PRESS BRIEFING BY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TOM DONILON, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AFFAIRS MIKE FROMAN, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION BEN RHODES, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS BILL BURNS, AND PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS ON THE PRESIDENT’S VISIT TO INDIA

PRESS BRIEFING

BY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TOM DONILON,

DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR

FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

MIKE FROMAN,

DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR

FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

BEN RHODES,

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS

BILL BURNS,

AND PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

ON THE PRESIDENT’S VISIT TO INDIA

 

Aboard Air Force One

En Route Ramstein, Germany

November 5, 2010

 

3:48 P.M. EDT

 

MR. GIBBS:  So what we wanted to do is just talk a little bit about the first couple days as we’ve done before, see if you guys have questions.  You remember our Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns.  You know Ben Rhodes, Mr. Froman.  And I’m trying to figure out where our National Security Advisor Tom Donilon is in the next cabin, and he’s going to come over as well.

 

So I’ll kick it off with Ben, and we’ll have Tom come in if you guys have questions.

 

MR. RHODES:  Thanks, guys.  We’ve briefed this before, but we just wanted to check in in case you had any other questions.  And, again, on the economic components, Mike has really been in the lead in terms of organizing the business summit, so he can speak to that.

 

But we get to Mumbai and we go right to the Taj Hotel where the President is the first foreign head of state to stay at the hotel since the 26/11 attacks.  He’ll greet with some survivors and folks who’ve lost family from the different sites that were attacked, and then he’ll make brief remarks to, again, a representative group of folks who were affected by the 26/11 attacks.

 

Then he will go to the Gandhi museum in town and pay a visit there.  And then we head into the business summit, again, which Mike can speak to, which has three components to it:  the roundtable with entrepreneurs that the President will join; then a roundtable with some American CEOs, who will discuss doing business in India; and then the President will make a speech to the group.

 

Mike, do you want to say anything else to set it up, or you guys might just want to ask any questions you have about the business portion to Mike here.

 

MR. FROMAN:  I think, as Ben said, it’s really three sections.  First is a group of Indian entrepreneurs who are importing U.S. technology and applying them to the Indian market.  And then you’ve got some of the leading American CEOs who will share with the President their views on doing business in India and the opportunity there.  And then he’ll give a speech on the broad economic relationship and on the commercial relationship, including talking about some deals that are being consummated between now and then.

 

MR. RHODES:  We expect roughly how many American business leaders?

 

MR. FROMAN:  Over 200, and an equivalent number of Indians.  So it’s the largest — I think it’s the largest group of business leaders accompanying a President ever.

 

MR. RHODES:  Prominent CEOs include GE and –

 

MR. FROMAN:  Immelt will be there, Dave Cote of Honeywell, Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, Paul Hanrahan of AES.  There will be representatives of Boeing there, et cetera.

 

MR. RHODES:  The President will have an opportunity to see McNerney when they land.  So he’ll –

 

MR. FROMAN:  Jim McNerney is the chairman of the President’s Export Council; will meet the President in Mumbai at the airport and fly in with him and brief him on his perspective on India, doing business in India, and some of the work that he’s doing through the Export Council related to that.

 

Q    On the helicopter coming in?

 

MR. RHODES:  Yes.

 

Q    Are there any updates on the status of some of those commercial deals?

 

MR. FROMAN:  I think we’ll learn more when we land, but we expect several deals to be announced around the President’s visit tomorrow.

 

Q    Will he announce it during the speech or will they be announced in advance?

 

MR. RHODES:  I think we’ll do it in advance, so it will be — certainly the more significant transactions will be announced before the President’s speech, and then he’ll, of course, refer to them in his remarks.

 

Q    Are these American CEOs there in India regularly as part of an ongoing structure?

 

MR. FROMAN:  Some of them are members of the U.S.-India CEO Forum that will be actually having a meeting in Delhi in Monday.  But others, like Immelt, he’s there regularly as part of his doing business.  But — and McNerney, they’re there doing business, not — they’re not there as part of the CEO forum.

 

Q    Okay, but this sizeable gathering is here specifically timed to the President’s trip?

 

MR. FROMAN:  It is — the U.S.-India Business Council together with two Indian business organizations organized this business summit around the time of the President’s visit.  It’s a great opportunity for American business leaders to come to India around the President’s visit to engage on these issues.

 

MR. RHODES:  Tom, do you want to — I went through the schedule for the first day, and then you heard — anything to add on that?

 

MR. FROMAN:  We were the warm-up act.

 

MR. DONILON:  Let me add — what basis are we talking on?

 

MR. RHODES:  On the record.

 

MR. DONILON:  Well, as Mike said, I think that the presence of a large number of American CEOs here really does underscore the opportunity here for American business and for American economic growth.  We’ve had — and I think, Mike, you’ve gone through this in other forums — we really have seen since 2002 a pretty substantial growth in American exports to India in terms of goods and services, increasing I think four times over the course of this seven years with respect to goods and some three times with respect to services.  And that’s obviously an important theme of the first day here is to give a complete look at the U.S.-Indian economic relationship in all its complexity but also in terms of the opportunity and the importance of it to our export and economic growth efforts.

 

I can do a little bit of background on the –

 

MR. RHODES:  On the whole trip.

 

MR. DONILON:  — on the entire trip if you wanted to do that.  And Bill — obviously Bill Burns, who is here with me, can help me out on this stuff.

 

I wanted to give you a sense of how we think about the U.S.-India relationship, which is really a fundamental relationship for the United States and one that is a very high priority for us and has been from the outset of the administration.

 

This is the sixth visit by a U.S. President to India.  But more importantly, I think — and Bill, you made this point the other day — it’s the next step, and a very significant step, in a significant transformation in U.S.-India relations, really beginning with President Clinton’s trip to India in March of 2000, followed by President Bush’s trip to India in March of 2006, and now this step.

 

These visits by U.S. Presidents — and again, when you look at it against the backdrop of U.S.-India relations over the last 50 years — are highly significant, and I think this one will be in this category of highly significant as we try to take the relationship and will take the relationship to a different level going beyond bilateral elements that we’ll be working on, although those will be part of this, to a more global partnership across a range of issues.

 

So on the trip generally, Asia has been a core focus of our policy, foreign policy and national security policy, since the first days of the administration.  It’s the most economically dynamic region in the world.  I was looking at the IMF numbers today, and Mike, you can check me on this, but I read them as saying that between 2002 and 2009, again, world economic growth was at about 3.6 percent, and the growth of developing Asia was at 8.2 percent.  That’s quite a dramatic statistic, and indicative of the opportunity and the importance of this region, with the United States as a key power.

 

India is a cornerstone relationship for the United States in India, a bedrock partner in our efforts in Asia.  Now, talking about Asia more generally, when we came into office, we looked at a range of the priorities that we would be pursuing as an administration, and we did a number of things at the outset.  We undertook a determined effort, which I think has been quite effective, to restore U.S. influence, power and authority in the world.  I think that’s been manifest — and we can talk about that as you want — to a range of dimensions.  We were determined to build on and enhance and intensify the counterterrorism efforts that the country was undertaking.  We looked very hard at great power relations, and we’ve undertaken a determined effort to make those relationships as productive and positive as possible.  That explains our intensive interaction with a range of partners around the world — Russia, China, Europe, emerging powers like India.

 

We sought to reinvigorate alliances, and we sought to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the United States’ global posture in the world:  Where are we applying our influence, our resources, our attention in the world?

 

And we took a number of steps on priorities there.  And you get to do that at the beginning of an administration, to think hard about really where should — where are we underweighted in terms of our attention and our resources, our activities?  And we identified Asia from the first days of the administration as an important opportunity for the United States and an area of the world that required greater and intensified engagement and resources by the United States.  And President Obama undertook to address that focus.

 

It was from the outset — and really, I mean this from the first days of the administration — a determined and deliberate effort.  The Secretary of State’s first trip abroad was to Asia.  That’s the first time the United States Secretary of State has taken his or her first trip abroad to Asia since Dean Rusk did so in the early 1960s.

 

We undertook an intensive engagement effort across the board.  An example of that is that President Obama has had six face-to-face meetings with President Hu Jintao of China since he became President.  That’s more encounters between a U.S. President and a Chinese President in that comparable period of time than has ever been seen, and he’ll have, obviously, as you all know, his seventh face-to-face meeting with President Hu Jintao on the margins of the G20 meeting in Seoul, Korea, on this trip.

 

We engaged in intensified diplomacy in working on joint projects with a range of partners in Asia.  The President, for example, has hosted two ASEAN leaders’ meetings, and he’ll continue doing — with that engagement.  We have drilled very hard — worked very hard on reinvigorating our key alliances in the region.  I think at this point our relationship with South Korea, for example, has never been stronger, working through a number of common projects — and challenges, frankly:  the North Korea situation, the sinking of the Cheonan earlier this year.

 

So — then of course a range of activities.  I also want to mention the institution-building effort that is underway.  We are engaged in a very intensive effort on building up the security, political and economic architecture of Asia.  What do I mean by that?  Really working in a more intense way with ASEAN — we’re going to be joining the East Asian summit; working to invigorate the APEC — these institutional efforts where the United States is not stepping back.  A few years ago, there was talk about the United States being pushed out of these organizations.  We’re now at the core of these organizations, building out a comprehensive security, political and economic architecture in Asia with the United States directly and intensively engaged.

 

And there’s where India comes in.  India is the first stop on the President’s trip to Asia.  It is a natural partner for the United States, and we intend to underscore that.  In what ways?  The breadth of the relationship.  The number of things that we will work with India on will be manifest during the course of the trip.  I think we’re going to have 17 or 18 announcements and fact sheets about that, if I’m not mistaken, across a range of economic — importantly, by the way — security and political dimensions.

 

We’re a natural partner for India given the nature of our systems — democracies; vibrant, tolerant, diverse societies.  Additionally, our two heads of state, government, Prime Minister Singh and President Obama, have really forged a very strong partnership from the first time that they met in London in April of 2009.

 

We share an interest in a stable and balanced Asia.  And we have now a military-to-military relationship that was unimaginable a few years ago.  We do more military exercises with India now than we do with any other country in the world.

 

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS:  The Indians do more military exercises with us every year than they do with anybody else in the world.

 

MR. DONILON:  Yes.  So that gives you a sense of the breadth of the relationship.  Again, our intent here during the course of this trip is to demonstrate that breadth.  There will be a number of specific announcements, obviously, as we go forward.  But it really isn’t just the transactional nature here.  It’s the overall thrust of the relationship, I think, that really is the important story here.  And that’s how we’ve been thinking about Asia generally and this trip specifically.

 

Bill, do you have a –

 

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS:  No, I mean, just as Tom said, I think in a number of different dimensions of our relationship –

 

MR. DONILON:  I’m not sure — let me get that back — the Indians do more exercises with us they do with anybody — any other country in the world.  Thank you.

 

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS:  Yes, and on the security relationship in general, I mean, it’s a part of the relationship that’s grown quite dramatically over recent years.  We’ve done, for example, about $4 billion worth of defense sales to India just since 2008.  There are some other big sales that are in the offing.  And as Tom said, on the political side also, we’ve expanded kind of systematic dialogues with the Indians about East Asia, about Central Asia, the Middle East, in ways that we didn’t do before.

 

So it’s a relationship that’s grown an enormous amount in the last decade, and I think has enormous potential as you look out at this visit and beyond it.

 

MR. RHODES:  Real quick, just to set up the visit and relate it to the announcements Tom referred to, I think what you’ll see is the first day we’ll focus on the economic relationship, issues related to the transactions, U.S. exports, export controls, things in that category.  The second day, a lot of what the President is doing is speaking directly to the Indian people, but we’ll also have events that are associated with initiatives on agriculture and open government and democracy.  And Secretary Vilsack and Administrator Shah will be speaking to that.  We’ll set up a briefing on that in advance of that event.  And Samantha Power and Aneesh Chopra will be speaking to you about the democracy and open government cooperation.

 

And then the third day, of course, is the official day in Delhi, and so that’s where we’ll have a lot of the announcements related to security cooperation, political cooperation and the like.  So just to give you guys a sense of when we’ll be announcing different pieces of these cooperative initiatives.

 

MR. DONILON:  To follow up on Bill’s point, President Obama intends this trip to be and intends our policy to be a full embrace of India’s rise, a way to develop and deepen the broadest possible relationship that we can have with India as a cornerstone of our Asia policy, where we share a range of joint interests.

 

So, be glad to –

 

Q    I was just — actually, on that very point, you’ve talked about so many ways in which the two countries are already cooperating and this relationship is expanding.  So what is the high significance of a presidential visit, when you talk about going — speaking to people at town halls, going to museums, spending this much time in India?  How does that, in and of itself, change things?

 

MR. DONILON:  Yes, a couple points, and then I’ll let Bill comment as well.

 

With respect to the specifics — and then I’ll get to your broader point — the range of specific things that we’re doing here really is intended to show and, in fact, demonstrate a global partnership.  That is a partnership, if you will, between two countries that are close, two democracies.  It’s a qualitatively enhanced relationship.  It’s not just a transactional deal, where you have this — we have this problem we’re going to work on together.  It’s broader than that.  And I think that’s the place where we’re getting, is really kind of a global partnership with them, is point one.

 

Point two, a presidential trip to India, these have — really is a powerful message to the people of India and to the people of the United States about the importance and depth of the relationship, and that’s a very important thing to do, obviously, particularly in democracies, to really have a powerful demonstration.  And there’s no more powerful way to do that than a presidential trip to a country like India.

 

I don’t know what the exact numbers will turn out to be, for example, but I would imagine that the audience for the President’s speech from parliament on Monday will be in the hundreds of millions of people.  And that is really a way to bring the peoples of both countries into and invested in that relationship.

 

We have in the United States, for example — an important part of this is the people-to-people aspect — and Bill, you briefed on this the other day — and I think I’ve got this right, that there are more Indian students in the United States than any other country.

 

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS:  We have more than 100,000 Indian students, university students, in the U.S. today, more than any other single country.

 

MR. DONILON:  But to go directly to your question, I think that’s the essence of it, really, is to — it also, by the way, is an important statement to the region, to the rest of the region, about the United States-Indian relationship, working through the specifics, obviously, but being there for the longest period of time that the President will have been in any foreign country on a trip says something about the quality of the relationship and the commitment that the United States is making to the relationship going forward.  And that builds confidence and it gives momentum to the relationship.  It allows it to deepen, as I said, bilaterally, in terms of global partnership, and in terms of the work we do together in the region.

 

Q    You’ve emphasized that India is the first of four democracies in Asia that we’re going to be visiting over the next 10 days.  I’m wondering sort of what message that sends to China.  And you were also just recently in China — whether or not in your conversations over there whether Chinese leaders view this U.S. — the U.S. efforts to reengage with Asia as trying to serve as a counterweight to China’s –

 

MR. DONILON:  I’d say three or four things about that.  Number one, as you pointed out, on this trip the President will be visiting four democracies in Asia.  Number two, we have deep relationships with each of these countries in part because they are democracies, and the quality of that relationship between the United States and those countries reflects that, reflects those shared values.

 

Number three, that set of shared values as a base allows us to have broad relationships with them, for example, on things like security, intelligence, military-to-military relationships, but deep economic relationships as well.

 

With respect to China, the United States is a Pacific power and a power in Asia for the last half-century.  The United States’ efforts in Asia, including and especially on the security side, have built the platform on which the Asian economic miracle has been built, has stood up.  And we’re going to continue to do that.  That’s in our interests; that’s in the interests of the region.  Things like freedom of navigation, safety of navigation, stability, balance in the region are very much in our interests and in the interests of the region.

 

With respect to China specifically, we also are pursuing with China a productive, comprehensive and positive relationship, and I think just as the nations of the region look for closer relations with the United States, look for relationships with the United States that provides stability, balance and security, they also expect the United States as a principal power in Asia to conduct a positive and constructive relationship with China.  We think that’s in our interest, and also in our responsibilities in the region.

 

So you see the multiple tracks on which the United States, I think as, again, a principal power in Asia, operates.

 

We’ve been very clear with the Chinese that, in fact — and if you look at the joint statement from November of last year when we were in Beijing, it’s very clear that the United States is, has been, and will remain an Asian and Pacific power.  And in that, the Chinese expressly recognize the security contribution, the contribution to prosperity and stability that the United States presence brings there.

 

So we operate at a number of levels.  And as you said, I was in China, met with — three days with most of the leadership in China, and I think this is pretty clearly understood.

 

Q    So the Chinese shouldn’t think of this or worry about this as an “any place but China, let’s round up support for a counterweight” type of trip?

 

MR. DONILON:  Well, let’s go through it.  As I said, the United States intends and will meet its alliance obligations, stand with its friends when they have challenges, like the Cheonan incident, for example, where 46 sailors were killed in the South Korean navy.  We’ll continue to undertake the efforts that we have undertaken for half a century to support the security and prosperity in the region.  But at the same time, as I said earlier and I’ll expand a little bit here, we also fully intend to have as constructive and positive a relationship as we can with the Chinese.  We have a very large economic relationship with the Chinese.  We seek a productive relationship.  We think that’s in China’s interest, and a positive relationship, as well as in the United States’ interest.

 

So this is all part of the multi-dimensional role that the United States plays in the region, and we intend to play more intensively because, again, we believe — and we did our analysis at the outset of the administration — that our interests required more intensive engagement in this region, by the way, including with China.  And as I said earlier, the President has met with China — the Chinese President, more times during that period than during — in a relevant period of time than any U.S. President has.  He’s going to meet with President Hu Jintao for a seventh time in Seoul.

 

We have worked closely with the Chinese over the last two years on a range of issues, including addressing the financial crisis, so it’s a G20 mechanism; the Iran nuclear challenges; the North Korea challenges; and a range of other issues that we will work constructively and productively with the Chinese and we’ll undertake to do that.  We’ll have our disagreements, but what we hope — and we think it’s in their interest and our interest, to have those within the construct of an overall positive relationship.

 

So this is all part of the multi-dimensional role that the United States plays in the region, not aimed at China but aimed at the United States playing a role, which we think — to finish up on this — at the end of the day is in the interests of the region and our interests, and including in the interests of China.

 

Q    Can you talk at all about Afghanistan, what the United States would like to see from India on Afghanistan, and the idea that Pakistan and the United States and Indian, that the Indian influence in Afghanistan is taken by some in Pakistan as — they’re unhappy about it?

 

MR. DONILON:  I think that the comment I would make on that is that the United States and India share an interest in a stable and peaceful Afghanistan where extremist groups don’t present a threat to the region.  And that is a project, obviously, that the United States is deeply engaged in right now and that the Indians support.  Is that fair, Bill?

 

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS:  Yes, no, it is.  And the Indians, for example, have contributed about $1.3 billion in development assistance in Afghanistan since 2001, just made a quite significant contribution to agriculture and other areas.  It’s something that we welcome; Afghan government does, too.

 

Q    Is the President going to talk about Kashmir at all on the trip?

 

MR. DONILON:  Well, I don’t want to get into exactly what the President is going to talk about in his private conversation with Prime Minister Singh.  We have, as a longstanding policy, have encouraged the Indians and Pakistan to engage in dialogue on a range of issues, and we continue to encourage that.

 

Q    What extent do the Indians still complain to us about how much money, resources were pouring into the Pakistanis on not just the military but intelligence-sharing?  Does our role in helping to try and boost the Pakistanis in their fight against the Taliban still worry the Indians?

 

MR. DONILON:  Well, I’d just say this, as I said earlier.  The United States and India share an interest in seeing a stable and peaceful South Asia.  The United States and India share an intense interest in seeing extremist elements in South Asia disrupted and defeated.  And this is part of our overall project in South Asia, and the Indians have been supportive of that.

 

Now, but the last point, of course, we’ll have a poignant look at the shared interests that the United States and India have in defeating the forces of extremism in Asia when we visit Mumbai and we are at the memorials at the Taj Hotel in a little while.

 

Q    Can you speak at all to how — if at all — the President’s domestic political troubles will impact some of these negotiations that you’re talking about — economic, national security types of things?  I mean, does that — are you guys thinking about that?

 

MR. DONILON:  I’ll address that.  President Obama and our national security team pursue our national interest.  And we have had, over the first two years of this administration, quite solid and gratifying bipartisan support for our efforts, whether it be in the counterterrorism area, our efforts in Afghanistan, our range of efforts that are relevant to this region.

 

So to answer your question directly, our efforts from the outset of the administration have been to pursue U.S. interests, clearly identify and deliberately pursue.  And we have had very strong bipartisan support, really quite generally, with respect to those efforts, and we expect to continue to have that kind of support for these as best we can see right now.

 

Q    Can I ask a follow-up to that?  Along the same lines, though, some Indians have been concerned that some of the rhetoric along the campaign trail, the line that we’ve heard from the President talking about tax cut loopholes and whatnot, and this — maybe this perceived — perception that the U.S. is going into a protectionist kind of mentality — what kind of rhetoric will we hear from the President on this stop to just dispel those concerns?

 

MR. DONILON:  Well, I think, again, you’ll hear the President speak to it directly.  I can tell you, as a general matter, that we are pursuing a fairly intense and aggressive economic policy at home and abroad in pursuit of economic growth and greater employment in the United States.  And that requires us not to engage in protectionism and not to in any way disengage from the world, but in fact just the opposite, to engage the world, be present in these regions of the world that are economically vibrant, and to pursue our interests aggressively.  And that’s what you’ll see in this first stop.

 

MR. GIBBS:  And I would simply add to that, obviously later on in the trip and as we are on our way there, we’re involved in intensive discussions about a Korean-United States free trade agreement.  So I think the focus of this trip is — the main focus is in terms of opening up for our businesses some of the fastest-growing markets in the world.

 

Q    Do you have an update if there’s been progress since the last briefing on a Korean free trade agreement?

 

MR. GIBBS:  None at this point that I would report unless –

 

MR. FROMAN:  Teams are engaged with each other in an ongoing way.  Nothing new to report.

 

MR. GIBBS:  Constructive.  (Laughter.)

 

 

Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address The White House November 6, 2010

WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Calls for Compromise and Explains his Priorities on Taxes

 

WASHINGTON – As Congress prepares to focus on taxes when it returns to work later this month, President Obama called on both parties to work together and focus on the areas where all sides agree.  First, the President underscored that middle-class families need permanent tax relief, so Congress should permanently extend tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year – 98 percent of the American people.  And second, he noted that, with the nation’s challenging fiscal situation, the country simply cannot afford to borrow another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

 

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

The White House

November 6, 2010

 

This week, Americans across the country cast their votes and made their voices heard.  And your message was clear.

 

You’re rightly frustrated with the pace of our economic recovery.  So am I.

 

You’re fed up with partisan politics and want results.  I do too.

 

So I congratulate all of this week’s winners – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.  But now, the campaign season is over.  And it’s time to focus on our shared responsibilities to work together and deliver those results: speeding up our economic recovery, creating jobs, and strengthening the middle class so that the American Dream feels like it’s back within reach.

 

That’s why I’ve asked to sit down soon with leaders of both parties so that we can have an extended discussion about what we can do together to move this country forward.

 

And over the next few weeks, we’re going to have a chance to work together in the brief upcoming session of Congress.

 

Here’s why this lame duck session is so important.  Early in the last decade, President Bush and Congress enacted a series of tax cuts that were designed to expire at the end of this year.

 

What that means is, if Congress doesn’t act by New Year’s Eve, middle-class families will see their taxes go up starting on New Year’s Day.

 

But the last thing we should do is raise taxes on middle-class families.  For the past decade, they saw their costs rise, their incomes fall, and too many jobs go overseas.  They’re the ones bearing the brunt of the recession.  They’re the ones having trouble making ends meet.  They are the ones who need relief right now.

 

So something’s got to be done.  And I believe there’s room for us to compromise and get it done together.

 

Let’s start where we agree.  All of us want certainty for middle-class Americans.  None of us want them to wake up on January 1^st with a higher tax bill.  That’s why I believe we should permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year.  That’s 98 percent of the American people.

 

We also agree on the need to start cutting spending and bringing down our deficit.  That’s going to require everyone to make some tough choices.  In fact, if Congress were to implement my proposal to freeze non-security discretionary spending for three years, it would bring this spending down to its lowest level as share of the economy in 50 years.

 

But at a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.  We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.

 

I recognize that both parties are going to have to work together and compromise to get something done here.  But I want to make my priorities clear from the start.  One: middle class families need permanent tax relief.  And two: I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

 

There are new public servants in Washington, but we still face the same challenges.  And you made it clear that it’s time for results.  This a great opportunity to show everyone that we got the message and that we’re willing, in this post-election season, to come together and do what’s best for the country we all love.

 

Thanks.

 

 

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE OCTOBER JOBS REPORT

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON THE OCTOBER JOBS REPORT

 

Roosevelt Room

Washington, D.C.

 

9:36 A.M. EDT

 

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.  We are in the middle of a tough fight to get our economy growing faster, so that businesses across our country can open and expand, so that people can find good jobs, and so that we can repair the terrible damage that was done by the worst recession in our lifetimes.  Today we received some encouraging news.

 

Based on today’s jobs report, we’ve now seen private-sector job growth for 10 straight months.  That means that since January, the private sector has added 1.1 million jobs.  Let me repeat, over the course of the last several months, we’ve seen over a million jobs added to the American economy.  In October, the private sector has added 159,000 jobs.  And we learned that businesses added more than 100,000 jobs in both August and September as well.  So we’ve now seen four months of private-sector job growth above 100,000 [jobs], which is the first time we’ve seen this kind of increase in over four years.

 

Now, that’s not good enough.  The unemployment rate is still unacceptably high and we’ve got a lot of work to do.  This recession caused a great deal of hardship and it put millions of people out of work.  So in order to repair this damage, in order to create the jobs to meet the large need, we need to accelerate our economic growth so that we are producing jobs at a faster pace.

 

Because the fact is an encouraging jobs report doesn’t make a difference if you’re still one of the millions of people who are looking for work.  And I won’t be satisfied until everybody who is looking for a job can find one.  So we’ve got to keep fighting for every job, for every new business, for every opportunity to get this economy moving.  And just as we passed a small business jobs bill based on ideas from both parties and the private sector, I am open to any idea, any proposal, any way we can get the economy growing faster so that people who need work can find it faster.

 

This includes tax breaks for small businesses, like deferring taxes on new equipment, so that they’ve got an incentive to expand and hire, as well as tax cuts to make it cheaper for entrepreneurs to start companies.  This includes building new infrastructure, from high-speed trains to high-speed Internet, so that our economy can run faster and smarter.  It includes promoting research and innovation, and creating incentives in growth sectors like the clean energy economy.  And it certainly includes keeping tax rates low for middle-class families and extending unemployment benefits to help those hardest hit by the downturn while generating more demand in the economy.

 

It’s also absolutely clear that one of the keys to creating jobs is to open markets to American goods made by American workers.  Our prosperity depends not just on consuming things, but also on being the maker of things.  In fact, for every $1 billion we increase in exports, thousands of jobs are supported here at home.  And that’s why I’ve set a goal of doubling America’s exports over the next five years.  And that’s why on the trip that I’m about to take, I’m going to be talking about opening up additional markets in places like India, so that American businesses can sell more products abroad in order to create more jobs here at home.

 

And this is a reminder as well that the most important competition we face in this new century will not be between Democrats and Republicans.  It’s the competition with countries around the world to lead the global economy.  And our success or failure in this race will depend on whether we can come together as a nation.  Our future depends on putting politics aside to solve problems, to worry about the next generation instead of the next election.

 

We can’t spend the next two years mired in gridlock.  Other countries, like China, aren’t standing still.  So we can’t stand still either.  We’ve got to move forward.

 

I’m confident that if we can do that, if we can work together, then this country will not only recover, but it will prosper.  And I’m looking very much forward to helping to pry some markets open, help American businesses, and put people back to work here at home during the course of this trip.

 

Thank you very much.

 

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AFTER A CABINET MEETING

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AFTER A CABINET MEETING

 

Cabinet Room

 

9:40 A.M. EDT

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  I just want to make a few quick remarks to expand on some things that I said yesterday.  Obviously Tuesday was a big election.  I congratulated the Republicans and consoled some of our Democratic friends about the results, and I think it’s clear that the voters sent a message, which is they want us to focus on the economy and jobs and moving this country forward.  They’re concerned about making sure that taxpayer money is not wasted, and they want to change the tone here in Washington, where the two parties are coming together and focusing on the people’s business as opposed to scoring political points.

 

I just had a meeting with my Cabinet and key staff to let them know that we have to take that message to heart and make a sincere and consistent effort to try to change how Washington operates.  And the folks around this table have done extraordinary work in their agencies.  They have cooperated consistently with Congress.  I think they are interested in bipartisan ideas.  And so they are going to be integral in helping me to root out waste in government, make our agencies more efficient, and generate more ideas so that we can put the American people back to work.

 

Now, at the same time, obviously what’s going to be critically important over the coming months is creating a better working relationship between this White House and the congressional leadership that’s coming in, as well as the congressional leadership that carries over from the previous Congress.  And so I want everybody to know that I have already called Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to invite them to a meeting here at the White House in the first week of the lame duck on November 18th.  This is going to be a meeting in which I’ll want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people’s agenda forward.  It’s not just going to be a photo op.  Hopefully — it may spill over into dinner.  And the immediate focus is going to be what we need to get done during the lame-duck session.

 

I mentioned yesterday we have to act in order to assure that middle-class families don’t see a big tax spike because of how the Bush tax cuts have been structured.  It is very important that we extend those middle-class tax provisions to hold middle-class families harmless.

 

But there are a whole range of other economic issues that have to be addressed:  unemployment insurance for folks who are still out there looking for work; business extenders, which are essentially provisions to encourage businesses to invest here in the United States, and if we don’t have those, we’re losing a very important tool for us to be able to increase business investment and increase job growth over the coming year.  We’ve got to provide businesses some certainty about what their tax landscape is going to look like, and we’ve got to provide families certainty.  That’s critical to maintain our recovery.

 

I should mention that in addition to those economic issues, there are some things during the lame duck that relate to foreign policy that are going to be very important for us to deal with, and I’ll make mention of one in particular, and that’s the START treaty.  We have negotiated with the Russians significant reductions in our nuclear arms.  This is something that traditionally has received strong bipartisan support.  We’ve got people like George Shultz, who helped to organize arms control treaties with the Russians back when it was the Soviet Union who have come out forcefully in favor of this.

 

This is not a traditionally Democratic or Republican issue but rather a issue of American national security.  And I am hopeful that we can get that done before we leave and send a strong signal to Russia that we are serious about reducing nuclear arsenals, but also sending a signal to the world that we’re serious about nonproliferation.  We’ve made great progress when it comes to sending a message to Iran that they are isolated internationally, in part because people have seen that we are serious about taking our responsibilities when it comes to nonproliferation, and that has to continue.

 

So there is going to be a whole range of work that needs to get done in a relatively short period of time, and I’m looking forward to having a conversation with the leadership about some agenda items that they may be concerned about.

 

Last point I’ll make is that I’ve also invited the newly elected Democratic and Republican governors here to the White House on December 2nd because I think it’s a terrific opportunity to hear from them, folks who are working at the state and local levels, about what they’re seeing, what ideas they think Washington needs to be paying more attention to.

 

A lot of times things are a little less ideological when you get governors together because they’ve got very practical problems that they’ve got to solve in terms of how do they make sure that roads and bridges are funded and how do they make sure that schools stay open and teachers stay on the job.  That kind of nuts and bolts stuff I think oftentimes yields the kind of commonsense approach that the American people I think are looking for right now.

 

So, in sum, we’ve got a lot of work to do.  People are still catching their breath from the election.  The dust is still settling.  But the one thing I’m absolutely certain of is that the American people don’t want us just standing still and they don’t want us engaged in gridlock.  They want us to do the people’s business, partly because they understand that the world is not standing still.

 

I’m going to be leaving tomorrow for India, and the primary purpose is to take a bunch of U.S. companies and open up markets so that we can sell in Asia, in some of the fastest-growing markets in the world, and we can create jobs here in the United States of America.  And my hope is, is that we’ve got some specific announcements that show the connection between what we’re doing overseas and what happens here at home when it comes to job growth and economic growth.

 

But the bottom line is, is that all around the world, countries are moving.  They are serious about competing.  They are serious about competing with us not just on manufacturing but on services.  They’re competing with us when it comes to educational attainment, when it comes to scientific discovery.

 

And so we can’t afford two years of just squabbling.  What we need to do is make sure that everybody is pulling together, Democrats and Republicans and independents, folks at the federal level and the state levels, private sector with the public sector, to make sure that America retains it competitiveness, retains its leadership in the world.  And that’s something that I’m very much looking forward to helping to be a part of.

 

So, thank you very much, everybody.

 

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA HOLDS PRESS CONFERENCE AFTER REPUBLICANS WIN THE HOUSE

RESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT

 

East Room

 

 

1:02 P.M. EDT

 

 

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody.  Last night I had a chance to speak to the leaders of the House and the Senate and reached out to those who had both won and lost in both parties.  I told John Boehner and Mitch McConnell that I look forward to working with them.  And I thanked Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for their extraordinary leadership over the last two years.

 

After what I’m sure was a long night for a lot of you — and needless to say it was for me — I can tell you that some election nights are more fun than others.  Some are exhilarating; some are humbling.  But every election, regardless of who wins and who loses, is a reminder that in our democracy, power rests not with those of us in elected office, but with the people we have the privilege to serve.

 

Over the last few months I’ve had the opportunity to travel around the country and meet people where they live and where they work, from backyards to factory floors.  I did some talking, but mostly I did a lot of listening.  And yesterday’s vote confirmed what I’ve heard from folks all across America:  People are frustrated — they’re deeply frustrated — with the pace of our economic recovery and the opportunities that they hope for their children and their grandchildren.  They want jobs to come back faster, they want paychecks to go further, and they want the ability to give their children the same chances and opportunities as they’ve had in life.

 

The men and women who sent us here don’t expect Washington to solve all their problems.  But they do expect Washington to work for them, not against them.  They want to know that their tax dollars are being spent wisely, not wasted, and that we’re not going to leave our children a legacy of debt.  They want to know that their voices aren’t being drowned out by a sea of lobbyists and special interests and partisan bickering.  They want business to be done here openly and honestly.

 

Now, I ran for this office to tackle these challenges and give voice to the concerns of everyday people.  Over the last two years, we’ve made progress.  But, clearly, too many Americans haven’t felt that progress yet, and they told us that yesterday. And as President, I take responsibility for that.

 

What yesterday also told us is that no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here, that we must find common ground in order to set — in order to make progress on some uncommonly difficult challenges.  And I told John Boehner and Mitch McConnell last night I am very eager to sit down with members of both parties and figure out how we can move forward together.

 

I’m not suggesting this will be easy.  I won’t pretend that we will be able to bridge every difference or solve every disagreement.  There’s a reason we have two parties in this country, and both Democrats and Republicans have certain beliefs and certain principles that each feels cannot be compromised.  But what I think the American people are expecting, and what we owe them, is to focus on those issues that affect their jobs, their security, and their future:  reducing our deficit, promoting a clean energy economy, making sure that our children are the best educated in the world, making sure that we’re making the investments in technology that will allow us to keep our competitive edge in the global economy.

 

Because the most important contest we face is not the contest between Democrats and Republicans.  In this century, the most important competition we face is between America and our economic competitors around the world.  To win that competition, and to continue our economic leadership, we’re going to need to be strong and we’re going to need to be united.

 

None of the challenges we face lend themselves to simple solutions or bumper-sticker slogans.  Nor are the answers found in any one particular philosophy or ideology.  As I’ve said before, no person, no party, has a monopoly on wisdom.  And that’s why I’m eager to hear good ideas wherever they come from, whoever proposes them.  And that’s why I believe it’s important to have an honest and civil debate about the choices that we face.  That’s why I want to engage both Democrats and Republicans in serious conversations about where we’re going as a nation.

 

And with so much at stake, what the American people don’t want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two.  We just had a tough election.  We will have another in 2012.  I’m not so naïve as to think that everybody will put politics aside until then, but I do hope to make progress on the very serious problems facing us right now.  And that’s going to require all of us, including me, to work harder at building consensus.

 

You know, a little over a month ago, we held a town hall meeting in Richmond, Virginia.  And one of the most telling questions came from a small business owner who runs a tree care firm.  He told me how hard he works and how busy he was; how he doesn’t have time to pay attention to all the back-and-forth in Washington.  And he asked, is there hope for us returning to civility in our discourse, to a healthy legislative process, so as I strap on the boots again tomorrow, I know that you guys got it under control?  It’s hard to have a faith in that right now, he said.

 

I do believe there is hope for civility.  I do believe there’s hope for progress.  And that’s because I believe in the resiliency of a nation that’s bounced back from much worse than what we’re going through right now — a nation that’s overcome war and depression, that has been made more perfect in our struggle for individual rights and individual freedoms.

 

Each time progress has come slowly and even painfully, but progress has always come — because we’ve worked at it and because we’ve believed in it, and most of all, because we remembered that our first allegiance as citizens is not to party or region or faction, but to country — because while we may be proud Democrats or proud Republicans, we are prouder to be Americans.

 

And that’s something that we all need to remember right now and in the coming months.  And if we do, I have no doubt that we will continue this nation’s long journey towards a better future.

 

So with that, let me take some questions.  I’m going to start off with Ben Feller at AP.

 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Are you willing to concede at all that what happened last night was not just an expression of frustration about the economy, but a fundamental rejection of your agenda?  And given the results, who do you think speaks to the true voice of the American people right now:  you or John Boehner?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  I think that there is no doubt that people’s number-one’s concern is the economy.  And what they were expressing great frustration about is the fact that we haven’t made enough progress on the economy.  We’ve stabilized the economy.  We’ve got job growth in the private sectors.  But people all across America aren’t feeling that progress.  They don’t see it.  And they understand that I’m the President of the United States, and that my core responsibility is making sure that we’ve got an economy that’s growing, a middle class that feels secure, that jobs are being created.  And so I think I’ve got to take direct responsibility for the fact that we have not made as much progress as we need to make.

 

Now, moving forward, I think the question is going to be can Democrats and Republicans sit down together and come up with a set of ideas that address those core concerns.  I’m confident that we can.

 

I think that there are some areas where it’s going to be very difficult for us to agree on, but I think there are going to be a whole bunch of areas where we can agree on.  I don’t think there’s anybody in America who thinks that we’ve got an energy policy that works the way it needs to; that thinks that we shouldn’t be working on energy independence.  And that gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together and think about, whether it’s natural gas or energy efficiency or how we can build electric cars in this country, how do we move forward on that agenda.

 

I think everybody in this country thinks that we’ve got to make sure our kids are equipped in terms of their education, their science background, their math backgrounds, to compete in this new global economy.  And that’s going to be an area where I think there’s potential common ground.

 

So on a whole range of issues, there are going to be areas where we disagree.  I think the overwhelming message that I hear from the voters is that we want everybody to act responsibly in Washington.  We want you to work harder to arrive at consensus.  We want you to focus completely on jobs and the economy and growing it, so that we’re ensuring a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

 

And I think that there’s no doubt that as I reflect on the results of the election, it underscores for me that I’ve got to do a better job, just like everybody else in Washington does.

Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think John Boehner and I and Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to have to sit down and work together — because I suspect that if you talk to any individual voter yesterday, they’d say, there are some things I agree with Democrats on, there are some things I agree with Republicans on.  I don’t think people carry around with them a fixed ideology.  I think the majority of people, they’re going about their business, going about their lives.  They just want to make sure that we’re making progress.  And that’s going to be my top priority over the next couple of years.

 

Savannah Guthrie.

 

Q    Just following up on what Ben just talked about, you don’t seem to be reflecting or second-guessing any of the policy decisions you’ve made, instead saying the message the voters were sending was about frustration with the economy or maybe even chalking it up to a failure on your part to communicate effectively.  If you’re not reflecting on your policy agenda, is it possible voters can conclude you’re still not getting it?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, Savannah, that was just the first question, so we’re going to have a few more here.  I’m doing a whole lot of reflecting and I think that there are going to be areas in policy where we’re going to have to do a better job.  I think that over the last two years, we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation where we had the risk of slipping into a second Great Depression.

 

But what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious — a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies — I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.

 

Now, the reason was it was an emergency situation.  But I think it’s understandable that folks said to themselves, you know, maybe this is the agenda, as opposed to a response to an emergency.  And that’s something that I think everybody in the White House understood was a danger.  We thought it was necessary, but I’m sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach.

 

In addition, there were a bunch of price tags that went with that.  And so, even though these were emergency situations, people rightly said, gosh, we already have all this debt, we already have these big deficits; this is potentially going to compound it, and at what point are we going to get back to a situation where we’re doing what families all around the country do, which is make sure that if you spend something you know how to pay for it — as opposed to racking up the credit card for the next generation.

 

And I think that the other thing that happened is that when I won election in 2008, one of the reasons I think that people were excited about the campaign was the prospect that we would change how business is done in Washington.  And we were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done.  And I think that frustrated people.

 

I’m a strong believer that the earmarking process in Congress isn’t what the American people really want to see when it comes to making tough decisions about how taxpayer dollars are spent.  And I, in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them, which was contrary to what I had talked about.  And I think folks look at that and they said, gosh, this feels like the same partisan squabbling, this seems like the same ways of doing business as happened before.

 

And so one of the things that I’ve got to take responsibility for is not having moved enough on those fronts.  And I think there is an opportunity to move forward on some of those issues.  My understanding is Eric Cantor today said that he wanted to see a moratorium on earmarks continuing.  That’s something I think we can — we can work on together.

 

Q    Would you still resist the notion that voters rejected the policy choices you made?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, Savannah, I think that what I think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes.  If right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices.  The fact is, is that for most folks, proof of whether they work or not is has the economy gotten back to where it needs to be.  And it hasn’t.

 

And so my job is to make sure that I’m looking at all ideas that are on the table.  When it comes to job creation, if Republicans have good ideas for job growth that can drive down the unemployment rate, and we haven’t thought of them, we haven’t looked at them but we think they have a chance of working, we want to try some.

 

So on the policy front, I think the most important thing is to say that we’re not going to rule out ideas because they’re Democrat or Republican; we want to just see what works.  And ultimately, I’ll be judged as President as to the bottom line, results.

 

Mike Emanuel.

 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Health care — as you’re well aware, obviously, a lot of Republicans ran against your health care law.  Some have called for repealing the law.  I’m wondering, sir, if you believe that health care reform that you worked so hard on is in danger at this point, and whether there’s a threat, as a result of this election.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I know that there’s some Republican candidates who won last night who feel very strongly about it.  I’m sure that this will be an issue that comes up in discussions with the Republican leadership.  As I said before, though, I think we’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years.

 

With respect to the health care law, generally — and this may go to some of the questions that Savannah was raising — you know, when I talk to a woman from New Hampshire who doesn’t have to mortgage her house because she got cancer and is seeking treatment but now is able to get health insurance, when I talk to parents who are relieved that their child with a preexisting condition can now stay on their policy until they’re 26 years old and give them time to transition to find a job that will give them health insurance, or the small businesses that are now taking advantage of the tax credits that are provided — then I say to myself, this was the right thing to do.

 

Now, if the Republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, if they want to suggest modifications that would deliver faster and more effective reform to a health care system that has been wildly expensive for too many families and businesses and certainly for our federal government, I’m happy to consider some of those ideas.

 

You know, for example, I know one of the things that’s come up is that the 1099 provision in the health care bill appears to be too burdensome for small businesses.  It just involves too much paperwork, too much filing.  It’s probably counterproductive.  It was designed to make sure that revenue was raised to help pay for some of the other provisions, but if it ends up just being so much trouble that small businesses find it difficult to manage, that’s something that we should take a look at.

 

So there are going to be examples where I think we can tweak and make improvements on the progress that we’ve made.  That’s true for any significant piece of legislation.

 

But I don’t think that if you ask the American people, should we stop trying to close the doughnut hole that will help senior citizens get prescription drugs, should we go back to a situation where people with preexisting conditions can’t get health insurance, should we allow insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick even though you’ve been paying premiums — I don’t think that you’d have a strong vote for people saying those are provisions I want to eliminate.

 

Q    According to some exit polls, sir, about one out of two voters apparently said that they would like to either see it overturned or repealed.  Are you concerned that that may embolden voters who are from the other party perhaps?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, it also means one out of two voters think it was the right thing to do.  And obviously this is an issue that has been contentious.  But as I said, I think what’s going to be useful is for us to go through the issues that Republicans have issues on — not sort of talking generally, but let’s talk specifics.  Does this particular provision — when it comes to preexisting conditions, is this something you’re for or you’re against?  Helping seniors get their prescription drugs — does that make sense or not?

 

And if we take that approach — which is different from campaigning — I mean, this is now governing — then I think that we can continue to make some progress and find some common ground.

 

Chip Reid.

 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Republicans say more than anything else what this election was about was spending.  And they say it will be when hell freezes over that they will accept anything remotely like a stimulus bill or any kind of a proposal you have out there to stimulate job growth through spending.  Do you accept the fact that any kind of spending to create jobs is dead at this point?  And if so, what else can government do to create jobs, which is the number one issue?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think this is going to be an important question for Democrats and Republicans.  I think the American people are absolutely concerned about spending and debt — and deficits.  And I’m going to have a deficit commission that is putting forward its ideas.  It’s a bipartisan group that includes Republican and Democratic members of Congress.  Hopefully they were able to arrive at some consensus on some areas where we can eliminate programs that don’t work, cut back on government spending that is inefficient, can streamline government, but isn’t cutting into the core investments that are going to make sure that we are a competitive economy that is growing and providing opportunity for years to come.

 

So the question I think that my Republican friends and me and Democratic leaders are going to have answer is, what are our priorities?  What do we care about?  And that’s going to be a tough debate, because there are some tough choices here.

 

We already had a big deficit that I inherited, and that has been made worse because of the recession.  As we bring it down, I want to make sure that we’re not cutting into education that is going to help define whether or not we can compete around the world.  I don’t think we should be cutting back on research and development, because if we can develop new technologies in areas like clean energy, that could make all the difference in terms of job creation here at home.

 

I think the proposal that I put forward with respect to infrastructure is one that historically we’ve had bipartisan agreement about.  And we should be able to agree now that it makes no sense for China to have better rail systems than us, and Singapore having better airports than us.  And we just learned that China now has the fastest supercomputer on Earth — that used to be us.  They’re making investments because they know those investments will pay off over the long term.

 

And so in these budget discussions, the key is to be able to distinguish between stuff that isn’t adding to our growth, isn’t an investment in our future, and those things that are absolutely necessary for us to be able to increase job growth in the future as well.

 

Now, the single most important thing I think we need to do economically — and this is something that has to be done during the lame duck session — is making sure that taxes don’t go up on middle-class families next year.  And so we’ve got some work to do on that front to make sure that families not only aren’t seeing a higher tax burden — which will automatically happen if Congress doesn’t act — but also making sure that business provisions that historically we have extended each year that, for example, provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States in research and development, that those are extended.  I think it makes sense for us to extend unemployment insurance because there are still a lot of folks out there hurting.

 

So there are some things that we can do right now that will help sustain the recovery and advance it, even as we’re also sitting down and figuring out, okay, over the next several years what kinds of budget cuts can we make that are intelligent, that are smart, that won’t be undermining our recovery but, in fact, will be encouraging job growth.

 

Q    But most of those things that you just called investments they call wasteful spending and they say it’s dead on arrival.  It sounds like — without their support, you can’t get any of it through.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what is absolutely true is, is that without any Republican support on anything, then it’s going to be hard to get things done.  But I’m not going to anticipate that they’re not going to support anything.  I think that part of the message sent to Republicans was we want to see stronger job growth in this country.  And if there are good ideas about putting people to work that traditionally have garnered Republican support and that don’t add to the deficit, then my hope is and expectation is, is that that’s something they’re willing to have a serious conversation about.

 

When it comes to, for example, the proposal we put forward to accelerate depreciation for business, so that if they’re building a plant or investing in new equipment next year, that they can take a complete write-off next year, get a huge tax break next year, and that would then encourage a lot of businesses to get off the sidelines — that’s not historically considered a liberal idea.  That’s actually an idea that business groups and Republicans I think have supported for a very long time.

 

So again, the question is going to be do we all come to the table with an open mind and say to ourselves, what do we think is actually going to make a difference for the American people?  That’s how we’re going to be judged over the next couple of years.

 

Peter Baker.

 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  After your election two years ago, when you met with Republicans you said that, in discussing what policies might go forward, that elections have consequences, and that you pointed out that you had won.  I wonder what consequences you think this election should have then, in terms of your policies.  Are there areas that you’re willing — can you name today areas that you would be willing to compromise on that you might not have been willing to compromise on in the past?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think I’ve been willing to compromise in the past and I’m going to be willing to compromise going forward on a whole range of issues.  Let me give you an example — the issue of energy that I just mentioned.

 

I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year.  And so it’s doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after.  But that doesn’t mean there isn’t agreement that we should have a better energy policy.  And so let’s find those areas where we can agree.

 

We’ve got, I think, broad agreement that we’ve got terrific natural gas resources in this country.  Are we doing everything we can to develop those?  There’s a lot of agreement around the need to make sure that electric cars are developed here in the United States, that we don’t fall behind other countries.  Are there things that we can do to encourage that?  And there’s already been bipartisan interest on those issues.

 

There’s been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases.  Is that an area where we can move forward?

 

We were able, over the last two years, to increase for the first time in 30 years fuel-efficiency standards on cars and trucks.  We didn’t even need legislation.  We just needed the cooperation of automakers and autoworkers and investors and other shareholders.  And that’s going to move us forward in a serious way.

 

So I think when it comes to something like energy, what we’re probably going to have to do is say here are some areas where there’s just too much disagreement between Democrats and Republicans, we can’t get this done right now, but let’s not wait.  Let’s go ahead and start making some progress on the things that we do agree on, and we can continue to have a strong and healthy debate about those areas where we don’t.

 

Q    Is there anything in the “Pledge to America” that you think you can support?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  You know, I’m sure there are going to be areas, particularly around, for example, reforming how Washington works, that I’ll be interested in.  I think the American people want to see more transparency, more openness.  As I said, in the midst of economic crisis, I think one of the things I take responsibility for is not having pushed harder on some of those issues.  And I think if you take Republicans and Democrats at their word this is an area that they want to deliver on for the American people, I want to be supportive of that effort.

 

Jake Tapper.

 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have a policy question and a personal one.  The policy question is, you talked about how the immediate goal is the Bush tax cuts and making sure that they don’t expire for those who earn under $200,000, $250,000.  Republicans disagree with that strongly.  They want all of the Bush tax cuts extended.  Are you willing to compromise on that?  Are you willing to negotiate at all, for instance, allow them to expire for everyone over $1 million?  Where are you willing to budge on that?

 

And the second one is, President Bush when he went through a similar thing came out and he said this was a “thumpin’.”  You talked about how it was humbling, or you alluded to it perhaps being humbling.  And I’m wondering, when you call your friends, like Congressman Perriello or Governor Strickland, and you see 19 state legislatures go to the other side, governorships in swing states, the Democratic Party set back, what does it feel like?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  It feels bad.  (Laughter.)  You know, the toughest thing over the last couple of days is seeing really terrific public servants not have the opportunity to serve anymore, at least in the short term.  And you mentioned — there are just some terrific members of Congress who took really tough votes because they thought it was the right thing, even though they knew this could cause them political problems, and even though a lot of them came from really tough swing districts or majority-Republican districts.  And the amount of courage that they showed and conviction that they showed is something that I admire so much.  I can’t overstate it.

 

And so there is a not only sadness about seeing them go, but there’s also a lot of questioning on my part in terms of could I have done something differently or done something more so that those folks would still be here.

 

It’s hard.  And I take responsibility for it in a lot of ways.

 

I will tell you, they’ve been incredibly gracious when I have conversations with them.  And what they’ve told me is, you know, we don’t have regrets because I feel like we were doing the right thing.  And they may be just saying that to make me feel better, which, again, is a sign of their character and their class.  And I hope a lot of them continue to pursue public service because I think they’re terrific public servants.

 

With respect to the tax cut issue, my goal is to make sure that we don’t have a huge spike in taxes for middle-class families.  Not only would that be a terrible burden on families who are already going through tough times, it would be bad for our economy.  It is very important that we’re not taking a whole bunch of money out of the system from people who are most likely to spend that money on goods, services, groceries, buying a new winter coat for the kids.

 

That’s also why I think unemployment insurance is important. Not only is it the right thing to do for folks who are still looking for work and struggling in this really tough economy, but it’s the right thing to do for the economy as a whole.

 

So my goal is to sit down with Speaker-elect Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Harry and Nancy sometime in the next few weeks and see where we can move forward in a way that, first of all, does no harm; that extends those tax cuts that are very important for middle-class families; also extends those provisions that are important to encourage businesses to invest, and provide businesses some certainty over the next year or two.

 

And how that negotiation works itself out I think is too early to say.  But this is going to be one of my top priorities, and my hope is, is that given we all have an interest in growing the economy and encouraging job growth, that we’re not going to play brinksmanship but instead we’re going to act responsibly.

 

Q    So you’re willing to negotiate?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Absolutely.

 

Laura Meckler.

 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You said earlier that it was clear that Congress was rejecting the idea of a cap-and-trade program, and that you wouldn’t be able to move forward with that. Looking ahead, do you feel the same way about EPA regulating carbon emissions?  Would you be open to them doing essentially the same thing through an administrative action, or is that off the table, as well?

 

And secondly, just to follow up on what you said about changing the way Washington works, do you think that — you said you didn’t do enough to change the way things were handled in this city.  Some of — in order to get your health care bill passed you needed to make some of those deals.  Do you wish, in retrospect, you had not made those deals even if it meant the collapse of the program?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  I think that making sure that families had security and were on a trajectory to lower health care costs was absolutely critical for this country.  But you are absolutely right that when you are navigating through a House and a Senate in this kind of pretty partisan environment that it’s a ugly mess when it comes to process.  And I think that is something that really affected how people viewed the outcome.  That is something that I regret — that we couldn’t have made the process more — healthier than it ended up being.  But I think the outcome was a good one.

 

With respect to the EPA, I think the smartest thing for us to do is to see if we can get Democrats and Republicans in a room who are serious about energy independence and are serious about keeping our air clean and our water clean and dealing with the issue of greenhouse gases — and seeing are there ways that we can make progress in the short term and invest in technologies in the long term that start giving us the tools to reduce greenhouse gases and solve this problem.

 

The EPA is under a court order that says greenhouse gases are a pollutant that fall under their jurisdiction.  And I think one of the things that’s very important for me is not to have us ignore the science, but rather to find ways that we can solve these problems that don’t hurt the economy, that encourage the development of clean energy in this country, that, in fact, may give us opportunities to create entire new industries and create jobs that — and that put us in a competitive posture around the world.

 

So I think it’s too early to say whether or not we can make some progress on that front.  I think we can.  Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way.  It was a means, not an end.  And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.

 

And I think EPA wants help from the legislature on this.  I don’t think that the desire is to somehow be protective of their powers here.  I think what they want to do is make sure that the issue is being dealt with.

 

Ed Henry.

 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I wanted to do a personal and policy one as well.  On personal, you had a lot of fun on the campaign trail by saying that the Republicans were drinking a Slurpee and sitting on the sidelines while you were trying to pull the car out of the ditch.  But the point of the story was that you said if you want to go forward, you put the car in “D”; if you want to go backwards, you put it in “R.”  Now that there are least 60 House districts that seem to have rejected that message, is it possible that there are a majority of Americans who think your policies are taking us in reverse?  And what specific changes will you make to your approach to try to fix that and better connect with the American people?

 

And just on a policy front, “don’t ask, don’t tell” is something that you promised to end.  And when you had 60 votes and 59 votes in the Senate — it’s a tough issue — you haven’t been able to do it.  Do you now have to tell your liberal base that with maybe 52 or 53 votes in the Senate, you’re just not going to be able to get it done in the next two years?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me take the second issue first.  I’ve been a strong believer in the notion that if somebody is willing to serve in our military, in uniform, putting their lives on the line for our security, that they should not be prevented from doing so because of their sexual orientation.  And since there’s been a lot of discussion about polls over the last 48 hours, I think it’s worth noting that the overwhelming majority of Americans feel the same way.  It’s the right thing to do.

 

Now, as Commander-in-Chief, I’ve said that making this change needs to be done in an orderly fashion.  I’ve worked with the Pentagon, worked with Secretary Gates, worked with Admiral Mullen to make sure that we are looking at this in a systemic way that maintains good order and discipline, but that we need to change this policy.

 

There’s going to be a review that comes out at the beginning of the month that will have surveyed attitudes and opinions within the armed forces.  I will expect that Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen will have something to say about that review.  I will look at it very carefully.  But that will give us time to act in — potentially during the lame duck session to change this policy.

 

Keep in mind we’ve got a bunch of court cases that are out there as well.  And something that would be very disruptive to good order and discipline and unit cohesion is if we’ve got this issue bouncing around in the courts, as it already has over the last several weeks, where the Pentagon and the chain of command doesn’t know at any given time what rules they’re working under.

We need to provide certainty and it’s time for us to move this policy forward.  And this should not be a partisan issue.  This is an issue, as I said, where you’ve got a sizable portion of the American people squarely behind the notion that folks who are willing to serve on our behalf should be treated fairly and equally.

 

Now, in terms of how we move forward, I think that the American people understand that we’re still digging our way out of a pretty big mess.  So I don’t think anybody denies they think we’re in a ditch.  I just don’t think they feel like we’ve gotten all the way out of the ditch yet.  And to move the analogy forward that I used in the campaign, I think what they want right now is the Democrats and the Republicans both pushing some more to get the car on level ground.  And we haven’t done that.

 

If you think I was engaging in too much campaign rhetoric, saying the Republicans were just sitting on the side of the road, watching us get that car out of the ditch, at the very least we were pushing in opposite directions.  And so –

 

Q    — the idea that your policies are taking the country in reverse.  You just reject that idea altogether that your policies could be going in reverse?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  And I think, look, here’s the bottom line.  When I came into office, this economy was in a freefall, and the economy has stabilized.  The economy is growing.  We’ve seen nine months of private sector job growth.  So I think it would be hard to argue that we’re going backwards.  I think what you can argue is we’re stuck in neutral.  We are not moving the way we need to, to make sure that folks have the jobs, have the opportunity, are seeing economic growth in their communities the way they need to.  And that’s going to require Democrats and Republicans to come together and look for the best ideas to move things forward.

 

It will not be easy, not just because Democrats and Republicans may have different priorities, as we were just discussing when it came to how we structure tax cuts, but because these issues are hard.

 

The Republicans throughout the campaign said they’re very concerned about debt and deficits.  Well, one of the most important things we can do for debt and deficits is economic growth.  So what other proposals do they have to grow the economy?  If, in fact, they’re rejecting some of the proposals I’ve made, I want to hear from them what affirmative policies can make a difference in terms of encouraging job growth and promoting the economy — because I don’t think that tax cuts alone are going to be a recipe for the kind of expansion that we need.

 

From 2001 to 2009, we cut taxes pretty significantly, and we just didn’t see the kind of expansion that is going to be necessary in terms of driving the unemployment rate down significantly.

 

So I think what we’re going to need to do and what the American people want is for us to mix and match ideas, figure out those areas where we can agree on, move forward on those, disagree without being disagreeable on those areas that we can’t agree on.  If we accomplish that, then there will be time for politics later, but over the next year I think we can solidify this recovery and give people a little more confidence out there.

 

Hans Nichols.

 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I want to ask if you’re going to have John Boehner over for a Slurpee, but I actually have a serious question.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  I might serve — they’re delicious drinks.  (Laughter.)

 

Q    The Slurpee Summit.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  The Slurpee Summit — that’s good, Chuck.  I like that.  (Laughter.)

 

Q    Since you seem to be in a reflective mood, do you think you need to hit the reset button with business?  How do you plan to set that reset button with business?  Would that — would you include anything beyond your Cleveland speech, those proposals, to get them off the sidelines, get them off the cash they’re hoarding and start hiring again?  Thank you.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I think this is an important question that we’ve been asking ourselves for several months now.  You’re right, as I reflect on what’s happened over the last two years, one of the things that I think has not been managed by me as well as it needed to be was finding the right balance in making sure that businesses have rules of the road and are treating customers fairly and — whether it’s their credit cards or insurance or their mortgages — but also making absolutely clear that the only way America succeeds is if businesses are succeeding.

 

The reason we’ve got a unparalleled standard of living in the history of the world is because we’ve got a free market that is dynamic and entrepreneurial, and that free market has to be nurtured and cultivated.  And there’s no doubt that when you had the financial crisis on Wall Street, the bonus controversies, the battle around health care, the battle around financial reform, and then you had BP — you just had a successive set of issues in which I think business took the message that, well, gosh, it seems like we may be always painted at the bad guy.

 

And so I’ve got to take responsibility in terms of making sure that I make clear to the business community as well as to the country that the most important thing we can do is to boost and encourage our business sector and make sure that they’re hiring.  And so we do have specific plans in terms of how we can structure that outreach.

 

Now, keep in mind over the last two years, we’ve been talking to CEOs constantly.  And as I plan for my trip later this week to Asia, the whole focus is on how are we going to open up markets so that American businesses can prosper, and we can sell more goods and create more jobs here in the United States.  And a whole bunch of corporate executives are going to be joining us so that I can help them open up those markets and allow them to sell their products.

 

So there’s been a lot of strong interaction behind the scenes.  But I think setting the right tone publicly is going to be important and could end up making a difference at the margins in terms of how businesses make investment decisions.

 

Q    But do you have new specific proposals to get them off the sidelines and start hiring?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I already discussed a couple with Chip that haven’t been acted on yet.  You’re right that I made these proposals two months ago, but — or three months ago — but it was in the midst of a campaign season where it was doubtful that they were going to get a full hearing, just because there was so much political noise going on.

 

I think as we move forward, sitting down and talking to businesses, figuring out what exactly would help you make more investments that could create more jobs here in the United States, and listening hard to them — in a context where maybe Democrats and Republicans are together so we’re receiving the same message at the same time — and then acting on that agenda could make a big difference.

 

Matt Spetalnick of Reuters.

 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  How do you respond to those who say the election outcome, at least in part, was voters saying that they see you as out of touch with their personal economic pain?  And are you willing to make any changes in your leadership style?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  There is a inherent danger in being in the White House and being in the bubble.  I mean, folks didn’t have any complaints about my leadership style when I was running around Iowa for a year.  And they got a pretty good look at me up close and personal, and they were able to lift the hood and kick the tires, and I think they understood that my story was theirs. I might have a funny name, I might have lived in some different places, but the values of hard work and responsibility and honesty and looking out for one another that had been instilled in them by their parents, those were the same values that I took from my mom and my grandparents.

 

And so the track record has been that when I’m out of this place, that’s not an issue.  When you’re in this place, it is hard not to seem removed.  And one of the challenges that we’ve got to think about is how do I meet my responsibilities here in the White House, which require a lot of hours and a lot of work, but still have that opportunity to engage with the American people on a day-to-day basis, and know — give them confidence that I’m listening to them.

 

Those letters that I read every night, some of them just break my heart.  Some of them provide me encouragement and inspiration.  But nobody is filming me reading those letters.  And so it’s hard, I think, for people to get a sense of, well, how is he taking in all this information?

 

So I think there are more things that we can do to make sure that I’m getting out of here.  But, I mean, I think it’s important to point out as well that a couple of great communicators, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, were standing at this podium two years into their presidency getting very similar questions because the economy wasn’t working the way it needed to be and there were a whole range of factors that made people concerned that maybe the party in power wasn’t listening to them.

This is something that I think every President needs to go through because the responsibilities of this office are so enormous and so many people are depending on what we do, and in the rush of activity, sometimes we lose track of the ways that we connected with folks that got us here in the first place.

 

And that’s something that — now, I’m not recommending for every future President that they take a shellacking like they — like I did last night.  (Laughter.)  I’m sure there are easier ways to learn these lessons.  But I do think that this is a growth process and an evolution.  And the relationship that I’ve had with the American people is one that built slowly, peaked at this incredible high, and then during the course of the last two years, as we’ve, together, gone through some very difficult times, has gotten rockier and tougher.  And it’s going to, I’m sure, have some more ups and downs during the course of me being in this office.

 

But the one thing that I just want to end on is getting out of here is good for me, too, because when I travel around the country, even in the toughest of these debates — in the midst of health care last year during the summer when there were protesters about, and when I’m meeting families who’ve lost loved ones in Afghanistan or Iraq — I always come away from those interactions just feeling so much more optimistic about this country.

 

We have such good and decent people who, on a day-to-day basis, are finding all kinds of ways to live together and educate kids and grow their communities and improve their communities and create businesses and work together to create great new products and services.  The American people always make me optimistic.

 

And that’s why, during the course of the last two years, as tough as it’s been, as many sometimes scary moments as we’ve gone through, I’ve never doubted that we’re going to emerge stronger than we were before.  And I think that remains true, and I’m just going to be looking forward to playing my part in helping that journey along.

 

All right?  Thank you very much, everybody.