THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 29, 2009
Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Small Businesses and Health Insurance Reform
Washington, DC
I asked you here today to talk about health insurance reform, and why it is so critical to the success of small businesses across our country. But before I do, let me take a minute to talk about the new economic numbers that were released this morning.
I am gratified that our economy grew in the third quarter of this year. We’ve come a long way since the first three months of 2009, when our economy shrunk by an alarming 6.4 percent. In fact, the 3.5 percent growth in the third quarter is the largest three-month gain we have seen in two years. This is obviously welcome news and an affirmation that this recession is abating and the steps we’ve taken have made a difference.
But I also know that we have a long way to go to fully restore our economy, and recover from what has been the longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression. And while this report today represents real progress, the benchmark I use to measure the strength of our economy is not just whether our GDP is growing, but whether we are creating jobs, whether families are having an easier time paying their bills, whether our businesses are hiring and doing well. And that’s what I’m here to talk with you about today.
I know many of you have come from different corners of our country to be here and looking out at all of you, I’m reminded of the extraordinary diversity of America’s small businesses. You’re owners of coffee shops, diners, and hotels. You’re florists, exterminators, and builders. Each of your shops and firms reflects different passions, different ideas, and different skills.
But what you share is a willingness to pursue those passions, take a chance on those ideas, and make the most of those skills. What you share is an entrepreneurial spirit, a tireless work ethic, and a simple hope for something better that lies at the heart of the American ideal. Businesses like yours are the engine of job-growth in America. Over the past decade and a half, America’s small businesses have created 65 percent of all new jobs in this country. And more than half of all Americans working in the private sector are either employed by a small business or own one.
Now, even in good economic times, starting a business isn’t easy. It takes moxie, gumption, and ingenuity, and failure is often more likely than success. But I don’t have to tell all of you that it’s been particularly difficult over the past few years. From the middle of 2007 through the end of 2008, small businesses lost 2.4 million jobs. Thousands have shut their doors altogether. And because of the credit crunch, banks have shrunk back from lending, making it harder to get loans to branch out, finance your inventories, or even make payroll. Maybe you’ve had to forego raises. Maybe you’ve had to do the unthinkable and lay off friends or family.
So, I know how tough these times have been for small businesses. That’s why we made sure the Recovery Act included a number of measures to help small businesses weather this economic storm. We’ve put a tax cut into the pockets of the vast majority of small businesses owners and employees. We’ve supported nearly 35,000 loans to small businesses – more than $13 billion in new lending. More than 1,200 banks and credit unions that had stopped issuing SBA loans when the financial crisis hit are lending again today. And just last week, we proposed increasing the cap on what are called 7(a) and 504 loans – some of the loans most frequently handed out by the SBA.
But given the enormous problems small businesses and all Americans are facing today, these steps are by no means enough. If we’re serious about strengthening small businesses; if we’re serious about creating a climate where our entrepreneurs can succeed; if we’re serious about giving you the chance to prosper and grow, then we need to pass health insurance reform in the United States of America.
Few have a bigger stake in what happens than all of you. Few have a bigger stake than the men and women who own a small business, work at a small business, or rely on someone who does. Few have a bigger stake in what happens because few are struggling more under the status quo.
We all know that family premiums have skyrocketed more than 130 percent over the past decade. But small businesses have been hit harder than most. A story in the paper just the other day said that many small businesses may see their premiums rise about 15 percent over the coming year – twice the rate they rose last year. And in part because small businesses pay higher administrative costs than large ones, your employees pay up to 18 percent more in premiums for the very same health insurance policies.
In one national survey, nearly three quarters of small business that don’t offer benefits cited high premiums as the reason. Is anyone surprised by that?
The bottom line is that too many Americans like you can’t afford to build the kinds of businesses you’d been hoping to build. And too many budding entrepreneurs can’t afford to take a gamble on a smart idea because they can’t give up the health insurance they get in their current job. That’s bad for our economy, it’s bad for our country, and it’s what we’ll change when health insurance reform becomes law.
Just this morning, the House of Representatives released its version of health reform legislation, and I want to commend Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Caucus for their leadership in achieving this critical milestone. There is no doubt that this legislation – and the legislation that’s now being drafted in the Senate – would benefit millions of small businesses. It is being written with the interests of Americans like you and your employees in mind.
And yet, there are those with a vested interest in the status quo who are claiming otherwise, using misleading figures and disingenuous arguments. So, let me try and explain as clearly as I can exactly what health insurance reform would mean for small business owners like you and the workers you employ.
The first thing I want to make clear is that if you’re happy with the insurance plan you have right now; if the costs you’re paying and the benefits you’re getting are what you want them to be – then you can keep offering that same plan. Nobody will make you change it.
What we will do is make your coverage more affordable by offering a tax credit to small businesses that are trying to do the right thing and provide coverage for their employees. And we will also make your coverage more stable and more secure. Right now, if just one of your workers falls seriously ill, it could spell disaster for your entire business. You could see your premiums shoot up and you could be faced with a painful choice: Do you eat the costs and ask your workers to contribute more? Do you seek another insurance plan, without any guarantee that you’ll be able to find one that’s affordable? Or do you scale back benefits or drop coverage altogether?
Well, I don’t think you should have to make a choice like that in the United States of America. Under health insurance reform, we will put an end to the days when an insurance company could use a worker’s illness to justify jacking up premiums. We’ll crack down on excessive overhead charges by setting strong standards on how much of your premiums can go toward administrative costs and requiring insurers to give you a refund if they violate those standards. It will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most.
They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. If you get your insurance through your employer, we’ll change the cutoff on how old your kids can be to remain on your plan – we’ll raise it to 26 years old. We’ll place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.
That’s what we’ll do for all the small businesses that have insurance. And for all the small businesses that don’t, we’ll finally make quality coverage affordable. Here’s how we’ll do it. One of the biggest problems in our health care system right now is that if you’re a small business owner or if you’re self-employed, you often have such a small number of workers that insurance companies aren’t all that interested in your business. As a result, you end up paying higher costs than big businesses that can get better deals because they have more workers.
So, what we’ll do is set up what we’re calling an exchange that will pool small businesses together. That will mean it’s not just you bargaining with insurance companies, it’s you and many others. With all that additional leverage, you’ll be able to get better deals than you ever could have received on your own. In fact, small businesses that choose one of the plans in this exchange could save 25 percent on their premiums by 2016. And we’ll also offer tax credits to make insurance even more affordable for millions of small businesses. Meanwhile, by expanding coverage for more Americans, we’ll help eliminate the “hidden tax” of more than $1,000 that workers pay to cover the medical expenses of the uninsured.
Now, it is true that when reform becomes law, businesses of a certain size who do not offer their workers health coverage may be required to contribute to the costs. Opponents of reform have tried to use this to mislead small business owners by claiming that you would be subject to this penalty. But the fact is, about 90 percent of all small businesses would be exempt from this requirement – about 90 percent. So, if your business is anything like the vast majority of small businesses out there, this requirement simply won’t apply to you – because I don’t think it’s fair to impose a penalty on small businesses.
That’s what health insurance reform would mean for you and for all our small businesses. It will reduce your costs. It will prevent small business owners from facing exorbitant rates. And it will make coverage affordable for all the small businesses that can’t afford it right now.
But it will also do something more. It will help remove the worry that if you have the courage to strike out on your own and open a business, you’ll be doomed from the start. It will help give entrepreneurs and all Americans the assurance of knowing they won’t go broke when they get sick. It will help ensure that no small business owner in America has to choose between being a successful employer or a decent one. It will help us be the kind of country we know ourselves to be.
What’s at stake, then, isn’t just the success of our businesses or the strength of our economy or even the health of our people. What’s at stake is that most American of ideas – that this is a place where you can make it if you try; where you can be your own boss; where the only limits to what you can achieve are your smarts, your savvy, and your dreams; where you can pass on to your children a better life than you inherited.
That’s what’s at stake. That’s what we are fighting for. And I am absolutely confident that if we do what must be done; if we can build an economy that works for all Americans; if we can promote innovation, foster growth, and build a better health care system – then not only will we ease the burdens on entrepreneurs, not only will we give our small businesses a big boost, and not only will we produce the kind of growth we so desperately need in this country, but we will secure the blessings of America for our children and grandchildren. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
September 29, 2009
President Obama Extends Gulf Coast Rebuilding Office, Pushes for Improved Long-Term Recovery Following Catastrophic Disasters
White House Also Announces President Obama to visit Gulf Coast in Mid-October
Washington, D.C. – Signaling his continued commitment to Katrina-Rita recovery, President Barack Obama announced he will visit the Gulf Coast in mid-October and see first-hand the progress in the region. President Obama also today signed an Executive Order extending the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Recovery and Rebuilding for six months. The Office of the Gulf Coordinator was first established November 1, 2005.
Since taking office eight months ago, the Obama Administration has worked hard to provide residents of the Gulf Coast with the tools that they need to recover from the hurricanes, and to rebuild their lives and communities. The Administration is deeply committed to serving the needs of Gulf Coast residents by cutting through the bureaucratic red tape that has delayed assistance and improving coordination among federal agencies and with state and local partners. As a result, more than $1 billion in public assistance projects that had been stuck for years have been obligated since the start of the Administration, including fire and police stations, health clinics, libraries, and university buildings. In addition, thousands of individuals who had been trapped in temporary disaster housing are on the road to self-sufficiency. The Recovery Act is providing significant resources to the Gulf, providing support to communities and individuals while also supporting the region’s infrastructure and creating and saving jobs in critical areas like education and law enforcement.
In addition, President Obama is taking steps to improve disaster recovery efforts across the country. A six-month effort led by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan will examine lessons learned during previous catastrophic disaster recovery efforts, areas for improved collaboration between federal agencies and between the federal government and state and local governments and stakeholders. The effort also will review federal disaster recovery programs for efficacy and review methods to build capacity within state, local and tribal governments as well as within the non-profit, faith-based and private sector.
More details on President Obama’s trip, including credentialing instructions, will be released as they become available.
*Executive Order attached*
###
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 29, 2009
PRESS BRIEFING BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:11 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Mr. Elliott, take us away.
Q Thanks, Robert. On the principals' meeting today, what's the actual goal, what does the President want to come away with in this discussion on Afghanistan? I know we're not at a point where we're making decisions. What are we making in this meeting?
MR. GIBBS: Well, the meeting the President will be in actually has been rescheduled until tomorrow. The principals will meet to get ready -- continue to get ready for that meeting. As I understand it, General Petraeus and General McChrystal will participate in the meeting that's had this afternoon.
Q Is this the first conversation the President had with McChrystal since receiving his report?
MR. GIBBS: I don't believe that they've spoken since the report has been given. Understanding for a little context, the President receives a memo every week from General McChrystal, as he does from General Odierno, on -- an update on how things are going in either Afghanistan or Iraq, respectively. Inputs also come from the diplomatic side. As well as each of those memos, the President meets, as he is today, regularly with the chain of command, including the two top people on that chain of command, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mullen, both of whom will be a the White House today.
Q So what's he looking for from this meeting?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, this is the beginning of a reassessing of where we are. I think this will be -- as we've said, this will take place over the course of several meetings and a number of weeks, as we look at where we are, what's happened in the intervening months since the President made a decision in March. And I think as you heard the Secretary General of NATO, a key ally obviously in our mission, is to evaluate this from a strategic perspective and then have a discussion later about resources, which is what the President intends to do.
Q Are the principals offering him options to consider?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think we're at that point yet. I think we're going to go through the McChrystal assessment and go through additional ideas, and go from there.
Q Now, Iran is saying that they will not discuss this new nuclear plant tomorrow.
MR. GIBBS: They may not, but we will.
Q That was -- I was going to ask -- you're going to bring it up. What do you think about this approach that they're taking?
MR. GIBBS: Well, what is undeniable is that a plant is in -- a plant was constructed in violation of their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, something they've signed with the IAEA, as well as U.N. Security Council resolutions. We will demand that IAEA inspectors have unfettered access to the facility, to personnel, to documents surrounding the facility. There's no doubt this is in violation of their own obligations to which they're a party.
I think it will show the world, and I think the onus is on the Iranians to show the world, that the program that they have is for -- is a peaceful program to create energy, rather than a secret program for nuclear weapons. I think if you're -- if the Iranians are unwilling to discuss something that should have been reported to the IAEA years ago, I think that's quite telling. But again, I don't want to prejudge. I'll let them do their own talking.
Yes, sir.
Q The President today in the Oval Office with NATO Secretary General said that he defined the mission in Afghanistan as dismantling, disrupting, destroying the al Qaeda network, and effectively working with the Afghan government to provide the security necessary for that country. What -- how would you define "effectively working with the Afghan government to provide the security necessary for their country"? Can you explain more what he means by that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think you've got -- I think, as you've seen in places around the world, we've -- while we can help the security environment in the short term, there has to be a training mission for police and security forces that that country can use to secure their own territory, because we cannot stay there forever. Eventually the functions of security and the functions of policing are going to have to be assumed by the Afghans. So obviously some robust training mission has to happen.
Q That's what you mean by -- just kind of open-ended concept of --
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q -- they need to be able to arm themselves and protect themselves?
MR. GIBBS: They have to be able to secure their own physical territory.
Q But that's obviously not the case right now.
MR. GIBBS: And that's why -- that's part of what the President talked about in March and part of what is in -- obviously in the assessment from General McChrystal.
Q One other question is that retired General Gration is quoted in The Washington Post today, making comments about U.S. policy towards Sudan that include suggestions that his goal is to normalize relations with Sudan, and there were a lot of other comments that have alarmed groups whose existence is to object to the genocide in Darfur. Did you guys have a reaction to that comment?
MR. GIBBS: Well, just -- my reaction is more to the story. The policy is being worked on. There are no announcements of a new policy. Obviously, our policy would not include that unless there were significant change on the ground in Khartoum.
Q Isn't there a danger for the President that he may be perceived as weak or indecisive as this policy or strategy review session drags on, fueled by the perception that many in his own party are against increasing the numbers of troops in the war?
MR. GIBBS: When you say "drags on" -- I mean, Secretary Gates said this weekend it took three months in the previous White House to discuss a policy on a surge of troops in Iraq. Did anybody -- was there a suggestion by those then that the President was dragging this assessment on?
Q You all have made a point of saying that there is no time limit on this.
MR. GIBBS: Right, because the President wants to get the policy right. If the policy takes time to get right, then that's what the President intends to do. I think he owes that to the men and women in uniform that are there; he owes that to the men and women in uniform that could go; and he owes that to each and every American.
Q Sure, but meanwhile, there's probably what you could describe accurately as a rising tide of sentiment against further engagement in Afghanistan, and much of it is on his own party.
MR. GIBBS: The President isn't going to make a political decision. The President is going to make the decision that he feels is in the best interest of the United States' national security. The President is happy to hear the back-and-forth from both sides on this, but is going to take his time to decide what is right for the American people.
Q When you talk about the President wants to hear the back-and-forth, where does it stand now? Does the President -- is it the sense that the President does not want to send in more troops, but he needs to see the evidence and want to be convinced that there really is a need for that?
MR. GIBBS: The President is in the process of doing exactly what he said he would do after the elections, and that is assess where we are.
Again, you heard Secretary Gates this weekend discuss that General McChrystal, who's been there for a couple of months, saw through his assessment on the ground a situation that had deteriorated more rapidly than people had expected. You have the ambiguity of the Afghan election -- all of which has to be taken into account. The President is simply taking this into account and demonstrating, again, as I said, what he would do in March in assessing this policy.
Q And as he does that, what are his concerns about sending in more troops?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I have not heard him talk specifically, and I wouldn't get into if I had, what his concerns are right now. I think obviously the President wants to ensure that we have a well-defined mission, that we all understand that we can't be there forever. As Jake mentioned, the President reiterated that the strategy -- we have to have a strategy that dismantles, disrupts, and destroys al Qaeda and its extremist allies; builds up the security and policing forces of the Afghans; and doesn't allow safe havens in Afghanistan where terrorists can plot again to blow up buildings or planes in this country.
Q Does the United States believe Iran was trying -- is trying to acquire a nuclear weapon?
MR. GIBBS: I think that there is -- their reticence now for a second time to live up to its international obligations put the onus on the Iranians to tell the world and to demonstrate visibly for the world that their program -- that their -- that they have a peaceful nuclear program designed for power and energy, rather than a secret program to develop a nuclear weapon. That is a question that only the Iranians can answer to the satisfactory nature of the world community.
Q The U.S. government isn't prepared to say that they know the Iranians are --
MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not going to get into --
Q -- that there seems to be some dispute between intelligence agencies around the world.
MR. GIBBS: And I'm not going to get into discussing intelligence here.
Q On the IAEA, does the U.S. government believe they've gotten enough information that they need from them about what they've done in Iran previously? Have they gotten a full -- have they gotten full cooperation from the IAEA -- the U.S. government -- in getting everything they need?
MR. GIBBS: I'd have to check with somebody as to the exact nature. Again, the onus is on the Iranians to provide full, unfettered access to Qom, to documents, to live up to the international obligations that they've signed. This facility should have been reported to the IAEA at a point in which a decision was made to begin constructing. That has long since passed. The Iranians are going to get a chance to account for the world and be transparent about their program and its intent.
Q On the hikers, the news -- the news that the Swiss government is going to -- or the Iranians are going to give the Swiss government some access to the hikers, do you guys see this as some sort of -- is it viewed within the talks are going to take place in Geneva, some sort of attempt by them --
MR. GIBBS: Our government has always viewed that the hikers should be released and we don't conflate the two issues.
Q Do you believe there should be no connection?
MR. GIBBS: There isn't any connection and there shouldn't be. The hikers should be released.
Q Robert, was Rasmussen speaking for the President when he said today in the Oval Office, "We will stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes"?
MR. GIBBS: Obviously, I'm not going to get into parsing the words of --
Q It's pretty straightforward.
MR. GIBBS: I understand, I just don't currently hold the position of his spokesperson.
Q Well, does the President agree with that?
MR. GIBBS: I think the President believes that we have to do -- we have to, as I said earlier, disrupt, dismantle and destroy al Qaeda, prevent it from having a safe haven that would allow it to plan the type of activities that we saw happen in September of 2001 in this country.
Q And that is the objective for which the U.S. will stay in Afghanistan, as long as it takes?
MR. GIBBS: That is the objective of our U.S. policy toward Afghanistan.
Q Back to Iran, in terms of sanctions, there's been some reporting on insurance and targeting insurance and reinsurance. What else is the administration considering?
MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into what happens a few steps down the road, except I think you’ve heard the President be very forceful about what the Iranians could face in the event that they don't live up to their obligations. Our focus right now, though, is on Thursday's meeting and hoping that they will live up to those obligations and tell the world.
Q The administration is considering sanctions? I mean, you guys are working on this, this isn’t all just premature talk?
MR. GIBBS: No, we're working on it. It's just me talking about it is premature.
Q Could you talk a little more generally then about the need for targeted sanctions as opposed to --
MR. GIBBS: Look, without -- I hate to get into conjecture. Obviously I think what is most important in any step that is taken next in the event that the Iranians don't live up to their obligations is that we do this with the entire international community working together. I think we're at a point through the President's policy of engagement where we're not having a debate about whether or not we should be confronting the Iranians face to face, but instead we've put the onus on the Iranians to discuss their intentions and their program with the world. And we brought our allies, particularly in the P5-plus-1, I think up to a point in which that's all possible.
Q Russia's deputy foreign minister says Iran's missile tests shouldn’t be used to generate international support for sanctions. Do you agree with that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Wendell, as I just said yesterday, obviously though the exercises by the Iranians were part of preplanned military activities, I don't think anybody thought that that was a helpful thing heading into serious talks where the onus and responsibility is on them.
Q Senator Kyl also has criticized the decision to go forward with the talks. He says --
MR. GIBBS: We tried that. (Laughter.) We had that policy for six years. It resulted in a whole lot of nothing. The President, through engagement, is at a point in which we are about to confront face-to-face on behalf of the world the intention of the Iranians and their nuclear program. And we'll give them the opportunity to state for the world and to demonstrate through its actions, not just its words, its responsibilities. I think we could go back to what we had for six years, which I think amounted to exceedingly little progress in dealing with the Iranians after it was -- almost seven years after it was known that they had built a massive uranium enrichment plant in the Natanz.
Q When is the ongoing Sudan review likely to be completed? And will you announce --
MR. GIBBS: Yes, we -- I know there's a principal committee's meeting today that many will be at. I assume they'll come to some series of recommendations that will be presented ultimately to the President.
Q It's a different meeting than the Afghan meeting?
Q Will Bono be by? Will Bono be by? Serious question.
MR. GIBBS: I don't think he's participating in the principals committee meeting.
Q Will he be consulted on this?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Q -- The Edge?
Q Will he be cleared into the White House compound today at all?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of. I now see we've veered from Iran to U2.
Q Larry Mullen? (Laughter.)
Q Can we go back to Sudan?
MR. GIBBS: One more. Just go ahead, get it all out. Come on. (Laughter.) Let's go ahead.
Q Got to leave them wanting more.
MR. GIBBS: All right.
Q So you were saying?
MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry. Before I was so rudely interrupted with tonight's playlist -- look, the principals committee will meet; they'll eventually have recommendations for the President as part of an ongoing review of our Sudan policy. And when we have a policy to announce, we'll do that.
Q Any kind of approximation of how long this could take?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I've been given. But I can double-check.
Q And on tomorrow's Afghanistan meeting, who all will be in the meeting with the President?
MR. GIBBS: Let me see if I can do some of this off the top of my head. I'll try to get it -- we'll certainly get you a more complete list for those that actually attend the meeting. I know that the Vice President will be there, the Secretary of State will be there, the Secretary of Defense will be there, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs will be there, Ambassador Holbrooke will be there, General Petraeus and General McChrystal --
Q McChrystal will personally be there?
MR. GIBBS: No, I think -- what I was going to say is, I'm not sure if one or both of those is by teleconference. But we'll certainly get that. I'm trying to think if I've left anybody out.
Q Lute?
Q Jones?
MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry, of course General Jones will be there and General Lute will be there as well.
Q What was the last name?
MR. GIBBS: General Lute.
Q Sit Room?
MR. GIBBS: Yes. Yes. No pool. (Laughter.)
Q You mentioned the memos that the President gets every week from General McChrystal and General Odierno. Is there a reason why the President hasn't actually spoken with President -- with General McChrystal, except for the one time, since June? President Bush obviously spoke with his commanders every week. Is there a reason why this President --
MR. GIBBS: I think the President has -- receives tremendous input from the commanders on the ground; receives input from regional commanders like General Petraeus at Central; talks and meets weekly with, as I said, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, or the Vice Chair if Admiral Mullen is traveling; and meets weekly with the head of that chain of command, Secretary Gates, often.
Q How does the President view General McChrystal at this point? Arguably the General put him in a political box. Is there a feeling that --
MR. GIBBS: No, the President is intent on getting the decision that has to be made right, focusing our effort and our resources on ensuring that we have the best strategy possible. Understand, Peter, that the President signed off on putting General McChrystal where he is.
Q Does he regret it?
MR. GIBBS: No, not at all.
Q Robert, going on to health care, with the Finance Committee meeting today, and just kind of a "where we are" question. They're going to be having votes today and obviously through the week. Are you expecting -- A, are you expecting a finished product soon in the next few days? And is that going to be the key that unlocks things?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think obviously whether it is the end of this week or whether this bleeds into next week, I can't say for sure. I know the Finance Committee is making progress going through a series of amendments. But I expect in the new few days that the Finance Committee will finish its work. I think at that point you'll have five different committees that will have -- all of whom have some series of jurisdiction over -- purview over health care. Obviously both sides will then have to reconcile different proposals before they go to the floor fairly quickly.
Q But I guess what I'm getting at is you've been putting a lot of emphasis on the Finance Committee in the last few weeks. Is that going to be the definitive version of the legislation? Is that going to be the thing that unlocks things?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think -- just on the Senate side, obviously there's a process of the Finance Committee that will then have to be reconciled with the HELP Committee bill that passed out earlier this summer. That process will merge that legislation together just as the committees in the House will merge their bill together, and then it will go through.
Q But it's really just incremental, then. I mean, you spoke of it yesterday as being in a better place, which sounded fairly definitive.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the Finance Committee is in a better place. I think they're going through and -- I mean, I was asked this question in relation to what the President said about the Olympics several weeks ago. At that point, we didn't have a chairman's mark, we didn't have a committee that was meeting, we didn't have amendments that were being debated, we didn't have votes taking place. Obviously all of that happening with the last committee of jurisdiction means we're making progress on health care.
Q Robert, can I follow on that?
Q Last week everybody from Rahm, the Vice President, they all said they anticipate a bill before the Thanksgiving recess. Is that still operative? And what do they mean? Do they mean out of the House and Senate, or out of conference?
MR. GIBBS: I'd have to check. Because we were on the road so much last week, I have not talked with Rahm or Peter exactly on their statements. But I think it's our hope that this is a process that can be wrapped up by then.
Margaret.
Q Thank you. On Iran, from a technical standpoint, can you talk a little bit more about what the U.S. vision is, going into Geneva? Are we going to be on our own, or in conjunction with any of our allies, presenting on paper some sort of specific demands or proposals for Iran? Or will it be more of a verbal thing? How long is the U.S. prepared to let the talks go on if one meeting doesn't cut it?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I would hesitate to prejudge the second question.
In terms of the first, I think this is a lot less about what we and the P5-plus-1 have to do; this is a lot more about what the Iranians have to do. I think there's a -- even before Friday's acknowledgment by the Iranians several years belatedly that they had a facility at Qom, there's a pending question about their nuclear program. That program -- that question only got more important with Friday's disclosure. And the onus and the responsibility are clearly on them.
Q From a standpoint of leverage or strategery -- (laughter) -- how do you prod them into that place --
MR. GIBBS: I love how like a "Saturday Night Live" word was just entered into the lexicon of our -- (laughter.) I'm going to curse in a minute, if that's cool. (Laughter.)
Q So the onus is on Iran, but how does the U.S. approach that? Again, can you answer specifically, will there be something on paper that's given to the Iranians, and will the U.S. demands be joint with other countries or --
MR. GIBBS: Let me check on the protocol of whether something is going to be -- I know that Bill Burns, who has worked on this issue for quite some time and was part of the meeting I think it was last June or July -- that occurred in the previous administration in the P5-plus-1 with Iran will be in charge of it for the United States.
Peter.
Q Robert, on the Olympics, the President is going to be meeting privately, I guess, with some IOC members in Copenhagen. What will his message be? Will he be making the case for Chicago or asking them to vote for Chicago?
MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. I think the President, again, sees the opportunity to push strongly on the international stage America's bid for the Olympics. He will obviously have a part in the Chicago presentation, but I think believes that it's important for him to talk directly with voting members of the IOC and make the strong case for the American side.
Q Your response to Chairman Steele's criticism about the President going to Copenhagen?
MR. GIBBS: Who's he rooting for? (Laughter.) Is he hoping to hop a plane to Brazil and catch the Olympics in Rio? (Laughter.) Maybe it's Madrid.
Q Why is the President leaving before the decision is announced? Why isn't he going to stick around for a couple hours?
MR. GIBBS: To get back to do more work.
Q Robert, just on Iran, how important, if sanctions are required, would cooperation of the Russians and Chinese be? And can you talk about what your level of confidence is that they'll be with the United States on this?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I wouldn't get, in all honestly, a lot more ahead of what you heard, for instance, President Medvedev say last week after meeting with the President, that we certainly hope that Iran fulfills its obligation and its responsibility. If it doesn't, we'll then look at next steps. And I think what he said is timely.
April.
Q Robert, two questions. One, on Iran, how does gasoline factor into these conversations?
MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get -- just like I did with Hans, I'm not going to get ahead of getting into -- surmised specifics about sanctions.
Q But is gasoline something that this administration -- could it be part of -- could it be one of the options on the table?
MR. GIBBS: See previous answer.
Q Okay.
Q Ask Tommy on Saturday. (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Right. Or call Tommy.
Q Next question. The U.S. Census Bureau came out with a new study saying household income declined across all groups, but at sharper percentages for middle-income and the poor. Middle-income America is the group that really is affecting these polls, the President's approval ratings. Could you talk to me about how this White House sees that?
MR. GIBBS: Talk about how we see --
Q The report -- how the White House sees the report as middle-income Americans are the ones who really affect the approval ratings of the President, up or down?
MR. GIBBS: I've got to tell you, April, there's not a lot of time spent correlating Census Bureau income data with approval rating polling data. We're focused on getting a policy right to turn the economy around. Obviously the President -- we saw a little more than a year ago an economic catastrophe that had been building for quite some time, with millions of jobs lost. That obviously has affected household income. It's not something we spend a lot of time, though, on --
Q But some pollsters say that it is directly linked -- the middle-income pocketbook is directly linked and that your approval ratings will go up or down if they see their savings --
MR. GIBBS: I'll let pollsters smarter than me address that.
Q Robert, when you talk about Afghanistan, the one thing that I don't hear in the strategy is defeat of the Taliban. Is defeat of the Taliban something that we must do there?
MR. GIBBS: Obviously when I talk about al Qaeda and its extremist allies, that's what we're talking about.
Q Defeating the Taliban as well?
Yes, ma'am.
Q As far as the middle class issue, it's been recently recorded that more and more middle-income people are reverting to public health clinics because they've lost their jobs, they've lost their insurance. The House bill has recommended an additional $38 billion. I just wondered does the administration in any way see this as another option to a public option? I mean, you've got clinic staff that are on salary. They don't really practice defensive medicine.
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think what you're pointing out, with the drop of income, we've seen an increase in the number of uninsured based on where the economy is going -- the best way to deal with that problem is bring the cost of health care down and provide an accessible and affordable route for those that don't currently have health care or have lost their health care to purchase something more stable, so that they don't, like millions of Americans, go bankrupt if they get sick. I think that's what underpins the President's entire push for comprehensive health care reform.
Q With the focus on Iran this week and the G20 and the U.N. last week, is the White House losing control of its health care message? There hasn't been anything about health care?
MR. GIBBS: No.
David.
Q Let me ask another health care question. Progressive policy advocates are complaining that the White House is not working with them to develop what would be a strong trigger. They see Olympia Snowe's idea of a trigger and her plan as being rather weak. And they're complaining that there's nothing coming from the White House on an alternative trigger that would be stronger, robust, that might be a compromise position with House Democrats. Your response?
MR. GIBBS: David, I have to admit I haven't seen that. I will go ask Nancy-Ann and others about that. Obviously, I think you've heard the President on any number of occasions discuss the strong need for choice and competition robustly to be in this bill; that without it we're not going to have what needs to happen to bring down health care costs and provide accessibility. I haven't seen the direct criticism. I'll check.
Yes.
Q With the White House already weighing in on local elections, state elections in Colorado, Virginia and New York, is there going to be a lot more of this as 2010 gets closer? Is this going to be a standard procedure for the White House to get involved in local races?
MR. GIBBS: Well, when you say "local races" you mean --
Q Well, I mean congressional and gubernatorial.
MR. GIBBS: Right. I think the President will be an active participant in the elections in 2010. I don't think there's any doubt about that.
Q Well, how significant is the White House role going to be in these elections?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we have a significant interest in how they turn out. I think the President will put -- we've got a long way before that -- put our best case forward in 2010, and support candidates that share his vision for long-term sustainable economic growth.
Q Over the weekend former President Clinton came out for support of same-sex marriage, and he called his previous position against it "untenable." What does the President think about that?
MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to him and -- I did not see President Clinton's comments and I haven't talked directly to him about it.
Q On Afghanistan and on Iran, there's a question that's been floating around really since the Vietnam War. If a significant majority of the American people continuously say they are opposed to build up involvement in Afghanistan, is the President obligated to listen to the American people or go on his own?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I've talked about this a little in the past. I think the President clearly is going to make a decision that he believes is in the best interest of the national security of this country. At a point in which the final decision gets made, he'll explain directly to the American people what that decision is and why he thinks it's the best one.
Q Will public opinion polls play any role in his --
Q At this point, is there --
Q -- that strong statement you made, we're about to confront on behalf of the world, do you include military confrontation?
MR. GIBBS: I think the President and Secretary Gates both said that it would be a mistake to take any option off the table.
Sam.
Q Yes, sorry if I'm late to the game on this, but is the White House concerned at all about the scaling back of the proposed consumer financial protection agency away from what it envisioned when it was introduced? And what kind of steps is the administration willing to take to make sure it's kept intact?
MR. GIBBS: This is a big concern of the President's and a big concern of the administration. I think we have seen what happens, whether it's credit card companies, mortgage companies; we now see it more in stories covering the charges for bank overdrafts and the amount of money that that costs of the American people each year; that the American people deserve an advocate on their behalf dealing with these entities. The President believes that strongly and believes that at the end of the day, we'll have a strong consumer finance protection agency working on behalf of the American people --
Q Is he willing not to sign a bill if he thinks it's too weak?
MR. GIBBS: The President would not sign any bill that he thought was too weak.
Q On the defense spending bill now before the Senate, do you feel like that's free enough of earmarks to avoid a veto?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I know that some of the most egregious spending on behalf of the administration was and is addressed. We've talked in here about the F-22. We've talked about the alternative engine program for the F-35. We've talked about a series of presidential helicopters that the President did not believe was necessary. And we want to see that most of all addressed in this bill. I have not talked specifically with Legislative Affairs about the other stuff.
Q Is that a veto threat, then, if the consumer financial protection agency --
MR. GIBBS: The President will fight for and fight against anybody in the special interests who don't see it as an important part of financial regulatory reform.
Q Will he veto a bill without that included?
MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry?
Q Will he veto a bill that doesn't include it?
MR. GIBBS: We're confident that it will be in a final bill that he's able to sign.
Q And what about a veto threat on the defense authorization? If you guys see too many earmarks in this, will you veto that?
MR. GIBBS: I'll ask Legislative Affairs. Again, I think the largest earmarks that we wanted to be addressed -- the presidential helicopter and the two airplanes -- are first and foremost on our mind.
Thanks, guys.
END 1:47 P.M. EDT
#111-09/29/2009
September 28, 2009
DAILY GUIDANCE AND PRESS SCHEDULE FOR
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009
In the morning, the President will receive the Presidential Daily Briefing, the Economic Daily Briefing, and meet with senior advisors in the Oval Office. These meetings are closed press.
Later, the President will meet with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in the Oval Office. There will be a pool spray at the bottom of the meeting.
In the afternoon, the President and the Vice President will meet with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in the Oval Office. This meeting is closed press.
NOTE: The President is scheduled to meet with his national security team on Afghanistan on Wednesday afternoon.
In-Town Travel Pool
Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg
Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP
TV Corr & Crew: CBS
Print: Tribune
Radio: CBS
Magazine Photo: New York Times
EDT
9:00AM Pool Call Time
9:30AM THE PRESIDENT receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
Oval Office
Closed Press
9:50AM THE PRESIDENT receives the Economic Daily Briefing
10:10AM THE PRESIDENT meets with senior advisors
11:30AM THE PRESIDENT meets with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Pool spray at the bottom (Gather Time 11:55AM – Briefing Room)
4:30PM THE PRESIDENT and THE VICE PRESIDENT meet with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
Briefing Schedule
1:00PM Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
##
Harry R. Hoglander has been a Member of the National Mediation Board since August 6, 2002, and has twice served as its Chairman. He was first confirmed by the United States Senate on August 1, 2002, and reconfirmed for a second term on December 8, 2006. Prior to joining the Board, Hoglander served as a Legislative Specialist in the office of Congressman John Tierney of Massachusetts, where he covered issues related to transportation, labor, defense, and veterans affairs. Hoglander has extensive background in aviation - he spent 28 years flying for Trans World Airline (TWA), where he was a Captain. Additionally, while with TWA, he was elected Master Chairman of TWA's Master Executive Council and elected Executive Vice-President of the Air Line Pilots Association. After leaving TWA, Hoglander was named Aviation Labor Representative to the United States Bi-Lateral Negotiating Team by then-Secretary of State James Baker. Hoglander was a pilot in the United States Air Force and retired with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He graduated from Suffolk University Law School and is a member of the Florida Bar
WASHINGTON, DC -- In a video announcement sent to supporters today, President-elect Obama announced the formation of Organizing for America. This is the next phase for the organization that was built during the campaign, offering volunteers the continued opportunity to work for change in their communities by organizing in support of reform in Washington.
This announcement follows a dialogue with Obama for America supporters across the country. More than 500,000 completed surveys following the election making clear their vision for the organization, and more than 4,200 hosted house parties in their communities. A clear majority believe that organizing in support of President-elect Obama’s agenda should be the most important goal for the organization.
Organizing for America will partner with Governor Kaine and the DNC.
“Change doesn’t come easy -- our work has just begun,” said Governor Kaine. “President-elect Obama has laid the foundation to meet the great challenges facing our nation, but we can succeed only if we build grassroots support for the administration’s agenda. As the DNC works to elect candidates who will support the change agenda, we will also invest in bottom-up efforts that ensure that the priorities of everyday Americans are heard in Washington.”
Further details about Organizing for America will be announced in the coming days. A link to the President-elect’s announcement, and a transcript, are below.
