A MESSAGE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE REGARDING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT – VIDEO
Today, the Supreme Court issued a historic ruling: They upheld the Affordable Care Act and ensured that millions of American families will have access to health care and protection from the worst abuses of the insurance industry.
Lots of people have questions about the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court’s decision, and their health care coverage. We’ve pulled together the most useful information — including President Obama’s remarks after the announcement — at WhiteHouse.gov:
Watch the video and get the facts here:
http://wh.gov/3bRg
Because the law has an impact on so many Americans, it’s important to understand its basic parts. We’ve also put together a list of facts about the Affordable Care Act:
http://wh.gov/3bRg
Will you give it a read, and then pass it on?
Federal Partners Commit Additional Resources to Combat Western Wildfires U.S. Military Heightens Support to Fight Wildfires; FEMA Provides Additional Fire Management Assistance Grants
Federal Partners Commit Additional Resources to Combat Western Wildfires
U.S. Military heightens support to fight wildfires; FEMA provides additional Fire Management Assistance Grants
WASHINGTON, June 28, 2012 – The U.S. Forest Service, Department of the Interior, the Department of Defense and FEMA today announced more air support and additional Fire Management Grants to bolster the federal effort to protect life and public safety in response to fires in Western states.
Twenty-one airtankers continue to cycle in and out of firefighting action today across the western states, and more than 8,800 personnel, more than 550 fire engines and 170 helicopters are operating on wildfires around the U.S. Approximately half of active federal wildfire-fighting resources are currently staged in Colorado. More than 1,000 federal, state and local firefighters, approximately 70 fire engines and six helicopters are fighting the aggressive Waldo Canyon fire today in the hillsides west of Colorado Springs.
This includes four C-130 aircraft provided by the Department of Defense, equipped with U.S. Forest Service Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems, which have conducted 47 air drops and have dropped more than 127,500 gallons of retardant on the Waldo Canyon and Flagstaff fires.
“We are committed to continuing to do everything we can to provide the firefighters, aircraft and equipment necessary to suppress some of the most challenging wildfires we’ve experienced in years,” said Tom Harbour, U.S. Forest Service director of Fire and Aviation Management. “The U.S. military has been a key partner in wildland firefighting for decades, serving as ground firefighters on the ground and supporting our air fleet with additional tankers.”
The United States Army has also provided bulldozers, other heavy equipment and over 150 soldiers to cut fire breaks in response to the fires. Twenty-two fire trucks from five military bases including the Air Force Academy have joined the effort.
Fire activity in the Rocky Mountains, Eastern Great Basin and northern Rockies has significantly increased over the last few days, causing the National Preparedness Level to be raised to 4 on Wednesday. Preparedness Levels are dictated by burning conditions, fire activity and resource availability. The five Preparedness Levels range from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest level. Each Preparedness Level has specific management directions. As the Preparedness Levels rise, more federal and state employees become available for fire mobilization if needed.
“We are continuing to coordinate closely with local, state, and tribal partners as we deploy resources through the National Interagency Fire Center,” said Kim Thorsen, who oversees emergency management, security and law enforcement at the Department of the Interior. “The protection of human safety and communities remains the top priority as we battle wildfires across the West in very challenging conditions.”
The National Multi-Agency Coordination Group establishes National Preparedness Levels throughout the calendar year to help assure that wildland firefighting resources are ready to respond to new incidents.
Last night, FEMA approved Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAGs) for Montana’s Ash Creek Fire in Powder River and Rosebud Counties; and for the Clay Springs Fire in Millard County, Utah. Including the two FMAGs provided to Colorado on Wednesday, this brings the overall total number of FMAGs approved for western states during this fire season to 19. Other states that have received these important grants include New Mexico, and Nevada.
Fire Management Assistance Grants are provided through the Disaster Relief Fund and made available by FEMA to assist in fighting fires that threaten to cause a major disaster. Eligible items can include expenses for field camps; equipment use, repair and replacement; mobilization and demobilization activities; and tools, materials and supplies.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, in partnerships with states and local agencies, have developed a cohesive strategy to respond to the increase in wildfires in recent years by focusing on:
- Restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes. Through forest restoration activities such as mechanical thinning and controlled burns, officials can make forests healthier and less susceptible to catastrophic fire.
- Creating fire-adapted communities. The Forest Service, the Department of the Interior and their partners are working with communities to reduce fire hazards around houses to make them more resistant to wildfire threats.
- Responding to Wildfires. This element considers the full spectrum of fire management activities and recognizes the differences in missions among local, state, tribal and Federal agencies.
On average, the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior bureaus respond to about 16,500 wildfires per year that occur on land under their jurisdiction and assist state and local agencies in responding to a significant number of the approximately 60,000 wildfires per year that occur on land under their jurisdiction. Federal firefighters, aircraft, and ground equipment are strategically assigned to parts of the country as the fire season shifts across the nation. Firefighting experts will continuously monitor conditions and move these assets as necessary to be best positioned and increase initial response capabilities. In addition, federal agencies are conducting accelerated restoration activities nationwide aimed at healthier forests and reduced fire risks in the years to come.
Federal land managers are also helping communities prepare for wildfire. Federal partnerships with state, tribal and local agencies strengthen preparedness programs, such as Firewise
http://www.firewise.org/
and Ready Set Go!
http://www.iafc.org/readySetGo
that help families and communities prepare for and survive wildfire. You can also visit FEMA’s Ready.gov
http://www.ready.gov
, to learn more about steps you and your family can take now to be prepared for an emergency.
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY H.R. 5856 – Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013 (Rep. Rogers, R-KY)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 5856 – Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013
(Rep. Rogers, R-KY)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 5856, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year (FY) ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.
Last summer, the Congress and the President came to a bipartisan agreement to put the Nation on a sustainable fiscal course in enacting the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). The BCA created a framework for more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction and provided tight spending caps that would bring discretionary spending to a minimum level needed to preserve critical national priorities. Consistent with last summer’s budget agreement, the FY 2013 Budget request provides the resources that the Department of Defense (DOD) needs to effectively meet the Nation’s security requirements. By adding unrequested funding for defense, the House of Representatives departs from the bipartisan understanding reached a year ago. Upending the balance in the BCA has negative consequences that will, for example, cost jobs and hurt average Americans, especially seniors, veterans, and children – as well as degrade many of the basic Government services on which the American people rely such as air traffic control and law enforcement. In addition, these cuts were made in the context of a budget that fails the test of balance, fairness, and shared responsibility by giving millionaires and billionaires a tax cut and paying for it through deep cuts, including to discretionary programs.
Taking this into account, passing H.R. 5856 at its current funding level would mean that when the Congress constructs other appropriations bills, it would necessitate significant and harmful cuts to critical national priorities such as education, research and development, job training, and health care. Furthermore, the bill undermines key investments in high-priority programs, impeding the ability of the Secretary of Defense to carry out the defense strategic guidance issued earlier this year, and hindering the ability of the Armed Forces to carry out their missions consistent with the new strategy. The Administration also strongly objects to the inclusion of ideological and political provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation.
If the President were presented with H.R. 5856, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to share additional views regarding the Committee’s version of the bill.
Administration Priorities. The Administration appreciates the Committee’s support for certain priorities, including: funding for Overseas Contingency Operations; the requested pay raise for military personnel; DOD’s program of basic research; the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; and air and missile defense programs, including support for the Government of Israel to purchase additional Iron Dome missile systems.
Limitations on Retirement of Aircraft. The Administration strongly objects to sections 8116 through 8118 of the bill that would restrict the Air Force and Army from divesting, transferring or retiring unneeded aircraft, including C-27Js, C-23s, and RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). These provisions would force DOD to operate, sustain, and maintain aircraft that are in excess to national security requirements, as defined by the new defense strategy, and are not affordable in an austere budget environment. They also would impair the ability of the Secretary to manage the Department and, by retaining large numbers of under-resourced aircraft in the fleet in today’s fiscally constrained environment, could contribute to a hollow force.
Unnecessary Funding. The Administration is concerned about the billions of dollars the bill provides for items DOD did not request and does not need, as well as section 8006 of the bill, which makes spending on these unnecessary items statutorily required. This diverts resources from more important defense programs and limits the Secretary’s flexibility to manage the Department efficiently.
Incremental Funding. The Administration strongly opposes the use of incremental funding, which undermines program stability and cost discipline. The bill would provide incremental funding for Space-Based Infrared System satellites rather than full funding through advance appropriations, as the Administration requested in the FY 2013 Budget request. In addition, the bill provides less than half of the $911 million requested to deactivate the USS Enterprise.
Army Depot Maintenance. The Administration strongly objects to the reduction in the Army’s depot maintenance program as specified in section 8087 of the bill. The reduction of nearly $2.5 billion from the FY 2013 Budget request would create long-term delays in modernization and readiness for helicopters, radars, and the Stryker combat vehicle. Additionally, with this funding reduction the Army would not meet core depot logistics requirements for many of its systems. This cut would directly reduce Army readiness.
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). The Administration strongly objects to the Committee’s decision to omit funding for MEADS. If the Congress does not appropriate the funding in the FY 2013 Budget request, there is a high likelihood that this action would be perceived by our partners, Italy and Germany, as breaking our commitment under the Memorandum of Understanding. This could harm our relationship with our Allies on a much broader basis, including future multinational cooperative projects. It also could prevent the completion of the agreed Proof of Concept activities, which would provide data archiving, analysis of testing, and software development necessary to harvest technology from U.S. and partner investments in MEADS.
TRICARE Fees and Co-Payments. The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation. The Administration asks the House to reconsider the TRICARE fee proposals, which are essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs. The $1.8 billion in savings are part of a carefully balanced FY 2013 Budget request.
Advanced Drop-In Biofuel Production. The Administration objects to the reduction of $70 million from the FY 2013 Budget request intended to support the development of a domestic capability to produce cost-competitive advanced drop-in biofuels at a commercial scale, which is important to the country’s long-term national security. Developing large-scale capacity to produce biofuels, in collaboration with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, would help insulate the Nation as a whole, as well as the military, from price shocks arising from supply disruptions and price volatility of petroleum products.
MQ-8 Fire Scout UAV. The Administration opposes the $66 million reduction from the FY 2013 Budget request for the Fire Scout upgrade, which would enable the Special Forces to track potential targets at greater distances and for longer periods. The proposed reduction would prevent the Navy from fielding a system that meets the needs of the Special Forces in FY 2014.
Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB). The Administration opposes elimination of funding for AFSB. The $38 million requested in the FY 2013 Budget request is needed for advanced procurement of AFSB, which would meet Combatant Commanders’ requirements for special operations and mine clearance. Further, AFSB is critical to the health of the shipbuilding industrial base as it is the only auxiliary ship in the Navy’s shipbuilding plan until FY 2016.
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) Systems. The Administration objects to the 56-percent reduction from the FY 2013 Budget request for the CWMD Systems program, which integrates intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction for senior government officials. The Military Departments and Combatant Commands have repeatedly identified data fusion as a critical capability gap. The full $54 million requested in the FY 2013 Budget request is needed to start fusion center operations by the end of FY 2013. The proposed reduction would cause the Department to assume significant tactical, operational, and strategic risk.
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). The Administration opposes the reduction of $224 million from the FY 2013 Budget request for DAWDF. Failure to provide the full request of $274 million would require DOD to collect from other budget accounts the shortfall between the appropriation and the statutory minimum for DAWDF. The reduction in the appropriation would put unnecessary stress on the Operation and Maintenance budget at a time when funding levels are already constrained.
General Transfer Authority. The Administration opposes the reduction of general transfer authority provided in section 8005 of the bill. The $3 billion limit provided by the Committee significantly restricts DOD’s ability to accommodate changing circumstances and to respond to urgent requirements in support of deployed forces, such as for force protection, in a timely manner. DOD needs sufficient transfer authority in order to match individual accounts to programmatic needs.
Intelligence Community Management Account. The Administration opposes the exclusion of section 8045 proposed in the FY 2013 Budget request, which provides critical language to authorize the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE) to transfer funds to other Federal departments and agencies. Without transfer authority, PM-ISE would lose its ability to leverage agency efforts and work effectively with non-Federal partners to improve the performance of the information sharing environment in support of national security.
Classified Programs. The Administration understands that there could be problematic funding adjustments contained in the Classified Annex to the bill and looks forward to providing its views on this annex once it becomes available.
Civilian Pay Freeze. The Administration objects to section 8119 of the bill, which does not fund the 0.5 percent civilian pay raise for calendar year 2013 proposed in the FY 2013 Budget request. As the President stated in his FY 2013 Budget, a permanent pay freeze is neither sustainable nor desirable.
Riders
The Administration strongly opposes problematic policy and language riders that have no place in funding legislation, including, but not limited to, the following provisions in this bill:
Limitation on Reimbursement of the Government of Pakistan. Section 9015 would require the Secretary of Defense to certify Pakistan’s cooperation on issues outside of his purview and would severely constrict DOD’s ability to respond to emergent war-time coalition support requirements, negatively affecting our campaign in Afghanistan.
Veterans Memorial Object Transfer. Section 8120 would prohibit the transfer of a veterans memorial object to a foreign country or an entity controlled by a foreign government without specific authorization in law. This provision would restrict the President’s ability to take actions to demonstrate goodwill toward foreign allies and partners by lending or giving historical artifacts in instances where doing so would serve the national security interests of the United States.
Detainee Matters. The Administration strongly objects to and has constitutional concerns about the provisions of sections 8108 and 8109 that limit the use of funds to transfer detainees and otherwise restrict detainee transfers. Section 8108 undermines national security and this unnecessarily constrains the Nation’s counterterrorism efforts, particularly where Federal courts are the best – or even the only – option for incapacitating dangerous terrorists. For decades, presidents of both political parties have leveraged the flexibility and strength of this country’s Federal courts to incapacitate dangerous terrorists and gather critical intelligence. The continued prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is an essential element of counterterrorism efforts – a powerful tool that must remain an available option. Additionally, the restrictions in section 8109 on the transfer of detainees to the United States and to the custody or effective control of foreign countries or entities in the context of an ongoing armed conflict may interfere with the Executive Branch’s ability to determine the appropriate disposition of detainees and to make important foreign policy and national security determinations regarding whether and under what circumstances such transfers should occur. The restrictions or interferences in both these sections would, in certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
In addition, the Administration strongly opposes section 8110 which would prohibit the use of funds to construct, acquire or modify a detention facility in the United States. This would constrain the flexibility that the Nation’s Armed Forces and counterterrorism professionals need to deal with evolving threats, intruding upon the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its mission.
The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress as the FY 2013 appropriations process moves forward.
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY H.R. 6020 – Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2013 (Rep. Rogers, R-KY)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 6020 – Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2013
(Rep. Rogers, R-KY)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 6020, making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year (FY) ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.
Last summer, the Congress and the President came to a bipartisan agreement to put the Nation on a sustainable fiscal course in enacting the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). The BCA created a framework for more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction and provided tight spending caps that would bring discretionary spending to a minimum level needed to preserve critical national priorities. Departing from the bipartisan agreement reached in the BCA and departing from these caps, the House of Representatives put forward a topline discretionary funding level for FY 2013 that, for example, would cost jobs and hurt average Americans, especially seniors, veterans, and children – as well as degrade many of the basic Government services on which the American people rely such as air traffic control and law enforcement. In addition, these cuts were made in the context of a budget that fails the test of balance, fairness, and shared responsibility by giving millionaires and billionaires a tax cut and paying for it through deep cuts, including to discretionary programs.
In addition to the concern outlined above, the Administration strongly opposes the bill as reported by the Committee. The bill severely undermines key investments in financial oversight and implementation of Wall Street reform to protect American consumers, as well as needed tax enforcement and taxpayer services. It also hampers effective implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Investing in these areas is critical to the Nation’s economic growth, security, and global competitiveness. The Administration also strongly objects to the inclusion of ideological and political provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation.
If the President were presented with H.R. 6020, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to share additional views regarding the Committee’s version of the bill.
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s reduction in funding from the FY 2013 Budget request for the IRS. Freezing funding at FY 2012 levels would continue to erode IRS program performance, significantly reduce revenue, and impair taxpayers’ ability to access IRS services. The Administration also urges the Congress to adopt the FY 2013 Budget’s program integrity cap adjustment proposal, to provide additional funding to support high-return activities critical to the Nation’s fiscal stability, yielding revenue that is many times larger than the investment.
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) – Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) and Bond Guarantee Program. The Administration strongly urges the House to support key CDFI priorities such as HFFI, which is designed to increase the availability of affordable, healthy food outlets in underserved urban and rural communities, and the authorized Bond Guarantee Program, which would expand economic development and opportunity in low-income and disadvantaged areas.
Fiscal Service. The Administration urges the House to provide a single appropriation for Fiscal Service rather than the Committee’s proposal to provide separate funding for the Bureau of the Public Debt and the Financial Management Service. A single account would enhance the organizational consolidation that is currently underway to streamline Federal financial management processes while improving efficiency and performance.
Other Defense Civil Programs
Selective Service System. The Administration objects to the 50-percent reduction from the FY 2013 Budget request for the Selective Service System. This reduction would make it difficult to maintain a viable registration system, which has both military and symbolic significance, and would require a Reduction-In-Force (RIF).
Executive Office of the President (EOP)
EOP Funding. The $23 million reduction from the FY 2013 Budget request in the bill would significantly impact the EOP’s responsibilities to assist the President in carrying out his constitutional duties as head of the Executive Branch, including protecting national security interests, developing policies to address the challenges facing the Nation, and providing effective coordination and oversight of Federal agencies.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Administration strongly objects to the bill’s funding level for OMB, which represents a ten-percent reduction from the FY 2012 enacted level and is $11 million reduction below the FY 2013 Budget request. Absorbing reductions of this magnitude would require OMB to eliminate approximately 90 full time equivalents (FTEs) a staffing reduction of over 17 percent. This reduction would severely impact OMB’s ability to carry out responsibilities that ensure sound use of taxpayer dollars, reduce low-priority spending to live within our fiscal constraints, and improve Government management.
General Services Administration (GSA)
Federal Buildings Fund. The Administration urges the House to provide the FY 2013 Budget request for the Federal Buildings Fund. By providing $702 million less than the FY 2013 Budget request, the bill fails to fund repair and alteration projects with exigent needs including fire and life safety repairs, and underfunds GSA’s minor repair and alterations allocation, which is needed to meet minimal building repair requirements. The Committee’s funding level for the Federal Buildings Fund’s operating activities jeopardizes GSA’s ability to pay private lessors, utilities, and janitorial services.
Small Business Administration
Disaster Loan Program. The Administration urges the House to provide the FY 2013 Budget request of $167 million for the Disaster Loan program’s administrative costs through the authorized disaster cap adjustment under the BCA.
Other Independent Agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Administration strongly opposes total resources included in the bill for SEC, which is $245 million below the FY 2013 Budget request, including a provision preventing obligation of funds from the Commission’s non-appropriated Reserve Fund. Taken together with onerous mandated increases in information technology funding in excess of amounts requested, the bill would require SEC to reduce staff policing U.S. securities markets and enforcing Federal securities laws, threatening the stability of our markets and the health of our economy.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Administration appreciates that the bill allows FCC increased access to spectrum auction receipts to conduct auctions, enabling FCC to implement the spectrum auctions recently authorized by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act in a manner that best serves taxpayers. However, the bill also reduces regular appropriated funding for FCC to $323 million. Funding for FCC is budget neutral and without the proper amount of resources the agency would find it increasingly difficult to manage its responsibilities, such as supporting the build-out of public safety communications networks, overseeing mergers and spectrum transactions, and reforming the Universal Service Fund.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Administration urges the House to fund EAC at the requested level of $11.5 million to maintain the Commission’s ability to fulfill its statutorily required duties and protect the integrity of elections. The Committee’s funding level could require EAC to RIF half of its current employees.
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). The Administration opposes the Committee’s decision not to include funding for ACUS, which would deprive taxpayers of the substantial cost savings that result from ACUS’s recommendations.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The Administration opposes the Committee’s decision to not include funding for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Without funding in FY 2013, the Board would be unable to begin operations and execute its statutory responsibilities to assist agencies in ensuring that policies and activities properly protect U.S. citizens’ privacy and civil liberties.
District of Columbia. The Administration urges the House to include the provision requested in the FY 2013 Budget that allows the District of Columbia to spend its own local funds collected through local taxes and other non-Federal sources in the event of a lapse in Federal appropriations. As is true for States, vital District operations that rely solely on non-Federal funds should not be disrupted by inaction of the Federal Government.
Civilian Pay Freeze
The Administration objects to the exclusion of a provision providing for a Government-wide civilian pay adjustment for calendar year 2013. As the President stated in his FY 2013 Budget request, a permanent pay freeze is neither sustainable nor desirable. The Administration encourages the Congress to support the proposed 0.5 percent pay raise for civilian employees, while continuing the pay freeze for senior political officials. The Administration also urges the inclusion of a provision relating to pay adjustments for prevailing rate employees.
Riders
The Administration strongly opposes problematic policy and language riders that have no place in funding legislation, including, but not limited to, the following provisions in this bill:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Funding Restrictions. Sections 501 and 502 would terminate Federal Reserve transfers to fund CFPB and subject the agency to the annual appropriations process beginning in FY 2014. The provision would shred the necessary independence of CFPB set in statute, and would increase the likelihood of underfunding CFPB, reducing consumer protection in the financial services marketplace.
Internal Revenue Service Affordable Care Act. Section 106 would impair the IRS’ ability to implement the tax laws, specifically those enacted in ACA, by restricting the use of certain funding sources. This restriction would pose unnecessary risks to proper implementation of the Nation’s laws.
District of Columbia Needle Exchange Restriction. Section 807 restricts the use of Federal funds for the District’s needle exchange programs. This is contrary to current law and the Administration’s policy to allow funds to be used in locations where local authorities deem needle exchange programs to be effective and appropriate.
District of Columbia Abortion Restriction. Section 810 prevents the District of Columbia from using its own funds for abortions, which undermines the principle of States’ rights and of District home rule. Longstanding Federal policy already prohibits Federal funds from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered.
Reporting Requirements Related to Wall Street Reform Implementation. Sections 120, 203, and 503 place additional reporting requirements on the Office of Financial Research, OMB, and CFPB, respectively, that are duplicative of existing reporting requirements and costly to produce.
Abortion Coverage Under Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Programs. Section 613 would expand current prohibitions on funding for abortion services and related administrative expenses by the Federal Employee Health Benefits programs health insurance carriers to all carriers under OPM’s purview. Longstanding Federal policy prohibits funds from being used for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered. However, this expansion could implicate the Multi-State plans (MSPs) administered by OPM under ACA, and preclude OPM from spending any funds appropriated by this Act for MSPs that cover abortion services under segregated funding requirements that are structured to ensure no Federal funds are used for abortion except in the cases listed above. This expansion is not necessary to protect Federal funds and restricts private insurance choices.
Sequestration Reporting. Sections 205 and 206 include requirements for OMB to report on the impact of sequestration. The Administration urges the Congress to focus on bipartisan, balanced deficit reduction legislation to avoid sequestration. Should the Congress fail to act, the Administration will be prepared to implement the sequester.
Constitutional Concerns
Multiple provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns. Section 204 would prohibit the use of funds for officers or employees of the Executive Office of the President “to prepare, sign, or approve statements abrogating legislation passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate and signed by the President.” Contrary to the implication of section 204, presidential signing statements do not abrogate legislation. They indicate how the Executive Branch will apply acts of the Congress to ensure faithful execution of the laws. To the extent section 204 purports to prevent the President from making use of his immediate aides in the Executive Office of the President to prepare any statement articulating the conclusion that a particular provision of law is unconstitutional and therefore will not be executed, in whole or in part, this provision would impermissibly encroach upon the President’s constitutional authority to execute and interpret Federal laws, including the Constitution. Section 622 would prohibit the use of funds for several positions that involve providing advice directly to the President and any “substantially similar positions.” The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the Executive Branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority. The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from Executive Branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisors within it. Finally, sections 713 and 715 are phrased in a manner that could be construed to require the Executive Branch to disclose, without discretion, certain classified and other privileged information, in which case they would intrude on the President’s discharge of his constitutional authorities.
The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress as the FY 2013 appropriations process moves forward.
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON THE SUPREME COURT RULING
ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
East Room
12:15 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they’ve reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America — in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.
I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.
And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you.
First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms — a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.
There’s more. Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent’s health care plans — a provision that’s already helped 6 million young Americans. And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs — a discount that’s already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.
All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they enjoy broad popular support. And thanks to today’s decision, all of these benefits and protections will continue for Americans who already have health insurance.
Now, if you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too. And I’ve asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one.
Once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any American with a preexisting health condition. They won’t be able to charge you more just because you’re a woman. They won’t be able to bill you into bankruptcy. If you’re sick, you’ll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else. And if you can’t afford the premiums, you’ll receive a credit that helps pay for it.
Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. This is important for two reasons.
First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums.
And second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don’t require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they’re sick to buy the care they need — which would also drive up everybody else’s premiums.
That’s why, even though I knew it wouldn’t be politically popular, and resisted the idea when I ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the Affordable Care Act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current Republican nominee for President.
Still, I know the debate over this law has been divisive. I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have shared. And I know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically.
Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believed it was good for the country. I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.
There’s a framed letter that hangs in my office right now. It was sent to me during the health care debate by a woman named Natoma Canfield. For years and years, Natoma did everything right. She bought health insurance. She paid her premiums on time. But 18 years ago, Natoma was diagnosed with cancer. And even though she’d been cancer-free for more than a decade, her insurance company kept jacking up her rates, year after year. And despite her desire to keep her coverage — despite her fears that she would get sick again — she had to surrender her health insurance, and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance.
I carried Natoma’s story with me every day of the fight to pass this law. It reminded me of all the Americans, all across the country, who have had to worry not only about getting sick, but about the cost of getting well.
Natoma is well today. And because of this law, there are other Americans — other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers — who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance. These are the Americans for whom we passed this law.
The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we’ll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do — what the country can’t afford to do — is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were.
With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward — to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead.
But today, I’m as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we’ll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward.
Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America.
FACT SHEET: The Affordable Care Act: Secure Health Coverage for the Middle Class
FACT SHEET: The Affordable Care Act: Secure Health Coverage for the Middle Class
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act ensures hard-working, middle class families will get the security they deserve and protects every American from the worst insurance company abuses. This law was also specifically designed to give States the resources and flexibility they need to tailor their approach to their unique needs. With the uncertainty about the Court’s decision behind us, it’s now time to focus on implementing this law in a smart and non-bureaucratic way that works for the middle class.
Benefits and Protections for the Middle Class: The Affordable Care Act includes numerous provisions to keep health care costs low, promote prevention, and hold insurance companies accountable. If you’re one of the 250 million Americans who already have health care – whether through private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid – the Affordable Care Act is already making your coverage more secure.
- · Insurance companies no longer have unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your child coverage due to a pre-existing condition, or charge women more than men.
- · Over 86 million Americans have gained from coverage of preventive care free of charge, like mammograms for women and wellness visits for seniors.
- · Nearly 13 million Americans will receive a rebate this summer because their insurance company spent too much of their premium dollars on administrative costs or CEO bonuses.
- · The law has already helped 5.3 million seniors and people with disabilities save an average of over $600 on prescription drugs in the “donut hole” in Medicare coverage.
- · The law’s provisions to strengthen and protect Medicare by fighting fraud will continue.
- · The law has helped 6.6 million young adults who have been able to stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 26, including 3.1 million young people who are newly insured.
If you are one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. If you need care, you will finally have the same opportunity to get quality, affordable coverage as everyone else.
Coverage for Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions: A major impact of the Court’s decision is that 129 million people with pre-existing conditions will have the security of affordable health coverage. Starting in 2014, insurance companies can no longer charge you more, carve out benefits, or deny you coverage altogether because you have cancer or diabetes or simply because you are a woman. To make these protections affordable, people with and without pre-existing conditions should be insured, since everyone at some time needs health care.
Tax Credits for Middle Class Families and Small Businesses: Millions of Americans will soon be eligible for tax credits to ensure that their health insurance is affordable. Under today’s ruling, having health insurance is and will continue to be a choice. If you can’t afford insurance or you’re a small business that wants to provide affordable insurance to your employees, you’ll get tax credits that make coverage affordable. But starting in 2014, if you can afford insurance and you choose not to purchase it, the taxpayers will no longer subsidize your care for free. The Court’s ruling today allows Congress to hold the projected 1% of Americans who will be able to afford health insurance but will choose not to buy it responsible for that choice. Many small businesses are already receiving tax credits so they can afford to offer quality health care to their employees. To date, 360,000 businesses that employ 2 million workers have already benefitted from the small business tax cuts in the law. And once the Affordable Care Act takes full effect, about 18 million individuals and families will get tax credits for health insurance coverage averaging about $4,000 apiece.
Support for State Implementation of Affordable Insurance Exchanges: With the uncertainty of the Court decision behind us, we will step up our work with States to implement Affordable Insurance Exchanges. Exchanges are new marketplaces, starting in 2014, that will allow individuals and small businesses to compare and choose private health plans. Each State will take the lead in designing its own menu of options. Already, 34 States including the District of Columbia have received 100 percent Federally funded grants to build Exchanges. The use of Exchange grants includes support for activities related to running Exchanges in their start-up year.
States can also implement their own brand of reform through Innovation Waivers starting in 2017. If States can come up with even better ways of covering people at the same quality and low cost, this law allows them to do so. The Administration supports bipartisan legislation to allow States to start such Waivers in 2014.
Moving Forward, Not Back: No political party has a monopoly on good ideas, and the President will work with anyone to provide basic security for middle class families and end the worst insurance company abuses. But rather than refight old partisan battles by starting over on health care and repealing basic protections that provide security for the middle class, Congress needs to work together to focus on the economy and creating jobs. Right now, Congress should act on the President’s concrete plans to create an economy built to last by reducing the deficit in a balanced way and investing in education, clean energy, infrastructure, and innovation.
Statement by White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on Today’s Contempt Vote in the U.S. House of Representatives
Statement by White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on Today’s Contempt Vote in the U.S. House of Representatives
At the beginning of this year, Republicans announced one of their top priorities was to investigate the Administration and to ensure that President Obama was a one-term President. Despite the major economic challenges facing the country, they talked openly about devoting taxpayer-funded, Congressional oversight resources to political purposes.
The problem of gunwalking was a field-driven tactic that dated back to the George W. Bush Administration, and it was this Administration’s Attorney General who ended it. Attorney General Holder has said repeatedly that fighting criminal activity along the Southwest Border – including the illegal trafficking of guns to Mexico has been is a top priority of the Department. Eric Holder has been an excellent Attorney General and just yesterday the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee acknowledged that he had no evidence – or even the suspicion – that the Attorney General knew of the misguided tactics used in this operation.
Yet, Republicans pushed for political theater rather than legitimate Congressional oversight. Over the past fourteen months, the Justice Department accommodated Congressional investigators, producing 7,600 pages of documents, and testifying at eleven Congressional hearings. In an act of good faith, this week the Administration made an additional offer which would have resulted in the Committee getting unprecedented access to documents dispelling any notion of an intent to mislead. But unfortunately, a politically-motivated agenda prevailed and instead of engaging with the President in efforts to create jobs and grow the economy, today we saw the House of Representatives perform a transparently political stunt.
COMMENTARY: Why Eliminating The Individual Mandate of Obamacare May Not Be Such A Horrible Idea
COMMENTARY: Why Eliminating The Individual Mandate of Obamacare May Not Be Such A Horrible Idea
-By Tracey Ricks Foster
The White House and the rest of concerned Americans and political pundits are counting down the hours to the big reveal. The United States Supreme Court will release its’ conclusive decision regarding the fate of President Obama’s AFFORDABLE CARE ACT on Thursday. Some say that the President’s re-election hopes depend roughly on how the nine Justices rule. Others lament that while the controversial health care law could be the thrown out in its entirety, more than likely the individual mandate portion that requires all U.S. citizens to acquire some form of health insurance will be struck down. Which would be a good thing.
When President Obama initially asserted his argument over the need for America to adopt some form of universal health care on the campaign trail back in 2008, the proposal he laid out to the American people contained a key element: public option. The President’s campaign website then expressed that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” The President noted in a speech in 2009 that “a public option will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market” and that any plan he decided to sign “must include…a public option.”
Why “public option?” The theory behind public option is that the U.S. federal government would create an insurance plan that would be designed to compete with private insurance companies. In this way, private insurance would be in direct competition for consumers with the federal government. The public would have the opportunity to compare and rate one insurance competitor against the next. Then compare those rates with the U.S. government’s. Yes. There would have been a 1 trillion price tag attached to the public option proposal. The down side. The up side? Consumers, for the first time in U.S. health insurance history, would be in the driver’s seat. Finally, health insurance companies who fleece its’ customers with high deductibles and exclude those with preexisting conditions would be forced to evaluate their policies and scrutinize the affects that their capitalism have on customers. The public option would have kicked open the health insurance market and necessitate health insurance companies and providers to become competitive in all 50 states. Consumers would have the luxury of comparable shopping within state or cross state lines for the best health insurance rates. A sure win win for American consumers.
However, the health insurance industry despised the idea. Just the very thought that the federal government could come in and legitimately steal consumers based on competitive rates was appalling. Health insurance lobbyists were paid millions to voice the industry’s opposition and the GOP, along with the Tea Party called public option “socialism.” Soon, the White House changed its tune. Public option was ‘out.’ Mandatory health insurance coverage was ‘in.’ Competitive rates? No. Cross state insurance? No. Consumers win? No. Health insurance companies and providers win? Yes.
So, the final draft of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed in to law on March 23, 2010 by President Obama without public option. Instead, within this passed legislation is the “individual mandate” which requires individuals to purchase health insurance and threatens punishment for those who don’t, hence the need for the Supreme Court to intervene.
Even though proponents of the President and the “individual mandate” assert that the benefits of this mandate would solve the problem of the massive debt left by uninsured Americans, whose health care costs are paid for by insured consumers thereby driving insurance rates up, data proving that the individual mandate will eradicate the problem has yet to be forthcoming. Economists, on the other hand, argue that not all uninsured consumers leave a bill for the insured to absorb. Statistics reveal that uninsured consumers pay about 25% of their health care costs out of pocket. In 2001, $35 billion in uncompensated health care was received by the uninsured or only 2.8%.
So, what are the true benefits of the individual mandate? The individual mandate will not propel health insurance rates downward making the purchase of health insurance plans affordable for the unemployed or uninsured. If anything, the individual mandate is only viable and enforceable if EVERYONE participates. What happens to those who are not able to participate because of their economic situation? Then these will be subjected to fines under the law.
However, this statute gives way to the same problem that former Massachusetts governor and presumed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney faced. The solution? Exemptions and vouchers paid for by insured consumers! Which in essence takes the whole argument back to the reason why the individual mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act may not work and could very well be stricken down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Statement by the President on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona v. the United States: “A Patchwork of State Laws is not a Solution to our Broken Immigration System – It’s Part of the Problem”
Statement by the President on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona v. the United States
I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.
At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own.
I will work with anyone in Congress who’s willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it.
SNEAK PEEK: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S WEEKLY ADDRESS: Congress Must Act on Transportation Bill and Student Loans
WEEKLY ADDRESS: Congress Must Act on Transportation Bill and Student Loans
WASHINGTON, DC— In this week’s address, President Obama spoke about the urgent need for Congress to act now on two common sense measures to help hardworking middle class families. Unless Congress takes action in the next week, thousands of workers will be sent home from their jobs and millions of students will see their interest rates double. At a time when hundreds of thousands of construction workers are eager to get back on the job, it makes no sense to let transportation funding run out. And at a time when a college education has never been more important to finding a good job, it makes no sense to hit 7.4 million students with the equivalent of a $1,000 tax. It’s not too late, but time is running out for Republicans and Democrats to come together on these common sense measures to help our nation recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression.
On Anniversary of Olmstead, Obama Administration Reaffirms Commitment to Assist Americans with Disabilities
On Anniversary of Olmstead, Obama Administration Reaffirms Commitment to Assist Americans with Disabilities
On June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court ruled in Olmstead v. L.C. that the unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Obama Administration has made significant progress continuing to enforce Olmsteadas well as more broadly helping to level the playing field for people with disabilities.
“Olmstead affirmed the rights of Americans with disabilities to live in their communities,” said President Obama. “As we mark the anniversary of this historic civil rights decision, we reaffirm our commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”
In April of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the creation of the Administration for Community Living (ACL), which brings together key HHS organizations and offices dedicated to improving the lives of those with functional needs into one coordinated, focused and stronger entity. ACL combined the Administration on Aging, the Office on Disability and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities into a single agency that supports both cross-cutting initiatives and efforts focused on the unique needs of individual groups, such as children with developmental disabilities or seniors with dementia. This agency will work on increasing access to community supports and achieving full community participation for people with disabilities and seniors.
HHS also has worked closely with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to develop and subsidize rental housing for very low-income adults with disabilities and implement the new Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program, which will assist extremely low-income adults with disabilities in accessing integrated affordable housing. Last month, HUD announced a new $85 million funding opportunity under the Section 811 program for state housing agencies that meet certain eligibility criteria, including having a partnership with a state health and human services agency and Medicaid agency, to provide essential support and services that help people live in integrated settings in the community. This funding opportunity works to align critical health and housing services and aims to assure integration by promoting Medicaid efforts to serve people in the most appropriate integrated setting.
The Department of Justice also continues to enforce the ADA and Olmstead. Over the last three years, the Civil Rights Division at the Department has been involved in more than 40 Olmstead matters in 25 states. Recently, in Virginia, the Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Department has a website dedicated to Olmsteadenforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials.
FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA TO JOIN ILLINOIS GOVERNOR PAT QUINN AT BILL SIGNING SUPPORTING MILITARY SPOUSES
FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA TO JOIN ILLINOIS GOVERNOR PAT QUINN AT BILL SIGNING SUPPORTING MILITARY SPOUSES
Legislation removes hurdles for military spouses so they can transfer their state licenses or occupational certifications more easily as they move from state to state
On June 26th, First Lady Michelle Obama will join Illinois Governor Pat Quinn at the Illinois National Guard Armory in Chicago as he signs into law the “Military Family Licensing Act,” which will help military spouses and veterans transfer their professional licenses to Illinois more easily. Through her travels across the country, Mrs. Obama has consistently heard from military spouses and active duty service members about the difficulty they have in transferring their occupational licenses from one state to the other and how it negatively impacts their ability to sustain a professional career. Among the nearly 50 professions impacted by state licensure requirements are teachers, nurses, speech pathologists, dental hygienists, physical therapists, counselors, marriage and family therapists, occupational therapists, social workers, physician assistants, emergency medical technicians and dieticians.
As part of her Joining Forces initiative to honor, recognize and support military families, First Lady Michelle Obama has advocated for the 100,000 military spouses who serve in professions that require state licenses or certification and have to bear high financial burdens to transfer their credentials from state to state as they serve this country. In February, the First Lady and Dr. Jill Biden asked the country’s governors and spouses to improve job portability for military spouses in their states. At the time the First Lady and Dr. Biden addressed the Governors, only 11 states had legislation. Now less than four months later, Illinois will be become the 23rd state to adopt pro-military spouse license portability legislation. An additional 7 states have pending legislation.
Illinois is the home to three major military bases – Naval Station Great Lakes, the Navy’s single-site “bootcamp” for training new recruits; Scott Air Force Base, the headquarters for the U.S. Transportation Command, and Rock Island Arsenal, a major weapons manufacturing facility in the U.S.
The Illinois legislation will help licensed military spouses moving to these bases, as well as other locations throughout Illinois, to more quickly and efficiently join the work force.
The bill signing will take place on Tuesday, June 26th at 2:15 PM CT at the Donnelly Building (Illinois National Guard Armory) in Chicago. Media interested in covering this event can RSVP to Brooke Anderson, Press Secretary to Governor Pat Quinn at Brooke.Anderson@Illinois.gov.
President Obama Announces Presidential Delegation to the Opening Ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games in London
President Obama Announces Presidential Delegation to the Opening Ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games in London
In anticipation of “Olympic Day,” a global commemoration on June 23rd of the birth of the modern Olympic Games, President Obama today announced the Presidential Delegation to the Opening Ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games in London. First Lady Michelle Obama will lead the delegation this summer, accompanied by Olympic and Paralympic greats to attend the Opening Ceremony, meet with U.S. athletes, and encourage American children to be active in their daily lives.
The First Lady is working to turn the inspiration of the Olympic and Paralympic Games into action by getting more kids healthy and active. In May, the First Lady joined U.S. Olympians, Paralympians, and London hopefuls to announce a nationwide commitment to get more than 1.7 million American children active as part of her Let’s Move! initiative to solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation. In March, Mrs. Obama welcomed Mrs. Samantha Cameron, wife of British Prime Minister David Cameron, to the United States by hosting a mini-Olympic event for local school children and in April, Mrs. Obama spoke at the Opening Ceremony for the 2012 Warrior Games.
“This summer I’ll be cheering on Team U.S.A. at the Olympic Games in London with this distinguished group of champions who truly represent the best of our country,” said First Lady Michelle Obama. “Olympians and Paralympians are true American heroes and role models for all of us, especially our young people. And I know that this delegation will help inspire a generation of young people to get into the Olympic spirit by getting active and healthy so they can reach their fullest potential and reach their dreams.”
Members of the Delegation
First Lady Michelle Obama
The Honorable Louis B. Susman, United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Ms. Brandi Chastain, 2-time Olympic gold medalist (1996, 2004), 1-time Olympic silver medalist (2000), Women’s Soccer
Ms. Dominique Dawes, Co-chair of the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition and Olympic gold medalist (1996), 3-time Olympic bronze medalist (1992, 1996, 2000), Women’s Gymnastics
Mr. Gabriel Diaz de Leon, Paralympic javelin gold medalist (1992), Paralympic discus silver medalist (1992), Paralympic shot put and discus bronze medalist (1988, 1996, 2000)
Mr. Grant Hill, Member of the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition and Olympic gold medalist (1996), Men’s Basketball
Ms. Summer Sanders, 2-time Olympic gold medalist (1992), 1-time Olympic silver medalist (1992), 1-time Olympic bronze medalist (1992), Women’s Swimming
NEW REPORT FROM TREASURY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS: THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION As the President Calls on Congress to Keep Interest Rates on Student Loans from Doubling, Report Shows Higher Education Critical to Economic Opportunity and Mobility
|
NEW REPORT FROM TREASURY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS: THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION As the President Calls on Congress to Keep Interest Rates on Student Loans from Doubling, Report Shows Higher Education Critical to Economic Opportunity and Mobility WASHINGTON – A new report released today by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, with the U.S. Department of Education, examines the economic case for higher education. As the President calls on Congress to keep interest rates low for the 7.4 million borrowers who are expected to take out subsidized Federal student loans next year, this report demonstrates the economic case for higher education as a source of both economic opportunity and mobility. Without Congressional action, interest rates on new subsidized loans will double, increasing from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1, 2012. The data and analysis confirm that higher education is critical for socioeconomic advancement and an important driver of economic mobility. As state budgets have repeatedly come under stress, state support for higher education has declined as a share of funding for public higher education, increasingly pushing students and their families to count on education grants and affordable loans through Federal financial aid. Because the Federal government cannot address this issue alone, the President has also called on states and colleges to come together around our shared responsibility for college affordability. With middle-class families facing greater financial stress and more students than ever trying to achieve their educational goals, access to higher education should be a national priority, not a luxury. Where we make our investments demonstrates our priorities. In order to ensure access to higher education, we must all do our part toward our shared responsibility to make these critical investments in today’s students and tomorrow’s workers. Highlights Include:
View the full report here.
|
BREAKING NEWS: JOHN BRYSON, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE RESIGNS AMID HIT AND RUN ALLEGATIONS
Statement by the President
Last night I accepted the resignation of John Bryson as Secretary of the Department of Commerce. I want to extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to John for his service over the past months, and wish him and his family the very best.
As Secretary, John fought tirelessly for our nation’s businesses and workers, helping to bolster our exports and promote American manufacturing and products at home and abroad. John has proven himself an effective and distinguished leader throughout his career in both the public and private sectors, from his success in the business world to his work leading on issues in the renewable energy industry. I am grateful that he brought that invaluable experience and expertise to my administration, and am pleased that he has agreed to continue supporting our efforts to strengthen the economy and create good jobs by serving as a member of my Export Council going forward.
I am confident that Dr. Rebecca Blank will serve the American people well as Acting Secretary and that the Commerce Department staff will continue their tireless work putting forward policies that help our workers and businesses compete.
Statement by President Obama on World Refugee Day
Statement by the President on World Refugee Day
On this World Refugee Day, the United States joins the international community in recognizing the nearly 15 million refugees worldwide, and millions more internally displaced people. We honor the dignity, courage, and determination of these men, women and children who have fled persecution and violence in their homelands and the commitment and generosity of the countries and organizations that provide them protection and assistance during this difficult time.
While we work to promote lasting peace and stability and human rights around the world, so that these refugees may one day return to their countries in safety and dignity, we know that for some voluntary return may not be possible. For these refugees social, economic, and legal integration in their country of asylum not only provides opportunities for them to begin rebuilding their lives, but also for the contribution of their knowledge, talents, and skills to be fully realized. Americans know the benefits of these valuable contributions firsthand. Since 1975, we have welcomed more than 3 million refugees from all over the world and continue to lead the world in refugee resettlement.
Together with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the international community, we are committed to protecting the world’s refugees, mitigating their suffering, and working to help find ways for them to live in dignity and peace.
The Washington Review & Commentary
Recent Comments