip to Russia. And I know it’s probably too early, but can you talk in general about how the President gets ready for such trips, how early he starts, what the preparations involve? Is there any input from the outside — outside of the White House?
MR. GIBBS: Well, the process in many ways for this upcoming and important trip to Moscow started not long after, and in some cases working on specific initiatives, before the G20 in late March. Obviously, we have a robust agenda with which we hope to discuss, particularly surrounding making — restarting arms control talks. And hopefully, by the end of the year coming to an agreement about some specific numbers to eliminate nuclear — begin to take some steps to eliminate even further nuclear weapons that each side has toward the President’s goal ultimately of a nuclear-free world.
Q I’ve seen comments in the press suggesting that it’s still a different type of a visit, going to Moscow, than going to Europe, for instance, or even going to the Arab world as he has done recently. Is it really for you? Is it any different in terms of preparations, in terms of –
MR. GIBBS: No, I think — look, I think everybody understands the importance of the issues that are going to be discussed. I think in many ways the preparation — the preparation is not that much different. We certainly hope that we can make some substantive progress on issues that we know are of importance to both sides.
David.
Q And lastly, when did –
MR. GIBBS: Maybe we have to move you up to the first row, if you keep asking more questions. (Laughter.)
Q When did they last talk, the two Presidents?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know that they’ve spoken since the G20. I mean, I know, obviously, General Jones has spoken with his counterpart; Mike McFaul has had many discussions. But I don’t believe the two Presidents have spoken since that date.
Q In the past week, has the President spoken to any outside-the-government experts on Iran? And, if so, who?
MR. GIBBS: I can check. I don’t know that — I don’t –
Q Has he spoken to anybody on the subject?
MR. GIBBS: Outside the government? I don’t know the answer to that, but I can certainly check.
Yes, sir.
Q Earlier in the week, the President said that he felt the supreme leader was aware that the people of Iran were concerned about the election — I think it’s a fair summary of what you said. Is that still the case, given that the supreme leader said in his speech that Ahmadinejad had won by 11 million votes, and that the Iranians have spoken?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the international community and the United States continues to have concern about the way in which the election was conducted. And I think that concern is pretty well held by the hundreds of thousands of people that continue to seek some sort of justice.
Yes, sir.
Q Was the President disappointed to hear the supreme leader coming out — he’s saying that his opinion is closer to those of Ahmadinejad; they’re closer to Ahmadinejad’s opinion than to those of Rafsanjani, the reformist who backed Mousavi?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t want to get into a back and forth. I think the President continues to be concerned about ensuring that those that seek the justice that I was just speaking about had the opportunity to do that. But I don’t want to get into a comparison about –
Q Does he still believe there are different centers of power in Iran?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we’re witnessing the fact that there are different belief structures and different centers in Iran.
Yes, ma’am.
Q You actually — just to follow up on something you had discussed in yesterday’s briefing. Can you speak to the U.S.’s or the White House’s confidence in Saudi Arabia’s relocation program with detainees that (inaudible) terror suspects over there? And kind of on that same subject, has the White House or has the President been having discussions with anyone from Saudi Arabia, officials of the country, about taking I think it was the Yemeni detainees that are –
MR. GIBBS: I believe that we have had discussions with the Yemeni government, and have had discussions at different levels with the Saudi government about that program and about detainees that are — some that have been transferred, and some that are still held at Guantanamo Bay.
Obviously I think the President believes that — and has said repeatedly, he is not going to make a decision to — on anything related to Guantanamo that would threaten the security of our country. But I don’t want to get into any depth about some of those discussions.
Q But did that come up in his conversations –
MR. GIBBS: Discussing Guantanamo definitely came up.
Yes, ma’am.
Q I wondered, did the President watch Ayatollah Khomeini’s speech? And then –
MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of.
Q And then I also wanted to ask about the House resolution. You’ve said repeatedly that the U.S. isn’t going to get involved in it, but when more than 400 members of the people’s representatives make a clear statement about it, isn’t that the U.S. getting involved?
MR. GIBBS: Well, no, I think, again, let’s — the resolution expresses the support of all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That’s the sort of topic sentence. I think the President has spoken out throughout the past week on the universal principle contained in each of those values. And I don’t think that expressing support for the ferment or expressing outrage in the violence is meddling in the Iranian process.
Yes, ma’am.
Q I just wondered if you could clarify, as far as health care tradeoffs. When you did say that you’re willing to reduce health care benefits and subsidies, are you in any way also including health care tax benefits and subsidies?
MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry?
Q Are you in any way willing to consider reducing health care tax benefits?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we’ve done this like 15 times and I think the President spoke pretty clearly to this in that interview that I discussed a minute ago on financial regulation earlier in the week.
Yes, sir.
Q Thanks. If we could go back to inspector general issue. Senator Grassley issued two letters yesterday and since then he’s been really pushing the AmeriCorps issue. But he issued two letters to both the Treasury Department and the International Trade Commission regarding their inspector general. And could someone infer that there is a trend in the administration towards inspector general based on –
MR. GIBBS: If they inferred it, it would be an incorrect inference.
Q Thank you, Robert.
MR. GIBBS: Thank you.
Q Happy Father’s Day.
MR. GIBBS: Happy Father’s Day to all you guys.
END
3:08 P.M. EDT
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »