News from Your Elected Officials

1:10 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Please, everybody be seated.  To Speaker Pelosi; distinguished members of the House and Senate; Republican Leader Boehner; Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; my outstanding Vice President and his newest chief of staff  -- (laughter) -- to Prime Minister Cowen and the entire Irish delegation, as well as the extraordinary leaders from Ireland and Northern Ireland -- it is my privilege to welcome all of  you for this wonderful St. Patrick’s Day tradition. 

And, Governor O’Malley, thank you for that outstanding rendition of our two national anthems.  (Applause.)  I had asked if Martin was going to do a rock-and-roll version.  (Laughter.)  Some of you know he’s got a rock band and is in much demand.   

This tradition, as most of you know, was begun by Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan, two men who agreed on their love of all things Irish -- including a good scrum.  But they also knew how to set aside time just to enjoy one another’s company.  President Reagan himself said that the two men could be friends after six o’clock.  And I imagine they also made a midday exception for this luncheon every year.

Today is a day we speak with pride of being Irish-American -- whether we actually are or not.  (Laughter.)  I am pleased to say that I can actually get away with it, and I’ve got the  Taoiseach here to vouch for me.  Prime Minister Cowen was born in County Offaly, and I can trace my ancestry on my mother’s side there as well.  I believe it was my great-great-great-great-great grandfather.  (Laughter.)  This is true.  (Laughter.)  He was a boot maker, if I'm not mistaken.

Someone actually discovered my Irish lineage when I was running for President, and my first thought was why didn’t anyone discover this when I was running for office in Chicago?  (Laughter.)  I would have gotten here sooner.  (Laughter.)  I used to put the apostrophe after the “O” but that did not work.  (Laughter.)   

So it is nice to have a little Irish blood today.  It is, after all, a day to celebrate and give thanks for the profound and enduring relationship between Ireland and America.  And it’s also a day to thank the Irish people for all that they’ve done for America. 

Few nations so small have had such an enormous impact on another.  They came to our shores in waves by choice as well as by necessity, building new lives even as they were building a new nation, enriching our heritage, enriching our culture in their own way.  And in so doing, alongside so many others who sought a better life in America, they forged a better future for all of us.

But the truth is they weren’t always welcomed.  There were times where the Irish were caricatured and stereotyped and cursed at and blamed for society’s ills.  So, naturally, it was a good fit for them to go into politics.  (Laughter.)  Made sense.  (Laughter.) 

When the fictional Mayor Skeffington of Edwin O’Connor’s “The Last Hurrah,” spoke of his life as an Irish-American, he said, “When I began, it was long ago, and the situation around here was a bit different.  I had no education to speak of, a good many roads were closed to our people -- and politics seemed the easiest way out.”  (Laughter.)

Today, of course, we all feel the heavy absence of one of our greatest Irish-Americans; a man who loved this day so much; a man who I believe is still watching this body closely, particularly this week -- and that is our beloved Ted Kennedy.  And I’m so grateful that Vicki and Patrick are here.  Thank you for your presence.  (Applause.)

I confess that one of my fondest memories of Teddy has been on my mind lately -- it’s one that I shared before.  Just a few years ago, on St. Patrick’s Day, so it would probably be maybe five years ago, when I had just gotten to the Senate, Teddy cornered me on the Senate floor for my support on a piece of legislation.  And I told him, “You’ve got my vote, Teddy, but I got to tell you, this is not looking good.  I do not think this thing is going to fly.”  But it did, with votes to spare.  And so I grabbed Teddy, pulled him aside.  I said, “How did you pull that off?”  And he just patted me on the back and he said, “Luck of the Irish!”

And it’s nice when the luck of the Irish can bring to the Senate and to Congress such an extraordinary leader as Ted Kennedy.  I think it’s a little providence, as well as a little luck.  It’s also nice when the luck of the Irish can bring us all together, Republicans and Democrats.  That was one of Teddy’s talents.  Even as he waged epic and unyielding battles in this building, he, too, was a believer that we were all friends after six o’clock. 

And more importantly, he was a believer in building consensus, in forging compromise, in the idea that the only way that we can accomplish the work of the American people is to work together.  And one of the greatest testaments to his life and his work, I think, was that so many of his colleagues, past and present, Republican and Democrats, came forward to honor him in similar terms.

That work -- the work of setting aside old differences and softening hardened positions, taking the tough steps to do what’s right in the long run over what’s easy in the moment -- has also paid dividends in terms of the remarkable progress that we’ve seen in Northern Ireland, particularly in recent months.  And so I want to salute First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness for their outstanding leadership, their continuing example.  (Applause.)  We are grateful for that.  Thank you.

It is such leadership that keeps me convinced that our best days -- for this legislative body, for this nation, for Ireland, and for Northern Ireland, and for the friendship between our peoples -- those best days are still ahead.

So, Taoiseach, I thank you and your lovely wife for coming.  To you and to the people of Ireland, America is grateful for our shared past, hopeful for our common future, and I assure you we will be a faithful partner in the work of progress and prosperity, and a just a lasting peace.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day to all of you.  And with that, please welcome the Prime Minister of Ireland, Brian Cowen.  (Applause.)

END
1:18 P.M. EDT

11:26 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good morning, everybody.  First of all, I just want to congratulate this sound person right here for having the green earmuffs.  (Laughter.)  Now, I haven’t seen that before.  Happy St. Patrick’s Day, everybody. 

Before I talk a little bit about the strong and enduring bond between the American and Irish people, I just want to thank Congress for passing this morning the HIRE Act.  It is the first of what I hope will be a series of jobs packages that help to continue to put people back to work all across America. 

This bill will provide tax cuts to small businesses that are willing to begin hiring right now, putting people back to work.  It’s also going to provide significant tax breaks to businesses for investing in their business, and so, hopefully, at a time when we're starting to see an upswing in the economic growth, that will help sustain it.  And the bill also will continue to improve our ability to finance infrastructure projects all across the country.

I also want to say to the Republicans who voted for this bill that I appreciate their willingness to work with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion to get America moving again.  And as I said, I hope that on a series of future steps that we take to help small businesses get financing, to help improve our infrastructure around the country, to put people back to work, that we're going to see more progress on that front.

I want to thank the Taoiseach for coming here today.  Last year we had the opportunity to get to know each other and had a wonderful time during St. Patrick’s Day.  Thirty-six million Americans claim Irish ancestry -– I'm sure more do on St. Patrick’s Day.  And it’s a testament I think to how close our two countries are that America has been shaped culturally, politically, economically by the incredible contributions of Irish Americans.  Those bonds endure.  And in our meeting we reaffirmed how important it is for us to continue a strong partnership across a whole host of issues.

I thanked the Taoiseach for the assistance that they’ve provided on critical international issues.  We use the facilities in Ireland for transit for our military troops to Afghanistan.  The Irish police are providing training in Afghanistan.  As the Taoiseach indicated, the Irish government punches above its weight on a whole host of critical issues.  We're going to be working together to enhance food security around the world.  Even in these difficult times it’s important for us to make sure that we're tackling big issues like world hunger.

I congratulated the Taoiseach and his government for the extraordinary work that they engaged in, working with Gordon Brown and the British government, as well as Secretary Hillary Clinton, in reaffirming the progress that's been made in Northern Ireland and to get a ratification of continued devolution.  It’s a sign of his leadership, and we want to be as supportive as possible in advancing the Northern Ireland peace process.

We also discussed the economy.  And on both sides of the Atlantic we are seeing stabilization of the economy, but obviously we want more than just stabilization.  There are a lot of people out there that are still hurting, still out of work.  And so we will continue to coordinate in international fora as well as bilaterally to see how we can spur investment and private sector growth on both sides of the Atlantic.

So I just wanted to say how grateful we are for the friendship and the partnership between the United States government and the Irish government.  We wish you and everybody who is here a happy St. Patrick’s Day, and are looking forward to the reception that we'll have in the White House later this evening.

TAOISEACH COWEN:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.  And we are -- I and my delegation -- delighted to be able to join you here at the White House this morning on this wonderful St. Patrick’s Day morning.  And I think the sun shining outside and the light coming in I think typifies the excellent relationship that Ireland enjoys with the United States not only now, but as you say, over many generations.  And that contribution to America by Ireland is a continuing one, one that we have to find and give modern expression to all the time.

And certainly the level of cooperation and common cause we enjoy together in terms of the issues of today in the economy and how we can ensure that our economies recover as quickly as possible is something that’s very important to both our countries.  And certainly in Ireland’s context the resurgent  U.S. economy will be a strong indicator of our return to prosperity.  And we very much commend the very decisive steps that you have taken in terms of the economic issues and the banking issues, which have been so successful.

I think we are seeking to replicate ourselves in our own context as a recapitalization of our banking system and making sure that we have a banking system fit for purpose that will assist recovery and grow jobs again in the future, and provide investment and credit, working credit for businesses that are hard pressed in the very difficult trading environment.

In that context I’ve been delighted to head a delegation here to the United States and having visited Chicago, the West Coast, Silicon Valley and now Washington, D.C. over the last couple of days; 70 small- and medium-sized enterprises have been over with us, doing trade with American companies.  I’m glad to say that the two-way relationship in terms of investment is continuing.  Over 34 billion euros have been invested by Irish companies in the United States, employing 85,000 people directly.
 
And that, if you like, mirrors the very significant U.S. investment that’s taking place in Ireland, employing directly of the order of 90,000 people.  So that important two-way mutual benefit to this trade is very, very important, one I know that you’re equally cognizant about in terms of finding jobs for your people as we seek to provide jobs for ours.

On Northern Ireland, we are deeply grateful for the continuing and deep commitment shown by the Obama administration, by the President, himself, and by Secretary of State Clinton in recent months.  We’ve been very grateful for that continuing interest which has influenced an outcome that has been so positive.  As I said to the President, for a place that has been known for its disagreements, a 98-17 vote was a very good vote to get.  I’m sure he’s looking forward to a good outcome in what he’s doing during the course of this week.

We decided to come on a quiet week -- we knew there wasn’t much going on.  (Laughter.)  But in that context, it reinforces the fact that we are so, so grateful that the President gives so much of his time -- both himself as President, his administration, and, indeed, the people on the Hill from both parties are very welcoming of us.  And we deeply appreciate that, as both a recognition of the contribution of Ireland thus far to America, but also the continuing important relationship we enjoy.

So on all these fronts, again, it’s a great pleasure to meet with the leader of the free world.  We are deeply grateful for his sense of mission not only in terms of how America is progressing, but America’s position in the world.  And we will always be supportive of the very progressive stands and positions that President Obama has taken -- not only in terms of the economic issues, but on development issues.  We will have a co-chairing by Secretary Clinton and Micheál Martin, our foreign minister, at the U.N. Conference on Hunger and Food Security.  And these are another indication of the values we share and our ability to cooperate and provide leadership positions is one that we’ve very grateful and privileged to enjoy with you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you. 

Thank you, everybody.

Q    -- that Representative Kucinich will vote for the health care bill --

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  That's a good sign.

Q    What did you tell him?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I told him thank you.

Q    Will you be going to Ireland, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I would love to be going to Ireland.

END
11:35 A.M. EDT

1:47 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS:  Good afternoon.  I think as the weather gets nicer we might want to move this -- like class, we should move this outside and --

Q    Absolutely.

MR. GIBBS:  Oh, wow, everybody is --

Q    Go for it.

MR. GIBBS:  All right, I will -- wow, I didn’t think that would be so easily accepted.  (Laughter.)  Without objection, so ordered, and I will have WHCA start setting that up.  That sounds like a great idea.  Wow.  That sounds good. 

Mr. Feller.

Q    Thank you, sir.

MR. GIBBS:  Now we've broken all the news, let’s move forward.

Q    On health care, a few questions.  Does the President support the idea of the House passing the health care bill without actually ever voting on it?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Ben, I think as you’ve heard the President discuss repeatedly over these past couple of weeks, this week there will be a final vote on health care.  There will be an up or down vote on where we are on health care, on the President’s plan to reform our health care system.  And I think that is -- that's what he’s focused on.  That's what -- that's why he’s talking to members to gain their support for.

Q    But there’s a scenario unfolding in which the House would vote on the fix it bill, as you know, but never actually vote on the underlying Senate bill.  And the House Speaker has been candid about that.  If that happens, would the President be okay with that?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, Ben, I -- there’s going to be a vote on health care reform this week.  You're going to know where people are on health care reform.  There, I'm sure, are those that are going to want to make this about the legislative process rather than the heart-wrenching stories of people like Natoma Canfield that the President discussed yesterday.  But the vote that we have on health care this week -- and I'm not under the impression that the House has made up its mind on what that process is going to be, I haven’t read it -- but I don't think there’s any doubt that people -- this would be a final vote on health care.  You’ll know where health care is.

Q    Well, the President, along with policy, has said that process is important, too, to the American people -- transparency.  So when you say a vote -- I think -- don't you think it’s important that there be a vote on the bill?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I don't think anybody is going to be -- I don't think anybody is going to misinterpret the outcome as to where people are on health care.  I anticipate I'll get questions today on who the President is speaking with and who’s he meeting with, and you're going to ask me --

Q    Who?

MR. GIBBS:  Right.  But -- and you want to know that --

Q    That’s what --

MR. GIBBS:  Hold on, let me finish my point.  And you're going to want to know where they are on health care.  When you do your whip counts, you’re trying to figure out who’s where on health care.  I don’t imagine there’s many Republican strategists that you all will interview this week that will say -- we won’t look at the vote that’s going to be had on Friday or so and it’s not about health care.

So, again, the President is focused on, after having worked on this for a year, getting this done; focusing on the stories that he repeated yesterday outside of Cleveland on behalf of people like Natoma Canfield; and believes that the stakes are higher than the next election or somebody’s poll numbers next week.

Q    So just to follow, who’s the President meeting with and speaking with?

Q    Since you brought it up.

MR. GIBBS:  Undecided members of Congress who will vote later this week on health care reform.

Q    And what is he -- just to follow up on that, when he does meet with lawmakers, particularly one on one, what is he offering them in exchange for their votes, if anything?

MR. GIBBS:  Offering the case for why health care reform should be passed this year; offering the case of why 60 percent of small businesses will receive a tax cut in helping provide their employees with health care; offering the case for why the mother of a young child won’t sit on the phone anymore with an insurance company arguing about a so-called preexisting condition. 

Those are the types of anecdotes that the President will be offering members of Congress about why it’s important to put aside the day-to-day politics, put aside the next election, put aside your poll numbers, and instead focus on the problems that the American people have.

Q    So you’re saying he’s just making that case for the bill?  No quid pro quo?

MR. GIBBS:  No.

Q    Is he making headway?

Q    On China --

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Robert, a quick follow please?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me get around.  We’ll be here for a while, I presume. 

Q    I’d like to move to China, and if the administration has any reaction to the bill that’s being put to the Senate by Schumer and Graham.

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know that we’ve seen the text of the legislation.  I think you saw the President mentioned just a few days ago that he wished and hoped that China approached their currency using a more market-based interpretation, and I would point you to the Treasury for any further announcements on that.

Q    And there does seem to be rising rhetoric here.  I mean, is the President concerned this could undermine efforts to get China to collaborate in the G20, or even escalate into a trade war?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I think the President, as I’ve said before, believes that diplomatic relationships sometimes come with disagreement.  We’ve been reading about a few recently.  But that doesn’t curtail our ability to work on problems of mutual concern like the global economic recovery.

Q    But does the President still believe, as he said in the campaign, that China does manipulate its currency?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I would refer you to what the President said just a few days ago.

Ed.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  I just want to push a little bit on this up or down vote.  I mean, just again yesterday the President said, “So look, Ohio, that’s the proposal.  And I believe Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote.”  He didn’t say a final up or down vote plus -- using a deem and pass procedure.  He is promising the American people repeatedly in the last couple of weeks, including in the East Room with the doctors in the white coats, a straight up or down vote.  Why are you not being clear with the American people about what you want the House to do?

MR. GIBBS:  Ed, we’re being clear.  We’re being clear with the people of the United States and with Congress that there is going to be a vote this week, and you’re going to know how people are -- where they stand on health care.

Q    But it may not be a vote on the actual legislation.

MR. GIBBS:  Again, this I think is a legislative process game that people play --

Q    It’s a process --

MR. GIBBS:  No, no, no.  Let me just --

Q    Why won’t Democrats go on the record about this legislation?

MR. GIBBS:  But, Ed, let me just make this point.  I am sure that CNN is going to be filled with stories between now and when that vote happens about where people are on that vote.  You’re asking people where they are on health care reform.  You’re trying to get -- find out what meetings are happening here so you can ask people where they are on health care reform.  That’s what this vote is going to be about.  That’s -- you’re going to know where people are on health care reform, on where they are on the President’s proposal on health care reform, not on where they are on a rule.

Q    Sure, but it’s also -- that part is true, leading up to the vote, but it’s been a fundamental part of this republic that basically at the end of a long debate like this, there is an up or down vote --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, first and foremost, let’s understand --

Q    -- and the American people want to know what people are doing.

MR. GIBBS:  Let’s understand this is a -- again, I’m not under the impression the House made a final decision.  That announcement, a decision --

Q    -- off the table then?

MR. GIBBS:  Because I’m not the Speaker of the House.  She’ll make that announcement.  She’ll make that decision.  But understand, Ed, again, we hear the same process arguments from the same people that used very similar arguments on their side of this in many previous Congresses.  So again, it’s a little bit like reconciliation -- I was against it; before I was for it; and now you point out that it’s --

Q    But if the weight of your arguments are so much on the right side of history, why not just go before the American people and say here’s an up or down vote on legislation?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, Ed, I don't think you’re going to -- I don't think when you go out into the public next week after the legislation passes and ask people how they feel about their congressman’s vote -- you’re going to be asking them how they feel about their congressman’s or congresswoman’s vote on health care reform.  That’s what you’re going to be asking them because that’s what this vote is about.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Robert, without getting into specific numbers, can you tell us what percentage of the President’s day he’s actually devoting to making these calls and what kind of a reception he’s getting?  I mean, is he getting a lot of pushback?  Are these long conversations?  Are they short?  What are the nature of these calls?

MR. GIBBS:  Longer with some than others. 

Q    In English?

MR. GIBBS:  Pardon me?

Q    In English?  (Laughter.) 

MR. GIBBS:  As opposed to other words?  No, this is children-approved programming, Helen.  Let’s be good. 

I have not gotten a list of members that he’s called today, but I know he reached out -- well, obviously he talked with Representative Kucinich yesterday on Air Force One.  He’s talked with and called -- either met with or called members over the past several days and, again, made the case for why reform is important now; why this has to be the time where we finally do something about health care.

Q    And how is that argument being received?

MR. GIBBS:  I think we are making steady progress toward passage of the bill this week.

Q    Do you think that this is -- his entire day is devoted to making these calls?  Is it half the day?  I mean, I’m just trying to get a sense since we’re not seeing him at all.

MR. GIBBS:  I’d have to go back and look at his -- at the in-depth schedule to give you an educated guess on percentage, but -- no, I mean, look, the President, again, has a PDB every day; we had a senior advisors meeting and he’s got stuff later today that doesn’t deal with health care.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Has the President considered pulling out of these horrible wars where innocent people are killed, and take care of the desperate needs in this country -- in the cities, on health, education and welfare?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Helen, obviously relating to Iraq, we have -- we’re on a path to getting our combat troops out of there by the end of August.  You’ve seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan we obviously are -- we have apologized on numerous occasions for the loss of innocent life.

Q    -- replace a human life?

MR. GIBBS:  No, it certainly does -- those are the type of actions that you obviously regret.  I think that you’ve seen Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal say those exact things to civilians in Afghanistan.  But I would say that we would not be in Afghanistan if the President didn’t think it was in our strong national interest to do so.

As it relates to the other part of your question, I think the President has outlined a robust agenda for improving health care reform in this country -- or improving health care in this country for -- we've laid out many ways to improve our educational system and make our children more competitive and ready for either a career or college at the end of high school, and to address other problems that the President believes have been neglected for quite some time.

Q    There’s no money for these needs, no money.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, we've made some tough decisions about how to pay for health care reform, different than has been done in the last few years in Washington.  We believe there are priorities the President should pay for, and we have. 

Chip. 

Q    Thank you, Robert.  You talked earlier about what the President is offering people when he makes these calls.  Is he offering to campaign in their districts and to come out and raise money for them?

MR. GIBBS:  The President is focused on the case that he will make and the case that he hopes everyone makes on why this legislation is important for the American people, and important for the constituents of their district. 

Q    There have been numerous reports that he and/or the White House have made specific offers to campaign and raise money for wavering Democrats.  Are these reports incorrect?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, there’s also been reports that we won't campaign for people that don't, which are also --

Q    Are those incorrect?

MR. GIBBS:  Those are incorrect.

Q    So the President has not made any --

MR. GIBBS:  I've not been in every meeting, Chip.  Again, the President is focused on outlining the merits on behalf of the legislation and the policy that, again, will cut costs for the American people, make health care more affordable and --

Q    I understand he’s focused on that, but is he also, at the end of the call, saying, hey, I'll campaign for you, I'll raise money for you? 

MR. GIBBS:  I assume we'll campaign for many people.  Some will vote for it, and some will vote against it.  The President doesn’t spend his time doing scheduling and political events.

Q    But is there a quid pro quo?

MR. GIBBS:  No.  I said that earlier to Ben that that was not the case.

Q    Absolutely not a quid pro quo?

MR. GIBBS:  No.

Q    And he’s not going to make campaigning or raising money contingent upon how they vote?

MR. GIBBS:  He is focused on the legislation at hand.

Q    You said Speaker Pelosi will make the decision or will announce the decision on how the House proceeds procedurally on this.  Is the President involved in any way in making that decision?

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

Q    And are people in the White House involved in making that decision --

MR. GIBBS:  I assume that we have been involved for many, many months on getting health care done.  I don't know of all the conversations, whether they’ve weighed in on process.

Q    You say the final decision is hers, though, not the White House?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, I think the final decision is the Speaker’s.

Q    Finally, on the special deals, last week one day you went through the different states where there had been special deals -- Nebraska and Louisiana and Vermont and Montana.  Do you stand by the list of deals that were taken out of the legislation last week?

MR. GIBBS:  I'm happy to look at it again.  I don't have any reason to believe --

Q    Is the President still fighting to keep those special deals out of this?

MR. GIBBS:  I think we've taken quite a bit out of there and have asked the Senate to take anything else out that, again, I think as you saw people outline, would benefit one place or one state rather than something that can be -- that can affect a broader group of people.

Q    How about Montana, for example?  Does the President support keeping that in?

MR. GIBBS:  I think I addressed that last week on that.

Q    Right, but do you stand by it now still?

MR. GIBBS:  I do.

Q    Do you believe this deem and pass scenario constitutes an up or down vote?

MR. GIBBS:  I think that -- I think that you’re going to ask people how they stand on health care.  You’re not going to ask them how they stand on deem and pass.  You’re going to have a vote count that constructs not the process for the rule but where you are on health care.

Q    But you guys would be satisfied.  Since you’ve extolled the virtues of an up or down vote, you would be satisfied with this deem and pass scenario?

MR. GIBBS:  I think this is -- I think that -- again, I think there are many that would want to conflate this process into something that’s different than the product; that is different than the heart-wrenching stories of people, as I’ve said, like Natoma Canfield, who made decisions to give up her -- who made a decision to give up her health care to keep her house, a gamble that she’s lost.

Q    Well, I ask about the up or down vote because Speaker Pelosi said -- I’m quoting -- “I like it, this scenario, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill.” 

MR. GIBBS:  I would ask one of her --

Q    I'm interested in how you would square those two concepts.

MR. GIBBS:  I would ask one of her capable spokespeople on what she had to say.

Q    Okay, but wait -- all right, but would you agree that there seems to be some inconsistency between what she said and the notion of an up or down vote?

MR. GIBBS:  I haven’t talked to one of her capable spokespeople.

Q    Another topic?

Q    Okay, then real quickly, just -- do you -- would you agree that it exacerbates the perception --

MR. GIBBS:  No, I wouldn’t.

Q    -- that this is a dirty or underhanded process?

MR. GIBBS:  No.

Q    Another topic?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Thank you, Robert.  There’s been some reporting today that the Israelis are considering even more settlement activity after their announcement during the Vice President’s trip there last week.  What is the reaction of the Obama administration to this latest increase in settlement activity?

MR. GIBBS:  These are reports of?  I don't want to base my comments off of would-be reports of.  I'm certainly happy to comment at some point based on whether or not the “reports of” are actual. 

I would say this.  I think that last week, the Vice President was in Israel to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and its people.  As I said earlier mature, bilateral relationships can have disagreements.  And this is one of those disagreements.  It does not break the unbreakable bond that we have with the Israeli government and with the Israeli people on their security. 

We have, throughout this process, hoped to engender the type of trust between the two sides that would lead to sitting down and discussing directly these issues.  Events on either side that complicate that we condemn on either side.  And we’ll continue to do that.

Q    May I follow on that?

MR. GIBBS:  I’ll come back around.

Jonathan. 

Q    The President has said that the problem with the politics of the health care bill is not with policy but with process.  So what is the difference between a deem and pass or a self-enacting rule, and the kind of process that the President was condemning when he made those statements?

MR. GIBBS:  I think we were -- I think the President was talking about the end of the Senate bill on some of the deals that Chip asked me about that are gone.

Q    So the deals are different from the final enactment?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, Jonathan, this is a process that has been used -- again, I’m struck by the richness with which people can pivot to believing what they used four out of 10 times in a previous Congress to pass things now have great objections to using so.

Q    I thought you guys wanted to hold yourselves to a higher standard.  

Q    And the fact is --

MR. GIBBS:  No, I’m not holding -- I’m not changing the standard we’re holding ourselves to.  I’m pointing out the, quite honestly, low standards with which many of the people that you’re asking me about have been quoted as saying.  When Republicans use these types of rules four out of 10 times in a previous Congress and then vociferously object to the use of that rule now, I think that is -- I think that is -- again, the standard is to embrace something and then find it objectionable a pivot that requires something few figure skaters in the Olympics are able to pull off.

Q    But is this the first -- is this the most significant social policy legislation to pass in 30 years, or is this just another run-of-the-mill bill going through a process like that has been used --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, that’s a quantitatively different argument I would assume you’re making now, right?  So you’re saying that it’s --

Q    You can't have it both ways.  You can’t say it’s the same --

MR. GIBBS:  No, no -- no, but neither can -- Jonathan, but neither can somebody else have the argument.  So you’re saying that it’s not whether that is used; you’re talking about -- you’re saying that the use is based on the scope -- is that right?

Q    Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

MR. GIBBS:  So that it doesn’t any more have to do with the use of the rule.  You’ve now switched the argument to be the rule can only not be used if the scope exceeds some arbitrary barrier, right?

Q    Would you agree with that?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, it’s not whether I would agree with it. 

Q    No, I’m asking you.

MR. GIBBS:  I’m asking you whether your agreement to the previous scenario extends to the latter scenario.

Q    Well, I mean, if you look at the --

MR. GIBBS:  I’ll come back to you.  (Laughter.)  You can think about that and we can -- yes, go ahead.

Q    On the Schumer and the China currency stuff, Schumer and Graham said today it helps to put pressure on the Chinese.  Do you guys agree that this congressional pressure helps go towards the goal the President has been very clear about, which is to have a more market-oriented appreciation of the yuan?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, not having evaluated the legislation or their proposal -- again, I think the President has been clear recently, the President was clear with the Chinese in Beijing, about a market-oriented approach to their currency.  So I think that --

Q    Well, without getting into the specifics of the legislation, just the language, the body language from Capitol Hill, is that helpful?  Does the President think that helps with leverage with the Chinese?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think the most leverage that the President has is sitting face to face with leaders in Beijing and telling them that a market-oriented approach to their currency -- I think that’s about as much leverage as one can bring to bear in a single sitting.

Q    So would you prefer that some of the rhetoric gets toned down from Capitol Hill?

MR. GIBBS:  I didn’t pass judgment on their proposal.

Q    Eric Cantor called Rahm Emanuel a couple of days ago, asked him to tone down the rhetoric --

MR. GIBBS:  I think it was yesterday.

Q    -- against Israel.  He said when you scold Israel, basically you take some of the pressure off the Palestinians to do their own negotiating.  Do you disagree with that?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, as I said earlier today and as I said last week when asked about this, there are actions that each side takes that hurt the trust needed to bring these two sides together.  The State Department reiterated -- or I will reiterate what the State Department said yesterday about the deep concern that we have around inflammatory rhetoric around the rededication of a synagogue in Jerusalem.  That’s not helpful on that side of the ledger.

Again, Prime Minister Netanyahu has apologized and found regrettable the timing of the decision that was announced during the Vice President’s trip. 

I think what is important to understand -- and I believe Congressman Cantor understands -- is that despite a disagreement that you might have, our commitment to Israel’s security is unchanged.  Our commitment to its people is unchanged.  The Vice President --

Q    How about the Palestinians?

MR. GIBBS:  The Vice President reiterated that at the beginning of his trip.  That was the reason for his trip.  He reiterated that in a speech -- after the Prime Minister found cause for regret, the Vice President reiterated our commitment to Israel’s security.

Q    Also on health care, in order to get the Senate bill through the House, if there is a specific vote, you’re going to have to change the minds of some of the 31 Democrats who voted against the House bill in November.  What gives you confidence that you can do that?  What gives you confidence, especially since there are a number of Democrats who voted in favor of the House bill who now say they can’t support the Senate bill?

MR. GIBBS:  On?

Q    Health care.

MR. GIBBS:  Right, but based -- you’re talking about somebody like a member who is more -- well, I'll say this.  Look, there are -- I think there are those that voted against the legislation for any number of reasons -- not believing that there was enough cost control in the legislation, or disagreeing with the mechanisms that were set up around choice and competition -- that they may find the Senate bill more to their liking in terms of that. 

I think that -- again, I think the case that the President will make -- I also think the case -- one of the strong cases the President will make, as we get to the end of this debate, I do think it becomes far more crystallized in people’s minds that this is the last chance to do something.  And what does our health care system look like if we do nothing?  We know.  Letters come with skyrocketing rate increases on the individual market.  Families will see over the course of the next several years average premiums for a family go from $13,000 to $24,000.  That’s what happens if we walk away.  And I think that, in many ways, is having a positive effect on the idea of doing something now.

Q    Is that the case the President made to Dennis Kucinich?

MR. GIBBS:  I think that’s probably part of the case that he made to him.  And then he was helped by somebody in the crowd that the President asked that person to repeat so the congressman could hear.

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, by your way of thinking, by the end of the week, Friday or Saturday, we’ll have a vote and either health care will have passed or it will have failed.  Is the --

MR. GIBBS:  I think that -- just, by the way, I think -- I’m not going to go way out on a limb here, but I moderately believe most in the room would agree with that.

Q    Okay.  So given that, is the President prepared then for his voice to be largely absent in the week following that as the reverberations from whatever happens on -- one way or the other, that he will be halfway around the world?

MR. GIBBS:  You all will be asking him, ad nauseum, about Indonesia and Australia and democracy over here and exports and  --

Q    Well, it’s more --

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, exactly, all the --

Q    I've got my questions written --

MR. GIBBS:  I -- we better get a much better Indonesia briefing for the President.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Tell us about the yuan --

Q    But I mean, he is prepared to be there during that week, whichever way it happens?  You’re not thinking about --

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.  And I’ll say this, Michael, more seriously, that when the President -- as I said last week, when the President talked to the Speaker and the Majority Leader, while there was an agreement to give both sides a few extra days of the President’s time to help passage, the President was also  -- the President and the leaders agreed also of the importance of this trip. 

I went through some of that reasoning last week.  Indonesia is critical to -- and we’re critical to Indonesia -- in helping on counterterrorism and, ultimately, in protecting our country; the type of trading relationships that we have with these two countries, and that we hope to expand with these two countries; help grow our economy.  So it is -- it is an important trip that the President will take and I think he looks forward to it.

Q    Can I just follow up?

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.

Q    Are there people that you all are leaving behind that you would normally -- who would normally take that trip, but are staying here to deal with that week?  And do you have any plans for the trip to make adjustments to allow --

MR. GIBBS:  I hope the schedulers aren’t watching.  (Laughter.)  Your scenario might have caused some heart palpitations in a certain few rooms.  No, look, I -- the Vice President will be -- obviously be here as this next goes to the Senate.  And I think, obviously, the President believes that’s enormously important.  I do believe that -- I’m not sure, honestly, whether some of the staff that will stay would necessarily have gone.

Q    Some of them?

Q    Rahm?

MR. GIBBS:  I believe the Chief of Staff will be here and I don’t know that the Chief of Staff had plans -- in fact, certainly under the previous trip schedule, he was not planning on going for a whole host of commitments.

Q    Two things, Robert.  It’s Sunshine Week and the President has --

MR. GIBBS:  I noticed the beautiful weather.

Q    The beautiful sunshine outside and the President has --

MR. GIBBS:  Coordinated by Ben LaBolt in order to --

Q    -- has praised his administration for openness.  So in that spirit, I’m wondering if you will release in real time a list of the people that the President is talking to about health care this week.  Can we have the names?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, the President will meet with undecided members of the House, meet with senators --

Q    Is that a no?

MR. GIBBS:  -- looking to make the strongest case possible for health care reform.

Q    A follow-up -- I’m taking that as a no, you won’t -- you won’t be giving us the names of the people that he’s talking to.

MR. GIBBS:  I’m happy to sit in on some of your assignment meetings just as I’m sure you would like to be the pool reporter for some of the Oval Office --

Q    Well, you usually know what I’m working on, so why can’t it be in return?  It’s not -- I'm mean, why not?  Why not tell us who he is reaching out to?  And he’s talked about opening the process. 

MR. GIBBS:  I've read many of your stories and I think you’ve narrowed down many of the people that the President is likely to see this week.

Q    And as a follow on that, I understand he’s going to be on FOX News, talking about health care reform.  And the administration’s tussles with FOX News are well known, so can you talk to us a little bit about why he’s going on FOX now and what he thinks he can accomplish by reaching out to their audience in particular?

MR. GIBBS:  Obviously they have a pretty big audience share and I think it’s safe to say that a lot of members that are undecided are going to be -- they watch and their constituents watch this news.  So we’re happy to continue the argument on why health care reform is important to pass this year on FOX.

Q    Does he really think he’s going to change the minds of FOX viewers, many of whom I suspect are opposed?

MR. GIBBS:  It’s certainly worth a shot.

Q    You partially answered this, but Israel claims over the years it’s tried to protect holy sites -- Christian, Muslim and Jewish holy sites.  Have you ever discussed this with the Palestinians and asked them to refrain from attacks on either people’s holy sites?

MR. GIBBS:  We have -- I would say -- I’m taking this a little bit broader -- I would say the types of things that you’ve heard us and, quite frankly, administrations in the past discuss as unhelpful to moving this process along are -- is any call for the incitement of violence.  Again, I mentioned the State Department -- reiterated the State Department’s guidance on what we believed was unhelpful rhetoric around the rededication of a synagogue in Jerusalem as a real-time example of the type of action and rhetoric that is not in any way productive and undermines the trust that’s needed for both of these sides to sit down and directly address their issues and move forward on peace.

Q    To be precise on health care, when you talk about an up or down vote this week, you are talking about the Senate bill passing the House, or being passed in some way by the House.  Would the President then sign that?  How quickly could he sign it?  And would he wait for secondary -- the fixed legislation to come along?

MR. GIBBS:  As I understand this, that's a decision that will largely -- that will be governed largely by a decision by the parliamentarian to -- that might require that signature prior to the taking up of reconciliation -- if that's, as I understand it, that's what the President would do. 

I will say this, and I said this over the weekend, that the President has and is spending time talking with senators, understanding that, again, this is a two-step process; that they have a very important role to play, and the President has and is continuing to work with the Senate on their part of this, as well.

Q    And the Senate language as it was passed last December, would he be able to sign that right away?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry?

Q    The Senate language, if it goes to the House, would he be able to sign that right away, like before he’s wheels up on Sunday morning?

MR. GIBBS:  I think that's -- this is a better question for the House.  The President would make himself available to do that, yes.

Q    If he was told he needed to by the parliamentarian, you’re saying?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Otherwise he would wait for the reconciliation?

MR. GIBBS:  No, no, no.  Again, I’m going to -- this is -- I don't want to get into hypotheticals.  Again, the answer I outlined -- let me -- I think I can break this up and answer your question.  The procedure outlined, as I understand what the parliamentarian has either -- has decided or is likely to decide -- what I was saying a minute ago on the second part, pushing back, is I assume that bill can be gotten down here quickly, though.  It will take some time to enroll and what have you.  But if the President -- if that process requires that the President sign that bill, he’ll be happy to do so prior to leaving.

Q    Will he sign it --

Q    The President -- and did the President offer --

MR. GIBBS:  Say it again?

Q    He’ll sign it in this country, then?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, a lot of this would depend first and foremost on the parliamentary decision, and secondly, on the quickness with which a bill can be enrolled and moved down here. It’s only Tuesday.  We’ve got plenty of time to get it to that.

Q    Did he offer Tim Kaine a job during lunch?

MR. GIBBS:  I think he offered him salt.  (Laughter.)  I don’t know.  He had -- I would say this.  I would say that he offered Governor Kaine a job a few years and he gladly accepted it, and he is doing a great job.

Q    Can I -- just one little housekeeping thing, then a subsequent question on health care.  Is he going to have another public event on health care this week?  And what might it be?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me double-check with scheduling.  I believe -- I believe he will -- I believe he is likely to have at least one more, if not more than one.

Q    Here?

MR. GIBBS:  In town, yes.  We’ve got a lot of assets overseas.  We’re not -- nobody would go and say --

Q    No, I mean --

MR. GIBBS:  -- we’d love to fill up the bird and go somewhere.

Q    -- not overseas, I meant --

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.  No, no, even outside, even in the continental United States, I think they would look at us like we were crazy.

Q    In terms of your arguments about this deem and pass scenario, what you’re kind of saying is this discussion is kind of silly, because everybody is going to look at their votes as either for or against the health care bill.

MR. GIBBS:  I think that’s not only how they’ll look at it, I think, quite honestly, that’s how you’ll look at it.

Q    Yes, absolutely.

MR. GIBBS:  Okay.

Q    So what you’re saying is it’s kind of a silly exercise to pretend that you’re not voting for the Senate bill and the Cornhusker Kickback when you vote for the rule?

MR. GIBBS:  Just as when you vote for the reconciliation that corrects that, you will have done that.

Q    Right.  But so anybody who votes for the rule --

MR. GIBBS:  And since those, I think, in this bill will be simultaneous, I’ll leave to you and your editors how you would work that out.

Q    Except for the reconciliation part won’t be finalized for quite --

MR. GIBBS:  No, the corrections -- some of the corrections  -- right.

Q    -- for quite a while -- quite many days after that.

MR. GIBBS:  Maybe you’ve proved my earlier point.  (Laughter.)   

Q    So Nancy Pelosi can’t -- what you’re saying is that she can’t provide any cover for her members to act as if they didn’t vote for the Senate bill?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I think the process, Mara, again, as I mentioned to Ann, is a two-step process -- right?  They’re going to vote on legislation; they’re going to vote on a series of corrections.  The President will sign -- looks forward to signing all of that and reforming our health care system.

Margaret.

Q    Thank you.  If or when the legislation passes, if it comes under the sort of cloud of controversy -- very tight votes, criticism over the whatever -- at what cost is that going to be to the President’s ability to govern going forward, and to the Democrats’ position heading into the midterms?  I understand it’s a risk you’re willing to take that getting this done --

MR. GIBBS:  Flesh out for me just a little bit.  I don't -- I didn’t --  

Q    If this passes, but it’s ugly, right -- if the health care overhaul becomes law but there’s a lot of bad feelings about it, and all your Republican friends are mad at you and -- don't feel good about it and all this sort of stuff, will it impair the President’s ability to govern going forward, and to what extent -- and the caveat being that from where you’re coming from, it’s better to have this than not to have this -- totally get it -- but if it’s sort of not clean and everyone’s unhappy at the end?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think that -- taking this in two separate ways -- again, I think the President has made clear through his commitment the importance of getting this done.  That having been said, we will wake up next week, next month, several months from now with many critical and important issues.  Senator Dodd introduced financial reform yesterday to put in place strong rules governing the way our financial system should work that it didn’t 18 months ago when we watched Wall Street collapse and the dreams of many in America collapse.  That’s an important issue that is going to be on the plates of legislators, regardless of the outcome of health care.

We’ve mentioned in here over the past several days the Supreme Court case around Citizens United that the President has serious reservations about.  In financial reform, we have -- the President has outlined a fee on banks to pay taxpayers back completely for the money that they lent financial systems through the TARP program.

Regardless of the outcome of health care, those problems still exist and they have to be addressed throughout the remainder of the year.

I think that those are important issues not just for Congress and the administration but I outline them as important issues for the American people.  And I don't think that -- I don't think that they want that process to stop because of health care reform.

Q    But as you look to build coalitions that you’re going to need both within the Congress and the goodwill of the American people on all these issues -- on financial reform, on cap and trade, looking maybe way down the road now -- what I’m saying is do you think that your ability to get the votes that you need on those things and to have the goodwill you need on those things will be somehow impaired because of sort of the political costs of getting this big, important bill through?

MR. GIBBS:  I honestly don't -- I don't believe that's true. I don't think that's true either in Congress and I certainly don't believe that's true on behalf of the American people.  Again, there are important problems that will exist.  There will be important solutions that the American people will want to see their Congress act on.  I cannot imagine that we want to celebrate the two-year anniversary of the collapse of our financial system because of reckless behavior by announcing that we’re not going to have new rules of the road going forward.

I don't -- and I think that elections -- I don't think anybody wants to go -- I said this last week -- I don't think people want to go home saying that those rules of the road haven’t changed, and it’s -- we’re back to the wild, wild west.  I think the American people, their constituents, are not going to accept that a disagreement that was had in March affects your ability to institute strong rules of the road on Wall Street in September.

Q    Robert, to sort of follow up on that, SEIU had a poll that was released yesterday that sort of talked about the bad taste people have in terms of some of these process issues -- the Cornhusker Kickback -- and said that was actually more dangerous to the Democrats in the midterms than what was actually in the bill.  And that comports with what we heard out of Massachusetts from voters who voted for Scott Brown.  Isn’t there a very real danger, if not for the White House, but for Democrats on the Hill, that the spinning of this, the deals -- we’ve gotten this torrent of press releases from Republicans in the last two days  -- kickbacks, deals, this kind of talk harms --

MR. GIBBS:  Again, the one you mentioned specifically is the one the President specifically has taken out of the legislation. I don’t think you would -- I don’t think the President would disagree that the process that ended late last year didn’t affect the way people viewed the product at the beginning of this year. That’s why the President has asked that that type of stuff be taken out.  That’s why the President has engaged Republicans and Democrats alike in a process that puts the focus back on what the legislation does for the American people.  I do think that the rate increases by the insurance companies have had a galvanizing effect in letting people know what happens again if we walk away.

Q    Is this perception, though, that you were talking about last year into this year, is that informing these conversations you’re having with undecided members?  I mean, if they’re coming to you and asking for specific things, is the President now more likely to say, no, I’m not willing to make those kinds of deals?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, the President is making the case based on the legislation.  And I think the process that the President has been engaged in over the past several months has in many ways been to clean up where that process went wrong at the end of last year. 

Q    Just a clarification on the FOX News thing -- he is going on with Bret Baier?  Is this going to be live?

MR. GIBBS:  Likely taped.

Q    Today?

MR. GIBBS:  Tomorrow.

David.

Q    On financial reform, the President has met recently a few times I believe with Jamie Dimon.  Has he asked him, and other executives, to ease up on their opposition to having a consumer financial protection agency?  And also -- I’ll do two at once here -- has Larry Summers and Tim Geithner been brought in to talk to their former Wall Street colleagues about their opposition to having such a bureau or agency?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I’ll just say this.  The President used the occasion of them being here last year on small business lending to talk about not only the consumer financial protection agency but also overall financial reform.  We believe it is in the interest of the American people to set rules of the road to give -- to empower consumers with the information they need, and to do so in a way that doesn’t carve out certain lenders like payday lenders or things like that in protecting consumers. 

I don’t know whether Larry and Tim have talked with anybody on Wall Street in the past 24 hours since Senator Dodd introduced his legislation.  I do know that the NEC and the Treasury Department were indeed working with, and have been working with, Senator Dodd over the past many weeks on the legislation that he introduced yesterday.

Q    But you do know there’s a tremendous lobbying effort on the part of banks and other Wall Street firms targeting this.

MR. GIBBS:  Absolutely.

Q    Will the President continue to sort of try to beat that back?

MR. GIBBS:  The President, I think you saw in his statement, is committed to a strong consumer agency.  He will seek opportunities as it relates to the overall bill to strengthen it, and will fight, as he said yesterday, any effort to weaken the legislation that he believes, again, provides very clear,  common-sense rules of the road so that the American people are never on the hook for the excesses of Wall Street banks.

April.

Q    Robert, talk -- I want to ask you a question about tradeoffs for the health care reform bill.  HBCU has been saying that they got word from Hill leaders last week that funding -- $2 billion worth of funding for HBCUs over 10 years -- was on the chopping block, and it was put back in yesterday.  Now, there’s a concern that this President put all this money in, had this big ceremony to help fund HBCUs -- Historically Black Colleges and Universities -- and the money was --

MR. GIBBS:  Right.  I know what -- Tuskegee being here --

Q    Morgan State, we had Hampton -- okay, anyway -- Howard -- but going back -- going back to the issue, they are concerned that if it was able to linger and be on the chopping block once, what’s to say it’s not going to happen in the next few days before a vote?

MR. GIBBS:  I get where you’re going.  I don’t -- I guess I’m lost on the -- I’m lost on the -- you said why it was on the chopping block, why it was added back in, and why it would --

Q    The Hill leaders were saying that they had to shave some money for reconciliation, and that was one of the areas that they tried to shave -- HBCU money, that the President is definitely -- he said he was standing by, and he even reiterated that to the CBC.

MR. GIBBS:  Let me get DPC to look into -- I just don’t have enough on the HCBU process on this.

Q    But this President -- but does this President stand by HBCUs and the funding that he put in --

MR. GIBBS:  Absolutely.

Q    -- and would he stand up to these lawmakers?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, let me -- I want to get -- obviously the President is supportive of Historically Black Colleges and Universities.  Around the specific instance that you mentioned, let me get some guidance from DPC.

Bill.

Q    Robert, perhaps a sore point, but Congressman Darrell Issa has accused you, Robert Gibbs, of being part of a cover-up because you will not say whether the White House offered Joe Sestak a job for not running against Arlen Specter.  Guilty or not guilty?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I’ve talked to several people in the White House; I’ve talked to people that have talked to others in the White House.  I’m told that whatever conversations have been had are not problematic.  I think Congressman Sestak has discussed that this is -- whatever happened is in the past, and he’s focused on his primary election.

Stephen.

Q    Did the White House Counsel’s Office look into whether this was a crime --

MR. GIBBS:  I’d refer you to my previous lines.

Q    Sestak says he was offered something.

MR. GIBBS:  I’ll refer you to what I just said a minute ago.

Stephen.

Q    Are there any plans for anyone from your administration to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu next week while he’s in town for AIPAC?  The President is away but the Vice President might be around.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, we are obviously away while they’re here. I will check with NSC and see whether it’s the Vice President or whether others in the administration --

Q    Thanks, Robert.

Q    About the relationship with the Turkish administration, Turkey recalled its ambassador two weeks ago because of the genocide resolution passed, and Turkish Prime Minister said last week that unless they see some steps taken by the U.S. administration, Turkey is not going to send its ambassador.  So my question is, absence of the Turkish ambassador in Washington, is it a matter of concern for the U.S. administration?  And second, are there any steps being taken by the U.S. administration to assure Turkish administration?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me -- on the second part, let me check with the NSC on that.  Obviously we believe that Turkey is a valuable partner.  The President traveled there on one of his first trips abroad to demonstrate the importance of that partnership; on that trip, worked on a process that has now resulted in -- or resulted in the announcement of more normalized relations, pending parliament passes a protocol, and we’re certainly hopeful that that will happen.

Thanks, guys.

END
2:37 P.M. EDT

America today is on the verge of a broadband-driven Internet era that will unleash innovation, create new jobs and industries, provide consumers with new powerful sources of information, enhance American safety and security, and connect communities in ways that strengthen our democracy.  Just as past generations of Americans met the great infrastructure challenges of the day, such as building the Transcontinental railroad and the Interstate highways, so too must we harness the potential of the Internet.  Expanding broadband across the nation will build a foundation of sustained economic growth and the widely shared prosperity we all seek.

I commend Chairman Julius Genachowski, the Commissioners, and the FCC staff for their hard work in developing the National Broadband Plan.

My Administration will build upon our efforts over the past year to make America's nationwide broadband infrastructure the world’s most powerful platform for economic growth and prosperity, including improving access to mobile broadband, maximizing technology innovation, and supporting a nationwide, interoperable public safety wireless broadband network. 

11:40 A.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you, everyone.  Thank you so much.  (Applause.)  And Rick, thank you for that very kind introduction.  I enjoyed our meeting, as well.  And thanks to all of you for having me here at this year’s Science Forum.  It is a true pleasure to with all of you today.  And I hope you get out and see a little sunshine, because we have some. 

I understand you’ve gathered here in Washington this week to discuss some of the most pressing issues that your industry faces.  And I’m very pleased to see that your agenda today includes sessions about helping customers meet their lifestyle needs and about advancing America’s public health, because the topic that I’d like to discuss with you today –- the epidemic of childhood obesity -– falls at the intersection of these two issues.

Now, I know you’re all familiar with the statistics here: how childhood obesity rates have tripled over the past three decades –- nearly one in three children in this country are now overweight or obese.  And you all know the health consequences –- from hypertension to heart disease, cancer to diabetes. 

And I know you’re well aware of the economic consequences: how we’re currently spending billions of dollars treating obesity-related conditions -– costs that many of your companies pay in the form of rising health care expenses; expenses that will only continue to rise and affect your bottom lines if we fail to act.

But you also know that this is a relatively new phenomenon, because back when many of us were growing up, we tended to be able to lead lives that kept us at a pretty healthy weight.  Most of us walked to and from school every day, and then we ran around all day at recess, in gym class, and then for hours after school before dinner.  We usually ate more sensibly.  Oftentimes we had home-cooked meals with reasonable portion sizes -– and like it or not, there was always a vegetable on the plate.  And fast food was a rare treat.  Snacking between meals was frowned upon.  I mean, we all had our share of soda, chips and desserts, but certainly not every day, and not at every meal. 

But our kids today lead a very different kind of life.  Those walks to and from school have been replaced by car and bus rides.  Gym class and school sports have been cut, replaced by afternoons with the TV, and video games, and the Internet. 

And while parents want to provide healthy food for their kids, many of them are working longer hours, or some of them more than one job -- so they just can’t swing those home-cooked meals anymore. 

And today, snacking between meals has become more the norm rather than the exception.  And while kids 30 years ago ate just one snack a day, we’re now trending toward three –- so our kids are taking in an additional 200 calories a day just from snacks alone.  And one in five school-age kids has up to six snacks a day. 

And portion sizes have exploded.  Food portions are two to five times bigger than they used to be.  And beverage portions have grown as well.  In the mid-1970s, the average sweetened drink portions were about 13.6 ounces.  And today, our kids think nothing of drinking 20 ounces of soda at a time. 

As of 2006, folks were spending about 22 percent of their grocery dollars on sweets, salty snacks, and desserts -- and that’s compared to a little over 12 percent on fruits and vegetables. 

All told, we’re eating 31 percent more calories than we were just 40 years ago –- and that’s including 56 percent more fats and oil and 14 percent more sugars and sweeteners.  In fact, we now add sweeteners to all kinds of products in amounts unimaginable just a generation ago. 

So sometimes, when we buy the foods that our parents bought us, we don’t realize that they’re not always as healthy as they used to be.  And today, the average American is actually eating 15 more pounds of sugar compared to a year -- than they were back in 1970. 

So it’s just gotten to the point where we as parents know that things have gotten out of balance.  And we know that many of our kids aren’t as healthy and active as they should be.  And we desperately want to do the right things.  But we’re inundated with conflicting information.  Our kids sometimes are bombarded by ads for unhealthy products.  And many folks in this country are struggling to find foods that are both healthy for their kids but affordable for their families.    

And I know what that’s like, because I’ve been there.  Now, while today I have way more help and support than I could have ever imagined, I didn’t always live in the White House.  You remember.  I didn’t have all these resources.

And it wasn’t long ago that I was a working mom dashing from meetings and phone calls, ballet and soccer and whatever else.  I felt like it was a miracle just to get through the day and get everybody where they were supposed to be. 

So the last thing I had time to do was to stand in a grocery store aisle squinting at ingredients that I couldn’t pronounce to figure out whether something was healthy or not.  Like many busy parents, I was shopping primarily for convenience and cost.  I bought products that were pre-packaged, pre-cut, pre-cooked.  If it was “pre,” I was getting it -- (laughter) -- because I was looking for anything that was quick and easy to prepare and to consume.  And I was grateful for the time and the effort that I saved with these kinds of products. 

But I was also completely unaware that all that extra convenience sometimes made it just a little too easy for me to eat too much, for my kids to eat too much, and to eat too often.  And like so many families, my family fell into the habit of living that “grab-and-go” lifestyle, eating more and more between meals.  And slowly, all of those extra calories really just started to add up. 

Now, I’m not saying by any means that we should try to turn back the clock to how things were when we were kids, because those days are long gone.  And life is far more complicated these days. 

And I also know that we can’t solve this problem by passing a bunch of laws in Washington.  I’ve talked to a lot of experts about this issue, and not a single one has said that the solution is for the federal government to tell people what to do.

But what we can do is that we can help families make changes that fit with their budgets, with their schedules, with their needs, and with their tastes. 

What we can do is bring together all of us -- governors, mayors, doctors, nurses, businesses, non-profits, educators, parents, all of us -- to tackle this challenge once and for all. 

And what we can do is finally make this national public health threat a national priority.

And that’s why we launched “Let’s Move” –- a nationwide campaign to rally this country around a single and very ambitious goal:  to solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation, so that kids born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight.

With “Let’s Move,” we’re issuing a call to action.  We are telling everyone let’s move to give parents the information they need to make better decisions for their kids.  Let’s move to get healthier food into our schools.  Let’s move to get more supermarkets into underserved areas so that all Americans have access to fresh, nutritious foods.  And probably most importantly, let’s move to help our kids be more physically active -- both in and out of school.

But here’s the thing –- we can build shiny new supermarkets on every block, but we need those supermarkets to actually provide healthy options at prices people can afford.  And we can insist that our schools serve better food, but we need to actually produce that food.  And we can give parents all the information in the world, but they still won’t have time to untangle labels filled with 10-syllable words or do long division with these portion sizes.

And that’s really where all of you come in.  As you know, you all produce much of the food that our children eat –- and have marketed to them -- each day.  The decisions you make determine what’s in our grocery store shelves, what’s in our school lunches, and what’s in the thousands of advertisements our kids are exposed to each year.  And I know that many of you are undertaking efforts to significantly reformulate your products -– and I hope that the time will come when all of you are.

Many of you are also working to educate kids about good nutrition, and to limit advertisements for certain products to our children.  And I know that a number of you -- and I’ve met several of the committee -- have come together to create the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation to help address the issue of childhood obesity.  So there are so many good examples, wonderful examples, of folks beginning to move in the right direction.  It’s very exciting.

But I’m here today to urge all of you to move faster and to go farther, because the truth is we don’t have a moment to waste -- because a baby born today could be less than a decade away from showing the first signs of high cholesterol, high blood pressure, Type II diabetes, if he or she is obese as a child.  A recent study even found that three-year-olds who were obese already had one of the symptoms of heart disease.

So we need you all to step it up.  We all need to step up in this country.  This is a shared responsibility.  That’s why I’ve gone to parents and I’ve asked them to do their part.  They have a responsibility to watch what their kids eat and teach good habits.  I’ve asked medical professionals to do their part.  They have a responsibility to screen kids for obesity and help parents with these issues.  Educators have a responsibility to build healthy schools.  Governors and mayors have a responsibility to build healthy communities.  And all of you have a responsibility as well.

And we need you not just to tweak around the edges, but to entirely rethink the products that you’re offering, the information that you provide about these products, and how you market those products to our children.

That starts with revamping or ramping up your efforts to reformulate your products, particularly those aimed at kids, so that they have less fat, salt, and sugar, and more of the nutrients that our kids need.

And I understand that this is easier said than done.  This doesn’t happen overnight.  We all know that human beings -- I, for one, know -- are hard-wired to crave sugary, fatty, salty foods.  And it is temping to take advantage of that –- to create products that are sweeter, richer, and saltier than ever before. 

But doing so doesn’t just respond to people’s natural inclinations -- it also actually helps to shape them.  And this can be particularly dangerous when it comes to our kids, because as all of you know, as parents, the more of these products they have in their diets, the more accustomed they become to those tastes, and then the more deeply embedded these foods become in their eating habits.

But here’s the good news:  It can also work the other way around as well.  Just as we can shape our children’s preferences for high-calorie, low-nutrient foods -- with a lot of persistence, we can also turn them on to high-quality, healthier foods as well.

But the only way we can do this is to work together.  And this needs to be a serious industry-wide commitment to providing the healthier foods parents are looking for at prices they can afford.

And again, I know these changes will not happen overnight.  It’s going to take a lot of tries to come up with products that are both healthy and still palatable for our kids.  And that may mean some real creativity and effort on your part. 

But what it doesn’t mean is taking out one problematic ingredient, only to replace it with another.  While decreasing fat is certainly a good thing, replacing it with sugar and salt isn’t.  And it doesn’t mean compensating for high amounts of problematic ingredients with small amounts of beneficial ones -- for example, adding a little bit of Vitamin C to a product with lots of sugar, or a gram of fiber to a product with tons of fat doesn’t suddenly make those products good for our kids.

This isn’t about finding creative ways to market products as healthy.  As you know, it’s about producing products that actually are healthy -- products that can help shape the health habits of an entire generation. 

It’s also about giving parents the information they need to make good decisions about purchasing those products.  A recent survey by the FDA shows that the vast majority of Americans rely on labels to help them decide what foods to buy.  But we know those labels aren’t always as helpful as they could be.  And it’s hard enough to figure out whether any one food item is healthy.  It’s even harder to compare items.  And folks just don’t have the time to line products up side by side and figure out whether these compare or not.  And they shouldn’t have to.  Parents shouldn’t need a magnifying glass and a calculator to make healthy choices for their kids.

That’s why, as Rick said, we need clear, consistent, front-of-the-package labels that give people the information they’ve been asking for, in a format that they understand.  And I am so pleased that you all have committed to working with the FDA to develop these labels.  We are so eager to hear your thoughts and ideas of getting this done right. 

And you know there’s absolutely no reason why we cannot find common ground on this issue.  This one’s a no-brainer, because this is the bare minimum we should do for our kids to help their parents make good choices.  And this fall the FDA is going to begin pursuing voluntary agreements from your companies, and I hope that all of you will join in on that effort.

But your role in helping address childhood obesity isn’t just limited to what you put in your products and how you label those products for parents.  It’s also about how you market those products to our kids.  Our kids didn’t learn about the latest sweets and snack foods on their own.  They hear about these products from advertisements on TV, the Internet, video games, schools, many other places.  And any parent knows this marketing is really effective.  We’ve all had to endure those impassioned pleas in the grocery store for one product or another.  Some of us have been treated to full-scale reenactments of TV commercials and jingles, word for word, right on key.  (Laughter.)

I was sharing with somebody -- I was talking to Sasha about who I was speaking to, and she said, “Who are these people?”  I said, “They make the food that we eat.”  “Oh, like Honey Nut Cheerios?  Part of a healthy breakfast?”  (Laughter.)  Like, all right, kid.

So this isn’t surprising when studies show that even a single commercial can impact a child’s brand preferences -- and that kids who see foods advertised on TV are significantly more likely to ask for them at the store.

So whatever we believe about personal responsibility and self-determination, I think we can all agree that it doesn’t apply to kids.

I think we can all agree that parents need more control over the products and messages their kids are exposed to.  Parents are working hard to provide a healthy diet and to teach healthy habits -- and we’d like to know that our efforts won’t be undermined every time our children turn on the TV or see a flashy display in a store.

Again, I know many of you have voluntarily committed to limit your marketing to children, which is a step in the right direction, an important step.  And I hope that those of you who haven’t will think about doing so as well.

But we also have to be honest.  Even with this commitment, a study found that last year, while there were fewer food ads in children’s programming, more than 70 percent of foods marketed to kids were still among the least healthy, with less than 1 percent being among the most healthy.

And in the face of these statistics, we have to ask ourselves, are we really making sufficient progress here?  Are we doing everything that we can to secure the health and future of our kids?

So today I want to challenge each and every one of you to go back to your companies, take a look at your marketing budgets and ask some questions.  For example, when you put money into reformulating a product to make it healthier, do you then invest enough in marketing that product to kids and parents?   Or is most of the marketing budget still going to the less healthy versions?  In other words, which products are you really selling?  And what kinds of messages are your advertisements sending? 

As a mom, I know it is my responsibility -- and no one else’s -- to raise my kids.  But what does it mean when so many parents are finding that their best efforts are undermined by an avalanche of advertisements aimed at their kids?  And what are these ads teaching kids about food and nutrition?  That it’s good to have salty, sugary food and snacks every day -- breakfast, lunch, and dinner?  That dessert is an everyday food? That it’s okay to eat unhealthy foods because they’re endorsed by the cartoon characters our children love and the celebrities our teenagers look up to? 

So let’s be clear, it’s not enough just to limit ads for foods that aren’t healthy.  It’s going to be so critical to increase marketing for foods that are healthy. 

And if there is anyone here who can sell food to our kids, it’s you.  You know what gets their attention.  You know what makes that lasting impression.  You know what gets them to drive their parents crazy in the grocery store.  And I’m here today to ask you to use that knowledge and that power to our kids’ advantage.  I’m asking you to actively promote healthy foods and healthy habits to our kids. 

And we know there’s a huge and growing market for these kind of foods.  I have yet to meet a single parent who doesn’t understand the threat of childhood obesity.  I’ve yet to meet a single parent who is not eager to buy healthier products. 

And this administration is committed to doing the same.  As we reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act, we’re working to ensure that all food served in schools -- not just through the school meal program, but in a la carte lines and vending machines as well -- meets basic nutritional guidelines.  And we’re proposing a historic investment of $10 billion over the next 10 years to help fund these efforts.  And your support for this is going to make a huge difference in helping us get this done. 

We’re also putting our money where our mouth is with an initiative to provide fresher, healthier food in all federal government workplaces.  And to give you an idea of the scope of that, just think, there are 2.7 million federal employees working at thousands of sites all across this country.  This can have a huge impact.

But in the end, as First Lady, this isn’t just a policy issue for me.  This is a passion.  This is my mission.  I am determined to work with folks across this country to change the way a generation of kids thinks about food and nutrition.

So if you all create the supply, we know there will be a demand.  And if you have any doubt about that, just look at what we did for the hula hoop.  (Laughter.)  I hula hooped.  (Laughter.)  The reality is that with so many people looking for healthier options, this isn’t just going to be a fad.  Hopefully, this is the future of food in this country. 

So I hope all of you will help support our efforts.  I hope that you’ll embrace this future, because really that’s what this industry has always done.  Just think back to the early part of the last century when food manufacturers helped pass the first major federal law establishing basic standards for our food, beverages, and drugs.  Back then, consumers had little protection against unscrupulous manufacturers who tainted their products with all sorts of chemicals and fillers.  When these abuses came to light, Congress responded, drafting the 1906 Food and Drug Act.  And instead of opposing that law and instead of viewing it as a threat, many manufacturers decided to embrace it. 

Companies like most of you that were already doing the right thing by making safe, quality products realized they stood to profit.  They also realized that increasing public trust and improving products all across the industry as a whole would benefit each of them individually. 

And today, with the issue of childhood obesity, we all face a similar opportunity.  And you face it not just as food industry leaders, but you face it as parents who love your kids and as citizens who love this nation.  And in the end, I am hopeful that you will choose to make the changes that we need not just because they’re good for your company, but because they’re good for our country. 

I know that you’ll do these things not just to fulfill your obligation to shareholders, but also because you have a sense of obligation to our children -- because the truth is, all of us are paying the cost of childhood obesity.  But the truth is also that we all will gain from addressing it once and for all. 

So I hope that all of you will do your part to give our kids the future they deserve.  I’m proud of what’s happened through this industry so far.  The work together that we’ve done has been tremendous.  All of you come to this with the right heart and the right vision and the right passion.  My only urging is that we move faster, we go farther together.  And I’m looking forward to working with you all in the months and years ahead. 

Thank you so much.  (Applause.)

END
12:04 P.M. EDT

As Sunshine Week begins, I want to applaud everyone who has worked to increase transparency in government and recommit my administration to be the most open and transparent ever, an effort that will strengthen our democracy and ensure the public’s trust in their government. We came to Washington to change the way business was done, and part of that was making ourselves accountable to the American people by opening up our government. We’ve put our White House visitor records on the Internet for the first time in history; opened up more government information than ever before on Data.gov, Recovery.gov and USAspending.gov; and issued an Executive Order fighting unnecessary secrecy, to name a few.

We are proud of these accomplishments, but our work is not done. We will continue to work toward an unmatched level of transparency, participation  and accountability across the entire Administration.

A PROCLAMATION

Since 1962, during National Poison Prevention Week we alert American families about the dangers of accidental poisonings and provide information on safety measures that can prevent senseless injuries and deaths. With nearly two million poison exposures reported each year, we must take every precaution to guard against these preventable tragedies.

Sadly, more than half of all reported poisonings involve children under the age of six, and the vast majority take place in the home. Parents should keep household chemicals and medicines in child-proof containers, beyond the reach of their children. Thanks to safety regulations and awareness campaigns like National Poison Prevention Week, childhood death rates from unintentional poisonings have fallen considerably. However, adult death rates have steadily risen in recent years.

We must each remember to read labels thoroughly before taking medications, to keep medicines in their original packaging, and to dispose of them properly. Consulting a physician before combining prescription drugs or using them with alcohol also reduces our risks.

In the event of an accidental poisoning, crucial information and immediate action can save lives. Individuals can call the toll-free national poison control hotline at 1-800-222-1222 to be connected to one of dozens of local poison control centers, which are open 24 hours every day. These centers provide emergency assistance, offer guidance on poison prevention, and answer questions concerning potential exposure.

To encourage Americans to learn more about the dangers of accidental poisonings and to take appropriate preventive measures, the Congress, by joint resolution approved September 26, 1961, as amended (75 Stat. 681), has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the third week of March each year as "National Poison Prevention Week."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the third week of March of each year as National Poison Prevention Week. I call upon all Americans to observe this week by taking actions to protect their families from hazardous household materials and from the misuse of prescription medications.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

Via Conference Call

2:20 P.M. EDT

MR. RHODES:  Thanks, everybody, for joining today.  With me is Jeff Bader, Senior Director for Asia here at the NSC, who you know well; and Denis McDonough, Chief of Staff for the NSC, as well.

I'll just give a kind of brief outline of the trip and walk you through the schedule and then turn it over to Jeff, and then we can answer your questions.

First and foremost I’d just say that this trip to Indonesia and Australia is an important opportunity to advance America's security and economic interests in a very vital part of the world.  The Asia-Pacific region is of growing importance to our interests.  And as the President said on his trip there last fall, in many ways America has been somewhat absent from the region over the last several years and we are committed to reestablishing that leadership in advance of our interests.

The Asia Pacific is fundamental to our ability to achieve some of our top priorities, whether it’s doubling exports and achieving balanced and sustainable growth or fighting terrorism and combating climate change.  In that effort, Indonesia and Australia are both essential partners to the United States.

I'll just start with Indonesia.  Of course, within Indonesia you see the convergence of many issues that are of common interest to both of our nations.  Indonesia is of course the third largest democracy in the world, has the world’s largest Muslim majority population.  And it’s also playing an increasingly important role in the international effort, such as the G20 and the effort against climate change.

They also have been a very effective partner when it comes to security issues such as fighting terrorism, as well as the President's broader efforts to advance relations with the Muslim world.  And they’re also, of course, important economic partners, an emerging economy to the United States as well.

So we want to underscore with this trip that the deepening and comprehensive partnership that we’re developing with Indonesia in the region and the world, and as well highlight Indonesia’s positive example to -- as a strong democracy, a developing economy and a committed partner on a range of issues.

So with that I'll just take you through the schedule that we currently have.  This obviously had to be adjusted as we’ve moved back the beginning portions of the trip, which you're well aware of.  But I'll go through what we currently have slotted.

The first stop on the trip for the President is in Guam.  We’ll be in Guam Monday, March 22.  And that evening, Guam time, the President will be hosting a public event where he’ll be able to speak to both our -- the community in Guam and of course some of the military personnel that the United States has in Guam.  Later in the call Dennis can field questions about this portion of the trip.

The next day, on Tuesday, the 23rd, we’ll be making our way to Indonesia.  The President will be greeted with an arrival ceremony and there will be several events associated with that arrival ceremony, which we’ll be giving you more specifics on as we get closer to the day.  But that first day he’ll have a bilateral meeting with the President of Indonesia.  And following that bilateral meeting they’ll host a joint press conference.  Then that night the President will be hosted at a state dinner by the Indonesians, which he very much looks forward to.

The following day, Wednesday, the 24th, the President will be giving a speech.  This speech, of course, will be an opportunity for him to discuss the comprehensive partnership that we’re developing with Indonesia and with the Indonesian people.  Of course this is a country that the President has personal experience in, having lived there for four years as a child; having a sister who’s half Indonesian; and his mother of course worked extensively in Indonesia for 20 years.  So he’ll be able to speak to his connections to the country.

And he’ll also be able to discuss the efforts that the United States cooperates with Indonesia on as it relates to democracy and as it relates to Indonesia’s position as a country with the world’s largest Muslim-majority population, as well as a country with a strong history of pluralism.  And in some respects it will be of course his first trip to a Muslim-majority country since he was in Egypt and delivered his speech in Cairo, so he’ll be able to speak to some of the progress that’s been made and that needs to be made on the issue that he spoke to in Cairo, as well.

The rest of that day -- we look forward to making some additional cultural stops as well as the President will be meeting with some business leaders in the region to highlight again America’s growing economic ties with Indonesia.  We believe that this can be an economic relationship that can serve our mutual interests and will be part of, of course, the President’s efforts to deepen our economic relationship across the region.

He’ll also be meeting with Indonesian parliamentary leaders as a part of his effort to, again, reach out and speak to a broad cross-section of Indonesia’s government and society.

Then we’ll be moving on to Bali.  And on Thursday, March 25th, the President will host a civil society event in Bali.  The reason that we’re choosing Bali to highlight this particular issue is that Bali is host to the Bali Democracy Forum, which is a signature initiative of the President of Indonesia’s and a very positive effort, again, to advance democracy and civil society in the region and around the world.

So President Obama will have an opportunity in Bali to meet with a group of civil society leaders in order to highlight the important role of civil society in the emergence of Indonesia’s democracy, and also how that might -- that effort might support civil society across the region.  And to that end, we’ll be inviting civil society groups from other parts of Southeast Asia as well to discuss issues related to political participation, freedom of information, and human rights, broadly speaking.

After the President is in Bali, we will move on to Canberra.  And here I’d just stop and say that, of course, Australia is increasingly -- is a longstanding ally of the United States, an increasingly important ally in both the region and the world.  In many ways it’s a model alliance for the United States.  We have very robust cooperation with the Australians on security issues, economic issues, environmental issues.  They’re obviously a close partner of us in Afghanistan, where they’ve been steadfast in their support there.  We run a very positive trade relationship with Australia that supports American jobs and supports economic prosperity for both Australians and Americans.  And of course, we’ve cooperated closely on clean energy issues and efforts to combat climate change, Australia also being a partner through the G20.  And the President will be underscoring this alliance throughout his time in Australia.

He’ll begin that night with a dinner with Prime Minister Rudd, who’s been a particularly close partner of the President’s both bilaterally on a personal basis, and also in international forums.  So the President is looking forward to the opportunity to share this time with Prime Minister Rudd in Canberra.

The next day, on Friday the 26th, we will have a very robust program of events.  The President will meet with the Governor General in the morning.  Then he will have a series of -- he’ll have a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Rudd, building on the work, the discussions they’ll have at dinner.  Following that bilateral meeting, we anticipate a joint press conference.

Then, as I think some of you know, the Australians have been generous enough to invite the President to address a session of the Australian parliament.  So the President will address the parliament and he’ll speak to the depth of our alliance with Australia, the 70th anniversary of that alliance, and discuss several areas in which we can deepen our partnership in security, economic and environmental issues.

After addressing the parliament, he will have the opportunity to participate in some other events to mark, again, the historic landmark of this being the anniversary of the alliance and the cooperation that we share before departing that night to return to the United States.

So we have a very busy five days in the Asia-Pacific region.  And again, I’ll just turn it over to Jeff now who can speak a little bit to the importance of the region to the United States and how Indonesia and Australia in particular are key and emerging partners for the United States on many of our top priority issues.  So, Jeff, I’ll just hand it over to you.

MR. BADER:  Thanks, Ben.  Ben covered the ground fairly thoroughly.  I’ll just add a few points.  First of all, as Ben noted, this trip is designed to highlight the importance of the Asia-Pacific region to the U.S.  The members of APEC, to which Australia and Indonesia both belong, are responsible for 55 percent of global GDP and 50 percent of global trade.  And this will be the first time in at least 10 years that a President has gone to the Asia Pacific for a trip other than an APEC meeting, except for President Bush’s trip in 2008 for the Beijing Olympics.

This is a part of the world that’s marked by a number of rising powers, namely China and India; a number of existing powers, Japan and South Korea; and some emerging important countries and powers like Vietnam and Indonesia.

In the context of a region that is evolving in this fashion, where there are shifts of power and influence, the U.S. presence is a crucial stabilizing force.  It is welcomed by pretty much everyone in the region.  And it’s important for -- and that’s why the President is reaching out to one of our most important allies and one of our most important partners in the region, Australia and Indonesia.

The second point I'll highlight, which Ben also touched on, is that this trip highlights the changing global governance that we face in the world in the 21st century.  When we were in Copenhagen, we saw the decisive meeting at the end of the conference.  The players in the room were China, India, South Africa, Brazil and the United States.  This is something that wouldn’t have happened -- would not have happened 20 years ago.  And this is a -- this is a sign of the change that has occurred in the number of countries that are participating in major global decisions.

In that context there are a number of important middle powers -- middle powers, countries like Australia and Indonesia -- who are significant players on these kinds of decisions.  The G20, which is the emerging economic governance instrument -- major economic emerging governance instrument -- Australia and Indonesia are both important players in this body.

Australia has, for quite some time, I’d say punched above its weight.  Indonesia was held back for years by poverty, by governance issues, by corruption, and it is now, in the last few years, emerging and beginning to perform in the fashion that a power of that rank deserves.

Just a few words specifically on Australia and Indonesia.  Australia has been mentioned as an ally.  We have a special relationship with them.  They’ve fought in all wars with us.  Australia has lost something like 100,000 people -- 100,000 lives in wars since the First World War, which is a quite extraordinary number for a country of that size.  They have more troops in Afghanistan than any other non-NATO country -- 1,500.  And Prime Minister Rudd stepped up to the plate after the President -- after the President spoke to him and increased the Australian component by upwards of 40 percent. 

They are a major global partner on climate change, in the G20, on terrorism, on non-proliferation, on clean energy.

Indonesia, as Ben mentioned, a number of interests.  Third-largest democracy in the world.  For 12 years they’ve been a stable and impressive democracy with a history -- with a modern history of tolerance after tough times in the 1960s.  Protection of human rights has been particularly impressive.  They are a majority Muslim country, but there are other religious and ethnic groups there.  Our trip to -- our stop in Bali, Bali is a Hindu -- traditional Hindu religious center.

They are a regional and global player -- key player in ASEAN and G20 member.  And we will be announcing on this trip a comprehensive partnership with Indonesia, which was President Yudhoyono’s personal initiative, and that shows just how far the Indonesia -- how far Indonesia has moved since its earlier days of an adversarial relationship with the United States, that President Yudhoyono would feel comfortable proposing a comprehensive partnership with the United States that will cover political security issues, economic issues, and people to people.

MR. RHODES:  Thanks, Jeff.  With that, I think we’ll just move to take your questions.

Q    Thank you, gentlemen, for taking the time to brief us on this trip.  I’m wondering, outside of the comprehensive agreement, are there any deliverables -- concrete documents that you expect to sign or things you expect to bring back?  And as a quick follow-up, I’m wondering if Assistant Secretary Campbell is going on this trip, and if not, why not.  Thank you.

MR. RHODES:  Just on your first question, Josh, associated with a comprehensive partnership will be I think a series of announcements that speak to specific issues.  But we will wait until the Presidents have the opportunity to meet to address that.

What I will say is that we’ve been discussing throughout the year an advancement of our partnership with Indonesia on a series of issues that I think are, again, top priorities for both the United States and Indonesia and the region.  They’re a close economic partner through the G20 and we’re looking to deepen our ties in that regard.

As Jeff said as it related to Copenhagen, Indonesia played a -- it’s one of the world’s largest emitters, but they’ve also stepped up to the plate and played a very responsible role through the Copenhagen process and other venues on climate and energy.  And so as we’re looking in order to advance some of the ambitious targets that have been made, we’ll of course have to deepen our partnership with Indonesia and countries like it around the world.  I think they’re the fourth-largest emitter.

And then in addition to that, we’re looking to deepen our partnership in a range of areas from education to science and technology and multiple other areas of common interest.

So I think we’ll be filling in the details of the comprehensive partnership that we’re forging with Indonesia.  I think a key point here is that we will be collaborating with them across a very broad range of issues.  We of course -- we have had -- they have been a key security partner.  You’ve seen them have some very important successes actually this year through their own initiative in taking out leaders, for instance, of Jemaah Islamiyah, the al Qaeda-affiliated group in Indonesia.  So we enjoy a robust partnership with them in that respect and it’s one that we would like to carry forward.

And again, of course, as the world’s largest Muslim-majority country and as an emerging democracy, we’re looking to advance in specific areas our partnership to facilitate the President’s efforts to build a new beginning with Muslim communities around the world as well as our ability to highlight democratization and the empowerment of civil society, which is why we’re going to Bali.

I don't know if Jeff wants to add anything on that.

MR. BADER:  Yes, just one point that I should have mentioned in my earlier comments.  We’ll also be highlighting trade and investment with both Indonesia and Australia on the trip.  This week there will be the first round of negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership trade agreements in Melbourne, Australia.  So we’ll be arriving right on the heels of the first round of that.  The President spoke to his goal of moving rapidly towards agreement among the eight countries in the trans-Pacific partnership.

Indonesia is a country with whom our trade has lagged -- I think it’s something like $23 billion two-way trade.  There are obstacles to trade.  We need to do better.  We need to talk to the Indonesians about how we can make our trade with Indonesia come up to the level that it should be as it is with many of the other ASEAN countries.

MR. RHODES:  Yes, I'd just echo that last point by saying we’ll -- in both countries I think we’ll be looking to highlight the export potential for the United States, which is of course a part of the President’s commitment to doubling exports.  We run a positive trade balance with Australia that, again, supports U.S. jobs, and we want to be deepening those partnerships because, as the President has done, has laid out a very aggressive and ambitious export agenda.  We believe that the Asia-Pacific region, broadly speaking, will be critical to our success in that regard.

On your second question, Josh, I anticipate the Assistant Secretary will be coming on the trip.

Q    Thank you very much for taking my call.  I’m calling from the National Education Association and we have relations and projects that we share in common with the PGRI education union of Indonesia with its 2.3 million members, as well as with the Australian education union, both of which serve public education.  I’m interested in the plans for discussion on education, and also specifically with the Bali Democracy Forum.  Is there plans to discuss specifically student assessment as well as quality training and professional development for teachers?  Thank you.

MR. RHODES:  I appreciate the call and I think there’s probably more consultation that we can provide through direct contact with you all, but what I will say is -- again, I don’t want to preview announcements, but I do think that we are looking to expand and deepen our educational relationship with Indonesia.  The President I think believes strongly in the value of international educational exchange as a tool of deepening our engagement in a way that serves our people and people throughout the world.

At the back end of the Cairo speech, for instance, I think he spoke about the value of educational exchanges and other educational programs that have been a key component, really, of American leadership around the world for many decades.  So I think you’ll see he -- speaking to a deeper educational partnership with Indonesia.

As it relates to the civil society efforts, I believe we’ll be looking at a range of ways that we can empower civil society around the world, quite frankly.  They play a key role, civil society does, in Indonesia -- a very robust democracy -- a very positive role.  And civil society is often on the front lines of the effort to advance democracy, to combat corruption, to support the rule of law, to speak out for people’s rights.

So we’ll be wanting to explore ways in which the United States can support those efforts, can support the kind of efforts that Indonesia is leading by taking on the Bali Democracy Forum.

So some of your -- the more specific concerns I think we can probably best address directly, but I do think, again, education and civil society will be key parts of the kind of partnership that we’re developing with the Indonesians.

Q    Thank you.  You said the President wants to highlight the fact that the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus with Australia.  Could you say which areas the President is thinking of in particular, and which sectors would the Obama administration like to see an expansion of trade, in light of the free trade agreement between the two countries?

MR. RHODES:  I’ll just say a few words, and then Jeff will I think want to jump in.

I think what he’ll be wanting to highlight is just the fact that it’s a very robust and mutually beneficial trade relationship that, again, speaks to the kind of deepening partnerships that we’d like to have around -- across the region.  And of course, we believe that that is fundamental to both a healthy and growing American economy and Australian economy.

As it relates to sectors -- Jeff may speak to this -- I’ll just say, to start off, that clean energy is an area where both I think Prime Minister Rudd and President Obama recognize that there is a growth potential.  So that’s a particular area.  But I think more broadly speaking, whether it’s the trade -- robust trade relationship we have and the efforts we’re exploring through the TPP, we’re looking to frankly build upon the success of the U.S.-Australian relationship, both bilaterally and across the region.

So Jeff, you might want to --

MR. BADER:  All I’d add is that the U.S. and Australia both have very open markets, and in that sense --- that’s what we’re highlighting rather than the fact that the U.S. has a surplus.  The surplus is a reflection of the wishes of consumers and companies on both sides, not a managed outcome.

As for specific sectors, Australia’s got great beef, but we want to make sure that there are not obstacles to the import of U.S. beef.  They also -- the aviation sector is one where the U.S. has found good customers in Australia in the past.  Those are two that I would particularly mention, in addition to the ones that Ben mentioned.

Q    Thank you.  Which events do you expect the President to be focusing on energy and climate issues?  And more specifically, do you expect with the address to the Australian parliament he will be focusing on those issues, given the difficulty in passing climate legislation there?

MR. RHODES:  Sure, I’ll just begin by saying that I expect that this will be a subject for both of his bilateral meetings on this trip.  So the bilateral meeting with the President of Indonesia will certainly have a component that focuses on energy and climate issues.  Similarly, the bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Rudd, I’d expect this to be an issue that together they address.  And so to the extent to which the President will be reading out those meetings and following through both his public remarks, press conferences and in speeches, I think this will be a subject that he’ll be addressing throughout the trip.

And again I'd just underscore points that Jeff made, which is that climate -- our climate initiatives, particularly some of the commitments captured at Copenhagen, will demand very broad international cooperation, and it will demand, again, close coordination with countries like Indonesia that are increasingly playing a responsible role in this area, as well as countries like Australia that have deliberately and very productively sought out a positive role in international climate forums.

And we also frankly believe that clean energy holds out great economic potential, and we continue to believe that there’s great job creation potential and the development of clean energy partnerships with emerging economies like Indonesia and close trading partners like Australia.  So we’ll be speaking to the economic potential of partnership in this area, as well. 

But I don't know if you have much to --

MR. BADER:  Just a point -- just one point.  The President of the United States admires Prime Minister Rudd’s leadership on the climate change issue both in the run-up to Copenhagen, in being one of the leaders in coming up with the idea of a “political agreement,” which ultimately allowed us to achieve consensus in Copenhagen.  And he’s also the creator of a carbon capture and storage institute.  The President was pleased to be present in Italy when the inauguration of this institute was announced and to be a founding member.

Q    Hi, thanks.  Obviously when you’re talking about issues like economics and trade in Asia, the unspoken player apart from the U.S. is China.  Will the President at any stage of his trip bring up the current tensions with China?  Do they have an implication for the sort of success of the effort to expand U.S. ties in Asia-Pacific region?  And can you comment on Premier Wen Jiabao’s remarks yesterday in which he put the blame for the deterioration of the relationship down to the U.S.?

MR. BADER:  Well, we have a mature relationship with China.  There are -- it is steady in its objectives.  I think that the relationship is in good shape.  We have a number of areas of difference and we’re talking about them, but I would not describe it as a relationship of tension.

We will be talking about a number of third-country issues on the trip, I’m sure.  We will be talking about -- I'm sure we’ll be talking about Afghanistan, Afghanistan/Pakistan.  We will I’m sure be talking about Iran.  It’s impossible to go to Asia and for the subject of China not to arise.  So certainly Prime Minister Rudd is deeply knowledgeable on the subject, has much insight.  So I certainly expect that that is a subject we’ll discuss.

And our perceptions of China are fairly similar to those of Australia.  We both see China’s emergence as a major economy, a driving economy in the world, as offering great potential to both our countries -- potential for growth, potential for prosperity of our citizens.  We’re also looking to reshape the international regulatory systems through the G20 in a way that ensures that new actors, such as China, are acting consistent with international norms.

As for Wen Jiabao’s comments, he was talking about currency -- I think I’d leave those to the -- that’s the Secretary of Treasury’s domain, so I don’t think I’ll go there today.

MR. RHODES:  Yes, the only thing I’d add to what Jeff said is that this is obviously our second trip to the region; the last time we traveled to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea.  And again, as Jeff said in his opening comments, we believe that it’s very important that the Asia-Pacific region is fundamental to the economic and security interests of the United States in the 21st century, and that in order to effectively advance those interests, we need to deepen and broaden our engagement and our leadership in the region, which is why we’ve taken a more -- we’ve taken a more aggressive role in engaging groups that APEC and ASEAN, and it’s why we set out to go -- to travel to Indonesia and Australia; to, again, build partnerships that we believe will be fundamental to our ability to deal with our top-priority issues.

And to ours -- to those press like you, Steven, who’ve followed us through the year, I think one thing you can look to on this trip is we laid down a framework for how we deal with a set of issues last year:  terrorism, energy and climate, achieving balance and sustainable growth, and of course nuclear proliferation.  And I think what you’ll see in this trip is that the issues that we’re addressing through these partnerships are very much in line with our broader international priorities.  So we’ll be discussing our deepening -- our deep counterterrorism cooperation in both stops.  As Jeff said, Afghanistan -- Australia is a key partner with us in Afghanistan, and again, Indonesia has had some successes in some of the global pressure that’s been applied to al Qaeda and its affiliates this year.

We’ll be following up on Copenhagen, building on a momentum that we generated last year, to implement this commitment through our partnerships with countries like Indonesia and Australia.

And we’ll be following up on the balance of sustainable growth agenda that came out of the G20’s efforts last year, which was an unprecedented international economic collaboration.  But it’s going to demand sustained action by major economies in order to ensure that the global recovery is sustained.

So I’d just highlight that to point out that the President sees China, of course, as a fundamental -- fundamentally important bilateral relationship as it relates to advancing these interests, but he also believes it’s very important to have not just the bedrock of our strong alliances in the world but also developing partnerships with countries like Indonesia as well, which will be fundamental to our ability to advance our mutual interests.

So to that end, we believe that these relationships are absolutely critical.

Q    Has there been progress to include the training of Kopassus Special Forces as part of the military component of the comprehensive partnership? 

And number two, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said that it’s disappointed by growing protectionism on the part of Indonesia.  Will the administration express this disappointment?  Thank you.

MR. BADER:  First on Kopassus, as you know, there was a delegation from Kopassus, the counterterrorism -- the Special Forces component of the Indonesian military, in Washington last week.  They met with administration officials.  We have a very good cooperation with the Indonesian government on counterterrorism issues.  It would be good if we could move to full cooperation, fuller cooperation, to include the Special Forces -- the counterterrorism capabilities within the special forces of Kopassus.

There is a certain history that needs to be overcome.  There were human rights violations in the 1990s in former East Timor.  We have been talking to the Indonesians and to the Indonesian government and to Kopassus, and we hope to be able, at some point, to move past and resolve those concerns.  I can’t predict at this point when that -- when that day might arrive, but we have been talking to the Indonesian government about it.

And the second question:  The President, in his discussions with President Yudhoyono, will, I am fairly confident, talk about the kinds of things that we hope will be done so that our trade relationship can achieve its full potential, including removing the -- moving expeditiously to remove access -- market access barriers that the Chamber of Commerce highlighted that you just mentioned.

Q    Steve literally took the words right out of my mouth.  I appreciate the question, Steve, and I also appreciate the answer.  Thank you.

MR. McDONOUGH:  I would just add one thing to Jeff’s comments about Kopassus.  Obviously as we’ve been in discussions with our Indonesian partners, we’ve also been in close discussions with Congress and consultation with Congress on this matter so that when we are in a position to move forward on it we’re in a position to have a unified posture across the branches of the U.S. government on this important issue.

Q    Hi, thanks for the call, guys.  I think this question is for Denis -- a question on Guam.  In addition to speaking to the Guam community and service members, what message is trying to be sent to the Pacific region overall and to Japan and China specifically with that?  Thanks.

MR. McDONOUGH:  Thanks.  Well, obviously the President’s decision to visit Guam now demonstrates a commitment to underscore our -- obviously our responsibilities in Guam in the first instance, and underscores a very visible presence of the United States in this vital region, as both Jeff and Ben have outlined.

While there he’ll not only visit with commanders but also with local Guam authorities.  And he’s going to make sure that we have a very realistic and sustainable and well thought out approach to Guam.  He has a vision which we refer to here as “one Guam, green Guam,” which is apropos of many of the questions heretofore, designed to make sure that we’re investing in capabilities on Guam that are sustainable over the course of time, that are clean energy focused, that do take very concrete steps to reduce the high price of energy on the island, and obviously will lead to an end state that’s politically, operationally, and environmentally sustainable.

So the President, while there, will also take a hard look at the project and infrastructure needs on Guam.  We’ll obviously be looking at base-related construction that must take into accounts the needs of not only of an increased troop presence or Marine presence, but also the needs of the people of Guam, the impact on the environment, and the important role that the United States plays within the region.

So I wouldn’t read a particular set of -- just to respond to the last part of your question -- I wouldn’t read a specific or even general message to Japan or to China into the stop; I’d rather just make clear that we have a commitment to the people of Guam, and that as part of our ongoing plan for our presence in the region, are going to make very common-sense and important investments in the infrastructure there.

Q    Question for both Jeff and Denis, if I could indulge you.  Obviously we all understand the mantra about Treasury and currency -- no argument there.  But surely the President himself has raised the fundamental issues often enough, and the events over the last few days certainly seem to indicate that the currency issue is becoming a fundamental relationship management problem.  And I’m wondering if this issue will be on the discussion agenda with Prime Minister Rudd.  Is it perhaps too soon to be talking about coordinated action or coordinated reaction?  I think we’re all interested to know, aren’t we moving past the point where it’s just a Treasury management issue?  Thanks.

MR. BADER:  You thought I was kidding when I said this was an answer for Secretary Geithner.  I wasn’t.

MR. McDONOUGH:  Let me vigorously agree with Jeff; reference of the question to the Department of Treasury.

MR. RHODES:  Well, thanks, everybody, for joining the call and, again, we look forward to a very important and packed schedule for these five days in the Pacific region and look forward to seeing some of you there.  And we’ll provide you with any more detail as it becomes locked and look forward to fielding your requests.

END
3:02 P.M. EDT

It has now been well over a year since the near collapse of the financial sector, and yet today the same failed system that brought on this crisis remains in place.  The financial crisis has resulted in more than 8 million American workers losing their jobs, trillions in household wealth being wiped out and hundreds of thousands of small businesses without the credit they need to grow.  We cannot wait any longer for real financial reform that brings accountability to the financial system and makes sure that the American taxpayer is never again asked to bail out the irresponsibility of our largest banks and financial institutions.

This proposal provides a strong foundation to build a safer financial system.  It creates a new consumer financial protection agency to set and enforce clear rules of the road and establishes stronger supervision for the largest financial firms under the Federal Reserve.  It brings transparency and oversight to derivatives and other financial markets that were central to the crisis and separates banking from proprietary trading and hedge funds. The proposal will also provide the government with essential tools to respond in a financial crisis, so that we can wind down and liquidate a large, interconnected failing financial firm.  It allows us to protect the economy and taxpayers so that we can end the belief that any firm is "Too Big to Fail".

As the bill moves forward, I will take every opportunity to work with Chairman Dodd and his colleagues to strengthen the bill and will fight against efforts to weaken it.

American families deserve a strong, independent consumer financial protection agency that is accountable for setting and enforcing clear rules across the financial marketplace.  And I will not accept attempts to undermine the independence of the consumer protection agency, or to exclude from its purview banks, credit card companies or nonbank firms such as debt collectors, credit bureaus, payday lenders or auto dealers.

I will oppose any loopholes that could harm consumers or investors, or that allow institutions to avoid oversight that is important to financial stability.

We need to ensure the ultimate bill provides strong, clear authority for setting and enforcing rules, limiting excessive risk taking in the financial system, and winding down the largest financial firms when necessary in a way that does not cause a financial panic.  All derivatives must be regulated and shareholders should have a say not just on pay but also other compensation that rewards risk taking.  We will stand firm against any attempt by the financial sector to avoid their responsibilities: in any future crisis the big financial companies must pay, not taxpayers.

1:00 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, Ohio!  (Applause.)  It is good to be here in the Buckeye State.  Congratulations on winning the Big Ten Championship.  (Laughter.)  I'm filling out my brackets now.  (Laughter.)  And it’s even better to be out of Washington for a little while.

AUDIENCE:  O-H-I-O.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, that kid Turner looks pretty good.  You guys are doing all right.

It is wonderful to be here --

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I love you!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  I do.  (Applause.)

Couple of people I just want to make sure I give special mention to.  First of all, you already saw him, Governor Ted Strickland in the house.  (Applause.)  Ted is fighting every day to bring jobs and economic development to Ohio.

So is your terrific United States Senator Sherrod Brown.  Love Sherrod Brown.  (Applause.)  Your own congressman, who is tireless on behalf of working people, Dennis Kucinich.  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Vote yes!

THE PRESIDENT:  Did you hear that, Dennis?  Go ahead, say that again.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Vote yes!

THE PRESIDENT:  A couple members of Congress are here:  U.S. Representative Betty Sutton.  (Applause.)  U.S. Representative Marcia Fudge.  (Applause.)  U.S. Representative Tim Ryan.  (Applause.)  U.S. Representative Charlie Wilson.  (Applause.)

I want to thank Mayor Tom Perciak here in Strongsville.  Please, Mr. Mayor, you’re on.  (Applause.)  That's a good bunch of folks we got here in Ohio, working hard.  Which is why I'm glad to be back -- and let’s face it, it’s nice to be out of Washington once in a while.  (Laughter.)

I want to thank Connie -- I want to thank Connie, who introduced me.  I want to thank her and her family for being here on behalf of her sister, Natoma.  I don't know if everybody understood that Natoma is in the hospital right now, so Connie was filling in.  It’s not easy to share such a personal story, when your sister who you love so much is sick.  And so I appreciate Connie being willing to do so here today, and -- (applause) -- and I want everybody to understand that Connie and her sister are the reason that I’m here today.  (Applause.)

See, Connie felt it was important that her sister’s story be told.  But I want to just repeat what happened here.  Last month, I got a letter from Connie’s sister, Natoma.  She’s self-employed, she’s trying to make ends meet, and for years she’s done the responsible thing, just like most of you have.  She bought insurance -- she didn’t have a big employer who provided her insurance, so she bought her health insurance through the individual market.

And it was important for her to have insurance because 16 years ago, she was diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer.  And even though she had been cancer-free for more than a decade, the insurance companies kept on jacking up her rates, year after year.  So she increased her out-of-pocket expenses.  She raised her deductible.  She did everything she could to maintain her health insurance that would be there just in case she got sick, because she figured, I didn’t want to be -- she didn’t want to be in a position where, if she did get sick, somebody else would have to pick up the tab; that she’d have to go to the emergency room; that the cost would be shifted onto folks through their higher insurance premiums or hospitals charging higher rates.  So she tried to do the right thing.

And she upped her deductible last year to the minimum [sic], the highest possible deductible.  But despite that, Natoma’s insurance company raised her premiums by more than 25 percent.  And over the past year, she paid more than $6,000 in monthly premiums.

AUDIENCE:  Boo!

THE PRESIDENT:  She paid more than $4,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs, for co-pays and medical care and prescriptions.  So all together, this woman paid $10,000 -- one year.  But because she never hit her deductible, her insurance company only spent $900 on her care.  So the insurance company is making -- getting $10,000; paying out $900.  Now, what comes in the mail at the end of last year?

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  A bill!

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  A rate hike!

THE PRESIDENT:  It’s a letter telling Natoma that her premiums would go up again by more than 40 percent.

AUDIENCE:  Boo!

THE PRESIDENT:  So here’s what happens.  She just couldn’t afford it.  She didn’t have the money.  She realized that if she paid those health insurance premiums that had been jacked up by 40 percent, she couldn’t make her mortgage.  And despite her desire to keep her coverage, despite her fears that she would get sick and lose the home that her parents built -- she finally surrendered, she finally gave up her health insurance.  She stopped paying it -- she couldn’t make ends meet.

So January was her last month of being insured.  Like so many responsible Americans -- folks who work hard every day, who try to do the right thing -- she was forced to hang her fortunes on chance.  To take a chance, that’s all she could do.  She hoped against hope that she would stay healthy.  She feared terribly that she might not stay healthy.

That was the letter that I read to the insurance companies, including the person responsible for raising her rates.  Now, I understand Natoma was pretty surprised when she found out that I had read it to these CEOs.  But I thought it was important for them to understand the human dimensions of this problem.  Her rates have been hiked more than 40 percent.

And this was less than two weeks ago.  Unfortunately, Natoma’s worst fears were realized.  And just last week, she was working on a nearby farm, walking outside -- apparently, chasing after a cow -- (laughter) -- when she collapsed.  And she was rushed to the hospital.  She was very sick.  She needed two blood transfusions.  Doctors performed a battery of tests.  And on Saturday, Natoma was diagnosed with leukemia.

Now, the reason Natoma is not here today is that she’s lying on a hospital bed, suddenly faced with this emergency -- suddenly faced with the fight of her life.  She expects to face more than a month of aggressive chemotherapy.  She is racked with worry not only about her illness but about the costs of the tests and the treatment that she’s surely going to need to beat it.

So you want to know why I’m here, Ohio?  I’m here because of Natoma.  (Applause.)   I’m here because of the countless others who have been forced to face the most terrifying challenges in their lives with the added burden of medical bills they can’t pay.  I don't think that’s right.  (Applause.)   Neither do you.  That’s why we need health insurance right now.  Health insurance reform right now.  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  Obama!  Obama!  Obama!  Obama!

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m here because of my own mother’s story.  She died of cancer, and in the last six months of her life, she was on the phone in her hospital room arguing with insurance companies instead of focusing on getting well and spending time with her family.

I’m here because of the millions who are denied coverage because of preexisting conditions or dropped from coverage when they get sick.  (Applause.)

I’m here because of the small businesses who are forced to choose between health care and hiring.  (Applause.)

I’m here because of the seniors unable to afford the prescriptions that they need.  (Applause.)

I’m here because of the folks seeing their premiums go up 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 and 60 percent in a year.  (Applause.)

Ohio, I am here because that is not the America I believe in and that’s not the America that you believe in.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  What’s your plan?

THE PRESIDENT:  So when you hear people say “start over” --

AUDIENCE:  No!!

THE PRESIDENT:  -- I want you to think about Natoma.  When you hear people saying that this isn’t the “right time,” you think about what she’s going through.  When you hear people talk about, well, what does this mean for the Democrats?  What does this mean for the Republicans?  I don’t know how the polls are doing.  When you hear people more worried about the politics of it than what’s right and what’s wrong, I want you to think about Natoma and the millions of people all across this country who are looking for some help, and looking for some relief.  That’s why we need health insurance reform right now.  (Applause.)

Part of what makes this issue difficult is most of us do have health insurance, we still do.  And so -- and so we kind of feel like, well, I don’t know, it’s kind of working for me; I’m not worrying too much.  But what we have to understand is that what’s happened to Natoma, there but for the grace of God go any one of us.  (Applause.)  Anybody here, if you lost your job right now and after the COBRA ran out --

(Audience member faints.)

THE PRESIDENT:  It looks like we’ve got somebody who might’ve fainted down there, so if we’ve got a medic.  No, no, no.  Hold on.  I’m talking about there’s somebody who might’ve fainted right down here, so if we can get a medic just back here.  They’re probably okay.  Just give her or him some space.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Hope you have insurance.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  So let’s just think about -- think about if you lost your job right now.  How many people here might have had a preexisting condition that would mean it’d be very hard to get health insurance on the individual market?  Think about if you wanted to change jobs.  Think about if you wanted to start your own business but you suddenly had to give up your health insurance on your job.  Think about what happens if a child of yours, heaven forbid, got diagnosed with something that made it hard for them to insure.
For so many people, it may not be a problem right now but it’s going to be a problem later, at any point.  And even if you’ve got good health insurance, what’s happening to your premiums?  What’s happening to your co-payments?  What’s happening to your deductible?  They’re all going up.  That’s money straight out of your pocket.
So the bottom line is this:  The status quo on health care is simply unsustainable.  (Applause.)  We can’t have -- we can’t have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people.  (Applause.)
And we know what will happen if we fail to act.  We know that our government will be plunged deeper into debt.  We know that millions more people will lose their coverage.  We know that rising costs will saddle millions more families with unaffordable expenses.  And a lot of small businesses are just going to drop their coverage altogether.  That’s already what’s been happening.
A study came out just yesterday -- this is a nonpartisan study -- it’s found that without reform, premiums could more than double for individuals and families over the next decade.  Family policies could go to an average of $25,000 or more.  Can you afford that?
AUDIENCE:  No!
THE PRESIDENT:  You think your employer can afford that?
AUDIENCE:  No!
THE PRESIDENT:  Your employer can’t sustain that.  So what’s going to happen is, they’re basically -- more and more of them are just going to say, you know what?  You’re on your own on this.
We have debated this issue now for more than a year.  Every proposal has been put on the table.  Every argument has been made.  I know a lot of people view this as a partisan issue, but, look, the fact is both parties have a lot of areas where we agree -- it’s just politics are getting in the way of actually getting it done.  (Applause.)

Somebody asked what’s our plan.  Let me describe exactly what we’re doing, because we’ve ended up with a proposal that incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans, even though Republicans don’t give us any credit.  (Laughter.)  That’s all right.

You know, if you think about the debate around health care reform, there were some who wanted to scrap the system of private insurance and replace it with government-run care.  And, look, that works in a number of places, but I did not see that being practical to help right away for people who really need it.

And on the other end of the spectrum, and this is what a lot of the Republicans are saying right now, there are those who simply believe that the answer is to unleash the insurance industry, to deregulate them further, provide them less oversight and fewer rules.

AUDIENCE:  Boo!

THE PRESIDENT:  This is called the fox-guarding-the-henhouse approach to health insurance reform.  (Laughter.)  So what it would do is it would give insurance companies more leeway to raise premiums, more leeway to deny care.  It would segment the market further.  It would be good if you were rich and healthy.  You’d save money.  But if you’re an ordinary person, if you get older, if you get a little sicker, you’d be paying more.

Now, I don’t believe we should give the government or insurance companies more control over health care in America.  I believe it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your own health insurance.  (Applause.)

And that’s what our proposal does.  Our proposal builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer.  So if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  I don't want to interfere with people’s relationships between them and their doctors.

Essentially, here’s what my proposal would change:  three things about the current health care system, but three important things.

Number one, it would end the worst practices of the insurance companies.  (Applause.)  All right?  This is like a patient’s bill of rights on steroids.  (Laughter.)  Within the first year of signing health care reform, thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions will be able to purchase health insurance for the first time in their lives or the first time since they got sick.  (Applause.)  This year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions.  So parents can have a little bit of security.  (Applause.)  This year, under this legislation, insurance companies will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick.  Those practices would end.  (Applause.)

With this reform package, all new insurance plans would be required to offer free preventive care to their customers starting this year -- so free check-ups to catch preventable diseases on the front end.  That’s a smart thing to do.  (Applause.)  Starting this year, if you buy a new plan, there won’t be lifetime or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care you receive from your insurance companies, so you won’t be surprised by the fine print that says suddenly they’ve stopped paying and you now suddenly are $50,000 or $100,000 or $200,000 out of pocket.  That won’t -- that will not happen if this becomes law this year.  (Applause.)
I see -- I see some young people in the audience.  (Applause.)  If you’re an uninsured young adult, you will be able to stay on your parents’ policy until you’re 26 years old under this law.  (Applause.)
So number one -- number one is insurance reform.  The second thing that this plan would change about the current system is this:  For the first time, uninsured individuals, small businesses, they’d have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves.  (Applause.)  Understand if this reform becomes law, members of Congress, they’ll be getting their insurance from the same place that the uninsured get theirs, because if it’s good enough for the American people, it’s good enough for the people who send us to Washington.  (Applause.)
So basically what would happen is, we’d set up a pool of people; millions of people across the country would all buy into these pools that give them more negotiating power.  If you work for a big company, you’ve got a better insurance deal because you’ve got more bargaining power as a whole.  We want you to have all the bargaining power that the federal employees have, that big companies have, so you’ll be able to buy in or a small business will be able to buy into this pool.  And that will lower rates, it’s estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you’re currently getting.  That’s money out of pocket.
And what my proposal says is if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, then we’re going to offer you tax credits to do so.  And that will add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history.  That’s what we’re going to do.  (Applause.)
Now, when I was talking about this at that health care summit, some of you saw it -- I sat there for about seven hours; I know you guys watched the whole thing.  (Laughter.)  But some of these folks said, well, we just -- that’s a nice idea but we just can’t afford to do that.  Look, I want everybody to understand -- the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is.  The least well among us, the poorest among us, they get their health care through Medicaid.  So it’s the middle class, it’s working people that are getting squeezed, and that’s who we have to help, and we can afford to do it.  (Applause.)

Now, it is true that providing these tax credits to middle class families and small businesses, that’s going to cost some money.  It’s going to cost about $100 billion per year.  But most of this comes from the nearly $2.5 trillion a year that Americans already spend on health care.  It’s just right now, a lot of that money is being spent badly.

So with this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we make -- the dollars that we spend on health care are going to make insurance more affordable and more secure.  And we’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance company.  Insurance companies are making billions of dollars on subsidies from you, the taxpayer.  And if we take those subsidies away, we can use them to help folks like Natoma get health insurance so she doesn’t lose her house.  (Applause.)

And, yes, we will set a new fee on insurance companies because they stand to gain millions more customers who are buying insurance.  There’s nothing wrong with them giving something back.  But here’s the bottom line:  Our proposal is paid for -- which, by the way, is more than can be said for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they passed that big prescription drug plan that cost about as much as my health care plan and they didn’t pay for any of it and it went straight to the deficit.  And now they’re up there on their high horse talking about, well, we don’t want to expand the deficit.  This plan doesn’t expand the deficit.  Their plan expanded the deficit.  That’s why we pay for what we do.  That’s the responsible thing to do.  (Applause.)
Now, so let me talk about the third thing, which is my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses, and for the federal government.  So Americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today -- I already said this -- would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent -- that’s not my numbers, that’s what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says -- for Americans who get their insurance through the workplace.  How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now?  Raise your hands.  All right.  Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent [sic], which means they could give you a raise.  (Applause.)
We have incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising costs of health care.  We go after waste and abuse in the system, especially in Medicare.  Our cost-cutting measures would reduce most people’s premiums and bring down our deficit by up to a  trillion dollars over the next two decades.  Those aren’t my numbers.  Those are the numbers determined by the Congressional Budget Office.  They’re the referee.  That’s what they say, not what I say.

Now, the opponents of reform, they’ve tried to make a lot of different arguments to stop these changes.  You remember.  First, they said, well, there’s a government takeover of health care.  Well, that wasn’t true.  Well, that wasn’t true.  Then they said, well, what about death panels?  Well, that turned out -- that didn’t turn out to be true.

You know, the most insidious argument they’re making is the idea that somehow this would hurt Medicare.  I know we’ve got some seniors here with us today -- I couldn’t tell; you guys look great.  (Laughter.)  I wouldn’t have guessed.  But want to tell you directly:  This proposal adds almost a decade of solvency to Medicare.  (Applause.)  This proposal would close the gap in prescription drug coverage, called the doughnut hole -- you know something about that -- that sticks seniors with thousands of dollars in drug costs.  This proposal will over time help to reduce the costs of Medicare that you pay every month.  This proposal would make preventive care free so you don’t have to pay out-of-pocket for tests to keep you healthy.  (Applause.)

So yes, we’re going after the waste, the fraud, the abuse in Medicare.  We are eliminating some of the insurance subsidies that should be going to your care.  That’s because these dollars should be spent on care for seniors, not on the care and feeding of the insurance companies through sweetheart deals.  And every senior should know there is no cutting of your guaranteed Medicare benefits.  Period.  No “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts.”  (Applause.)  This proposal makes Medicare stronger, it makes the coverage better, and it makes the finances more secure.  And anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed -- or they’re trying to misinform you.  Don’t let them hoodwink you.  They’re trying to hoodwink you.  (Laughter.)

So, look, Ohio, that’s the proposal.  And I believe Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote.  (Applause.)  We need an up or down vote.  It’s time to vote.  And now as we get closer to the vote, there is a lot of hand-wringing going on.  We hear a lot of people in Washington talking about politics, talking about what this means in November, talking about the poll numbers for Democrats and Republicans.
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We need courage!
THE PRESIDENT:  We need courage.  (Applause.)  Did you hear what somebody just said?  (Applause.)  That’s what we need.  That’s why I came here today.  We need courage.  (Applause.)
We need courage.  You know, in the end, this debate is about far more than politics.  It comes down to what kind of country do we want to be.  It’s about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved, by making health insurance more secure and more affordable.  (Applause.)  It’s about a woman who’s lying in a hospital bed who just wants to be able to pay for the care she needs.  And the truth is, what’s at stake in this debate, it’s not just our ability to solve this problem; it’s about our ability to solve any problem.

I was talking to Dennis Kucinich on the way over here about this.  I said, you know what?  It’s been such a long time since we made government on the side of ordinary working folks -- (applause) -- where we did something for them that relieved some of their struggles; that made folks who work hard every day and are doing the right thing and who are looking out for the families and contributing to their communities, that just gave them a little bit of a better chance to live out their American Dream.
The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for these interests, for their future.  So what they’re looking for is some courage.  They’re waiting for us to act.  They’re waiting for us to lead.  They don’t want us putting our finger out to the wind.  They don’t want us reading polls.  They want us to look and see what is the best thing for America, and then do what’s right.  (Applause.)  And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership.  And I know these members of Congress are going to provide that leadership.  I don’t know about the politics, but I know what’s the right thing to do.  And so I’m calling on Congress to pass these reforms -- and I’m going to sign them into law.  I want some courage.  I want us to do the right thing, Ohio.  And with your help, we’re going to make it happen.

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

END
1:33 P.M. EDT

I send my warmest wishes to all those that will celebrate the anniversary of the 1848 Hungarian Revolution tomorrow.  That event was a defining moment in Hungary’s struggle for freedom, and continues to serve as inspiration for all those that advocate for freedom’s cause.  Our two nations are bound by our shared values and our solemn obligations to each other through the NATO Article 5 commitment to one another’s security.  On this occasion, I also wish to pay tribute to those many Americans that can trace their roots to Hungary.  They continue to make important contributions to our society, enriching the character and culture of the United States. 

The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of North Dakota and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local response efforts in the area threatened by flooding beginning on February 26, 2010, and continuing.

The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, including flood fighting preparations, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the counties of Barnes, Benson, Burleigh, Cass, Dickey, Emmons, Foster, Grand Forks, LaMoure, Mercer, Nelson, Pembina, Ramsey, Ransom, Richland, Stutsman, Traill, and Walsh, and the Spirit Lake Reservation.

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency.  Emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent Federal funding. 

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Justo Hernandez as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected area. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  FEMA (202) 646-3272.

The President is deeply saddened and outraged by the news of the brutal murders of three people associated with the United States Consulate General in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, including a U.S. citizen employee, her U.S. citizen husband, and the husband of a Mexican citizen employee. He extends his condolences to the families and condemns these attacks on consular and diplomatic personnel serving at our foreign missions.  In concert with Mexican authorities, we will work tirelessly to bring their killers to justice.

The President shares in the outrage of the Mexican people at the murders of thousands in Ciudad Juárez and elsewhere in Mexico.  We will continue to work with Mexican President Felipe Calderón and his government to break the power of the drug trafficking organizations that operate in Mexico and far too often target and kill the innocent.  This is a responsibility we must shoulder together, particularly in border communities where strong bonds of history, culture, and common interest bind the Mexican and the American people closely together.

WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama announced that on Monday, his administration will send to Congress the blueprint for an updated Elementary and Secondary Education Act that will overhaul No Child Left Behind.  The plan will set the ambitious goal of ensuring that all students graduate from high school prepared for college and a career, and it will provide states, districts and schools with the flexibility and resources to reach that goal. 

The audio and video will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 am ET, Saturday, March 13, 2010.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
Weekly Address
March 13, 2010

Lost in the news of the week was a headline that ought to be a source of concern for every American.  It said, “Many Nations Passing U.S. in Education.”   Now, debates in Washington tend to be consumed with the politics of the moment: who’s up in the daily polls; whose party stands to gain in November.  But what matters to you – what matters to our country – is not what happens in the next election, but what we do to lift up the next generation.  And the fact is, there are few issues that speak more directly to our long term success as a nation than issues concerning the education we provide to our children. 

Our prosperity in the 20th century was fueled by an education system that helped grow the middle class and unleash the talents of our people more fully and widely than at any time in our history.  We built schools and focused on the teaching of math and science.  We helped a generation of veterans go to college through the GI Bill.  We led the globe in producing college graduates, and in turn we led in producing ground-breaking technologies and scientific discoveries that lifted living standards and set us apart as the world’s engine of innovation. 

Of course, other nations recognize this, and are looking to gain an edge in the global marketplace by investing in better schools, supporting teachers, and committing to clear standards that will produce graduates with more skills.  Our competitors understand that the nation that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow.  Yet, too often we have failed to make inroads in reforming and strengthening our public education system – the debate mired in worn arguments hurled across entrenched divides. 

As a result, over the last few decades, we’ve lost ground.  One assessment shows American fifteen year olds no longer even near the top in math and science when compared to their peers around the world.  As referenced in the news report I mentioned, we’ve now fallen behind most wealthy countries in our high school graduation rates.  And while we once led the world in the proportion of college graduates we produced, today we no longer do. 

Not only does that risk our leadership as a nation, it consigns millions of Americans to a lesser future.  For we know that the level of education a person attains is increasingly a prerequisite for success and a predictor of the income that person will earn throughout his or her life.  Beyond the economic statistics is a less tangible but no less painful reality: unless we take action – unless we step up – there are countless children who will never realize their full talent and potential. 

I don’t accept that future for them.  And I don’t accept that future for the United States of America.  That’s why we’re engaged in a historic effort to redeem and improve  our public  schools: to raise the expectations for our students and for ourselves, to recognize and reward excellence, to improve performance in troubled schools, and to give our kids and our country the best chance to succeed in a changing world.

Under the leadership of an outstanding Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, we launched a Race to the Top, through which states compete for funding by committing to reform and raising standards, by rewarding good teaching, by supporting the development of better assessments to measure results, and by emphasizing math and science to help prepare children for college and careers. 

And on Monday, my administration will send to Congress our blueprint for an updated Elementary and Secondary Education Act to overhaul No Child Left Behind.  What this plan recognizes is that while the federal government can play a leading role in encouraging the reforms and high standards we need, the impetus for that change will come from states, and from local schools and school districts.  So, yes, we set a high bar – but we also provide educators the flexibility to reach it. 

Under these guidelines, schools that achieve excellence or show real progress will be rewarded, and local districts will be encouraged to commit to change in schools that are clearly letting their students down.  For the majority of schools that fall in between – schools that do well but could do better – we will encourage continuous improvement to help keep our young people on track for a bright future: prepared for the jobs of the 21st century. And because the most important factor in a child’s success is the person standing at the front of the classroom, we will better prepare teachers, support teachers, and encourage teachers to stay in the field.  In short, we’ll treat the people who educate our sons and daughters like the professionals they are.

Through this plan we are setting an ambitious goal: all students should graduate from high school prepared for college and a career – no matter who you are or where you come from.  Achieving this goal will be difficult. It will take time.  And it will require the skills, talents, and dedication of many: principals, teachers, parents, students.  But this effort is essential for our children and for our country.  And while there will always be those cynics who claim it can’t be done, at our best, we know that America has always risen to the challenges that we’ve faced.  This challenge is no different. 

As a nation, we are engaged in many important endeavors: improving the economy, reforming the health care system, encouraging innovation in energy and other growth industries of the 21st century.  But our success in these efforts – and our success in the future as a people – will ultimately depend on what happens long before an entrepreneur opens his doors, or a nurse walks the rounds, or a scientist steps into her laboratory.  Our future is determined each and every day, when our children enter the classroom, ready to learn and brimming with promise. 

It’s that promise we must help them fulfill.  Thank you.

WASHINGTON -- TODAY at 9:00AM EST, Mike Froman, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs will hold a background conference call to preview the President’s remarks at the Export Import Conference.  The call is embargoed until delivery of the President’s speech at 11:15AM EST today.  During his remarks, the President will discuss further details of the National Export Initiative he announced during his State of the Union address.  The President set the goal of doubling our exports over the next five years to keep America competitive and support the creation of two million jobs.

A fact sheet, embargoed until 11:15AM EST, is attached.

WHAT: Background conference call on the President’s National Export Initiative with Mike Froman, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs

WHEN:  Today, Thursday March 11, 2010
                9:00AM EST

CALL WILL BE ON BACKGROUND AND EMBARGOED UNTIL SPEECH DELIVERY

# #

2:10 P.M. EST

PRESS CORPS:  Yay!

PRESS CORPS:  Ohhhh!

MR. GIBBS:  Nice to see you.  Let me get a few pictures over here.  What was that groan for?  Come on.

Q    Show us again, come one.

Q    You can’t go yet, I’m not ready.

MR. GIBBS:  Don’t worry, we’ll do a couple of non-serious announcements in my --

Q    What position did Gibbs play, anyway?

MR. GIBBS:  This is -- I am, first of all, as you can tell, not in my normal attire -- though it does signify Friday here at the White House, casual Friday as we newly instituted.  (Laughter.)  I am making good on my aspect of my wager with Dimitri, my Canadian counterpart, who is somewhere several hundred miles north laughing.

Q    Are you itching yet?

MR. GIBBS:  I am not.  No, I’m a little warm.  The number 39 is for Ryan Miller, who of course was the United States goalie and the tournament MVP.  I have one official government announcement:  We’ve instructed the embassy, our embassy and our ambassador to make arrangements to deliver one case of Molson Canadian and one case of Yuengling lager from Pottsville, Pennsylvania, America’s oldest brewery, to the Prime Minister’s office today.  I’m sure Dimitri will take most of that home and consume it.

Let me do the week ahead and then we’ll get back into more semi-serious attire for the rest of your hockey questions.

PRESS CORPS:  No!

Q    Fifteen minutes!

MR. GIBBS:  Fifteen minutes -- I thought we were doing this on the metric scale.  (Laughter.)

Q    That’s 30 minutes.  (Laughter.)

Q    Fifteen Canadian.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Exactly, right.  (Laughter.)  What’s the exchange rate?

The President has no scheduled public events this weekend.  On Monday, as you know, the President will travel to Strongsville, Ohio, where he will deliver remarks on health insurance reform.  On Tuesday the President will attend meetings here at the White House.

On Wednesday the President will meet with the Taoiseach of Ireland, Brian Cowen, at the White House.  In the evening the President and First Lady will host the Taoiseach and Mrs. Cowen at the annual St. Patrick’s Day reception held in the East Room, and the event will be pooled press.

On Thursday and Friday the President will be here in Washington, D.C. and we’ll have a chance to talk, I’m sure, about the trip here in a few moments.  Let me get a little bit semi-organized.

I will say -- no offense to my Canadian friends here -- but we couldn’t have done this fully without -- (applause) -- also -- let me put my specs back on -- of course this just has 10 for 2010 on it.  Nick and U.S.A. Hockey -- the happy providers of this jersey -- it’s a little smaller in size, which I think Nick did on purpose so that at the conclusion of this I would give the jersey to him.  (Laughter.)

Q    What else are you taking off?  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  No, that’s Rahm, ma’am.  That’s the Chief of Staff.  (Laughter.)

Q    It’s lucky you didn’t make a bet about wrestling.  (Laughter.)

Q    One more fashion spin, please.

MR. GIBBS:  You like the USA, 2010 USA.  (Applause.)

So I don’t think I should take any questions wearing this, but -- you know what, we’ll take a couple.

Go ahead, sir.

Q    Okay.  Now that the trip has been delayed, how is the President going to use those extra two days?

MR. GIBBS:  Phil, the President has met with and talked with, as you know, many members of Congress over the past several days.  I anticipate that he will talk with the leaders and members of Congress in -- talking to them about the benefits of passing health care reform.  So I anticipate that that kind of -- that kind of thing will happen.

This came about as a result of a conversation that the President had with Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, who --all three agreed that it would be helpful to have a few extra days here, talking to members.  But they also agreed that this was an extremely important trip for the United States of America for the President to go to Indonesia and to Australia.

Q    But Congress is going to be around for a week after the President leaves.  So is the 20th now the new 18th?  (Laughter.)  I mean --

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t --

Q    In terms of deadlines.  Is now the 20th now the --

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I’m simply going to say the President, as we announced today, will leave for the trip at 10:00 a.m. on the 21st.

Q    So the President is okay with Congress continuing discussions of health care, even while he’s traveling, or does he want this all wrapped up with a bow by the 20th?

MR. GIBBS:  I think -- we’ve been talking about this for more than a year.  I think the President wants, members of Congress want a vote as soon as possible that will lead to improved health care for millions of Americans.

Q    But does the President expect to leave having the House pass --

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I will leave deadlines up to the Speaker.

Yes, sir.

Q    If the President fails -- if Congress fails to get this across the finish line or very close to it before next Sunday’s scheduled -- rescheduled departure date for Asia, is there a chance that this trip could be delayed again or even canceled altogether?

MR. GIBBS:  In speaking with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, all three agreed this was an important trip for the President to make.

The Asia-Pacific region of the world is tremendously important to the United States for a number of reasons.  We will -- we’re going to visit, obviously, Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim population, an emerging democracy.  The President will follow up on his speech from Cairo in a speech in Indonesia -- a key partner, obviously in our counterterrorism efforts -- before traveling to Australia, obviously a very important trading partner and an important ally in our efforts in Afghanistan.

I will say that if you -- as the President said in Tokyo, that for years the United States has been absent from the Asia-Pacific region.  We are -- we can’t lead in this region of the world without strong bilateral relationships with Indonesia and Australia.  They’re key in our ability to keep our country safe.  They’re key in our ability to grow our economy through increased exports.  And they’re key to tackling big challenges.  Indonesia is the fourth-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.  Obviously they’ll be incredibly important to international agreements on climate change.

So the President believed it was important to give the issue of health care and the effort to get votes on health care a few more days, but also believes, as do those leaders in Congress, that it’s important to keep this trip on our schedule with two important partners.

Q    One other issue.  The President looks to be homing in on his Fed nominees.  Can you confirm that Janet Yellen is the leading candidate for nominee as vice chairman, and that Sarah Raskin and Peter Diamond are under consideration for other vacancies?  Can you give us any kind of sense of the timing, whether he’s going to make an announcement before the trip, after the trip?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, we -- she is obviously somebody who -- a former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; somebody with great expertise in macroeconomic issues; the current president of the Fed in San Francisco.  And she is a leading contender for the vice chair nomination.

As you know, we are hoping to fill the vacancy of the vice chair in time for the end of the current term, which is June.  And I would say Sarah Raskin and Peter Diamond are also under strong consideration for additional vacancies.  I don’t have a timing announcement, though, on any of those.

Q    Are we speaking a matter of weeks?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I don’t want to speculate on when the timing would be, except obviously for Janet Yellen, who’s under strong consideration, I would say anybody that is appointed to the vice chair would need to be done -- our hope obviously, as I said, is to get it done before the current term expires.

Q    And she is the leading candidate?

MR. GIBBS:  I would say she is a leading contender, yes.

Q    A leading contender?

Q    Has it been 15 minutes yet?  Do you want to put your jacket on?

MR. GIBBS:  Do you feel uncomfortable, Jake?

Q    I feel like if I show this to the viewers of ABC News, World News --

Q    Then we have to explain the whole thing.  (Laughter.)

Q    -- they’re going to be a little confused why on a story about health care you’re wearing a hockey jersey.  I’m saying --

MR. GIBBS:  It can’t be any stranger than some of the other stuff I see on the news, so I don’t -- (laughter) -- I’m not entirely sure what -- somebody give Jake the Canadian one and we’ll just do a quick two-shot and we’ll --

Q    Faceoff. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.  Would you feel more comfortable if I switched?

Q    I’m just glad it was a hockey, not a wrestling, bet.  (Laughter.)

Q    Or sumo wrestling.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  I was going to say something, but I --

Q    Say happy birthday.

MR. GIBBS:  True.

Q    Other than talking to members of Congress, what is so important that the President needs to be here for those extra two days?  I understand that the members of Congress were asking President Obama to do this, that you’re not imposing his presence, but what can he -- what difference will it make?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, Jake, I think the President will use the time, as I said earlier, to speak either individually with or in small groups with members that may be at this point undecided on how they’ll vote.  The President I think will take the opportunity to once again reiterate his case for why this reform is so important, why it’s important to do this now, why it’s important not to stop or to start over, why we’re dealing with dramatic spikes in health insurance right now, and why we have to deal with this problem.

Q    Why do you think so many members -- I mean, 216 members of the House who voted for it in November, voted for the House bill, are still there -- and that’s a majority.  Why do you think so many of them are having second thoughts?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Jake, I think some of them are likely waiting for finished CBO scoring.  I think that’s a natural thing to wait for and I think they’ll have time to evaluate that scoring and to evaluate the legislation in full.

But, again, I think the President believes that he can make a very strong case for why this is important to do right now.

Q    And, lastly, as you know, a lot of House Democrats are distrustful of the Senate -- of Senate Democrats, and they’re worried that with the way the parliamentarian has ruled they’re going to be tricked somehow into passing the Senate bill and then the fixes to the Senate bill, and the Senate won’t pass the fixes and they will have been tricked into passing the Senate bill that a lot of them don’t like without those fixes.

Is President Obama reassuring them, telling these House Democrats that if the reconciliation, if the fix doesn’t pass the Senate bill in itself, he won’t sign that bill?  Or --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, again -- and I mentioned some of this yesterday -- I think some of this -- I don’t want to wade into the parliamentary politics on Capitol Hill, except to say this, the President is talking with -- not just with members of the House on the vote that they’re going to have to make, but also with members of the Senate to ensure that the corrections that the President sees as so important -- not just the House, but the President sees as so important -- are also acted on.  And so I don’t -- this is -- it’s a dual track.  It works together, but the President is working on both of those issues.

Q    You think -- will -- is it possible, in any way you look at it, that one would happen -- that the Senate bill would pass but the fixes would not, and the Senate bill would become law?  Because that’s what House members are worried about.

MR. GIBBS:  They’re concerned.  I think that’s why the President is spending time also dealing with senators to ensure that they are supportive of those legislative fixes on their side of it, too.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  Representative Dreier, in referring to the President’s delay, said today, “We know that they are doing everything within their power to try and twist arms and encourage people to vote for something that is extraordinarily unpopular and I believe would be devastating for our nation’s economy.”  What do you say to Americans who are still having a difficult time buying the President’s plan?

MR. GIBBS:  Like Mr. Dreier?  (Laughter.)

Q    Well, Dreier and others.  He’s not the only one.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, I would probably tell Mr. Dreier the same thing Mr. Dreier from California.  People in his state are getting the letters that we’ve talked about here for the past several weeks; the letters that say, “I know you’ve paid your premiums, I know you haven’t gotten sick, but you’re in the individual health insurance market, and your health insurance rates are going up 39 percent next year.”  That’s what we’re dealing with.  That’s what we have to take on.

We have to provide the ability for a small business in the state of California and throughout this country, or in Mr. Dreier’s district, or a family that’s struggling with the high cost of health care, to get them some help.

The President is doing this because he believes that this is the right thing to do for our country -- to have a health care and health insurance network that works not just for health insurance companies but works for average, everyday working Americans.  That’s why he continues to pursue this, and that’s why he’ll see it to passage soon.

Q    Does it frustrate the President at all that he’s been making this big push, pointing out what the insurance industry has been doing with the premium hikes -- does it frustrate him that the message still isn’t getting through to some?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t think the message -- I think the President is -- I think the President feels some momentum on this issue.  I think the President believes that while many thought this issue was going to go away or was dead a few weeks ago has gotten new life, I think largely because we’ve seen insurers send out the letters that I’m talking about.

Q    On the AfPak meeting, can you tell us more about that?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me give you a quick readout, and then we can go through a couple of questions.  The President met with his national security team as part of the regular updates that he receives on Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This was part of the monthly video teleconferencing.  The next one I believe is scheduled for April 16th.  The meeting began with a briefing from General McChrystal, who noted a continued progress in the Marja offensive and the strengthening partnership with Afghan national security forces.

The President and his team discussed a range of issues related to security and governance.  The President also received a briefing from Ambassador Patterson, our ambassador in Islamabad, on our security cooperation with Pakistan and support for the Pakistani people.

Of note that General McChrystal told the group, including obviously the President, that we were on schedule on our force flow in getting additional forces approved by the President into Afghanistan by the end of the summer.  They discussed in surrounding Marja that we were largely through the clearing phase and more rapidly moving to a phase of hold, which puts a premium obviously on good governance.  And we spent quite a bit of time discussing the Afghan national security forces, the army and the police forces, the training and some adjustments that the President and the team have been working on around recruitment and retention of police and army forces dating back to the President’s original meetings in the Situation Room prior to his decision in December.

Q    And one quick thing.  Is the administration pleased with the Pakistani government in the effort fighting terrorism, or does Pakistan need to do more?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, we have had -- we’ve enjoyed I think a almost unprecedented level of cooperation with them, dating back probably almost a year now, to extremist movements that threatened the Pakistanis and I think in many ways alerted them to many of the concerns that we had long had.  We feel like we’re making progress each and every day, and I think in the update that he got from Ambassador Patterson that was conveyed.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    I’m sure the President is aware that it’s against international law to annex occupied land.  Why do we keep giving, as Vice President Biden did, iron-clad commitments to Israel when it violates international law?  And the President says that our relationship is unshakeable.  How can that be?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, we enjoy a strong and important relationship with the country and the people of Israel.  And we are --

Q    Even when it violates the law?  I mean, you go into this whole thing -- why should they be -- get this reprieve?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, we enjoy a strong relationship with the country and the people.  We are committed to their security in a very important and dangerous --

Q    How about the Palestinian security?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, let me finish my answer, Helen -- in a very important region of the world.  I think the Vice President, though, could not have been clearer on, as I said and as the Vice President said, on both the timing and the substance of the announcement that was made during his trip, that we have asked each side to refrain from the type of announcements that would shake the trust needed to sit down together and make some decisions on moving forward on a peace process.

So I think the Vice President was extremely clear on his trip there.  I know the President looks forward to speaking with the Vice President.  He’s -- he’ll get back very, very early tomorrow morning, and I anticipate that they’ll either -- they’ll likely talk either later in the weekend or first thing on Monday about what the Vice President saw, not just in Israel but in the region, as we try to move things forward.

Q    We’ve already seen the violation on the part of one party.  What is the U.S. going to do about it?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I think that the Vice President was extremely strong in condemning what the Israeli government announced during his trip.

Chip.

Q    You said that the President is feeling some momentum on health care.  Congressman Weiner, who has long been urging the President to be more involved, said that as a result of the President’s recent increased involvement, there is now a tidal change in the last 72 hours up there.  Do you agree that the change has been that great in degree?  And if so, was it because of the President’s uptick in involvement?  And if so, why didn’t he do it sooner?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I don’t -- I probably said this a thousand times, but I’ll add another one to it.  I doubt the President -- I doubt we’d be where we are on health care, after this long, if the President wasn’t personally invested in, from the very beginning, on getting this done.

I think, Chip, as the President said at the State of the Union, it’s pretty clear, by some of the polling numbers, we’re not doing this out of -- for sheer political benefit.  I think there are -- you don’t have to -- you can swing a cat in this town and hit somebody that believes that the President should just give this up for political considerations.

The President, I think, has been pretty clear about why he’s made decisions during his time as President -- not because they’re easy, not because they’re in the next day’s political interests, but because they’re the right thing for the country.

So I think what has provided health care with the most momentum, quite honestly, in the past several weeks, are the insurance company rate increases.  I think they have crystallized for many across the country what happens.  We’ve seen report after report from Wall Street about what happens if reform fails.  They all agree that insurance companies, like the ones that raise rates, are likely to be the big winners out of this.

Q    And in delaying the trip, to what degree was that because of pressure from Democrats in Congress?  And did he -- did Nancy Pelosi specifically ask him to do this?

MR. GIBBS:  No, the President talked to the Speaker and the Majority Leader.  They discussed what would be most beneficial for this process, and agreed together to move the trip back a few days.  But the President and, as I said earlier, the Majority Leader and the Speaker believe it’s important that the President go on this trip.  Again, this is a very important region of the world.  If we don’t help lead in this region of the world, other people will.  It is in our national interest to have strong bilateral relationships with emerging democracies like Indonesia and important partners like Australia.

I’ve seen some people say, you know, well, why does the President have to do this, because there’s not some big multilateral conference that he’s attending, or this -- as I said, we’re at -- we have long -- long ago have been -- for quite some time we’ve been absent from, again, this important region of the world.  We have important partnerships that lead to increasing our security, increasing our economic growth, and increasing the likelihood that we deal with important problems in having strong bilateral relationships with places like Indonesia and Australia.

Q    And the central reason that the three of them decided that delaying the trip was the thing to do?

MR. GIBBS:  To give a little bit more time to get health care done.

Q    One other question.  You had said earlier in the week that the President was not calling individual members yet but --

MR. GIBBS:  He had not at that point.

Q    Okay, he has now.

MR. GIBBS:  He has -- I mean, obviously he’s talked to -- he’s had meetings with.  There have been other events that individuals have been here for.  I know obviously on Monday he had talked to members who had visited for, like, a PAYGO reception or things like that.  He has made individual calls now and I anticipate he’ll continue to do that.

Q    Is he spending most of his day or a good portion of his day doing that?

MR. GIBBS:  He’s spending part of his day.  I mean, again, he spent -- the Afghanistan meeting, Afghanistan/Pakistan update was scheduled for 60 minutes and the meeting went 90 today.

Q    Any chance we could get a call list of who he’s called?

MR. GIBBS:  Not likely.  (Laughter.)

Q    You said the President is leaving at 10:00 a.m. Sunday --

MR. GIBBS:  I think it’s 10:00 a.m., yes.

Q    -- the 21st, regardless of whether the House has voted or not?

MR. GIBBS:  The President is going on a trip on the 21st.

Q    Regardless of whether the House has voted or not?

MR. GIBBS:  The President is going on the 21st.

Q    You announced on Twitter this morning that -- this development and that the First Family would not be joining him.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Can you shed any light on why that particular decision was made?

MR. GIBBS:  Scheduling-wise, the way now the trip sits in the week is not as good for two young girls who have to go back to school at the conclusion of that trip.  I will say this:  This was -- and I should have said this yesterday, Chip, to your question -- even under the old itinerary, the President was not scheduled to stop at the house that he spent time in when he lived in Indonesia, nor was he scheduled to go to the school that he attended.  So I should have said that yesterday in answer to your question.  But the way now the trip sits in the week, it’s not as conducive for them to go.  And I will say when you get your renewed itinerary, you’ll see it’s a brisk trip.

Q    Members of the House who met with the President last week said that he told them that success on other high-priority pieces of legislation is predicated on success on health care -- energy, immigration.  Does the President believe that he will have a diminished chance of passing other items this year if health care is not passed in Congress?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I’ve not spoken directly with the President about what you’ve heard members say.  I think the President -- leaving aside what it does for any other issue, as I said earlier I think the President believes strongly in the desire to see progress on an issue that we’ve talked about for decades, to do something positive on behalf of those that are struggling with high costs, and dealing with insurance companies on preexisting conditions, and it’s important to get something done.

Q    Finally, the immigration groups, the leaders that were out in the driveway yesterday, said that they pressed the President for a bill in the Senate by the end of April.  Does the President want a bill in the Senate by the end of April?  Does he buy into that deadline?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I will say that in addition to meeting with activists, in addition to meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, as you know, the President met yesterday with Senators Schumer and Graham, pleased to get an update on their progress in forging a proposal to fix our immigration system.

The President -- they asked the President and he agreed to review their framework, and we’re in the process of doing that now.

Q    Can I follow on Mike?

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.

Q    Isn’t it more important for the girls to go to this trip and miss a few days of school, despite how brisk the trip is?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, it’s a decision I would leave to the parents, and I think it’s -- having a six-year-old, I think it’s important that they also spend some time -- Lord knows we’ve had enough snow days -- they spend some time in school.

But again, that’s way above -- that is above my pay grade by many, many rungs on the ladder.

Q    And by the way, that phrase “swing a cat,” if you swing most cats, you get scratched, you know.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I may do that right up here with the front row.  (Laughter.)

Go ahead.

Q    Robert --

MR. GIBBS:  I’m getting a little warm so I may change here in a second.  Go ahead.

Q    Looking ahead to this Ohio stuff on Monday, is there going to be a retooled message?  Will there be a -- like, more of a sense of urgency in the closing days?  What can we look for there?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think you’ll hear the President -- I think the President will spend time hitting a lot of the themes that he hit on Wednesday and on last Monday:  going through why reform is important; going through what it will do the minute he signs the legislation on behalf of millions of Americans; discussing what happens, again, if we decide now is not the time.  And I think he’ll reiterate again what I said earlier, in the fact that we’re doing this not because it’s easy; we’re doing this not because the President is concerned about or looking to the next election, but looking to the next generation.  And I think he’ll reiterate that it’s the important thing to do.

Q    One housekeeping question.  As Mike mentioned, you made this trip announcement on Twitter this morning.  It still hasn’t shown up on any of our usual vehicles through your office officially.  Is Twitter now going to become your vehicle of choice to tell us major things --

MR. GIBBS:  Part of the reason -- part of the reason I did that, I bet some of you got emails that I sent you several hours after I actually sent them to you because there were some email issues here at the White House and we felt like it was important to get a confirmation of that out.

I would say Twitter is a quick medium to get information out, and we’ll probably use it more often.

Q    You know, there are about 20 or 25 other Robert Gibbses on Twitter -- (laughter) -- some of them who deign to use your picture -- I don’t know why -- (laughter) -- or the presidential seal or the podium.  Are you concerned that one of these guys is going to hijack your message and, you know, maybe burn you at some point?

MR. GIBBS:  No.  I will say this, I mean, again, I think if you go to -- I don’t know how many Robert Gibbs there are, but if you go to @presssec, you’ll see that there is a verification for --

Q    There is, indeed.

MR. GIBBS:  So obviously --

Q    Several of them use that -- use a formulation with “presssec” in it, too.

Q    They’re very funny.

MR. GIBBS:  I think some of them are quite humorous.  I would, again, look for the verification, and of course we only make big announcements in hockey jerseys.  So I’d say look for that.

Yes, sir.

Q    On the Fed announcements, you mentioned there are three that are leading contenders.  Does that mean there are lagging contenders?  How big is the pool?

MR. GIBBS:  I wouldn’t get into characterizing.  I would just -- I put a few monikers on those names to describe where they are in the process.

Q    But there are other names in the process?

MR. GIBBS:  There are other names, sure.

Q    And what does it mean to be a leading indicator?  Does that mean they --

MR. GIBBS:  A leading contender.

Q    A leading contender.

MR. GIBBS:  It means you’ve done well in your weight class, you’ve done -- no.  I would say -- I would put those at the top of the President’s list.

Q    Have they spoken to the President?  Has the President offered them the job?

MR. GIBBS:  When we have official announcements, we’ll put them on Twitter.  (Laughter.)  I’m joking.  I’m joking.  I’m joking.  I’m joking.  Come on, I’m wearing a hockey jersey, for God’s sake.  (Laughter.)

Go ahead.

Q    Well, it makes it funnier, I guess.

MR. GIBBS:  It does.

Q    Is it fair to say, Robert, that next Thursday and Friday the President will devote almost all of his attention to dealing with health care -- the votes and the pending conversations he may be needing to have with House Democrats?

MR. GIBBS:  Major, I’m sure he’ll dedicate a good -- a portion of his day -- look, understanding that the -- there’s not a shortage of things that we could spend time with the President on that are very pressing.  The President starts -- generally starts each day with a daily intelligence briefing; almost always has an economic daily briefing; a series of meetings with senior advisors.

Again, I assume he’ll spend certainly a portion of his day dealing with the issues of health care, but I have no doubt that we’ll -- we’ll put on additional meetings on other topics that are of importance, whether they’re the economy or whether they’re national security.

Q    And the meeting yesterday, Senator Graham represented afterwards that he told the President face to face that if reconciliation is used for health care in the Senate, that will kill any hope of putting immigration on the agenda as a doable item for the remainder of this legislative session.  Does the President have any reaction to that?

MR. GIBBS:  I have not talked to him directly about that statement.  I doubt the President would have agreed with that.

Q    Why?

MR. GIBBS:  As we’ve talked about in this instance and about this issue before, reconciliation is something that has -- is a legislative tool that’s been used on many, many occasions, particularly as it relates to things like health care.  And we talked about the fact that the Children’s Health Insurance Program was done through reconciliation; the COBRA program was done through reconciliation.  I don’t know that Senator Graham believed that --

Q    So would it be the President’s perspective that that would be an alarmist --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, hold on, let me -- I don’t believe that --  I don’t believe that Senator Graham thought that it would do damage to the legislative priorities of a President when in 2001 and in 2003 tax cuts went through reconciliation.  So I wouldn’t characterize it except to say I doubt the President agrees with it.

Q    Okay.  One issue that’s come up for Luis Gutierrez, who I believe attended the meeting with the President yesterday with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus --

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have a list of the -- we had a list of -- I think we put out a list of invitees.  I do not know who was there.  I can certainly check and see if Representative Gutierrez was there.

Q    Okay.  One issue he raised today -- he still remains concerned, and he was when he voted for the House bill, about restrictions in the Senate bill, which of course is the underlying legislation, and there are no known fixes being proposed on immigration that I’m aware of -- please tell me if I’m wrong -- that the Senate language is simply too restrictive and it doesn’t allow undocumented workers, even with their own money, to purchase in the health exchange system, and would keep them -- prevent them from doing that for five years.  He now says publicly he will vote no.  Is that a concern to the White House?  Is there something that the White House is open to in dealing with that issue in fixing the legislation?  Or is that something that needs to --

MR. GIBBS:  Let me check with Legislative Affairs.  I know that -- I don’t know the degree to which -- I was not in yesterday’s meeting so I can certainly try to check on that.

Q    Robert, yesterday you said some of the President’s big priorities after health care are financial regulatory reform and the Citizens United case.  What did you mean by that?  In other words, what can you do specifically about that ruling?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, the legislation right now with Senator Schumer and Congressman Van Hollen that would address some of the things that were opened up as a result of that Supreme Court ruling.

We’ve certainly looked at that legislation, and I think counsel and others are evaluating that and other vehicles in order to address -- to address what the Supreme Court opened up in their ruling.

Q    One more question while you have the USA sweater on there.  I draw your attention to a Web site that’s posted a letter to “Barack the Red” -- not what you think it means.

MR. GIBBS:  Do I need to get my Canadian jersey back?

Q    No.  (Laughter.)  They write, “These are trying times.  Unemployment is in double digits … Audacity?  Check out number eight, Alexander Ovechkin.  Hope?  This season has found the Capitals with better postseason prospects than any other year.”  They plaintively write at the end here, “The Capitals bandwagon is filling up quickly, but we need a leader.”  (Laughter.)  Will the President commit to going to a Washington Capitals game this season?

MR. GIBBS:  I can’t say --

Q    It would be his first hockey game ever, right?

MR. GIBBS:  I can’t say -- no, I think he’s been to -- I’ll check and see if he’s been to a game in Chicago or not -- less so in Hawaii.  I will check on whether he’s been to a game before.  I don’t know whether he’ll do that before March 18th, but --

Q    He’s got a couple extra days now.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Come on, guys.  It’s Friday, for God’s sakes.  (Laughter.)

Look, I think he would very much enjoy going.  Obviously the last time he ventured out to a sporting event, Georgetown looked like they did yesterday, not like they did in the previous several weeks.  So, look, I know he enjoys going out there.  I know that -- I think we’ve gotten invitations from the owner to go.  And I know he’d be -- he can borrow my jersey.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Robert, I wanted to ask you about the Afghanistan meeting today.  Did the issue of reconciliation -- not health care -- (laughter) -- but the reconciliation with the Taliban come up?  Officials have said in the past that they think that the U.S. should only do that from a position of strength.

MR. GIBBS:  I will say, Helene, I left with about two or three minutes to go in the meeting.  They were just getting to -- or I should I say I left when I thought two or three minutes were left in the meeting.  I will find out if there were additional conversations.  This was something the President was bringing up as I left the meeting after about an hour and a half.  So let me see if there’s any additional information on that.

Yes, sir.

Q    Thank you, Robert.  Two questions on Pennsylvania.  First, last week both major parties chose candidates for the western Pennsylvania seat of the late John Murtha.  The President campaigned for Bill Owens in New York last year and for Ms. Coakley in Massachusetts.  Does he plan to campaign for Mr. Critz?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have any scheduling information on that, and I can certainly check with Political Affairs.

Q    And the other thing:  Do you have an answer yet on Mr. Sestak’s charge?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have any more information on that.

Peter.  Oh, I’m sorry, I’m sorry -- go ahead.

Q    Robert -- thank you, Robert.  When all is said and done, isn’t it really more for image that the President -- are you going to take off your --

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, it’s getting a little warm in here, and it’s not just me.

Q    Looks pretty good.

MR. GIBBS:  Go ahead, I’m listening.  I can do two things at once, guys.

Q    Absolutely.  When all is said and done, isn’t it really a good argument that the President is going to go to -- going to postpone his trip really for image and not really for substance?  You said before that he does have a telephone -- a cell phone on the plane; he’s in touch with everybody; he could do it here.  But, frankly, there’s a lot of heat I think being generated that he’s away from maybe some people think he should be here.  So how do you respond to those kinds of concerns?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, the President shouldn’t go at all?

Q    No, not that -- yes, you’ve made the point it’s a good trip.  But --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, no, it’s an important trip; right.

Q    An important trip.

MR. GIBBS:  Maybe I don’t -- I’m failing to understand -- give me the first part of your question.

Q    The President is now not going -- now postponing his trip.  Couldn’t the argument be made that it’s more for image, that he really can do everything, as you’ve said before, on the trip that he can do here, and now he’s reversing course?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I -- look, I -- as I said, certainly the plane comes, in many ways regrettably, with all that equipment that would allow him to be in touch.  I think everybody believed that him being here was more important.

The trip -- we didn’t postpone the trip for any image sake.  I think the -- in the discussion that the President had with the Speaker and the Majority Leader in the Senate, it was agreed upon that, quite frankly, we could do -- we could give a few extra days here to what they needed as well as keep -- and I will say our scheduling guys have done a heroic job of keeping the trip intact in an important region of the world.

So this is not done for anything other than a few extra days to work on getting health care reform through the process, as well as keeping that important trip.

Q    Has he got a few people that he’s specifically earmarking to talk to that he thinks might be able to change their minds, those who voted for and now might vote against, or people he thinks he might be able to --

MR. GIBBS:  Look, without getting into a lot of names, I think we’ve all seen folks that have said they want to take a look at what the new legislation is.  Again, I think people are rightly waiting for an evaluation from CBO as a way of answering some of the questions that they have.  I think the President certainly will talk to people about, again, why he thinks the bill is important and why he thinks it does so many good things on cost and things like that.

Peter.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  On immigration reform, will the President work to round up more Republican co-sponsors for the bill that Schumer and Graham are working on?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me not get ahead of the President’s evaluation process of the framework that they walked him through some yesterday.

Q    And also, do you expect that the President may give a public statement or a speech of any kind on immigration, maybe before the rally in Washington on the 21st?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me check with scheduling.  I know the -- look, I will say this, I know the President committed to Senators Schumer and Graham, to the Hispanic Caucus, and to activists, as I think you read in his statement yesterday, the importance of and his strong belief in getting comprehensive reform done.  He’s a supporter of that, and obviously it is our strong hope that we can make progress on this.

Q    Robert, there’s talk on the Hill about putting the President’s student loan proposal into the health care bill.  What does that have to do with health care, and why would that go in there?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t think any final decisions have been made.  Obviously one way of getting important reforms through the legislative process would be in this vehicle.  I think this is -- these are reforms that are good for students; they’re really good for taxpayers; they’re bad for special interests.

I don’t think -- again, I don’t think any final decisions have been made on Capitol Hill.  I would point you up there.  I know the President is a strong believer in a reform system that would cut out the middleman on borrowing money for millions of kids to go to college.

Q    Is it because -- I mean, but it also would save money.  Is it because it would bring down the overall cost of the package, including the health care part?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have anything on that.  Again, I know this is an important reform for the President.

Yes, sir.

Q    Thank you, Robert.  On Afghanistan and the meeting this morning, as General McChrystal -- is he satisfied with the NATO involvement in the Marja offensive -- the British and the Canadians were involved.  And knowing that NATO hasn’t been able yet to reach the goal of several thousand NATO soldiers on the ground, has the President or does the President intend to reach to NATO leaders, and the Canadian Prime Minister in particular, on this topic?

MR. GIBBS:  NATO came up in the sense of discussing their contributions and in walking through the commitment that we need, quite honestly, from all of our partners, particularly in the realm of training.  We did not discuss in the meeting any additional steps that the President might take.

Again, the President and many on the team understand the importance of what we have to do in -- not just in force contributions.  As I mentioned, General McChrystal believed that the pace of force flow from what the President had asked for was on schedule.  But we have critical improvements that have to be made as it relates to an Afghan national army and critical improvements that have to be made in an Afghan national police and the importance of getting additional trainers from NATO countries to Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

We are -- in these meetings, the President has gone through and looked at monthly recruitment and retention goals because at some point we’re going -- we’re not going to be there forever.  And the Afghan national army -- and in many districts not only are we going to need improved governance but we’re going to need a police force that can keep the peace.

So that came up, but there were no -- there was no discussion of additional calls by the President.

Yes, sir.  Oh, Stephen, you didn’t have -- I thought you had some.

Q    Actually, just on that subject, will the President perhaps make a new request to Australia during his trip for more help in Afghanistan for perhaps trainers rather than combat troops?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me check with NSC on that.  That was not discussed.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Robert, back on the issue of the public option, now that it’s off of life support and it’s now one of the casualties of the fight for health care reform, is the President looking at passage and then possibly going back after the passage to tweak it?  And the reason why I ask that -- some members of the Congressional Black Caucus who were for the public option and now are saying, okay, there have problems before when we passed something and we’ve come back to tweak it, like on Medicare, Social Security.  Is that the President’s mindset as well, and did he talk to them about that?  Did they have that kind of discussion yesterday?

MR. GIBBS:  I will check with folks that -- I was not in that meeting because that was taking place during my briefing.  I don’t know whether that was something that was discussed.  I know that the -- again, the President is focused on the legislation that we have at hand and in trying to get that through and I think that’s what, again --

Q    So he’s not looking down at the road at re-tweaks.  He’s just looking --

MR. GIBBS:  Right now we’re focused on -- we can’t re-tweak anything that we can’t get passed, and that’s what our focus is at the moment.

Q    Robert, as you know, you had a little bit of a hiccup there at the end with the confirmation of Ben Bernanke at the Fed.  Neither one of these three potential appointees seem to have a lot of small business experience; they’re fairly mainstream folks from the financial world.  Five senators have just put out a letter to the President requesting that these three appointees have real-world experience, experience with the middle class and small business owners.  Do these three folks have that kind of experience, and how do you respond to those concerns?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m happy to look at the letter.  I think that these are strong contenders.  They have strong credentials.  They have good experience.  I’m happy to look at the letter and maybe have a better comment on it then.

George.

Q    Boehner and McConnell have put out their names for the deficit commission.  Do you have any reaction to those names?  And when do you hope that commission gets up and working?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think it’s a positive development for the commission that while there was some concern about whether Republicans would put forward names they now have, and I think that’s an important and a positive development, we think and hope that the rest of those names will be coming forward soon.

Look, I think the President believes that this is an important -- an important commission to look at all of the aspects of what this government spends money on and to evaluate its sustainability in the future.

Obviously you’ve got many -- many of those choices have put forward, in the case of Congressman Ryan or in others, their own plans in the past, and I’m sure that will -- that will govern many of the recommendations and advice that some of those members have.  Again, our strong hope is that in the next few weeks, not only will the commission be filled out but we’ll have staff in place and that the commission can meet soon in order to generate recommendations, hopefully that Congress can act on quickly.

Ken.

Q    Robert, my understanding is that they’re going to start marking up the reconciliation bill at the same time that we’re going to be dealing with trying to get the Senate bill passed.  What’s the White House role in that?  And also, won’t that be a little bit confusing to be working on sort of two tracks of health care at once?

MR. GIBBS:  No, no, look, I think the -- obviously the House will take up the measure.  The Budget Committee has to take up in the House reconciliation, begin that process.  I think the Speaker has said that that will be posted on the Internet for some period of time.

I don’t think it will be confusing because I do think that, at this point, people understand that this is a -- this is a two-step process that has to get done before we can wrap health care up altogether.

Thanks, guys.  Have a good weekend.

END
3:03 P.M. EST

In recognition of the deep ties between the United States and Mexico, First Lady Michelle Obama will visit Mexico City, Mexico, April 13-15, on her first solo official trip as First Lady.  Mrs. Obama’s international agenda will amplify the President’s commitment to advancing mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual responsibility between nations and peoples around the world.  During this visit, Mrs. Obama will have the opportunity to engage the citizens of Mexico, particularly young people, and build on her recent conversation with Mexican First Lady Margarita Zavala de Calderon on the issues of education and economic advancement in both countries .  

This evening President Obama met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) to discuss a variety of critical issues confronting Hispanics and all Americans, in particular the need to act now to pass health care reform. The President thanked the members for their hard work over the past year, and acknowledged the progress that has been made on the economy while also expressing his concern for long-term unemployment. The President also updated the Caucus members on his meetings earlier in the day with grassroots activists and Senators Schumer and Graham on immigration reform, and reiterated his strong commitment to fixing the broken immigration system.

The members of the CHC also acknowledged the progress that has been made over the past year, including on expanding health care for children through CHIP, on job creation and economic recovery, and highlighted the Hispanic community’s interest in immigration reform. After a thorough discussion of health care reform, the President and the CHC agreed to continue to work together to make health insurance more affordable and accessible, and to give the American people more control over their own health care.

The President was joined at the meeting by Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Phil Schiliro, and White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz.

This afternoon, President Obama met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss the economy, job creation and the need to pass health care reform.  President Obama acknowledged the progress that has been made on the economy while also expressing his concern for long-term unemployment.  He requested that Members provide specific recommendations to the challenges concerning job creation. 

After remarks by Chairwoman Lee discussing the impact of the economy in economically distressed communities and the need for additional assistance in these areas, Members presented their concerns and solutions for broadening the impact of the recovery effort.  

The meeting participants agreed there are a number of things that can be done to impact unemployment immediately and in the long term including summer youth employment, job training tied to apprenticeships, a review of Recovery Act contracting to ensure access to these opportunities is fair and equitable, and an appreciation for the jobs that can be generated through weatherization programs and the passage of health care reform.

The meeting concluded with Congressman Lewis calling for a victory for the American people with the passage of health care reform.