You are currently browsing the Obama Tweets weblog archives for June, 2009.
20. June 2009 by admin.
| EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION | USDL 09-685-NAT |
| Program Contact: | TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN THIS |
| Scott Gibbons (202) 693-3008 | RELEASE IS EMBARGOED UNTIL |
| Tony Sznoluch (202) 693-3176 | 8:30 A.M. (EDT), THURSDAY |
| Media Contact : | June 18, 2009 |
| (202) 693-4676 | |
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA
In the week ending June 13, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 608,000, an increase of 3,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 605,000. The 4-week moving average was 615,750, a decrease of 7,000 from the previous week’s revised average of 622,750.
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 5.0 percent for the week ending June 6, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week’s unrevised rate of 5.1 percent.
The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending June 6 was 6,687,000, a decrease of 148,000 from the preceding week’s revised level of 6,835,000. The 4-week moving average was 6,757,500, an increase of 2,250 from the preceding week’s revised average of 6,755,250.
The fiscal year-to-date average for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment for all programs is 5.286 million.
UNADJUSTED DATA
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 554,405 in the week ending June 13, a decrease of 26,791 from the previous week. There were 349,255 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008.
The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 4.5 percent during the week ending June 6, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 6,058,847, a decrease of 85,499 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.1 percent and the volume was 2,799,719.
Extended benefits were available in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin during the week ending May 30.
Initial claims for UI benefits by former Federal civilian employees totaled 1,972 in the week ending June 6, an increase of 206 from the prior week. There were 1,874 initial claims by newly discharged veterans, an increase of 419 from the preceding week.
There were 15,924 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending May 30, an increase of 898 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 28,548, an increase of 1,793 from the prior week.
States reported 2,359,537 persons claiming EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) benefits for the week ending May 30, an increase of 102,946 from the prior week. EUC weekly claims include both first and second tier activity.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending May 30 were in Michigan (7.5 percent), Oregon (7.0), Nevada (6.3), Puerto Rico (6.3), Pennsylvania (6.2), Wisconsin (6.0), Arkansas (5.6), South Carolina (5.5), California (5.4), and North Carolina (5.4).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending June 6 were in Pennsylvania (+6,861), Florida (+6,469), Ohio (+5,104), California (+4,894), and New York (+4,795), while the largest decreases were in Arkansas (-1,206), Puerto Rico (-1,131), Wisconsin (-707), Arizona (-693), and Nebraska (-450).
| Advance | Prior1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WEEK ENDING | June 13 | June 6 | Change | May 30 | Year |
| Initial Claims (SA) | 608,000 | 605,000 | +3,000 | 625,000 | 390,000 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Claims (NSA) | 554,405 | 581,196 | -26,791 | 500,383 | 349,255 |
| 4-Wk Moving Average (SA) | 615,750 | 622,750 | -7,000 | 632,250 | 381,500 |
| Advance | Prior1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WEEK ENDING | June 6 | May 30 | Change | May 23 | Year |
| Ins. Unemployment (SA) | 6,687,000 | 6,835,000 | -148,000 | 6,757,000 | 3,097,000 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ins. Unemployment (NSA) | 6,058,847 | 6,144,346 | -85,499 | 6,033,603 | 2,799,719 |
| 4-Wk Moving Average (SA) | 6,757,500 | 6,755,250 | +2,250 | 6,693,250 | 3,106,750 |
| Ins. Unemployment Rate (SA)2 | 5.0% | 5.1% | -0.1 | 5.1% | 2.3% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ins. Unemployment Rate (NSA)2 |
4.5% | 4.6% | -0.1 | 4.5% | 2.1% |
|
Prior1 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WEEK ENDING |
June 6 |
May 30 |
Change |
Year |
| Federal Employees | 1,972 | 1,766 | +206 | 1,173 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newly Discharged Veterans | 1,874 | 1,455 | +419 | 1,613 |
|
Prior1 |
||||
| WEEK ENDING |
May 30 |
May 23 |
Change |
Year |
| Federal Employees | 15,924 | 15,026 | +898 | 10,844 |
| Newly Discharged Veterans | 28,548 | 26,755 | +1,793 | 19,893 |
| Railroad Retirement Board | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | 2,000 |
| Extended Benefits | 258,187 | 213,666 | +44,521 | 4 |
| EUC 20083 | 2,359,537 | 2,256,591 | +102,946 | 0 |
UNADJUSTED INITIAL CLAIMS FOR WEEK ENDED 06/06/2009
| State | Change | State Supplied Comment | |
| AR | -1,206 | Fewer layoffs in the automobile industry. | |
| PR | -1,131 | No comment. |
| State | Change | State Supplied Comment | |
| CO | +1,149 | No comment. | |
| NV | +1,187 | Return to a five day workweek. | |
| WV | +1,195 | No comment. | |
| OR | +1,239 | Layoffs in the construction, trade, and manufacturing industries. | |
| MD | +1,291 | No comment. | |
| GA | +1,692 | Layoffs in the construction, service, and textile industries. | |
| AL | +1,739 | Layoffs in the transportation equipment industry. | |
| MA | +1,811 | Layoffs in the trade, service, information, and finance industries. | |
| MN | +2,062 | No comment. | |
| MO | +2,342 | Layoffs in the transportation and warehousing industries. | |
| VA | +2,508 | No comment. | |
| KY | +2,547 | Layoffs in the automobile and manufacturing industries. | |
| IN | +2,927 | Layoffs in the automobile, transportation, service, and manufacturing industries. | |
| SC | +3,226 | Layoffs in the textile and fabricated metals industries. | |
| NJ | +3,321 | Return to a five day workweek, as well as layoffs in the construction, trade, service, and manufacturing industries. | |
| TX | +3,549 | Layoffs in the service, information, finance, and manufacturing industries. | |
| TN | +3,905 | Layoffs in the manufacturing industry. | |
| MI | +4,326 | Layoffs in the automobile industry. | |
| NC | +4,339 | Layoffs in the textile, furniture, construction, service, transportation, fabricated metals, and lumber/wood industries. | |
| IL | +4,378 | Layoffs in the trade, service, and manufacturing industries. | |
| NY | +4,795 | Layoffs in the construction, trade, and manufacturing industries. | |
| CA | +4,894 | Return to a five day workweek, as well as layoffs in the service industry. | |
| OH | +5,104 | Layoffs in the automobile industry. | |
| FL | +6,469 | Layoffs in the construction, trade, service, and manufacturing industries, and agriculture. | |
| PA | +6,861 | Layoffs in the construction, service, and transportation industries. |
State Detail Prior Week
UI Claims Series 1967 to current
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
Find more videos like this on obama
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 19, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT DSCC/DCCC FUNDRAISER
Mandarin Oriental Hotel
Washington, D.C.
June 18, 2009
7:06 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, it is nice to be among friends. I want to thank Bob Menendez, the DSCC chair. I want to thank Chris Van Hollen, the DCCC chair; my great leaders in Congress, Harry Reid and Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for their outstanding leadership. To all my colleagues and former colleagues who I see gathered around, thank you so much for your outstanding work. And also please give a big round of applause to Diana Krall for the wonderful entertainment. (Applause.)
It’s a pleasure to be here, on behalf of the men and women in Congress who have worked tirelessly — and I mean tirelessly — over the last five months to put this nation on a road back to prosperity. I want to especially thank the two leaders — two Americans who have, day in, day out, just been steering the ship, and without their leadership in Congress, we would just not get things done, Nancy and Harry. Every single day they are displaying the skill and tenacity and the fierce urgency of the challenges we face. So please give them another round of applause. (Applause.)
Chris Van Hollen and Bob Menendez, they’ve got a thankless job, which is to recruit and fund-raise and organize so we can expand our majority in 2010. And they’re doing exemplary work and we’re all grateful for them.
Now, we’ve been called to govern in some extraordinary times. We’ve been asked to confront challenges of a size and scope that are unmatched in recent history — a set of challenges that very few generations of Americans have ever been asked to confront: We’ve got two wars, a debilitating recession, a global financial crisis, issues like global climate change that threatens our planet. Meeting these challenges is not easy. If it was easy it would have already been taken care of. (Laughter.) And everyone here could kick back and spend more time at home with their families.
But that’s not the hand that we’ve been dealt. We’ve been called to lead not when it’s easy, but when it’s hard. That requires tough choices, and it requires doing what’s right, even what — even if what’s right isn’t always necessarily popular. It requires taking on the status quo in Washington. And let’s face it, the status quo in Washington favors inertia over action; and tinkering over real reform. It requires the courage to look beyond the immediate news cycle, which is very hard to do, and to look beyond the next election to the next generation — to do what we have to do to ensure that the American Dream is there for our children, and that the world that they inherit is better than the one that we did.
That’s what so many in Congress have done in these last five months, and that’s what we’re going to have to do in the hard months to come.
It’s not just a responsibility, I think it’s also a privilege — and it’s an extraordinary opportunity — for in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill.
Just think about what we’ve already achieved together. Five months. Now, people’s memories are short around here. Let’s just do a little — (laughter) — let’s do a little inventory. Not one month into this administration, we responded to this recession with the most sweeping economic recovery plan in our nation’s history. The plan has already provided tax relief to 95 percent of hardworking families, the most progressive tax cut in our history. It’s saving jobs and creating new ones in construction and clean energy and small businesses across the country. Before the summer’s end we will have created another 600,000 jobs.
Thanks to this Congress, we also passed a budget resolution that will help cut our deficit in half while laying the building blocks of a new foundation for lasting growth and prosperity — a budget that invests in clean energy and quality schools and reform that will finally bring down our health care costs.
With the help of the members of Congress, and with the help of everybody in this room, we’ve lifted the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. (Applause.) We expanded the Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover 11 million additional children in need. (Applause.) We passed a national service bill to create hundreds of thousands of opportunities for people to serve in their communities. (Applause.) We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — the first bill I signed into law — to make sure that women in this country get a fair shake on the workplace. (Applause.)
We passed a series of reforms that won’t just change policies in Washington; it changes the way we do business in Washington. We brought together auto executives and labor unions and environmental groups, Democrats and Republicans, to set a national fuel-efficiency standard for our cars and trucks for the first time in history. We passed bipartisan legislation to help homeowners and crack down on predatory lenders who seek to take advantage of them.
We passed a law that will protect consumers from the unfair rate hikes and abusive fees that are levied by many credit card companies; a law that will eliminate waste in our defense budget and save taxpayers billions of dollars. And after a decade of opposition, we passed legislation that will prevent tobacco companies from preying on our children. (Applause.)
Five months. Every member of Congress who helped make these reforms possible should feel proud of what we’ve accomplished. But we shouldn’t feel satisfied. We should feel confident in the future — but not content with the present, not when there are workers out there who are still looking for a job, and families who are still unable to pay their bills. Not when there are millions of Americans with are trying to figure out whether they can afford health care, and millions more of our children who are being left behind in our education system. We can’t be satisfied when our nation is not leading the world in developing a 21st century energy economy.
We’ve come a long way, we can see some light on the horizon, but we’ve got a much longer journey to travel. And this is when it gets hard — ironically, in part because the economy has stabilized somewhat; now suddenly everybody forgets. We introduced this financial regulatory bill; people start to say, why do we need all this regulation. I’m sorry, wasn’t it just in September — (applause) — that the financial system almost melted down? What are you talking about? (Laughter.)
But that’s the nature of things. This is when the criticism gets louder. This is when the pundits grow impatient. This is when the cynicism mounts. This is when we hear the same voices advocating the same old policies that got us into this mess in the first place. This is when we hear that the change we seek just isn’t possible. Can’t do it; system overload; circuits breaking down. (Laughter.) Right, George? (Laughter.) I mean, we’ve been hearing it — it’s so predictable.
So this is exactly the moment we need to fight the hardest. This is the time when we need to band together. This is the time when we have to do what we know is right for the country and deliver the change that we promised to deliver in November.
And that’s why all of you are here tonight. That’s why you’re digging deep again tonight, at a time when it’s not easy to dig deep. That’s why I know that you’re going to keep on making those phone calls and knocking on those doors. And that’s why we’ve got to get to those polls again next November to make sure that we send a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate back to Congress to finish the business of the American people. (Applause.)
And that’s why I’m here tonight — because I can’t bring about the change that I promised by myself in the Oval Office — or just me and Rahm. (Laughter.) I mean, Rahm is great, but you know — (laughter) — I need a little more help than that. It’s not how it works.
I need partners in Congress — leaders who are determined to make a difference for the folks they represent. And right now, more than ever before, we need their help — America needs their help. We need their help to build schools that meet high standards and close the achievement gap, and prepare our kids for the challenges of the 21st century; where we reward teachers for performance and give them new pathways for advancement. We need their help to reach the goal that I’ve set for higher education in this country, that by the year 2020, America once again will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. (Applause.)
We need their help to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill that will finally reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil — (applause) — and offer new energy incentives to reduce the pollution that threatens our health and our climate; a plan that will create millions of new jobs producing wind turbines and solar panels and biofuels. Because we know that the nation that leads the 21st century in clean energy technology, that’s the nation that’s going to lead in the global economy — and America can and must be that nation.
We need the leaders of Congress to create new rules of the road for Wall Street, to make sure that a crisis like this never happens again. As I said, yesterday I outlined a set of regulatory reforms that will encourage drive and innovation in our markets, but reforms that will also punish short-cuts and abuses. They’re reforms that will allow our market to function freely and fairly, but without the risks that brought our financial system to the brink of collapse.
I ask Congress to pass these reforms before the year is out. It is something that we have to do — and I’m confident we can do.
And right now, we need the help of this Congress to finally pass reforms that bring down the crushing cost of health care and give every American an opportunity to get decent health care in this country. (Applause.) I gave a speech about this earlier in the week. When it comes to the cost of health care, the status quo is unsustainable. Inaction is no longer an option. If we do nothing, more families will go bankrupt, more businesses will shut their doors, more debt will be passed on to our children.
It’s time to fix what’s broken about our health care system and build on what works. And I’ve said this before — if you like your doctor, you should be able to keep your health care. If you like your health care plan, you should be able to keep it. But we need a system where every American can finally afford their health care.
Let me be clear: I sincerely hope that there are members of both parties who will participate in reform. No party has a monopoly on the best ideas about how to get this done. I’ve said that before. But to those who simply criticize without offering new ideas of their own, I have to ask: What’s your answer? What’s your answer to all those families who now spend more on health care than on housing or on food? What’s your answer to those businesses that are choosing between closing their doors and letting their workers go?
What’s your answer to the woman I met in Wisconsin who introduced me the other day — has breast cancer that’s gone to her bones; got two little kids. She’s 36 years old. And she’s already got $50,000 worth of debt, and she’s spending time worrying about whether she’s leaving debt behind to her family that they’ll never be able to pay off.
Don’t tell me that all you’re offering is meager tax cuts to uninsured Americans. Don’t present that as a new idea. It’s the same idea that’s been proposed for the last eight years. Don’t tell me that we’re going to tinker around the edges and that nothing is going to change, and 46 million people won’t have health insurance, and you still have people who do have health insurance with their premiums tripling; doubling over the last nine years, going up three times faster than wages. That’s not acceptable.
If all we’re doing is subsidizing a health care system that can’t contain costs; if all we’re doing is putting more money into a system that is not working, that is broken, then we’re just throwing good money after bad. That’s not reform. We need to permanently bring down costs so we can eventually save more money than we spend. And that’s what I want to do.
Now, we’ve outlined a way to pay — (applause) — we’ve outlines a way to pay for this reform with cuts and savings in our budget. And as we make these and other investments, we have to restore fiscal discipline in Washington so that we don’t leave our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt. Already, my administration has identified more than 100 government programs that we can reduce or eliminate, saving taxpayers nearly $17 billion next year alone. (Applause.) And we’re going to go line by line through the budget, looking for even more places to cut.
We’re living through extraordinary times. We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face, but we are determined to answer the call to meet them. We’re going to cast aside the old arguments and overcome the stubborn divisions and move forward as one people and one nation.
And I know it won’t be easy. There are going to be setbacks. There are going to be times where we get weary. It’s like running that marathon, and you hit a wall and you’re going to say, my feet hurt and my knees are buckling. This is going to take time. But I promise you that I will always tell the American people the truth about the challenges we face and the steps that we’re taking, and I will continue to measure my progress by the progress the American people see in their own lives.
And I’m convinced that if we stand together, then I know years from now we will look back on this moment as the time when the American people reclaimed together their future and wrote the next great chapter in American history.
We’re doing that because of you, and I’m grateful to you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END
7:24 P.M. EDT
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 19, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO PARTICIPANTS OF YEAR UP CENTER
Year Up Center
Arlington, Virginia
1:40 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: How is everybody doing today? Doing good?
AUDIENCE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is good to see you. First of all, I want to thank Gerald for founding this extraordinary program. Give him a big round of applause. (Applause.) And I want to thank Tanisia for running this thing in an extraordinary way. It seems like she’s doing a great job. Give her a big round of applause. (Applause.)
I am just very excited to be here. I just met four of your fellow Year Up participants, and they represented you very well. And they told me a little bit about the program.
I know that so many of you are doing extraordinary things now, but you’ve had your bumps in the road and there have been some tough times. And part of the reason we wanted to come here is that Father’s Day is coming up, and a lot of young people in America these days are growing up without fathers in the house, and as a consequence, without direction. And I’m somebody who didn’t have a father in my house when I was coming up. And what we wanted to do was to highlight the fact that, first of all, there are all kinds of people who succeed despite the obstacles, but also to remind ourselves that there’s so much talent out there that is untapped because people don’t have pathways to success, and they don’t have somebody who is giving them a hand and giving them advice and giving them counsel.
And so, number one, we want to send out a message that our parents — that’s the first foundation –0. and fathers especially need to be involved with their children’s lives. So the young men who are here today, I just want you to know that even if your father was not there, you can be there for your child when you have a child — and it’s not a bad thing to wait to have a child — (laughter) — until you’ve got your act together.
But the second message was also to say that we as a community can help provide young people with support and direction. And I think that this Year Up program is a terrific example of that.
So I just want to thank all of you for being great models — role models for your peers and for younger people who are coming up — your brothers and sisters, people in the community, they’re all watching you. I want to remind you that things are going to get tough at times in your lives, and I don’t want anybody here to feel discouraged. Right now the economy is going through a very tough time, which means that the job market is more restrictive especially for young people entering the market. But the skills that you’ve obtained and the poise, character that you’ve been developing is something that will last you a lifetime and you will be successful as long as you stick with it.
So we’re just very proud of you. And that’s it from me. Now what I want to do is just open it up and have questions.
END
1:44 P.M. EDT
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 19, 2009
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:15 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Let me take 10 seconds to get organized. Let me quickly go through a week ahead for your planning.
The President will spend the weekend in Washington and has no scheduled public events. On Monday the President will sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in the Rose Garden. On Tuesday the President will meet with the President of Chile at the White House. On Wednesday the President will hold a town hall meeting here at the White House in the East Room on health care, which will be broadcast on ABC during prime time. On Thursday the President –
Q Do you know what time?
MR. GIBBS: I believe it’s taped at 8:00 p.m. and broadcast at 10:00 p.m., if I’m not mistaken.
Q Coverage? Are the rest of the press in there as well?
MR. GIBBS: I assume so. I assume we’ll put a pool in there at least.
On Thursday the President will participate in a service event in Washington. The President will also host a small group of Senate and House members from both sides of the aisle at the White House for an immigration meeting. The meeting is to continue the conversation with the hopes of beginning the debate in earnest later this year. In the evening the President will host a picnic for members of Congress and their families on the South Lawn. And next Friday the President will meet with German Chancellor Merkel here at the White House.
Ms. Loven.
Q The House resolution, it asks for a direct condemnation of the government in Iran’s use of violence against protestors. And that kind of direct condemnation has not come from the White House this week. Can you comment on the resolution?
MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously, we welcome the resolution and we believe despite the question that it echoes the words of President Obama throughout the week. I think he –
Q But you’ve been saying that you hope they don’t use violence and directly — it may be a small difference, but it’s a big difference to some people.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President was pretty clear on Monday in the avail with Berlusconi.
Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn’t say they shouldn’t do it or directly criticize them for doing it.
MR. GIBBS: That’s not the way I read it. I think when the –
Q I have the –
MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he’s: deeply troubled by what I’ve seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there’s a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy — I stand strongly with the universal principle that people’s voices should be heard and not be suppressed.
I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.
Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.
MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.
Q So comment on the resolution?
MR. GIBBS: As I said earlier, we welcome it. It’s consistent with what the President has said.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President’s reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on — saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I’ve said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that — to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.
Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.
I will say, as the President has said, we’re not going to be used as political foils and political footballs in a debate that’s happening by Iranians in Iran. There are many people in the leadership that would love us to get involved.
Q The leadership of Iran?
MR. GIBBS: Yes. And would love to trot out the same old foils they have for many years. That’s not what we’re going to do.
Q Let me ask you one non-Iran question. Do you have a reaction to the indictment of Allen Stanford?
MR. GIBBS: I would certainly — I obviously would point you for details to the Department of Justice. But I think whether it’s this indictment or previous indictments that we have seen over the course of many months — I know we’ve talked specifically about Mr. Madoff — there are those whose outsized greed robbed millions of people of their savings and created part of a culture that led us to parts of the economic disaster that we’ve seen in this country.
I think the President has tried to address some of that in different proposals as well as financial regulatory reform. And we hope that those that have lost their savings will see justice.
Yes, sir.
Q Earlier this year the special inspector general for TARP, Neil Barofsky, tried to get documents relating to AIG. The Treasury Department rebuffed that request, although ultimately I think they did turn over the documents — but the Treasury Department sought a ruling from the Justice Department on just how independent Neil Barofsky’s office is supposed to be. Please explain from the administration’s perspective what exactly is going on here and why it appears as though the Treasury Department is pushing back against an independent inspector general.
MR. GIBBS: Obviously, Jake, the President believes that inspectors general fulfill a unique and important role in ensuring that programs operate with efficiency. No attorney-client privilege on any of this stuff has been invoked. No documents sought have been or are being withheld. The DOJ review is not related to any particular investigation. It is sorting out the legal issues relating to the creation of the office.
Q Right, but could you explain — could you actually answer my question? I understand the talking points you’ve been given, but can you answer my question, which is, why would the Treasury Department push back against the inspector general trying to get the documents –
MR. GIBBS: Well, again –
Q I understand the –
MR. GIBBS: I would point you to DOJ on the specifics on the specifics of that, and point you to the fact that the documents haven’t been withheld.
Q But Robert, we’re only, what, 150-some days into this –
MR. GIBBS: A hundred and fifty one.
Q A hundred and fifty one days into this presidency. Already the President has fired one inspector general, and his Treasury Department is challenging the independence of a different inspector general. Can you understand why people who believed the President when he talked about the desire to be held accountable and the need for transparency would say –
MR. GIBBS: Jake, we outlined the reasons why the inspector general for the Corporation of National Service, acted upon by the bipartisan board, recommended that he not be retained. I think we’ve discussed that. I know you’ve discussed that with the staff in many ways, and there are issues that are being sorted out in terms of the creation of different offices, but no documents are being withheld.
Q Right, but why did the Treasury Department push back? I understand ultimately they gave the documents, but why did they not –
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything from Treasury. I can certainly look and see what legal issues they were concerned about.
Q Is the precedent that — do you believe, does the President believe that the inspector general should be able to get whatever documents he needs to –
MR. GIBBS: The inspector general has gotten those documents.
Q With a struggle.
MR. GIBBS: Jake, I don’t know how — more to say that the inspector — the answer to your question is the inspector general has the documents that the inspector general wanted.
Q Well, either the Treasury Department respects the office of this inspector general or it doesn’t.
MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, we can go back and forth on your question and my answer. I think I’ve answered the question.
Helen.
Q Is the President going to drop the public option in lieu of the opposition on the conservatives on the Hill –
MR. GIBBS: No.
Q — including the Democrats?
MR. GIBBS: No.
Q He’s going to fight for it?
MR. GIBBS: The President believes strongly that for the uninsured entering the market there has to be choice and competition. The American people, coincidently, believe that too. The President believes it’s an important aspect of any health care reform plan that has to go through Congress.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, in light of the Ayatollah’s comments and just the overall climate in Iran, is it more difficult now for the administration to have any kind of significant dialogue with Iran over the nuclear issue?
MR. GIBBS: The President and the team don’t believe so. This is — again, we’ve talked about this, our interests remain the same. We’re concerned about the Islamic Republic living up to its responsibilities as it relates to nuclear weapons.
Q But if they’re saying — the Ayatollah is saying, you know, the U.S. is giving mixed messages or the President, specifically — I mean, how will that complicate the dialogue?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t think anybody should be under the illusion that any of this will be easy, but our interests remain the same, I think the interests of the world remain the same. I think, again, we have a pretty good sense of what not engaging with Iran, what the results of that are, in the number of several thousand spinning centrifuges. The President discussed the notion that we have to do things differently and I think you see, as we’ve said, we’ve seen at least the ferment, as the President said, of productive change in Iran.
Q And I’m wondering if — you know, the fact that the President has said he doesn’t want to meddle in the election there, is it not possible to have very strong language in support of the Iranian people without meddling?
MR. GIBBS: Oh, it is — the President did it on Monday and Tuesday.
Q But some would believe that it’s not strong enough.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I know there are some Republicans that didn’t believe it was strong enough. There are some Republicans that did believe it was strong enough.
Q But is it possible for him to have stronger language without taking sides?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President feels comfortable with the strong language that he employed on Monday and Tuesday to discuss this very situation. But, Dan, let me repeat again, there are people in Iran that would love for us to get involved. There are people in Iran who would love not to make it about one side in Iran versus another, but to make this about Iran versus the West or Iran versus the United States of America. It worked great for years. The President is not going to do that. I think many others, Democrat and Republican, have discussed the wisdom in that stance and the President is quite comfortable with where he is.
Q Can I just follow, Robert?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q As far as Iran is concerned, President has been reaching to everyone in that part of the world, including his speech in Turkey, his speech in Cairo, and here a very clear message as far as democracy and changes in those part of the world was concerned. You think President’s voices are being heard and his message, because what he was expecting that we care for you, but you (inaudible), we will work with you and changes must come in that part of the world just like in the U.S. or elsewhere.
MR. GIBBS: I think that the actions that the administration has taken and the voice of this President in reaching out, whether it was interviews early in the administration, messages to the people, directly to the people of Iran, the speech in Cairo — I do think that people have heard the President’s message. The President understands that five months of activity or an interview, a message and a speech aren’t going to change everything overnight. But I think the President feels confident that we’re making progress in that region of the world.
Q One more, please?
MR. GIBBS: Let me go with Chip.
Q Maybe I missed this and maybe it’s redundant, but I just want to get it clarified. Does the President condemn the actions of the Iranian government?
MR. GIBBS: He has condemned the violence. He’s condemned –
Q But does he condemn the actions of the Ayatollah –
MR. GIBBS: Well, the violence is being conducted by the government, right? The Revolutionary Guard — the pictures that we saw on Monday that the President reacted to, that was them.
Q So he’s clearly condemning the government of Iran?
MR. GIBBS: I think if you look at what he said throughout the week, it’s clear.
Q On health care, some dire reports out there — I’m sure they’re much more dire than you think they ought to be — but there have been delays up there. There are a lot of Democrats who say that the price tag now is just eye-popping, especially in light of the CBO analysis. And there are — and Republicans feel they’re getting tremendous traction here on the cost issue and that the tide is turning in their favor. Is this coming off the rails to any degree?
MR. GIBBS: No. I’m reminded that in five short months of the administration, about every six weeks I’m asked if the current initiative is heading off the rails; if something has unwound. We did it with the recovery plan, we did it with our budget, we did it with the recent supplemental –
Q But this is much bigger and more difficult than any of those.
MR. GIBBS: I would love to have posited that in response to one of your questions in, say, early January, mid-March, or just a few weeks ago in the supplemental. Look, Chip, there is a legislative process that takes time to wind its way through. This is an issue –
Q What inning are we in? What inning are we in on health care?
MR. GIBBS: Early, right? Maybe second? You still got plenty of time to get a beer and a hot dog before last call. (Laughter.)
Q They don’t have hot dogs.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I was going to say maybe a better alternative than a hot dog. I’m going to get a hot dog.
But look, I think we had an introduction of a bill in the House today — or a release of a piece of legislation in the House today that upholds the President’s goal of cutting costs, increasing the quality of health care in America, broadening accessibility. The health committee that Senator Dodd is leading right now is marking up a bill and making progress. I think we continue to put one foot in front of the other in the march toward health care reform.
But as I’ve said before, there’s a reason this is an issue that’s been debated back and forth for 40 years. Again, I think some of the most important things that came out of CBO this week were underscoring — I know this doesn’t get a lot of news attention because there’s no conflict — but underscoring the notion that the President has outlined a series of steps that CBO believes must be taken in order to deal with the rising costs of health care as it relates to the government’s budget.
We think those are all positive developments and we have — I think if you look back at some of the efforts that have been done over the past few decades, we have stakeholders that are involved in this that are on occasion split up and on different sides and shooting back and forth at each other that are all at the table working on this. So I wouldn’t call it a game in the second inning.
Chuck.
Q I want to follow up on the Iran stuff. You said nothing would change — you know, sort of, nothing is going to change sort of what the President wants to do in a policy toward Iran and having to do with the nuclear situation. Does the administration believe there should be consequences, though, in any future dialogue that is started, or whatever, based on the actions that the Iranian government has taken in this time period?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t want to get ahead of any of the dialogue. I think the President has been clear in underscoring and deploring the violence. But as I’ve said, Chuck, we still have U.S. interests on many issues including the one on nuclear weapons.
Q So what message does that send? I mean, one of the things that you guys –
MR. GIBBS: The message that it sends is we’re very clear about dealing with their nuclear weapons.
Q Even if it means dealing with a regime that you think may have stolen an election, may have started violence, may have pushed back — set back freedom, potential for freedom?
MR. GIBBS: This is about — well, I think the President and the international community understand the importance of dealing with what they all believe is the danger of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon.
Q Are you going to look to the United Nations for some international capacity to sort of condemn — if there is — because of this violence that you now say that we should — that you guys have condemned the Iranian government — should there be some sort of U.N. action that maybe does this?
MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to anybody on our team at the U.N. I think what you see — I think you see the size of marches increase. I think you see the passion increase. But I don’t know of any steps that are happening at the U.N.
Q Quickly on immigration. He said something today in his speech at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, that he wanted to seek comprehensive immigration reform. In his hundred-day press conference he talked about — he seemed to step back from that. So what’s changed since — before he said, “We want to enforce some laws on the books, then we’ll start looking at trying to do some more.”
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that –
Q I mean, has something changed since the hundred-day –
MR. GIBBS: No, I think the meeting next week will continue this process. But as we’ve said before, Chuck, we know there’s — we know the votes aren’t there right now. This is a –
Q And that’s what’s dictating the timetable. (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I’ll point you ad nauseum to any number of the questions on health care that might — I mean, yes, if we can’t seek 50 plus one, it will be tough to pass.
No, I mean, to be more serious, I think there’s a seriousness in an effort, but in understanding that in — I think in 2005 and 2006, even in 2007, there was not a majority yet to do this. We want to work with those, both in favor and support of those previous efforts, to see where we can get comprehensive immigration reform to pass.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Back on health care for a moment. The Senate Finance Committee is trying to bring the total costs of the bill down to a trillion dollars or less, and I understand the White House supports that goal, as well. Are you willing to make the tradeoffs that would be needed specifically in order to bring the costs down? Forget about the pay-for, but just to bring the actual costs down you’re going to have to turn back the benefit package, turn back the number of people who qualify for subsidies, the size of the subsidies; that’s how you bring the costs down. Is that a tradeoff that you’re willing to make?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we continue to watch what’s going on as the finance committee works through this process. I would mention that the President has put, I think at last count, $950 billion on the table as — you’re shaking your head — it’s actually –
Q No, but that’s not really relevant to my question. My question is, how do you pay for it; my question is, how much do you need to pay for?
MR. GIBBS: Well, but you did talk about pay-fors, right? And if we’re going to talk about — if you’re going to talk about trimming the cost down to a trillion, then I’m going to tell you that $950 billion has been put on the table. I actually think $950 billion of a trillion is actually a relevant part of the conversation to have. The President believes it’s a relevant part of the conversation. He’s talked about the fact that this plan has to be deficit-neutral. I think in many ways that’s a good portion of the answer.
The President isn’t going to sign a health care bill — I know you’re shaking your head, let me just try to finish this. The President is not going to sign a health care bill that increases the size of the deficit. In fact, the budget resolution won’t allow him to do that, right? Right.
So $950 billion is indeed relevant because having a series and an amount of money in order to pay for that bill equaling the cost of that bill will be part of what has to happen in order to get that through the process.
Q I probably didn’t ask the question clearly enough. What I was trying to ask was not how are you going to pay for it, are you serious about paying for it. You’ve spoken to that extensively. What I’m saying is in order to bring –
MR. GIBBS: Hoping, persuasive — but yes, go ahead. (Laughter.)
Q I said –
MR. GIBBS: I was pressing my luck.
Q I said I don’t disagree –
MR. GIBBS: I put $950 billion on persuasive.
Q I don’t disagree that you have put $950 billion of offsets on the table. My question is, in order to get the price of the bill down to $1 trillion from an estimated, what the last finance markup was, over $1.6 trillion — in order to bring that cost down, there are consequences which are reducing the benefit package, reducing the subsidies. And I want to know whether those are tradeoffs that the White House is willing to make.
(Cell phone rings.)
MR. GIBBS: Yes. We are — whose phone is that? All right, I’m kind of itchy here on Friday, I would love to take somebody’s phone. (Laughter.)
Obviously this whole process is going to be about how do we get something that is paid for and gets through the legislative process. I think the President has discussed this throughout the campaign. And I don’t know what the structure, in all honesty, of what is contained in the finance committee’s markup package of what — all the details of what that benefit looks like, the degree to which it goes out in terms of incidence of — percentage of your income above some percentage of poverty.
But there’s no doubt that these are exactly the types of tradeoffs and decisions that are going to have to be made throughout this process in order to get something — whether it’s — regardless of what that ultimate number is — and, again, the President has been very forceful in saying that that number has to be paid for, and that in looking for those resources we have to take the steps necessary, as we talked about a little earlier ago, to bend the curve on the government’s cost of health care in the future; that if we’re not taking those steps, then we’re not getting health care reform.
So all of those things are what I think will be — will take up Congress’s time and the President’s time in the next few weeks.
Yes, sir.
Q On tobacco and this legislation he’s going to sign on Monday, to what extent can we expect him to fold his own experience into what he’s going to say, his own experience with smoking?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I anticipate he’ll have — he’ll mention that in the remarks. You know, as we talked about last week when the President discussed his pleasure in seeing a bill that has wound its way through a legislative process for more than a decade to land on the President’s desk for his signature — he understands the struggles of millions of Americans with tobacco.
Yes, sir.
Q When will the President sign the war supplemental?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have an answer on — I don’t know that we’ve received the legislation yet, but it will be — I don’t anticipate that it will take long after we receive it.
Q On Iran, Republican Leader John Boehner said today that the U.S. should lead an international embargo on gasoline sales to Iran as a way to encourage the government not to use violence against protestors. Does the President think that’s a good idea, or are there other concrete steps the U.S. could take to –
MR. GIBBS: I didn’t see those comments before I came out here. We can have somebody look into that. Sanctions is something we’ve discussed. The President authored a bill that I can get you the details on, that as I recall was blocked last year by a Republican to put some stronger sanctions on Iran, and we’ll get you some information on that.
Q But do you think that sanctions now are an appropriate response to the way the Iranian government is behaving towards protestors?
MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, I think the President — well, I don’t want to get into the tit-for-tat on that right now.
Major.
Q Just to follow up on that quickly, when you said, “Sanctions are something we’ve discussed,” you mean generally — not in the context of this crisis?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I’m sorry. Yes, thank you, yes.
Q Yes, I just wanted to clarify that.
All right, I’ve got three topics, but one question on each, I promise.
MR. GIBBS: Okay. Hey, don’t tell me. (Laughter.)
Q Does the White House believe the Congressional Budget Office is an effective and reliable arbiter of the scoring of health care proposals and does it have any –
MR. GIBBS: To you it certainly does. (Laughter.)
Q — sort of say about the House Speaker and Chris Dodd, who were significant players in this debate, both in the last 48 hours criticized CBO’s methodology and the scoring that has come up –
MR. GIBBS: Well, but remember — and I haven’t seen the exact comments, but remember that — and I think even –
Q The Speaker said she’s frustrated because the CBO, in her words, always comes up with a “worst case scenario.” And Dodd has said he’s never understood why we have to please the CBO instead of ourselves as legislators. Is there — and I just wondered if the White House is satisfied with that kind of commentary.
MR. GIBBS: Maybe some of that frustration is the fact that right now CBO is looking at older proposals or half measures. I think the Dodd legislation that originally was scored wasn’t a final product. I don’t think there were savings mechanisms in there about bending the cost of health care.
But look, the President, as I said pretty clearly today, the President is going to look for health care reform that’s fully paid for.
Q By the measurement of the Congressional Budget Office.
MR. GIBBS: Unless or until somebody comes up with something different, yes.
Q On North Korea, under the sanctions, any member nation that wishes to enforce either the tracking of a suspect vessel or its inspection or shepherding that vessel to port must obtain the permission from its own government at the political and military level. That’s the language within 1874. Has the President been asked for permission for the U.S. Navy to board –
MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of.
Q Okay. And is there anything about the cargo on this vessel that leads you to believe that request is likely to come?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t want to get into that sort of specificity.
Q Okay. Last topic. The prayer breakfast today reminded me of something the President said during the campaign, that he would hope to or he probably would have a church selected for his and the girls’ and Michelle’s attendance in January. We’re now in June — can you update us on either the President’s churchgoing habits or his process in selecting a church?
MR. GIBBS: I know they’re continuing to look for a permanent place, mindful of many things.
Q Such as?
MR. GIBBS: What it does when a President decides to walk out of this building and walk into a different building and disrupt worshippers that are attending for their own personal reasons. I think that is certainly — that’s not an exhaustive list, but certainly one of the things that the President has on his mind about that.
Q Anything else that he has on his mind about it?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think there’s wanting to ensure that he finds a church that he, Michelle, and the girls feel most comfortable in.
Q Robert, following on that –
Q Does he use the chapel in Camp David?
MR. GIBBS: He does.
Q Robert, a follow on church?
MR. GIBBS: Sure.
Q Is the President, since he has not found a church home here in Washington yet, is he — is a minister being brought in to the White House on Sundays to have a service with the family? And is that also happening at Camp David?
MR. GIBBS: Well, as I’ve just said to Major, the President has been and very much enjoys the chapel and the chaplain up at Camp David. I don’t know that anybody has been brought in here.
Q And also real fast on something, the Senate has unanimously passed a symbolic resolution apologizing for slavery and racial segregation, and sent the measure to the House. This being the first black President — Bill Clinton did not apologize for slavery; George W. Bush said he would not do it as Africans were also involved in the slave trade. Does this President think that that’s something that should indeed happen?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I have not spoken with him specifically about the Senate resolution and I’d want to get his view on that.
Q Okay, well, what is the President’s thought about slavery, especially since he invoked –
MR. GIBBS: Opposed. (Laughter.)
Q Excuse me?
MR. GIBBS: Opposed.
Q Especially since –
MR. GIBBS: April, you just asked me what the President’s view on slavery was. What did you think I was going to say? (Laughter.)
Q You didn’t let me finish my –
MR. GIBBS: Okay, look, this is a very serious topic –
Q Yes, thank you.
MR. GIBBS: — I just want to note that that was your question. Go ahead, I’m sorry.
Q Okay, but I want to finish the statement –
MR. GIBBS: And it does drive me crazy when one doesn’t get a chance to finish their entire statement before somebody else — I’m sorry, I’m off track, go ahead. (Laughter.) It is Friday, guys; I’m just trying to have a little fun.
Q Anyway, you know, especially dealing with this issue of slavery, especially since he invoked the issue of slavery over a year ago in his Philadelphia speech on race, is it something that this White House could indeed tackle? Bill Clinton tackled it and tabled it in his second term when he dealt with the race initiative. Is this something –
MR. GIBBS: Tackled and tabled what? I’m sorry.
Q The apology — the possibility of an apology for slavery.
MR. GIBBS: Well, one, I don’t know if this is even something that — just purely legislatively, I don’t know if the resolution per se ultimately comes here or not for signature. I don’t know the answer to that.
Look, I think the President has spoken on any number of occasions about the stain that slavery left on this country, that throughout our history we have sought to better perfect our union and have had many bumps along the way. And one of the most significant of those stains is that of slavery; that it is clearly something that we continue to struggle with. The President obviously hopes that we can make progress on race relations and that we all have a deeper and better understanding of backgrounds and beliefs.
Yes, sir.
Q We’ve heard senior administration officials say that what’s happening in Iran is not about us. And we’ve also heard them say that they’ve never seen anything like this in Iran before. Does the White House think that the President’s outreach to the Muslim world, in Cairo or to Iran specifically in the New Year’s greeting, is influencing events in Iran right now?
MR. GIBBS: I think — I wouldn’t in any way seek for the administration to take the credit for what we’re seeing in Iran. I don’t know that — as you said, I’m not sure that anybody, even a week ago or so would have expected to see the courageous images that we’re seeing now.
I will say that I think that there are those in Iran and those throughout the Middle East that have noticed a different way of operating by this country, and that they’ve seen — and I think we’ve seen some improved relations, and I think we’ve also seen some improvement in the way this country is thought of by many countries in that region of the world. And I think that’s tremendously important not because we all have to feel better, but because there are very important foreign policy and strategic interests that we’ve discussed a lot in that region of the world.
I do think that I think you are seeing in Iran — I think you’re definitely witnessing something extraordinary. I think you’re witnessing something that many people might not have presumed or imagined, like I said, just a few — even a few weeks or a few days ago. And I think part of that is sort of what we discussed earlier, and that is I think there are those in Iran that see the United States of America not as it has been described to them, not as those have wanted their people to believe. I think that is a positive development for this country and for the entire world.
Q A quick follow-up. Do you have any idea how the Cairo speech was consumed in Iran? In other words, was it shown on –
MR. GIBBS: I can have those guys pull and see if we have stuff in terms of some of the social networking sites, or what media it might have been shown in –
Q Farsi one of the SMS –
MR. GIBBS: Yes, yes. So let me see if we can get you some stats on that.
Yes, sir.
Q Just briefly, back on health care and the struggles of trying to figure out how to pay for what it is that is ultimately agreed on. Obviously there’s been some talk, at least among some of the Democrats, of additional taxes, various things that — and also the discussion of taxing the employer benefits. The Republicans, it probably won’t surprise you to hear, are accusing Democrats of preparing a tax fest to pay for the President’s plan, which is not affordable. What’s your reaction to that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, Mark, I think if you — if I’m not mistaken, I can think of at least one Republican off the top of my head that talked about changing the tax benefits for the exclusion. I think if I sat at Google for about five minutes I could probably get you several dozen. I think one of the major reform bills that’s up there right now that’s been written by Senator Burr includes, if not a complete ending of the exclusion, some cap of it. So maybe they –
Q The RNC is specifically suggesting that some of these taxes are going to break the President’s pledge of not taxing the middle class.
MR. GIBBS: I think the President was pretty clear on that in an interview earlier this week relating to financial regulation. I think the President believes, as he said in that interview, that he’s put forward a course of action that he thinks is best able at this point to put that skin in the game. The bulk of that is changing the way we pay for health care. It’s injecting — it’s taking subsidies out of — for Medicare middle men, and it’s going back to the charitable deduction rates of the Reagan era. So I think there are — the President feels confident about what he’s put on the table.
Let me just go back to it — I think I read this earlier, but wondered what the President said earlier this week: “I do believe that something has happened in Iran where there’s a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past and that there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see a greater democracy.”
Yes, sir.
Q Back on North Korea. Has the U.S. reached out to any other countries, as far as helping in tracking that wayward freighter out there that — and is the U.S. looking at options beyond the U.N. resolution or possibly boarding it one day?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t want to get into operational specificity. As Ambassador Rice said here just one week ago, we sought from the United Nations and the international community strict sanctions on the movement of — possible movement of this type of material, and we’re fully committed to implementing what’s in those resolutions right now and changing, hopefully, the course of some behavior.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, what kind of outreach was there to the House in shaping the Iran resolution?
MR. GIBBS: I assume some people talked — were in conversations, but I don’t know to what degree.
Q But definitely –
MR. GIBBS: I assume that –
Q Somebody in the White House –
MR. GIBBS: I assume so, yes.
Q And on immigration. What the President talked about this morning sounded similar to what was discussed in the summer of ‘07. You said the votes aren’t there for it now. How do you get –
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you get there through the continuation of this dialogue and see if you can come up with ultimately — I mean, obviously, look, if you put up just what was out there we’re going to have to look through that and other ideas. And I think the President looks forward to — keep in mind that there will be people at the White House next week that don’t agree with where the President and others are. There are going to be final invitations having gone out. There are going to be members from both sides of the aisle next week to discuss it.
Yes.
Q There’s The Wall Street Journal report that President Obama wants to include civil unions to be counted in the census. Can you talk about that? Is that something the President wants?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, obviously, as we’ve discussed, the President and the administration are committed to a fair and accurate count of all Americans. And as the piece said, we’re in the midst of determining the best way to ensure that gay and lesbian couples are accurately counted.
Q And just to follow up on John Berry’s call that we had the other day when the President signed the memorandum, he talked about the need for a specific number of votes to fulfill the President’s campaign promise of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, and he kept saying 60 votes in the Senate. But is the White House talking to Republicans that might favor the repeal of this? I know there are a few.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, look, I think the administration — well, obviously, for math purposes, we’re going to have to have a coalition of people that believe, on each of those interests, that the policy isn’t serving our nation well. And the President is committed to making progress on both of those issues.
Steve.
Q Robert, back on the question of this apology for slavery. The Senate resolution also includes a disclaimer of sorts. It said, “This should never be used to argue for reparations.” The Congressional Black Caucus is very unhappy about that; it may not win their support when it goes back to the House. Does the President think reparations should be ruled out?
MR. GIBBS: The President has not and does not favor reparations.
Yes, sir.
Q Thank you. In the spirit of the discussion on Iran, have the Russians shared with you the results of their own discussion with the Iranian leader who they hosted recently in their own country?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the answer to that, whether NSC had discussed –
Q I really wanted to ask you about the upcoming trip to Russia. And I know it’s probably too early, but can you talk in general about how the President gets ready for such trips, how early he starts, what the preparations involve? Is there any input from the outside — outside of the White House?
MR. GIBBS: Well, the process in many ways for this upcoming and important trip to Moscow started not long after, and in some cases working on specific initiatives, before the G20 in late March. Obviously, we have a robust agenda with which we hope to discuss, particularly surrounding making — restarting arms control talks. And hopefully, by the end of the year coming to an agreement about some specific numbers to eliminate nuclear — begin to take some steps to eliminate even further nuclear weapons that each side has toward the President’s goal ultimately of a nuclear-free world.
Q I’ve seen comments in the press suggesting that it’s still a different type of a visit, going to Moscow, than going to Europe, for instance, or even going to the Arab world as he has done recently. Is it really for you? Is it any different in terms of preparations, in terms of –
MR. GIBBS: No, I think — look, I think everybody understands the importance of the issues that are going to be discussed. I think in many ways the preparation — the preparation is not that much different. We certainly hope that we can make some substantive progress on issues that we know are of importance to both sides.
David.
Q And lastly, when did –
MR. GIBBS: Maybe we have to move you up to the first row, if you keep asking more questions. (Laughter.)
Q When did they last talk, the two Presidents?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know that they’ve spoken since the G20. I mean, I know, obviously, General Jones has spoken with his counterpart; Mike McFaul has had many discussions. But I don’t believe the two Presidents have spoken since that date.
Q In the past week, has the President spoken to any outside-the-government experts on Iran? And, if so, who?
MR. GIBBS: I can check. I don’t know that — I don’t –
Q Has he spoken to anybody on the subject?
MR. GIBBS: Outside the government? I don’t know the answer to that, but I can certainly check.
Yes, sir.
Q Earlier in the week, the President said that he felt the supreme leader was aware that the people of Iran were concerned about the election — I think it’s a fair summary of what you said. Is that still the case, given that the supreme leader said in his speech that Ahmadinejad had won by 11 million votes, and that the Iranians have spoken?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the international community and the United States continues to have concern about the way in which the election was conducted. And I think that concern is pretty well held by the hundreds of thousands of people that continue to seek some sort of justice.
Yes, sir.
Q Was the President disappointed to hear the supreme leader coming out — he’s saying that his opinion is closer to those of Ahmadinejad; they’re closer to Ahmadinejad’s opinion than to those of Rafsanjani, the reformist who backed Mousavi?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t want to get into a back and forth. I think the President continues to be concerned about ensuring that those that seek the justice that I was just speaking about had the opportunity to do that. But I don’t want to get into a comparison about –
Q Does he still believe there are different centers of power in Iran?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we’re witnessing the fact that there are different belief structures and different centers in Iran.
Yes, ma’am.
Q You actually — just to follow up on something you had discussed in yesterday’s briefing. Can you speak to the U.S.’s or the White House’s confidence in Saudi Arabia’s relocation program with detainees that (inaudible) terror suspects over there? And kind of on that same subject, has the White House or has the President been having discussions with anyone from Saudi Arabia, officials of the country, about taking I think it was the Yemeni detainees that are –
MR. GIBBS: I believe that we have had discussions with the Yemeni government, and have had discussions at different levels with the Saudi government about that program and about detainees that are — some that have been transferred, and some that are still held at Guantanamo Bay.
Obviously I think the President believes that — and has said repeatedly, he is not going to make a decision to — on anything related to Guantanamo that would threaten the security of our country. But I don’t want to get into any depth about some of those discussions.
Q But did that come up in his conversations –
MR. GIBBS: Discussing Guantanamo definitely came up.
Yes, ma’am.
Q I wondered, did the President watch Ayatollah Khomeini’s speech? And then –
MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of.
Q And then I also wanted to ask about the House resolution. You’ve said repeatedly that the U.S. isn’t going to get involved in it, but when more than 400 members of the people’s representatives make a clear statement about it, isn’t that the U.S. getting involved?
MR. GIBBS: Well, no, I think, again, let’s — the resolution expresses the support of all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That’s the sort of topic sentence. I think the President has spoken out throughout the past week on the universal principle contained in each of those values. And I don’t think that expressing support for the ferment or expressing outrage in the violence is meddling in the Iranian process.
Yes, ma’am.
Q I just wondered if you could clarify, as far as health care tradeoffs. When you did say that you’re willing to reduce health care benefits and subsidies, are you in any way also including health care tax benefits and subsidies?
MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry?
Q Are you in any way willing to consider reducing health care tax benefits?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we’ve done this like 15 times and I think the President spoke pretty clearly to this in that interview that I discussed a minute ago on financial regulation earlier in the week.
Yes, sir.
Q Thanks. If we could go back to inspector general issue. Senator Grassley issued two letters yesterday and since then he’s been really pushing the AmeriCorps issue. But he issued two letters to both the Treasury Department and the International Trade Commission regarding their inspector general. And could someone infer that there is a trend in the administration towards inspector general based on –
MR. GIBBS: If they inferred it, it would be an incorrect inference.
Q Thank you, Robert.
MR. GIBBS: Thank you.
Q Happy Father’s Day.
MR. GIBBS: Happy Father’s Day to all you guys.
END
3:08 P.M. EDT
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 18, 2009
PRESS BRIEFING
BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:40 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Mr. Elliott, take us away.
Q Thanks, Robert. Hundreds of thousands of people are marching in Tehran today. I know the administration is trying to stay out of the drama going on following the Iranian elections. But is there a point where the President would be comfortable stepping in saying enough is enough? Perhaps a timeline, or numbers of people that have been hurt or injured, or numbers of people in the streets? Is there a threshold?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Phil, our response is — I think on this has been, from the very beginning, consistent even before the election. I was asked if — about our candidate of preference. I said that the United States wasn’t in the position of picking candidates for President. And I think the President has spoken to, in many ways, the causes and concerns of many that are marching in Iran by demonstrating, one, that he shares their concern and the international concern about the way the election was conducted. Secondly, he believes that there is a universal principle of demonstrating without the fear of harm.
So I think he has expressed on both of those — in both of those areas concern for the way the election was conducted and concern to ensure that demonstrators can peaceably carry out their demonstrations.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, a follow-up on financial regulation from yesterday. One thing that struck a few observers is the fact that the proposals that came out yesterday did not mention rating and speculation in oil markets. Why not? And is that something that the administration plans to address in a future proposal?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know if it’s a part of a future proposal, Jeff. I know that one of the great concerns that drove — or the great concern that drove the process for financial regulatory reform that was outlined by the President yesterday was ensuring that the causes for the economic catastrophe that we saw over the past many months and the lack of regulation that caused many of those events be remedied to ensure that they don’t happen again. That’s what drove the creation of the proposal. That’s what drove the President to create — or seek to create an agency that protects consumers and has their best interests in mind. And we are hopeful and we see encouraging words from Congress that this proposal can be gotten through the legislative process this year and signed into law by the President.
Now, that having been said, I don’t doubt, and you see it in reports today, very organized, very powerful special interests that will oppose the creation of the consumer agency or different aspects of the proposal. But the President intends to fight for each and every one of those.
Q But energy speculation is certainly something that the President as a candidate expressed concern about.
MR. GIBBS: Right.
Q Are you still concerned about speculation in the oil markets, and will there be something to address that?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t think the President’s concern has changed. I think yesterday’s thrust was to ensure that what had gotten us into this mess over the past many, many months — and, remember, this speech dates back to one of the — a speech that the President gave that wasn’t altogether noticed a lot in September of 2007 on Wall Street, and that we had to take steps to ensure that this never happened again. And that was the thrust of what was going on yesterday.
Yes, sir.
Q We’ve talked about this before a little bit, but there’s more recent polling indicating that while President Obama’s personal popularity is still quite strong, there are concerns among the American people and less support for some of his policies, specifically his economic policies, whether it’s spending proposals, the bailout of the auto industry, the deficit, the stimulus package. And I’m wondering what you think is going on, whether you guys haven’t made your argument as well as you could, or what exactly the dynamic is that Americans, although still a majority supporting the President on some of these economic policies, seem to — there seems to be something of an ebb.
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think you can look at recent polling from the past day or so — you can go back a week or so — I think the American people are rightly frustrated with where the economy is and how we ended up where we did. I think the American people and the President both are greatly concerned about the deficit.
I think that — you know, look, numbers and different questions bounce around, but when you look at something like the auto industry — look, the President knew that wasn’t a decision that was based off of something that was wildly popular, but the President believed it was something important to do to ensure the viability of an American auto industry, to ensure that towns and communities and companies had a chance to thrive again, and thought it was part of what we had to do to get our economy back on track.
Some of those things are popular, some of those things aren’t popular. I think the President would tell you that he’s going to do what he thinks is in the best interest of the American economy. Some of those things will be, as I said, more popular than others. But, look, I think the American people are rightly anxious and concerned about the economy, just as the President is.
Q And just one other question. There seems to be some wrangling right now between the Treasury Department and the Special Inspector General of TARP, Neil Barofsky, about how independent Barofsky’s office in TARP is. And based on the letter that Senator Grassley sent and response from Special Inspector General Barofsky, it seems like the independence of his office has been challenged; he hasn’t been able to get all the documents he’s wanted from the Treasury Department. And Grassley even suggested that an outside agency has been — or an outside entity of some sort has been asked to weigh in. Can you tell us what exactly is going on and –
MR. GIBBS: I have not seen Senator Grassley’s letter, so I’m not as familiar with that. I will look into it. I know the President is — has talked about, whether it’s in recovery or TARP or other programs, making sure — ensuring that there is the type of accountability that Americans expect when we’re using their tax dollars. So let me take a look.
Q So Inspector General Barofsky should be able to get whatever documents he needs?
MR. GIBBS: I think we want to ensure that there’s sufficient accountability. I don’t know any of the details on this, but let me check.
Q Okay, thanks.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.
Q Robert, on Iran, is there an internal debate in the White House now between those who clearly support what the President is doing in terms of the hands-off approach and those who think the President needs to have some stronger language? Is that ongoing in the White House?
MR. GIBBS: There’s no debate in the White House.
Q Never?
Q Is there division at all? Is everyone on the same page on this, or are there those who think that the President — internally, that the President is –
MR. GIBBS: Everybody is on the same page. There’s no difference of opinion. I think the only thing I might take — the only thing I would take some exception to is the notion that the President has been hands-off. Again, the President –
Q Well, in terms of not wanting to interfere with the election.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, I think that’s a fairly time-honored principle. At the same time, the President has been — has talked about, and we talked about it from my statement on Sunday and every statement either by me or other administration officials and by the President, concern about how this election was conducted, as well as stating, as I said earlier to Phil’s question, ensuring that the world knows and that people in Iran know of our belief that they have the right to have their causes and concerns heard and not fear violence, while at the same time respecting that this is a debate being had in Iran, by Iranians, about their leadership. I think if you look at Democrats and Republicans alike, they share where the President has been on this as we continue to watch the developments unfold.
Q And tomorrow, what is the plan for the Father’s Day — I understand the President might have some visitors here, and perhaps a town hall meeting with that?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know if there’s a town hall. I know there will be some visitors. I know there will be some — we’ll have some names for you later today, and hopefully, I know some senior staff will be participating in ensuring that we’re talking about mentoring and fatherhood. And we’ll have more on that a little bit later on today.
Q Is it informal or a formal kind of event where –
MR. GIBBS: I mean, it would be a formal event here, yes.
Q Is Ethan coming?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know if Ethan is coming; I should make sure that he is. He could tear some stuff up.
Q You said there’s no difference of opinion. Well, we’ve been led to believe this President seeks out different opinions from his advisors. You’ve got these incredibly knowledgeable people sitting around the room. He can’t find a single person who does anything other than nod, “Yes, Mr. President, you’re absolutely right on this”? I mean, how can there not be — how can there not be some difference of opinion on this?
MR. GIBBS: There is a belief by all here that this is a debate that, as I’ve said I think every day for the last five days, four days, plus my statement, that the American people and this government are not going to pick the next leader of Iran. That’s something that the Iranians have to do.
We have to ensure that we express our views, as I’ve said, about ensuring that people can demonstrate, have their causes and concerns heard. And that’s what people here believe.
Q But is there nobody who believes he ought to be a little more open in supporting the demonstrators? Nobody has expressed that opinion to him?
MR. GIBBS: Everybody is on the same page.
Yes, sir.
Q Just absolutely verbatim? Nobody –
MR. GIBBS: We walk around like robots, Chip. (Laughter.)
Q Can we quote you on that?
Q Too late.
Q It’s already there.
MR. GIBBS: It’s on the record — I’m a senior administration official — (laughter) — robotic knowledge of Robert Gibbs’ thinking. Go ahead. (Laughter.)
Q So you say “We’re all on the same page.” But the world sees many members of the United States government, members on Capitol Hill, who believe that –
MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip didn’t ask me did the entire Congress believe everything –
Q I didn’t say that — no, no, no, no –
MR. GIBBS: That I can tell you on the record is likely not the case.
Q I understand that. Does the President or does the administration believe –
Q (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: A little delayed back there, Lester. What was the –
Q I know, we’re on the seven-second –
MR. GIBBS: Right, I know, it’s –
Q — delay. (Laughter.)
Q Does the administration believe that the vocal criticism of — that members of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill, and many very prominent members of Congress, have said — have spoken out forcefully in favor of the demonstrators, do members of the administration believe that’s a bad thing for the U.S. government to be doing?
MR. GIBBS: Well, it’s not — it’s not the tack that we’ve taken. But, Chuck, let’s –
Q But should the government — I mean, are you guys reaching out quietly to members on Capitol Hill, saying, hey, guys, this is what our intelligence is saying, you shouldn’t be doing this?
MR. GIBBS: No. Look, I appreciate the opportunity to get Congress to agree with everything that we believe. I will wait and see whether that comes to fruition. Again –
Q But this is a national security issue. It’s not uncommon sometimes for -
MR. GIBBS: Chuck, let’s be honest. Let’s — but hold on.
Q — for the White House to reach out to Capitol Hill and say, hey –
MR. GIBBS: No, no, but let’s be honest.
Q — let me tell you what we know.
MR. GIBBS: You make it sound monolithically like the President is saying one thing and everybody else is saying another thing. That’s not even true in the Republican Party, right?
Q So you think it’s good that there are members out there, prominent members of the United States government, saying –
MR. GIBBS: The President and his team are responsible for what the President and his team say. I’m not going to get into what motivates other people to do or say what they do or say. But I think the President believes that he’s struck the right tone, and as do others in the administration, as do others in the Republican Party, as do others in the Democratic Party.
Q And you’re not reaching out? Nobody in this administration is reaching out to members of Congress who have been very vocal in saying, can you buy us some time, can you give us a few days to get this sort of –
MR. GIBBS: Give us a few days for what?
Q To see what happens. I mean, it seems to be –
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think everybody is watching what happens, but I’m not — you know, I’m not — ask for two days to do what? Count the ballots
Q I’m talking about the critics — the very vocal criticism that is now –
MR. GIBBS: But what are we asking for a few days for?
Q I’m asking you.
MR. GIBBS: Okay. (Laughter.)
Q So I guess the answer is no. Okay, fine, one other question. Can you reconcile — it’s always this one night only. It’s the second time, I think, that the President is going to go to a fundraiser in the DCCC and the DSCC, this one night only. They won’t take lobbyists’ money and all this stuff –
MR. GIBBS: Well, the President won’t be involved in a fundraiser that does that.
Q But as the titular head of the Democratic Party, why doesn’t he have any influence to change the rules of the two major national committees?
MR. GIBBS: I think people know where the President stands. I think — we’re the head of the DNC, and they don’t take lobbyists’ money, and the President is not going to be involved in fundraisers where that happens.
Q But it’s the Democratic Party — I mean, you’re head of the Democratic Party, why can’t you have this influence on the DSCC or the DCCC?
MR. GIBBS: Call Bob Menendez.
Yes, sir.
Q There has been criticism that the regulatory reform plan centralizes too much power with the Fed. How do you ensure that there are enough checks and balances on the central bank, and is the President open to alternatives that could put this balance somewhere else?
MR. GIBBS: Let’s understand — let me push a little bit on the premise of your question, because some of the powers that the Fed currently has that will be put in as part of our proposal in the consumer agency, I don’t — I think if you’re removing some of those powers, that isn’t necessarily consolidating within one entity. Obviously there is with the Fed a knowledge, a technical expertise, and a jurisdiction over a number of already regulatory issues, and we think this proposal strikes the right balances to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.
Q Is he open to alternatives that could –
MR. GIBBS: Well, we’ll see — we’ll certainly see what Congress comes up with as the process goes, but I think the President feels — I think the President feels enormously comfortable with his proposal.
Q Robert, the Pentagon says it’s tracking a North Korean vessel that may be in breach of U.N. sanctions. Can you tell us what role the President is playing in weighing in on rules of engagement with such vessels?
MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to get into intelligence matters. I’ve certainly seen some of these reports. Obviously you know because we had Ambassador Rice last week discussing what this administration and countries in the U.N. believed were important tools for acting against North Korea moving missile parts or nuclear material or what have you as part of a proliferation regime. The U.N. took some very strong, strict steps through those sanctions. I’m not going to get into the specific intelligence, though, of this, except to point you to what I know that has been said publicly at the Pentagon today.
Q But on rules of engagement, if the North Korean vessel were to fire on a U.S. vessel, would the President be the one as Commander-in-Chief to authorize returning fire?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I could check on the rules of engagement. I presume that the — as was the case in other instances that we’ve dealt with, the Commander-in-Chief also has great confidence in commanders in the theater.
Yes, sir.
Q There’s been some slip in the schedule on the consideration of health care on the Hill. Is the President concerned that a draft might not be done by the August recess? And if it’s not, is it okay if it slips until later in the fall?
MR. GIBBS: No, I think the President believes that this is — there are a lot of moving parts, this is part of the long process. I don’t think it’s a surprise that this is going to take some time to do. It’s an issue that we’ve been discussing for 40 years. So the President isn’t pessimistic about being able to get this through Congress this year.
Yes, sir.
Q Following up on Mark’s question, when he was at the press conference in the Rose Garden with President Lee, the President was asked if the U.S. is not going to board the vessels, what practical effect these new U.N. sanctions would have. And he said, “What the U.S. is going to do will be worked out in the coming months in conversations with the Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese, other member nations and those in the region.” Now that the Pentagon has confirmed the tracking of this vessel, it would appear that those conversations would need to take on a degree of urgency. Has the administration worked out clearly in its own mind what its procedures are going to be in tracking this vessel to — in order to enforce the U.N. sanctions?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I’m not going to get into commenting on sort of specific instances –
Q I’m just asking you to –
MR. GIBBS: I understand.
Q — what the President said. Okay.
MR. GIBBS: Let me try to finish one. I think if you look through, as Ambassador Rice discussed, there are some specific actions that have to be taken by countries who are near these ships, whose waters these ships are in, ports that they might be destined for that are all part of this process. But I think the White House feels comfortable and confident that we have an understanding of what this resolution does.
Q And how it intends to enforce it as a member state called upon under the resolutions to enforce it?
MR. GIBBS: Correct.
Q You talked about the debate that’s going on in Iran and developments as they unfold. Does the White House believe those who have been killed as peaceful demonstrators are victims of human rights violations or crimes?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything specific on this except I think the President has — on a couple of occasions, he’s been asked and he’s deplored violence and unnecessary killing, of course. The President was very clear and direct that violence is not the answer; that demonstrators have what he called a universal principle to act peacefully and not fear for their own safety. And I think the international community and the world know where this President, and my guess is others throughout the world, where they stand on ensuring that we don’t see violence or unnecessary killing.
Q On the banking regulations, when he was testifying today Treasury Secretary Geithner was asked if the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed to the financial meltdown. His one-word answer was “absolutely.” Does the administration wish that the Treasury Secretary and his team had put in more regulations or new types of enforcement procedures for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were not a part of this proposal?
MR. GIBBS: Let me check with the Treasury Secretary on what they’re doing as it relates to that.
Q Do you agree with that assessment, that those two entities were absolutely part of the problem?
MR. GIBBS: I am — because — in honor of Chip, I will tell you “absolutely.”
Yes, sir.
Q You’ve said a couple times, Robert, that the administration — there’s concern about how this election was conducted in Iran. Is the administration convinced this was fraudulent, the election was fraudulent?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think this administration shares the concern, again, expressed by the international community, about the results, and concern about some of the procedures surrounding that. I think those are investigations that are ongoing and we strongly believe that this should be looked into.
Q But you’re not convinced that the election was –
MR. GIBBS: Well, just as I’m not going to pick the leader, the United States isn’t going to be the investigative body here.
Q Have you seen some of the reporting and polling that suggests that perhaps these results could be valid?
MR. GIBBS: I’ve seen reporting on it. I think — but I’ve — we’ve also seen other reporting on other aspects of the election.
Q Just one last thing on this.
MR. GIBBS: Sure.
Q You had mentioned early on you had enumerated a couple of your concerns — Mousavi losing his home district and some things like that. Have you gathered any more specific information that feed your concerns?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I’ve gotten particularly from NSC on this, no.
Q During the presidential campaign, several times Senator Obama would say — would criticize the way things work in Washington and the way things are explained in Washington. I’m wondering if he would find any hypocrisy in the fundraising going on at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel using that standard that he used to describe things as when he was running as an outsider?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t — what criticism are you –
Q Would he find this — would the old Senator Obama find this hypocritical?
MR. GIBBS: Find what hypocritical?
Q The fact that on Thursday evening, he’ll be raising money where lobbyists are not allowed; Friday morning, lobbyists will be allowed. When he said during the campaign, “We will not take a dime,” I’m wondering if the candidate Obama would find those 12 hours hypocritical.
MR. GIBBS: I think that the policy that we had in the campaign is the policy that we have as President. We stand by what we said in the campaign, and we haven’t changed that policy now that we’re here. So I think the President has been consistent, has taken steps, both in the Senate and as a candidate and as a President, to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington. And I think he’ll continue to do that.
Q How do you think his actions tonight reduce the influence of special interests in Washington?
MR. GIBBS: We’re not taking their money.
Yes, sir.
Q Back to — following up on the health care question before, the congressional schedule — health care has slipped a bit and may be slipping further. You’ve got a Sotomayor nomination coming up; energy, climate change. And now you’ve asked for the biggest overhaul of the financial system in a half-century or so. Is this really –
MR. GIBBS: North Korea, Iran –
Q You’re making my point. Is there no concern here that some of this stuff is just going to drop off the map?
MR. GIBBS: Well, there’s concern that — there’s always concern that the President — the President always has concerns that we have many problems and that we have to work quickly to deal with them, absolutely. But, as we discussed in here some of the polling, I think one of the questions was, as has been posed by many of you, do you think the President is dealing with the issues that confront him, or do you think he’s doing too much? I would denote that 60 percent of the American people felt like he was dealing with the issues that are put on his plate.
I’ll say again what the President always says. He would — trust me, Mark — love to come to work one day and we give him — take away all these red folders and say, “Good news, boss, today there’s nothing to do.
Q Just as a tactical matter. Was there not any thought given to try and spread some of this out so that it didn’t all hit at once on Capitol Hill?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I mean, you know, we don’t control when justices retire from the Supreme Court. We don’t control when the economy takes a massive downturn. Lord knows we don’t control what the North Koreans do or say.
Q Can’t you control energy proposals?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, but we also don’t — you know, we don’t have — we don’t control the fact that — well, we do have — I should say this, we do have control over the fact that we import a greater import of our energy today than we did 30 years ago when Presidents walked up to Capitol Hill and said they were going to end our dependence on foreign oil. We do have the ability to ensure that small businesses that are watching their premiums skyrocket and have to drop their coverage, we have control over that, and we think — and we believe Congress believes that those are the problems of the American people and they should be addressed.
Q Tell us about the red folders. Are you color-coding issues? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: The ones that say “Top Secret” are generally red. I’ll give you that.
Q Is that right?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q Robert, last Friday, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan came to the White House and she met with President Obama and Rahm Emanuel and Valerie, and they wanted to try to convince her to run for the Senate from Illinois. Were these one meetings or three, and why do they want her to run for Senate?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let me just — let me be explicit. The President has — the President is not going to pick a candidate in the Illinois Senate race. The President has a very long relationship with the Attorney General, dating back to their time in the State Senate, and has enormous respect for what she accomplished there and has as Attorney General. I think she’d be a terrific candidate. But we’re not going to get involved in picking that candidate in Illinois.
Q But by having — when you say that, and bear with me –
MR. GIBBS: Sure.
Q — this meeting was designed to help get her to run. That’s what her — are you saying that’s not true? Then why did you call her into the White House, or somebody did?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know whether she got called in or she came in.
Q So could you find it out, by the way?
MR. GIBBS: I might. I might not. (Laughter.)
Q But Robert, when you say that, it just doesn’t make — it doesn’t square with the reality on the ground that she is — the DSCC is doing a poll — has been polling for her –
MR. GIBBS: Look, I would refer you to any number of the questions that clearly denote that I don’t control the DSCC –
Q Well, first of all –
MR. GIBBS: — from both rows one and two. So –
Q Robert, then let’s go to what you do — could you –
MR. GIBBS: Right, but I appreciate being able to not have — or have responsibility for rows one and two, but not for rows four.
Q Robert, could you just try and say more succinctly and clearly what you said –
MR. GIBBS: I thought what I said was fairly succinct and clear.
Q No, you said that they’re not trying to recruit her to run, when in fact every point is that that meeting was to get her to run.
MR. GIBBS: I said we’re not picking a candidate, we’re not going to endorse in this race. Does the President have enormous respect for the Attorney General? Absolutely. That was succinct and rather clear.
Q But wait, has the President prohibited members of his staff from weighing in and helping a particular candidate? He won’t pick a candidate, but –
MR. GIBBS: The White House is not going to pick a candidate. The staff assistants aren’t going to pick a candidate –
Q But are they free to help?
MR. GIBBS: And the President is –
Q Why go as far as you just did –
Q Are they free to help particular candidates?
MR. GIBBS: Why did I go so far as to –
Q As to talk about what a great candidate she would make? I mean, that –
MR. GIBBS: Because the President has –
Q You know the power of those words matter, too.
MR. GIBBS: The President has enormous respect for her, Chuck. He sat next to her in the State Senate.
Q Well, have they tried to recruit her, even if there’s not going to be an endorsement?
MR. GIBBS: The President is not going to get involved in this race.
Q But isn’t it meaningless for him not to pick a particular candidate if his staff is out there working on behalf of one particular candidate? Has he said –
MR. GIBBS: I just said his staff isn’t going to do that, Chip, so I took that off the table.
Q So has he prohibited them from getting involved in it in any way?
MR. GIBBS: Let me be succinct and clear. I said the staff assistants aren’t going to pick a candidate, the assistants to the President aren’t going to pick a candidate, and the President is not going to pick a candidate.
Q How does this meeting fit within what you just said, that the White House is not going to get involved in this race?
MR. GIBBS: The President enjoyed meeting with the Attorney General –
Q Will he meet with everyone else?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know if they’ve asked.
Q Does he think Carolyn Maloney would be a terrific candidate for New York?
MR. GIBBS: I’m going to get into something –
Q Will he meet with everyone else in Illinois? Will he meet with everyone else in Illinois?
MR. GIBBS: If people want to meet, the address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Q Why doesn’t he think Carolyn Maloney is terrific? (Laughter.)
Q Thanks, Robert. A question about Iran again. Earlier today, a few hours ago, John McCain, on his Twitter feed, said — and it’s short, as it has to be — “Mass peaceful demonstrations in Iran today; let’s support them and stand up for democracy and freedom!”
MR. GIBBS: Was that vociferousness or are you –
Q “The President and his administration should do the same.” Do you think that it is helpful, or not helpful, for members of Congress to be making declarations like this, and putting pressure on the White House to do and say more?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I’m not going to get involved into commenting on the motivations that other members may have. I know some people agree with what Senator McCain said; some people agree with what other Republicans have said that’s very much like the President’s position. The President strongly believes that we should and have spoken out to ensure that demonstrators have the universal right and principle to demonstrate without fear of harm. But at the same time, we have to respect their sovereignty.
Q Robert, former President George Bush gave a speech yesterday where he talked about Guantanamo Bay and the President’s policy, and he said, “Therapy is not going to cause terrorists to change their minds.” What is the President’s reaction to that?
MR. GIBBS: Is he talking — I don’t — I’m not sure what he’s discussing.
Q I think he’s trying to suggest that the President’s policy on Guantanamo Bay is not the right policy and saying — comparing it to therapy, that we’re treating the prisoners –
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know what he’s discussing. I know that — I know the previous administration moved or transferred hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo to a program in Saudi Arabia. I don’t know if that’s what he’s — maybe that’s not what he’s referring to, since it appears to be contrary to the actions that he took. So I’m happy if he can clarify what it is he was talking about.
I think we’ve had a debate about individual policies. We had that debate in particular — we kept score last November and we won.
Q And he also talked about — saying that the private sector is better handled to help the economy more than the government. And do you just have any response to him taking a swipe at President Obama after remaining kind of on the sidelines for so long?
MR. GIBBS: Look, again, I think the President — President Obama inherited an economic catastrophe: massive unemployment, a huge deficit, insolvent banks, car companies that were being handed billions of dollars to perpetuate a plan that had them coming back every three months to ask for more. The President — President Obama took action to pass a recovery plan and to take steps to put some regulation back in our economy
President Obama believes that the free market is what governs our economic principles and looks forward to getting out of the business of being involved in banks or in auto companies.
Q Has he talked to President Bush?
MR. GIBBS: I think they’ve spoken. I don’t know how recently.
Q Robert.
MR. GIBBS: Carol.
Q Thanks. I think he pointed to me.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I’ll go to Carol, then I’ll come back to you.
Q Okay, thank you. Does the White House believe that Muslim women can be forced to remove their veils when they’re testifying in court as the –
MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry, I can’t –
Q Does the White House believe that Muslim women can be forced to remove their veils when testifying in court as the Michigan Supreme Court ruled yesterday?
MR. GIBBS: I’m not familiar with the ruling.
Q Is that something that the President would view as constitutional?
MR. GIBBS: I’d have to look at the ruling and have somebody in the Counsel’s Office –
Q On Hamas, there has been some really frightening footage on a few of the networks about Hamas or al Qaeda — whatever you want to call them — strapping explosives on horses, and preparing to blow up the horses to attack in Israel. Does the White House have any knowledge of this, and do you still favor this two-state solution if they’re going to have these tactics by Hamas or al Qaeda in Gaza — coming from Gaza?
MR. GIBBS: I’ve not seen the footage. I don’t know if anybody here has. Connie, the President continues to believe that it’s in the best security of both the Israelis and the Palestinians to be involved in a two-state solution. I think the President was clear at his speech in Cairo where he stands on Hamas and what they have to do to be more responsible. That includes recognizing Israel, relinquishing their support for terror, and abiding by past agreements. Those are their responsibilities and their obligations.
George.
Q Robert, following your answer on the Fed, there are those in Congress who want to use the President’s regulatory reform package to greatly increase congressional oversight of the Fed, particularly spending and disbursement of money. Is that something you’d resist or -
MR. GIBBS: I haven’t seen those proposals, and obviously this is a process that’s going to wind its way through. I can just tell you that the President hopes and looks forward to signing much stronger financial regulations by the end of this year to ensure that what’s happened doesn’t happen again.
Bill.
Q Robert, back to health care and the public option for just a minute. The Heritage Foundation put out an open letter on health care today where they say “the inclusion of a public option is nothing more than a Trojan Horse … Once a government plan is in place, private insurance companies will be eventually run out of business.” Is that your secret agenda here?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed the critics of this using the exact example of Trojan Horse in front of the AMA on Monday. Since we’ve talked about polling here today, I think we can discuss that one of the polls that was out in the last 24 hours showed extremely strong support for a public option that provides the uninsured with choice and competition that is so greatly needed. Those are two universal values that we hear discussed a lot in the health care debate. Are we going to have choice? Are we going to have competition? Those are values that the President believes are important in this debate; rejects this notion that seems to be perpetuated in the letter that you’re talking about, that this is in any way a takeover of health care — I think that’s patently ridiculous — but it provides a choice and some competition and in the end will drive down costs.
Q And on the other hand, Senator Tom Daschle today, — who, of course, first choice for HHS Secretary — said that the public plan option could be dropped and maybe should be dropped if it gets in the way of getting a bill this year.
MR. GIBBS: Well, the President believes it’s a strong component of getting the right type of reform this year. We’re a strong supporter of including that option because, as I said, it provides choice and competition and it drives down costs. That’s what the President is most concerned with, is ensuring that those that haven’t had the luxury of having affordable health care coverage get an opportunity to enter a market where they can find an option that is affordable.
Q Putting aside the Illinois example, I’m wondering if you can characterize generally what you expect the White House’s level of involvement is going to be working with the campaign committees in the races this year and next, and also how involved you think the President will be personally on the campaign trail?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has — obviously the President has some interest in the makeup of Congress. The President I think is obviously going to be involved with the committees; that’s denoted by our presence and participation tonight. And I think you’ll — obviously his first priority is getting this economy fixed and ensuring that we lay a foundation for long-term economic growth. But I know he’ll be out there campaigning, as well.
Q Robert, just one?
MR. GIBBS: Hold on. (Laughter.) Yes, ma’am.
Q On health care reform, one of the other –
MR. GIBBS: I might come back. I don’t know. I’m feeling frisky.
Q Appreciate that.
Q You mentioned all the moving parts in health care reform and one of the other options is to have a nonprofit cooperative. I just wondered why the White House wouldn’t entertain that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think Nancy-Ann and others have discussed the fact that those options are constructive and can and should be discussed as part of health care reform. Obviously, as I said and you said back to me, there are a lot of moving parts and this is going to be a long process. Again, it’s not going to be solved in a matter of weeks or a matter of just a couple weeks, but a number of proposals that the White House sees as very constructive.
Q Thank you, Robert.
MR. GIBBS: Lester, I’m feeling good today — let’s just do it.
Q Thank you. Thank you very much. Could you tell us if, as you said yesterday in the briefing –
MR. GIBBS: Uh-oh.
Q — quote, “the President is committed to ensuring fairness” –
MR. GIBBS: I can confirm to you that the President is committed to ensuring fairness.
Q Good.
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q — how, then, he and you feel about two brief statements mailed by two candidates for the White House Correspondents executive board — they’re just two sentences. First: “Even reporters in the first three rows have told me that they feel the inequity demonstrated by the Press Secretary is insupportable — the need to recognize all journalists in the room, not just a few.” And the second: “One hour and one minute passed before Robert Gibbs reached our colleagues in the third row, and soon after, the briefing was over.” How do you and the President believe this is fairness?
MR. GIBBS: Lester, I don’t want to be party to your attacking the fine journalists that work and inhabit the first three rows of the Brady briefing room.
Q I didn’t attack them. I didn’t attack them. These were candidates.
Q Could you pick a candidate, Robert? Could you pick a candidate? (Laughter.)
Q That were their statements. What about that, Robert?
Q You want to moderate a debate? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I am –
Q Thank you.
MR. GIBBS: This is a debate — this is a debate that should be had by correspondents as correspondents choose their own leadership.
Q But this is aimed at you. This is a question for you.
MR. GIBBS: I understand, I understand, and I’m not running for anything in the White House Correspondents Association.
Q Thank you, Robert.
MR. GIBBS: I have a good place to stand already.
Thanks, Lester.
END
3:24 P.M. EDT
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 17, 2009
PRESS BRIEFING
BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:15 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: All right — get semi-organized. Ms. Loven.
Q Thank you. The President said yesterday that it wouldn’t be right to be seen as meddling in Iran’s internal politics. Iran said today that’s exactly what Washington is doing. Do you have a reaction?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we understand that — I think that accusation has been made by the Iranians about several countries. I think the Canadians were also part of that. I think the President has been clear that this is a vigorous debate in Iran between Iranians about their leadership while, at the same time, the President has strongly maintained that there are universal principles such as demonstrating in peace and not feeling threatened. The President will continue to express those concerns and ensure that we’re not meddling, as the President has said.
Q Switching topics. There’s a same-sex benefits announcement this afternoon. There are a number of folks who feel like this is too little too late. Can you talk about why people should see this as more than kind of an empty gesture or just a symbolic move on his part?
MR. GIBBS: This, I think as you’ll hear the President say later today, believes this is a matter of fairness. The President is committed to ensuring that fairness, as well as working on and fulfilling other promises that he’s made in the campaign around things like DOMA and “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Q But wouldn’t it also be fair to extend benefits such as the right to have health insurance — a health insurance plan or pension plan?
MR. GIBBS: Well, that requires not an executive order or presidential memorandum but a change in the law.
Q And is he going to push for that?
MR. GIBBS: That’s — part of what he’s promised on repealing DOMA would have an impact on that.
Yes, sir.
Q Back on the Iranian complaint of U.S. meddling, the President said very clearly he does not want to be seen as interfering in the post-election situation there, and yet he then went on to say he felt that the — he could see that the Iranian people were dissatisfied with the results of the election or the way it had been conducted. At the same time, the State Department has asked Twitter to delay scheduled maintenance to enable the anti-government activists to continue communicating the way they have. Is the President not trying to have his cake and eat it too on this?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let’s be careful — I just want to be careful. I think there were — I think an employee in some discussions with Twitter about the importance of social networking and maintenance. But there were networks in this country last night that were reporting the government’s use of Twitter. So I think you’re going to have a hard time making the case that somehow this was done in some way as a bias.
I think the President has rightly observed what has happened and the events that the world is witnessing, while understating — underscoring, as he said, the universal principles that he believe are important. And I think many believe — many from both sides of the aisle believe he struck the right tone in this.
Q Does the President agree or disagree with those who say that there should be a full-on total recount of the vote?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, this is a debate that is being had by the Iranians about who they’re going to choose.
Yes, sir.
Q Does the President stand by the legal brief that the Justice Department filed last week that argued in favor of the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, as you know, the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the President believes that that law should be repealed.
Q I understand that. But a lot of legal experts say that the brief didn’t have to be as comprehensive and make all the arguments that it made, such as comparing same-sex unions to incestuous ones in one controversial paragraph that’s upset a lot of the President’s supporters. Does the President stand by the content, the arguments made in that brief?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, it’s the President’s Justice Department. And again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the President has stated and will work with Congress to change that law.
Q Okay, and just one other question. Senator Claire McCaskill yesterday expressed concern about the way in which President Obama fired the Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service, saying that it did not abide by the law that McCaskill wrote and President Obama, as a senator, co-sponsored, in terms of giving Congress 30 days notice.
Do you think that the White House handled the firing of Inspector General Walpin appropriately and according to that law? And if so, why is the author of the law incorrect?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I would direct you, Jake, to the letter that Senator McCaskill received last night addressed to Senators Lieberman and Collins, which outline exactly the reasoning for the board’s — the bipartisan board’s request to change Inspector Generals.
Q Right, I’ve seen the letter. The law that McCaskill wrote –
MR. GIBBS: I’m not familiar with that part of what she’s saying. But again, I’d point you to the letter.
Q Okay, well, the law says that the President needs to give 30 days notice to Congress before an Inspector General is terminated. So that letter came, whatever, five or six days after he was terminated.
MR. GIBBS: Again, I’ll check into that. I mean, again, the board’s action was precipitated by a meeting that happened on May the 20th.
Yes, sir.
Q In terms of the timing for the President signing the memorandum, was there any pressure at all on the White House from gay rights groups, and especially in light of the language that Jake was referring to?
MR. GIBBS: No. This is — that was something that the White House and OPM have been working on for quite some time.
Q So the White House hasn’t been feeling any pressure, even beyond just signing this — pressure in general from gay rights groups?
MR. GIBBS: Look, I would say there are any number of interest groups that express their concerns and opinions. We respect those. I think the President has outlined a series of very ambitious legislative proposals that he will work with, in some cases, the Pentagon, and with Congress on on “don’t ask, don’t tell” and other things that he hopes will become law.
Q On Iran –
MR. GIBBS: Ann, you got a follow-up –
Q A follow-up on that. Does the President support any change in the law that would allow him to — allow federal employees to get more substantial medical benefits or retirement benefits that –
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think part of that is involved in the repeal of DOMA that would cover that.
Q And his position is?
MR. GIBBS: He has advocated since his Senate primary in early ‘04 on behalf of that.
Q And will he propose that officially as President?
MR. GIBBS: He is supportive of that, yes.
Q Yesterday you pointed out that the administration obviously receives intelligence on what’s happening on the ground in Iran, but are you also keeping a close eye on some of the pictures that we’re seeing via Twitter and YouTube, as well? Is that a source of information for the White House?
MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. I think it’s — well, I think it’s a source for the White House. I think it’s also a source for the media that we see here at the White House. I think obviously, as I said yesterday, I think as the President has now said on two or three occasions, that the world is watching the outpouring that we’re seeing, and is heartened and has been heartened since the election of the enthusiasm that you see particularly in the youth of Iran.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Do we care what happens in Iran? And does both sides — are they both planning to continue nuclear — their nuclear development?
MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously we care about –
Q The outcome.
MR. GIBBS: Of the election? Well, as I said yesterday, Helen, I think regardless of — and I think the President certainly said this, as well — regardless of who emerges from this election, there are still two principal national interests that this country has relating to Iran. First is their pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and second is their support and sponsorship of terror.
Those are causes and concerns, as I said, that we had the day prior to the election and in the days after the election. I would also say that the President remains committed to engagement and understanding that the principle of national interest that I talked about, the sponsorship of terror and the pursuit of a nuclear weapon, are in many ways policy aspects relating to foreign policy and national security that are controlled by the Supreme Leader, who is likely to be the same regardless of who wins the election.
Q So why are we worried?
MR. GIBBS: Why are we worried –
Q At all?
MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously we have –
Q And how do you know they sponsor terrorism? What is terrorism? I mean, we’re in two countries.
MR. GIBBS: Well, we can get into a long discussion about the definition of this. I think this one is fairly well held.
Q You mean you oppose the status quo?
MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry, I don’t understand.
Q Sponsoring terrorism and terrorists — the American revolutionaries were called terrorists.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, leaving aside whatever moniker might have been affixed several hundred years ago –
Q Not that long.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I will — I think there’s a fairly well held definition of what that means today.
Yes, sir.
Q Following up on her question. Yesterday the President, and you mentioned — the President addressed this yesterday — in one of the interviews yesterday, the President said the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, in terms of their actual policies, may not be as great as has been advertised. Is that U.S. policy, that there’s not really much difference between these two candidates and that there’s no preference for one over the other?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think I was asked in this room prior to the election whether this country had a preference. And we’re not going to get involved in picking candidates in elections.
Q But he did get involved in a way in saying that. What was he trying to say by saying that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he was saying exactly what I’ve said the past two days, and that is, regardless of the outcome of what we’re seeing, the United States still has two principal national interests as it relates to the Islamic Republic of Iran: the state sponsorship of terror and the support of terror, as well as their pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
I don’t think that’s likely to be markedly changed, even throughout this process. And it’s something that still obviously is a principal concern of our country and something we’ll pursue.
Q You said not going to be markedly changed — you mean no matter who is elected here.
MR. GIBBS: Right. And I’m echoing what he said in there, as well as, I think, underscoring that our principal national interest, as it relates to Iran, regardless of the outcome, are still going to be the same.
Q Is this another way to phrase that, to say it doesn’t really matter who wins this election in Iran?
MR. GIBBS: No. Again, I’m not going to get involved and our government is not going to get involved in picking a candidate. Obviously there is international concern for the way an election was conducted, and it’s being looked into, and certainly, we believe, rightfully so.
But at the same time, again, there are principal national interests that we had as a country Thursday, we had before the polls opened — the moment before the polls opened and the moment after the polls closed. Those remain.
Q No preference? No preference?
MR. GIBBS: It’s just not the policy of this administration to pick the leaders of other countries.
Q One other question. What is the timeline on DOMA and “don’t ask, don’t tell”? Can you understand the frustrations of gay and lesbian groups who feel like you’re slow-walking these issues?
MR. GIBBS: Well, of course I can understand their frustrations. That’s why the President is committed to changing both DOMA and “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which have been, respectively, the law of the land since 1996 and 1993, I believe. Obviously they’ve waited a long time for policies that are either not in our national interest or hurtful to be changed.
We are working on a large amount of things. The President added financial regulation to that large plate of things just this afternoon and this morning. But it is a priority of the President to get done.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, on that topic, yesterday, Senator Reid said he’d welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on “don’t ask, don’t tell” — “welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the President would like to see and when. With presidential leadership and direction, I believe we can find the time to get repeal done in this Congress,” not this session, but this Congress. Is the President –
MR. GIBBS: What you just referred to. (Laughter.)
Q But does the President feel that that’s — that being supportive of repeal is enough, that he doesn’t have to send something up to make it clear to Congress what Reid is asking for. He says he wants to know what the President wants and when.
MR. GIBBS: Well, and we are, as I’ve stated multiple times in here, working with members of Congress, as well as with the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military to get something that represents durable change. We’re going to continue working on that and we’re pleased that this is a priority not just of the President’s but of those in Congress, and we’re hopeful that something can get done.
Yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Robert.
MR. GIBBS: You’re welcome. (Laughter.)
Q There have been reports — in fact, at a meeting I was at just before I came here, a U.S. senator referred to them — that the photographs that are the subject of such –
MR. GIBBS: Okay, I’m sorry — the topic of the meeting you were at.
Q Right. The photographs of the interrogation of detainees were — some were taken not at Abu Ghraib, not at Gitmo, and not at anyplace but on the battlefield and –
MR. GIBBS: Are you talking about the 44 photographs involved in the ACLU litigation or are you talking –
Q Yes.
MR. GIBBS: Okay.
Q Would you comment on that?
MR. GIBBS: Where they were taken?
Q Yes.
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the location of each and every one of the photographs. Obviously I think — and I’m not even sure if it’s just one area or one country. I know that — I think the President’s views on this in ensuring for national security reasons that those photographs aren’t released and he intends to make good on that.
Q Would you at least rule out that any were taken on the battlefield?
MR. GIBBS: You know, I — let me check. Let me be honest, I don’t know if I can provide that information, but I can certainly check.
Q The other thing I wanted to ask was, have you or anyone from the National Security Council or President Obama been in touch with President Carter prior to and after the meetings he held in the Middle East this week?
MR. GIBBS: I can check. I don’t know if –
MR. HAMMER: The meetings were prior, not necessarily directly before.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I don’t think we’ve had meetings related to that. I don’t know if they’ve spoken — they may have spoken around — President — former President Carter may have spoken with people here in and around the speech in Cairo, but I don’t know.
Mark.
Q Robert?
MR. GIBBS: Let me go to Mr. Knoller if he has a question.
Q I’m good.
MR. GIBBS: You’re good? All right, there you go. (Laughter.)
Q Earlier today, Senator Baucus announced a delay on health care for one month, which of course is July. Is the White House disappointed about this? Cause to redouble efforts? What are your thoughts?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t know if they were specific to the point of pushing it through another month. I think there have been reports that some people thought that’s what they heard. I think they advocated — or Senator Baucus advocated wanting to get a bipartisan solution that contained — that had a bill that contained cost-saving measures that would be paid for. I think all of those are goals of this administration. The President I think has laid out a timeline to get this done this year, and thinks that we’re on course to do it.
Q So no setback?
MR. GIBBS: No, I don’t think so. And, you know, I think in many ways the developments that we’ve seen in the past maybe 12 to 24 hours actually make the President’s case even stronger. Yesterday and in a number of newspapers this morning, there were stories about the Congressional Budget Office stating that there have to be some — well, one, health care has to be paid for, which the White House has said a number of times. They also said that making some of the decisions would be difficult; I think history certainly proves that to be correct. But lastly they outlined a series of steps that they say have to be in health care legislation because they have to address the long-term costs of programs like Medicare, right? This is on the front page of some of the newspapers today.
They talked about creating accountable care organizations, bundling payments to hospitals and other providers, providing additional information about treatments’ effectiveness, expanding the use of preventative and wellness services and primary care, reducing annual updates in Medicare’s payments to reflect expected productivity gains, and combined increased discretion to change Medicare with a fallback if savings are not obtained.
All of those principles are principles that the White House has either advocated directly in the past few months or the President specifically spoke about at his AMA speech on Monday — leaving aside that some people said the speech lacked detail.
I think it’s pretty clear that we completely agree with the notion that, as you’ve heard the President, you’ve heard Peter Orszag, you’ve heard me talk about from up here, we have to have — we have to bend the curve on health care costs. The President completely agrees with that and is pleased that CBO thinks that too.
Q Can I follow up on the AMA?
MR. GIBBS: Sure.
Q The President actually told the AMA that “there are some countries where a single-payer system works pretty well.” Do you know what countries he was referring to or what he was talking about?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know exactly the countries. I think you could — I think if you talk to people in the countries that have those systems, they’d think their health care is pretty good.
Q Would you know specifically, though — Canada, Britain –
MR. GIBBS: Canada, Britain, maybe France. I don’t know the exact countries, but, again, I think — I don’t think the President is going way out on a limb that some people in other countries have a health care system that they like, just as Americans like the health care that they have.
Major.
Q Robert, just to follow up on Jake, was the White House unaware that it needed to inform Congress 30 days in advance about Mr. Walpin’s intended firing?
MR. GIBBS: I need to look at what Ms. McCaskill said regarding that. I just don’t have that with me.
Q But it’s — number one, it’s the law of the land, and number two, Senator Obama voted for it. I’m just wondering if the White House was aware of that — regardless of what Senator McCaskill said.
MR. GIBBS: Well, since the question came based on what Senator McCaskill said — and I haven’t seen that part of it — let me, as I just stated twice, check on that.
Q Okay. The letter that was sent out last night was regarded by Mr. Walpin as “a total lie.” And — that’s what he told us — and he said it was unnecessarily personal and accusatory. And I wonder if you felt there was anything the White House wanted to say about that letter and the contents thereof in response to that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think this was — let me read the first sentence of the second paragraph. “Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bipartisan board of the Corporation.” These were views that were held by many people as part of that board, and certainly the administration stands behind what’s in the letter.
Q Following up on that, why not leave it at that and why did the White House feel it necessary to say he was disoriented and confused?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I have occasion to watch FOX every now and again, and I think there have been commentators that surmised that maybe we needed to be more specific about the reasons. I think members of Congress have asked for that, and I think it’s detailed in the letter.
Q Since you brought up the AMA speech, the President repeated, as he has before, that if you like your health care, you get to keep it; if you like your health plan, you get to keep it. Is the White House, therefore, then, open, in the statutory language of whatever emerges from Congress, to have something that monitors that and perhaps has a sun-setting or evaluation period to make sure that if people are losing their health care, there is some re-look or the legislation is reopened to stop that process from happening?
MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry, losing their health care?
Q If they’re knocked out of their private system, as the CBO has suggested might be a consequence of a public option. If in fact the White House, as the President has said, doesn’t want people to lose their health care if they like their doctor and like their health plan, would it be open to legislative language that would constantly monitor that?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know where –
Q And intervene if, in fact, that phenomenon is occurring?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know where the committees are in that specific –
Q They’re not anywhere. I’m just asking if the White House would be interested in making real what the President has said quite publicly is the goal of this?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you can assume that the President’s plan will adhere to the principles that he’s enunciated. I’ll repeat again what I said yesterday, Major, that if you have a public option that presents choice and competition competing with other plans, you’re going to have — you’re going to drive down costs, right? If you go look for gasoline and there’s three gas stations on the corner, and one is selling gasoline for 15 cents less, I bet if you go back in a couple hours all three gas stations are going to be selling gasoline for about 15 cents less. Choice and competition in the marketplace are hallmarks and principles that the President wants to see and I think many members of Congress have said they want to see in health care reform.
Q So the White House would not object to trying to figure out a way to make sure that that is achieved legislatively.
MR. GIBBS: Regardless of what passes, I assume that there will be a hefty amount of coordination and insurance that — or assurance that there is an evaluation of what happens to ensure that we don’t have any unintended impacts as part of the legislation. I think that’s in many different proposals passed on many different topics.
Scott.
Q Thanks, Robert. We heard the President say yesterday he’s going to pursue a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. You reiterated today the goal of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Has the administration asked the Israeli government to acknowledge its nuclear program and sign on to international nuclear nonproliferation protocols?
MR. GIBBS: I can check with NSC. I don’t know the answer to that.
Q Okay. And on — just one more time on DOMA, “don’t ask, don’t tell” timeline, does the President want to see that overturned in this Congress? I mean, is there a plan to do that in this Congress?
MR. GIBBS: I think, as Senator Reid said, it’s something we can do in this Congress and it’s something that the President is working with members of Congress, working with — on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” working with the Pentagon to ensure that that happens.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Has the Pentagon (inaudible) the issue?
MR. GIBBS: No, I think we’re working through a process.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Can I go back to Chip’s question on what you said about Ahmadinejad and Mousavi and what President Obama said yesterday about there not being much difference between the two of them, particularly when it comes to support for terrorism and Iran’s nuclear program? Doesn’t that just largely miss the point? I mean, that’s not what these Iranian elections were about; they’re about exercising democracy. And those people in the streets aren’t in the streets because they care about the nuclear program. So doesn’t that sort of make it seem as if we’re seeing this whole protest and this democracy protest as going on through the prism of an American — America’s lens only?
MR. GIBBS: No, I think, again, the international community has rightly expressed concern for reports about the way the election was conducted. Let’s not conflate with what we were also talking about, the notion that the interest of this country, as it relates to — our principal interests, as it relates to Iran, are about the issues that I’ve laid out and that the President has laid out. But I don’t think that — and I don’t really understand the premise of the notion that we’re looking at these protests only through the two security interests of this country.
Q Because you keep saying that. He said that, and you’ve said that several times. Let’s not forget, these guys are both the same. So the implication seems to be, so, it doesn’t really matter what’s happening right now; it’s all about the nuclear program.
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the United States has national security interests. Those national security interests, as I’ve said now many days, aren’t different than they were before the election and they’re not different now. That’s what — look, this is not an election that involves solving all of our security interests, right?
Q No, it’s not — it has nothing to do with us. That’s my point.
MR. GIBBS: Right. So acknowledging that and understanding that our interests are the same doesn’t necessarily conflate that we’re only principally looking at the results and what is going on on the streets each and every day as about that. Our interests are the same, because our concerns about Iran are the same.
We also, again, have concerns about — internationally have concerns about how the election was conducted and reports about that. I think the President has been — has talked about in many interviews, in the message to the — directly to the people of Iran, and certainly in his speech in Cairo, walked through a series of things that he hopes and believes that the Islamic Republic of Iran will do in order to meet its responsibilities and its obligations, and we’ll continue to do that.
Q Can I just follow up –
MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.
Q Thank you. Can you confirm that German Chancellor Merkel is coming to the White House next Friday, I think on June 26th, like her spokesman said — Monday already? And what are they going to talk –
MR. GIBBS: I can confirm that.
Q You can?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q What are they talking about? Because they just met two weeks ago in Germany.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think many of the issues that were covered are of continued importance. We have upcoming — there’s obviously the upcoming G20 summit in the United States, the agenda with which will be important to both countries; continuing to evaluate where our economies are and the steps that are taken to ensure international financial stability.
Obviously I think Iran will be a topic of discussion, both what’s going on in the streets, as well as our national interests and the national interests of Germany. I think there was discussion when he met with the Chancellor about progress around energy and climate change, as well as the detention facility — closing the detention facility in Guantanamo. So I think that’s just a few of the things that will be on the docket.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Thank you, Robert. This is the second time you’ve picked me.
MR. GIBBS: There you go.
Q On North Korea. North Korea seems to be ready to test fire new long-range intercontinental ballistic missile soon. Do you think what North Korea’s intention is?
MR. GIBBS: No, let me — in speaking — without getting specific about — without getting specific about what we might see in their actions, we’ve seen over the past several months the North Koreans say they are going to take provocative actions, and they have taken provocative actions. They have done exactly what they said they would do.
The international community and this government have consequently done exactly what we said that we would do, and that is to seek new sanctions at the United Nations Security Council, the hard work of Ambassador Rice and many others in getting through a unanimous resolution that deals with our great concern about the proliferation of weapons from North Korea.
I think they’re going to continue to take and we think they’re going to continue to take provocative actions. What those actions are I don’t know particularly. But their steps and their actions continue to isolate themselves from the world. They further walk away from the obligations and responsibilities that they themselves signed up for.
The President spoke yesterday about the fact that the North Koreans, he believes, have a different path. And he hopes that they’ll return to the path that they were on in taking steps to denuclearize the Peninsula.
Yes, sir.
Q Thanks, Robert. The Government Accountability Project recently released a 53-page report on racial discrimination at the World Bank. I’m curious if you’ve read it, do you plan to read it, if you’re interested in it, and also if you’ve discussed a possible change of leadership at the World Bank with the President?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the degree to which the report has been examined. I personally have not seen it, so I would hesitate to comment on it.
Yes, ma’am.
Q The President’s Commission on White House Fellowships that you guys announced today, how were those members chosen, and will they receive compensation for their work?
MR. GIBBS: I believe it’s not compensated but I will check on that. I don’t know.
Q And if I’m not mistaken, you guys still haven’t nominated a Surgeon General candidate. Is there a reason for the delay or should we expect at some point, given the swine flu and some of the things that –
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think principally what we’ve seen related to H1N1 — obviously we talked about the primary directive there is with the Department of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security, and underneath — and part of that the Centers for Disease Control. I don’t have a status update on a Surgeon General.
April.
Q Robert, going on a whole ‘nother topic, Father’s Day is this weekend. The fatherhood initiative last year was a big brouhaha over President — well, then-candidate Obama’s message to fathers, particularly black fathers. What’s the message this year and what is he planning on doing?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know what his plans are exactly on that day. Obviously there will be events here. I think he’ll speak to the responsibilities that all fathers have. I don’t remember particularly the brouhaha that –
Q He went to a black church, talked about how black fathers should wise up and take care of their children, and then all the comments from Jesse Jackson — that brouhaha.
MR. GIBBS: I forgot the brouhaha. (Laughter.) That happens when many brouhahas encompass your life over the course of that year. I will tell you this, April, that I have heard some variation of that speech on responsibility — particularly as it relates to fatherhood — I heard some strain of that the first event I ever went to then-state senator Barack Obama with in April of 2004. So his message of responsibility is one that I trust he gave long before I met him and will continue to give, regardless of the brouhaha-ing.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Thank you, Robert. Back to DOMA and “don’t ask, don’t tell” — I’ve got a few questions — but I’ve talked to a number of congressional staffers, none of whom say that these issues are anywhere on anybody’s radar on the Hill. There’s still no Senate bill for repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” There’s certainly no DOMA bill in either the House or the Senate. As you guys have done with health care reform, with the stimulus package, with immigration reform, will you identify Senate sponsors and move forward — I mean, not Senate sponsors but congressional sponsors, for both of these bills, and move forward with them?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I will reiterate the President’s commitment to getting this done. I can talk to Congressional Affairs about meetings. I don’t know who they’ve talked to or who you’ve talked to. Again, I know the President continues to be committed, as he was as a Senate candidate, as a senator, as a presidential candidate, and now as President, to repealing both of those — both those acts.
David.
Q A follow-up on the earlier question about the State Department and Twitter. You said there was one employee who did one — I wasn’t quite sure, can you detail that? And yesterday I asked if the White House had been involved and you said you’d check on that.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, I think there were certainly reports today of — and I would direct you to them and to transcripts yesterday from the State Department regarding discussions about Twitter maintenance.
Q Any White House involvement?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of.
Q Okay. And then secondly, on a separate issue, the Obama administration has so far opposed releasing Dick Cheney’s interview with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on the leak case and is making the same arguments that the Bush administration made, even though Patrick Fitzgerald has said that it wasn’t confidential and there are no law enforcement reasons to withhold the release of that interview. Will the administration stand by this position and stick to the Bush –
MR. GIBBS: This is part of the FOIA litigation, am I correct?
Q Yes, it’s part of a — CREW has sued for it. And you have inherited the suit and are making the same arguments against withholding it.
MR. GIBBS: Let me check on the status of that. I would — I assume that’s come to DOJ — is that where the FOIA comes from?
Q It’s in court now, yes.
MR. GIBBS: I mean, I would — I assume DOJ is conducting that review. I don’t — I will check on the status, but I don’t have anything on that.
Q Thanks, Robert. Did the President see the Justice Department brief defending DOMA before it was filed?
MR. GIBBS: I can check on that. I don’t know the answer to that.
Q And I know Jake asked about the inflammatory language that he — that some critics see used in that brief. Does he endorse that language, did you say?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let me — before I answer the follow-up to the first question that I would check on, let me get an answer to the first question.
Q Let me ask you one other thing. Going back all the way to the then-state senator’s 2004 convention speech when he talked about the importance of one America not being divided up into ethnic groups, et cetera, Judge Sotomayor has actually spoken about the superior perspective that she brought, based on her Latina — being a Latina woman. How does he square that, the nomination –
MR. GIBBS: I think we covered this a couple weeks ago. You may have missed that one. I think, as I’ve talked about up here and as she’s said, she talked about the richness of her experience and how that affects the way she sees things, just as Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Alito have described.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Yes, Robert, you said you would see if there was a length of the review of the White House visitor logs. I wonder if you’ve been able to do that. And separate from that, given how many times Senator Obama spoke out about secrecy, why not just implement your own policy? Or is your policy the same as the Bush administration’s?
MR. GIBBS: Having been in meetings about this yesterday, we are working on the implementation of that policy.
Thank you.END
2:56 P.M. EDT
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
20. June 2009 by admin.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 16, 2009
PRESS BRIEFING BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:04 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Yes, ma’am.
Q Ready to go? Okay. President Lee talked about new measures and policies that he and President Obama had agreed to talk to the other members of the five-party talks — about new measures and policies on North Korea. Can you elaborate on what he meant by that and what they agreed on?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything additional on that, in terms of the statement that went out and what the two Presidents discussed. Obviously we have a longstanding commitment in the defense of the Republic of Korea, and I think, obviously, the steps — the important steps that the Security Council took over the past several days — we had Ambassador Rice in here to discuss that last week — demonstrates the seriousness with which the international community is addressing what is happening with North Korea.
Q You said — Susan Rice also said last week when she was talking about this new resolution that the United States has other measures that it’s considering taking, not waiting to take but considering taking now. And so if you’re not willing to talk about what those might be or what’s on the table, isn’t this sort of an empty threat to North Korea?
MR. GIBBS: No, because we don’t discuss things publicly.
Q And what about on Iran, is the President prepared at some point to more forcefully denounce what’s happening there against the protestors?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been quite forceful on two occasions in the past 24 hours, in discussing the universal right that people have to peaceably demonstrate. He’s deplored the violence — deplored and condemned the violence that we’ve seen, and underscored that the world is seeing in Iran a yearning for change. I think the President has also, rightly, underscored that this is a vigorous debate inside of Iran by Iranians about who is going to — about the leadership in their country. And as he said this afternoon, it’s not a good idea to meddle in that sovereignty.
Q I just wanted to follow up on the President’s remarks about the financial regulatory reform that’s going to come out. He said that you would not, in fact, see a host of new regulatory agencies added. Does that mean there will not be any new regulatory agencies added?
MR. GIBBS: I think he said “a host of.”
Q There could be maybe one — some lawmakers think — would like to see a new agency to look out on behalf of consumers. Could that be part of the plan?
MR. GIBBS: I will, as the President said — I’d be hard pressed to get ahead of the President saying he wasn’t going to get ahead of himself.
Q Oh, show a little ankle. (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Maybe if I can get work — get a job with CBS. But, no, I think the President underscored again today the strong need for regulatory reform. We’ve all witnessed over the past many months what happens in an environment that doesn’t have the regulations and the watchdogs that are needed to ensure that we don’t ever again get to the precipice of where we were just a few months ago and what caused that.
Yes. I’m sorry -
Q Well, I just — kind of a different side of the same question. When he talked about consolidating, does that mean that some agencies may be closed or merged into other agencies?
MR. GIBBS: Trust me, you’ll have plenty of opportunity to do all this tomorrow.
Q The President went a little farther today than he did yesterday, saying he had concerns about the election, when directly talking about the election results, the legitimacy of the election. What are his concerns, and what are they based on?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we’ve enumerated some of those concerns over the course of the past few days. I think irregularities in general. I think you’ve seen — I think I saw reports that one of the candidates overwhelmingly lost their home region. But I think obviously the international community is watching with some concern. Obviously even those in Iran have noted concern with the outcome, and that’s why they’re also looking into this. But I think — again, I think the international community has concern not just about what happened in the election but what has happened in the aftermath.
Q Has the President reached out to Arab allies or other conduits, to Khamenei or any other of the power structure in Iran, to talk about what happens next?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of. Again, I think I would stress for you the importance of what the President discussed, also in his comments both yesterday and today, about ensuring that while we abhor the violence associated with this vigorous Iranian debate, that we also respect their sovereignty.
Q Thank you.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, ma’am.
Q Robert, back on North Korea. The AP was saying that the two American journalists who had been sentenced last week to 12 years of hard labor had admitted to illegally crossing into North Korea. First, can you tell us if you know whether or not that’s true? And secondly, what is the administration doing to follow up on this? Is there a special representative or an envoy who is responsible or working towards their release?
MR. GIBBS: Look, I don’t have much to add to what we’ve said in the past few days, that we think — that the administration is working to ensure their safe release; that we strongly believe — and I think the Presidents reiterated this today — that these two journalists should be released on humanitarian grounds. But I’m not going to get into envoys and things like that.
Q On another matter, it was last week the President said that he wanted to make sure taxpayer dollars were spent well, the stimulus package, against potential boondoggles and wasteful spending. Since then, Senator Coburn has come out with a report saying that he’s taking a look at a hundred different programs, saying that he has found wasteful spending, including a turtle wildlife crossing that he says cost $3 million, and 8,000 Social Security checks that were sent to people who are deceased.
First, can you tell me whether or not this report is credible in your opinion? And if so, has the administration addressed some of those concerns?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I’ve seen parts of this report and I’ve seen parts of our response and I think there’s a longer, more detailed response that we’d be happy to provide you. But a number of things look to be inaccurate in the “second opinion” itself. There appear to be the assumption that projects are being funded using recovery money, which isn’t true.
I think the very first project that’s outlined is a decision that’s ultimately made by the state, not by the feds, in terms of how particular revolving fund money is used. So I think there are a number of entries throughout this report that are just simply wrong. This President has taken historic steps to ensure that there is adequate transparency, and that this money is spent the way it’s intended to be used. There are projects within the report that haven’t been funded; have been canceled based on our own looking into this.
So again, I think the report appears to be, in many, many cases, just flat out wrong.
Q Are there any examples that were correct that the administration is addressing?
MR. GIBBS: I have not looked through each and every one of them. I’d have to look through each and every one of them.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Is Dennis Ross moving into the White House with larger powers? And also, is the President calling for nuclear disarmament of the whole region of Asia?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have any personnel announcements about the State Department or the White House. I know the President has enormous confidence, and has for quite some time, in Dennis Ross and what he brings to our foreign policy team. I think the President has stated clearly in terms of — and I think he reiterated in the first question he got today — the priority of ensuring the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
Q But why can’t you speak on Ross?
MR. GIBBS: Because there’s no policy — there’s no personnel announcements to make.
Q Is he here?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know where he is. But I can assure you, wherever he is, he’s working for the administration on behalf of the administration.
Q Is the story wrong?
MR. GIBBS: It’s not right. (Laughter.)
Q Okay, what does that mean?
MR. GIBBS: It means I don’t have any policy or personnel announcements regarding Dennis Ross.
Q It doesn’t necessarily mean the story is wrong. Is that what you’re suggesting?
MR. GIBBS: I’m suggesting that, if I had a personnel announcement to make regarding Dennis Ross, I’d make it.
Q But you’re not knocking down the story that appeared –
MR. GIBBS: I’m telling you that the President has enormous confidence in him. The President doesn’t have any personnel announcements to make –
Q Why don’t you really tell us what you’re trying to say?
MR. GIBBS: I have no personnel announcements to make today, Helen. (Laughter.)
Q You didn’t ask for a retraction — I’m not going to belabor the point. (Laughter.) No retraction.
MR. GIBBS: I’d be one busy — I’d be one busy man if that were the case.
Q Can you translate some of this diplo-speak? Three times President Lee said — talked about the firm relationship between South Korea and the United States when responding to a question about the North Korean threat. Is that — did he ask for an assurance from the President that if there’s a military strike against South Korea that the U.S. will respond, that’s unequivocal?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Chuck, we’ve had that type of relationship with the Republic of Korea for –
Q So nothing has changed on that front? And that was reiterated today and that’s the way we should read the words “firm,” and all of that?
MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, obviously this is something that has — that we’ve responded to. I think as we’ve said many times before, the increasingly — the reactions of the North Koreans in alienating themselves from their own responsibilities and from those responsibilities and isolating themselves from the rest of the world, that they’re going alone down a different path. The President believes there’s a different way for North Korea.
And I think what he discussed today with President Lee was a continuation of the strong relationship that we have with the Republic of Korea and the strong international reactions and steps that have been taken to coordinate that response, and to take some extremely tough actions, all of what Ambassador Rice outlined just last week.
I remember not long after the first launch in late March and early April, there was some vast skepticism that tough actions and steps could be agreed upon by a group of five nations, a group of 15 nations. Not only were they agreed upon, but they’re now being implemented.
Q How is the President getting his information on Iran right now? Is he just reacting to the news reports that everybody has seen, or do you guys feel like you have some intelligence on the ground that’s telling you where things stand?
MR. GIBBS: I can assure you the President gets a regular intelligence briefing, but I’ll demure the –
Q Has he had any conversations with allies about a coordinated response?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of.
Yes, sir.
Q I understand that the President doesn’t want to look like he’s meddling in the Iranian elections, but at what point does the President’s position that he is willing to speak with the Ahmadinejad government bolster the Ahmadinejad regime? And is there a time when he would suspend that offer as the election results go through a contestation?
Q Is that a word?
MR. GIBBS: I’m almost sure that it’s not. (Laughter.) But leaving that aside for one moment –
Q It’s a print guy that made up — (laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know, let me say, if that’s — I’m going to do my crossword puzzle tonight; I don’t know if that’s — look, I would say this, Jonathan. The concerns that we have about Iran are no different than we had last Thursday or last Friday. Our primary concerns are obviously the state sponsorship and the spread of terror, and their efforts to secure a nuclear weapon. Those interests — our interests are no different today than they were before the election. The President remains committed to strong action and principled diplomacy to address our national interests; that our interest haven’t changed regardless of ultimately who the Iranians pick.
Yes, sir.
Q What’s the policy going to be on release of the names of White House visitors?
MR. GIBBS: The policy — as you know, I think many of you know, this has involved — visitor logs have been involved in some litigation dating back to some time in 2006. The White House is reviewing that policy based on some of that litigation.
Q So it’s just you’re not going either way on it now, and you’re not refusing to –
MR. GIBBS: We’re reviewing what has been the policy of — the previous policy.
Q Who is doing that review?
MR. GIBBS: The White House Counsel’s Office and other people in the administration.
Q What’s the length of the review?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the exact timeline.
Q Is there a mandate to be more transparent than the previous administration?
MR. GIBBS: I think we ran on that –
Q In this specific regard?
MR. GIBBS: That’s what’s under review.
Q Is that the goal?
MR. GIBBS: What’s the goal?
Q Isn’t that the goal, to be more transparent on these visitor logs than the previous administration?
MR. GIBBS: The goal is — and I think the President, who underscored his commitment to transparency on his first full day in office — this is not a contest between this administration or that administration, or any administration; it’s to uphold the principle of open government.
Q Why would the President have any objection to the public knowing who is coming in here to visit?
MR. GIBBS: I think we’ve taken actions to let people know who are. I think again, Peter, this dates back to litigation long before we ever showed up.
Q Do you think you might have to uphold precedent here, possibly?
MR. GIBBS: That’s part of what’s being reviewed by the Counsel’s Office.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Will the administration provide emergency aid to California, or are you rejecting that to avoid similar requests from other states?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, obviously many states throughout the country, because of the slowdown in our economy, find themselves with severe budgetary constraints. The President believed and addressed part of this in the recovery and reinvestment plan by ensuring the largest amount of fiscal relief that we’ve seen moved to states in the history of our country.
It’s obviously not an easy time for the state of California. We’ll continue to monitor the challenges that they have. But this budgetary problem, unfortunately, is one that they’re going to have to solve.
Q Following up on that, is the administration comfortable with the kind of precedent California would have to impose, specifically on its participation in Medicaid and SCHIP, which the President has identified as significant priorities of his administration, and in one regard, SCHIP, an achievement of this administration?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know if — I don’t know the degree to which we’ve analyzed each of California’s individual cuts. Obviously we’ve had to make — and states have had to make very difficult decisions as it relates to our budget. And these aren’t easy times for states.
Q I want to follow up on Jonathan’s question, just to have it on the record. The President is still willing to talk to Ahmadinejad about U.S.-Iranian issues, even currently, is that correct?
MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry?
Q The President is still willing to talk to Ahmadinejad about the various U.S. issues, and that’s not been changed at all by the –
MR. GIBBS: The President is committed to –
Q — status of this election?
MR. GIBBS: The President is committed to direct engagement with the Iranian government on issues of our national interest, including their pursuit of a nuclear weapon and their sponsorship for terror.
Q And the disputed election does not in any way change that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the disputed election is something for Iranians to work out.
Q Does the administration have an opinion as to whether or not foreign journalists should be allowed to cover that story and remain inside Iran?
MR. GIBBS: Obviously the President spoke both yesterday and today about what he thinks of his universal values, and obviously –
Q He spoke about people in the streets and Iranians –
MR. GIBBS: Let me –
Q I’m sorry.
MR. GIBBS: I think having a robust free press that covers an important story for the world is something that the President believes strongly in.
Q Does the administration believe the Internet and texting access should be restored?
MR. GIBBS: Absolutely.
Yes, sir.
Q A follow-up? Sky News has designated a spot on their Web site, as other organizations have, for people who are tweeting, who are sending SMS’s, et cetera. In light of the fact that we don’t have a diplomatic relationship, is the White House monitoring these various Web sites for that information?
MR. GIBBS: I can check with somebody at NSC, but I don’t have anything specific.
Q The President said in Cairo that countries that elect their governments are better — the governments are better, more stable, better able to provide economic opportunities. Does the United States have a national interest in the will of the Iranian people being accurately reflected in this election?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that he’s expressed concern, as the international community has. Obviously any election, if it’s going to — any election should reflect the will of the people. That, by definition, is an election.
I would also mention, Scott, that the President said that it’s important — elections are important, but also the decisions that governments make after elections are important. That’s why our interests as they relate to the Iranian government are unchanged.
Q Robert, are you at all concerned that the measured response of the United States so far to the Iranian elections could harm America or the President’s image among democracy advocates not only in Iran but around the world?
MR. GIBBS: No, I think this administration’s commitment to democracy has been demonstrated in the commitment in resources that we’ve put forward. But at the same time, I think it’s important that I reemphasize what the President said about sovereignty, but more importantly, that I emphasize that this is a debate inside of Iran for Iranians.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, health care. CBO, as I think you know, has scored Ted Kennedy’s bill as costing over a trillion dollars, and yet it still is only going to ensure about a third of the uninsured. Doesn’t that — I realized you said that that’s his bill and not your bill, but doesn’t that bode ill for health care reform in general and the President’s hope of ensuring everybody?
MR. GIBBS: How so?
Q Well, to the extent that you spend that amount of money, which is in the ballpark of what the administration has said it’s going to cost –
MR. GIBBS: In reading stories on this, I think it’s clear that this is an old proposal, an incomplete proposal. I think what’s important is what the President outlined yesterday, in his speech to the doctors, that we know clearly what the cost of inaction is. We know what that cost is to the federal budget; we know what it is to state budgets; we know what it is to budgets of families and to businesses, large and small. And that inaction is something we simply can’t afford.
The President I think has laid out strong principles that he believes should be contained in legislation so that we can see significant cost-saving for families and small businesses that are struggling. But, again, I think this has many twists and turns to go. I mean, one incomplete, older proposal I don’t think is indicative of where we are now. And I would also mention this — I think the President has outlined close to $950 billion in savings that he believes could be used to ensure that a plan for health care reform is deficit-neutral.
Q But you’re confident that the President’s proposal or what he wants to sign is going to be so dramatically different from what CBO looked at, that you will ensure the bulk of the unemployed –
MR. GIBBS: I think the committee that’s worked on that bill will tell you the bill they have now is. Look, as I’ve said, Mark, the President isn’t looking to pass — for Congress to pass and for him to sign something that doesn’t significantly cut the amount of cost that families and small businesses are struggling with. The President reiterated yesterday that we shouldn’t be a nation that sees tens of millions of uninsured. And he has some very firm principles in mind that have to be met as part of health care reform.
Ann.
Q How does that principle work, though? If he promises repeatedly that Americans can keep the doctors and the health insurance they like, if they like it, but if he succeeds in getting a kind of a government plan, small businesses desert their private insurers and go to a government plan, how can people keep the doctors and plans they want if their employers opt out for –
MR. GIBBS: Look, I guess I wouldn’t necessarily subscribe to this notion that presenting a public option with better choice and more competition will result dramatically in employers dropping what they already have. The notion of injecting a public option, we believe, will do exactly what I said in terms of choice and competition. Having somebody ensure that there is an affordable placeholder in the market I think will have a dramatic effect in terms of driving down costs, exactly what the President talks about each and every time he talks about health care reform.
Q By the time Air Force One arrived back here yesterday, the complaints on Capitol Hill were that the government option would drive private insurance out of business. How can he make sure that doesn’t happen?
MR. GIBBS: I think the President outlined pretty clearly yesterday, the principle to ensure that if you like what you have, you can keep it; that the injection of an option that ensures greater choice among those that don’t have access and competition that drives down costs is an important option that has to be preserved in this entire debate.
Q How can you promise that? How can you promise — if employers are in charge of providing insurance for their employees, how can the President say –
MR. GIBBS: Because the injection of competition will drive down costs. People — other insurance companies will follow that. You can’t set a market — if a marketplace is set that is so vastly out of whack, people have to make decisions. That’s what we’re –
Q But the report said that there would be some millions knocked off of their private plans as a public option.
MR. GIBBS: Well, Major, based on what I think we all acknowledge is an older proposal and not one that’s fully laid out.
Q Do you guys think you can offer a plan that’s less expensive and people aren’t going to flock to it?
MR. GIBBS: I think what happens in a marketplace like that, if I understand the free enterprise system, is that increased choice in competition drives down the prices for other insurance. That’s why a strong public option is necessary to ensure that competition.
Q But a free enterprise system, if the competitor — one has an inexhaustible source of tax revenue as a public option funded by the government might, then the private sector can’t –
Q That’s the 11th question up there. Could we get some back here?
MR. GIBBS: Just by Major, or by the first two rows? (Laughter.)
Q By Major — 11, 11. We’ve counted.
Q We have a new record.
Q Could I ask just one?
MR. GIBBS: Let me work my way back, Lester, so that I ensure that the 11 questions that Major has had during our short period of time together — let me give a chance for somebody in the third and fourth row to break that record.
Peter.
Q Thank you, Robert. Back to the turtles for a moment. How do you ensure the priorities in the stimulus package are met? In Florida, 200 faculty and staff are going to be laid off at a time when the state transportation department is going to spend $3 million paving a pathway for turtles so that they can safely cross a highway. Is that a priority –
MR. GIBBS: I have not looked through the entire report. I think that, again, I’d point out the number of inaccuracies and simply — the entries in the report that are simply wrong.
Q But I just have a rebuttal on that one, and I guess the broader question is, is it possible with a stimulus package of this size to prioritize in a way to ensure that the money goes to the worthiest projects?
MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. That’s exactly the system that the President has set up. That’s the priority of any recovery plan. And I think that a reasonable look at the spending thus far denotes that that’s happened in this case, that the priorities are being met, that funding is going to where it’s needed.
But, look, you’re using an example of state budget priorities. As I said earlier in relation to California, there are very few entities — business, states, the federal government — that are immune to the type of dramatic downturn that we’ve seen in the economy. I think that’s why the President endeavored to seek a recovery and reinvestment plan that would actually make a difference.
April.
Q Robert, the U.S. Conference of Mayors was very happy early on in this administration, saying they had a friend in the White House when the President was engaging them on the recovery plan. Now they’re very, very upset about the White House not crossing this picketing. Could you talk about that? Is the good of the whole being neglected for one city?
MR. GIBBS: No, I think the administration has denoted pretty clearly that obviously we have worked with officials at a city, county, state level, particularly as it relates to the recovery plan. But I think, as the statement from me says clearly, it’s not our policy to cross the picket line.
Q So — okay. And I’m going to go hypothetically, but I want an answer, a real answer. (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I won’t “contestation” then. (Laughter.)
Q Is that a real word? But here’s the deal. If the conference, the three-day conference, was in another city, would the high-profile White House officials have attended? If it were in another city that did not have any kind of picket –
MR. GIBBS: Look, let me see if I’m accurately paraphrasing your question. If there wasn a picket line that we wouldn’t cross, would we go?
Q Right. In another city.
MR. GIBBS: Again, our policy is we don’t want to cross a picket line. So if there’s not a picket line in Smithville and that’s where the conference is, we’ll go to the conference.
Q And also, another conference in July, the NAACP. We understand it looks very favorable that the President could be speaking to the nation’s oldest civil rights organization? Is that true? And tell us why.
MR. GIBBS: I think the President has spoken on a number of occasions. I have not seen the final thing. I assume, strongly, that he’ll go, and looks forward to honoring their historic commitment.
Q What is his message? He’s gone to Muslim America, he’s gone to Hispanic America. What is his message to black America as the first African American President?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let me not get ahead of a speech that probably hasn’t been written.
David.
Q Thanks. Thirteen questions. (Laughter.) I’ll settle for two. On the visitor log issue, while the policy is under review you’ve denied two requests from MSNBC and from crew, and then was quoted up by MSNBC, saying that, in essence, there should be the right to hold secret meetings in the White House, and he gave a forward examples when that might be needed. Is it the position of the White House that you need to hold secret meetings on occasion here, and thus –
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there are obviously occasions in which the President is going to meet privately with advisors on topics that are of great national importance, yes.
Q Okay, so then how does that square with a policy that might end up — a policy review that might end up releasing some visitor logs?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, let me not conclude the review that’s underway.
Q And then secondly, just –
Q Why can’t you give us a length of that review?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t have it.
Q But can you find it? Can you find out?
MR. GIBBS: I will see if they have one, yes.
Q CNN is reporting that –
MR. GIBBS: This is two –
Q This is two.
Q I just have one — just one.
MR. GIBBS: Just one big microphone, or just one big question? (Laughter.)
Q Both. Both.
MR. GIBBS: Okay.
Q CNN is reporting that State Department officials are working with Twitter and other social networks to keep communications open with Iran. Is that something the White House is involved with, too?
MR. GIBBS: I will check. Obviously I think, as I said earlier, ensuring an active free press on the ground, as well as communications either through texting or Twitter are incredibly important. I think, David, you are seeing the yearning for change that the President talked about, and the President has talked about, right now. I think the peaceable demonstration and that yearning especially by youth in Iran is heartening for the world to see and is important for the world to see.
Q You said that U.S. interest with Iran haven’t changed since last Thursday or Friday. Is it fair to say that the talks the U.S. — (inaudible) — in addressing those interests has gone much harder because of the events of the last week? And is it going to be much more difficult to build domestic political support for an engagement strategy with Ahmadinejad as President after a disputed election?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I’ve seen quite a few people in the last 24 hours discuss a more vigorous policy in engaging Iran, quite frankly, than I’ve seen in any number of months. I think — again, I’ll go back to what I said just a moment ago. I think you’re seeing the yearning for change. I think we’re witnessing something that we believe — the world is witnessing something that’s tremendously important
Q Robert, on the war funding, the Republicans have announced they’re going to vote en bloc against the war-funding measure. Does the administration believe that Republicans or Democrats who vote against the war-funding measure are putting our troops in danger?
MR. GIBBS: I would note with some irony the new message position of Republicans on Capitol Hill. As I said last week, I think there are many important reasons to support this supplemental funding: ensuring our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq; the commitments that we’ve made to Pakistan to help; and as I said last week, the extremely important efforts — as the World Health Organization denotes we have reached internationally a pandemic stage, the important money that’s there for the preparation and response to what we and others throughout the world assume will be another visit from H1N1 this fall.
I think for any number of reasons, the administration strongly believes that a vote in support of all of these measures is truly important.
Q And their reasoning they say is because of the IMF funding. In 1998, John Boehner said: “Given the crises we have around the world, the U.S. needs to provide leadership. The only real avenue is the IMF.” Interesting change of position.
MR. GIBBS: Have you gotten his response on that?
Q I’d like to hear yours.
MR. GIBBS: The President made a commitment at the G20 to ensure that as we watched an economic downturn, we watched an even steeper downturn in exports, which hurts not only — it hurts all countries, but it hurts particularly developing nations. This is important relief to ensure that we have strong global trade.
I don’t think, given where we are in the world economy, that we would want to see a pullback in that commitment. And I think we should understand that exports create jobs right here at home.
Q Robert, on immigration, what’s the reason that the meeting has been delayed week after week? Some Hispanic organizations are saying that’s because the President is losing ground in the support in the House and in the Senate on immigration reform discussion.
MR. GIBBS: Unfortunately, the schedule here is, as always, a work in progress. And for those reasons, the meeting has been I think rescheduled to the — I think it’s the 25th, if I have it off the top of my head. But the President remains committed to working with Congress to seek changes in our immigration law. But that doesn’t — but that’s not shifted because a meeting got pushed back on the schedule.
Tim.
Q The House majority leader said he has reason to believe that the President is considering an executive order that would prevent the release of the detainee abuse photos. Is that something the President is considering?
MR. GIBBS: Tim, all I’m going to say on this is that the President has committed to all interested parties that he intends to do what’s necessary to keep those photos from being released, and that he intends to keep that commitment.
Q Did he give Hoyer a reason to believe that?
MR. GIBBS: I won’t get into any private conversations.
Lester, yes.
Q Thank you very much. Historian Victor Davis Hanson cites what he terms, “The President’s politically correct canard that the Renaissance was fueled by Arab learning, and the President’s statement that abolition of slavery and civil rights in the U.S. were accomplished without violence,” as two of seven presidential errors. And my question: Does the White House believe Dr. Hanson is wrong, or do you believe your speechwriters and the President made some mistakes?
MR. GIBBS: Lester, I have to hand it to you that you have in only one question covered some five or six centuries of world history. (Laughter.)
Q No, no, just mistakes — White House mistakes.
MR. GIBBS: Should I ask you a question and you respond, or should I give a –
Q I’d be delighted –
MR. GIBBS: At least you’re not leaning into where you think the answer to such a historically significant and important question — I’m not familiar with the work of the esteemed historian. I haven’t seen it. I can assure you that not knowing who this historian is, I’ll put my money on our speechwriters.
Q Thank you very much for getting back to us.
END
1:46 P.M. EDT
#73-06/16/2009
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »