WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama praised the House of Representatives for passing the energy bill on Friday evening. This historic piece of legislation will not just lessen our dependence on foreign oil, but also spark a clean energy transformation in our economy that will create millions of new American jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced. Clean energy and the jobs it creates are critical to building a new foundation for our economy.

The audio and video will be available at 6:00am Saturday, June 27, 2009 at www.whitehouse.gov.

Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
June 27, 2009

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a historic piece of legislation that will open the door to a clean energy economy and a better future for America.

For more than three decades, we have talked about our dependence on foreign oil. And for more than three decades, we have seen that dependence grow. We have seen our reliance on fossil fuels jeopardize our national security. We have seen it pollute the air we breathe and endanger our planet. And most of all, we have seen other countries realize a critical truth: the nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy.

Now is the time for the United States of America to realize this too. Now is the time for us to lead.

The energy bill that passed the House will finally create a set of incentives that will spark a clean energy transformation in our economy. It will spur the development of low carbon sources of energy – everything from wind, solar, and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal. It will spur new energy savings, like the efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer. And most importantly, it will make possible the creation of millions of new jobs.

Make no mistake: this is a jobs bill. We’re already seeing why this is true in the clean energy investments we’re making through the Recovery Act. In California, 3000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1000 permanent jobs. In Michigan, investment in wind turbines and wind technology is expected to create over 2,600 jobs. In Florida, three new solar projects are expected to employ 1400 people.

The list goes on and on, but the point is this: this legislation will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. That will lead to the creation of new businesses and entire new industries. And that will lead to American jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced. I have often talked about the need to build a new foundation for economic growth so that we do not return to the endless cycle of bubble and bust that led us to this recession. Clean energy and the jobs it creates will be absolutely critical to this new foundation.

This legislation has also been written carefully to address the concerns that many have expressed in the past. Instead of increasing the deficit, it is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions. It provides assistance to businesses and families as they make the gradual transition to clean energy technologies. It gives rural communities and farmers the opportunity to participate in climate solutions and generate new income. And above all, it will protect consumers from the costs of this transition, so that in a decade, the price to the average American will be just about a postage stamp a day.

Because this legislation is so balanced and sensible, it has already attracted a remarkable coalition of consumer and environmental groups; labor and business leaders; Democrats and Republicans. And I want to thank every Member of Congress who put politics aside to support this bill on Friday.

Now my call to every Senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth. It’s just not true.

We have been talking about energy for decades. But there is no longer a disagreement over whether our dependence on foreign oil is endangering our security. It is. There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It’s happening. And there is no longer a question about whether the jobs and industries of the 21st century will be centered around clean, renewable energy. The question is, which country will create these jobs and these industries? I want that answer to be the United States of America. And I believe that the American people and the men and women they sent to Congress share that view. So I want to congratulate the House for passing this bill, and I want to urge the Senate to take this opportunity to come together and meet our obligations – to our constituents, to our children, to God’s creation, and to future generations.

Thanks for listening.

the legend: sony acid music studio 7 Now only $69.99 the playing field has been leveled http://tiny.cc/webnews181 #sony #acid #music #studio6-27-9 Iran News- Freedom News- NiteOwl Update of Iran and Information to help Iran Freedom

http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/26/6-27-9-iran-news-iranian-state-tv-propaganda/

http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/26/6-26-9-freedom-news-cap-and-trade-passes-house-battle-switches-to-senate/

obama news archive feed

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

6-27-9 Obama News- First Lady at United We Serve Summer Kickoff With Maria Shriver

27. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the First Lady
___________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 22, 2009
REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY
AT A “UNITED WE SERVE” SUMMER KICK-OFF ACTIVITY WITH MARIA SHRIVER

Bret Harte Elementary School
San Francisco, California

12:31 P.M. PDT

MRS. OBAMA: Oh, wow, thank you. Maria — First Lady Maria Shriver — oh my goodness. (Applause.) I am thrilled to be here. This is my first trip, I think, to the West Coast since I’ve been First Lady. (Applause.) I think so. And this is a great way to spend it.

I have to give kudos back to Maria. She is a girlfriend. She has been such a tremendous support through me — to me throughout this journey. She has been a role model in so many ways, and she’s such a gifted individual. And she’s provided me with the kind of inspiration that it takes to get through this wonderful journey that I’ve been on. And I am so glad to be working on this project with her. Let’s give our First Lady, your First Lady, a round of applause. (Applause.)

So one of the reasons why I’m here is that we’re here to kick off what we’re calling United We Serve. (Cheering.) Yes, they’re excited about it! (Laughter.) They are fired up about United We Serve. We should be fired up.

As you may know and as Maria said, community and national service is something that’s near and dear to my heart. It’s not something that we just started to do in the White House. It’s been sort of the air that we breathe in the Obama household in so many ways, and I see faces of people that I have served with who have helped bring me to this point in time — friends, folks — (cheering) — hey! — (laughter) — friends who have helped get me to this point in time. So it is just a tremendous honor for me to be here.

And as we think about what we’re trying to do through United We Serve, I just think — imagine the changes that happen with the creation of this park. Kids who were never able to play on a swing set get the opportunity to play. And that just doesn’t happen here on this site. Think about the libraries that will be changed because each of us donates a book or two. Or think about the smiles that are on some homeless person’s face because you took the time to spend a couple of hours to feed somebody a healthy meal. That’s what United We Serve is all about. It’s a nationwide effort to call Americans to make service a daily part of their lives — like all of you here; it’s not something that you do in your spare time.

As history has shown again and again, when we come together as a nation, we can really get things done. We saw that in this past election. We’ve seen it time and time again. Service is how we get where we need to be.

And United We Serve is going to focus on a couple of key strategies: one is education, health, energy and the environment, and community renewal. (Applause.) And the project that we’re working on here today has a clear focus on health and community renewal.

And I’ve been talking a lot about health lately. America’s children, as we all know, deserve the healthiest start that we can possibly give them. And there are several components to a healthy start, and one is eating right, and that’s something that I’ve been talking about with the creation of the first White House Kitchen Garden. (Applause.) We just harvested from that garden earlier this week. It was a wonderful event. The garden is blooming. If you visit the White House, you’ve got to see this garden. The rain has just made it a tremendous — just bursting with vegetation. It’s really good.

But health is just one part of it. The other component, as we all know, is that kids have to be active. They have to move their bodies in order to get their minds flowing. It’s important for us to help our children understand that connection between what they eat and how they feel, and the fact that if they move their bodies and get their self going, they just have more energy to get through the day. That’s our job as the adults in their life.

And as the President and Congress begin to tackle health care reform, which is coming up, we will begin to see the costly effects of unhealthy habits that burden our health care system. We’re going to see the costs, where it’s going to be more clear to us. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high-blood pressure are all diet-related health issues that cost this country more than $120 billion a year, and that’s a conservative figure. While that dollar amount is shocking, and it should be, the effect on our children should be even more shocking.

Childhood obesity in the United States is reaching epidemic proportions. I talked about this last week at the Garden Harvest. Nearly a third of the children in this country are either overweight or obese, and a third will suffer from diabetes at some point in their lifetime. These are children. And in the African American and Hispanic communities, those numbers climb even higher so that nearly half, okay, half of the children in those communities are going to suffer that fate.

And for the first time — and this is the thing that shocked me — in this history of our nation, medical experts have warned that our youngest generation may be on track to have a shorter life span than their parents as a direct result from obesity.

This has serious consequences for the immediate and long-term health of individual children and for our national health care system. There are just too many kids that are living a life off of high-calorie food and they’re not getting enough exercise. And in order to stay healthy, children are supposed to get 60 minutes of activity every single day. Now, how many kids in your lives are doing that these days, at least 60 minutes every single day?

So that’s why we can’t underestimate the value of having safe and quality playgrounds in every single community. You know, that’s why this project that we’re doing here today is so important, and why organizations like Kaboom are just necessary, not just to the health of our children but to the health of the entire nation.

And I’ve known Kaboom for a long time. They’ve done stuff not just here in San Francisco but around the country. They’ve done projects in Chicago, my hometown. (Cheering.) For the last 14 — yes, a little shout-out for Chicago. (Cheering.) There’s nothing wrong with a little shout-out for Chicago. (Laughter.)

For the last 14 years, Kaboom has been building playgrounds in under-served communities across the country. And their vision is to have great places for kids to play within walking distance of their homes, and they do this by enlisting the help of communities and people like you from around the country. That’s why we’re here.

So now the focus becomes exercise. We’ve got to get kids moving. We’ve got to get them active. And the truth is we all know this, but at the same time there are so many kids around this country who don’t have access in their schools to recess or outside play. Too many kids are sitting around watching TV, playing computer games. And I don’t know about you, but we’ve instituted Camp Obama in my house — (laughter) — which means that the television and the computers are off all day until after dinner and right before bedtime. Bedtime is early. (Laughter.) So we’re shutting off the TV and turning off the computers in our house.

And our kids are fortunate, because as you know, we have a swing set — finally — (laughter) — in the White House. (Applause.) And there’s nothing like watching kids play. And my kids, they get to swing on the swings, climb on the jungle gym. They’re playing; they don’t even know they’re getting exercise. That’s the value of play and that’s what we need to get our kids to do in this community — but we have to provide them with resources to make that happen. This project is so critical.

So I want people, as they think about how they’re going to spend this summer, in addition to making your kids play, think about engaging in United We Serve. And think about ways that you can take more time to devote to activities and projects that are going to get our kids healthy and moving, whether it’s serving a healthy meal at a soup kitchen, building a play lot, finding a project in your area that’s going to focus on the health of our kids, taking time to tutor, mentor, taking a kid to the beach. I know in Chicago there are kids all over my city at home who have never seen the lake. I know that this is true for many communities across the city. Kids don’t even know where they can play or what they can play. That’s where we all come in. That’s where we need your help. And today is just the beginning.

It is a great honor for me to be here. I am so delighted to be a part of the conference that’s coming up, to be hanging out with my good friend, and to be able to spend some time getting this playground together. So let me stop talking, and let’s get to work. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

END

6-27-9 Iran News- Freedom News- NiteOwl Update of Iran and Information to help Iran Freedom

http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/26/6-27-9-iran-news-iranian-state-tv-propaganda/

http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/26/6-26-9-freedom-news-cap-and-trade-passes-house-battle-switches-to-senate/

obama news archive feed

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

6-26-9 Obama News- White House Press Conference- Robert Gibbs

27. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 26, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:13 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Let me just quickly do the week ahead. The President will spend the weekend in Washington and has no scheduled public events.

On Monday the President will meet with President Uribe of Colombia here at the White House. He will attend an event at the White House recognizing and celebrating the accomplishments of LGBT Americans. Invited guests include families, volunteers, activists, and community leaders.

Tuesday the President will hold an event here at the White House. Wednesday the President will attend meetings –

Q What kind of event?

MR. GIBBS: Unclear. On Wednesday the President will attend meetings at the White House and an event in the D.C. area.

Q Cryptic.

MR. GIBBS: Very good, right? We’re expanding the circle. (Laughter.)

On Thursday the President will attend meetings at the White House. Later the President will travel to Camp David, where he will remain until Saturday. On Saturday the President will return to the White House and host a 4th of July event here in the evening. And as you all know, on Sunday night the President will depart for Moscow.

Q Any statements from –

MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of.

Q Do you know when the press charter is leaving? Because the last we heard was either the 4th or the 5th.

Q Saturday.

Q Late, late in the day.

MR. GIBBS: Yikes. Mr. Feller.

Q Thanks, Robert. A quick follow-up on Iran, out of today’s press avail. The President said there was no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks. And I just wanted to see if you could add a bit to that, what he means by “no doubt”? What has definitely changed at this point and what still remains to be seen?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Ben, I think you heard the President say in his news conference earlier in the week that right now our focus is on what’s going on there on the ground. Obviously lots has to — a lot of things are going to have to shake out and get figured out obviously as we watch that. I think the President has been clear on that. As I’ve mentioned here, there are multilateral invitations.

And, look, a lot of this is — the Iranians have been offered a pathway to meet their responsibilities. In many ways, their actions are up to them and I think that’s what the President said today. The G8 last night reiterated their multilateral invitation through a statement — based on an ongoing invitation from early April.

Q Well, I understand he’s been consistent saying that events have to play out and the U.S. is watching and the world is watching. But when he says today there’s no doubt that any direct dialogue is going to be affected by what’s happened, is it clear at this point, regardless of what happens in the coming days, that at least something has changed?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, look, I think we’ve seen the images, we’ve seen the violence, we’ve seen the actions in a way that leads I think many to believe that Iran isn’t going to choose the pathway that’s been offered by this and other countries as part of the P5-plus-1. Obviously it’s — again, I think their actions are up to them.

Q I also wanted to ask quickly on climate. The House had a test vote this morning and the climate bill narrowly got through there. Is the White House as confident today as you were yesterday that this bill will ultimately pass?

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, the President obviously has been engaged in talking to members, as have staff members here. I think you heard the President discuss the importance of this legislation when he did — when he met with you all with Chancellor Merkel. And we continue to work it hard in hopes that today will make a big step forward in getting climate change and energy independence legislation one step closer to his desk.

Q Is he still confident?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Yes, sir.

Q Just sort of a variation on the Iran question. When the President said there was no doubt, did that mean that, in effect, he’s decided to delay his outreach for now? Or is he just sort of stating the obvious that the talks — that the outreach can’t proceed until the situation is –

MR. GIBBS: I think it’s more stating the obvious of — and again, reiterating what he said earlier in the week, that obviously the Iranian regime is involved in what’s going on inside of Iran right now. But again, I think, as I stated earlier, there are multilateral invitations. And again I want to reiterate most of all that there are decisions relating to what’s going on currently in Iran and ways for them to meet their responsibilities as it relates to nuclear weapons or terrorism that are, in many ways, decisions that they have to make. And it’s up to them to accept the pathway to responsibility.

Q And I also wanted to ask a question about the meeting with President Uribe. Colombia is very interested in getting the free trade agreement approved that’s been pending for a long time. Are you expecting any sort of concrete results to come out of this meeting that would advance that agreement?

MR. GIBBS: I won’t get ahead of what the President will talk about — or what might come out of the meeting, I should say. But I have no doubt that it will be something that President Obama and President Uribe discuss early next week.

Yes, sir.

Q Senator Grassley has said that the administration is stonewalling on these trade agreements. Is that a fair way to characterize it?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t think that’s the case. And I don’t honestly know the basis for which he makes that statement.

Yes, sir.

Q Greenpeace announced yesterday that it opposes the energy legislation. And I know that President Obama wanted — or originally proposed a hundred percent auction, and it’s now down to 15 percent. Greenpeace says that the lobbyists have gotten to this bill and watered it down so much that it’s better not to pass it. I’m wondering if President Obama feels that this is the best bill that can pass Congress, or if he stands by the content of this bill regardless of the political realities?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think there’s no doubt that the President believes this would be a historic step forward in energy and climate change legislation; that he disagrees with those on both sides of the political spectrum that criticize this legislation.

Jake, I won’t — I believe the President would very clearly say that would a process of a hundred percent auction that he proposed in the campaign be a more perfect way to do it? Yes. But I think the administration is not going to make the perfect the enemy of the really, really good. In a way that moves this bill — it moves this legislation forward and gets us one step closer to taking comprehensive action to deal with dangerous greenhouse gas emissions that we all know threaten and endanger our planet. And I think that’s why he’s working hard right now to ensure that it’s one step closer today.

Q Okay, I will ask. The President has talked a lot about his love of music. He hosted Stevie Wonder here. He has talked a great deal about what’s on his iPod to Rolling Stone Magazine. Well, what’s his reaction to the death of Michael Jackson?

MR. GIBBS: I talked to him about it this morning. Look, he said to me that obviously, Michael Jackson was a spectacular performer, a music icon. I think everybody remembers hearing his songs, watching him moonwalk on television during Motown’s 25th anniversary. But the President also said, look, he had — aspects of his life were sad and tragic. And his condolences went out to the Jackson family and to fans that mourned his loss.

Q Why not a written statement, then?

MR. GIBBS: Because I just said it.

Q And you say he did send condolences to the family — did he call the family personally?

MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of.

Q That was going to be my question, but you answered it –

MR. GIBBS: We’re done, right? (Laughter.) You guys really didn’t have a bunch of climate change questions either. I noticed you guys were a bit shy when the President was standing up there earlier today.

Q We were shocked.

Q Should we have shouted?

Q Was he waiting –

MR. GIBBS: I could have arranged it through a third party.

Q Ooooh! (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Sorry, go ahead.

Q I did think about shouting, but I already did that once this week.

The administration has consistently said that you have not wanted to meddle in the Iranian elections. But in the President’s remarks today, when speaking about the opposition leader Mousavi, he said “he has captured the spirit and imagination of the Iranian people.” Isn’t that an endorsement?

MR. GIBBS: No. You know, look –

Q It sounds like a strong endorsement.

MR. GIBBS: I think this was in a question about defending a statement that some of you all had been critical of, in terms of not endorsing him earlier.

Look, the President, as he said today, has taken great pains not to interject himself or the United States into this back-and-forth. I think we all understand — and we’ve seen the actions of President Ahmadinejad in just the last few days, trying very desperately to interject somebody else into this equation while people continue to make their voices heard and condemn the violent actions of the government.

I think — again, I’ve said this a lot over the past few days, and almost two weeks, but that’s what some in Iran want this administration and this country to do. And the President has spoken out about the universal principles that are involved here, while not getting involved in a debate in Iran, among Iranians.

Yes, ma’am.

Q President Carter was in Gaza recently and said that the people there are treated like animals. Does the President agree with that?

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen President Carter’s statement on that. I think the President believes clearly that comprehensive peace can bring security, stability, and opportunity to all people in the Middle East. I think the President has spoken about ensuring that hope and opportunity for Palestinians if both sides will have the courage to come together and seek that long-term peace.

Q I have a follow-up. The President always speaks about the right of the Israelis to exist, but he doesn’t speak about Palestinians, who 7 percent of their land is under occupation. Do they have a right to exist?

MR. GIBBS: Absolutely, Helen. I think if you look back at the –

Q Under occupation? How many years –

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, let me not parse the President’s words. I think if you look through the speech in Cairo, I think the President is pretty clear in his support for comprehensive peace, as I said, a two-state solution that will bring stability, security, and opportunity to everyone in that troubled region of the world.

Q Well, my only follow-up is that in his public remarks, he only speaks of Israel’s rights.

MR. GIBBS: No, I — we’ll pull that Cairo speech and we can have a conversation about different aspects of it. I think if you take a look at that again you’ll see that the President is –

Q I’m talking about other times that he talked.

MR. GIBBS: Well, does that time not count?

Q How long does he go on that he never speaks of Palestinians?

MR. GIBBS: I think you can go back and look at his comments, and he’s been very clear on this.

Chip.

Q Ever since the President toughened his language a few days ago, two things have happened — maybe more than two, but at least two. One is that the dissent has been all but crushed. So is he powerless to affect the situation there? And second, Ahmadinejad has attempted to use his words as exactly the kind of foil and political football that the President wanted to avoid. So, number one, is the President powerless there; and number two, did he give them the kind of ammunition that he was trying to avoid giving?

MR. GIBBS: No. Interesting 180 on your earlier question from earlier in the week.

Q Times change.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, apparently. Look, I think the international community continues to condemn what is going on in Iran. I think if you asked the Iranian regime where they are right now and where they sit and whether they think they’re in good stead and in control of that country, I think you’ll in a moment of honesty get a far different answer. The President, again, has responded forcefully from the very moment of the elections, the first day that you all asked him questions in the Oval Office about violence that might happen and violence that at that point had already happened.

I think, again, what you’ve seen from Ahmadinejad is probably right out of the regime’s playbook. They were going to — in many ways, they were going to try to do this regardless of what we said. I think the President, in many ways, disposed of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s language from the past couple of days at the press avail earlier. I think he has done what he needs to do to ensure that he doesn’t become a foil by the regime, and I think that’s been reported by many of your outlets from people believing that in Iran.

Q Do you think that his more forceful presentation, his more forceful words, have had a direct effect on the situation in Iran for the better?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President — the President spoke out forcefully against violence from the very beginning. I think those are universal principles that he and many throughout the world community uphold. And he will continue, as they discussed it — as he discussed it with Chancellor Merkel, and as the G8 has done, continue to speak out on this.

Yes, ma’am.

Q The President has always made an argument that unilateral engagement makes sense for our — within Iran — for our national security interests. I’m sure that he takes issue with some of the ways Iran conducts itself, that regime conducts itself up to this point, yet he still felt that engagement was a good policy. Today he seems to be saying engagement has to be on hold. In any way does that undercut the argument that he’s made all along, that something has changed?

MR. GIBBS: No, I think — again, I think what the President did today was largely reiterate what he’d said earlier in the week, that we’re going to — there obviously are a series of events that have yet to play out in Iran, and we’ll watch those events play out. I think our long-term interest, as it relates to Iran and the danger in the region remain, quite honestly, no different than they remained the day before the election. We’ve all witnessed the images since the days of that election, and that’s I think foremost on the minds of not only this President and this administration, but people throughout the world.

Q But you still believe in engagement as a policy?

MR. GIBBS: He does, understanding right now that the Iranians seem preoccupied.

Yes, sir.

Q Chancellor Merkel today spoke directly to the election results in Iran when she said that there should be a re-vote, some kind of recount. I haven’t heard President Obama say anything like that. Does he agree with Chancellor Merkel on that?

MR. GIBBS: That’s a decision that Iranians are going to have to make about their own leadership.

Q So are you saying that Chancellor Merkel was going to go further than — went further than President Obama was prepared to?

MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to — I’ve not been hired to characterize Chancellor Merkel’s statements.

Q But he said they spoke with one voice.

MR. GIBBS: In condemning the violence. I think you all have heard everything that the President said on this.

Q How hard is he working this climate bill thing today as the vote approaches? Has he been making calls today?

MR. GIBBS: He has made a few calls today, yes.

Q And what about anyone else here?

MR. GIBBS: No, as I said yesterday I know that the team that works on energy, obviously they’ve worked throughout this process to get the legislation to the point that it is right now and are working hard to get it through the House and on to the next step of heading into the Senate. They will continue to work that throughout the day.

Q Are the energy and interior secretaries still –

MR. GIBBS: Yes, they’re still involved. Yes.

Yes, ma’am

Q What’s the outlook like for it in the Senate, for the climate change legislation?

MR. GIBBS: Not being a senator, I don’t know what the particular — I don’t know what particular piece of legislation have thus far been written. I know that — I think a majority of people in the Senate strongly believe that we have to deal with this problem — dealing with this problem in a way that creates jobs, lessens our dependence on foreign oil, and protects the planet that we live on is something that can help lay the foundation for long-term economic growth and preserve our well-being.

So I think that the administration believes that legislation — it’s possible to get legislation through the Senate and to his desk.

Q What are you doing to get it through the Senate?

MR. GIBBS: Trying to get it over there by getting it through the House.

Yes, sir.

Q Some of the Iranian opposition groups are currently on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. The EU has removed them from its list. Would the President consider doing the same?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have any information on that — we can have somebody at NSC look that up for you.

Yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Robert.

MR. GIBBS: You’re welcome.

Q The President has said, I believe, that — or threatened to veto the defense appropriations bill because of F-22 measures. The defense appropriations committee recently increased funding for F-22s. Does the veto threat still stand?

MR. GIBBS: Absolutely.

Q All right.

MR. GIBBS: Secretary Gates has outlined a very robust plan to change our defense procurement and to invest in weapons systems and in manpower that make the most sense for the future. He and others have determined that that’s not part of that program and if that money is contained in the bill, the Secretary of Defense and advisors here, as I said yesterday, would recommend that the President veto that bill, yes.

Q The other thing, and it may be a little presumptuous now, but Senator Schumer, speaking at Georgetown on Wednesday, said that on the eve of the immigration summit, that a comprehensive immigration bill is what is in order, and he urged the President to go along those lines in his plan to solve the immigration problem. Three years ago comprehensive immigration meant naturalization and border security in one package. Does the President agree with Senator Schumer, it should be done at once?

MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to the Legislative Affairs guys in terms of whether this is all contained in one bill or how that’s all done, except to note this: That whether it is ensuring that there’s verifiable systems to check employees when they’re hired, strengthening security at our borders as well as providing that pathway to citizenship — that all of that represents comprehensive reform, and that the only way to deal with this issue is through that comprehensive reform.

Jeff.

Q Robert, I wondered if you knew if the President had ever met Michael Jackson in person, or if Mrs. Obama had ever met Michael Jackson?

MR. GIBBS: He did not — he did not tell me that he had. I can certainly check. I do not believe — I do not believe they have.

Q Thank you.

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q Can I ask a little bit more about Monday’s –

MR. GIBBS: About Michael?

Q Not about — (laughter.) Monday’s event, gay and lesbian –

MR. GIBBS: I admit I don’t have a whole lot on it, but yes.

Q You spoke about that it’s going to be a salute to the accomplishment of gay and lesbian Americans. Is this a sign that the President is feeling political heat from this group, that he felt that he should schedule this?

MR. GIBBS: No, this is an event scheduled around Pride Month.

Q Around Pride Month? And this is the first time that the White House has done that sort of event here.

MR. GIBBS: This will be the first time we’ve had Pride Month while we’re in the White House.

Q I was just wondering what — are we to expect any substantive announcements on the two issues that that community has right at the forefront right now — Defense of Marriage and “don’t ask, don’t tell”?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Yes. Nothing?

Q Well, I don’t know. How was the dunk yesterday?

MR. GIBBS: Thankfully the water had warmed up. I will be — I assume that Bill is not here because he’s icing his arm. (Laughter.) Either that or a try-out with the Nationals. I would have bet a hefty amount of money that Bill wasn’t going to dunk me, and I was proven wrong on the very first pitch.

Q What about Feller?

MR. GIBBS: Feller, I would have thought had a pretty good shot. But I have to admit, I was not counting on Bill Plante to send me wet. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Who else? Let’s go around, Stephen.

Q The president of Iraq said that the prime minister would need to strengthen security forces. Is he confident that the security forces as they’re currently constituted can quell this current wave of violence? And how much is the withdrawal from the cities, of U.S. troops, is sort of a litmus test for how things will go next August, at the end of combat operations in the end of 2011?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think as the President mentioned, obviously there is — while there is always concern about violence in Iraq, that he has certainly spoken to General Odierno and others. We’ve witnessed the continuing — certainly if you compare the security situation even now with months ago, the security situation has gotten stronger.

But, again, we’ve got — we have political progress that has to be made, continued security progress that has to be made. The President and his team — Ambassador Hill, General Odierno — believe that we’re making progress and that we’re on the pathway to meet our goals. But obviously, we’ll continue to watch it very, very closely.

April.

Q Robert, back on Michael Jackson. Understanding that many people viewed him as a complicated mix, you still had other world leaders come out with written statements on Michael Jackson — to include a leader here in the United States, Arnold Schwarzenegger, written statement; Nelson Mandela, others. Why not issue a written statement for a man who has come to this White House, visited other Presidents, been honored by other Presidents for his humanitarian efforts? He also worked with the Democratic Party, which this President is the head of, helped fundraise. Why not a written statement?

MR. GIBBS: I thought I did a pretty good job.

Q But at first, yesterday we were told, no statement. Then today you expected us to ask the President. And now there’s –

MR. GIBBS: Well, you guys are the media. I generally expect — April, have you never interrupted me to ask a question?

Q I have.

MR. GIBBS: I was surprised by the — maybe I was just surprised.

Q But what I’m getting at –

MR. GIBBS: I watched a little cable today.

Q What I’m getting at is why this way? Why now? I mean, we pressed you yesterday. We kept asking, we kept asking. And then we were told, no, no, no, no.

MR. GIBBS: But I think we said that there wasn’t going to be a statement. So I mean, I asked the President what he thought about it today, and as his spokesman, passed that along to you.

Bill.

Q Robert, back to the public plan option. The President wants to see comprehensive health reform — bipartisan, if possible — with a public plan option. Senator Grassley said two days ago, if you want any Republican votes, no public plan option. So who is driving this train?

MR. GIBBS: Which train?

Q The health reform train, in terms of whether or not there’s going to be a public plan option?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been very clear on what his priorities are. I think you heard the President say earlier this week that this is part of — health care reform is part of a long negotiation. The President believes that the public option for those that can’t afford insurance are offered it through their workplace, that for them a public option provides important choice and competition. But I think both the — and I would say both — I think both committees in the Senate are working toward making progress on the President’s goals.

Q But if Senator Grassley is willing to say, no bill if there’s a public plan, is the President ready to say, no bill if there’s not a public plan?

MR. GIBBS: You know, I think there are a lot of twists and turns and a lot of negotiating and detail working out between now and getting something to the President’s desk. I think he’s been clear. And, again, I think, to take one — you know, if you’re talking Democrats versus Republicans, look, even in the HELP committee, again, which has progress this week I think of over a hundred amendments from Republicans have been adopted throughout the course of the debate in that committee. So I think there’s evidence that Democrats and Republicans are working together at this point to further some of those goals.

David.

Q Just two follow-ups from weeks ago.

MR. GIBBS: Uh-oh, wow.

Q On June 17, Kirk asked you if the President supported the language used in the Justice Department brief in the DOMA case, and you said you would check and get back on that.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that’s — well, I can simply say that obviously that was filed by the Solicitor General of this administration.

Q But you know the complaints about the particular language –

MR. GIBBS: I understand, yes.

Q And that’s what you’re going to say on that? Okay. And then secondly, I asked last week what, outside the government experts, if any, the President has spoken to about Iran, and you said you would check.

MR. GIBBS: I will check. I’m not aware of any that — I think obviously many people in the administration have talked to other members of the administration in and outside of government. I don’t know of any in particular that the President has spoken to.

Q Thanks.

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q Thanks, Robert. Two quick ones. I wanted to follow up on Jeff’s question from earlier today. He asked the President if –

MR. GIBBS: The Michael Jackson one or the — (laughter.)

Q No, he asked the President –

Q I’ll follow it up. (Laughter.)

Q But if you have more on that, I’ll take that.

MR. GIBBS: Well, as soon as I get a chance to ask the President if he’s met Michael, I will.

Q He asked if the President felt that President Ahmadinejad owed him an apology for comparing him to President Bush, and in his reply, the President all but — he stopped just short of saying that he thought that President Ahmadinejad owed an apology to his people. He didn’t quite say that, but would you — do you think that’s what he was saying?

MR. GIBBS: I’d simply point you to what he said. I think he was fairly clear on what he meant and who it was directed to.

Q A follow-up from yesterday — the question that Kerry asked about that letter from 77 congress people?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, somebody was looking for that, but I don’t have any — I don’t have any new news on that.

Q Robert, one more on Iran, please.

MR. GIBBS: Connie.

Q Thank you. The President said the nuclear clock is ticking. Does that imply a deadline for some sort of military action –

MR. GIBBS: No, I mean, I’m not going to certainly get into anything like that. I think obviously — only to say that we continue to have grave concerns about steps that they would take to acquire a nuclear weapon. And I certainly have nothing that would suggest they’ve taken any steps not to continue to pursue it.

Mike.

Q Thanks, Robert. Governor Sanford was a very high-profile critic of the stimulus bill. And I’m wondering if the President has been following at all the developments this week or had any reaction to it, either politically or personally?

MR. GIBBS: No. I’m sure he’s read it in the paper, but he’s not given me any particular reaction to it

Yes, ma’am.

Q Back on Iraq, I was wondering, the President talked about he would like — how he would like to see more political –

Q (Laughter.) Sorry, I’m not trying to –

MR. GIBBS: I know, I got the Iraq part of it. Sorry, Jake distracted me. I apologize.

Q That’s okay.

Q We in the back can’t see how people in the front are cutting up, so, sorry. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Let’s all get along. Sorry.

Q The President talked about how he would like to see more political progress in Iraq. I was wondering if you could express some of the things the President is hoping for and what is he intending to do about that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, obviously he’s met continually with Ambassador Hill. Obviously the stops — or the meetings that we made during the stop in Baghdad on the — I guess that was in late March/early April. Obviously, without getting specific, there continues to be progress in terms of political reconciliation, in terms of oil and hydrocarbons; that as we move throughout a year, a very important year, of elections in Iraq, again, proving that it will take the steps necessary to govern its country.

Q Thank you, Robert.

MR. GIBBS: Goyal.

Q Two questions, please. Recently three top administration officials were speaking at the U.S.-
India Business Council across the street at the Chamber of Commerce — Secretary Hillary Clinton, and also Secretary Locke, and the USTR Ambassador Kirk. They had a very clear message as far as U.S.-India relations are concerned. Now since President has invited the Prime Minister of India, is he coming to come before the Pittsburgh G20 conference, a separate visit at the White House, or as part of the — and also, if President has a new road map for U.S.-India relations?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have any news on when a visit might happen.

Q Second, as far as immigration issue is concerned, it has been going on for many, many years, including in the last administration, with (inaudible) 245 in the U.S. Congress. Don’t you think President believes that by giving immigrants legal status it will bring billions of dollars in the U.S. economy and also they will come out of the shadow; and at the same time, they had supported the President during his elections and now they are looking for the next (inaudible) support?

MR. GIBBS: Obviously if you’re not a legal resident, you couldn’t have supported the President in the last election.

Q Their people — I mean, as far as –

MR. GIBBS: That would have been a little bit more news, Goyal, than we might have wanted to make here — (laughter) –

Q No, I meant immigrants –

MR. GIBBS: — on a Friday afternoon. (Laughter.)

Q I meant the immigrants, their relatives and their –

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the President has long been a participant in and a believer in comprehensive reform that strengthen our borders, ensured that he worked with Senator Grassley on legislation creating a database to check for employment to ensure that employers weren’t abusing the system, as well as taking steps to bring people out of the shadows, having them learn English, having them go to the back of the line.

And I think some of the stuff that’s come out of yesterday’s meeting also is that for the first time, we’re going to take some steps to ensure that those that are in the immigration process, which in years past has been backed up considerably, that we provide some ability for people to check where in that process they are. And I think that’s important to ensure a safe and orderly system.

Have a good weekend, guys.

END
2:50 P.M.
6-27-9 Iran News- Freedom News- NiteOwl Update of Iran and Information to help Iran Freedom

http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/26/6-27-9-iran-news-iranian-state-tv-propaganda/

http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/26/6-26-9-freedom-news-cap-and-trade-passes-house-battle-switches-to-senate/

obama news archive feed

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

6-25-9 Obama News- White House Press Conference- Robert Gibbs

27. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 25, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:44 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon.

Q Where’s the dunk tank?

MR. GIBBS: I went out there to see it. It’s out there.

Q Who’s going to be in it?

MR. GIBBS: Rahm is going to be in it. Phil Schiliro is going to be in it. Robert Gibbs is going to be in it. My only concern at this point is that the water gets a little warmer maybe before we start throwing –

Q Can we go out there too?

MR. GIBBS: Let’s just say — I will be more than happy — if I get the same number of throws you get, then I will see if it’s available earlier this afternoon. (Laughter.)

Q Deal.

MR. GIBBS: Oh, I’m ready to go.

Q But your arm would really hurt if –

MR. GIBBS: Yes, but I tell you what, if — how many people in here? I like my chances at getting warmed up on two or three throws if I get them times 40 or so people.

Q Coverage? Coverage?

MR. GIBBS: Of the dunk tank?

Q Yes, sir.

MR. GIBBS: Unclear. I don’t know what the — I just agreed to do it. I did not — I have not yet set up a pool for it. But we will — I will endeavor to see what –

Q That would be fun.

MR. GIBBS: For you. (Laughter.) Speak for yourself. (Laughter.)

Q We can bid on it. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Now, that’s a good idea. I will –

Q For charity.

MR. GIBBS: I can’t imagine that this is going to get a lot of money.

Q For charity.

Q I don’t know if we all want to see you in your swimsuit.

Q Did you bring your swimsuit? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: This is awfully — (laughter) — apparently off the beaten path. I brought some clothes to go to the gym in, and I think I’ll do that.

Q We could probably raise a substantial chunk of change to get video of you in the dunk tank.

MR. GIBBS: What’s it going for?

Q Well, shall we bid? (Laughter.)

Q One hundred thousand, two hundred thousand, three hundred –

Q For charity, five, 10 bucks a head for charity?

MR. GIBBS: Absolutely.

Q Make it $20.

MR. GIBBS: I’m happy to — you guys collect a pot of money, you guys pick your best arm, and you can have a shot at it.

Q Deal.

MR. GIBBS: You can throw it at me and I’ll get you the video.

Q Deal.

MR. GIBBS: All right? Sounds good. Thank you.

Q Going to the gym or doing yoga?

MR. GIBBS: No, just going to — again, no evidence there — no evidence, but, yes, visiting the gym.

Let me do one quick announcement and try to get this back somehow onto the rails.

Q What time are you –

MR. GIBBS: I’m in the tank at 7:20 p.m. But, again, we can do this — we can do the warmup pitches a little earlier for that, too.

Just one quick announcement. During his upcoming trip to Russia, on July 7, the President will give a speech at the commencement of the New Economic School in Moscow. The speech will be an opportunity for President Obama to discuss areas of mutual interest between the United States and Russia such as nonproliferation, global security, and economic growth. So that’s one aspect of the upcoming trip.

Ms. Loven.

Q On the climate bill, is the White House confident you all have the votes to get it through the House tomorrow?

MR. GIBBS: Well, the President is spending time talking with members of Congress. I think obviously many people understand that it’s a historic opportunity to take significant action to reduce our dependence on energy, to reduce greenhouse gases, and most importantly to create a firm marketplace for clean energy jobs. We like where we are now and I’d bet on the President.

Q How many calls is he making, and to whom, and what other officials in the White House are also doing that sort of lobbying

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know how many he’s — how many members he’s talked to. I know — you know, the energy team and the congressional team have been working for quite some time on this, and I think others in the White House have made calls too, but I don’t have an exact number.

Q Has he swayed anybody’s vote yet?

MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to him about the outcome of –

Q Who is the energy team?

MR. GIBBS: Carol Browner is — I mean, Carol obviously is the head of that inside here but, you know, obviously that includes Secretary Salazar, Secretary Chu, and others that are involved in these issues.

Yes, sir.

Q Two questions. First of all, on Ben Bernanke, he spoke on Capitol Hill today. Many lawmakers expressed concern about the Fed’s role in the Bank of America/Merrill merger. Does the President believe that the Fed overstepped its boundaries?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t — I won’t parse the words of the President by saying he has confidence in the job that Chairman Bernanke has done and confidence in the role that the Fed will play going forward to ensure what’s happened never happens again.

Q But any concern at all specifically about the Bank of America –

MR. GIBBS: Nothing.

Q Okay. And my second question is, forward looking to tomorrow, can you give us a flavor as to what President Obama and Chancellor Merkel will be discussing? And just kind of how the White House views U.S.-German relations.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think — I think U.S.-German relations are strong. Obviously, we saw — we saw her in Germany not too many weeks ago. I think they’re going to continue conversations as we head into the G8 about the importance of continuing to make progress in getting our world economy back on track. No doubt — and they talked about this in Germany — they will talk about clean energy and climate change. Obviously North Korea and Iran will be discussed, as they were in Germany. And I think — I assume issues such as Guantanamo Bay and others will be on the docket.

Yes, sir.

Q Yesterday at the health care forum, President Obama expressed some frustration with the way that the Congressional Budget Office scores health care bills, and I was wondering if there was any ramification to this. Is the President planning on not necessarily listening to what CBO says, whatever ultimately comes out of the Senate or the House? Is he planning on dismissing that number because of these concerns at all?

MR. GIBBS: No, I think he — as I’ve said here before, obviously they’re the budgetary scorekeeper, and obviously we will abide by that. I think — I think there are some frustration — some frustration in the notion that some things aren’t — I mean, look, the CBO has a defined mission, and some of the agreements and the savings that are being put together here are not “scorable.” They don’t show up in reports, and I think in some ways sometimes get glossed over. I think the President mentioned that.

But no, I don’t — we’ll abide by the CBO.

Q Robert, I’m wondering if you have any reaction at all to Ahmadinejad’s latest remarks about the President. And also, when the White House looks at the Iranian President, do they see him as relevant at all, or are you more concerned about the relationship with the Supreme Leader?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me take those individually. Look, I’ve said and the President have said for more than a week and a half now that there are people in Iran who want to make this not about a debate among Iranians in Iran, but about the West and the United States. And I would add President Ahmadinejad to that list of people trying to make this about the United States.

On your second question, I think the — as I’ve also said in here before, obviously the person who is — who has the authority to make decisions over national security and foreign policy and the primary national interests that we hold, as I’ve talked about, the nuclear weapons program and the support and sponsorship of terror are things that are directly under his purview.

Q And on immigration reform, as you test the temperature, I know it’s early on in terms of getting everybody to talk about where you agree or where you disagree. But as you test the temperature, what would you say it is at this point in terms of reaching some agreement?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, I hesitate to predict different — well, I’m not sure what number I could give on a –

Q In the 70s? Is it warm?

MR. GIBBS: — what different scale we’re using.

Q Warmer would be better, I guess.

Q How about an inning? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Early. Look, I think — I think the President looks at today’s meeting, as I talked about yesterday, as a continuation of a process that he hopes will result in this process becoming a more formal legislative debate later in the year.

I think he’s — I think he looks forward to — and I think if you look at the group that is coming today, you’ve got those that have in the past been for and been against comprehensive immigration reform. The President believes and looks forward to today’s meeting as a way to make progress toward moving down the road to something more formal later in the year.

Q Can I follow up on that? Does the President agree with Senator Schumer’s suggestion that in order to make immigration reform work, all Americans may need some kind of biometric ID card, all American workers — fingerprint, retinal scan, something like that?

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen the specific things that Senator Schumer has laid out. I don’t have anything on that aspect of the legislation or his idea, because I don’t think at this point there is a bill yet to — that’s moving through Congress. I don’t have anything.

Q So you wouldn’t weigh in on the President’s thoughts about something like that?

MR. GIBBS: I’d have to talk to him about that.

Q Different subject?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q The President — you said a couple of days ago that Americans are concerned and anxious as the President about the deficit, and they have a right to be. The President says it keeps him asleep at night. The polls also indicate –

MR. GIBBS: Keeps him awake.

Q Keeps him awake, I’m sorry. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Fox is what puts him to sleep. (Laughter.)

Q Ooooh!

MR. GIBBS: Sorry, I just — I couldn’t resist.

Q Slam dunk. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I try, I try.

Q He just means it’s the last thing he watches before he goes to bed.

Q He gets to throw the ball.

MR. GIBBS: Exactly, exactly. (Laughter.)

Q Is the President concerned that polls indicate that Americans — 60 percent — don’t believe he actually has a plan to deal with the deficit?

MR. GIBBS: Well, the President has a budget that cuts that deficit in half over the course of the next four years — the current budget deficit. I think as you’ve heard us talk about before, this is — we did not get here overnight. And it’s going to take us a while to get back on a path toward fiscal responsibility. One of the things that he’s talked about, Wendell, is ensuring that we’re making progress on health care reform as a way of bringing that deficit down, and changing the curve on our health care spending through Medicare and Medicaid. I think the President has outlined projects, as well as the Secretary of Defense, that he believes are not necessary spending. And we issued yesterday a statement of administration policy that said if the projects that the Secretary of Defense had outlined to the President were included in appropriations bills, then, upon the advice of the Secretary and senior advisors in the White House, those bills would be sent back, as I think Peter Orszag testified today.

I think the President is and the American people are rightly concerned about the enormous jump in spending that we’ve seen over the past few years. I think they understand it will take time to get back on that path, but the President does have a plan. Part of that is getting this economy moving again.

Helen.

Q Is the President concerned that he’s losing a lot of ground with liberal supporters?

MR. GIBBS: In what way?

Q In what way? His compromises and so forth, I think a Bob Herbert column and others.

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the President would agree with many who have said that he’s not going to get everybody to be with him all the time, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. But the President believes first and foremost that we have to make progress on the important issues that face this country. And I think his record in the Senate and in the state Senate in Illinois is in bringing groups together to do that.

Q Why doesn’t he have plans of his own and shoot for it?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Helen, he does have a plan of his own. But as we’ve discussed a few times in here, those plans have to get through the legislative branch down the street and then ultimately hopefully to come back here. And there’s give and take and there’s the finding of common ground, and I think that’s what the President –

Q He doesn’t think that Baucus is going to carry the ball for him, does he?

MR. GIBBS: I think the Finance Committee is making progress, as is other committees on CapitolHill, in getting comprehensive health care reform to the floor of both the Senate and the House.

Yes, sir.

Q The President said there’s a lot of inaccurate information out there on the energy bill. Could you elaborate on that, and what are the three or four main pieces of inaccurate information that he’s concerned about?

MR. GIBBS: I think the biggest thing, and you still see some that oppose taking strong action, say — well, I would say two things: one, that this is going to hurt jobs, not produce jobs. And as you saw in the President’s statement today and as you’ve seen in the investments that we’ve made in clean energy through the Recovery Act, creating a marketplace for clean energy will create jobs. And as the President said today, we’re going to have to figure out in this country whether — those jobs are going to be created. I don’t know if you — who was in the pool for the flight to Buchenwald in Germany, but one of the things that struck me in that helicopter were the number of windmills producing energy in a clean way in Germany. The question is, are we going to produce those jobs that create those blades and build those turbines, or are we going to import them from somewhere else?

I think secondly, I think many opponents have either — have used inaccurate information or made up numbers on how much a piece of legislation like this would cost the average American family 11 years from now. CBO reported that — I believe that’s the equivalent of 60 cents a day in 2020.

Yes, sir.

Q On the immigration bill, do you feel that you have to make a lot of progress this year, as the political calendar sort of ends up altering the dynamic, considering what happened to immigration the last time, that as the campaign season heated up both in the midterms and then in the presidential year — I mean, how important is this year for immigration as opposed to –

MR. GIBBS: Even-numbered rather than odd-numbered? Look, I think as much as anything, Chuck, I think this is obviously a debate that will take some time to move its way through Congress. So I think the more time you have, the better.

Q Do you think — I mean, that could work against you though, too, right? I mean, doesn’t it make it harder for you to get the votes that you need in an even-numbered year if this thing gets closer to that calendar –

MR. GIBBS: Well, unless we can find — unless we can find some common ground, unless we can, you know — unless we can figure out a way — and I think the President hopes the meetings begin to start this process — which is to find a way to do — strengthen our borders, ensure that there aren’t incentives for employers to hire undocumented workers, as well as finding a way of bringing them out of the shadows — I think if we can make some progress on all three of those goals rather than splitting it up into three different coalitions.

Q Could you break up the bill? Could you do — could you do this in pieces rather than do a comprehensive bill?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President’s approach would be to do something that’s comprehensive.

Q But he wouldn’t be opposed to — I mean, if he gets feedback in here today that says, you know –

MR. GIBBS: Well, we’ll see what he hears today.

Q We can craft this, we can do this.

MR. GIBBS: My sense is, without having talked to the legislative people directly about this — I think the President believes that the approach has to be one that’s comprehensive; that we — the idea or the notion that we can deal with this larger problem by simply dealing with one aspect, legislative timing aside, that if all you’re doing is dealing with one of the three pillars, that you’re not going to make –

Q At his 100-day press conference, though, he said, actually, a first step should be enforcing the laws that are on the books.

MR. GIBBS: Right. Again, I’m not suggesting that the legislative timing might not be this or that. I’m just saying that I think what the President agrees with is the notion that one aspect of this bill does not constitute comprehensive, and that we have to do that in order to make progress, and, I think, in all honesty, to put together a coalition to get something done.

Q Can I just follow up?

MR. GIBBS: Let me go to Laura real fast. Yes.

Q On the energy bill, what is the President or the White House’s view on this provision that’s come up regarding punishing imports from China and other countries that do not have similar controls on their carbon emissions? And sort of as a corollary to that, how important are the details of this actual bill right now, or is it more important just to get sort of anything out of the House?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’ve seen very little — something but not in any detailed way, and we can look through something relating to I think some of these Ways and Means provisions. Again, I haven’t — I have not focused in on that.

I think in terms of your larger picture, look, obviously getting something through — onto the floor and through the House would constitute I think a big step towards progress and create momentum that it’s possible to get this done. I think we are at a time and a place where, as the President said today, those that can deny that the planet is getting warmer — we’re past, in many ways, that debate.

We have an opportunity to create millions of clean energy jobs. We have an opportunity to further lessen our dependence on foreign oil. And all of that together represents — would represent a big step forward, and I think the President believes that that would be an important facet of getting something ultimately to his desk that he can sign.

Q So, really, the details are less important than just moving the process forward?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean — I think obviously the fundamental details are important. I think moving the bill forward is tremendously important. And I think this is the first of quite a few steps, and I would assume that some of those details will be debated even — will be debated further as this goes to the other side of the Hill and then ultimately when both bodies iron out whatever differences exist.

Q Robert, in the East Room event last evening the President got a number of questions about health care rationing, but it seemed like he wasn’t able to give much detail about what he has in mind for limiting health care, who would make the decision, how would it be enforced. Is he clear in his mind about what he wants with respect to that aspect of his health care plan?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think as you heard and saw last night, there are highly skilled professional people in our health care system — doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, specialists — that are making those decisions now and those are the people that are going to make those decisions moving forward. I think the President used examples of how we can increase the quality by paying for health outcomes rather than per test and procedure.

I was struck by one of the questioners — I think it was a doctor — who said there’s a hefty amount of waste in the system. And I think — and the President said this to the AMA — that these are individuals that have spent a lot of time in school, racked up a lot of debt, because they want to practice medicine, not because they want to be administrators or bean counters or paper pushers — they want to be healers. Those are the — they’re going to make those decisions.

Q Does he believe that end-of-life health care ought to be limited even more? There was a doctor on one of the videotapes who said way too much is being spent on caring for terminally ill patients.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think those are decisions weighty and complicated. I think the President mentioned one aspect of what people can do and that is clearly signal to loved ones your intentions for some of those end-of-life decisions, if you’re unable to make them, through a living will. But, again, those are decisions that can and should be made by medical professionals.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, on the meeting tomorrow with Chancellor Merkel, the Chancellor said today that she wants to talk about an exit strategy with the President. A couple of weeks ago when the finance ministers met, Secretary Geithner said, wait a minute, it’s a little bit early to be talking about that yet. Does the President think –

MR. GIBBS: Exit strategy for?

Q Exit strategy for pumping money into the global economy –

MR. GIBBS: I see.

Q Does the President think that it’s time to talk about an exit strategy?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President expressed in his news conference the other day the notion — expressed the notion that he’s thus far unsatisfied, as I think millions of Americans are, at where this economy continues to be and that we have a Recovery Act that’s a two-year — largely over a two-year time frame.

We’re making progress, but I think the President is still focused on ensuring the quick implementation of the recovery legislation and the continued monitoring of different aspects of our recovery, whether it’s housing, financial stabilization, capital markets. So I think the President believes there’s work left to be done.

Q Okay. On another subject, you mentioned the speech in Moscow. Will the President be taking U.S. business people with him? Have they been — some been invited?

MR. GIBBS: I can check on that. I don’t know. I know there — I think there was on the schedule, there’s something that celebrates the cooperation of U.S. and Russian businesses, but I don’t know if that’s — I don’t know how that’s all worked out. We can certainly check on the schedule.

Q A follow-up, if I may?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q Actually, there will be a business summit, they announced it, the Russians. (Laughter.)

Q Tell us about that, Robert?

Q It’s off the record.

MR. GIBBS: Well, that’s what I’m alluding to. There’s a — later in the –

Q Is this on background? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I think it’s the second full day we’re there, or second day we’re there — I don’t know if it’s the full day. It’s the day — I think it’s the 7th. There’s a — I’m doing the schedule from memory — there’s a civil society event and there’s a business event that will talk about the cooperation between the two countries and business.

Q My question is about the same thing.

MR. GIBBS: But you gave him the answer. (Laughter.)

Q Arms control is supposed to be the centerpiece for this trip, as you have said to us, and many others. So this choice for venue for the speech, does this mean like a hint, a subtle shift in an emphasis from the arms control issues to the economy?

MR. GIBBS: No. Discussing the economy I think is an aspect of virtually everything the President does. It will be something that is discussed in Russia. On the trip I think the primary focus and the goal that we have in going is to make progress, further progress, on agreements that we hope to be finished by the end of the year to make progress on further eliminating the number of nuclear weapons on each side.

Q Would you say the plans for the trip are mostly complete on the American side?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think so.

Jeffrey.

Q I was wondering if the President had had any direct conversations with his friend Warren Buffett over this climate –

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

Q He’s spoken out against it, saying it’s regressive. I was wondering if — if he has conveyed those views to the White House.

MR. GIBBS: I don’t believe they’ve — I don’t believe they’ve talked recently. Having seen parts of the interview on CNBC, I think — it appeared to me to be the analysis might have been based on legislation where more of the permits were sold and auctioned rather than — rather than given –

Q Right, but has he spoken to him? That’s my only question.

MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of.

Q Okay. And how about Vice President Gore? Do you know if the President –

MR. GIBBS: If he’s spoken to Vice President Gore on this?

Q If the President has spoken to Vice President Gore.

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen that he has, but I can check on both of those.

Q Thank you.

Q Quick question about the immigration bill. You keep saying that you expect to begin a debate, and you say you expect a formal debate to begin. Are you expecting something that the President could actually sign this year on immigration?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we would certainly — we’d like that. We’d be hopeful of that.

Q Realistically?

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, I forgot my crystal ball, so I don’t — I can’t predict what inning the game will end in.

Yes, sir.

Q On the immigration meeting today, originally it was billed as a small, bipartisan leaders meeting on this issue. It’s turned into 30 members of Congress, of which 26 support a path to citizenship. And Representative Steve King, who’s the top Republican on the Immigration — House Immigration Subcommittee, was left out. How was that list devised? Why did it grow? And can anything get done in a meeting with 30 people? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: One, two, three, four, five, six — (laughter).

Q We know the answer to that.

Q We rest our case. (Laughter.)

Q Exactly. Has anything ever gotten done here?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. Look, there’s 535 members of Congress. Thirty of them I think constitutes, in a very quick manner, less than 5 percent of Congress. I think that –

Q A little more.

Q Fifteen. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: You guys wonder why I’m not at, like, the Department of Math? (Laughter.) But I think if you look at the list of people, there’s a pretty diverse cross-section. There’s members from both sides of the aisle. I don’t — this isn’t the first meeting where immigration has been a big — has been the big topic. I doubt it will be the last. And I think a number of people that are important to the debate are in this meeting. But I don’t think a meeting of — I don’t think if you have a meeting of 30 people that denotes that you can’t or won’t get something done.

Q But in leaving Steve King, the top Republican on the subcommittee that deals with this in the House, off, what’s the message there?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the answer to why he’s not on there.

Yes, sir.

Q You mentioned a subject for the meeting with the Chancellor, also Guantanamo and possible detainees. Is there any move on the American side, because as far as I understand, Europeans have two conditions. First of all, there should be — if detainees are moved to other countries, especially European countries, first of all they shouldn’t be a danger to our security; and second, if they do that, that the Americans are also willing to take Guantanamo detainees into the states.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think if you look at — and I don’t have it all in front of me — I think the European Union put out a statement on this within the last 10 days. I think you’ve seen — obviously Italy came here and said they were going to take three detainees. I think Spain has said that. I think Portugal has said that. I think there’s been a lot of progress on this issue — some of it maybe not quite getting out to everybody or the coverage on it being out to everybody.

Margaret.

Q Thanks. On health care, sort of a two-parter. Last night on the ABC special, the President did make it a point to draw a distinction between taxing all health insurance benefits versus taxing the Cadillac portions of health insurance benefits, while he maintained that it’s still not his choice. Could you characterize for us, is he — would you say that his appreciation for the possibility of this is increasing? Is it more likely? Do you think that Americans should be prepared for the chance that this will probably happen, or do you think it’s totally up in the air?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to members in Congress that are writing the legislation. I think, as the President said last night, I continue to believe it would be the wrong way for us to eliminate — it would be the wrong way for us to go; continue to believe it’s not the best way to do it.

I think the President has outlined $950 billion in savings that he believes is a better way to go about paying for it. I think what the President was doing, based on the question, was explaining what had been proposed in the campaign and what Congress was talking about. But I think he was pretty clear in his other statements about what he thinks is the best way to do it.

Q My quick follow-up question was, I read an interesting story about the First Lady’s getting a new chief of staff and wanting to become more involved in things. And I’m wondering, on any level, should we be looking for her increased presence in the health care debate? And can you talk about how you guys are thinking about that? Maybe wanting to avoid mistakes made back in ‘93 or lessons learned or whatever, but can you talk about whether she’ll have an involvement at all?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think there are a series of issues that the First Lady has cared about deeply for quite some time, one of which you saw today which was national service — or service in general, I should say. Obviously throughout the campaign she spent quite a bit of time with military families. That’s a passion of hers. And I think as a former health care professional and as a mother, I think she’s obviously had interest in wellness, prevention, and things like childhood obesity. And I would expect that she will continue to spend her time speaking out on the issues that she’s passionately interested in.

Q But on the passage of a bill?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think on those topics, and I think you’ve seen her talk about those topics as it relates to health care reform. Obviously prevention, wellness, obesity are all I think key aspects to what the President believes is the ultimate goal of health care reform, and that is to create a healthier society.

David.

Q Center for American Progress this week put out a report on how to undo “don’t ask, don’t tell” — five steps. The first step is, the President signing an executive order banning further military separations based on “don’t ask, don’t tell” and sending a legislative proposal for the repeal to Congress, and then forming a presidential panel on how to implement the repeal. Can you tell me why the White House doesn’t believe that seems to be the way to go?

MR. GIBBS: Well, the President has had meetings about this, has talked with members of Congress. His staff has talked with members of Congress. All of them have talked to Pentagon officials and the administration believes that this requires a durable, legislative solution, and is pursing that in Congress.

Q I understand that for the long-term solution, but what do you take issue with about signing an executive order that will suspend the separations before an endurable solution is reached through the slow legislative process?

MR. GIBBS: I mean, I think there could be differences on strategy. I think our belief is that the only and best way to do this is through a durable, comprehensive legislative process.

Q Can I follow up on that?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q Thank you. So there was a letter sent last week from 77 members of Congress that went about having this interim solution just slightly differently, not actually doing an executive order, but asking the President to implement — or asking the President to qualify and tell the Department of Defense to implement the policy slightly differently, which is to not investigate whether someone is gay when they are told on, of course, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

This does not require an executive order. It’s a change in how the Department of Defense does the regulations and actually whether or not they investigate these allegations. Does that seem like something — and it’s an interim step — I mean, the members of Congress that were advocating for this suggested it as an interim step until congressional members could actually push through the legislation to full repeal.

MR. GIBBS: I have not — I have not seen and have not heard about that letter. Let me find out who might have that and examine what’s inside of it in terms of — I’d have to look at the process before I have a better sense of the effectiveness of the interim step.

Yes, sir.

Q Could you talk a little bit about the job that Dennis Ross has been doing, now that the sort of mystery of his appointment has been revealed? He seems to have quite a wide geographical responsibility. Is there any danger that this could come into conflict with some of the other special envoys that are already operating in these areas? Is there any danger that foreign countries may not know who’s the go-to guy on these various issues?

MR. GIBBS: No, I mean, obviously Dennis is a valued member of the President’s team. He will have a portfolio as a special assistant to the President and be senior director for the central region that largely extends — encompasses the Middle East, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and South Asia. There are a number of people that will work directly with Dennis on different aspects of that wider region. And Dennis will report to Deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and National Security Advisor Jim Jones. I think if you look at all of the regions that are encompassed in that larger framework, you have different parts of the Middle East — Iran and Iraq, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan. You’ve got a number of very important places in our foreign policy and in our national interests.

So I think what the President has done is simply add to a very strong national security team with Dennis and I think — I can assure you, given the list of countries, that they’ll be plenty busy. I don’t think that anybody should, though, believe that this will conflict or supersede the important work that special envoys are doing on the ground in many of these places, even as somebody is here at the White House coordinating a series of people dealing with an important region of the world.

April.

Q Robert, a few questions. I want to go back to the Cairo speech a bit. What was the anticipation from this White House and how it would affect –

Q (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: No, no, I’m sorry, I’m not laughing at you, April. I’m going to get mad at Helen. She made a joke. (Laughter.) Okay, I’m ready. I’m sorry.

Q Dunk tank.

MR. GIBBS: Right. (Laughter.) Go ahead, I’m sorry. I wasn’t –

Q We’re all going to nominate April. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. I would love to do that. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Twenty dollars for charity, you can take your throws. (Laughter.)

Q All right. Again, going back to the Cairo speech, what was the anticipation of this administration on how would it affect the election margins in Iran when the President gave it?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, the speech wasn’t either intended to — I mean, the speech was a comprehensive look at our dealing and our relationship and the President’s desire to better that relationship with the Muslim world. It was not done or not timed for the benefit of one country’s election.

Q Well, according to a White House — well, an administration source — they said that the margins were affected in some way, they just don’t know by how much. And even RNC Chair Michael Steele said that the speech empowered so many in so many ways. When you went into the speech, you didn’t think that it could or couldn’t — I mean, maybe the focus wasn’t to do that, but do you –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we hoped and I think — I think we obviously hoped that the greater Muslim world would see in the President and in the President’s approach a change in how we looked at that part of the world. How that impacted or affected different areas, I don’t know. I don’t know precisely in terms of — and I’m not sure how one would measure exact swings in vote patterns.

I do think if you — I do think the administration feels like we are making progress. The view of the United States in that part of the world seems to be improving, and I think observers have talked about the notion that the President’s speech has already begun to pay some dividends as it relates to that.

Q Okay. And also, Michael Steele, speaking of him, he wants to have a meeting with the President. He wants to talk to him about health care and a whole host of issues, especially since this administration has had such a wonderful Republican outreach. He wants to be one of those that public and the President reaches out to. What do you say?

MR. GIBBS: You guys want to take a turn at him in the dunk tank, too? (Laughter.) I don’t –

Q Thank you.

Q I’m not finished. Wait a minute, Jen. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Careful, careful.

Q You can stay, we’ll go. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: You know, I think the President has Republicans here at the White House today. I’d be interested to know what — whether Mr. Steele believes that we can make progress working together or if the tone of his rhetoric is something that might prevent him from working constructively with the President of the United States.

Q And my last question real quick. There was a resolution by John McCain coming out of the Senate for the President to pardon the late black heavyweight champion Jack Johnson, who was sent to prison nearly a century ago because of his romantic ties with a white woman. Do you have any comments on that? What are your thoughts about that? They want the President to pardon this.

MR. GIBBS: I will — I can take a look at that. I don’t have anything on that.

Tom.

Q Thank you, Robert. I have two quick ones on health care. The first one, in the speeches about the $80 billion deal with the pharmaceutical companies, I haven’t heard anything about negotiating price — Medicare negotiating price with the pharmaceutical industry. I wanted to know if that was one of the tradeoffs for getting this $80 billion was that we’re not going to pursue that now.

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, again, the structure of part of that agreement was to use a portion of that $80 billion to pay up to — for the pharmaceutical industry to pay up to 50 percent of the cost for a name brand drug for a senior that falls between the point at which Medicare Part D stops providing help, and when catastrophic coverage — I think it is $6,500, a little bit more than $6,500 — level kicks in. So filling in that — what’s commonly known as — ironically, in health care — the doughnut hole, about — that up to 50 percent of the name brand — the price for that name brand drug would be paid for, and I think that provides a hefty discount that will bear appreciable benefits for seniors all over the country.

Q Has there been an agreement not to pursue a Medicare –

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the answer.

Q I’m talking about S. 330.

MR. GIBBS: What was that?

Q Senate bill 330?

MR. GIBBS: You’re 330 bills ahead of me on that. (Laughter.) I will check on it.

One more, and I’ll get back to my day job.

Q Following up on Mark’s question on the rationing. There are pretty well established health industry guidelines on medical policy now. Would you expect that the public option would deviate significantly from those? And if so, would they be stricter or less strict?

MR. GIBS: Well, no, again, I think, you know, the public option is simply one more — one more addition of choice for those that, as I talked about yesterday, don’t have access to coverage at work or find themselves on the individual market that — but find the system unwieldy and far too expensive.

But I think the — I mean, I think you saw the President use examples last night: the Mayo Clinic; I think one of the hosts used the example of Safeway grocery stores as places that are providing incentives not to — to move away from payment for each and every test conducted, but instead to pay for the health outcomes of their patients. The President normally uses the example of, are we going to invest some money to treat somebody so that they don’t get diabetes, rather than paying a specific reimbursement for an amputation of the part of a leg that’s normally the result of diabetes? That’s the type of change in positive health outcomes that will benefit, greatly benefit, consumers of medical care, and make the system cheaper for everybody.

Thanks, guys.

Q Thank you.

END
3:32 P.M. EDT

6-27-9 Iran News- Freedom News- NiteOwl Update of Iran and Information to help Iran Freedom

http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/26/6-27-9-iran-news-iranian-state-tv-propaganda/

http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/26/6-26-9-freedom-news-cap-and-trade-passes-house-battle-switches-to-senate/

obama news archive feed

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

6-24-9 Obama News- White House Press Conference- Robert Gibbs

27. June 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 24, 2009
PRESS BRIEFING BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS,
IRS COMMISSIONER DOUG SHULMAN, AND
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION ARNE DUNCAN

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:56 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: All right, I can spend all of my time on the front row questions today. (Laughter.) Come on up, guys, we’ve got some cheap seats on the front row. Chuck, come on down. Chuck was complaining just a few hours ago about me being always late to these things. Come on down, Dan.

Q Fair enough.

MR. GIBBS: Come on down. Come on down. Anybody else?

Q I don’t know, there is another briefing — is there a way, can we split screen? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I’ve been asking that — I’ve been asking to be a producer for quite some — Chip, come on down, you’re the next contestant on. There’s Jake. I feel like we’re running out of the tunnel at a big football game. (Laughter.)

Q Usually two minutes means 20. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: All right. Now that we have a quorum we can begin today’s festivities. Before I –

Q — Huffington Post here. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Wow, we’re punchy today. Actually, you have to ask somebody else to ask that question. (Laughter.)

Before we get into the normal drill of things today, we do have an important announcement. And we brought today IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan here to talk about something that is extremely important to millions of families each and every year, and that is the simplification of the federal financial aid application.

And I will turn it over to the Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER SHULMAN: Thanks. I’m very proud to be here today on behalf of the IRS and the Treasury Department, to partner with the Department of Education to be part of the President’s initiative to simplify the student financial aid application process.

The current application is lengthy and burdensome — and the Secretary brought a chart you can see — it becomes an endurance test for students and their families. They’re faced with pages of financial information — financial information they don’t even need to put on their tax forms, and many simply don’t apply for aid. It’s a great loss for students, it’s a great loss for families, and it’s a great loss for the nation.

However, by removing needless obstacles and using data that the IRS already has, we can put students on the path to a college education and the road to success. This is a real example, I think, of this administration having agencies work together and departments work together not to further the IRS’s goal or the Education Department’s goal, but really to further the goals of the American people. And so I’m very proud to support the Secretary on this effort.

SECRETARY DUNCAN: Thank you, Doug. This is a really exciting day for us and I want to thank a number of people before I begin. First, to our Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for his leadership; to Doug and the IRS — and it was actually interesting, we have lots of people internally and externally who said the IRS will never participate, they’ll never do anything — and these guys have moved at lightning speed and it’s really been because of Doug’s great leadership. So thank you so much for pushing. And as you may know, Rahm Emmanuel, the Chief of Staff, worked very, very hard on this when he was in Congress. So all that collective effort has been great. Internally, Bob Shyman has been the driving force on our team. I want to thank Bob for all of his hard work.

And the real innovation and creativity has really come from our career staff, and there are four people I want to thank quickly: Michelle Brown, Shamarli Kollock, Ginger Klock, and Andrew Jones. They’re the ones that made this happen.

Today I’m proud to announce another major step to make college more affordable and accessible for students. We have made major changes to the federal student application form, known as FAFSA. The debate about how to simplify FAFSA I think has been going on for over 20 years, so this change is long, long overdue. In the past students who were looking to apply for aid online were presented with over 29 screens filled with questions — you get a little bit of a sense here of the reality of what our young people are facing.

It was an intimidating hurdle. Too many students who qualified found applying for student loans was too difficult to understand. Too often, they simply got frustrated and they gave up. The form itself was literally a barrier to entry in college. That has to change; it was something that was of great consternation when I was back in Chicago. That’s why we’ve worked hard to make the form shorter, simpler, and more user-friendly. Next year’s applicants should see a 20 percent reduction in the number of questions and a 50 percent reduction in the number of Web pages to navigate. And I’ll try and give you a little bit of before and after. This is before. And this is after.

Instead of navigating through every possible question, whether it applied to you or not, applicants will only be presented with the questions relevant to them based upon previous answers. For example, if you indicate that your mailing address is in Chicago and you plan on attending the University of Illinois, we won’t follow up by asking you if you’re a resident.

In the coming months, we will further modernize the online application by creating an easy process for students to apply by using data that the IRS already has. The improvements will reduce the burden on the 16 million students and families who apply for federal financial aid every year, and are designed to help increase college enrollment among low-income and middle-income students by making it easier to apply for financial aid.

We absolutely have to educate our way to a better economy. Our young people and adult learners deserve the chance to go to college and to know the money they need is available. Earlier this year, as you know, the President laid out a very, very clear goal — that America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

The administration has taken several important steps in that direction. In addition to Vice President Biden’s work on college affordability through the Middle Class Task Force, we’ve made changes to the direct loan program that will help make it a more reliable, stable, and efficient resource for students and for parents.

In the Recovery Act, we provided $14 billion in tuition tax credits, and $17 billion to shore up the Pell grant program. Now we’re taking steps to make sure that there are no more budget shortfalls in the Pell program by making it a mandatory part of the budget.

We also plan to create incentives to reward universities that keep tuition costs down. And we have proposed $2.5 billion in funding for states to improve college completion rates attainment for low-income students. These are all important steps in increasing access to college and opportunity for America’s students.

Thank you.

Q What’s the total amount of loans that are outstanding at this point?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: Very, very significant. Bob, do you know? Yes, half a trillion dollars.

Yes, sir.

Q How much should universities be held accountable for the fact that they — they took advantage of the fact that students had easy access to credit, so they jacked up their tuition rates? And now, you know, you guys are announcing all of these student loan things that — and you said you’re providing some assistance. Can you talk more about what it is — how you can encourage these universities that — maybe they overpriced their education?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: We’re going to put — we’re thinking this through collectively, but we want to put significant incentives on the table to reward those universities that are keeping tuition costs down.

But I really think the marketplace is going to correct this. What you’re seeing now is, you know, families have thousands of great colleges to choose from. And going to college has never been more important, it’s never been more expensive, and families have never been under more financial stress and duress, as you guys know. And what you’re seeing is more universities starting to think creatively, whether it’s three-year options, whether it’s no-frills campuses. And you know, our parents are smart, our students are smart. In places where costs are skyrocketing, I can think you’re going to see people vote with their feet.

Q What are the incentives?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: Well, we’re working through that package now. We’re going to create some financial incentives to really reward those universities that are doing the right thing.

Q I mean, when you say that, is it more research dollars, stuff like that?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: Yes, more money. More money. We’re going to put money on the table to reward people who are doing the right thing — we want to do the right incentive package.

Yes, sir.

Q Can I ask Mr. Shulman something? I know that the IRS right now is working on the President’s efforts to close the tax gap. You’re getting more IRS agents on the job. I’m wondering how big a responsibility this is for the IRS and what kind of burden or extra resources you might have to deal with this?

COMMISSIONER SHULMAN: As you said, closing the tax gap is a major priority. The President gave us significant new resources in the budget that’s been sent for 2010.

You know, we also have a huge service organization. There’s a lot of Americans who are just trying to pay the right amount of taxes. We have phone operators, we have a heavily-trafficked Web site. And so this folds right in with our view that what we need to do is help American people where we can. This is something that we can do that demonstrates that government can work together. We can do it in a way that isn’t going to divert a lot of resources, especially — it won’t divert any enforcement resources.

Q Can you just explain a little bit more what the IRS’s role is going to be in helping –

COMMISSIONER SHULMAN: Yes, it’s very simple. The Department of Education owns the FAFSA form. It’s responsible for getting it out, but there’s a lot of financial questions, and a lot of those questions right now, people have to tick and tie between their tax form and FAFSA with complicated questions. So we’re actually working with the Department of Education.

When you’re online, you’ll be able to hit a button and say, do you want to go get your IRS data? A screen will pop up; you’ll get yourself into the IRS Web site and we’ll feed back to the taxpayer the exact data that they need to put on the FAFSA. So it’s — you know, we have a Web application that lets you know where’s your refund, where’s a lot of different information. This will just be one of those web applications.

Q Mr. Duncan, I want to ask you, are financial aid stipends and Pell grants going to students instead of directly to the university still? Is that still the case?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: Yes, yes. And again, I just want to be clear: this form itself was a huge barrier to entry. This was something that was literally preventing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of students from around the country from going to college that couldn’t negotiate this form. And so I just want to thank both teams for working so hard to fix this.

Yes, ma’am.

Q I understand this administration wants to make sure that colleges and universities are getting the Pell grant monies. I understand that, what is it, $637 million is expected to go to HBCUs from Pell grant money, but many of the university presidents are very upset, saying, you know, we may not get this money, all of the money that is allocated, because it goes to the students. And sometimes you have to rob Peter to pay Paul, some of these students are saying.

SECRETARY DUNCAN: No, I really don’t see it that way at all. What we want to do is dramatically increase access for families — middle-income families, low-income families. On the HBCUs, our estimate is actually over the next decade, over the next 10 years, there will be an additional $3.2 billion that will go to those universities. So think of all the students out there who don’t have access, will have much more access. We’re increasing the dollars involved in the Pell grant each year, as well.

And so this is a huge win, long term, for the universities, but most importantly for young people who have this college dream.

And I worry a lot about this. This is part of the reason we want to make the Pell grant mandatory. I worry a lot about dreams dying young for children, that at nine and 10 and 11 years old, smart kids, kids that are working hard, if mom or dad loses their job or takes a big pay cut, they might start thinking, college isn’t for me. So it’s like saying this money is going to be there, regardless of the craziness that your family might be dealing with. We think it’s very important.

Q But even though they give the checks personally, you believe that the vast majority of the money still goes to the college?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: Yes, it’s creating access for students to go to college, absolutely. That’s what it does.

Q But given the kind of budget pressure many states are under, do you find that many states are having to raise tuition right now, even if you’re trying to increase aid?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: Yes, sure, some universities are raising tuition, but what we’re seeing is the question — as we said earlier, we see some places where it’s skyrocketing. And so what we want to do is really reward those folks that despite the budget pressures everybody is feeling — universities, states, local governments, families — we want to reward those places that are doing the right thing. And we also want to have a greater focus going forward on attainment. So, again, we have $2.5 billion in the FY’10 budget to reward and to help build a culture at those universities where it’s not just about students getting in the front door, but where they’re graduating with that piece of paper.

Q I noticed that the IRS pre-population for FAFSA is spring filers only. What percentage of FAFSA filers does this constitute, and do you plan to expand it to all FAFSA filers eventually?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: Yes, we’re going to pilot it obviously in January with those students that are starting school then and then go look for the following year to do it on a more broad basis. It gives us a chance to really test this thing and figure it out.

Q Was the thinking of going with the spring semester to avoid the prior prior-year issue and the tax data not being out of date?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: And also just to pilot, make sure we’re doing this right before you go nationwide, you know, start it on a smaller number and make sure we’re doing this exactly right.

Q You talked about reducing the amount of paperwork. Do you have any idea of how much time would be reduced?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: Yes, we’re trying to get those estimates. We think it’s a very significant amount of time. I don’t have a hard number on that, but when you think about dramatically fewer questions, half the number screens, we think the time savings is going to be very, very significant. And it’s not just — it’s not just the time, it’s the complication, it’s the degree of difficulty. You’ve got to worry a lot about families that are first-generation going to college families, you know, English the second language. That first slide is pretty intimidating. This thing is a little bit more friendly.

Q If this means that more students will fill out the application and more students will get student loans, do you have an estimate of how much more it’s going to cost, ultimately?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: I don’t have a firm estimate on that. But, again, we think that’s not a cost, we think that’s an investment. We think the best thing we can do as a country is have more young people going on to college. So we think this is absolutely the right thing to do. This has to cease being a barrier to entry.

Q So you’ll expand the pool of money?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: Yes, we want to take care of our kids. What we actually have now — it’s interesting, we have significant resources in the Pell grant program that go unused each year. We think part of the reason it goes unused is because this thing scares people off.

And so we may have to increase the pool; we may not. We may just have more people taking advantage of the resources that are already out there.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Thank you. A high percentage of Hispanic students, because of their parents being poor, their fathers losing their jobs, they cannot afford to go to college. And that’s their dream. They want to go to college to have a better life than maybe their parents. How can we get this information to them?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: That’s a great question. We’re actually going to launch a campaign starting this fall, the upcoming school year, to make sure that every high school student knows that this is available. And to be clear, what we want is not just to campaign for high school students, but if we can move the Pell grants to the mandatory side of the budget — I want to get that message out, again, to 10- and 11- and 12-year-olds, because I worry about those families, where the dream starts to die at an early age.

And so this is a campaign to do the right thing and to spread the word. The fact that we have money that goes unused each year is absolutely crazy; it’s no good for families, no good for the country. And so we’re going to work very, very hard to publicize this around the country so that students know if they work hard, if they have that dream, we’re going to try and meet them more than halfway. That’s very important.

Q I understand that part of this would require legislation. What are some of the key things that would require that and what’s your read on Congress –

SECRETARY DUNCAN: This part requires no legislation. So this is a done deal. This is moving. There are some other questions about other assets family members have that would require us to go to Congress. We want to do that. Chairman Miller has been very, very supportive and we’re hoping that will move, as well. So this is a very, very significant first step, but there are subsequent steps that will — the partnership with the IRS, and then even removing further questions from the form we think will get the thing simpler and simpler. So we’re going to keep pushing hard in this direction.

Q Can I ask a question about a separate subject, but having to do with education? It’s about the race to the top. Are you worried at all the states are going to run out of money? I’m sorry, not run out of money — miss out on money, in the race to the top, in the $5 billion that you can allocate?

SECRETARY DUNCAN: It’s not about states missing out on money. What we’re going to do is we’re going to invest very significantly in a number of states who are going to lead the country where we need to go. It’s going to be very competitive. We’ll be coming out in the next couple of weeks with what that application is going to look like.

As you know, with the President’s tremendous leadership and Congress’s support, we have unprecedented resources. But we’re being very clear, with unprecedented resources has to come unprecedented reform. And if all we’re doing is investing in the status quo, that’s not going to get us where we need to go. So we’re going to invest lots of money in a number of states that will literally lead the country where we need to go. I think we’ve had a race to the bottom around the country — that has to stop. And it will be a competitive process. We’re going to be very, very objective and transparent about this, and we want a set of states to demonstrate to the country what’s possible educationally.

We’ll probably do this in two rounds, so states that don’t get in the first round will have a chance to go back and look at where they’re deficient. And every state that doesn’t — who applies who doesn’t get through, we’ll send them a letter saying, this is where you missed and this is what you have to work on. But investing in the status quo is not going to get our country where we need to go. This is about a very strong reform agenda.

MR. GIBBS: Thanks, guys.

Just one quick announcement before we get going with questions. On his upcoming trip overseas, on Friday, July 10, the President will visit with the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI to discuss a range of issues, including their shared belief in the dignity of all people. That’s on the upcoming trip.

Q Does he have a church –

MR. GIBBS: I can assure you, April, we’re not joining a church in Italy. (Laughter.)

Q I didn’t ask that.

MR. GIBBS: I know. But you know what I did? I just fast-forwarded right to the follow-up. (Laughter.) I’m going to do that — that’s actually what I’m going to do all today. So if I don’t answer your question, I will presume your follow-up and answer that instead. (Laughter.)

Q That’s very efficient.

MR. GIBBS: Right, this will be like a 10-minute deal.

Q Is Mrs. Obama going to the Vatican, as well?

MR. GIBBS: She will, as far as I know, be on the entire trip, yes.

Q Okay. Syria, sending an ambassador, U.S. ambassador to Syria. Was there any behavioral or policy change or discussion on Syria’s part that prompted this decision?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jennifer, I think you know that we have had a series of meetings with administration officials and Syrian leadership. I think this strongly reflects the administration’s recognition of the role Syria plays and the hope of the role that the Syrian government can play constructively to promote peace and stability in the region. And it continues the President’s call to be more fully engaged in the region.

So there have been a series of meetings throughout the beginning of this administration.

Q But no policy change on their part?

MR. GIBBS: Not anything explicit in order for the President to move to fulfill his promise to more fully engage in the region.

Q Robert –

MR. GIBBS: Hold on one second, let me go here. Yes.

Q Sort of on a related subject, as you’re now sending an ambassador to Syria, on the subject of Iran, the leaders there continue to blame the U.S. and the West for the protest that occurred afterwards. Does that just make it more difficult to engage Iran as President Obama has indicated he’s willing to do? Does that push that off for later in this year or even longer, at the earliest?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed this pretty clearly yesterday, in the notion that the focus right now is on — our focus right now are on the events that are ongoing on the ground that we’ve watched for the past many days since the election.

Again, there is, I think I said — I said this recently, or said this to somebody — that there’s an outstanding direct request that the P5-plus-1 made to Iran on April the 8, an invitation that has yet to be responded by them.

Yes, sir.

Q During the campaign, then-Senator Obama and then-Senator Clinton fought quite a bit about the question of individual mandates. And the President, I understand, said to Diane Sawyer that his thinking has evolved on the issue. Can you just explain the process by which his thinking has evolved and why it has, and why he has changed his position?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think — look, I think what’s paramount in this, Jake, is that as the process moves forward in the Senate and the House, the President wants to be flexible to the degree to which a piece of legislation will come forward.

In terms of ensuring that everyone is covered, the President is now open to this idea. I think there have been — in discussions with all the parties and stakeholders involved, there has been discussion about — that it will be harder to get everyone at the table to stay at the table if you’re not getting that larger universe of people covered. And I believe that on both the left and the right.

Q Does he see –

MR. GIBBS: Let me also say that — and I think as the President said in the interview — there are a lot of obviously specifics to work out, including — he’s a big believer in the notion that there has to be a pretty stringent hardship waiver. I think the President said throughout the campaign, very few people can afford it — don’t have it because they can afford and don’t want it; it’s because they can’t afford it. If the help that they’re getting is still not sufficient enough to have them afford it, then we have to examine a robust hardship waiver.

Q Does he have any specific lines that he would not cross when it comes to what help these people get? And does he view health insurance the same way that some people view — well, the same way that all states view auto insurance — if you want to drive, you have to have car insurance?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know that — I’ve not heard him speak about the first part, about the specifics or details of something like that, except for the broader hardship waiver.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, can you tell us a little bit more about what was in the letter that was sent to the Ayatollah prior to the elections in Iran?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think as each of you know, the administration has indicated a willingness to talk with the leadership in Iran and have sought to communicate with the Iranian people in a variety of ways. But I am not going to get into anything other than the notion that you all understand the President has spoken throughout the campaign about being engaged.

Q And is that communication continuing at this time?

MR. GIBBS: There has been no communication with Iranian officials since the election. But I’m not going to confirm or deny anything around this.

Q And then briefly, we had — there was a woman on the phone with CNN describing some of the violence that was taking place as people were leaving a mosque. What has the administration been able to find out about this incident, and is there — are you troubled at all by this continuing violence on the ground?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, absolutely. I think you heard the President address this yesterday. You know, obviously, there are many here at the White House that continue to monitor the situation. The President is updated routinely on what we see and, obviously, continues, as he’s expressed since the Monday after the election, great concern about the violence.

Q Can I just follow?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q Thank you, Robert. Since President spoke in Turkey and also in Cairo, Egypt, and also yesterday at the press conference, he made it very clear that his message would go very loud and clear in the Muslim world. But since (inaudible) told me that they are not hearing yet his message. You think he’s going to change any strategy or any new way to reach them out? And also, Chinese –

MR. GIBBS: Do you mean the larger Muslim world, or do you mean the Islamic –

Q Yes, in Iran. Yes, sir. But also –

MR. GIBBS: I mean, I think from what I can read in the newspaper, I think there are a number of Iranians that are — or at least, I read a couple of articles in the newspaper this morning that denoted that some of those messages that the President has talked about have been heard. I think you saw that we went to some lengths yesterday to ensure that what the President said was translated in a way that was protected in terms of ensuring that we were comfortable with that translation.

But I would separate this from the broader engagement of the world. I think the President is and will continue to focus on improving our relations to strengthen our own foreign policy.

Q Also Robert, Chinese and Iranians are warning the United States, including the President, not to meddle in the Iranian affairs after election because the outcome has not changed.

MR. GIBBS: I think the President has been clear about enunciating the universal principles that we all hold dear and that we all stand up for, while at the same time ensuring that he’s not a foil or a political football to be used by the regime against those that are demonstrating.

Chip.

Q Secretary Sebelius on Capitol Hill today suggested that the President or that the administration would be flexible on the issue of taxing employee health benefits if that’s what it takes to get a bill. Where exactly does the President stand on that now, and has his thinking on that evolved also?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President — if I’m not mistaken, in the same interview that Jake just made mention of — was asked this question. I think he and I have had the opportunity to be asked and answer that question for some consecutive number of weeks that I don’t have at my immediate grasp.

I think the President has laid out $900 — almost $950 billion that he believes is the best way forward to ensuring that each and every penny spent on health care reform is fully paid for.

Q So he’s not flexible on –

MR. GIBBS: I would refer you to the transcript of the President’s own eloquent words on that.

Q Can you tell us what he told –

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, I’d point you to the transcript that he said on ABC, taped yesterday, printed today. I think I would point you to his interview with Bloomberg and MSNBC the week before that, and any number of times in which I’ve discussed this with questioners on the first, second, third, fourth, and likely fifth rows of the briefing room.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, there was a wire report having to do with possibly the administration was rethinking these invitations to Iranian diplomats on the 4th. Did something change? Has that changed?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think as you all know, many weeks ago the administration extended an invitation to celebrate the freedom that this country enjoys. Not surprisingly, based on what we see going on in Tehran, nobody has RSVP’d.

Q So that’s what it is?

MR. GIBBS: Well, no, let me finish. Understand what — and you all do — July 4th allows us to celebrate the freedom and the liberty we enjoy: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble peacefully, freedom of the press. So I don’t think it’s surprising that nobody has signed up to come. Given the events of the past many days, those invitations will no longer be extended.

Q Fair enough.

MR. GIBBS: Jonathan.

Q Let me clarify. You just said that those invitations –

MR. GIBBS: There’s nothing to clarify. I think I was pretty — let’s just say this, I was clear enough that Chuck didn’t follow up. (Laughter.)

Q What you’re saying is that somebody RSVP’d –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I said nobody has RSVP’d –

Q Had somebody RSVP’d, would they have been allowed in the door?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I appreciate the hypothetical that no longer exists on God’s green Earth. But again –

Q But you took a follow up –

MR. GIBBS: I know — why I scratched the scab, I’ll never know. (Laughter.)

Q Are the invitations rescinded, is the question.

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q Yes. Okay.

MR. GIBBS: Was that your question?

Q That was going to be my question. And to follow on, that meaning of that would be — is that a signal that the invitation for talks that were extended April 8 at the P5-plus-1 –

MR. GIBBS: That invitation has also not been addressed. But that invitation continues.

Q Now, along that line, the President yesterday, he spoke of a pathway that Iran has, including these universal rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to not be repressed violently. Would you consider those as new impediments or new hurtles for the Iranians to cross before they could get down that path?

MR. GIBBS: Toward direct engagement?

Q Toward direct engagement.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’m not going to add a lot to what the President said. I think our focus right now are on the events on the ground, understanding that we continue to have long-term interests in Iran.

Yes, sir.

Q You said that there hadn’t been any communications with Iranian officials since the election. What was the most recent communication with them?

MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to get into that.

Q All right. I’ve got a procedural question about yesterday’s news conference. What led to your decision to plant a designated hitter right here to ask the President a question? And what kind of a message do you think that sends to the American people and to the world about the kind of free-flow and pure questioning that’s been expected at presidential news conferences?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it did nothing more than underscore that free-flow. Peter, that was a question from an Iranian in Iran, using the same type of manner and method to get that information as, I guess, many of you and virtually every one of your outlets has done, because in this country we enjoy the freedom of the press.

In Iran, as many of you know, your colleagues have been dismissed. They’ve been kicked out. Some of them have been rounded up. There aren’t journalists that can speak for the Iranian people. What the President did was take a question from an Iranian. That’s, I think, the very powerful message that that sent just yesterday.

Q Couldn’t he have accomplished that without you guys escorting someone through here and planting him the room?

MR. GIBBS: Did you get a question yesterday from an Iranian that you had hoped to asked the President?

Q No, I did not.

MR. GIBBS: Well, then I guess the answer to that would have been, no.

Q Is this going to become a regular feature of President Obama’s news conference, that you all are going to bring people in here that you select to ask questions?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let’s understand — let’s be clear, Peter. I think you understand this, so — but I’ll repeat it for your benefit. There was no guarantee that the questioner would be picked. There was no idea of what the exact question would be. I’ll let you down easily: A number of questions that we went though in prep you all asked. Iran dominated the news conference, not surprisingly. But Peter, I think it was important and the President thought it was important to take a question using the very same methods, again, that many of you all are using to report information on the ground. I don’t have any — I won’t make any apologies for that.

Q Can I follow that one up, please?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q Thank you.

MR. GIBBS: Get the mic ready.

Q Aren’t you — you and the President aware that this cast suspicion that all of such questions may be presidentially planted?

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know what? Instead, Lester, of giving you an answer from here, I’ll ask that you ask Chuck, Jennifer, Chip, Jake –

Q I’m not throwing suspicion on them; you are.

MR. GIBBS: No, no –

Q I mean, no, no –

MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry. I was — can I give you 30 seconds to get your question straight?

Q Yes, of course.

MR. GIBBS: Major and others that asked questions yesterday, ask them right now if they knew they were getting a question yesterday — go ahead, ask one of them. Go ahead.

Q Well, he makes a good point, because –

MR. GIBBS: No, no, I make –

Q — there are a lot of people out there –

MR. GIBBS: Let me make — hold on, Chip.

Q — who incorrectly believe that we ask questions that are preapproved. And doesn’t this add –

MR. GIBBS: Do you? Do you?

Q Of course not.

MR. GIBBS: Okay, so how did they get that misperception –

Q But doesn’t this add to that perception –

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q — and doesn’t this allow –

MR. GIBBS: Chip, I feel like you have –

Q — (inaudible) do what we do?

MR. GIBBS: I feel — hold on, hold on.

Q So you don’t know –

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me –

Q You don’t know –

MR. GIBBS: Since I’m not a journalist and I play the spokesman on TV, let me answer one of the questions, okay? (Laughter.)

One of the things I love, Lester, is you move the microphone toward your mouth when you laugh as if the sound might not pick that up. (Laughter.) All right. Leaving that aside for a second, leaving that aside for a second –

Q I have one follow-up. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: No, no, I can — I can’t in my wildest dreams believe it’s only one, but just hold on –

Q It’s only one.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, I know, but let me — Chip and Chuck have questions that I think are important to answer.

I don’t know how that perception comes out there, but I feel confident that if you feel that perception is out there, that you could deal with it. CBS has gotten a question on all four of the news conferences. I don’t know if it’s been you on all four. Have you ever told us what your question is?

Q Certainly not.

MR. GIBBS: Have you?

Q Of course not.

MR. GIBBS: Have you?

Q Nope.

MR. GIBBS: You’ve only gotten one, so — have you? (Laughter.) Peter, have you?

Q Certainly not.

MR. GIBBS: Did Mark know? Did Mark tell us?

Q Certainly not, and neither would I.

MR. GIBBS: Major?

Q No.

MR. GIBBS: Jake?

Q I don’t think he would have called on me.

MR. GIBBS: Michael?

Q We didn’t get one. We didn’t get one.

MR. GIBBS: But did you give us a heads up on your question last time?

Q What do you think? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: There you go. Good answer. I like that. That’s actually — you might get one next time because that was a keen answer. Ann, did you let us know?

Q I think these are rhetorical –

MR. GIBBS: Okay. They are rhetorical questions because they’re easily answered.

Q Robert, in a third-world country — in a third-world country, and we’ve seen a press conference with –

Q A planted question.

Q — a planted question, the perception –

MR. GIBBS: The question wasn’t planted. That question wasn’t planted.

Q Questioner, planted questioner — the perception, you know, it’s something that would have colored the entire –

MR. GIBBS: Chuck, is Richard Engel reporting from Tehran using Twitter?

Q We have a reporter –

MR. GIBBS: Is he?

Q We have a reporter in Tehran.

MR. GIBBS: So Richard is not.

Q Richard is not, no. But have a reporter in Tehran.

MR. GIBBS: But Richard is not using Twitter? Richard is not using information he got from people –

Q Of course, we’re using information all over the place, but we usually have live bodies on the ground –

Q But, Robert, as many of us who were on the campaign trail remember, in Iowa, when there were two episodes where candidate Obama’s chief rival, Hillary Clinton, was accused of having planted questioners in town halls –

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no –

Q — it became a question of her authenticity –

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no.

Q — or her ability to handle town halls.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no. Let’s be clear. Not that I knew I should call on Major, right? I don’t know what — forget the Iowa outlet — call on Major, because the question he’s going to ask is X, okay? You’re saying — and I will be definitive — nobody at any outlet has ever told me that they were going to ask a certain question, including the fact that I was going to pick or the President might pick somebody from the Huffington Post to ask a question by an Iranian, but didn’t know what the question was.

Q That’s a big difference.

Q Why not use a seating chart and just let the President call on who he is, rather than go to specific –

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know –

Q Robert, what are the rules to be followed by the President at the press conference?

MR. GIBBS: What are the rules?

Q Yes.

MR. GIBBS: They’re not written. I’m happy — look, I’m happy to have you guys yell. I’m cool with that.

Q Okay.

MR. GIBBS: You want to do that?

Q Just one more.

MR. GIBBS: No, no. Let’s — you know what? I’ll forget where I’ve gone, right? I’m going to –go ahead, yell a little bit louder so I can almost hardly hear you.

Yes, ma’am.

Q The perception is though, however –

MR. GIBBS: Well –

Q Let me finish, please.

MR. GIBBS: No, no. I’m not even going to let you finish. On the first day in political science class, the teacher says, there’s perception, and there’s reality.

Q Well, the reality is –

MR. GIBBS: Every one of you all has talked about the reality –

Q — printed out this –

MR. GIBBS: — so I’m not going to deal with the perception.

Q Robert, allow me — please allow me to finish, okay?

MR. GIBBS: We live in America. Speak.

Q Thank you.

MR. GIBBS: There you go.

Q The perception is this is scripted, from the day –

MR. GIBBS: Well, it’s wrong.

Q Okay.

MR. GIBBS: It’s wrong.

Q But from the day this administration walked in the door, there was a perception that you were calling people, telling them, you will be picked. And that was the perception, and it’s out there. And then to put this person from the Huffington Post, it was awkward –

MR. GIBBS: April, you got picked. Did you get told you were going to get picked?

Q I got picked, it was my first White House press conference pick. No, I was not told. I was surprised –

MR. GIBBS: Were you — did you know what — did I ask you what question?

Q I don’t think you know what I’m going to ask you when I ask questions.

MR. GIBBS: That is more than a safe bet.

Q But how do you decide on that list of people that you’re going to say, the President has a list, I’m going to go through that?

MR. GIBBS: It’s just a series of educated guesses.

Q Can anyone ask about something that the American people actually care about?

Q They do care about this, Jake. They want to make sure that we are out there being accountable for them. They do want to know.

MR. GIBBS: Jeff.

Q On immigration meetings tomorrow at the White House, what is the President’s — a lot of people on the Hill are saying that it’s up to the President to lead on this issue. What is his time frame for an immigration bill, and does he think it’s better in the second two years of his first term as opposed to the first two?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jeff, I think tomorrow — again, the President has started some conversations on this issue. The President had the Congressional Hispanic Caucus at the White House earlier this year, and tomorrow both sides of the aisle and both sides of the issue will be represented.

I think in many ways, how this moves forward — I think the President wants to talk with members of Congress and share different opinions and viewpoints as to what the best path forward is, understanding that the President strongly believes that the only way to deal with this is through a comprehensive reform plan. So I think the President hopes that tomorrow we continue that conversation, and he’ll get more information from Congress about what they see as the path forward, as well.

Q It sounds like he’s following Congress on this issue as opposed to leading Congress on it.

MR. GIBBS: Well, no, I think he’s working with Congress to try to figure out how best to move forward and ultimately pass into law comprehensive immigration law.

Q How is this on sort of his promise to kind of create a path to citizenship for illegal residents? How is that affected by the current economic climate in this country? Has that made the politics harder for him on something like that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, look, I think the politics of this — I’m not sure I want to get into really discussing the politics of this. I think many of us have watched the debate over the course of many years. The President was a participant in the debate in 2006 in the Senate. And I think, quite honestly — I think one of the things that he hopes to hear and wants to hear from folks is, based on what we know and have learned from those debates, does that affect the path forward? And I think that’s part of the dialogue and the continuing dialogue he wants to have.

Major.

Q Robert, in advance of tonight’s town hall, an ABC/Washington Post poll shows that — and I’ll read five categories where more than three-quarters of those who responded said they were either somewhat concerned or very concerned: They would suffer reduction in the quality of their health care; they reduce health care coverage; that they have had their choices of doctors or treatments limited; that it would increase government bureaucracy in the health care system; and it would sharply increase the federal deficit.

The President has extensively addressed all of these issues, trying as hard as he can, and as hard as you can, to reassure the American people this wouldn’t happen. And yet more than three-quarters of those surveyed have either somewhat heavy concerns or very heavy concerns about all of these. What is — what is the missing link here between what the President has said and you have said and what the American people are hearing and responding to about this debate?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think — look, I think there are a lot of numbers out there. I think there — I mean, I think that one of the top line numbers in the poll showed a similar number very or somewhat concerned about the rising cost and the notion that that rising cost will greatly impede either their ability to gain access to health insurance or for their family or business to continue to have it. Look, I think –

Q But as the President conceded, we’re going to get closer and closer to the details. And these questions and these levels of concern speak to the details.

MR. GIBBS: Right. Well, I think, one — I mean, I think, one, I think the President is anxious to address many of the very issues that are in this poll directly with the American people through the town hall, and I think he’s found this an engaging way, in direct questioning, to set aside myths from fact.

I think — I mean, increasing the deficit, as we talked about a minute ago, this is a plan that will be fully paid for. And in many ways, because the President will require a significant change in the way and the efficiency with which health care is done through Medicare and Medicaid, that that’s actually going to, over the long term, help us get back on a path toward fiscal responsibility. Reductions in the amount of coverage — obviously one of the goals, ultimately of this legislation, is to increase. Look, I think –

Q My question — obviously tonight he looks forward to the opportunity, but he has had several bites at this apple. He has had many opportunities, he’s had town halls, he’s addressed a lot of these questions, and yet these detailed levels of anxiety remain. And it –

MR. GIBBS: Well, my sense is, Major, that because this is an issue that we’ve debated and dealt with and not acted on in 40 years, that — and I think people of the — veterans of the past few battles can tell you that the numbers that they see in some of these cases cropped up each and every year. It is a complex and difficult issue to work through in order to make sure that people understand. I think that’s what the President hopes tonight will begin to do, is lessen –

Q Does he need to do something different?

MR. GIBBS: I think the only thing he needs to continue to do is discuss the issue and do it in a way that addresses directly from the American people the concerns that they have. I think the President believes that if the American people have a chance to hear all of the sides of the argument, pro and con, that in the end they’ll believe quite strongly that health care reform is something that must be done, that can be done, and ultimately will be done.

Q The President, of course, has expressed his sadness and — I’m sorry, do you want to –

MR. GIBBS: No, go ahead, go ahead.

Q Thank you. Thank you very much. The President has obviously expressed his sadness and condolences for those who were killed in the horrible tragedy of the subway accident — and you have, too. But there’s a growing concern that a lack of funding may have contributed to what happened. And as I understand it, there is no line-item mention, no line-item in the President’s budget for metro funding, for the Washington, D.C., funding. And I was wondering, are you planning to move on that, what your general take is on that, what your reaction is, and where do we go from here?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything directly with me on the funding, but I will try to — we’ll get you an answer right after — right after this.

Q Any comments on what caused it or where we’re going?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, look, I think we’re all — I think it’s probably a safe bet that each and every person in this room either — takes part in using the metro system; it’s a wonderful system. I think the President wants to be assured and wants to be able to assure people that it’s up to date and it’s fully safe.

I think the record of metro in many ways demonstrates that. And I think he wants to ensure that NTSB and others have all that they need to find out what may or may not have caused this accident and how best to deal with ensuring that this sort of tragedy never happens again.

Q Back to Iraq, Robert. As you know, there was another bombing today; death toll at last count was 56, the latest in a series of these. Has the President given any thought to asking that U.S. troops remain in cities beyond the deadline that they talked about? If not, why not, because it’s pretty horrific.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has heard, and I think many of you have heard from — directly from General Odierno that we are going to keep our deadline of June 30, as the agreement states, with Iraq. I think the President — I know the President has had meetings and continues to have meetings about ensuring that we’re making sufficient political progress on the ground. And I think you’ll see in the coming weeks an even greater focus from our part on that.

But, again, I think General Odierno has mentioned that we have seen violence greatly decrease even in the past many months from what it was, and he feels confident in moving forward.

Q The President has had no second thoughts on this subject? He’s not approached the Iraqis about changing it?

MR. GIBBS: No. no.

Ann.

Q Back on health care. What the President said nine days ago — what he said: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away no matter what.” Is that statement now inoperative?

MR. GIBBS: No, let me — let me talk a little bit about that statement. I think what the President — as the President said yesterday, our failure to act means thousands of people each day are losing their doctor because they’re losing their health care. They’re losing access to — through an insurance plan that they either buy individually or as a family or buy as part of an employer system, that they get an opportunity to see a doctor. And if we don’t do anything, there’s no question that people are going to lose that opportunity.

There have been discussions — I know we’ve gotten questions here about CBO’s looking at unfinished products and discussing the notion of what number of people might move from a private insurance plan into the health exchange or health marketplace, if there is a so-called public option. Now, what — and I don’t know which specific bill has these firewalls in them, but in some of the pieces of legislation there are mechanisms that prevent an individual from — prevent an employer from doing this, and prevent an individual from — that already has insurance — from declining their employer-based insurance in order to go on to a public option.

In other words, if you decline ABC’s health insurance, and if you can’t — you’re not going to be able to — under some of the provisions in this legislation, you’re not going to be able to decline that coverage from your employer and go out into these health marketplaces and these health exchanges.

The health exchanges are in place primarily to deal with those that either don’t have access to a health insurance plan as part of their employer, or have found that on the individual market it’s far too complicated and far too expensive.

Q The point, though, is the concept. The President has told America –

MR. GIBBS: Oh, and I should say this, that the President — I think the President said clearly yesterday, nothing that we do on health reform will cause the government to say, Ann, you can’t go see Dr. Smith anymore; you’ve got to go see Dr. George.

Q But the concept is that — the concept that the people heard from the President is: If you like your plan, you’re paying for your plan, you like your doctor, you can keep it.

MR. GIBBS: That’s still true.

Q And that concept no longer really can hold for those whose employers might change.

MR. GIBBS: Well, if an employer — explain your last part of your example. If an employer decides — help me understand here.

Q For Americans who want to keep the plan and the doctor they’ve got now, that concept isn’t going to work if there’s — if companies do opt out of the current coverage. You can’t — the President –

MR. GIBBS: Well, but understand that there will be — well, understand, Ann, there will be incentives to ensure that if an employer — monetarily, that there will be an incentive that will — in almost all rational economic decision-making — prevent an employer from dropping their insurance and simply dumping you out into the health exchange, right?

You won’t — without getting into what detail or what level — let’s use ABC; that’s a fairly large company. If ABC were to do that, they’re going to have to pay into a system — they’re going to have to pay into a system. I think almost every company would find it far more economical, or else the incentive would be perverse to ensure that that doesn’t happen.

Q Will he continue to use this phrase, “You can keep your plan”?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. I think based on, again, the firewalls in many of these pieces of legislation, there are incentives, again, that prevent businesses from unnecessarily dropping coverage, mostly because, one, we think businesses want very much to provide coverage. That’s an incentive. That’s in many ways that we’ve seen industries throughout America that have used health benefits as an incentive to find workers.

And as I said, somebody — you can’t simply decline — I can’t decline my employer’s insurance in order to go out onto the public market or — and I think I should also just clarify. Understand that the health exchange or the health marketplace is simply an avenue with which you will be able to — an individual will be able to choose among many different options, one of which might be a public option.

Q Thank you, Robert.

MR. GIBBS: Thanks, guys.

END
2:53 P.M. EDT

6-27-9 Iran News- Freedom News- NiteOwl Update of Iran and Information to help Iran Freedom

http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/26/6-27-9-iran-news-iranian-state-tv-propaganda/

http://blog.freedomist.info/2009/06/26/6-26-9-freedom-news-cap-and-trade-passes-house-battle-switches-to-senate/

obama news archive feed

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »