WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Praises Emerging Consensus on Health Insurance Reform

 

WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama praised past and current political leaders from across the spectrum who have come forward to support reform.  Doctors, nurses, hospitals, and drug companies have already expressed their support. In the past several days Governor Schwarzenegger, Mayor Bloomberg, former Senate Major Leader Bob Dole, and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, among others, have all come forward to say that the status quo is unsustainable and that now is the time to reform the system.  They see that this is a not a Democratic or a Republican problem, but an American one in need of a solution.

 

The full audio of the address is HERE. The video can be viewed online at www.whitehouse.gov.

 

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address

Washington, DC

October 10, 2009

 

The historic movement to bring real, meaningful health insurance reform to the American people gathered momentum this week as we approach the final days of this debate. Having worked on this issue for the better part of a year, the Senate Finance Committee is finishing deliberations on their version of a health insurance reform bill that will soon be merged with other reform bills produced by other Congressional committees.

 

After evaluating the Finance Committee’s bill, the Congressional Budget Office – an office that provides independent, nonpartisan analysis – concluded that the legislation would make coverage affordable for millions of Americans who don’t have it today.  It will bring greater security to Americans who have coverage, with new insurance protections.  And, by attacking waste and fraud within the system, it will slow the growth in health care costs, without adding a dime to our deficits.

 

This is another milestone on what has been a long, hard road toward health insurance reform. In recent months, we’ve heard every side of every argument from both sides of the aisle. And rightly so – health insurance reform is a complex and critical issue that deserves a vigorous national debate, and we’ve had one.  The approach that is emerging includes the best ideas from Republicans and Democrats, and people across the political spectrum.

 

In fact, what’s remarkable is not that we’ve had a spirited debate about health insurance reform, but the unprecedented consensus that has come together behind it. This consensus encompasses everyone from doctors and nurses to hospitals and drug manufacturers.

 

And earlier this week, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg came out in support of reform, joining two former Republican Senate Majority Leaders: Bob Dole and Dr. Bill Frist, himself a cardiac surgeon. Dr. Louis Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services under President George H.W. Bush, supports reform. As does Republican Tommy Thompson, a former Wisconsin governor and Secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush. These distinguished leaders understand that health insurance reform isn’t a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, but an American issue that demands a solution.

 

Still, there are some in Washington today who seem determined to play the same old partisan politics, working to score political points, even if it means burdening this country with an unsustainable status quo. A status quo of rising health care costs that are crushing our families, our businesses, and our government. A status quo of diminishing coverage that is denying millions of hardworking Americans the insurance they need. A status quo that gives big insurance companies the power to make arbitrary decisions about your health care. That is a status quo I reject. And that is a status quo the American people reject.

 

The distinguished former Congressional leaders who urged us to act on health insurance reform spoke of the historic moment at hand and reminded us that this moment will not soon come again.  They called on members of both parties seize this opportunity to finally confront a problem that has plagued us for far too long.

 

That is what we are called to do at this moment. That is the spirit of national purpose that we must summon right now. Now is the time to rise above the politics of the moment. Now is the time to come together as Americans. Now is the time to meet our responsibilities to ourselves and to our children, and secure a better, healthier future for generations to come. That future is within our grasp. So, let’s go finish the job.

PRESS BRIEFING

BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

 

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

 

12:12 P.M. EDT

 

     MR. GIBBS:  All right.  I don’t have a week ahead yet, but we will put it in the guidance that will go out a little bit later on this afternoon, so we’ll get a chance to do that then.

 

     Take us away.

 

     Q    On the Nobel Prize, did anyone in the White House, including the President, know that he’d been nominated?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Not that I could find, no.

 

     Q    So this was a total surprise?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes.  Absolutely.

 

     Q    Can you walk us through — you got the call, or — how did he get the word?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I was notified by — we got e-mails, we got notified by the Situation Room, I got calls from reporters.

 

     Q    From the Situation Room?

 

     Q    From us?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, the Situation Room sends out news updates on — throughout — we got emails at 3:00 in the morning from those guys on activities throughout the world.  And about 6:00 a.m., I called the President to tell him that he’d won, and I think it’s safe to say he was very surprised.

 

     Q    You’ve done this before.  Are you the designated waker?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t think anybody wants the job.  (Laughter.)  I just figured it would be easiest to do.

 

     Q    What was his reaction?

 

     Q    Robert, what exactly were his words?

 

     Q    He was sleeping?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I believe he was asleep, yes. 

 

     Q    What was his reaction?

 

     Q    What did he say, exactly?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  He was just very surprised.

 

     Q    Did he scream, did he — (laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know if he did.  He did not scream, that I could hear.  (Laughter.)

 

     Q    Did he know he’d been nominated?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, not that I’m — not that I know of.

 

     Q    Do you know who nominated him?

 

     Q    Since there’s so much talk of war now, will this have an impact and make him seek peace more?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, Helen, I would point you to what the President said today.  Obviously we’ve got — the President and his team have worked since the very beginning of our administration to work toward bringing peace to the Middle East.

 

     Q    With more war that’s going on.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, we have these disagreements, you and me, Helen.  (Laughter.)  But obviously I think — the President mentioned both his hopes for and work for peace in the Middle East, as well as the commitments that he has as Commander-in-Chief to protect the American people and to prevent the spread of the type of violent extremism that we see in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

     Q    But we’re conducting wars there.  Is he trying to find a way to peace?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, Helen, we’ve done this before.  There are people –

 

     Q    Don’t say we’ve done this before.  I’m asking you a question.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I understand.  There are those that sit there in that region of the world and actively are plotting and planning to do America harm.

 

     Q    How do you know that?  And what are we doing to them?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  One, I watch the news.  And two, I get that from the intelligence briefings.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    The Republican National Committee has been less than magnanimous about this.  The Democrats are now comparing their reaction to the Taliban.  What do you think of that?  And how does this complicate the domestic political situation for the President?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  How does what complicate –

 

     Q    How does the idea of him winning this prize, if at all?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know that it complicates the domestic political situation.  I have not –

 

     Q    Does it raise expectations too high?  Does it contribute to the perception that he’s, you know, all expectation and no results yet?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think, as the President said today, this is a — this announcement today represents not the achievements of one person but the hopes of millions and millions throughout the world of the life and the world that they want to live in — whether that’s a world without nuclear weapons; a world without the spread of weapons of mass destruction; a world with peace in the Middle East; a world that addresses climate change.  I think all of those things are what millions throughout the world hope that — hope that can be achieved, but understanding, as the President said today, that can’t be achieved by one person.  It has to be achieved through the collective action of the world.  And that’s what he’ll continue to work on.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    To that point, there are those who are already saying that what happened today, the President winning this prize, highlights criticism that the President so far has been more talk than substance.  How do you respond to that?  Because he got this so early in his presidency.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Again, I’m not going to parse the words of the President.  I think one of the reasons obviously highlighted by the committee is that through engagement, through a renewal of American leadership, we can help lead the world to do many of the things that the President has outlined.  I don’t think that’s a bad thing.  I think that’s actually a very good thing.  I think America having that place in the world that can lead us to do the types of things that the President has outlined on weapons on mass destruction, on nuclear non-proliferation, and on issues of peace and climate change, are aspirations held by many.

 

     Q    On Afghanistan and the meetings that have been ongoing — today is the fourth of the planned meetings — can you give us a sense of where the ball is?  Has it moved throughout the meetings?  Are we at a different place today, or will be in at different place today, than we were at the last meeting and the one before?  I mean, is the ball actually being moved closer to that point where the President is getting what he needs to make the decision?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  The President has been getting what he wants and what he needs throughout the process.

 

     Q    So is the ball being moved through meetings?  I mean, when they sit down today, will they be at a different point?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, you know, I got to tell you, I think it was reported somewhere today, I forget where, that — and I concur with this — that there have been all these conjectures about where different people are about different decisions on resources.  I have not actually heard anybody in the meetings intone their opinion on that yet.  So it’s fascinating for me to watch the back-and-forth on something that we certainly haven’t seen in the meetings.

 

     Today’s meeting will focus primarily on Afghanistan.  We’ll spend quite a bit of time going through, with General McChrystal, his assessment.  And I think that’s the basis for what we’ll do today.

 

     Q    I guess I’m trying to get a sense of progress, though.  Is there like a — for lack of a better explanation, a checklist where you can say, okay, we’ve made it to this point, we –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think that there’s obviously in each of these an agenda where we’re going through, again, as we’ve talked about, understanding and enunciating clearly the goal, the strategy to accomplish the goal, and ultimately we’ll get toward — get to discussion decisions about resources needed in order to implement a strategy to meet that goal.

 

     Q    Will the resource issue come up in this meeting today?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think it very well could, but I don’t know that it — I think obviously the assessment is something we’ll spend quite a bit of time on.

 

     Q    Will we get a readout on the meeting afterward?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Likely so, yes.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    The President in his statement today said, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of these transformative figures.”  Did he consider turning it down?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Not that I know of.

 

     Q    Money — $1.4 million.  Has there been any discussion — I know it’s early — any discussion of what he would do with that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Not that I know of.  But, again, Chip, let me point out — let finish the thought that the President had that you mentioned:  “But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build — a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.”

 

     Q    Following up on the political question, I think the point a lot of your favorite people, pundits, have been making is that the response to this has been like this.  I mean, most Democrats have praised it, and most Republicans have said, you have got to be kidding me — Ronald Reagan didn’t get one, but Barack Obama, nominated 12 days after he was sworn in, gets a Nobel Peace Prize.  And the fear among some, even some Democrats, is that this is going to widen the partisan divide and make things even more difficult to accomplish on every front.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’ll leave the pundicizing to the pundits.  The notion that somehow this is going to more greatly divide America, you know, I think it should be mandatory that pundits spend a certain amount of their days each year outside of the friendly confines of the viewership of the Washington, D.C., media market. 

 

     I think people — I think people believe that, again, what this represents — renewed American leadership in order to make our country safer, and to live up to our own ideals and the ideals that many in the world want to live up to — it’s a good thing, it’s an important thing.  I don’t think it’s a partisan thing.

 

     Q    And one last question.  A lot of people think it is a partisan thing, because Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and now President Obama have all received awards for work on –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know what party Teddy Roosevelt was in, but I don’t think it was Republican — or Democrat.

 

     Q    I know, I know.  Whatever.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  He got it, just, you know, I –

 

     Q    But Ronald Reagan, could I just ask you to respond to that?  The man who helped bring the Cold War to an end did not –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  But let me just do — but let me do this — but let me do this, Chip.  I’m not a member of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.  I hate –

 

     Q    But the argument is –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, no, no, no.

 

     Q    — it’s an organization that supports liberal causes.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  And I hope you can get somebody on the phone at this hour in Oslo.  I’m not a member of the committee, and I’ll let you do that.  The notion that this is — somehow widens the partisan divide I think demonstrates what’s wrong with pundits and instant analysis of what goes on in our society.

 

     Yes, here comes another pundit question.  Go ahead.

 

     Q    The President seemed to hint — he talked about other — he talked about an example of a woman who marches alone for certain causes.  It sounds like he’s going to probably bring a delegation of other Americans with him or something like that.  Is that — should we assume that that’s what he tries to do as a way to share the award?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think, obviously, at the end of his remarks he is talking about all of those that either throughout this year, or all previous years, have worked to bring peace and justice to the world.  I don’t know the logistics, obviously, heading into that, but obviously, what the award represents, in terms of, as he says, justice and dignity.

 

     Q    In the remarks, he referenced the fact that he is the Commander-In-Chief of two wars, and didn’t say the word “Afghanistan” again, and he called it the theater.  Just where is the war?  The war is in Afghanistan?  The war is — I mean, I guess is there — is it fair to say there are — is there a geographic boundary?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, if I said the war was in Pakistan, we’d be making news now, wouldn’t we?  (Laughter.)  I don’t want to –

 

     Q    Okay, I understand that.  But what are the geographic –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Maybe we should step back on this whole Afghanistan/Pakistan thing and –

 

     Q    But in all fairness, is that part of the strategy, trying to figure out what is the — is there no geographic boundary to this war?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, obviously, there are violent extremists that are in different places all over the world, in places like Somalia, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  I think obviously what the President believes, and what the President set out strongly in that goal in the March speech earlier this year, was the goal of disrupting, dismantling, and destroying al Qaeda and its extremist allies.  Obviously we’re involved in a fight with the Taliban to ensure that anybody that would want to provide al Qaeda with a safe haven with which to plan and execute attacks on our homeland and on our allies — I’m looking at the statement.  He says, “ending one war responsibly and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary.”  I think he’s talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, but I may have lost the allusion.

 

     Q    But at the National Counterterrorism Center, he did — I mean, there seems to be — he’s avoided naming the country, per se.  Is that — is it –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No.  I said this the other day.  I’ve gotten — I don’t know what percentage of the questions this week have been on Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This notion — we tell you everyone who is in these meetings — I think this notion that somehow we’re avoiding the use of the word is a semantical thing that I can’t understand.

 

     Q    So today you said you’re going to go through the McChrystal stuff.  Where are we in the process?  Are we getting into — I’m not getting into the whole baseball metaphor, not asking what inning we’re in, but are we getting — now we’ve passed the middle of this process, are we getting toward the end?  I know, that’s usually Chip’s question.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes, I know.

 

     Q    It’s the only one he’ll answer.  (Laughter.)

 

     Q    Okay, fine, what inning are we in?  Are we –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, no.  Look, again, I –

 

     Q    How close are we to a resolution?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I still think we’re probably several weeks away.  I don’t — I mean, obviously, I think the President feels like the discussions are going well.  We’ve dealt with the broader region.  We focused Wednesday on Pakistan, today on Afghanistan.  I don’t have an agenda for upcoming meetings, but –

 

     Q    How many should we expect next week?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think there could be more than one, but right now I think one is planned.

 

     Q    What day?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know the day yet.  They’re working on the schedule.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    I have a question about the stimulus.  Is the administration satisfied at the rate at which money is flowing from the federal government to the states and then down to the contractor level?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Absolutely.  We’re ahead of — we’re ahead of where we’d thought we’d be.  And we’re ahead of the — we’re ahead of the goals that we had set originally in moving money out.  Obviously, some of the money — there’s roughly — there’s several different — there’s basically three different buckets, right?  There’s — they’re largely roughly equal.  There’s a tax relief that will be paid out over the course of a two-year period.  There is state and local aid, primarily things like FMAP, Medicaid, unemployment insurance and things like that.  And then a third bucket of project money, I know just this week, the 8,000th highway project, money was obligated for that. 

 

     So the team met with the President yesterday as part of his economic daily briefing to go through where we were on disbursement, and we’re ahead of schedule.

 

     Q    Just that third bucket.  What does it mean?  The obligation has gone out, but when does it hit somebody’s paycheck?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, there are a lot of different terms.  Basically when money is obligated, say, from the Department of Transportation to you as a roadbuilder, right, payments come at different stages but an obligation is the project is going to be funded, you’re going to begin to hire contractors, you’re going to begin to hire more workers to complete a project.  The physical, final payment sometimes takes place, depending on the type of project and the agency, at the conclusion, but at this point the money has been obligated and you can begin to make plans for hiring workers to do that.

 

     Q    Robert, when you broke the news to the President this morning, you said he was very surprised.  Do you have a quote for us?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No.  (Laughter.)

 

     Q    Well, why not?

 

     Q    Did he say, “Who is this really?” or –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Inexplicably, they just put me through, so it’s –

 

     Q    You didn’t go through the switchboard when you called?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I went through the — there’s a line for us to call in the Situation Room.

 

     Q    One more — I’ve got one more question for a colleague pegged to the signing of protocols tomorrow between Turkey and Armenia.  During the campaign, Senator Obama said that — he characterized the Turkish massacre in 1915 as genocide, and he said he would continue to use that word.  But when he was in Turkey in April, he didn’t use the word “genocide.”  Has he changed his mind about genocide?  Does he not want to antagonize Turkey by using that word?

    

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, let me go through a couple things.  One, I believe the Secretary of State will attend those signings that you mention.  I think it’s important that — obviously the President spent part of that trip in the evening working with the two sides in order for each of them to understand mutually their interests in doing this.  And I would just point you to what he said in the press availability after the meetings in Turkey where he noted that his campaign position had not changed.

 

     Ed.

 

     Q    A couple quick questions on the Nobel.  Have you heard from the President’s immediate predecessors?  If not, is it to be expected?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Not that I’m aware of.  I don’t know –

 

     Q    Is it good form?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know — not that — I have not — at least when I came out here, I had not seen e-mails about calls.

 

     Q    What about Bill Clinton?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I haven’t –

 

     Q    The awarding of the prize usually inspires some happiness, glee.  Given what the President said today, I’m just wondering, after the news landed here, were there any admonitions here from high up to, like, slow it down, keep it down, and there will be no celebrations, or were there celebrations?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think we obviously are enormously proud of the work we’re trying to do every day.  Like I said, the President was surprised, very humbled by the selection by the committee.  When we saw him this morning, we of course congratulated him.

 

     Again, I think that I’d point you to what he said, that — and not just what he said at the beginning but the notion that he hopes that what comes of this is galvanized action on behalf of the entire world to make good on the ideas and the ideals that we’ve talked about.  And I think that’s important going forward, and I think we’ll continue to use avenues as a chance to do that.

 

     Q    No high-fives or fist bumps that you saw?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, no.

 

     Q    Congratulatory phone calls from –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  He had — I talked to him at 6:00 in the morning, so I think he had already heard or seen enough from me in the morning.

 

     Q    How about phone calls from overseas from other world leaders?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  He talked to the — yes, he talked to the Norwegian Prime Minister, which is a customary thing.  I have not heard of other calls.  But let me check after this and see what else.  Yes, sir.

 

     Q    We’re ahead of where you thought you’d be, in terms of disbursing stimulus funds.  Are you ahead of where you thought you’d be in job creation?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think we’re — I’d have to go back and look at the last report, but I think creating and saving jobs is about where they thought it would be, given the amount of economic output that would come from the funds that had been obligated and disbursed.  Obviously we saw in the GDP numbers that were released for the second quarter, independent analysis talked about the fact that the GDP itself had been lifted by the spending in the stimulus bill.

 

     But as we’ve talked about, Wendell, throughout this week, and even when we discussed this piece of legislation when it was being voted on in Congress, the estimates at that point were about a $2 trillion dip in overall output over that two-year period of time.  Obviously since the formal recession began, we have seen somewhere between 8 million and 9 million jobs lost — that’s dating back to December of 2007.  So obviously we have continued work to do to improve our economy to the point that the President talks about where people that want to work can find jobs.

 

     Q    A couple other things.  Does the President support an extension of the supplemental jobless benefits?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes, and I meant to do this for today and I didn’t get sort of where we are on — obviously we’re supportive of extending that.  There are different proposals in the House and the Senate, but I haven’t gotten any clarity from — I forgot to talk to Leg Affairs on this today.

 

     Q    What about the tax credit for first-time homebuyers?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think the economic team is continuing to look at that.

 

     Q    The President talked about this prize as a call to action and said that it has given momentum to past movements that have won, people that have won.  Have you given any thought yet to how you can use this prize on behalf of your foreign policy agenda?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think there’s no doubt that in — I think just the notion of increased engagement as — it’s not just a means — or it’s not just a — engagement isn’t an end, it’s a means to an end.  I think you heard the President talk recently about the initial steps that we were — that we’re cautiously pleased by in dealing with Iran.  Obviously what has been done in the Security Council to bring the numbers along unanimously to confront North Korea has been important.  And I think — we will certainly continue, as we move forward throughout the year, obviously our hope before the end of the year, when an agreement expires, that we’ll have an additional agreement with Moscow to further reduce — jointly further reduce our nuclear arsenals and get closer and closer to the promise of a world without nuclear weapons.  Those are just a few of examples that I think we’ll continue to push on.  And hopefully, this will give lift to some of them.

 

     Q    Just a quick follow-up, is there — not domestically, but abroad is there a sense that — a fear that there perhaps may be a backlash?  There are some big egos out there; they’ve have been overlooked. 

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t –

    

     Q    It could complicate an agenda that really relies on cooperation.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t believe it would, and I think the President talked today about the notion that regardless of who gets this award, it’s shared by those that have a vision for dignity and justice throughout the world. 

 

     Yes, ma’am.

 

     Q    Robert, just a couple more award questions.  To be clear, will the President go to pick up the award in person?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

 

     Q    He will?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

 

     Q    It’s given in Stockholm, I believe.  When is that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Oslo.

 

     Q    Oslo?  It’s given out in Oslo?  I thought there was a dinner at Stockholm.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  There is.

 

     Q    But then the award is given out is Oslo.

 

     Q    Dinner is in Stockholm, the presentation in Oslo.

 

     Q    I see.  So will he go to both the dinner and the presentation?  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know whether — I don’t know — I have to admit, I don’t know about the dinner, but I think the acceptance in Oslo.

 

     Q    Okay, and then –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  My first reaction was, it’s not Copenhagen, is it?  (Laughter.)  I’ll just now deal with the remaining questions, and then we’ll –

 

     Q    You brought it up.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  What’s that?

 

     Q    You brought it up.

 

     Q    Seriously, we have some questions on that.

 

     Q    Will this change any –

 

     Q    Can I have another –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’ll come back to you, Sheryl.

 

     Q    Will this change — because at the same time will be the climate change summit in Copenhagen.  That’s pretty close.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  It is, both calendar-wise and geographically.  David, I’ll give you the same answer that I gave last week when we were coming back from Copenhagen, and that is no final decision on that has been made.  At this point, there is some discussion about adding a heads of state portion to the meeting, but at this point it’s not a heads of state meeting.  So I think we’re certainly waiting on some of that as we move forward.  That’s not — I think you heard the President say clearly today the importance of the issue of addressing climate change and the need for, again, the world to act collectively in order to make progress on an issue that threatens the health of the planet.

 

     Q    A couple other questions.  Will he have the other Americans who won the Nobel Prize to the White House?  There have been some winners in science and medicine.  Does he expect to –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  We talked actually about that some earlier in the — early in the week about doing calls and such and maybe an event would be an appropriate thing, too.  I don’t have any updates on that.

 

     Q    Robert, since I asked you about this issue on Wednesday, the Catholic bishops have sent out another letter yesterday in which — sent another letter to Congress — and you said on Wednesday that the Hyde amendment would prevent abortion funding through the health bill.  The Catholic bishops have repeatedly said that the Hyde amendment would not apply to the health care bill and yesterday in the letter that they sent to Congress they said that if language expressly prohibiting abortion funding is not added to the health care bill, they will vigorously — “vigorously oppose” — that’s a quote — the bill.  My question on that, does the President support the bishops on this?  And to eliminate this as an issue, will he call on Congress to have an explicit prohibition of abortion funding?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  My answer isn’t different than it was on Wednesday.  There may be a legal interpretation that has been lost here, but there’s a fairly clear federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion.  I think it is — again, it’s exceedingly clear in the law.

 

     Q    But the Hyde amendment is only for direct appropriations for HHS, and that’s –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Again, I think that law is exceedingly clear.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    Robert, two quick questions.  One, President Obama has mentioned Mahatma Gandhi several times in his speeches.  So that means now he is in the rank of Mahatma Gandhi working for peace, and because of this Nobel Peace Prize, he will work harder than ever for the global peace, including in the Indian subcontinent?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Obviously, without getting into a lot of details, there — I think it goes without saying that India is an important ally.  We will have before — after we get back from our trip to Asia, an important event here at the White House — the President’s first state dinner.  And obviously we continue to be very engaged with the Indians to bring about peace in obviously an important region of the world.

 

     Q    And second, as far as the meeting with the Dalai Lama, presidential delegation was in India at the Dalai Lama’s headquarter and the President had sent the delegation — can you talk about more the delegation, what happened and what did –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Let me get for you a readout from those that went there.  I’ll get that.

 

     Q    Robert, the White House earlier circulated a poll showing that the United States’ standing in the world has improved dramatically since the President was elected.  Can you talk about what this prize says about that, and also about what it says about President Bush’s standing in the world?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I’ll leave the latter question to the myriad of pundits, and reiterate what I said earlier, and that is that having — reestablishing our leadership in the world through reengaging the world in active diplomacy on issues like nuclear non-proliferation, on climate change, on peace in the Middle East — that is a good thing both here for our safety and security, and it’s a good thing for the world in the ideals that we hope to achieve and that are shared by billions on the planet.  And I think it is — it’s something the President is enormously proud of.

 

     Q    One other just quick follow-up, though unrelated.  The Taliban has put statements on Web sites, they’ve — representatives have been on news broadcasts, apparently trying to influence the decision-making process that the President is going through.  Does he see these statements and videos?  And how does he evaluate their meaning?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Not that — I haven’t seen them, so I’m not aware of them. 

 

     Q    In terms of the President’s speech on Saturday night to the LGBT community, I’m just wondering in terms of new things — I mean, recently, this week, there was the announcement of the openly gay ambassador.  It looks like hate crimes protections will be extended to LGBT folks, and reach the President’s desk in the next week or so.  Is there anything new besides those developments that the President might highlight within his speech?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think he’ll talk about a range of issues.  I think one that you just mentioned, though, I don’t want to zoom past that one that quickly.  Obviously –

 

     Q    The hate crimes part?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  — hate crimes protections are long overdue, in the President’s opinion, believes that their passage represents an important step, and looks forward to, when that legislation gets to his desk, signing it and making that the law of the land. I think that’s certainly part of what he’ll discuss on Saturday night.

 

     Q    Is the President himself working on the speech?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  He is, yes, absolutely.

 

     Q    May I?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes, sir.

 

     Q    Thank you, Robert.  I think around the world his speech is taken as a symbol of peace and the prize is taken as a symbol of peace.  When we listen to the President, when we listen to you now, you give us the reassurance, but it is in caveats.  We talk about the peace in the Middle East, we talk about justice and stability, we talk about everything — we do not talk about peace in general as a whole.  Can you give us a reassurance that the United States will not break peace on its own?  It’s obvious the United States will do everything in its power to prevent peace being broken by others, including India, including Tehran, including somebody else.  Will you not be breaking peace by yourself, no matter what?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, obviously I think the President is  — has worked each and every day on issues like the Middle East in an effort to bring greater peace and stability throughout the world.  He has talked about, in different speeches throughout his career, steps that have to be done to protect this country.  But I think everybody, regardless of who you are in this country, wants to see peace not only throughout here but throughout the world.  And I think that’s important for the President.

 

     Yes, ma’am.

 

     Q    Robert, this is a man of peace now through the Nobel Prize — (laughter.)  Sorry –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I might have attached that earlier, but if you want to do it now, that’s — did you run from somewhere? 

 

     Q    Oslo.  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I noticed your boots were a little — (laughter.)

 

     Q    Anyway, he’s a man of peace now, but how can this administration handle or deal with the fact that some are questioning he’s now a Nobel Peace Prize winner and then he’s trying to send or thinking of sending troops to Afghanistan?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, as I just mentioned, there are actions of necessity that will be and are taken by this country to protect our homeland.  There are — the discussion that will be had today is about a very dangerous region in the world, and there are steps that have to be taken to ensure that we are not attacked and that our allies are not attacked.  Those are steps, again, the President mentioned quite clearly in his speech.  Those are steps that he’ll make not lightly as Commander-in-Chief, but he will work every day to protect our homeland.

 

     Q    Because of that question, do you look at this win as a double-edged sword?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I guess there’s many ways at which you could look at it.  I don’t necessarily — I don’t know what the other edge is.

 

     Q    The other edge — people are saying, how can you turn down a man who’s won a Nobel Peace Prize, be it domestic policy issues or foreign policy; but then at the same time, you can have this situation –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I can trust you, when the President walks back over to the Residence, whatever humility was lacking will be restored.

 

     Yes, David.

 

     Q    I think you may have covered this, but just a clarification.  In the assessment meeting today about Afghanistan, you said you’re going to go over McChrystal’s report.  Will they go over specific questions about specific troop levels?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Let me — I might have been careless in the phrasing of that.  I said that — I need to make sure that I’m — the bulk of the meeting will be spent on his original.  I don’t know whether the resource request that is related to that initial assessment is something that we will get to or how much that we’ll get to — into in depth, but it certainly could come up today.  It has not come up in earlier discussions.

 

     Q    Can you just talk about — since we’re on troop requests, can you talk about the report about — that the troop request was as many as 60,000?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’m not going to get into that and I would — I don’t believe everything I see on TV.

 

     Q    So you’re saying that number is not right?

 

     Q    The Nobel Prize Committee said specifically that it also values his efforts in the climate change policy.  Do you think that the prize will give new momentum to the climate bill?  And does it increase the chance that he won’t be — or won’t come empty-handed to Copenhagen?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think that obviously we’re continuing to work on, in conjunction with Congress, ensuring that we’re continuing to make progress on that important legislation.  Some legislation has now been introduced in the Senate.  As I mentioned here a couple weeks ago, it’s now through the House earlier this summer.

 

     So I think it’s important for the world to understand that the United States is taking, granted, long overdue but important steps to ensuring that we’re part of that solution.  But I think as the President said earlier today, the problems that he outlined and the challenges that we have are not going to be solved by one man, they’re not going to be solved by one nation, unless or until other developing nations — the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians — also come to that larger table with solutions that are not just voluntary but that embody, again, international collective action to address that issue.

 

     Obviously the President has staked — has promised and staked his belief that it is important to do this, and we will continue to work on it through the end of the year.  If it happens, we’d certainly be proud to do that and go to Copenhagen with it.

 

     Q    Robert, I understand — I realize the meeting was still going on when you came out, but do you have anything on the meeting with Senator Webb, how it came about?  Did he request it?  Is Afghanistan the topic?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I was told it was a general meeting.  Again, I think the President has used meetings throughout the last many months to discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan.  I will try to get a better readout.  Obviously his views on those issues and his expertise on them are very important.

 

     Ken.

 

     Q    Robert, a question about local politics, if I may, a topic that you’ve addressed before.  Just for the sake of clarity, can you say who exactly the President supports in the mayoral race up in the city?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  New York City.

 

     Q    Yes, sir.  (Laughter.) 

 

     Q    New York-centric over there.  There’s more than one city.  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, no, I was poking him just a little bit to see what –

 

     Q    “The city.”  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I noticed I phrase the question –

 

     Q    No, Miami.  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  You guys call yourselves what, “The U” now?  That’s a little — that might be a little much for most college football fans.  (Laughter.)

 

     Getting back to the serious, Ken, the President is the leader of the Democratic Party, and as that, would support the Democratic nominee.  The President obviously has had a chance to, throughout campaigning and in his time both as a candidate and as a President, to meet, know and work with Mayor Bloomberg, and obviously has a tremendous amount of respect for what he’s done as well.

 

     Q    But he supports –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  He, as the leader of the Democratic Party, supports the Democratic nominee.

 

     Thanks, guys.

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared For Delivery

Consumer Financial Protection Event

Friday, October 9, 2009

Washington, DC

 

 

Good afternoon.  For the last several months, this administration has been working with Congress to reform an outdated system of financial regulations and lax oversight that helped lead to last year’s crisis.  And I want to thank Chairman Chris Dodd, Chairman Barney Frank, and Senator Richard Shelby for the leadership and enthusiasm they’ve shown throughout this process.  

 

Part of our reform effort involves putting in place new safeguards that would help prevent the irresponsibility and recklessness of a few from wreaking havoc on our entire financial system.  We want to close gaps in regulation, eliminate overlap, and set rules of the road for Wall Street that make fair dealing and honest competition the only way for financial firms to win and prosper. 

 

But a central part of our reform effort is also aimed at protecting Americans who buy financial products and services every day – from mortgages to credit cards.  It’s true that the crisis we faced was caused in part by people who took on too much debt and took out loans they couldn’t afford.  But my concern are the millions of Americans who behaved responsibly and yet still found themselves in jeopardy because of the predatory practices of some in the financial industry.  These are folks who signed contracts they didn’t always understand offered by lenders who didn’t always tell the truth.  They were lured in by promises of low payments, and never made aware of the fine print and hidden fees. 

 

Secretary Geithner and I just finished meeting with some of these Americans who’ve joined us here today.  You already heard from Patricia, who was forced to pay thousands of dollars in interest on a $550 payday loan.  We also heard from Susan Chapman, who had excellent payment history until she was contacted by a broker who told her that she could lower the monthly payments on her mortgage.  Instead, the loan they sold her ended up increasing her debt, and her principal has now gone up $20,000. 

 

We talked with Karen Cappuccio [cap-PU-chee-o], who is still fending off foreclosure because her mortgage company duped her into taking out two expensive loans when they had originally promised her one low, fixed rate mortgage.  We talked with Maxine Given, whose bank hit her with four separate overdraft charges because of one mortgage check that they ended up rejecting the very next day.  And we talked with Andrew Giordano, whose bank made a mistake that cost him over $800 in overdraft fees.  And when he caught their mistake, the bank only refunded part of the fees. 

 

As we’ve seen over the last year, abuses like these don’t just jeopardize the financial well-being of individual Americans – they can threaten the stability of the entire economy.  And yet, the patchwork system of regulations we have now has failed to prevent these abuses.  With seven different federal agencies each having a role, there is too little accountability, too many loopholes, and no single agency whose sole job it is to stand up for people like Patricia, Susan, Maxine, Andrew and Karen – no one whose chief responsibility it is stand up for the American consumer and for responsible banks and financial institutions. 

 

Under the reforms we’ve proposed, that will change.  The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency that I have asked Congress to create will have just one mission:  to look out for the financial interests of ordinary Americans.  It will be charged with setting clear rules of the road for consumers and banks, and it will be able to enforce these rules across the board. 

 

This agency will have the power to make certain that consumers get information that is clear and concise – in plain language – so they can compare products and know exactly what they’re getting into.  It will ensure that banks and other firms cannot hide behind those ridiculously confusing contracts – pages of fine print that no one can figure out.  It will have the ability to enforce and build on the credit card reforms we passed earlier this year, so that consumers aren’t hit with unfair rate hikes, penalties, or hidden charges.  It will require brokers to look out for the interests of families if they give advice about mortgages.  And it will ensure transparency and fair-dealing for other financial products, like bank overdraft services and payday loans. 

 

In a financial system that has never been more complicated, it has never been more important to have a watchdog function like the one we’ve proposed.  And yet, predictably, a lot of the banks and big financial firms don’t like the idea of a consumer agency very much.  In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending millions on an ad campaign to kill it.  You might have seen some of these ads – the ones that claim local butchers and other small businesses will somehow be harmed by this agency.  This, of course, is completely false – and we’ve made clear that only businesses that offer financial services would be affected by this agency.

 

Contrary to what some have argued, this agency would not restrict consumer choice and innovation.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In the past, a lack of clear rules led to innovation of the wrong kind:  the firms that did best were the ones that did the best job of hiding the real costs to consumers.  By contrast, the consumer agency we’re proposing would set ground rules so that firms don’t have to compete to confuse families, but to give them better choices.  This will also help small business entrepreneurs who often rely on credit cards and home equity loans to finance their start-ups.    

 

But all this hasn’t stopped the big financial firms and their lobbyists from mobilizing against change.  They’re doing what they always do – descending on Congress and using every bit of influence they have to maintain a status quo that has maximized their profits at the expense of American consumers.  And since they’re worried they may not be able to kill this agency, they’re trying their hardest to weaken it – by asking for exemptions from this agency’s rules and enforcement; by fighting to keep open every gap and loophole they can find.   And they’re very good at this, because that’s how business has been done in Washington for a very long time.  In fact, over the last ten years, the Chamber of Commerce alone spent nearly half a billion dollars on lobbying – half a billion dollars.   

 

Well the stories we heard today remind us that the American people cannot afford business-as-usual any longer.  These Americans cannot afford high-priced lobbyists to argue their case.  They are counting on us to be their advocate; to be their voice; to restore a sense of responsibility from Wall Street to Washington.  That’s why we need a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that will stand up not for big banks and financial firms, but for hardworking Americans.  That’s why we need regulatory reform that will reward innovation and competition instead of short-cuts and abuse.  And that’s why we cannot let the special interests win this fight. 

 

We have already seen and lived the consequences of what happens when there is too little accountability on Wall Street and too little protection for Main Street, and I will not allow this country to go back there.  It is time to move forward.  It is time for real change.  And I am confident we will get it done.  Thank you.

BACKGROUND ON THE PRESIDENT’S MEETING AND EVENT ON REGULATORY REFORM TODAY

 

The President will meet in the Roosevelt Room with five Americans who represent the millions from across the country who have been hurt by the outdated rules regulating the financial sector. He will deliver brief prepared remarks in the East Room calling on Americans to stand up to the opponents of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) and urging Congress to act quickly in passing a regulatory reform package by the end of the year. The audience will be composed of approximately 150 members of Congress, state attorneys general, business leaders, regulators, representatives from consumer agencies and community leaders.

 

Below are the bios of the five Americans the President will meet with before the event.  Patricia Nelson will introduce the President in the East Room.

 

1) Karen Cappuccio (Hellertown, PA)

 

Karen Cappuccio (age 31) is a Transportation Security Association supervisor at Lehigh Valley Airport.  When she refinanced in November 2006, the broker promised her a low fixed rate loan but instead gave her two more expensive loans-a large adjustable rate first loan and a second smaller loan.  Her lender altered her asset and income information.  These techniques were often used by brokers to qualify borrowers for higher loan amounts than they could otherwise qualify for.

 

The broker subjected her to a late-night closing and did not give her the closing documents at the time of closing.  She sued and won a jury verdict for violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. 

 

The CFPA would have the mandate to design clear and simple mortgage disclosures so that borrowers can know exactly what loans they are getting.  The CFPA could also restrict coercive sales tactics.

 

2) Susan Chapman (Staten Island, NY)

 

Susan Chapman (age 52) had an excellent payment history until she was contacted by a mortgage broker who promised to lower her monthly payments by $400 by refinancing.  Though she explicitly told him that she did not want an interest-only loan, she nonetheless received an Option ARM that has raised her principal balance by $20,000.

 

The CFPA would have the mandate to require mortgage disclosures that are clear and simple and highlight key risks so people have the information they need to make sound financial decisions.  The Agency could also require mortgage brokers take reasonable care with the advice they give and the loans they offer and for the lender make sure the borrower can afford the higher Option ARM payments when the loan starts paying down the increased principal balance.

 

3) Andrew Giordano (Locust Point, MD)

 

Andrew Giordano (age 61) is a retired Baltimore police officer and Vietnam veteran who manages a fitness center for seniors. As a wounded veteran, he receives a monthly government check of $123, which he keeps in a separate “veteran’s account”-not his primary checking account.    Last summer, he lost the ATM card for the veteran’s account and called his bank to cancel it and order a new one.

To avoid mixing up his cards, he had used a card with a special logo on it and he requested the same logo on his replacement card.  Instead, the bank sent him a plain bank debit card, which he thought was for his primary account.  For the next two weeks, he used the plain card for regular expenses and quickly overdrew the small amount that was typically in his veteran’s account. 

 

The bank had automatically enrolled him in “overdraft protection” even though he had never asked for this service on his veteran’s account. Further, he did not learn about the overdrafts until his next statement, so the account ended up $1,400 in the red, with $814 of that due to 22 overdraft fees of $37 each.  When he discovered the bank’s error and explained the situation, the bank was only willing to refund part of the fees. 

 

The CFPA would be able to set clear rules on disclosure of overdraft fees and give consumers a real choice as to whether to join expensive overdraft programs.

 

4) Maxine Given (Baltimore, MD)

 

Maxine Given (age 44) was charged $148 in overdraft fees in April 2008.  Most of the fees resulted from her bank’s reordering of her withdrawals that took place on the same day from largest to smallest (instead of chronological order).  The overdraft was caused by a mortgage check that the bank rejected the very next day.  This caused a cascade of $37 overdraft fees on three purchases from the same day, including a $37 fee based on $12.08 debit charge for lunch.  She even tried to transfer money from savings, but the transfer was counted too late.

 

The CFPA would be able to give consumers a real choice as to whether to join expensive overdraft programs.

 

5) Patricia Nelson (Waukesha, WI)

 

Patricia Nelson (age 64) is a retired nursing home aid. Her only income is a $783 monthly disability check.  In December 2007, because she had developed health problems, she borrowed $550 from payday lenders to pay to move closer to her daughters.  She could barely afford the monthly interest payments and rolled the loans over 22 times.  She had paid over $2,700 in interest and not one penny towards the principal when a “good Samaritan” paid off the loans.

 

The CFPA would be able to design clear disclosures of the costs of payday loans and stop abusive payday practices.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON WINNING THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

 

Rose Garden

 

11:16 A.M. EDT

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning.  After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, “Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo’s birthday!”  And then Sasha added, “Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up.”  So it’s good to have kids to keep things in perspective.

 

     I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.  Let me be clear:  I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. 

 

     To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

 

     But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build — a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.  And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.  And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

    

These challenges can’t be met by any one leader or any one nation.  And that’s why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.  We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people.  And that’s why we’ve begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.

 

We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children — sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities.  And that’s why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.

 

We can’t allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another, and that’s why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.

 

And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years, and that effort must include an unwavering commitment that finally realizes that the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.

 

We can’t accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for — the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won’t have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.

 

     And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today.  I am the Commander-in-Chief of a country that’s responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies.  I’m also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work.  These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people. 

 

     Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency.  Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime.  But I know these challenges can be met so long as it’s recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.  This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration — it’s about the courageous efforts of people around the world. 

 

     And that’s why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity — for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace. 

 

     That has always been the cause of America.  That’s why the world has always looked to America.  And that’s why I believe America will continue to lead.

 

     Thank you very much.

President Barack Obama was awakened this morning around 6am and told that he is the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee announced that the President received the award “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

President Obama will make an official statement this morning at 10:30am in the Rose Garden.

PRESS BRIEFING

BY

PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

 

 

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

 

 

2:26 P.M. EDT

 

     MR. GIBBS:  One quick series of announcements before we get going.  I want to walk you through just a scheduling thing for the middle of November.

 

     The President, as you know, will be traveling to Asia next month to strengthen our cooperation with this vital part of the world on a range of issues of mutual interest.  The President will begin his trip in Tokyo, Japan, on November 12th and 13th.  We leave here on the 11th.

 

     The President’s visit will provide an opportunity to deepen coordination with this key ally on a range of economic, security and other issues.  The President will meet for a second time with the Japanese Prime Minister.

 

     The President will travel from Japan to Singapore for the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation — APEC — meeting from November 13th to 15th.  APEC is an important forum that brings together the economies of the Pacific Rim, and Singapore is an important partner on a range of regional and global issues.  He will meet with leaders from the APEC member economies and business leaders from the Asian Pacific region.  We’ll also take the opportunity to hold bilateral meetings with leaders from Singapore and other partners.  The President will hold his first-ever meeting between a U.S. President and leaders of the 10 Southeast Asian nations that make up the ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

 

     The President will then travel to China where he will visit Beijing and Shanghai from November 15th through the 18th.  The President will hold his third bilateral meeting with President Hu Jintao to discuss ways to address challenges and expand cooperation on key bilateral regional and global issues, including security, nonproliferation, energy and climate change.

 

     Finally, the President will visit Seoul, South Korea on November 18th through the 19th.  This visit will provide an opportunity to hold his third bilateral meeting with President Lee and consult on North Korea to coordinate on a range of regional and global issues and to further strengthen the U.S.-Korean alliance.  The President also looks forward to meeting with U.S. servicemen and women stationed in Korea.

 

     Lastly, let me raise the issue of Indonesia.  President Obama met with the Indonesian President briefly at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh and discussed the President’s intention to visit Indonesia.  They agreed on the importance of having a visit that would showcase the importance of a growing U.S.-Indonesian bilateral relations.  After reviewing the possibilities they agreed the best time for such a visit would be sometime next year at a date to be mutually determined by each side.

 

     So that is –

 

Q    When does he get back?

 

MR. GIBBS:  What is the — I can’t remember if it’s the 19th or the 20th.  Let me check on that.

 

     Q    A question on that, Robert?  On the Japan trip, specifically, is there any possibility of the President considering a trip to Hiroshima or Nagasaki –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  That’s all the guidance I have thus far, so I don’t have anything past that.  But we’ll, as we get closer, fill in some of the blanks.

 

     Yes, ma’am.

 

     Q    On this meeting this afternoon, focused on Pakistan, as you said.  In public statements, the administration has focused a lot on being encouraged that Pakistan has shown more cooperation this year on fighting extremists inside its borders.  But also you’ve seen some signs too that there is still very much controversy.  For example, today there was –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry, say the last part one more time.

 

     Q    Signs that there is difficulty and controversy within Pakistan about doing that, and some of that has emerged today with comments by Pakistan’s military and others about this aid bill.  And I’m wondering how much that side of the debate, that side of the challenge of Pakistan, is on the agenda today.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think all aspects of our posture and policy toward Pakistan and its link to Afghanistan and the regional conflict that we’re dealing with — I think, as you mentioned, as we talked about in a readout of the meeting — the most previous meeting in the Situation Room, one of the things that we spent a lot of time discussing was the increase in cooperation that we’ve received from the Pakistanis, their much greater willingness to engage extremists within their own country, and the progress that we were making.  Obviously I think these topics that you mentioned, I think there’s a — Congress has passed the Kerry-Lugar authorization for Pakistani assistance, which the President will sign quite — very shortly.

    

     Q    (Inaudible.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  We posted the bill online.  I don’t know when the five-day period that we’ve talked about expires, but the President — whenever that is, the President will sign that legislation.  But I expect that that will — all of these topics will be discussed there.

 

     Q    And what’s the — can you give us some details?  We know the folks who are going to be in there because you guys put that out.  How long is it supposed to be?  What sort of –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  It’s a three-hour meeting that starts at 3:30 p.m. and I would expect it to — I don’t expect it to go shorter than three hours.  So it’s scheduled for 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., but could last a little longer than that.

 

     Q    The Pentagon says the President now has McChrystal’s troop request.  Can you tell us anything more about his time frame for making a decision on that?

    

     MR. GIBBS:  The President received from Secretary Gates General McChrystal’s resource request last Thursday afternoon prior to traveling to Copenhagen.  So he’s had it for a number of days.  I think as the President talked in the members meeting yesterday and as we’ve discussed with you, we’re going to go through this process of evaluating the goals and the strategy and at that point — at a point after that, we’ll get to discussing resources.

 

     Q    Can you tell us what the request was for?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No.

 

     Q    Did you tell Bob Woodward?  (Laughter.)

 

     Q    A question about the meeting –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Wasn’t me, my friend.

 

     Q    — that the President had today on the economy with Pelosi and Reid.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry, say that again.

 

     Q    The meeting on the economy with Pelosi and Reid.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I admit — they met obviously in the Oval Office.  I have not talked to the President about the topic or what was discussed there.

 

     Q    Okay.  The way the meeting has been described to us by people on the Hill, they say that the meeting was called to discuss ways to stimulate the economy.  And you’ve been steering us away from the idea that a stimulus is under consideration, a second stimulus.  I’m just wondering how that squares –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Let me talk to folks that were in the meeting and talk with the President and get a little bit better read on what the meeting was about.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    Yesterday Senator McCain, after he came out from that meeting, talked about Afghanistan being a big test for the President –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  It’s a big test for the country.

 

     Q    So does the President — does the administration agree with that assessment — a test for the President?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, first of all, let’s understand and acknowledge that today marks the eighth year of our country’s involvement militarily with Afghanistan.  I think we’re all forever indebted to the men and women that have served in that country, some of whom have paid the ultimate sacrifice.  This is not a test for one person, this is not a test for one entity.  This is a test for our country to adequately address and correctly address the extremist threat that emanates from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

     It’s one the President takes seriously and one the President is going to use his time to get right.  You have heard Secretary Gates say this, other said this in the meeting yesterday — that until the President’s review of this early in the administration there hadn’t been a strategy, a coordinated strategy to deal with Afghanistan and this very dangerous region of the world for many, many years.  And that’s what the President is intent on getting right.

 

     Q    This summer the President had dinner with some historians, and one of them said that he told the President that “War kills off great reform movements.”  How concerned is the administration that perhaps Afghanistan could overshadow some of the other key things that this administration is trying to do — health care, energy reform?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know whether the quote is accurate, I wasn’t at the dinner.

 

     Q    But to the point of war overshadowing — Afghanistan overshadowing all of these other critical things that the –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think this President understands quite keenly that he was elected to address whatever problems, foreign and domestic, confronted this country.  When we assumed office a few months ago we were involved, and still are, in two wars.  We face a very challenging economy that at one point obviously was at the brink of sliding into a second depression.  Each and every day we deal with things here that challenge our country and call on us to — call on us to seek better solutions than we have in the past, and that’s what our charge is.

 

     I don’t — I think there’s so much going on and there’s so much, again, foreign and domestic, that I don’t — I don’t believe anything will overshadow — I don’t think one particular thing will overshadow the complexity of all the problems that have to be dealt with.

 

     Q    Robert, yesterday in his speech the President said that because of our efforts, al Qaeda and its allies have lost operational capability.  What did he mean by that?  Does he mean that they’ve lost — or capacity, rather — does he mean that they’ve lost the capacity to strike?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’m not going to get into discussing intelligence, but I think we have, as I was talking about with Jennifer, made through cooperation with the Pakistanis great progress in dealing with and downgrading and degrading al Qaeda.  But I’m not going to get much further into intelligence matters.

 

     Q    And the other question I think all of us want to know:  Are they going to discuss those numbers today at all in this meeting?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I doubt it.  But I’ll have a better sense, obviously, when the meeting is over, but that’s — not that I’m aware of that’s on the docket today.

 

     Q    Apparently Taliban officials issued a statement today on the eighth anniversary, saying that they did not then and they still have no agenda to harm other countries.  Some are interpreting that as separating themselves from al Qaeda and arguing that they present no danger to the United States.  Do you expect that, the issue of the separation between al Qaeda and Taliban, to be a major topic of conversation today?  And what’s the framework for that debate?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think the — likely the conversation will continue to discuss the threats that are posed by a myriad of groups in this region, the operational capabilities of each.  And as the President talked about yesterday, his primary focus is on groups and their allies that can strike our homeland, strike our allies, or groups who would provide safe haven for those that wish to do that.

 

     Q    Do you expect different players here to be arguing for their points of view?  For example, will Joe — do you expect Vice President Biden to be arguing in favor of a more counterterrorism-heavy approach?  Do you expect the generals to be arguing for their –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  You know, this may not be good TV, but there really weren’t any arguments in the last three-hour meeting.  There was a larger discussion of where we are and what we need to do going forward.  So I can’t predict who’s going to yell at who.

 

     Q    I’m not talking about yelling, I just mean forcefully stating, just as McChrystal did in his London speech.  Is he taking that kind of — do you expect the generals to take that kind of approach and say, this is what we need to do?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Again, I don’t expect that we’ll get into resource requests today.  I think we’ll get into a firm analysis of where we are in Pakistan, the steps that have been taken by the Pakistani government through greater cooperation, but obviously steps that — and progress that has to continue to happen in order to continue to confront extremists in their country.

 

     Q    I’m just trying to get a little better sense of the tone in the room.  I mean, some people will see this as kind of — you know, the President is there as kind of a judge and a jury, and you’ve got two different sides or however many different sides making their arguments, and then it’s up to him to decide who’s right.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think you’re thinking of that great movie version of Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird,” but I don’t quite see the movie setting that you’ve described.  Last time there were, as I said, 17 people in addition to the President spoke.  I don’t think — nobody raised their voice.  Nobody — there was just a sort of calm discussion about where we are.  I expect that that will continue today.

 

     Q    But is it clear in the room that there are serious disagreements on how to go about this?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Not that I saw last week.  But, again, we’re in a process of going through this fairly systematically.  I should have mentioned this the other day, I was — I think everybody is waiting for people to walk out of a room and give everybody a number and that that’s the only debate we’re having, though I was struck when we were having this discussion earlier in the week and the question focused on the partnership, the willing partnership of the Afghans.  And I thought to myself, well, if you look at some of what’s — the coverage of what’s going on, there’s no discussion about the complexity of the problem, the multi-layered aspects of it, and that’s what we’re digging into.

 

     This is a longer conversation that will — each of the meetings this week is scheduled for three hours.  It’s a complex problem that doesn’t have a simple one-sentence answer.

 

     Q    Next week’s meeting — do you know yet what day that’s going to be?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t, but we will — I will check on that.

 

     Q    And that is not necessarily the last meeting?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Not necessarily.  I don’t know — I’ll check with scheduling and see what other — I don’t know how far out, honestly, they’ve scheduled stuff.

 

     Q    And it’s still several weeks before he makes a decision?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

 

     Q    You make a — (laughter) –

 

     Q    I have no –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  There’s nothing left, right? 

 

     Q    When do you expect the discussion to turn to troop levels?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  It could happen as early as Friday, it could be next week; I don’t know.

 

     Q    When the President announces a strategy — which I presume is still a matter of weeks, correct?  Will he announce the troop levels at that same time, or will there be an additional period of time –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t think we’ve gotten that far down the road yet.

 

     Q    As you look at the strategy, is it somewhat artificial to take the resources question out of the discussion?  In other words, as you abandon strategies it seems inherent in that, that you would say, this requires X amount of resources, this is what it would take –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think one has to develop and get the strategy before one can figure out the resources one needs to get it.

 

     Now, again, inherent in what I just said was we’re not — we’re not prejudging the outcome of the discussion based on some range of resource requests.  I think we’ve done and we’ve all seen what happens when you prejudge what’s going to happen, dedicate a certain number of troops — and then come up with a strategy.  That doesn’t tend to have been successful in military history.

 

     Q    But talking about strategy totally unmoored to questions of resources sounds a little academic.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t think that’s — I don’t think it’s academic at all.  I think you — one has to get a strategy that works.  One has to get a strategy that has the confidence of all of those involved.  At that point you discuss the resources that are needed to implement that strategy.

 

But the President is very content not to do this backwards, not to pick a number of troops and then divine a strategy; but instead to go through this in a rigorous way, through an assessment — like he did in March, that had an additional 21,000 troops going to a region to stabilize the country in preparation for an important election, and then at that point we would reassess where we were.

 

     Q    The final thing, as the President goes through this deliberative process — and I know he wants to take his time — is he concerned about the message that is sent to U.S. troops when the talk is getting the strategy right?  I mean, inherent in that is that there’s either no strategy right now or that this is a flawed strategy that they’re executing and frankly fighting and dying for.  Is he concerned about that perception?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Look, again, I think what’s important to note is — as was noted again in the meeting yesterday — that there was a three-month process whereby President Bush went through the same –

 

     Q    I know he’s not comparing himself to President Bush –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, no, I’m simply providing for you some historical context about the evaluations, assessments and ultimately the resource decisions that one makes in order to follow a strategy.

 

     Q    Is that how he measures what he should do?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, the President is going to do this in a way that’s deliberative.  I’m simply pointing out that some people that say that — I don’t — I guess I don’t recall some people saying that a few years ago when a different Commander-in-Chief — but maybe — maybe I missed that –

 

     Q    I’m just asking — as opposed to what happened in the past, what message he wants the troops to have about this process –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  We want to get this right; that once and for all, after eight years, we’re going to get — we’re going to get a strategy that — and understand this, this is — a good portion of the discussion today is going to also involve what has to happen at a civilian level — obviously that includes the governmental level — and what has to happen at a diplomatic level.  That’s why two of the participants — two of the participants last week from the region were Ambassador Eikenberry and our ambassador from Islamabad, along with Susan Rice.

 

     It’s not just a military question.  It has to be looked at and focused on, on a number of different areas at a number of different levels.  And that’s what the President is intent on doing.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    Robert, could you provide a readout, please, on the meeting with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid with the President on jobs and the economy?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes, I just a minute ago said that I had not had a chance to talk to the President about that.  So I won’t do the “Jeopardy!” version of this and guess before I know.

 

     Q    Robert, did yesterday’s meeting with congressional leaders give the President the feeling that there is a political component to his decision on a new strategy?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, I think the President valued hearing from experts in Congress representing military, representing intelligence, representing the appropriations process.  I think most of the participants mentioned that this was a — that they understood that this was a important decision for the country.  And they went through different aspects.  The President I think spent most of his time listening to, in about an hour-and-15-minute meeting, listening to the thoughts that different participants had.  I think 18 different people spoke in addition to the President and the Vice President in offering their ideas and their assessments at where we were in each aspect of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

     Q    Do you expect the President to hear from President Zardari and Karzai at some point?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, we’re in fairly regular contact with them and their government, so I assume that certainly they’ll be part of the process.

 

     Yes, ma’am.

 

     Q    The meeting with Reid and Pelosi, not asking what happened, but how did it come about?  Was it requested by the White House?  Was it requested by –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I still don’t know the answer to the meeting.

 

     Q    Was it on the schedule yesterday or was it the last-minute –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I believe it was, but I’d have to check.  I did not look at the President’s schedule yesterday.

 

     Q    Okay.  And also, could you — is there any sense of urgency among meetings with the President and his advisors right now about the need to look at other ways to spur job growth?  Is that sense of urgency the same now as it was a month or two ago?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think the — the urgency in getting our economy moving again now is the same urgency that, quite frankly, the economic team had the first day we walked in here and, quite frankly, started in the transition in a number of meetings in Chicago, understanding, again, the depth of where we’d been and what had to happen in order to get the economy moving again and creating jobs for the future.

 

     Q    But not just the economy, but specific to jobs, is there any heightened sense of urgency that this could be a jobless recovery?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Again, we — I don’t think you have — I don’t think you have to be at a meeting in the White House to understand the urgency with which we’ve seen job loss during this recession.  Again, the last positive month of job growth we had was the month prior to the official recording of the beginning of the recession I think back in December of 2007.  There’s been an urgency around that, quite frankly, around the campaign.

 

     Q    And The New York Times reported today that there’s been some traction for the idea of a tax credit for companies that increase their payrolls.  Can you talk about how that’s being considered?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No.  (Laughter.)  Thank you.

 

     Q    You’re welcome.

 

     Q    You have some Republican lawmakers saying for the President to fund, if you will, less than General McChrystal’s entire troop request would be a half measure and the worst of all possible outcomes.  What’s your reaction to that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I appreciate the opportunity to do hypotheticals.  I don’t see the need to do that at a point until a decision gets made.

 

     Q    What’s our relationship with the Karzai government right now?  Did we — did we recognize the election?  Is he –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  There, as I understand it, are still two committees investigating fraud — one internal in Afghanistan, an international committee that are still probably many days away or several days away from a determination.  Our position remains the same, and that is that we believe that every vote should be counted, we believe that fraud should be investigated vigorously and that those votes found to be fraudulent should be thrown out and not counted.

 

     Q    So what does that mean our position with his government is as of now?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, until the election is determined, he’s the leader of the country and we continue to work with him.

 

     Q    If I understand correctly, last Wednesday’s meeting the President began by saying, we’re not going to talk specifically about resources.  The next day he asked –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, no, no, no, he — the beginning of the meeting he dispensed with the notion that we were pulling out of or leaving Afghanistan.

 

     Q    No, not yesterday, last week’s –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, last week, too.

 

     Q    Okay.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  The President — we just haven’t gotten to the period or the point in which in these meetings we’ve discussed specific troops requests.

 

     Q    Okay.  The next day he asked for –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  He received from Secretary Gates –

 

     Q    But he requested it at some point, right, because it’s still working its way officially through the chain of command.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know when he requested it or — the assessment had at that point I believe had been delivered the previous week or so to Admiral Mullen, I think, who went to Europe to receive it.  I don’t have all these dates –

 

     Q    But why did he request it before it was officially up through the chain of command?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, it was handed to him by the Secretary of Defense, so I — that’s the top of the chain of command.

 

     Q    That he was going to hold onto that, though, until this process ended –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  And the President wanted to see it before then.

 

     Q    Can you tell us why?  It was on the eve of his meeting with General McChrystal the next day?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes.  I think he wanted to take a look at it.

 

     Q    And the debate that’s taking place in Pakistan today around the civilian aid package — are you concerned, is the White House concerned about the military in a country that over half of its 62 years has been under military rule, again asserting itself in this debate and saying it’s American meddling, you know, be skeptical of this?

 

MR. GIBBS:  No, obviously it demonstrates we’ve still got work to do.  But the President believes that this is an important initiative — again, understanding the parlance this is an authorization not an appropriation, so there is still progress that has to be made.  The President did mention yesterday that this was just an authorization and that if we’re going to deal with civilian capacity and diplomatic challenges in both Afghanistan and Pakistan then those that support the policy have to step up and support providing the resources in terms of this money, to ensure that that happens.

 

Q    Robert, looking ahead to the weekend, the President will speak to the Human Rights Campaign.  There is still considerable upset amongst some of the gay community over little progress on issues like reversing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which was a campaign promise.  And I also think domestic partner benefits.

 

MR. GIBBS:  That’s being worked on as we speak with OPM and through the administration.

 

Q    I guess what I want to ask you is what if anything will the President have to announce on Saturday night with respect to those two issues or any others, in terms of progress being made.

 

MR. GIBBS:  I have not seen a draft circulated of the speech as of yet.  But Sheryl, I can tell you, look, the President made commitments on those issues not just quite frankly in a presidential race but ran on some of those commitments in a Senate race.  They are commitments that are important to him and he is intent on making progress on those issues and is working with the Pentagon to ensure at least in “don’t ask, don’t tell” that we make progress on it.

 

     Q    And you said that the other issue, the domestic partner, is being worked on right now with OPM.  So at what — I mean, are you close to announcing a rule?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I can check with OPM.  I can check with OPM on that.

 

     Q    Yesterday after the congressional meeting Senator Reid said that everyone in the room said, we’re going to support you no matter which way you go, basically — and then Nancy Pelosi said, well, we’re going to reserve judgment to see what he sends up.  I’m wondering if the President feels confident that he’ll have the support he needs from his own party after he makes whatever decision –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think the President said in this meeting that whatever decision he makes is not likely to make everybody happy.  I think that’s probably safe to say on either end of the political spectrum.

 

     Q    Yes, but leaving some people unhappy is different than getting the support he needs from them.  I’m just wondering if he feels that even if there is some dissent he’ll still have the backing he needs from Democrats.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, he did mention that as many people in the room mentioned their support for his March decision to send more troops, he did mention quite specifically to members in the House that were in attendance in the meeting that he did not recall that the funding bill for that request — that he didn’t recall, I think he said, that slid through the House.

 

     So I definitely think — I don’t think this is a challenge or an onus just on one side of this.  I think — and I don’t want to prejudge what decisions are made, but obviously it would be a period of evaluation for all members.

 

     Q    Just one other question about the process.  You said earlier he wants to get a strategy that works and that everyone is confident in.  Does he — does he see his role in these meetings as getting — coming to kind of a consensus on a strategy, or just taking in all this different information and then making a decision on his own?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think, quite frankly, he’ll do some of each.  But I think obviously as he mentioned yesterday, this is the decision for him as Commander-in-Chief to make.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    I have two quick questions, or one quick question on Afghanistan and one slightly longer one.  Just the quick one would be, just to clarify, is the proper way to understand maybe a debate or conversation going on right now on Afghanistan, is it between counterinsurgency strategy or counterterrorism strategy?  Is that a correct way to think about this?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, the Vice President himself made the point yesterday that nobody was, including himself, was talking about exclusively a counterterrorism strategy, which in the parlance of military planners would be to extract large numbers of troops that are there; use primarily mechanics and special forces.  Nobody — the Vice President said nobody that he knows of, including himself, is advocating that.

 

     Q    That’s helpful.  I could go on, but I want to ask this other question as far as Afghanistan goes.  Steve Hadley made the point to me that when they were planning the surge in 2006, they had a long period of time in which that was a private process not open to the public’s knowledge and speculation; and that because this process that you guys are going through is public, it creates room for questioning allies, enemies are questioning resolve, troops are questioning the mission.  Was this process made public because of the leak of the McChrystal report?  Has there been any consideration that it might have been done more effectively in private?  I know that’s “would of” but –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I mean, yes, I mean — could of, would of, should of, I guess.  You know, I hate to parse the words of Secretary Gates on this.  I think he’s spoken clearly on this.  But this is a process whereby the President is going to make a decision that he thinks is in the best interest of this country regardless of how the process plays out or what people say along the way.  That’s the tough job he was hired to do.

 

     Q    Was your hand forced by the leak to do this publicly?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  You know, I don’t believe it was.  There were — leading up to the President’s assessment in March, there were stories in December in papers about how the President had already made decisions that he wouldn’t make until the end of March about sending troops to Afghanistan.  So we get how Washington does this and you just do what you have to do.

 

     Christi.

 

     Q    Robert, you said that the President didn’t want to do this backwards — pick a number and then adjust the strategy to fit it.  And then you said that the discussion might turn to troop levels on Friday, as early as Friday.  Is there some consensus emerging in the room about the strategy or has the President reached some conclusions about any aspect of the middle ground?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think we’re still in the process of working through this.  I don’t — if the President has come to a decision, he hasn’t told me.

 

     Q    Well, why would it move to troop levels if you haven’t gotten the strategy yet?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  A lot of people are working through a process.  I think the meeting on Friday would be the fourth meeting.

 

     Q    But you think it’s reached the point that it’s fleshed out enough that that’s –

    

     MR. GIBBS:  I think we’re getting there.  Again, this is — I’m saying this before six hours of meetings that have to take place in the next little over two days.

 

     Q    Can I just also follow up on one other thing you said, which was, could you — is there a consensus agreement that — on the necessity of promoting the willing partnership of the Afghan people?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Look, I –

 

     Q    Does that need to be improved, and does everyone agree on that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think so.  I think — again, there are aspects of this that do seem academic, and that is that you’re going to have this discussion without discussing both the civilian side and the diplomatic side.  Obviously this is multi-layered, multifaceted, and I think everybody would agree that an effective — any type of effective strategy has got to include a country that has the capability and the willingness to ultimately, at least in one instance, provide their own security.  We’re not going to be there forever.  There has to be a robust security force and police force that protects and keeps safe the Afghan people.  If there’s not, then there’s no amount of American or NATO forces that are ever going to fix that problem.  That’s one of the things that the President took into account as we — as he made decisions last March by trying to speed up the training of Afghan security forces.  And that clearly has to happen.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    Thanks, Robert.  It’s a question on health care, actually; two questions.  First, in a letter to senators last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that, quoting, “So far the health reform bills considered in the committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met the President’s challenge of barring the use of federal dollars for abortion.”  Is that statement wrong?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I don’t want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there’s a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn’t going to be changed in these health care bills.

 

     Q    There have been, though, several amendments that would explicitly bar abortions, that would therefore reject it, some of those amendments by Democrats –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Again, there’s a fairly well documented federal law that prevents it.

 

     Q    Thank you, Robert.  Three questions.  First, we’ve seen a lot of Republican names in the last week unveiled as being friendly, at least, to H.R. 3200 or the Gang of Six Senate bill on health care — Secretary Thompson, former majority leader Frist, and today Governor Schwarzenegger, albeit not a specific endorsement of a bill.  Do we expect any more Republican names coming out?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  My guess is yes.  I think you have a sense, at least from those individuals — I can’t really gather where Senator Frist is; somebody should ask him for an interview and see where he is today.

 

     Q    I’m working on it.  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  But if you look at former Governor and Secretary Thompson, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Schwarzenegger, I think you see an understanding from Republicans outside of the friendly confines of Washington to understand that the people they represent want this town to deal with a problem that they have not dealt with for decades, and that is health care reform, cutting costs, unburdening government of the tremendous cost that it bears each year, and ensuring quality, affordable, accessible health care for every American.  I think it’s interesting to watch those that live outside of this area and their viewpoint on this.

 

     Q    The other thing I wanted to know is that Philip Crowley, the spokesman at the State Department, made two recent reference to the inmates in Guantanamo as “refugees” in discussing other countries that might take them.  Senator Inhofe said today that that term was unacceptable because “refugees” is being used to describe people who are guilty of some pretty heinous crimes.  Are you aware of Mr. Crowley’s use of the term, and does the administration back it?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I will — for a minute there I didn’t know who Philip was, but I’ll see what PJ said on that and –

 

     Q    PJ.  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  — and try to find a — (laughter) — I was confused at first.

 

     April.

 

     Q    Could you tell me what the President’s thoughts about Charlie Rangel are, and the current controversy that’s now in — on the Hill after all of this ethics investigation?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I have not talked to the President about Congressman Rangel lately.  Obviously this is a process that’s going through the committee on the Hill, and is an appropriate place for that to be looked at.

 

     Q    But will you — but this is something integral, many people are saying, to the 2010 elections.  And this is someone that is a staunch Democrat, and this administration has to either stand by or denounce one way or the other.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I’m going to stand by the answer I just gave you.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    Robert, it seems that the President may have already — back to Afghanistan — may have already made some decisions, according to The New York Times.  He announced yesterday –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Oh, that paper?

 

     Q    That paper, I know.  I’m sorry, Sheryl.  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  She’s just playing BrickBreaker.

 

     Q    Not going to significantly reduce the troops.  He’d already decided against that.  He’d already decided against this total counterterrorism strategy.  So isn’t it safe to –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, I — in terms of the counterterrorism, I think that what the Vice President said at yesterday’s meeting was nobody had advocated, including him, a strictly counterterrorism strategy.

 

     Q    But couldn’t you conclude from that that he’s already decided he’s going to send more troops, it’s just a matter of deciding how many?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Nobody said that in these meetings, and the President hasn’t decided –

 

     Q    What’s the other option?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  There are a whole myriad of options that are being evaluated by the national security team, and we’ll do those in these meetings.

 

     Yes.

 

     Q    I wanted to ask about “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  What is the status of that?  In domestic partnerships they’re reaching some sort of conclusion there.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry, you –

 

     Q    “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Right.

 

     Q    What’s the status of that?  Where — and has the President responded to Leader Reid’s letter saying that he wants to move forward, faster?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I can go — I have not seen Leader Reid’s letter.  The last guidance I have is that the President is working with and has had meetings with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen about this issue.  It’s something very important to him and he doesn’t think that the current ban makes a lot of sense.

 

     Q    Thank you, Robert.

 

     Q    Just to piggyback on one earlier question.  You talked about how Republicans outside the confines of Washington seem to be backing health care reform but not inside.  Why aren’t they backing it inside Washington?  Is it pressure from within the party?  Is it being out of touch?  Can you divine the motive?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’m ill-suited to speak for those — that group.

 

     Q    If you’re ill-suited, one follow-up question.  Attorney General Holder said yesterday that he was concerned with the opposition to closing Guantanamo, and specifically to transferring prisoners from the facility to domestic facilities in the United States.  What are you doing — what is the White House doing differently to convey that this is an important issue for the President and to convince Republican lawmakers to drop their opposition?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, folks here will work with Congress and in some short order discuss with them plans and progress that we think has been made to meet the President’s goal of closing Guantanamo Bay.  The President believes, Attorney General Holder believes, that — Secretary of Defense Bob Gates believe that this is important for our national security and our image around the world.  The President, as you know, signed the executive order and we’ve made progress and continue to work through a number of issues that have to be done in order to close the facility.

 

     Yes.

 

     Q    To follow on the Pelosi/Reid meeting, will you provide a readout when you do get briefed on that?

    

     MR. GIBBS:  Unclear.  I don’t know.  I need to go see what it was all about.

 

     Q    And also, you said there’s no greater sense of urgency.  There are a lot of people on the Hill that believe this meeting was added to the schedule because Republicans were starting to score points in the wake of the jobs report last week.  Is there any sense of political vulnerability?

 

     Q    How many points?  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I haven’t seen that argument, but it sounds somewhat silly to me.

 

     Thanks, guys.

 

     Q    Thank you, Robert.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT THE NATIONAL MEDAL OF SCIENCE AND

NATIONAL MEDAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION CEREMONY

 

East Room

 

1:52 P.M. EDT

    

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  Everyone please have a seat.  Before I begin the ceremony to introduce these extraordinary innovators, let me just mention a few people who are in the audience today.  First of all, we’ve got some outstanding members of my Cabinet:  Secretary Locke, Secretary Sebelius, Secretary Chu, and Administrator Jackson.  We are very grateful for all the outstanding work they’re doing. 

 

We’ve got some wonderful partners in Congress that I want to mention:  Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon; Senator Jim Risch of Idaho; Senator — Representative Rush Holt.  Rush, I almost gave you a promotion there — (laughter) — or a demotion, depending on how you look at it — (laughter) — of New Jersey; Representative Anna Eshoo of California; and Representative Zoe Lofgren of California.  I also want to mention my science advisor who is doing outstanding work, Dr. Holdren is here, as well as NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.  And we want to thank some of the people who helped to organize today’s event — the National Science Foundation and its director, Arden Bement; the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and its director, Dave Kappos; and Linda Katehi, the chair of the National Medals of Science and Technology and Innovation Committee.  So give all of them a big round of applause.  (Applause.)

 

Now, it’s also a real pleasure to have so many distinguished researchers and innovators joining us, although I must admit that I have an ulterior motive for presenting these awards today.  You see, Sasha has a science fair coming up.  (Applause.)  And I was thinking that you guys could give us a few tips.  (Laughter.)  Michelle and I are a little rusty on our science.  (Laughter.)

 

In all seriousness, it is a privilege to present these medals, our nation’s highest honor for scientific and technological achievement, to the folks who’ve come here today from all parts of our country and all areas of scientific investigation.  The scientists in this room have plumbed the furthest reaches of the universe and the deepest recesses of the human mind; they’ve sequenced the human genome and stimulated the workings of the atom; they’ve developed technologies that have greatly improved our understanding of the human body and the natural world; and they’ve fostered innovations that have saved millions of lives and improved countless more.

 

So this nation owes all of you an enormous debt of gratitude far greater than any medal can bestow.  And we recognize your contributions, but we also celebrate the incredible contributions of the scientific endeavor itself.  We see the promise — not just for our economy but for our health and well-being — in the human capacity for creativity and ingenuity.  And we are reminded of the power of free and open inquiry, which is not only at the heart of all of your work, but at the heart of this experiment we call America.

 

Because throughout our history, amid tumult and war and against tough odds, this nation has always looked toward the future and then led the way.  It was during the darkest days of the Civil War that President Lincoln established the land grant colleges and the National Academy of Science.  It was during World War II that President Roosevelt requested that Vannevar Bush — his science advisor and a future recipient of the National Medal of Science — outline a set of policies to maintain our scientific and technological leadership in the 20th century.

 

And it was in the years that followed the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth, that the United States would create DARPA, NASA, and the National Defense Education Act, which helped improve math and science education from grade school to graduate school.  In fact, the National Medal itself was established just two years after that launch, as a sign to the world and to ourselves of how highly we valued the work of the nation’s scientists.

 

Today, we face more complex challenges than generations past.  A medical system that holds the promise of unlocking new cures — attached to a health care system that has the potential to bankrupt families and businesses.  A system of energy that powers our economy but endangers our planet.  Threats to our security that seek to exploit the very interconnectedness and openness that’s so essential to our prosperity.  And challenges in a global marketplace which link the trader on Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street, and the office worker in America to the factory worker in China — we all share an opportunity, but we also all share in crisis.

 

At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we can’t afford to invest in science, that it’s a luxury at a moment defined by necessities.  I could not disagree more.  Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, and our health, and our way of life than it has ever been.  And the winners we are recognizing only underscore that point, with achievements in physics and medicine, computer science and cognitive science, energy technology and biotechnology.  We need to ensure that we are encouraging the next generation of discoveries — and the next generation of discoverers. 

 

That’s why my administration has set this goal:  by investing in education, funding basic and applied research, and spurring private innovation, we will devote 3 percent of our gross domestic product to research and development.  That’s more than at any point in recent history.  (Applause.)

 

And as part of this effort, we’re putting in place policies that will move us from the middle to the top of the pack in math and science education over the next decade.  We are challenging states to dramatically improve achievement by raising standards, by improving the use of technology, and by making it possible for professionals like our honorees to bring a lifetime of experience and enthusiasm into the classroom.  And we’ve also launched a Race to the Top fund to encourage states to compete for the most innovative programs in math and science, as part of a broader effort to foster new ways of engaging young people in these fields. 

 

The White House is participating, too.  Tonight, in fact, we’re bringing children to the South Lawn for a night of astronomy.  I am really looking forward to this.  (Laughter.)  This is going to be fun.  They’ll peer through telescopes, wander through exhibits, and hopefully feel a sense of wonder that might one day lead them here to receive a medal themselves.

 

And my administration has set another goal to compete for the jobs of the future and to encourage the scientists and engineers of the future.  By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.  We used to be number one.  We have fallen behind.  We are going to regain our position.  (Applause.)

 

To meet this goal, we’ve increased the Pell Grant and passed legislation through the House — which we’re working to pass through the Senate — to end more than $80 billion in wasteful subsidies to lenders and use that money instead to help students.

 

Beyond the classroom, the Recovery Act that we passed is funding the largest single boost to biomedical research in history.  My budget makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent to help companies afford the often high cost of innovation.  I’ve proposed eliminating the capital gains tax for investments in startups and small companies — because countless big ideas begin in small businesses.  And we are doubling our capacity in renewable energy, even as we seek to create a system of incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

 

For at our best, this nation has never feared the future.  We’ve shaped the future.  Even when we’ve endured terrible storms, we haven’t given up or turned back — we’ve remain fixed on that brighter horizon.  That’s how we’ve led in the pursuit of scientific discovery; and in turn that’s how science has helped us lead the world.

 

There’s no better illustration than what took place at the close of World War II, when the United States transported dozens of captured V-2 rockets from Germany to New Mexico.  These were among the most sophisticated weapons in the world, a reminder that much of World War II was fought far from the battlefield — by Alan Turing in Bletchley Park, and Oppenheimer in Los Alamos, and by countless others who developed radar and aircraft and antibiotics.

 

The military wanted to understand this new missile technology that the V-2 represented; but scientists were also invited to use these tests to take measurements of the atmosphere.  And then one engineer had an idea:  to rig a camera and attach it to one of the rockets.  And so in this brief moment between the end of a world war and the start of a cold war, a group of scientists erupted with joy as they discovered that they had captured the very first photos of our world as seen from space.  Their work would continue as the Rocket and Satellite Research Panel.  And after the launch of Sputnik in 1957, the work of this panel would be assumed by a new agency, called NASA.  The research into these weapons of war would lead to the missions of Mercury and Gemini and Apollo.

 

That’s the incredible promise of the work scientists do every day — like the scientists, researchers, and engineers, and innovators we honor with these medals.  Yes, scientific progress offers us a chance to achieve prosperity and defend our nation.  It has offered us benefits that have improved our lives and our health — improvements that we often take for granted.  But it also gives us something more.  At root, science forces us to reckon with the truth as best as we can ascertain it, and to reckon with the power that comes from this knowledge — for good and for ill.  With each new discovery brings new responsibility to move past our differences and to address our shared problems; to embrace a sense of wonder, and our common humanity.

 

Carl Sagan, who helped broaden the reach of science to millions of people, once described his enthusiasm for discovery in very simple terms.  He said, “Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”  (Laughter.)  Thank you all for the incredible discoveries that you have made, the progress you’ve invented, and the benefits you’ve bestowed on the American people and the world.

 

So it is now my honor to ask the recipients to come forward to receive their medals, and as their citations are read I will — you’ll just have to bend down a little bit — (laughter) — and we will bestow on you the highest honor that our nation can give you for your science, technology, and innovation.

 

So, do we have someone here for the citations?

 

MILITARY AIDE:  Dr. Berni Alder.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Science to Dr. Berni Alder, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, for establishing powerful computer methods useful for molecular dynamic simulations, conceiving and executing experimental shock-wave simulations to obtain properties of fluids and solids at very high pressures, and developing Monte Carlo methods for calculating the properties of matter from first principles, all of which contributed to major achievements in the science of condensed matter.

 

(The medal is presented.)  (Applause.)

 

Dr. Francis S. Collins.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Science to Dr. Francis S. Collins, National Institutes of Health, for his visionary contributions to the fields of genetics and genomics through the work of his own laboratory and his leadership of multiple international genomics initiatives, including the Human Genome Project.

 

     (The medal is presented.)  (Applause.)

 

Dr. Joanna S. Fowler.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Science to Dr. Joanna S. Fowler, Brookhaven National Laboratory, for her pioneering work in chemistry involving the synthesis of medical imaging compounds and her innovative applications of these compounds to human neuroscience, which have significantly advanced our understanding of the human brain and brain diseases, including drug addiction.

 

     (The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

 

Dr. Elaine Fuchs.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Science to Dr. Elaine Fuchs, The Rockefeller University, for her pioneering use of cell biology and molecular genetics in mice to understand the basis of inherited diseases in humans and her outstanding contributions to our understandings of the biology of skin and its disorders, including her notable investigations of adult skin stem cells, cancers, and genetic syndromes.

 

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

 

Dr. James E. Gunn.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Science to Dr. James E. Gunn, Princeton University, for his brilliant design of many of the most influential telescopes and instruments in astronomy, and in particular for the crucial role those technological marvels played in the creation of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has cataloged 200 million stars, galaxies, and quasars; discovered the most distant known quasars; and probed the epoch of formation of the first stars and galaxies.

 

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

 

Dr. Rudolf E. Kálmán.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Science to Dr. Rudolf E. Kálmán, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, for his fundamental contributions to modern system theory, which provided rigorous mathematical tools for engineering, [econometrics], and statistics, and in particular for his invention of the “Kálmán filter,” which was critical to achieving the Moon landings and creating the Global Positioning System and which has facilitated the use of computers in control and communications technology.

 

(The medal is awarded.)  (Applause.)

 

Dr. Michael I. Posner.  (Applause.)   2008 National Medal of Science to Dr. Michael I. Posner, University of Oregon, for his innovative application of technology to the understanding of brain function, his incisive and accurate modeling of functional tasks, and his development of methodological and conceptual tools to help understand the mind and the development of brain networks of attention.

 

     (The medal is presented.)  (Applause.)

 

     Dr. JoAnne Stubbe.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Science to Dr. JoAnne Stubbe, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for her groundbreaking experiments establishing the mechanisms of ribonucleotide reductases, polyester synthases, and natural product DNA cleavers — compelling demonstrations of the power of chemical investigations to solve problems in biology.

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  He had to practice that.  (Laughter.) 

 

     (The medal is presented.)  (Applause.)

 

     MILITARY AIDE:  Dr. J. Craig Venter.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Science to Dr. J. Craig Venter, J. Craig Venter Institute, for his dedication to the advancement of the science of genomics, his contributions to our understanding of its implications for society, and his commitment to the clear communication of information to the scientific community, the public, and policymakers.

 

     (The medal is presented.)  (Applause.)

 

     Dr. Forrest M. Bird.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation to Dr. Forrest M. Bird, Percussionaire Corporation, for his pioneering inventions in cardiopulmonary medicine, including the medical respirator; devices that helped launch modern-day medical evacuation capabilities; and intrapulmonary percussive ventilation technologies, which have saved the lives of millions of patients in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other conditions.

 

     (The medal is presented.)  (Applause.)

 

     Dr. Esther Sans Takeuchi.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation to Dr. Esther Sans Takeuchi, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York, for her seminal development of the silver vanadium oxide battery that powers the majority of the world’s lifesaving implantable cardiac defibrillators, and her innovations in other medical battery technologies that improve the health and quality of life of millions of people.

 

     (The medal is presented.)  (Applause.)

 

     Dr. John E. Warnock and Dr. Charles M. Geschke.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation to Dr. John E. Warnock and Dr. Charles M. Geschke, Adobe Systems Incorporated, for their pioneering technological contributions that were central to spurring the desktop publishing revolution and for their role in changing the way people create and engage with information and entertainment across multiple mediums including print, video, and the Web.

 

     (The medal is presented.)  (Applause.)

 

     Mr. Samuel Palmisano, accepting for IBM Corporation.  (Applause.)  2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation to IBM Corporation for the IBM Blue Gene supercomputer and its systems architecture, design, and software, which have delivered fundamental new science, unsurpassed speed, and unparalleled energy efficiency and have had a profound impact worldwide on the high-performance computing industry.

 

     (The medal is presented.)  (Applause.)

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, that — the ceremony is over, but I think it would be appropriate for everybody to, again, to stand up and give these recipients a big round of applause.  (Applause.)

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OBAMA ON THE PHILIPPINES 

On behalf of the American people, I want to express my deep condolences for the loss of life and devastation caused by recent storms in the Philippines, particularly Tropical Storm Ketsana.  Michelle and I feel great sorrow over the hundreds of people who have died from the storms and resulting flooding and the hundreds of thousands more who have been displaced.

In the spirit of our long history of friendship and cooperation with the Philippines, the United States has been assisting the people of the Philippines.  Our military forces and civilian agencies have supported local Philippine efforts by distributing relief supplies and helped in rescuing victims from inundated areas of Manila.  As part of this effort, the U.S. Agency for International Development, has so far allocated $1.8 million to respond to the disaster.  As a longstanding friend and partner of the Philippines, we stand ready to continue our cooperation and assistance in the coming days.

PRESS BRIEFING

BY

PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

 

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

 

 

1:21 P.M. EDT

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Oh, everybody got quiet — kind of eerie.

 

Q    It’s out of respect.  (Laughter.)

 

MR. GIBBS:  No, I know better than that, Mr. Feller. (Laughter.)   I have no announcements, so take us away.

 

     Q    Thank you.  A few questions on Afghanistan.  The President said at the Counterterrorism Center today “We’re making real progress in our core mission to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and other extremist networks” — which is almost exactly what he said, as you know, back in March, when he announced the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.  So I’m wondering, is this strategy review that’s going on at all looking at what the mission is, why the U.S. is still in Afghanistan?  Or is he saying the mission is clear, it’s just a matter of how we go about it that’s under review?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, we talked yesterday and I said, I think pretty clearly, that leaving Afghanistan isn’t an option.  What the President laid out in March, as you mentioned, was a strategy that is focused not just on Afghanistan but also on Pakistan.  We know and are first and foremost the President’s –  what’s on the President’s mind are those that attacked us on September 11, 2001; those that have through the global network of al Qaeda have the intent and are actively planning to do so again.

 

     All of that is part of what is being evaluated — where we are, the progress that has been made in dealing with those different entities and the groups that are involved.  All of that is going into — and I think tomorrow’s meeting focuses I think almost primarily on Pakistan.

 

     Q    When you say all that is being looked at, is the mission itself set and consistent, or is that being debated?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  The mission of disrupting, dismantling and ultimately destroying al Qaeda and its extremist allies, that’s the focus of why we’re there and what we’re trying to accomplish.  And I think — I think the President used today’s important visit to highlight the role that many individuals play in coordinating intelligence that we get here in the United States that helped to disrupt potential attacks as we’ve seen over the past many weeks.

 

     Q    Can you elaborate a bit about what the President wants to accomplish specifically with the meeting with lawmakers today?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes, I think the meeting will start off with the President laying out where we are in the review and the process moving forward, and open it up to a Q&A with members of Congress.  I think you all have a list of those that have been invited.

 

     Look, obviously the President, as I’ve said repeatedly and he has, too, the President has and wants to hear from all of those that are involved in decisions about protecting our homeland, keeping our country safe, as well as the deployment of our men and women in uniform.  And obviously Congress plays an important and significant role in that, and this is part of talking to them about this process.

 

     Q    Just one follow on that.  Is that a process that the President thinks did not happen adequately under President Bush with the war in Iraq — is this something he’s trying to change?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Which — bringing Congress in?

 

     Q    Bringing Congress in — and listening.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, hard for me to grade that.  I know that the President believes it’s — this President believes it’s tremendously important to seek that input, Democrat and Republican, House and Senate, as we move forward.  And that’s the intent of the meeting today.

 

     Q    Just more on the meeting.  I’m wondering if you can talk about what the role he sees for Congress in this.  President Bush definitely saw the executive branch as having a lead role in deciding how many troops were going, and he would consult with Congress.  Does President Obama take a different approach –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I mean, obviously there are different roles.  One is the role of Commander-in-Chief.  Another, obviously, though, is the role of — through the appropriations process, particularly, in the resources that are needed to move forward.  I think, obviously, that’s an extremely important role.  You can’t do one without the other.  And that’s, I think, what — part of what we’ll — I doubt they’ll get into specific appropriations, but the strategy that would ultimately surround the need for resources from Congress.

 

     Q    There is growing skepticism, as you know, among many Democrats about a troop increase for Afghanistan.  How important is that going to be in his decision-making process?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, as I’ve said, the President hopes to and will hear from many across the political spectrum throughout this process.  The decision he makes will be what he believes is in the best interest of this country and those that serve in uniform in protecting us.  This is not a political debate or a political argument.

 

     Q    Okay, and just one follow-up on your comment, “Leaving Afghanistan is not an option.”  Is reducing the number of troops an option?  How wide –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I’m not going to get into — I think there’s been this notion about — whether there was a debate about everybody going home.  As late as this weekend there were questions about that on some of the news shows.  I think it’s important to dispense with, as the President did in the very beginning of our second meeting last week in the Situation Room, with that notion.

 

     Q    Robert, in terms of the differences with the Bush administration, how they approached Iraq, back in the campaign the President was pretty critical of President Bush in March of 2008; talked about General Shinseki, for example, and how then-Senator Obama said, “At the beginning of the conflict, there were generals that said, this is going to require many more troops; will cost us much more.  Those generals were pushed aside.”  If this President doesn’t listen to General McChrystal when he says he wants 40,000, isn’t he pushing a general aside?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I appreciate the opportunity to dangle into hypotheticals, Ed, but there’s a robust process that we’ve discussed — I discussed some with you yesterday.

 

     Q    But if he felt then that you should listen to the commanders, why doesn’t he listen to commanders now?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  I appreciate that you fast-forwarded through the decision-making process.  But we’re going to focus on that process and getting it right.  I’m just not going to get into hypotheticals.

 

     Q    Can I ask you a quick thing about China?  Why is the President skipping a meeting this week with the Dalai Lama?  In the campaign, he said he looked forward to meeting the Dalai Lama.  Is he concerned about the Chinese government?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  We’re concerned about the people in Tibet and we’re concerned about the Chinese.  I think the statement that the Dalai Lama and his supporters put out yesterday were fully in support of a meeting that will take place later in the year.  They understand a strong relationship — a stronger relationship that we have with China benefits the Tibetan people.  I saw something that said a meeting had been postponed, and that’s simply inaccurate.

 

     Q    A quick thing on the economy, in terms of the reports today saying that –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  We just did a quick thing on the Dalai Lama.

 

     Q    That was quick.  That was quick.  (Laughter.)

 

If — the President talked about saving or creating 3 million new jobs with the stimulus.  If you’re now talking about new programs to — for job creation, are you acknowledging that the first stimulus did not create or save those jobs?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No.  I think if you look at the — understand the parameters that we talked about, and which you just accurately quoted, are based on a recovery plan that Congress enacted in the middle of February and we have implemented, understanding the recession didn’t start in mid-February.  We didn’t start losing jobs January 21st.  The job loss goes back to, if I’m not mistaken — I’m looking at the graph in my head — I think it’s December of 2007.

 

     So just as I said yesterday in yesterday’s answer, that the recovery plan was not intended to dollar-for-dollar fill the gap or the hole that was created in the downturn in our economy — which I think we said was about a $2 trillion gap — 3 million jobs does not exceed the number that have been lost as a result of this recession going back to December of 2007.

 

     Q    Two quick questions, the first one back to Afghanistan.  Does the President think — yesterday, Secretary Gates said that this discussion should be candid, but it should also be happening privately.  Does the President think that this is all happening too publicly, this military debate?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Again, I’m not going to get in the way of parsing generals or secretaries of defense.

 

     Q    Come on.  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I appreciate the repeated opportunity to do so.  The President set up a process, and we’re going through that.

 

     Q    Today, Cindy Sheehan was back outside the White House.  Yesterday she chained herself to the North Lawn gate and got arrested.  Today she is back, and she said she is actually moving to Washington.  She is going to be out there until her complaints are addressed.  Is the President, or anyone from the White House, going to meet with any of these protestors?

 

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

 

Chip.

 

     Q    You said a moment ago that at the beginning of the second meeting, last week’s meeting, the President put to rest the idea of leaving Afghanistan.  Was he making new — was he saying something new when he said that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  To you maybe, but not to us.

 

     Q    I just want to make sure — he was not — you’re not suggesting that he was making a new policy, stating a new policy.  You said he put that to rest then.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look –

 

     Q    Why did he need to make that clear?  Wasn’t that already policy?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  It was.  It wasn’t necessarily reflected in all the coverage.  And as I said, one of the reasons –

 

     Q    But to the people –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, sure.  As I said, the reason I repeated it yesterday is there was — there were hypotheticals set up on the news shows on Sunday that assumed one spectrum of this was everybody leaving Afghanistan.  That’s simply just not the case.

 

     Q    So he was not — I was just struck by the fact that you said he made that clear in that meeting, when I would think everybody in that room was well aware of it.

     MR. GIBBS:  No, I mean, I think he set out the parameters of — that if you see people out there talking as if the decision is, on one end, everybody leaving Afghanistan, that’s not the case.

 

     Q    Tomorrow is the number three meeting.  Is it the same cast?  And will there –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know if there are any additions.  We will try to put in the guidance tonight if there are any additions.  I assume most of — I don’t know if there’s anybody that’s being added as a result of Pakistan in particular, but my sense is that the people that were in there last week will largely comprise the people that will be in there this week.

 

     Q    And did the President give any marching orders of what he wanted people to do between these two meetings to prepare for the third?  Is there any agenda, specific agenda for this one?

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have the agenda with me.  This one is going to focus on Pakistan.  But without getting into detail, yes, the President was — the President and many that were staffing the meeting understood what needed to be prepared for this one.

 

     Q    And did he give them homework in the meantime?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think it’s safe to say that there have — this has resulted in work that didn’t necessarily fall in the confines of a 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. workday.

 

     Q    Everything on Pakistan, or is there a particular –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Just the larger focus on Pakistan.

 

     Q    Are we nation-building now in Afghanistan?  Or is that part of what’s in the strategic review to make the decision whether we should be involved in nation-building?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I think there’s a — like I said, a larger assessment that’s going on about moving forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

     Q    Is nation-building part of that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I’ll let the process work and the President speak for what decisions are made.

 

     Q    Follow-up on Congress’s role.  Besides a funding role, would you — would the White House be open to letting Congress express its opinion about whether to send more troops?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t — I’m not sure they’re looking for permission from us to do something like that.

 

     Q    So Congress — you wouldn’t necessarily go to Congress to ask for more troops?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, you have to, in terms of funding.  I don’t know if you were talking — what I meant in my original response was, I don’t know if you meant some resolution before some decision.  I don’t have any opinion on that.

         

     Q    And when do you expect that you’re going to have to go before Congress for new funding on this?  Would you ask for a supplemental or is it –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  At some point when a decision is made.  But I don’t have a timeline on funding.

 

     Q    We are missing yet another deadline on health care.  The Senate Finance Committee, I guess — it was supposed to be last week, and it was like, no, no, no, they’ll vote it out Tuesday.  Today we’re hearing, oh, no, no, Wednesday.  Now it doesn’t look like you’re going to get a bill at all this week.  Is there any — are you guys frustrated with how long Max Baucus has taken from actually finishing the markup to holding a vote?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, the committee — I think I got a question last week, “Are we rushing?”  So it’s interesting — good to know that the leaves are not the only thing changing.  I think the committee believes they’re making progress, and I think whether it’s Wednesday –

 

     Q    What’s left?  I mean, they already voted on all the markups.  The bill is the bill, right?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think they’re waiting for — as I understand it, they’re waiting for some CBO estimates for members to –

 

     Q    Max Baucus has the votes.  Why hold off?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Better question for Senator Baucus.

 

     Jonathan.

 

     Q    If last week’s meeting was on — was basically an assessment of the situation, and Pakistan is the focus tomorrow, does that mean that Friday’s is on troop levels?  When does — when do you tackle that one issue?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  We spent three hours last week, and troop levels didn’t come up.  I don’t know if that’s Friday or that’s some time the week after.

 

     Q    And on health care, Senator Reid has a big — some big decisions, because he’s going to be putting together the bill that actually goes to the floor of the Senate.  And I’d like to just know when — what role the White House sees itself playing in putting — in helping to put together the bill that actually goes to the Senate floor?  And do you want to see a public option on the bill that’s on the Senate floor?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  We’ve played the public option game each of the last many days.  Obviously Senator Reid is, as the leader of the Senate, going to make decisions that merge two pieces of legislation in conjunction with members of both committees that have been working on this legislation, and I assume that they’ll ask the White House for varying opinions on different issues.  But mostly something that Senator Reid –

 

     Q    And can you give us some idea of who’s up there now from the White House, and who’s consulting on this?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have any knowledge of who’s up there now.  I don’t assume it’s any different than the people that have been working on health care, starting last February.

 

     Mark.

 

     Q    Robert, can you say what the reason is that the President won’t meet with the Dalai Lama until a later time?  Is he worried about irritating Chinese leaders before his visit?

    

     MR. GIBBS:  No, the –

 

     Q    Is that a component?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  There was an agreement to do this later in the year, and that’s what’s going to happen.

 

     Q    Is he worried that he might be seen kowtowing to Chinese leaders by not meeting with the Dalai Lama on his forthcoming coming visit?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, again, Mark, as I said, it’s important that Tibetans — Tibetan people know that our relationship, our strong relationship with China helps them.  So I think this was mutually agreed upon, and it’s what’s going to happen.

 

     Q    Helpful, how so?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Our relationship with China — having a strong relationship and a good dialogue with them allows us to talk to them about the cares and concerns of the Tibetan people.

 

     Q    Has the President done that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I believe we have mentioned human rights in meeting with the Chinese, yes.

 

     Q    And what does meeting with the Dalai Lama later have to do with making a strong relationship with China?  I don’t understand.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  What I’m saying simply is that you can’t — you all are assuming that if you meet with one first or one later, that that sets up some sort of sequencing that believes you can’t meet with both on a certain timeline or something that has –

 

     Q    That’s your decision.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  It was our decision, and it was one that was mutually agreed upon.

 

Q    Is your schedule that full?

 

MR. GIBBS:  It is based on your questioning, yes.

 

     Q    Robert, back to stimulus.  The White House is supporting an extension of jobless benefits, is that correct?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I will say I don’t know the particulars that are being discussed in Congress in terms of each of the proposals.  Obviously we’re going to get to a point at which some extension, legislatively, has to be entered into, yes.

 

     Q    And the White House would be backing that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  We would support making sure that safety-net policies continue to be in place, yes.

 

     Q    And what about an extension of the first-time tax credit for homebuyers?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think that’s something that the policy team is working through.

 

     Q    Okay, still kicking that around, then.  Will the White House be offering a package of stimulus measures before the President leaves for Singapore, or are you going to wait for Congress to come up with them and he will simply say yes or no?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry –

 

     Q    Will the White House propose a package, or are you going to let Congress do it?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Of?  Are you talking about the safety-net stuff?  I think we have been working with Congress for quite some time on this.  I don’t know which comes first, but we’re working in conjunction with, and I think there’s bipartisan agreement to extend safety-net to ensure that those that have fallen on hard times and have lost their job have the benefits they need to provide for their families.

 

     Q    Wall Street was up 126 points at the beginning of this briefing here, partly –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Let’s hope it’s still the same.

 

     Q    — partly on talk of stimulus, so I thought maybe you might have more to say whether the White House might offer something.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know the correlation between what I might say and what the stock market may do, and I think it’s best to leave that unsaid.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    Robert, today at the National Counterterrorism Center, President Obama did not mention the word, “Afghanistan.”  Why is that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think the President mentioned regions of the world that threaten this country.  I think we talked about — I don’t have the list in front of me — but the Horn of Africa, different places in Asia, Southeast Asia.  I don’t think — the point wasn’t a geography bee to mention each and every country in and around the world, but instead to focus on ensuring that we keep the fight on al Qaeda’s global network, that we take on al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and most importantly that we thank the men and women that work there each day to help keep our country safe and coordinate the type of intelligence we need to disrupt the active planning of the al Qaeda global network in attacking us.

 

     Q    Is there a concern here that Afghanistan could once again become a safe haven for al Qaeda?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think obviously that’s part of what’s being discussed, understanding that most of, if not almost all of, the group of people that attacked us through al Qaeda on 9/11 and is planning through intent, actively planning and intending to try to attack us, have –

 

     Q    How do you know that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  — intelligence — mostly are now in the country of Pakistan. 

 

     Q    Today on the Hill there’s a hearing being held examining the history and legality of executive branch czars.  Your thoughts on that title for a hearing, and any reaction to a hearing being held on that?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I don’t know if they’re calling — I don’t know if Senator Feingold is calling Franklin Roosevelt to be a witness on the — I forget the lofty — said lofty scholarly title of said hearing.  I would assume that Congress and Senator Feingold have more weighty topics to grapple with than something like this.

 

     Yes.  Hold on, I’m going that direction, so –

 

     Q    Okay, good. 

 

     Q    You had — you’d said earlier that — referring to Congress and Afghanistan — that this is not a political debate, but there’s a lot of politics surrounding it on Capitol Hill.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, let me make sure that I — what I’m saying is, the President isn’t making his decision based on politics.  I’m certainly not suggesting — obviously the debate is within Congress and inherent in that is a political debate.  The President isn’t making his decision based on politics, but instead on what is best for this country.

 

     Q    Okay, but what is the White House’s understanding of the politics of this on Capitol Hill?  And how do you think that will affect the President’s decision as he goes through this review process?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think we’ll get a good readout of some of that this afternoon.  I think you’ve got — my sense is that you’ve got many different opinions encompassed in 535 members of the House and the Senate that probably span a full range of options.

 

     Again, the President will — the meeting today deals primarily with the bicameral, bipartisan leadership and then the ranking — the chairs and the ranking members of the — many of the relevant appropriations and oversight committees that would deal with this.  And the President looks forward to hearing their viewpoints, again, as varying as I assume they may be.

 

     Q    Just a quick follow-up.  In general, though, you have Republican congressional leaders much more supportive of an expanded war effort along the lines of what General McChrystal has outlined in his assessment, Democrats far more skeptical, particularly on the question of combat troops.  How does that affect the way the President thinks about this, or how might it affect this process?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Again, the President’s focus is on ensuring that we have the very best strategy going forward for this very important yet dangerous region of the world.  We’re focused on getting that right, not about who is for and who is — who’s for and who’s against what, but focusing on how to get –

 

     Q    But it will matter at some point.  It will matter at some point with resources.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  It will.  And obviously, whatever decision that is made, the President will talk about and talk probably again to members of Congress who have equities in this.

 

     Q    In the “Meet the Press” interview that he did a couple of weeks ago, the President stepped back it seemed a little bit, and explained — or he said there was a need to explain the reason that America was in Afghanistan, because 3,000 Americans were killed by al Qaeda.  It just strikes me as odd that he did not mention Afghanistan again today.  So as a follow-up to Mike’s question, are we really to believe that it was an accident that it wasn’t mentioned at all, or that Afghanistan was not mentioned because there are many places —

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes, because maybe Afghanistan wouldn’t come up today?  (Laughter.)

 

     Q    I know, but is Afghanistan –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  That seems somewhat unlikely, since –

 

     Q    Why wouldn’t he mention Afghanistan at all?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’d have to –

 

     Q    Just a couple weeks ago, it seemed like he saying that we need to refocus on Afghanistan.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I’d have to go — I don’t recall right offhand what he said in that transcript, but I –

 

     Q    I was going to follow-up on that.  He said, “We know that al Qaeda and its extremist allies threaten us from different corners of the globe, from Pakistan” — and then went on to list — it sounds like they intentionally left the word
“Afghanistan” out, I assume because they do not believe that we are threatened by al Qaeda in Afghanistan.  Is that –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I just mentioned that — I did just mention that if you look at those that attacked us on 9/11, based on our going into Afghanistan eight years ago tomorrow, most of those have moved across the border into a different region of Pakistan.  I think that was talked about on the news shows.

 

     Q    So there really are — how many al Qaeda members — there’s been a — one senator said today said less than a hundred in Afghanistan.  Is that a fair number?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I wouldn’t get into the intelligence.  But I don’t know what — I wouldn’t know how to dispute something like that.

 

     Q    Thank you, Robert.

 

     Q    I interrupted Jeff, so I yield the floor to –

    

     Q    I always yield to CBS.  (Laughter.)

 

     MR. GIBBS:  You guys are polling partners.

 

I’m sorry, do you have one more? 

 

     Q    No.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  You’re good? 

 

     Q    I’m good.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  The gentleman yields back the remainder of his  –

 

     Q    That was good.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes, ma’am.

 

     Q    Thank you, Robert, two quick ones.  The administration is spending billions on the war in Afghanistan and on the war on terrorism.  Couldn’t the administration find a few million to help the schoolteachers be rehired in the District of Columbia?  Have you spoken to them, or considered this at all?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know what the story is.

 

     Q    Would you look into that?  Would you –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I mean I assume that different entities have gotten recovery money.  I know throughout the country recovery money that has gone to states and localities has helped to keep teachers, to keep police, and to keep firefighters on the job.  I don’t know the specific instance with which you’re talking about.

 

     Q    And one more quick one.  CBS and the other networks are doing some really good features on Afghanistan.  Do you know if the President — he hasn’t paid me to say this — and I’m not saying anything about David Letterman — do you know whether –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  He doesn’t appear to be focused on Afghanistan.  (Laughter.)

 

     Q    Seriously, these are very powerful features.  Do you know if the President or his staff see any of these features and are influenced in any way by them?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Dare I say, I watch the news every night.  But I don’t know what the President — I don’t know whether the President has seen of the reporting from there on CBS or from other networks.

 

     Q    I have a question.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Yes, ma’am.

 

     Q    I want to know if the President has ever explored the possibility of peace — talking to al Qaeda and to the Taliban?  Has there been any contact, since you have so much intelligence?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t — I don’t think al Qaeda looks to talk with us.  I think al Qaeda has the intent and is actively —

 

     Q    We had the same idea about Vietnam.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, I can’t speak to the intelligence around Vietnam.  I don’t think that al Qaeda and the global network that have taken part in the very heinous acts that we’ve seen over the course of many years is intent on talking.  I think, as the President said in his inaugural, they’re intent on blowing things up, and this world is not going to be judged by –

 

     Q    All enemies do that.  But at some point you reach some — I never hear the word “peace” here.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, we’re — I’m not sure that you’re ever going to hear the word “peace” and “al Qaeda” in the same sentence, because I’m positive, based on the intelligence, that that’s not what al Qaeda’s mission is.

 

     Q    My one other question is that there are several columns today saying the President just doesn’t get it, in terms of unemployment and Afghanistan and so forth.  What’s your response?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Isn’t America great, where everyone can have an opinion, and –

 

     Q    Sure is.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  “Often wrong but never in doubt” is a great slogan.  (Laughter.)

 

     Q    The President’s predecessor not only went to Capitol Hill and appeared with the Dalai Lama and spoke at a ceremony honoring him, but he also, the President also –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think that was — I think that was a, if I’m not mistaken, wasn’t that a congressional medal awarded to him, so the ceremony — right.

 

     Q    Yes, and the President spoke at it.  And the President also — the former President also went to Beijing for the Olympics, saying that he wanted to show respect.  Can you explain again why President Obama feels that a meeting now with the Dalai Lama would either complicate or in some other way injure President Obama’s relations to China?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, no, I’m simply saying that in discussions with them we agreed —

 

Q    “Them”?

 

MR. GIBBS:  — the Dalai Lama and his staff — that a meeting would be had later in the year.

 

     Q    What I’m asking is the reason being?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  It’s the time in which both parties thought it would be the best time to meet.

 

     Q    Do you have a date?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t.

 

     Q    Robert, yesterday Secretary Gates said the reality is that “because of our inability to put enough troops into Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now” –sounding like he thinks there’s not enough troops there.  I’m wondering how –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t want to parse Secretary Gates’s words, but –

 

     Q    It seems pretty straightforward.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  — I think, if I’m not mistaken, he’s referring to a request that sat on the table for a long time previously.  We added 21,000 troops to Afghanistan through an effort earlier this year.

 

     Q    You’re saying he was referring to the troops who were already –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  That’s the way I read it.  I think if you’re looking for a response to that, I’d — Geoff Morrell is over at the Pentagon.

 

     Q    And one other quick question on health care.  Less than 10 days from now, Senator Reid has to decide on whether he goes for reconciliation or not, goes for a 60-vote strategy or 51.  Do you have any sense in terms of how the debate has been going which makes the most sense?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have any opinion on that except to reiterate that we’re working through the process in the fifth committee of jurisdiction, and the Senate will merge these two pieces of legislation, and will head to the floor.

 

     Q    Robert, there’s been another report, this one in Politico, previously in the Wall Street Journal, that Greg Craig is preparing to leave as the President’s counsel.  Does he still have the President’s confidence, number one, and is the President –

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Matt, I answered this last week when that report was passed to me by the group representing the institution that wrote it, and I said he was, and I said he’d been in the Oval Office earlier that day speaking to the President about Guantanamo.  Greg Craig is in the President’s office every day as part of a small group of senior advisers that meet with him daily.  That’ll happen at 4:30 p.m. this afternoon.

 

     Q    And does the President still have confidence in the timetable on Guantanamo Bay?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, we went through that.  I think we’re making progress on ensuring that once and for all Guantanamo Bay is closed.

 

     Peter.

 

     Q    Robert, the DNC has been emphasizing Republican elected officials outside of Washington who support health care reform.  Does the White House believe that Republicans on Capitol Hill are out of step, in some way, with Republicans in the rest of the country, or Republican elected officials outside the beltway?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think if you — the intent of the desire of Republicans in Washington and on Capitol Hill, as it relates to health care, is something I’ll let them answer.  As I’ve mentioned before, the person that they chose earlier in the year to speak to the nation has actively encouraged the Republicans in Washington and on Capitol Hill to put forward an alternative, something that thus far their leaders have said repeatedly isn’t and won’t happen.  I think that shows they are wildly out of step with their constituents who want something to happen on health care this year.

 

     I would mention, obviously, you’ve got — whether it’s Mayor Bloomberg, whether it’s Governor Schwarzenegger, whether it’s former HHS Secretary and Governor Tommy Thompson — there are people that have been outside of the cocoon of Washington, dealing with rising health care costs, what it does to state and local governments, what it does to families, and what it does to small businesses that are actively encouraging the process that’s working to take place.

 

     I think it would be a good message — I hope that Republicans in Washington hear the message of Republicans all over the country that it’s time to come in off the sidelines and actively get involved in making some serious progress on health care reform this year.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    You said a couple times that politics is not part of the decision on Afghanistan.  I have two questions.  One, does American public opinion weigh into the decision at all, and the idea of having the same public support for the war?  And secondarily, have you done any polling through the DNC or anywhere else on this question?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  On the second one, not that I’m aware of.  On the first one, in terms of the role that public opinion would play, obviously the President sees where different opinions are, based on polling that you guys do.  But the President is going to make a decision, popular or unpopular, based on what he thinks is in the best interest of the country.  I think if you look back over the course of the last eight to nine months, I don’t think you would say that the decisions — every decision that we made was based on where a majority, or a great majority of the people were in this country.

 

     But the President has made decisions that he thinks — whether it’s on the domestic issues, whether it’s on the economy, or whether it comes to our way forward in Iraq — I’m sorry, Afghanistan — that he’s doing what’s in the best interest of the country.

    

     Q    Don’t you need public support, though, if you’re going to — talking about a long-range commitment of troops?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I think that, again, whatever decision the President makes with his team, I think explaining and talking that through with the American people will certainly obviously be an important step in this process.

 

     Yes, sir.

 

     Q    Thank you, Robert.  Can you tell us what message the Vice President is going to convey to Poland and the Czech Republic on missile defense?  And is this a damage control mission?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  No, look, obviously, the President — the Vice President is somebody who has long relationships throughout Europe.  They’re important allies of ours.  He’ll continue those relationships and meet with them on his upcoming trip.  I think most of you all now have covered statements by those governments that reflect — after understanding what we were actually deciding and what we were implementing — a missile defense system that protects a greater geographic area and addresses much more directly the threat that exists in the here and now, rather than something that was technologically a ways off.  I have no doubt that the issue will come up, and I think the Vice President will be very comfortable, as will our allies, in the decision that we’ve made.

 

     April.

 

     Q    Robert, did then-candidate Barack Obama warn or tell the American public about the levels of engagement that the U.S. military would be involved in, in Afghanistan when he was running for President?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t think anybody in this country, whether they were listening to candidate Barack Obama, or anybody over the past seven or almost eight years, has been misinformed as to the sacrifice that our men and women in uniform were making, or what it was going to take in dealing with a very difficult part of the world.

 

     Q    Still, some people are saying that he made a point to stress that we would pull out of Iraq, but it was somewhat omitted about the engagement in Afghanistan.

 

     MR. GIBBS:  The President — I remember a speech quite clearly where the President talked very specifically about Afghanistan and Pakistan and was criticized on both sides of the aisle.  I spent a lot of time with the President over the course of two years flying around the country.  He almost always talked about the need to add forces that were added — that exceeded the number — we exceeded the number that were added in March than what he called for in the campaign.  So this wasn’t something that the President ever –

 

     Q    Thanks, Robert.

 

     Q    Can you talk about Chicago tomorrow, what they’re going to do in Chicago tomorrow?

 

     MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have any more information other than — or a schedule for Secretary Duncan or Secretary — Attorney General Holder.  I would –

 

     Q    Any news, any policy?

 

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

 

     Q    Thanks, Robert,

 

     MR. GIBBS:  Thanks, guys.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT THE NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER

 

National Counterterrorism Center

McLean, Virginia

 

11:34 A.M. EDT

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much, Mike, for the introduction.  Usually it’s Mike who comes to brief me at the White House.  Today, it’s my honor to visit you in your house.  I was just told this is called the “bat cave,” is that correct?  (Laughter.)  Mike, thank you for your many years of public service and your outstanding leadership at the National Counterterrorism Center.

 

It is great to be with all of you.  It is great to be here at the hub — at the headquarters of our efforts to defend America from those who threaten our country and so many others.  Our intelligence community is comprised of 16 organizations.  We have countless federal and state and local and international partners.  And this is where it has to all come together.

 

So I’m pleased to see Denny Blair and those of you from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  We have folks here from the FBI and the CIA.  We have folks from across the federal government — intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security and so many others.  My understanding is we’ve even got some of New York’s finest — some NYPD folks who are here.

 

Standing together and serving together, it’s clear for all to see — that you are one team — that you are more integrated and more collaborative and more effective than ever before.  And you’re focused on one defining mission, and that is to protect the United States of America and thwarting terrorist attacks around the world.

 

Now, I just received an extraordinary briefing from some of your colleagues.  I have to tell you, I was surprised to see how young everybody is around here.  It is a sign of my age that everybody is starting to look young.  But the capacity and the dedication that’s on display was remarkable.  And, look, all of you have some of the most important work that is done in this country — you’re doing it.  These big screens I understand are not just to watch SportsCenter.  (Laughter.)

 

But I wanted to come here today and take a few minutes just to deliver a simple message — and I delivered it inside, and that is the message of thanks — to say thank you from me, who use your product each and every day to make some very tough decisions, and to thank you on behalf of the American people, who may not even know that you’re here but are relying on you each and every day to make sure that their kids get home safely and that when they commute to work it’s going to be okay.  To think about the profound impact that all of you are having on the day-to-day life of this nation I think is extraordinary.  Your professionalism is essential to protecting this country.

 

Now, we recently observed the eighth anniversary of that terrible day when terrorists brought so much death and destruction to our shores.  And once more we remembered all the lives that were lost.  And once more we redoubled our resolve against the extremists who continue to plot against the United States and our allies.

 

So we need you more than ever.  Our troops and our intelligence officers in the field, our diplomats overseas, our law enforcement here at home, they all depend on you — your analysis, your insights, your ability to work together, across divisions and disciplines, turning information into intelligence and sharing it quickly, in real time, with those who need it.

 

As I said before, I am one of those consumers of your work product here at NCTC.  Every morning I look to you for the latest intelligence.  In fact, I think so highly of NCTC that I picked the guy who put NCTC together — John Brennan — as my chief adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security.  And by the way, John Brennan is here and doing an outstanding job each and every day.  He’s also, by the way, I think, responsible for getting this spiffy building up and running.

 

Now, again, a lot of you are working in some obscurity right now.  Few Americans know about the work that you do, and this is how it should be.  Your assignments require it, and obviously you didn’t go into this line of work for the fame and glory, or the glare of the spotlight.  You’re in this to serve and protect.

 

But today, I want every American to know about the difference you’ve made — especially in recent months and days.  Because of you, and all the organizations you represent, we’re making real progress in our core mission:  to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and other extremist networks around the world.

 

We must never lose sight of that goal.  That’s the principal threat to the American people.  That is the threat that led to the creation of this Center.  And that must be the focus of our efforts to defend the homeland and our allies, and defeat extremists abroad.

 

We know that al Qaeda and its extremist allies threaten us from different corners of the globe — from Pakistan, but also from East Africa and Southeast Asia; from Europe and the Gulf.  And that’s why we’re applying focused and relentless pressure on al Qaeda — by sharing more intelligence, strengthening the capacity of our partners, disrupting terrorist financing, cutting off supply chains, and inflicting major losses on al Qaeda’s leadership.

 

It should now be clear — the United States and our partners have sent an unmistakable message:  We will target al Qaeda wherever they take root; we will not yield in our pursuit; and we are developing the capacity and the cooperation to deny a safe haven to any who threaten America and its allies.

 

We also know that success against al Qaeda must go beyond destroying their network — it must be about the future that we want to build as well.  And that’s why we’re putting forward a positive vision of American leadership around the world — one where we lead by example, and engage nations and peoples on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect.

 

As one counterterrorism expert recently observed, because of our efforts al Qaeda and its allies have not only lost operational capacity, they’ve lost legitimacy and credibility.  Of course, nobody does a better job of discrediting al Qaeda than al Qaeda itself, which has killed men and women and children of many faiths in many nations, and which has absolutely no positive future to offer the people of the world.

 

So even as we target al Qaeda and its bankrupt vision, we also know that we have to be vigilant in defending our people at home.  And that takes aggressive intelligence collection and skillful analysis.  And that demands the effective and efficient coordination between federal government and our state and local partners.

 

And that’s what we’ve seen from you in recent years.  We’ve seen your success here in America in the last several weeks.  You’ve stayed vigilant.  You watched for signs.  You stitched together the intelligence.  You worked together, across organizations, as one team.  And then — arrests in Denver and New York, and still more in Illinois and Texas, have made us safer.

 

So I say to every American:  You see the headlines, but here are some of the people who help write them, who keep you safe.  And I say to all of you, you are setting the standard.  You’re showing us what focused and integrated counterterrorism really looks like.  And the record of your service is written in the attacks that never occur — because you thwarted them; and in the countless Americans who are alive today — because you saved them.  For that, America is in your debt.

 

Of course, you know that we’re facing determined adversaries who are resourceful, who are resilient, and who are still plotting.  And no one can ever promise that there won’t be another attack on American soil.

 

But I can promise you this.  I pledge to do everything in my power as President to keep America safe.  And I pledge to give all of you the tools and support you need to get the job done, around the world and here at home.  And I pledge to stay focused on that mission — just as you stay focused on your mission.

 

So we all have to redouble our efforts in the face of a threat that persists.  We’re going to have to draw strength from the values that we hold dear.  We must keep our eye fixed on the world we seek to build — one that defeats our adversaries, but that also promotes dignity and opportunity and justice for all who stand with us.

 

To do that, we need you to keep standing and serving together — every agency, every department, every branch, every level.  One team.  One mission.  That’s how we’re going to prevail in this fight, and that’s how we’re going to protect this country that we all love.

 

So thanks to all of you.  Continue the outstanding work.  God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

 

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

 

WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key administration posts:

• Mary J. Miller, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Markets, Department of the Treasury
• Bert DiClemente, Director, AMTRAK Board of Directors
• Anthony R. Coscia, Director, AMTRAK Board of Directors

 

President Obama said, “I appreciate the willingness of these individuals to serve the American people.  I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead.”

 

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals today:

 

Mary J. Miller, Nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Markets, Department of the Treasury

Mary J. Miller is a vice president of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., and the director of the Fixed Income Division.  She is a member of the firm’s Management and Finance Committees and chairperson of the Fixed Income Steering Committee.  Ms. Miller serves as president of a number of T. Rowe Price fixed-income mutual funds, the Tax-Free Income Fund, the U. S. Treasury Funds, and the Strategic Income Fund.  She also has key investment management responsibilities on the firm’s Asset Allocation Committee and serves as an Investment Advisory Committee co-chairperson for the Tax-Free Income Fund.  Prior to joining T. Rowe Price in 1983, Ms. Miller was a research associate for the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.  She earned a B.A. from Cornell University and an M.C.R.P. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Ms. Miller also has earned her Chartered Financial Analyst designation.

 

Bert DiClemente, Nominee for Director, AMTRAK Board of Directors

Bert DiClemente is currently serving as the Vice President of CB Richard Ellis, Inc., which is the largest commercial real estate company in the world. He has been serving in this capacity since 2003. Prior to this position, he worked for Insignia/ESG and Jackson Cross & Associates as Director and Associate Director.   He was responsible for the leasing and selling of commercial real estate and represented a number of Fortune 500 Companies.   Mr. DiClemente also served from 1977-1997 as the State Director for then-Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. in Wilmington, DE.  In this capacity, he was responsible for three statewide Senate offices and was a senior staff advisor to the Senator on all issues and policies related to the State of Delaware. He is a graduate of the University of Delaware with a B.A. in political science.

 

Anthony R. Coscia, Nominee for Director, AMTRAK Board of Directors

Anthony R. Coscia was appointed Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in April 2003.  As Chairman, Mr. Coscia has broad oversight responsibility in connection with the agency’s varied transportation businesses and $6.7 billion annual budget.  Mr. Coscia’s aims as Chairman include ensuring the safety and security of the Port Authority’s facilities, improving the transportation networks between New York and New Jersey, spearheading the agency’s new mass transit rail initiatives, increasing the transparency of the Board of Commissioners’ decision making process, promoting environmental sustainability as an agency goal, rebuilding the World Trade Center as a driving force for the region’s economic recovery, and establishing a memorial to those lost in the September 11, 2001 attacks. From February 1992 to March 2003, Mr. Coscia served as Chairman of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (“NJEDA”).  Mr. Coscia is also a Partner at Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP.  He has specific experience in the area of redevelopment finance and has worked extensively on corporate governance issues.  He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (B.S.F.S., 1981) and he received his law degree from Rutgers University School of Law (J.D., 1984).

 

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 2847 — Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

(Sen. Inouye, D-Hawaii)

The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of H.R. 2847, with the Senate Committee-reported text, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010. 

 

As we face difficult economic and fiscal decisions, it is important to make efficient and effective investments.  The bill as considered by the Committee makes important investments in innovation and job creation, community safety, and cutting-edge technologies.  This legislation will help lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth.

 

The Administration would like to take this opportunity to share additional views regarding the Committee’s version of the bill.

 

Administration Priorities

 

Science and Innovation.  The Administration is concerned that the Committee’s bill includes more than $200 million in reductions to requested levels for the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  These two agencies are key components of the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation and the Committee’s reductions would affect important research activities and agency operations in the near term and make it increasingly difficult to achieve the doubling goal for basic research in future years.  The bill includes $58 million in non-priority project funds for the National Institute of Standards and Technology that could be channeled to reduce this shortfall.

 

Efficiencies and Cost-Saving Proposals.  The Administration urges the Congress to support the President’s initiatives to terminate or reduce programs that have outlived their usefulness, fund narrowly focused activities, or duplicate existing programs.  The Administration encourages the Congress to reconsider other proposals made by the Administration that would better target scarce resources and redirect funds to programs with greater potential for results.

 

Department of Commerce

 

The Administration appreciates the support shown for Department of Commerce programs, particularly for the 2010 Census, environmental stewardship, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, and Technology Innovation Program.

 

Economic Development Administration.  The Administration is concerned that the bill underfunds the Economic Development Administration request by nearly $50 million, particularly in light of current economic conditions.  The Administration urges the Congress to provide the $284 million requested, including $125 million for Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA).  The $90 million the bill provides for EAA is not enough to fully implement the Administration’s proposals to promote regional innovation clusters and create a Business Incubator Network.  The Administration has requested $50 million for each of these initiatives because they will help the Nation to develop dynamic businesses and respond effectively to challenging economic conditions.

 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The Administration appreciates the Committee’s strong support of the important activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  However, within this funding level, the Administration urges the Congress to provide the additional $13 million requested to support accelerated improvement of hurricane track and intensity forecasts, which will help to prevent unnecessary and costly evacuations.  Additionally, the Administration urges the Congress to allocate resources based on a competitive and transparent process.

 

International Trade Administration.  The Administration is concerned with the language directing that negotiations be held within the World Trade Organization to allow its members to distribute antidumping and countervailing duties.  These duties are currently received by the Federal Government as general revenues; distributing them to domestic firms who already benefit from these tariffs would provide a “double benefit.” 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  The Administration appreciates the Committee’s support for allowing USPTO full access to its fee collections.  The Administration agrees with the Committee that USPTO should evaluate long-standing examination goals for patent employees to account for advances in technology and other changes in the patent examination process.  USPTO is currently re-evaluating these goals and is working to obtain an independent review of them.  The Congress is urged to allow this process to proceed and remove the language in the bill that would block $25 million from obligation until new goals are adopted, to avoid unnecessary strain on USPTO’s financial resources and operational flexibility.

 

Department of Justice

 

The Administration appreciates the Committee’s support of the funding requests for Department of Justice programs including those of the FBI and other law enforcement components. However, the Administration is concerned about the adequacy of funds provided for key initiatives such as the COPS Hiring Grants Program and the Prisoner Reentry Initiative and additional funds are needed to maintain critical technology initiatives.  Unfortunately, the Committee has only provided one third of the funding requested for the COPS Hiring Grant Program.  By providing the Administration’s full request for this program, more than 1,500 police could be hired – or kept in their jobs – in cities and towns across the country.   The Administration is also disappointed that the Committee has provided no funding for Community-Based Violence Prevention Initiatives.  In addition, the changes made to section 505, in Division B of the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act regarding reprogramming notifications, present significant management challenges for the Department in the execution of its law enforcement and other responsibilities and the Congress is urged to restore the language that was in effect prior to the Act.

 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

 

The Administration appreciates the Committee’s support for the President’s FY 2010 request for NASA, including full funding for Science, Aeronautics, Space Shuttle, International Space Station, and Exploration Systems, and in the existing budget structure as proposed.  However, the Administration is concerned with the reduction of $18.7 million from the request for NASA innovation, which would reduce or eliminate several programs that use public-private partnerships to advance important technologies and enable access to new sources of innovation through incentive prizes and partnerships.

 

National Science Foundation

 

The Administration believes the directed transfer of icebreaker operations and maintenance funding from the National Science Foundation to the Coast Guard is premature pending the outcome of several active policy reviews being conducted over the next two years that will better inform mission requirements for the U.S. polar icebreaker fleet going forward. 

 

Legal Services Corporation (LSC)

 

The Administration appreciates the Committees modification of the restriction on the use of non-LSC funds by LSC grant recipients but also urges the Congress to allow LSC attorneys to collect fees and to participate in class action lawsuits.  These riders limit access to legal representation and constrain legal aid lawyers’ ability to secure settlements and to pursue injunctive relief to stop illegal activity.  In addition, the Administration urges the Congress to fully fund the President’s request.

 

Constitutional Concerns

 

Consistent with longstanding Executive Branch concerns about similar provisions, sections 107 and 528 and language under the headings “Operations and Administration, International Trade Administration” and “Salaries and Expenses, Office of the United States Trade Representative” would interfere with the President’s constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive how to proceed or not to proceed in international negotiations.  The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these concerns.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM EVENT WITH DOCTORS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY

 

Rose Garden

 

11:17 A.M. EDT

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  Thank you, guys.  Thank you.  Please, have a seat on this spectacular day here in the Rose Garden.  I want to welcome all the doctors who gave joined us today at the White House.  But there are a couple that I want to make special mention of.

 

First of all, on stage behind me:  Dr. Hershey Garner, Dr. Mona Mangat, Dr. Richard Evans, and Dr. Amanda McKinney, who are representing, as we were talking about in the Oval Office, red states, blue states, recalcitrant states — (laughter) — high-cost states, low-cost states, rural and urban states.  And so we’re so pleased to have them.

 

In addition the organizations that are represented here today:  the American Medical Association, the National Medical Association, the Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the Doctors for America, American College of Pediatrics, and American College of Cardiology.  I am thrilled to have all of you here today and you look very spiffy in your coats.  (Laughter.)

 

All of you represent all 50 states.  Some of you are members of physicians’ organizations, and others are simply respected members of their community who work in hospitals and clinics and private practices.  All have devoted their lives to the healing of others.  And all understand that their jobs would be a lot easier if we finally reformed our system of health insurance.  (Applause.)

 

     We have now been debating this issue of health insurance reform for months.  The United States Congress has been working on it for better — for the better part of a year, and last week the final congressional committee involved in shaping legislation completed their proposal and will soon vote on it.  At this point, we’ve heard all the arguments on both sides of the aisle. We have listened to every charge and every counter-charge — from the crazy claims about death panels to misleading warnings about a government takeover of our health care system.

 

     But when you cut through all the noise and all the distractions that are out there, I think what’s most telling is that some of the people who are most supportive of reform are the very medical professionals who know the health care system best — the doctors and nurses of America.  (Applause.)

 

     These men and women here would not be supporting health insurance reform if they really believed that it would lead to government bureaucrats making decisions that are best left to doctors.  They wouldn’t be here today if they believed that reform in any way would damage the very critical and sacred doctor-patient relationship.

 

     Instead, the reason these doctors are here is because they have seen firsthand what’s broken about our health care system.  They’ve seen what happens when their patients can’t get the care they need because some insurance company has decided to drop their coverage or water it down.  They’ve seen what happens when a patient is forced to pay out of pocket thousands of dollars she doesn’t have for treatments that she desperately needs.  They’ve seen what happens when patients don’t come in for regular check-ups or screenings because either their insurance company doesn’t cover it or they can’t afford insurance in the first place.  And they’ve seen far too much of time that they want to devote to taking care of patients spent filling out forms and haggling with insurance companies about payments.

 

     So these doctors know what needs to be fixed about our health care system.  And they know that health insurance reform will do — that it will go a long way towards making patients healthier and doctors and nurses to be able to perform that — those tasks that are so important to them and led them into medicine in the first place.

 

     So let me just outline once again what exactly we’re seeing coming out of all these committees.  And although there are still some details to be worked out, there are some general principles that I think we can have confidence on.

 

     Number one, if you have insurance, the reforms we’ve proposed will offer you more security.  It will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.  It will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick, or water it down when you need it most.  Insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on how much coverage you can receive in a given year or a given lifetime — or in a lifetime.  We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses.  And insurance companies will be required to cover, at no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care.

 

     Now, if you don’t have health insurance, reform will finally offer you affordable choices.  We’ll set up a new insurance exchange — a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can shop for an affordable health insurance plan that works for them.  This is how everyone in the federal government — including members of Congress — get affordable insurance.  And there’s no reason we shouldn’t give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves.  (Applause.)

 

     Now, these doctors also know that reform will make their lives easier.  By moving to electronic medical records, in a system carefully constructed to protect patient privacy, physicians will have less paperwork to fill out, more critical information at their fingertips, and more time to spend with their patients.  (Applause.)  Expensive tests won’t have to be repeated over and over again.

 

     There are also proposals to provide loan forgiveness for primary care physicians who choose to practice in rural and underserved areas.  (Applause.)  Since I’ve talked to enough doctors who feel they’re forced to practice defensive medicine, I’ve also directed my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward with programs that will help us put patient safety first while still allowing doctors to focus on practicing medicine.  And we are working to fix the flawed Sustainable Growth Rate formula by which doctors are reimbursed under Medicare.  (Applause.)

 

     Every one of you here today took an oath when you entered the medical profession.  It was not an oath that you would spend a lot of time on the phone with insurance companies.  (Laughter.) It was not an oath that you would have to turn away patients who you know could use your help.  You did not devote your lives to be bean counters or paper pushers.  You took an oath so that you could heal people.  You did it so you could save lives.

 

     The reforms we’re proposing to our health care system will help you live up to that oath.  (Applause.)  They will make sure — they will make sure that neither some government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between a patient and their doctor.  (Applause.)  And they’ll offer — they’ll offer security to those Americans who have insurance, and insurance to those who don’t.

 

And I want to thank every single doctor who is here, and I especially want to thank you for agreeing to fan out across the country and make the case about why this reform effort is so desperately needed.  You are the people who know this system best. You are the experts.  Nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue than you do.

 

And so if you’re willing to speak out strongly on behalf of the things you care about and what you see each and every day as you’re serving patients all across the country, I’m confident we are going to get health reform passed this year.

 

Thank you very much, everybody.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

BACKGROUND ON THE PRESIDENT’S ROSE GARDEN EVENT WITH DOCTORS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY

 

 

STAGE PARTICIPANTS

Four doctors will stand on stage behind the President during his remarks.

 

Dr. Hershey Garner (Fayetteville, Arkansas)

Dr. Garner earned his B.B.A. in Management/Finance from Baylor University in 1975, completed his Juris Doctor in 1980 at Baylor, and received his M.D. from the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences Campus in 1986.  Currently residing and working in Northwest Arkansas, Dr. Garner practices Radiation Oncology.

 

Dr. Mona Mangat (St. Petersburg, Florida)

Dr. Mangat is Board Certified in Allergy/Immunology, Internal Medicine and Pediatrics. She completed her Allergy/Immunology fellowship at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI and her combined Internal Medicine/Pediatrics residency at University of Tennessee, Memphis/LeBonheur Children’s Medical Center. Dr. Mangat received her medical degree at the six year combined BS/MD program at Kent State University and Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.  Dr. Mangat has been in solo private practice since 2007 in St. Petersburg, FL where she resides with her four children and husband.

 

Dr. Richard A. Evans (Dover-Foxcroft, Maine)

Dr. Evans is currently the President of the Medical Staff and member of the Board of Trustees at the Mayo Regional Hospital in Dover-Foxcroft, ME.  Dr. Evans has been in private practice as a general surgeon at the Mayo Regional Hospital since 2003.  Prior to that time he served as Medical Staff President at Downeast Community Hospital in Machias, ME and as a general surgeon, Flight Surgeon and Hospital Commander in the U.S. Air Force. During his Air Force career, he was based out of several states including Nebraska, Missouri, South Dakota and Maine.  He also served as President of the Maine Medical Association from 2001-2002.  Dr. Evans completed his general surgery residency at the Cooper Medical Center in Camden, NJ in 1980.  He received his Bachelor’s of Science degree from Howard University in Washington, DC and his medical degree from Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, PA.

                               

Dr. Amanda McKinney (Beatrice, Nebraska)

Dr. McKinney grew up in rural Nebraska (Odell, pop. 300) and attended Doane College in Crete, NE where she was an Academic All American in the heptathlon. She attended the University of Nebraska Medical Center for medical school and completed a year of Obstetrics and Gynecology residency before transferring to the University of California, Irvine to complete her residency. She remained in Irvine for a year-long fellowship in Urogynecology. Upon completion Dr. McKinney moved back to Beatrice, NE where she currently practices.

 

 

AUDIENCE

The audience will be composed of approximately 150 doctors, including the doctors listed below, representing all 50 states.

 

Dr. Paul Davis (Perryville, AK)

Dr. Sonia Vishin (Birmingham, AL)

Dr. Hershey Garner (Fayetteville, AR)

Dr. Susan Wilder (Scottsdale, AZ)

Dr. Alice Chen (Los Angeles, CA)

Dr. Lila Rosenthal (Boulder, CO)

Dr. Dan Fass (Riverside, CT)

Dr. Michael Newman (Washington, DC)

Dr. Robert Walter (Wilmington, DE)

Dr. Mona Mangat (St. Petersburg, FL)

Dr. Jason Schneider (Atlanta, GA)

Dr. Felicia Froe (Honolulu, HI)

Dr. Peter Kaboli (Iowa City, IA)

Dr. Timothy McHugh (Meridian, ID)

Dr. Ram Krishnamoorthi (Chicago, IL)

Dr. Andrew Loehrer (Indianapolis, IN)

Dr. Robyn Liu (Tribune, KS)

Dr. Susan Bornstein (Louisville, KY)

Dr. Stanton “Mark” McKenna (New Orleans, LA)

Dr. Vivek Murthy (Boston, MA)

Dr. Zaneb Beams (Ellicott City, MD)

Dr. Richard Evans (Dover-Foxcroft, ME)

Dr. Stephen Patrick (Ann Arbor, MI)

Dr. Nathan Bahr (Minneapolis, MN)

Dr. Hope Tinker (Fayette, MO)

Dr. Persharon Dixon (Biloxi, MS)

Dr. Meg Sarnecki (Missoula, MT)

Dr. Dain Vines (Raleigh, NC)

Dr. Biron Baker (Bismarck, ND)

Dr. Amanda McKinney (Beatrice, NE)

Dr. Nick Perencevich (Concord, NH)

Dr. Sanjay Gupta  (Cherry Hill, NJ)

Dr. Elaine Bradshaw (Santa Fe, NM)

Dr. Arezo Fathie (Las Vegas, NV)

Dr. Alexander Blum (New York, NY)

Dr. Peter Embi (Cincinnati, OH)

Dr. Boyd Shook (Oklahoma City, OK)

Dr. Anita Henderson (Bend, OR)

Dr. John Maris (Philadelphia, PA)

Dr. Nirali Bora (Providence, RI)

Dr. Tracy Nelson  (Myrtle Beach, SC)

Dr. Nancy Babbitt (Rapid City, SD)

Dr. Jill Jones (Nashville, TN)

Dr. Winfred Parnell (Dallas, TX)

Dr. Robin Poppen (Sandy, UT)

Dr. Riva Kamat (Fairfax, VA)

Dr. James Wallace (Burlington, VT)

Dr. Gary Goldbaum (Everett, WA)

Dr. Jan Sarnecki (Neenah, WI)

Dr. Zarpash Babar (Charleston, WV)

Dr. William Portilla (Laramie, WY)

 

WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Explains How Health Insurance Reform Will Strengthen America’s Small Businesses

 

WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Barack Obama spoke of how the rising costs of health care are stifling America’s small businesses, and how reform will strengthen these businesses and the economy.  Small businesses create roughly half of all new jobs, but they also pay up to 18 percent more for the very same insurance plans as larger businesses.  Too many have been forced to cut benefits, drop coverage, shed jobs, or shut their doors entirely.  Health insurance reform is integral to laying a new foundation for our economy so that small businesses can grow and create new jobs. 

 

The audio and video will be available at 6:00am Saturday, October 3, 2009 at www.whitehouse.gov.

 

Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address

Washington, DC

October 3, 2009

 

When I took office eight months ago, our nation was in the midst of an economic crisis unlike any we’d seen in generations.  While I was confident that our economy would recover, we know that employment is often the last thing to come back after a recession.  Our task is to do everything we possibly can to accelerate that process. 

 

And we’ve certainly made progress on this front since the period last winter when we were losing an average of 700,000 jobs each month.  But yesterday’s report on September job losses was a sobering reminder that progress comes in fits and starts, and that we will need to grind out this recovery step by step.

 

That’s why I’m working closely with my economic team to explore additional options to promote job creation.  And I won’t let up until those who seek jobs can find them; until businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; and until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. 

 

It won’t be easy.  It will require us to lay a new foundation for our economy – one that gives our workers the skills and education they need to compete; that invests in renewable energy and the jobs of the future; and that makes health care affordable for families and businesses – particularly small businesses, many of which have been overwhelmed by rising health care costs. 

 

This is something I hear about from entrepreneurs I meet – people who’ve got a good idea, and the expertise and determination to build it into a thriving business.  But many can’t take that leap because they can’t afford to lose the health insurance they have at their current job. 

 

I hear about it from small business owners who want to grow their companies and hire more people, but they can’t, because they can barely afford to insure the employees they have.  One small business owner wrote to me that health care costs are – and I quote – “stifling my business growth.”  He said that the money he wanted to use for research and development, and to expand his operations, has instead been “thrown into the pocket of healthcare insurance carriers.”

 

These small businesses are the mom and pop stores and restaurants, beauty shops and construction companies that support families and sustain communities.  They’re the small startups with big ideas, hoping to be the next Google, or Apple, or HP.  Altogether, they create roughly half of all new jobs. 

 

And right now, they are paying up to 18 percent more for the very same insurance plans as larger businesses because they have higher administrative costs and less bargaining power.  Many have been forced to cut benefits or drop coverage.  Some have shed jobs or shut their doors entirely.  And recent studies show that if we fail to act now, employers will pay six percent more to insure their employees next year – and more than twice as much over the next decade. 

 

Rising health care costs are undermining our businesses, exploding our deficits, and costing our nation more jobs with each passing month.  

 

So we know that reforming our health insurance system will be a critical step in rebuilding our economy so that our entrepreneurs can pursue the American Dream again, and our small businesses can grow and expand and create new jobs again. 

 

That is precisely what the reform legislation before Congress right now will do.  Under these proposals, small businesses will be able to purchase health insurance through an insurance exchange, a marketplace where they can compare the price, quality and services of a wide variety of plans, many of which will provide better coverage at lower costs than the plans they have now. 

 

Small businesses won’t be required to cover their employees, but many that do will receive a tax credit to help them pay for it.  If a small business chooses not to provide coverage, its employees will receive tax credits to help them purchase health insurance on their own through the insurance exchange. 

 

And no matter how you get your insurance, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny your coverage because of a pre-existing condition.  They won’t be able to drop your coverage if you get too sick, or lose your job, or change jobs.  And we’ll limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay out of your own pocket.

 

By now, the urgency of these reforms is abundantly clear.  And after long hours of thoughtful deliberation and tough negotiation, the Senate Finance Committee – the final congressional committee involved in shaping health care legislation – has finished the process of crafting their reform proposal. 

 

As we move forward in the coming weeks, I understand that members of Congress from both parties will want to engage in a vigorous debate and contribute their own ideas.  And I welcome those contributions.  I welcome any sincere attempts to improve legislation before it reaches my desk.  But what I will not accept are attempts to stall, or drag our feet.  I will not accept partisan efforts to block reform at any cost. 

 

Instead, I expect us to move forward with a spirit of civility, a seriousness of purpose, and a willingness to compromise that characterizes our democratic process at its very best.  If we do that, I am confident that we will pass reform this year, and help ensure that our entrepreneurs, our businesses, and our economy can thrive in the years ahead.  Thank you.  

 

Because of other tabloid news stories, such as the Jon Gosselin saga and the David Letterman scandal, the leaked autopsy report of Michael Jackson didn’t get any play. The Associated Press somehow got a hold of the report and the findings within it allegedly disproves everything that Dr. Conrad Murray said about the health and well-being of Michael Jackson.

The unofficially released autopsy reports state that Michael Jackson was in good health and only suffered from mild arthritis and an acute inflammation of the lungs. The alleged report also found that Michael Jackson did indeed suffer from vitiligo.

Here’s the article filed by The New York Times:

LOS ANGELES – Michael Jackson’s official autopsy report indicated that the surgical anesthetic propofol in combination with three other sedatives probably stopped the pop star’s breathing and killed him, said an anesthesiologist who reviewed the document.

In a phone interview on Thursday, the doctor, Zeev Kain, the chairman of the anesthesiology department at the University of California, Irvine, said he reviewed the autopsy report, which has not been publicly released, on behalf of The Associated Press. Officials with the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and the Los Angeles County coroner’s office said that they had not released the report and did not know where the leaked information came from.

Dr. Kain said that Mr. Jackson’s arms were covered in multiple needle marks.

“There was evidence of repeated injections,” he said. Mr. Jackson’s knees also had several puncture marks, signs that he had knee surgery and received shots to reduce joint inflammation, Dr. Kain said.

Mr. Jackson also had reduced lung capacity due to chronic inflammation, Dr. Kain said.

“It’s an unusual finding,” Dr. Kain said. “It looked like from the pathology report that he had this condition for years, but it’s very hard to know what the reason was.”

Mr. Jackson weighed 136 pounds, stood 5-foot-9 and was free of major illnesses or serious organ damage. He suffered from arthritis of the spine and fingers, lacked pigmentation on his chest, and was balding, but otherwise was in relatively good health, Dr. Kain said.

Dr. Kain also said the autopsy report indicated the extent to which Mr. Jackson had gone to stave off old age; there were cosmetic surgery scars behind his ears and nostrils, as well scars on his neck, wrists, arms and stomach. He said Mr. Jackson also had several tattoos: on his scalp to hide his receding hairline, his eyebrows, and a pink tattoo around his lips.

Mr. Jackson died on June 25 after his personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, administered propofol and other drugs to help the pop singer’s insomnia. After putting Mr. Jackson under, Dr. Murray went to the bathroom, according to his statements to investigators. By the time Dr. Murray returned, Mr. Jackson had stopped breathing and was never revived. His death was ruled a homicide by the Los Angeles County coroner’s office.

The Los Angeles Police Department and the California Attorney General’s Office are investigating Dr. Murray and other doctors who allegedly provided Mr. Jackson with illegal prescriptions for various drugs.

 

                                      ***Thank You, New York Times***

Tionne “T-Boz” Watkins revealed to People magazine that she has been battling a brain tumor for three years. The tumor was diagnosed as a non-cancerous acoustic neuroma in 2006 after years of suffering painful headaches. In the interview, Watkins said that a MRI showed she had a tumor the size of a grapefruit.

Watkins explained to People what happened after she awoke from brain surgery:

 ”When I awoke, I could hear and I looked normal, but then I had a sickle-cell crisis. With the pain meds and steroids, they said I kept flopping and hitting my head. They gave me IV (intravenous) fluids in order to stop it.”

“After I was released (from hospital) more than a week later, the ride to my Los Angeles apartment was like vertigo to the 10th power. I had to sit up in bed for two months. They propped me up, but I kept sliding down, which made my head swell. It was so painful. At one point, fluid poured out of my nose.”

“I was readmitted (to hospital). I couldn’t walk or really see. I heard screeching noises. They said, ‘We may have to cut you open again…’ I prayed and the fluid stopped.”

The setback in her recovery became so bad, Watkins was left unable to speak for months: “In rehab, I had to relearn how to walk and how to say my ABCs.”

The recovery was a success for Tionne Watkins because she became a celebrity contestant on “The Apprentice” and was recently seen enjoying lunch and conversation with good friend Kandi of Bravo’s Real Housewives of Atlanta.

Music mogul and father of Beyonce and Solange Knowles, Matthew Knowles, was sued for paternity this week in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Alleged six month pregnant paramour Alexsandra Wright has sought the legal expertise of famed Hollywood attorney to the stars, Neal Hersh.

Neal Hersh represented actress Kim Basinger in her notoriously bitter tabloid divorce from ex Alex Baldwin along with firm partner, Judy Bogen.

Alexsandra Wright is due in December.

THE WHITE HOUSE

 

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                            October 1, 2009

 

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON THE MEETING OF THE P5+1 REGARDING IRAN

 

Diplomatic Reception Room

 

 

3:22 P.M. EDT

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Before I comment on today’s meeting in Geneva, I want to say a few words about the recent tragic events in the Pacific.

 

On behalf of the American people, I want to once again extend my deepest condolences to the people of American Samoa and Samoa for the terrible loss of life and the devastation that took place after the recent earthquake and tsunami. I’ve spoken to the governor and delegate from American Samoa, and we continue to provide the full support of the federal government for relief efforts there.  I have also directed the State Department to provide the assistance necessary to help Samoa recover as well.

 

We’re also deeply moved by the suffering and loss of life that’s been caused by the recent earthquake in West Sumatra.  And my administration has been in touch with the government of Indonesia to make it clear that the United States stands ready to help in this time of need, and I’ve ordered my administration to coordinate with the ongoing relief and recovery efforts there.

 

Indonesia is an extraordinary country that’s known extraordinary hardship from natural disasters.  I know firsthand that the Indonesian people are strong and resilient and have the spirit to overcome this enormous challenge. And as they do, they need to know that America will be their friend and partner.

 

Today, in Geneva, the United States –- along with our fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council -– namely, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, as well as Germany -– held talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

These meetings came after several months of intense diplomatic effort.  Upon taking office, I made it clear that the United States was prepared to join our P5-plus-1 partners as a full participant in talks with Iran.  I extended the offer of meaningful engagement to the Iranian government.  I committed the United States to a comprehensive effort to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear power –- provided that they live up to their international obligations.

 

And we have engaged in intensive bilateral and multilateral diplomacy with our P5-plus-1 partners — and with nations around the world –- to reinforce this point, including an historic U.N. Security Council resolution that was passed unanimously last week.

 

The result is clear:  The P5-plus-1 is united, and we have an international community that has reaffirmed its commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament.  That’s why the Iranian government heard a clear and unified message from the international community in Geneva:  Iran must demonstrate through concrete steps that it will live up to its responsibilities with regard to its nuclear program.

 

In pursuit of that goal, today’s meeting was a constructive beginning, but it must be followed by constructive action by the Iranian government.

 

First, Iran must demonstrate its commitment to transparency. Earlier this month, we presented clear evidence that Iran has been building a covert nuclear facility in Qom.  Since Iran has now agreed to cooperate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency, it must grant unfettered access to IAEA inspectors within two weeks.  I’ve been in close touch with the head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, who will be traveling to Tehran in the days ahead.  He has my full support, and the Iranian government must grant the IAEA full access to the site in Qom.

 

Second, Iran must take concrete steps to build confidence that its nuclear program will serve peaceful purposes — steps that meet Iran’s obligations under multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions.  The IAEA proposal that was agreed to in principle today with regard to the Tehran research reactor is a confidence-building step that is consistent with that objective -– provided that it transfers Iran’s low enriched uranium to a third country for fuel fabrication.  As I’ve said before, we support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear power.  Taking the step of transferring its low enriched uranium to a third country would be a step towards building confidence that Iran’s program is in fact peaceful.

 

Going forward, we expect to see swift action.  We’re committed to serious and meaningful engagement.  But we’re not interested in talking for the sake of talking.  If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations, then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely, and we are prepared to move towards increased pressure.  If Iran takes concrete steps and lives up to its obligations, there is a path towards a better relationship with the United States, increased integration with the international community, and a better future for all Iranians.

 

So let me reiterate:  This is a constructive beginning, but hard work lies ahead.  We’ve entered a phase of intensive international negotiations.  And talk is no substitute for action.  Pledges of cooperation must be fulfilled.  We have made it clear that we will do our part to engage the Iranian government on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect, but our patience is not unlimited.

 

This is not about singling out Iran.  This is not about creating double standards.  This is about the global non-proliferation regime, and Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, just as all nations have it — but with that right, comes responsibilities.  The burden of meeting these responsibilities lies with the Iranian government, and they are now the ones that need to make that choice.

 

Thank you very much.