Presidential politics

Statement by President Obama on the Passing of Stewart Udall

WASHINGTON – Below please find a statement by President Obama on the passing of former Congressman and Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall:

“For the better part of three decades, Stewart Udall served this nation honorably.  Whether in the skies above Italy in World War II, in Congress or as Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall left an indelible mark on this nation and inspired countless Americans who will continue his fight for clean air, clean water and to maintain our many natural treasures.  Michelle and I extend our condolences to the entire Udall family who continue his legacy of public service to this day.”

###
 

Remarks by the President to the House Democratic Congress

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you, everybody.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  Everybody, please have a set.

To Leader Reid, to Steny Hoyer, John Larson, Xavier Becerra, Jim Clyburn, Chris Van Hollen, to an extraordinary leader and extraordinary Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and to all the members here today, thank you very much for having me.  (Applause.)  Thanks for having me and thanks for your tireless efforts waged on behalf of health insurance reform in this country. 

I have the great pleasure of having a really nice library at the White House.  And I was tooling through some of the writings of some previous Presidents and I came upon this quote by Abraham Lincoln:  “I am not bound to win, but I’m bound to be true.  I’m not bound to succeed, but I’m bound to live up to what light I have.”

This debate has been a difficult debate.  This process has been a difficult process.  And this year has been a difficult year for the American people.  When I was sworn in, we were in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.  Eight hundred thousand people per month were losing their jobs.  Millions of people were losing their health insurance.  And the financial system was on the verge of collapse.

And this body has taken on some of the toughest votes and some of the toughest decisions in the history of Congress.  Not because you were bound to win, but because you were bound to be true.  Because each and every one of you made a decision that at a moment of such urgency, it was less important to measure what the polls said than to measure what was right.

A year later, we’re in different circumstances.  Because of the actions that you’ve taken, the financial system has stabilized.  The stock market has stabilized.  Businesses are starting to invest again.  The economy, instead of contracting, is now growing again.  There are signs that people are going to start hiring again.  There’s still tremendous hardship all across the country, but there is a sense that we are making progress -- because of you.

But even before this crisis, each and every one of us knew that there were millions of people across America who were living their own quiet crises.  Maybe because they had a child who had a preexisting condition and no matter how desperate they were, no matter what insurance company they called, they couldn’t get coverage for that child.  Maybe it was somebody who had been forced into early retirement, in their 50s not yet eligible for Medicare, and they couldn’t find a job and they couldn’t find health insurance, despite the fact that they had some sort of chronic condition that had to be tended to.

     Every single one of you at some point before you arrived in Congress and after you arrived in Congress have met constituents with heart-breaking stories.  And you’ve looked them in the eye and you’ve said, we’re going to do something about it -- that’s why I want to go to Congress. 

And now, we’re on the threshold of doing something about it.  We’re a day away.  After a year of debate, after every argument has been made, by just about everybody, we’re 24 hours away. 

As some of you know, I’m not somebody who spends a lot of time surfing the cable channels, but I’m not completely in the bubble.  I have a sense of what the coverage has been, and mostly it’s an obsession with “What will this mean for the Democratic Party?  What will this mean for the President’s polls?  How will this play out in November?  Is this good or is this bad for the Democratic majority?  What does it mean for those swing districts?” 

And I noticed that there’s been a lot of friendly advice offered all across town.  (Laughter.)  Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Karl Rove -- they’re all warning you of the horrendous impact if you support this legislation.  Now, it could be that they are suddenly having a change of heart and they are deeply concerned about their Democratic friends.  (Laughter.)  They are giving you the best possible advice in order to assure that Nancy Pelosi remains Speaker and Harry Reid remains Leader and that all of you keep your seats.  That’s a possibility.  (Laughter.)

But it may also be possible that they realize after health reform passes and I sign that legislation into law, that it’s going to be a little harder to mischaracterize what this effort has been all about. 

Because this year, small businesses will start getting tax credits so that they can offer health insurance to employees who currently don’t have it.  (Applause.)  Because this year, those same parents who are worried about getting coverage for their children with preexisting conditions now are assured that insurance companies have to give them coverage -- this year.  (Applause.) 

Because this year, insurance companies won’t suddenly be able to drop your coverage when you get sick -- (applause) -- or impose lifetime limits or restrictive limits on the coverage that you have.  Maybe they know that this year, for the first time, young people will be able to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26 years old and they’re thinking that just might be popular all across the country.  (Applause.)

And what they also know is what won’t happen.  They know that after this legislation passes and after I sign this bill, lo and behold nobody is pulling the plug on Granny.  (Laughter.)  It turns out that in fact people who like their health insurance are going to be able to keep their health insurance; that there’s no government takeover.  People will discover that if they like their doctor, they’ll be keeping their doctor.  In fact, they’re more likely to keep their doctor because of a stronger system.

It’ll turn out that this piece of historic legislation is built on the private insurance system that we have now and runs straight down the center of American political thought.  It turns out this is a bill that tracks the recommendations not just of Democrat Tom Daschle, but also Republicans Bob Dole and Howard Baker; that this is a middle-of-the-road bill that is designed to help the American people in an area of their lives where they urgently need help.

Now, there are some who wanted a single-payer government-run system.  That’s not this bill.  The Republicans wanted what I called the “foxes guard the henhouse approach” in which we further deregulate the insurance companies and let them run wild, the notion being somehow that that was going to lower costs for the American people.  I don’t know a serious health care economist who buys that idea, but that was their concept.  And we rejected that, because what we said was we want to create a system in which health care is working not for insurance companies but it’s working for the American people, it’s working for middle class families.

So what did we do?  What is the essence of this legislation?  Number one, this is the toughest insurance reforms in history.  (Applause.)  We are making sure that the system of private insurance works for ordinary families.  A prescription -- this is a patient’s bill of rights on steroids.  So many of you individually have worked on these insurance reforms -- they are in this package -- to make sure that families are getting a fair deal; that if they’re paying a premium, that they’re getting a good service in return; making sure that employers, if they are paying premiums for their employees, that their employees are getting the coverage that they expect; that insurance companies are not going to game the system with fine print and rescissions and dropping people when they need it most, but instead are going to have to abide by some basic rules of the road that exemplify a sense of fairness and good value.  That’s number one.

The second thing this does is it creates a pool, a marketplace, where individuals and small businesses, who right now are having a terrible time out there getting health insurance, are going to be able to purchase health insurance as part of a big group -- just like federal employees, just like members of Congress.  They are now going to be part of a pool that can negotiate for better rates, better quality, more competition. 

And that’s why the Congressional Budget Office says this will lower people’s rates for comparable plans by 14 to 20 percent. That’s not my numbers -- that’s the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers.  So that people will have choice and competition just like members of Congress have choice and competition.

Number three, if people still can’t afford it we’re going to provide them some tax credits -- the biggest tax cut for small businesses and working families when it comes to health care in history.  (Applause.)

And number four, this is the biggest reduction in our deficit since the Budget Balance Act -- one of the biggest deficit reduction measures in history -- over $1.3 trillion that will help put us on the path of fiscal responsibility.  (Applause.)

And that’s before we count all the game-changing measures that are going to assure, for example, that instead of having five tests when you go to the doctor you just get one; that the delivery system is working for patients, not just working for billings.  And everybody who’s looked at it says that every single good idea to bend the cost curve and start actually reducing health care costs are in this bill.

So that’s what this effort is all about.  Toughest insurance reforms in history.  A marketplace so people have choice and competition who right now don’t have it and are seeing their premiums go up 20, 30, 40, 50 percent.  Reductions in the cost of health care for millions of American families, including those who have health insurance.  The Business Roundtable did their own study and said that this would potentially save employers $3,000 per employee on their health care because of the measures in this legislation. 

And by the way, not only does it reduce the deficit -- we pay for it responsibly in ways that the other side of the aisle that talks a lot about fiscal responsibility but doesn’t seem to be able to walk the walk can’t claim when it comes to their prescription drug bill.  We are actually doing it.  (Applause.)  This is paid for and will not add a dime to the deficit -- it will reduce the deficit.  (Applause.)

Now, is this bill perfect?  Of course not.  Will this solve every single problem in our health care system right away?  No.  There are all kinds of ideas that many of you have that aren’t included in this legislation.  I know that there has been discussion, for example, of how we’re going to deal with regional disparities and I know that there was a meeting with Secretary Sebelius to assure that we can continue to try to make sure that we’ve got a system that gives people the best bang for their buck.  (Applause.)

So this is not -- there are all kinds of things that many of you would like to see that isn’t in this legislation.  There are some things I’d like to see that’s not in this legislation.  But is this the single most important step that we have taken on health care since Medicare?  Absolutely.  Is this the most important piece of domestic legislation in terms of giving a break to hardworking middle class families out there since Medicare?  Absolutely.  Is this a vast improvement over the status quo?  Absolutely.

Now, I still know this is a tough vote, though.  I know this is a tough vote.  I’ve talked to many of you individually.  And I have to say that if you honestly believe in your heart of hearts, in your conscience, that this is not an improvement over the status quo; if despite all the information that’s out there that says that without serious reform efforts like this one people’s premiums are going to double over the next five or 10 years, that folks are going to keep on getting letters from their insurance companies saying that their premium just went up 40 or 50 percent; if you think that somehow it’s okay that we have millions of hardworking Americans who can’t get health care and that it’s all right, it’s acceptable, in the wealthiest nation on Earth that there are children with chronic illnesses that can’t get the care that they need -- if you think that the system is working for ordinary Americans rather than the insurance companies, then you should vote no on this bill.  If you can honestly say that, then you shouldn’t support it.  You’re here to represent your constituencies and if you think your constituencies honestly wouldn’t be helped, you shouldn’t vote for this.

But if you agree that the system is not working for ordinary families, if you’ve heard the same stories that I’ve heard everywhere, all across the country, then help us fix this system.  Don't do it for me.  Don’t do it for Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.  Do it for all those people out there who are struggling. 

Some of you know I get 10 letters a day that I read out of the 40,000 that we receive.  Started reading some of the ones that I got this morning.  “Dear President Obama, my daughter, a wonderful person, lost her job.  She has no health insurance.  She had a blood clot in her brain.  She’s now disabled, can’t get care.”  “Dear President Obama, I don’t yet qualify for Medicare.  COBRA is about to run out.  I am desperate, don't know what to do.”

Do it for them.  Do it for people who are really scared right now through no fault of their own, who’ve played by the rules, who’ve done all the right things, and have suddenly found out that because of an accident, because of an ailment, they’re about to lose their house; or they can’t provide the help to their kids that they need; or they’re a small business who up until now has always taken pride in providing care for their workers and it turns out that they just can’t afford to do it anymore and they’ve having to make a decision about do I keep providing health insurance for my workers or do I just drop their coverage or do I not hire some people because I simply can’t afford it -- it’s all being gobbled up by the insurance companies.

Don’t do it for me.  Don’t do it for the Democratic Party.  Do it for the American people.  They’re the ones who are looking for action right now.  (Applause.)

I know this is a tough vote.  And I am actually confident -- I’ve talked to some of you individually -- that it will end up being the smart thing to do politically because I believe that good policy is good politics.  (Applause.)  I am convinced that when you go out there and you are standing tall and you are saying I believe that this is the right thing to do for my constituents and the right thing to do for America, that ultimately the truth will out.

I had a wonderful conversation with Betsy Markey.  I don't know if Betsy is around here.  There she is right there.  (Applause.)  Betsy is in a tough district.  The biggest newspaper is somewhat conservative, as Betsy described.  They weren’t real happy with health care reform.  They were opposed to it.  Betsy, despite the pressure, announced that she was in favor of this bill.  And lo and behold, the next day that same newspaper runs an editorial saying, you know what, we’ve considered this, we’ve looked at the legislation, and we actually are pleased that Congresswoman Markey is supporting the legislation.  (Applause.) 

When I see John Boccieri stand up proud with a whole bunch of his constituencies -- (applause) -- in as tough a district as there is and stand up with a bunch of folks from his district with preexisting conditions and saying, you know, I don’t know what is going on Washington but I know what’s going on with these families -- I look at him with pride.

Now, I can’t guarantee that this is good politics.  Every one of you know your districts better than I do.  You talk to folks.  You’re under enormous pressure.  You’re getting robocalls.  You’re getting e-mails that are tying up the communications system.  I know the pressure you’re under.  I get a few comments made about me.  I don’t know if you’ve noticed.  (Laughter.)  I’ve been in your shoes.  I know what it’s like to take a tough vote.

But what did Lincoln say?  “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true.”  Two generations ago, folks who were sitting in your position, they made a decision -- we are going to make sure that seniors and the poor have health care coverage that they can count on.  And they did the right thing. 

And I’m sure at the time they were making that vote, they weren’t sure how the politics were either, any more than the people who made the decision to make sure that Social Security was in place knew how the politics would play out, or folks who passed the civil rights acts knew how the politics were going to play out.  They were not bound to win, but they were bound to be true.

And now we’ve got middle class Americans, don’t have Medicare, don’t have Medicaid, watching the employer-based system fray along the edges or being caught in terrible situations.  And the question is, are we going to be true to them? 

Sometimes I think about how I got involved in politics.  I didn’t think of myself as a potential politician when I get out of college.  I went to work in neighborhoods, working with Catholic churches in poor neighborhoods in Chicago, trying to figure out how people could get a little bit of help.  And I was skeptical about politics and politicians, just like a lot of Americans are skeptical about politics and politicians are right now.  Because my working assumption was when push comes to shove, all too often folks in elected office, they’re looking for themselves and not looking out for the folks who put them there; that there are too many compromises; that the special interests have too much power; they just got too much clout; there’s too much big money washing around.

And I decided finally to get involved because I realized if I wasn’t willing to step up and be true to the things I believe in, then the system wouldn’t change.  Every single one of you had that same kind of moment at the beginning of your careers.  Maybe it was just listening to stories in your neighborhood about what was happening to people who’d been laid off of work.  Maybe it was your own family experience, somebody got sick and didn’t have health care and you said something should change. 

Something inspired you to get involved, and something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican.  Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don’t just look out for ourselves, that we don’t just tell people you’re on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community -- (applause) -- and we are willing to look out for one another and help people who are vulnerable and help people who are down on their luck and give them a pathway to success and give them a ladder into the middle class.  That’s why you decided to run.  (Applause.)

And now a lot of us have been here a while and everybody here has taken their lumps and their bruises.  And it turns out people have had to make compromises, and you’ve been away from families for a long time and you’ve missed special events for your kids sometimes.  And maybe there have been times where you asked yourself, why did I ever get involved in politics in the first place?  And maybe things can’t change after all.  And when you do something courageous, it turns out sometimes you may be attacked.  And sometimes the very people you thought you were trying to help may be angry at you and shout at you.  And you say to yourself, maybe that thing that I started with has been lost. 

But you know what?  Every once in a while, every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made in all those town meetings and all those constituency breakfasts and all that traveling through the district, all those people who you looked in the eye and you said, you know what, you’re right, the system is not working for you and I’m going to make it a little bit better. 

And this is one of those moments.  This is one of those times where you can honestly say to yourself, doggone it, this is exactly why I came here.  This is why I got into politics.  This is why I got into public service.  This is why I’ve made those sacrifices.  Because I believe so deeply in this country and I believe so deeply in this democracy and I’m willing to stand up even when it’s hard, even when it’s tough.

Every single one of you have made that promise not just to your constituents but to yourself.  And this is the time to make true on that promise.  We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true.  We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.  We have been debating health care for decades.  It has now been debated for a year.  It is in your hands.  It is time to pass health care reform for America, and I am confident that you are going to do it tomorrow. 

Thank you very much, House of Representatives.  Let’s get this done.  (Applause.)

END          
4:24 P.M. EDT

Weekly Address: President Obama Urges Action on Financial Reform

WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Barack Obama reiterated his call for comprehensive reforms to the financial system including commonsense rules of the road and a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that will advocate for everyday Americans. The President also urged the Senate to remain strong and resist the pressure of those who wish to preserve the status quo.

The audio and video will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 am ET, Saturday, March 20, 2010.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
Weekly Address
March 20, 2010

On Monday, the Banking Committee of the United States Senate will debate a proposal to address the abuse and excess that led to the worst financial crisis in generations.  These reforms are essential.  As I’ve urged over the past year, we need common-sense rules that will our allow markets to function fairly and freely while reining in the worst practices of the financial industry.  That’s the central lesson of this crisis.  And we fail to heed that lesson at our peril.

Of course, there were many causes of the economic turmoil that ripped through our country over the past two years.  But it was a crisis that began in our financial system.  Large banks engaged in reckless financial speculation without regard for the consequences – and without tough oversight.  Financial firms invented and sold complicated financial products to escape scrutiny and conceal enormous risks.  And there were some who engaged in the rampant exploitation of consumers to turn a quick profit no matter who was hurt in the process. 

Now, I have long been a vigorous defender of free markets.  And I believe we need a strong and vibrant financial sector so that businesses can get loans; families can afford mortgages; entrepreneurs can find the capital to start a new company, sell a new product, offer a new service.  But what we have seen over the past two years is that without reasonable and clear rules to check abuse and protect families, markets don’t function freely.  In fact, it was just the opposite.  In the absence of such rules, our financial markets spun out of control, credit markets froze, and our economy nearly plummeted into a second Great Depression.

That’s why financial reform is so necessary.  And after months of bipartisan work, Senator Chris Dodd and his committee have offered a strong foundation for reform, in line with the proposal I previously laid out, and in line with the reform bill passed by the House. 

It would provide greater scrutiny of large financial firms to prevent any one company from threatening the entire financial system – and it would update the rules so that complicated financial products like derivatives are no longer bought and sold without oversight.  It would prevent banks from engaging in risky dealings through their own hedge funds – while finally giving shareholders a say on executive salaries and bonuses.  And through new tools to break up failing financial firms, it would help ensure that taxpayers are never again forced to bail out a big bank because it is “too big to fail.”

Finally, these reforms include a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to prevent predatory loan practices and other abuses to ensure that consumers get clear information about loans and other financial products before they sign on the dotted line.  Because this financial crisis wasn’t just the result of decisions made by large financial firms; it was also the result of decisions made by ordinary Americans to open credit cards and take on mortgages.  And while there were many who took out loans they knew they couldn’t afford, there were also millions of people who signed contracts they didn’t fully understand offered by lenders who didn’t always tell the truth.

This is in part because the job of protecting consumers is spread across seven different federal agencies, none of which has the interests of ordinary Americans as its principal concern.  This diffusion of responsibility has made it easier for credit card companies to lure customers with attractive offers then punish them in the fine print; for payday lenders and others who charge outrageous interest to operate without much oversight; and for mortgage brokers to entice homebuyers with low initial rates only to trap them with ballooning payments down the line. 

For these banking reforms to be complete – for these reforms to meet the measure of the crisis we’ve just been through – we need a consumer agency to advocate for ordinary Americans and help enforce the rules that protect them.  That’s why I won’t accept any attempts to undermine the independence of this agency.  And I won’t accept efforts to create loopholes for the most egregious abusers of consumers, from payday lenders to auto finance companies to credit card companies. 

Unsurprisingly, this proposal has been a source of contention with financial firms who like things just the way they are.  In fact, the Republican leader in the House reportedly met with a top executive of one of America’s largest banks and made thwarting reform a key part of his party’s pitch for campaign contributions.  And this week, the allies of banks and consumer finance companies launched a multimillion dollar ad campaign to fight against the proposal.  You might call this ‘air support’ for the army of lobbyists already arm twisting members of the committee to reject these reforms and block this consumer agency.  Perhaps that’s why, after months of working with Democrats, Republicans walked away from this proposal.  I regret that and urge them to reconsider.

The fact is, it’s now been well over a year since the near collapse of the entire financial system – a crisis that helped wipe out more than 8 million jobs and that continues to exact a terrible toll throughout our economy.  Yet today the very same system that allowed this turmoil remains in place.  No one disputes that.  No one denies that reform is needed.  So the question we have to answer is very simple: will we learn from this crisis, or will we condemn ourselves to repeat it?  That’s what’s at stake.

I urge those in the Senate who support these reforms to remain strong, to resist the pressure from those who would preserve the status quo, to stand up for their constituents and our country.   And I promise to use every tool at my disposal to see these reforms enacted: to ensure that the bill I sign into law reflects not the special interests of Wall Street, but the best interests of the American people.

Thank you.

Remarks of President Obama Marking Nowruz

download Persian translation | download Arabic translation

Today, I want to extend my best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz in the United States and around the world. On this New Year’s celebration, friends and family have a unique opportunity to reflect on the year gone by; to celebrate their time together; and to share in their hopes for the future.

One year ago, I chose this occasion to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and to offer a new chapter of engagement on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect. I did so with no illusions. For three decades, the United States and Iran have been alienated from one another. Iran’s leaders have sought their own legitimacy through hostility to America. And we continue to have serious differences on many issues.

I said, last year, that the choice for a better future was in the hands of Iran’s leaders. That remains true today. Together with the international community, the United States acknowledges your right to peaceful nuclear energy – we insist only that you adhere to the same responsibilities that apply to other nations. We are familiar with your grievances from the past – we have our own grievances as well, but we are prepared to move forward. We know what you’re against; now tell us what you’re for.

For reasons known only to them, the leaders of Iran have shown themselves unable to answer that question. You have refused good faith proposals from the international community. They have turned their backs on a pathway that would bring more opportunity to all Iranians, and allow a great civilization to take its rightful place in the community of nations. Faced with an extended hand, Iran’s leaders have shown only a clenched fist.

Last June, the world watched with admiration, as Iranians sought to exercise their universal right to be heard. But tragically, the aspirations of the Iranian people were also met with a clenched fist, as people marching silently were beaten with batons; political prisoners were rounded up and abused; absurd and false accusations were leveled against the United States and the West; and people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.

The United States does not meddle in Iran’s internal affairs. Our commitment – our responsibility – is to stand up for those rights that should be universal to all human beings. That includes the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear; the right to the equal administration of justice, and to express your views without facing retribution against you or your families.

I want the Iranian people to know what my country stands for. The United States believes in the dignity of every human being, and an international order that bends the arc of history in the direction of justice – a future where Iranians can exercise their rights, to participate fully in the global economy, and enrich the world through educational and cultural exchanges beyond Iran’s borders. That is the future that we seek. That is what America is for.

That is why, even as we continue to have differences with the Iranian government, we will sustain our commitment to a more hopeful future for the Iranian people.  For instance, by increasing opportunities for educational exchanges so that Iranian students can come to our colleges and universities and to our efforts to ensure that Iranians can have access to the software and Internet technology that will enable them to communicate with each other, and with the world without fear of censorship.

Finally, let me be clear: we are working with the international community to hold the Iranian government accountable because they refuse to live up to their international obligations. But our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands. Indeed, over the course of the last year, it is the Iranian government that has chosen to isolate itself, and to choose a self-defeating focus on the past over a commitment to build a better future.

Last year, I quoted the words of the poet Saadi, who said: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.” I still believe that – I believe it with every fiber of my being. And even as we have differences, the Iranian government continues to have the choice to pursue a better future, and to meet its international responsibilities, while respecting the dignity and fundamental human rights of its own people.

Thank you. And Aid-e-Shoma Mobarak.

Presidential Memorandum– Deferred Enforced Departure for Liberians

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SUBJECT: Deferred Enforced Departure for Liberians

Since 1991, the United States has provided safe haven for Liberians who were forced to flee their country as a result of armed conflict and widespread civil strife, in part through granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The armed conflict ended in 2003 and conditions improved such that TPS ended effective October 1, 2007. President Bush then deferred the enforced departure of the Liberians originally granted TPS. I extended that grant of Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to March 31, 2010. I have determined that there are compelling foreign policy reasons to again extend DED to those Liberians presently residing in the United States under the existing grant of DED.

Pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States, I have determined that it is in the foreign policy interest of the United States to defer for 18 months the removal of any Liberian national, or person without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia, who is present in the United States and who is under a grant of DED as of March 31, 2010. The grant of DED only applies to an individual who has continuously resided in the United States since October 1, 2002, except for Liberian nationals, or persons without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia:

(1) who are ineligible for TPS for the reasons provided in section 244(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(B);
(2) whose removal you determine is in the interest of the United States;
(3) whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States;
(4) who have voluntarily returned to Liberia or his or her country of last habitual residence outside the United States;
(5) who were deported, excluded, or removed prior to the date of this memorandum; or
(6) who are subject to extradition.

Accordingly, I direct you to take the necessary steps to implement for eligible Liberians:

(1) a deferral of enforced departure from the United States for 18 months from March 31, 2010; and
(2) authorization for employment for 18 months from
March 31, 2010.

BARACK OBAMA

Remarks by the President on Health Insurance Reform in Fairfax, Virginia

11:27 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, George Mason!  (Applause.)  How’s everybody doing today?  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you. 

AUDIENCE:  Yes we can!  Yes we can!  Yes we can!  Yes we can!

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  It’s good to be back with some real Patriots.  (Applause.)  I want to thank Dr. Alan Merten, the President of George Mason University, and his family.  (Applause.)  Dr. Shirley Travis, who’s here -- thank you.  And Coach Larranaga, we were just talking a little bit about -- (applause) -- looking forward to picking George Mason in my bracket next year.  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you!  (Applause.)  I don’t know if some of you remember, but I visited this university about three years ago for the first time.  (Applause.)  This was at just the dawn of my presidential campaign.  It was about three weeks old, I think.  We didn’t have a lot of money.  We didn’t have a lot of staff.  Nobody could pronounce my name.  (Laughter.)  Our poll numbers were quite low.  And a lot of people -- a lot of people in Washington, they didn’t think it was even worth us trying.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Yes we can!  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  They had counted us out before we had even started, because the Washington conventional wisdom was that change was too hard.  But what we had even then was a group of students here at George Mason -- (applause) -- who believed that if we worked hard enough and if we fought long enough, if we organized enough supporters, then we could finally bring change to that city across the river.  (Applause.)  We believed that despite all the resistance, we could make Washington work.  Not for the lobbyists, not for the special interests, not for the politicians, but for the American people.  (Applause.)

And now three years later, I stand before you, one year after the worst recession since the Great Depression, having to make a bunch of tough decisions, having had a tumultuous debate, having had a lot of folks who were skeptical that we could get anything done.  And right now, we are at the point where we are going to do something historic this weekend.  That’s what this health care vote is all about.  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  Yes we can!  Yes we can!  Yes we can!

THE PRESIDENT:  A few miles from here, Congress is in the final stages of a fateful debate about the future of health insurance in America.  (Applause.)  It’s a debate that’s raged not just for the past year but for the past century.  One thing when you’re in the White House, you’ve got a lot of history books around you.  (Laughter.)  And so I’ve been reading up on the history here.  Teddy Roosevelt, Republican, was the first to advocate that everybody get health care in this country.  (Applause.)  Every decade since, we’ve had Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, from Harry Truman to Richard Nixon to JFK to Lyndon Johnson to -- every single President has said we need to fix this system.  It’s a debate that’s not only about the cost of health care, not just about what we’re doing about folks who aren’t getting a fair shake from their insurance companies.  It’s a debate about the character of our country -– (applause) -- about whether we can still meet the challenges of our time; whether we still have the guts and the courage to give every citizen, not just some, the chance to reach their dreams.  (Applause.)

At the heart of this debate is the question of whether we’re going to accept a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people -- (applause) -- because if this vote fails, the insurance industry will continue to run amok.  They will continue to deny people coverage.  They will continue to deny people care.  They will continue to jack up premiums 40 or 50 or 60 percent as they have in the last few weeks without any accountability whatsoever.  They know this.  And that’s why their lobbyists are stalking the halls of Congress as we speak, and pouring millions of dollars into negative ads.  And that’s why they are doing everything they can to kill this bill. 

So the only question left is this:  Are we going to let the special interests win once again?

AUDIENCE:  No!

THE PRESIDENT:  Or are we going to make this vote a victory for the American people?  (Applause.)  

AUDIENCE:  Yes we can!  Yes we can!

THE PRESIDENT:  George Mason, the time for reform is right now.  (Applause.)  Not a year from now, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now -- it’s now.  (Applause.)  We have had -- we have had a year of hard debate.  Every proposal has been put on the table.  Every argument has been made.  We have incorporated the best ideas from Democrats and from Republicans into a final proposal that builds on the system of private insurance that we currently have.  The insurance industry and its supporters in Congress have tried to portray this as radical change.  (Applause.) 

Now, I just -- I just want to be clear, everybody.  Listen up, because we have heard every crazy thing about this bill.  You remember.  First we heard this was a government takeover of health care.  Then we heard that this was going to kill granny.  Then we heard, well, illegal immigrants are going to be getting the main benefits of this bill.  There has been -- they have thrown every argument at this legislative effort.  But when it -- it turns out, at the end of the day, what we’re talking about is common-sense reform.  That’s all we’re talking about.  (Applause.)    

If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, keep your plan.  I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America.  I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.  (Applause.)  

And since you’ve been hearing a whole bunch of nonsense, let’s just be clear on what exactly the proposal that they’re going to vote on in a couple of days will do.  It’s going to -- it’s going to change health care in three ways.  Number one, we are going to end the worst practices of insurance companies.  (Applause.)  This is -- this is a patient’s bill of rights on steroids.  (Laughter.)  Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time.  (Applause.)  Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions.  (Applause.)  Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick.  (Applause.)  And they’ve been spending a lot of time weeding out people who are sick so they don’t have to pay benefits that people have already paid for.  Those practices will end.

If this reform becomes law, all new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers.  (Applause.)  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.  (Applause.)  And by the way, to all the young people here today, starting this year if you don’t have insurance, all new plans will allow you to stay on your parents’ plan until you are 26 years old.  (Applause.)

So you’ll have some security when you graduate.  If that first job doesn’t offer coverage, you’re going to know that you’ve got coverage.  Because as you start your lives and your careers, the last thing you should be worried about is whether you’re going to go broke or make your parents broke just because you get sick.  (Applause.)  All right?

So that’s the first thing this legislation does -- the toughest insurance reforms in history.  And by the way, when you talk to Republicans and you say, well, are you against this?  A lot of them will say, no, no, that part’s okay.  (Laughter.)  All right, so let’s go to the second part.

The second thing that would change about the current system is that for the first time, small business owners and people who are being priced out of the insurance market will have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress give to themselves.  (Applause.) 

So what this means is, is that small business owners and middle-class families, they’re going to be able to be part of what’s called a big pool of customers that can negotiate with the insurance companies.  And that means they can purchase more affordable coverage in a competitive marketplace.  (Applause.)  So they’re not out there on their own just shopping.  They’re part of millions of people who are shopping together.  And if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, even though it’s going to be cheaper than what you can get on your own, then we’re going to offer you tax credits to help you afford it -– tax credits that add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in American history.  (Applause.)  

Now, these tax credits cost money.  Helping folks who can’t afford it right now, that does cost some money.  It costs about $100 billion per year.  But most of the cost --

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  That’s all right.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, here’s the reason it’s all right.  (Laughter.)  Here’s the reason it’s all right.  It wouldn’t be all right if we weren’t paying for it -- and by the way, that's what a previous Congress did with the prescription drug plan.  All they did was they gave the benefits and they didn’t pay for it. 

That's not what we’re doing.  What we’re doing is we’re taking money that America is already spending in the health care system, but is being spent poorly, that's going to waste and fraud and unwarranted subsidies for the insurance companies, and we’re taking that money and making sure those dollars go towards making insurance more affordable.  (Applause.)

So we’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies.  (Applause.)  We’re going to set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain millions of new customers.  (Applause.)  So here’s the point:  This proposal is paid for.  Unlike some of these previous schemes in Washington, we’re not taking out the credit card in your name, young people, and charging it to you.  We’re making sure this thing is paid for.  (Applause.)  All right, so that's the second thing.

Now, the third thing that this legislation does is it brings down the cost of health care for families and businesses and the federal government.  (Applause.)  Americans who are buying comparable coverage in the individual market would end up seeing their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent.  (Applause.)  Americans who get their insurance through the workplace, cost savings could be as much as $3,000 less per employer than if we do nothing.  Now, think about that.  That’s $3,000 your employer doesn’t have to pay, which means maybe she can afford to give you a raise.  (Applause.) 

And by the way, if you’re curious, well, how exactly are we saving these costs?  Well, part of it is, again, we’re not spending our health care money wisely.  So, for example, you go to the hospital or you go to a doctor and you may take five tests, when it turns out if you just took one test, then you send an e-mail around with the test results, you wouldn’t be paying $500 per test.  So we’re trying to save money across the system.  (Applause.)  And altogether, our cost-cutting measures would reduce most people’s premiums.  And here’s the bonus:  It brings down our deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades.  (Applause.) 

So you’ve got -- you’ve got a whole bunch of opponents of this bill saying, well, we can’t afford this; we’re fiscal conservatives.  These are the same guys who passed that prescription drug bill without paying for it, adding over $1 trillion to our deficit -- “Oh, we can’t afford this.”  But this bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office -- which is the referee, the scorekeeper for how much things cost -- says we’ll save us $1 trillion.  Not only can we afford to do this, we can’t afford not to do this.  (Applause.)

So here’s the bottom line.  That’s our proposal:  toughest insurance reforms in history, one of the biggest deficit-reduction plans in history, and the opportunity to give millions of people -- some of them in your own family, some of the people who are in this auditorium today -- an opportunity for the first time in a very long time to get affordable health care.  That’s it.  That’s what we’re trying to do.  (Applause.)  That’s what the Congress of the United States is about to vote on this weekend. 

Now, it would be nice if we were just kind of examining the substance, we were walking through the details of the plan, what it means for you.  But that’s not what the cable stations like to talk about.  (Laughter.)  What they like to talk about is the politics of the vote.  What does this mean in November?  What does it mean to the poll numbers?  Is this more of an advantage for Democrats or Republicans?  What’s it going to mean for Obama?  Will his presidency be crippled, or will he be the comeback kid?  (Applause.)  That’s what they like to talk about.  That’s what they like to talk about.  I understand.

One of the things you realize is basically that a lot of reporting in Washington, it’s just like SportsCenter.  It’s considered a sport, and who’s up and who’s down, and everybody’s keeping score.  And you got the teams going at it.  It’s Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots.  (Laughter.) 

Look, let me say this, George Mason:  I don’t know how this plays politically.  Nobody really does.  I mean, there’s been so much misinformation and so much confusion and the climate at times during the course of this year has been so toxic and people are so anxious because the economy has been going through such a tough time.  I don’t know what’s going to happen with the politics on this thing.  I don’t know whether my poll numbers go down, they go up.  I don’t know what happens in terms of Democrats versus Republicans. 

But here’s what I do know.  I do know that this bill, this legislation, is going to be enormously important for America’s future.  (Applause.)  I do know the impact it will have on the millions of Americans who need our help, and the millions more who may not need help right now but a year from now or five years from now or 10 years from now, if they have some bad luck; if, heaven forbid, they get sick; if they’ve got a preexisting condition; if their child has a preexisting condition; if they lose their job; if they want to start a company -- I know the impact it will have on them.  (Applause.)

I know what this reform will mean for people like Leslie Banks, a single mom I met in Pennsylvania.  She’s trying to put her daughter through college, just like probably some of your moms and dads are trying to put you through college.  And her insurance company just sent her a letter saying they plan to double her premium this year -– have it go up 100 percent.  And she can’t afford it.  So now she’s trying to figure out, am I going to keep my insurance or am I going to keep my daughter in college?  Leslie Banks needs us to pass this reform bill.  (Applause.)

I know what reform will mean for people like Laura Klitzka.  I met Laura up in Green Bay, Wisconsin, while I was campaigning.  She thought she had beaten her breast cancer.  Then she discovered it had spread to her bones.  And she and her insurance -- she and her husband, they were lucky enough to have insurance, but their medical bills still landed them in debt.  So now she’s spending time worrying about the debt when all she wants to do is think about how she can spend time with her two kids.  Laura needs us to pass this reform bill.  (Applause.)  

I know what reform will mean for people like Natoma Canfield.  When her insurance company raised her rates, she had to give up her coverage, even though she had been paying thousands of dollars in premiums for years, because she had beaten cancer 11 years earlier.  They kept on jacking up her rates, jacking up her rates.  Finally she thought she was going to lose her home.  She was scared that a sudden illness would lead to financial ruin, but she had no choice.  Right now she’s lying in a hospital bed, faced with paying for such an illness, after she had to give up her health insurance.  She’s praying that somehow she can afford to get well.  She knows that it is time for reform.   

So George Mason, when you hear people saying, well, why don't we do this more incrementally, why don't we do this a little more piecemeal, why don't we just help the folks that are easiest to help -- my answer is the time for reform is now.  We have waited long enough.  (Applause.)  We have waited long enough. 

And in just a few days, a century-long struggle will culminate in a historic vote.  (Applause.)  We’ve had historic votes before.  We had a historic vote to put Social Security in place to make sure that our elderly did not live out their golden years in poverty.  We had a historic vote in civil rights to make sure that everybody was equal under the law.  (Applause.)  As messy as this process is, as frustrating as this process is, as ugly as this process can be, when we have faced such decisions in our past, this nation, time and time again, has chosen to extend its promise to more of its people.  (Applause.)

You know, the naysayers said that Social Security would lead to socialism.  (Laughter.)  But the men and women of Congress stood fast and created that program that lifted millions out of poverty.  (Applause.) 

There were cynics that warned that Medicare would lead to a government takeover of our entire health care system, and that it didn’t have much support in the polls.  But Democrats and Republicans refused to back down, and they made sure that our seniors had the health care that they needed and could have some basic peace of mind.  (Applause.)

So previous generations, those who came before us, made the decision that our seniors and our poor, through Medicaid, should not be forced to go without health care just because they couldn’t afford it.  Today it falls to this generation to decide whether we will make that same promise to hardworking middle-class families and small businesses all across America, and to young Americans like yourselves who are just starting out.  (Applause.)

So here’s my bottom line.  I know this has been a difficult journey.  I know this will be a tough vote.  I know that everybody is counting votes right now in Washington.  But I also remember a quote I saw on a plaque in the White House the other day.  It’s hanging in the same room where I demanded answers from insurance executives and just received a bunch of excuses.  And it was a quote from Teddy Roosevelt, the person who first called for health care reform -- that Republican -- all those years ago.  And it said, “Aggressively fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords.”

Now, I don’t know how passing health care will play politically -- but I know it’s right.  (Applause.)  Teddy Roosevelt knew it was right.  Harry Truman knew that it was right.  Ted Kennedy knew it was right.  (Applause.)  And if you believe that it’s right, then you've got to help us finish this fight.  You've got to stand with me just like you did three years ago and make some phone calls and knock on some doors, talk to your parents, talk to your friends.  Do not quit, do not give up, we keep on going.  (Applause.)  We are going to get this done.  We are going to make history.  We are going to fix health care in America with your help.  (Applause.)

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

END
11:56 A.M. EDT

President Obama Signs Arizona Disaster Declaration

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of Arizona and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in the area struck by severe winter storms and flooding during the period of January 18-22, 2010.

Federal funding is available to State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe winter storms and flooding in the counties of Apache, Coconino, Gila, Greenlee, La Paz, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai and the Gila River Indian Community, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Carlos Apache, Tohono O’odham Nation, and White Mountain Apache Tribe.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures for all counties and Tribes within the State.

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

FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the State and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

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

Statement by the President Praising the Bipartisan Immigration Reform Framework

In June, I met with members of both parties, and assigned Secretary Napolitano to work with them and key constituencies around the country to craft a comprehensive approach that will finally fix our broken immigration system. I am pleased to see that Senators Schumer and Graham have produced a promising, bipartisan framework which can and should be the basis for moving forward.  It thoughtfully addresses the need to shore up our borders, and demands accountability from both workers who are here illegally and employers who game the system.

My Administration will be consulting further with the Senators on the details of their proposal, but a critical next step will be to translate their framework into a legislative proposal, and for Congress to act at the earliest possible opportunity.

I congratulate Senators Schumer and Graham for their leadership, and pledge to do everything in my power to forge a bipartisan consensus this year on this important issue so we can continue to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform.

Statement from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the Delay of the President’s Trip

The President is pleased that the House has posted the health care legislation on the Internet and that a final vote is coming.

But  since the House rules rightly provide for a 72-hour public review period, it is clear that a final vote on health insurance reform cannot take place before Sunday afternoon.

As a result, the President telephoned the leaders of Indonesia and Australia and told them that he must postpone his planned visits there for a later date so he can remain in Washington for this critical vote. The President expects to visit Indonesia in June.

The President greatly regrets the delay.  Our international alliances are critical to America’s security and economic progress.  But passage of health insurance reform is of paramount importance, and the President is determined to see this battle through.

Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 3/18/2010

12:52 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS:  Thank you guys for coming to class being moved outside.  I hope you’re wearing your sunscreen.  I put SFP 30 on three times, so that’s 90, for any of you keeping track at home.

This will not be a regular thing.  I just thought it’s been a long winter and why not get outside and have a little fun for once in a while.

So let’s start with a few quick announcements.  Obviously we’re enjoying some beautiful weather here, but out in the upper Midwest, there’s the possibility of bad flooding again this year along the Red River.  Lots of good work and preparation have gone into efforts out there to prevent flooding and damage with state and local officials.  And Administrator Fugate is traveling to the region over the weekend to ensure that all resources are there that could be necessary.

The President -- second announcement -- the President is pleased that the House will soon post the health care legislation on the Internet, and then a final vote is coming.  Since the House rules rightly provide for a 72-hour public review period, it is clear that a final vote on health insurance reform cannot take place before Sunday afternoon.  As a result, the President telephoned the leader of Indonesia and will call the leader of Australia later this afternoon, and told them that he must postpone his planned visits for a later date so that he can remain in Washington for this critical vote.  The President now expects to visit Indonesia in June.

The President greatly regrets the delay.  Our international alliances are critical to America’s security and economic progress.  But passage of health insurance reform is of paramount importance, and the President is determined to see this battle through.

Lastly, want to announce that in recognition of the deep ties and strong relationship that President Obama has forged with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, President Obama and the First Lady will host President Calderón and the Mexican First Lady in a White House -- at the White House for a state dinner on Wednesday, May 19th.  The dinner will take place in the context of an official visit by President Calderón, during which the President will have an opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues with President Calderón, including economic competitiveness, our growing security cooperation, clean energy opportunities, immigration, and other key issues.

And with that --

Q    Thanks, Robert.  Did the President have a hand in when this health care legislation was going to be posted?  I mean, theoretically, he could have urged leadership to post this yesterday, getting him out of town on Sunday.  Is this a delay that he welcomes?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, this has, Phil, has been a long, hard process, taken more than a year.  I think the President believes that the House leadership wanting to talk to the full caucus and get a CBO score was the right thing to do.  Again, we greatly regret the delay in the trip, but at the same time have told the leaders this is an important priority for the President and have -- we'll reschedule that trip for June. 

Q    Does he still have confidence this is going to pass?

MR. GIBBS:  The President still believes we will have the votes, yes.

Q    How close are you?  Are you within a handful, or a dozen votes?  What do you think?

MR. GIBBS:  I don't have a number to predict.  I think the President, in the calls and the meetings that he’s having with individual leaders, is making great progress.  I will say I think today’s CBO score provides a significant boost to health reform.  It proves that this legislation, if you look at it compared to the previous Senate legislation, provides better consumer protection, greater affordability, greater deficit reduction, and more coverage for the uninsured.  So I -- again, I think the President’s case is strengthened.

Q    And what is the President going to be doing over the next 72 hours to try to push this over?  And kind of walk us through the flavor of some of these conversations, if you don't mind.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think the President has spent in the Oval Office and on the telephone over the last several days -- he'll continue doing so today; met with more than two dozen -- met and called more than two dozen members of Congress.

But Steve, I think the case the President has made to them is very much the case that he’s made to the American people over the last couple of weeks.  We know what happens if we do nothing.  We know what happens to rate increases -- with rate increases.  We know -- we know we have an opportunity to provide small businesses with a tax cut to provide insurance for their employees.  We know what this does for families with children that are suffering from what an insurance company considers a preexisting condition.

I think all of those are -- all of those are part of the case that he’s making, as well as continuing to say that this is important to get done now.

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, just as more details about those conversations -- understanding you can’t give us the names of who he’s talking with -- but in terms of the content of those conversations, what is he saying that he hasn’t already said already?  The President has been having conversations like this for over a year.  There’s obviously a new sense of urgency; the foreign trip has been cancelled.  Can you give us any kind of characterization of the specifics of those conversations?  Has the President said, “Listen, the future of my agenda is on the line unless we get this through”?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think the President would be the first to tell you that there will be -- after health care passes, there will be many big issues with which we have to tackle.  We’ve talked about a few just over the past week:  Financial reform, obviously, is something that is going to take up a great amount of the administration’s time; the Citizens United case and campaign finance, again, being just two of those.

I think partly the urgency of getting this done now -- and this always happens as we get closer to a vote.  And I would say this, and I’ve said it before:  Undoubtedly the insurance increases that we’ve seen by WellPoint and Anthem over the past many weeks and many other insurance companies in the individual market where insurance coverage is -- where the health care costs are going up 4 or 5 percent but rate increases are going up 40 or 60 percent.  I think that has crystallized people’s desire to get something done this year, because that’s a good preview of what happens if we don’t do anything -- more letters like that, more stories like Natoma Canfield get told.  And I think the President believes these are the type of problems that he and his administration were sent here to solve.  So I think that’s the flavor of that intensity.

Q    So more of the same, he hasn’t articulated any kind of personal stake and repercussions if this doesn’t get through.

MR. GIBBS:  Look, very clearly the President wants to get this done.  I think -- I doubt any member that’s spoken with the President would in any way doubt his strong desire to see this through.  So I have no doubt that that’s coming through as well.

Ed.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  Democrat Stephen Lynch, who supported the health bill last year, is now saying he’s probably a “no” vote because he thinks it’s disingenuous to do this deem and pass maneuver.  I know the Speaker has still not really told everyone how it’s going to work, but the President last night wouldn’t tell FOX one way or another whether he supports it.  Can you just tell us, yes or no, does the President support using this maneuver?

MR. GIBBS:  Ed, again, as I’ve said, and as you just reiterated, it’s unclear what legislative process the Speaker will use, and I’ll let her decide and announce that.  I think the President was pretty clear yesterday, just as I was the day before that, that everyone knows what this vote is, everyone knows what this vote is about.

Q    Why can’t he just tell the American people yes or no, I want the Speaker to do this or I don’t?  Some Democrats are saying it will harm the credibility of the process.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think that the President is of the strong belief, and quite frankly watching CNN it appears as if you all are of the strong belief that the vote that we’re going to have on Sunday is about whether we’re going to have health care reform or not.  Again, I don’t sense that the stories that are coming out are where you are on the rule.

Q    Okay.  And the President also last night basically said everybody knows what’s in the bill, but as you said it’s just being put online now.  We haven’t really seen it.  Since he says everybody knows what’s in the bill, can you tell us whether some of these special deals are still in -- the Connecticut hospital, et cetera?

MR. GIBBS:  I think what he stated, Ed, was that the outlines of what the national -- I’m sorry, the outlines of the exchanges and many of the things like that are based on the Senate bill.  I have not had a chance and I will wait for something to be posted online to go through any of those individual aspects.

Q    Last thing, on the CBO numbers that you were talking about, obviously the most important thing, it seems, to conservative Democrats who are deciding or still on the fence is the long-term budget projections, and specifically CBO says that these numbers are imprecise; even though they’re good in the short-term, they’re imprecise, especially in the long term “because there’s a greater degree of uncertainty” about the second 10 years of all of this.  So how can --

MR. GIBBS:  I think, quite frankly, Ed, in most cases the CBO tends to underfactor, quite frankly, the savings that you generally see on the back end of these things.

Q    Well, but giving the spending that’s going on in Washington right now, how can the President assure the American people that these projections, which are so far off, are going to turn out to be true?  I mean, we’ve seen numbers change in Democratic and Republican administrations repeatedly.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, Ed, I think our reading of this is that CBO has tended to underfactor savings that you’re likely to see over the long term.  This is their best estimation.  It’s the guidepost with which Congress uses for each and every piece of legislation.

Chip.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Robert.  In the meetings the President is holding with members of Congress -- and by the way, is he having meetings today?

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.

Q    Jason Altmire was here today.  Is he meeting with him?  He was here for the bill signing.

MR. GIBBS:  I have not talked about names.  Obviously there were -- I assume there have been a number of people that were at a bill signing that probably were spoken to by -- with staff.  I don’t know who the President has met with today.

Q    And Congressman Cao of Louisiana was here too.  Were they invited to try to get them to vote for this bill?

MR. GIBBS:  I think they played roles in getting the bill -- the very important legislation that the President signed right here just a few hours ago to provide tax credits for small businesses that hire the unemployed.  So that’s why they were invited to that ceremony, I think, along with many dozen members of Congress.

Q    It wasn’t to twist their arms on health care reform?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t doubt that somebody mentioned health care reform while they were here.  I don’t -- my sense is there are probably not many conversations happening in any place in this town that don’t involved something about health care.

Q    In his conversations with members, to what degree is he stressing -- is the President stressing the importance of passing health care to his strength as President, the health of his presidency?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, Chip, I think the -- I don’t think anybody doubts the desire for the President -- the President’s desire to see this through, the President’s desire to get this done.  He spent quite a bit of time in the first 15 months of his presidency tackling a problem that he believes we have failed to deal with adequately for 70 or so years.

Again, after health care passes, I think that we will move on to many other extremely important issues.  We've got several more bites at the economic apple in terms of small business lending, zero capital gains for small business on the economic side; as I mentioned, financial reform, the Citizens United campaign finance case, comprehensive energy legislation.  I think there’s no doubt there will be many, many more big issues with which the President deals with.  Obviously this is one he wants to see through.

Q    There’s a report out there that says the President told some members that the fate of his presidency depends on passing health care reform.  Is that true?  Has he said that?

MR. GIBBS:  I have -- I'm not aware of that, but I can certainly check again. 

Q    Would it be out of character for him to say that?  Or is that one of the arguments that they’d make?

MR. GIBBS:  No, again, I think nobody doubts his desire to see this through.

Q    On the trip, why not just delay it one day?  If it’s going to happen Sunday, does that signal that he’s concerned about what’s going to happen in the Senate?

MR. GIBBS:  No.  Scheduling worked throughout the night when it became apparent that the bill wasn’t going to post yesterday to see about moving the trip back.  We looked through and pulled out what very little padding remained from having moved the trip from Thursday to Sunday, and without -- unless we took off basically extremely early in the afternoon on Sunday, it wasn’t going to be possible to do.  And we had a speech to the Australian parliament that you don't want to call on Sunday and say, hey, is there a way we can move this back a day?  So it just at that point seemed obvious to us that the best course of business was to reschedule Indonesia and Australia for June.

Q    I talked to one expert on Indonesia today who said there’s tremendous disappointment there that the President had cancelled plans to bring his family.  Do you think that might be reconsidered, given that he did spend four years of his life as a child there?

MR. GIBBS:  I don't know.  I mean, obviously I think those plans will be made as we look toward scheduling in June.  I think the President is disappointed based on the relationship that we have with a growing democracy, with an important country in our counterterrorism relationship, in a country that's the largest Muslim country in the world.  The President looked forward to building off of what he talked about in Cairo.  But we’ll get a chance to visit both the countries in June.

Q    And final question.  On deem and pass, or the “Slaughter rule,” the President is a constitutional law expert himself.  Does he believe it’s constitutional?  Would he sign a bill that --

MR. GIBBS:  He would sign a bill, yes.

Q    He’s not worried that it’s constitutional?

MR. GIBBS:  He would sign that bill, yes.

Yes.

Q    Robert, are you worried that the sort of calendar vice grip that you have the House in, with this trip now being gone, that they will take advantage of this delay and maybe dilly dally a little bit?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, judging from what I’ve seen on television and in news reports today, I think this is -- you’ll see a vote on -- the best I can tell you, you’ll see a vote on Sunday.

Q    And then the Senate calendar, you feel confident that everything is going to get done before the Easter recess?

MR. GIBBS:  That's our strong hope.  That's our strong hope.

Q    And delay -- not an option in your mind, or --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, Chuck, I think the President would tell you that this has -- we’ve been working on this quite a long time.  We want to get this done.

Q    Are all of these calls right now to House members, or are there some senators now he’s having to call to get them to sign this letter, this potential letter that they would send over to guarantee --

MR. GIBBS:  He has spoken with a handful of senators over the past several days.  And as I said over the weekend, this is a -- the President is involved in talking to both the House and the Senate because this is a two-step process.

Q    Are you confident you have the 51 votes in the Senate?  You don't have it now -- you know you don't have the House votes, I know that.  Do you have the Senate votes?

MR. GIBBS:  I’ve not talked with Legislative Affairs about the latest vote count, but again I believe that we will -- this bill will pass the House and then it will pass the Senate.

Q    Did any Senate leadership ask you to delay this trip?  We know plenty of House members have.  Did the Senate?

MR. GIBBS:  None that I’m aware of.

Q    Can you rule out that the President has offered anything in exchange for a vote -- whether it’s a reelection campaign thing or some sort of bill that they want to take up or immigration or anything like this?

MR. GIBBS:  Chuck, we will -- I expect this President will spend a lot of time on the campaign trail when it’s time to spend time on the campaign trail.

Q    No, I understand that, but anything --

MR. GIBBS:  Chuck, I don’t think a member of Congress is going to say I’ll vote for health care if you come visit my district and campaign for me.  I don’t -- I just don’t -- I don’t see that.

Q    And finally, on the trip, sort of what it sends -- messaging, how concerned are you that a domestic political – “crisis” is not the right -- a domestic political issue, problem, whatever you want to call this right now, delays a international visit like this in a very important region in the world?  Are you worried the message that sends to a China or to Indonesia, and how concerned is the President?

MR. GIBBS:  The readout that we got from the calls that the President has made -- again, he’ll talk with Prime Minister Rudd later today -- the readout that we’ve gotten from those calls is that each of these two countries understands what the President has been working on, what’s been involved in, and the importance that he has in seeing it through. 

So -- and again, we’ve outlined when this trip would be rescheduled, but I will tell you the President believes -- believed it was an important trip now and believes it will be an important trip based on many of the things that we’ve discussed, whether it’s counterterrorism, whether it’s our export agenda -- a whole host of things that --

Q    I know I said that was the last question, but you largely have said before, the President can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Are you worried that this sends --

MR. GIBBS:  I can confirm that.

Q    -- sends a message that in this case you guys are just choosing to stay here and do health care?

MR. GIBBS:  No, look, again, I think that the President believed -- again, understand this, that we did not want to wake up on -- or we did not want at 10:00 on Sunday morning to make a call to the Indonesians and the Australians and say, I know we were going to be there in a matter of hours, but we’re not going to be there.  That's -- I think that -- I think that would cause some problems just on common sense and manners.  But, again, I think the President believed that this was something that was important to him.  Both the trip and the legislation are -- I think the President believes that right now the place for him to be is in Washington seeing this through.

I'll wind my way.

Q    Robert, this one is on the jobs bill.  When the White House was unrolling these various initiatives, the point was made frequently that these were all interlocking integral pieces of one package to create jobs.  This is a partial move.  Is the White House concerned that given the health care debate and other items that are waiting on the agenda that this is just too slow in coming and that these integral pieces will in fact not be passed by Congress?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I mentioned just a few minutes ago I think that the President will soon -- the President and the economic team will soon start working through the next step of this.  I know there have meetings already here this past week to talk about the small business aspects, whether it’s, as I mentioned, zero capital gains, whether it’s depreciation, whether it’s $30 billion in lending to small businesses through smaller community banks.

So we talked about this I think many weeks ago, that the -- we understood that this was not all going to be engrossed in one big bill.  And the President will continue to work through the plans that he’s outlined, either at the -- toward the end of December or in the State of the Union, about ideas that we have to create jobs and create an environment where businesses are hiring again.

Q    The $30 billion lending facility sort of looms as the next big fight, given that the proposition is that TARP will be used.  Do you think the health care debate sort of damages the landscape for that to pass?  And now with the Easter recess coming, you’re moving it at least two weeks down the road.

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I take everybody at their word.  I think there is not a member on Capitol Hill that when they talk about the economy, doesn’t talk about small business.  I can’t imagine that -- I can’t imagine that you’d truly want to see politics played with small businesses getting access to greater capital when that’s what many of them tell the President and I think tell members of Congress they need in order to meet their payroll and expand their business.

Q    Why do you think that politics won’t be played with this, given the politics that are being played with health care for 30 million people?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think the voters will have their say on the politics.  I note that 11 Republicans decided not to play politics with final passage of a jobs tax credit, despite warnings of what happens if health care goes forward.  Again, I think that the President was and the Congress were sent here to address the problems that people face in this country and that’s what voters want us to see -- want to see us do.

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, when Dennis Kucinich announced his decision to vote for health care reform yesterday, he said that one of the big motivating factors was his concern about attempts to check quote delegitimatize the President.  Do you sense that?

MR. GIBBS:  I did not -- I was in a meeting when Congressman Kucinich made his --

Q    Those were his exact words.

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know what in its entirety that meant.  Again, I don’t think anybody would question the strong desire of the President to get this done.

Q    You keep saying that.

MR. GIBBS:  I think that’s largely proven by events.  (Laughter.)  I don’t think -- I think his desire to get it done extends far beyond what I say.

Q    Well, let me take another crack at the enormity of this challenge as viewed from the White House.  How much does passage of all of the other future issues that you’ve outlined here today hinge on success on health care reform?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, at the risk of repeating myself, I think health care is going to pass the House on Sunday.  I believe shortly it will pass the Senate and the President will be able to sign all of it into law.  And we will wake up a week or two weeks from now with what we talked about a minute ago -- the need to get credit flowing to small businesses.  We will discuss financial regulatory reform so that the rules of the road are different than what caused the type of greed and risk-taking on Wall Street.  So we will wake up and there will be more to do.  I think that's true and safe to say about every day you're here.

Q    One more on the fallout from this debate.  What are the legal and political assessments here of all of these actions by Idaho, Virginia, different states that say that they’re not going to accept rules that require people to have health insurance?  And even on gun sales and other federal issues?

MR. GIBBS:  I'd have to look specifically at what they’re arguing on gun sales.  Certainly the belief here is that a provision that requires responsibility and accountability in health care is important, that that would certainly meet any constitutional argument. 

And I would say that -- again, I think you’ve heard the President discuss this -- some people say, well, why don't you just do half of this?  Well, in order to institute provisions that will phase in in the bill for preexisting conditions, ensuring that preexisting conditions don't affect anybody ever, you need to have people in the system.  If not, you’d have the system be gamed -- you’d have insurance companies, even more than they’re doing now, pick winners and losers to the point where you wouldn’t have reform.

So, again, the President and the team believe strongly that what we're about to pass and sign into law will meet constitutional muster.

Yes.

Q    As Peter mentioned, there are -- a couple of states have actually passed measures saying that we're not going to let a universal mandate go through in our state.  Dozens of others are poised to pass similar measures.  So can you explain what the disconnect is?  When the administration and Democratic leadership says this is going to save states overall billions of dollars, why don’t they see that?  Where can you -- what’s the disconnect when they’re saying this is unconstitutional and dozens of states have lined up against it?

MR. GIBBS:  You’re asking me to explain the physics of politics.  I think the CBO discusses in great detail the type of savings that the system is going to see from this.  Whether or not the politics is -- whether people’s political agendas are speaking more than what’s on -- what’s best for their constituents, I think that will ultimately be for voters to decide.

Roger.

Q    Thank you.  Shift topic just a little bit -- Mr. Netanyahu is going to be in town next week.  Now with the trip postponed, what are -- can you walk us through plans for bilats?

MR. GIBBS:  We have not gotten that far down that road yet.  We’ll have a week ahead tomorrow but I have -- I am not sure they’ve gotten that detailed into next week.

Q    There will be some bilats, won’t there?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, let me have a fuller conversation when scheduling has a chance to breathe a little bit.

Q    The New York Times reported this morning some talk within the White House of a American plan in the wake of the stalled talks right now.  Is that correct?  Is there talk within the White House --

MR. GIBBS:  Roger, our focus is on -- and our focus for the past several days has been on restarting the proximity talks and calling on both sides to take steps to return to the table and to refrain from any type of actions or announcements that would undermine the trust that’s necessary to get them there.  That’s what our focus is.

Q    No American plan?

MR. GIBBS:  Our focus is on returning to proximity talks.

Major.

Q    Robert, from the podium either indoors or outdoors you’ve taken the opportunity at times when the President has been misquoted or there’s been a misimpression left about what the President has said in a various conversation, and you haven’t availed yourself of that opportunity today to say he has not told members in their conversations about health care that either the fate of his presidency or the strength of his presidency rides on this.  Do you wish to correct that impression?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I have not asked him.  I generally don’t --

Q    So you don’t know?

MR. GIBBS:  I think I said that earlier -- I generally don’t --

Q    No, you just said that everyone understands he wants to get it done.  I’m just trying to find out if it would be wrong --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I don’t think those are mutually exclusive.  Again, I don’t -- I’ll leave it to your own reporting rules whether you want to -- how you want to report certain things.  I have not talked to the President about whether or not -- whether or not he said that. 

Again, the President strongly wants to get this done, Major -- wants to get this done in the House this weekend.  I think we’re going to get that done.  And as I said earlier, we will wake up sometime next week with a whole set of issues, some of which none of us were thinking about and none of you all were writing and reporting on that we’ll have to deal with.

Q    And when you wake up, if health care is passed, will you wake up in a stronger legislative and political position or a weaker one?

MR. GIBBS:  An equally sunny day as this.

Q    Makes no difference, in other words?

MR. GIBBS:  No, again --

Q    Because I don’t think the American public, seeing the stakes as they’re playing themselves out, would naturally conclude that it makes no difference one way or the other to for the President’s legislative calendar agenda?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I don’t normally engage in hypotheticals and I think I’ve said from the sunny confines of the Rose Garden several times today that I believe that health care is going to pass.

Q    Okay.  On the issue of the CBO scoring, there are a couple of sentences in there that note this is a preliminary analysis and that full reconciliation language hasn’t been fully vetted.  Isn’t that any numerical or political concern to the White House as it tries to get the final votes in the House?  Do you think that has any implications?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m not a budget expert, Major, but I think that this is a pretty strong indication of the type of sense this makes fiscally.  I think that you see that in the first 10 years, this legislation will save more than $100 billion, and over the 10 years after that, more than $1 trillion; greater affordability; greater coverage for the uninsured; stronger consumer protections. 

Look, I have no doubt that CBO will continue to evaluate and provide scores for a long time to come, but I think the President is and the administration are strongly encouraged by exactly what CBO reported today.

Q    Did you also note the one caveat -- the additional caveat that this only deals with mandatory spending and has not had time or the requisite data to analyze these discretionary spending implications of this legislation?

MR. GIBBS:  I have not read the full 25 pages that --

Q    Is that a concern?

MR. GIBBS:  -- that I’m sure many of you have.  I have not talked to anybody on that.

Q    Okay.  Secretary of State Clinton is overseas in Moscow.  There is some suggestion that perhaps the START talks are reaching a moment of culmination.  Do you have a general bit of guidance, any readout on that?  Should we anticipate something in the near future?  Is this something you think will culminate closer to the summit here in mid-April?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, we have always talked about this in a way that -- the negotiations we want to see produce a deal that moves forward the President’s goal of nuclear security and reducing the amount of nuclear weapons in our world; at the same time ensuring that that works for the best interest of the United States.  So that has clearly taken some time to do.

I think it is safe to say that the President has been more personally involved with these negotiations than you’ve probably seen in 20 or 25 years.  So we're certainly hopeful that we get something done.  I know the Secretary of State will go to Moscow; I have no doubt that this will come up along with the important meetings that --

Q    The Quartet?

MR. GIBBS:  -- that she has with the Quartet.  But, again, I think the President -- the President has spent an awful lot of his own time working directly with Mr. Medvedev to ensure that we make the progress that we need on these -- on this START treaty.

Q    On the trip, is it understood that it would just be a re-creation of this trip, you would not be expanding it to places like India or something like that in June, or is it a possibility?

MR. GIBBS:  I don't want to make any announcements about the scope of the trip beyond the two countries.  That's not to say that it might not happen.  I just know that --

Q    It’s possible, in other words?

MR. GIBBS:  -- that in discussing our cancellation with Indonesia and Australia we mentioned that -- we gave them a window for coming back in June.

Q    This might be self-evident but I'm a bit dense -- is it necessary you think for the President to be here next week for the Senate part of this process?  Because the reconciliation process is not guaranteed and there are some anxieties among House Democrats as to what they do will be replicated and passed in the Senate.  Is part of his reason for staying here to be available for that process as well?

MR. GIBBS:  Obviously that helps.  I don't -- I think our focus was most immediately on the vote in the House, and understanding that as a result of the change -- as I mentioned to Chip -- as a result of the likely change in our departure time, that in many ways made the rest of the discussion somewhat moot.  It was a very short meeting on whether or not, based on the available evidence we had to make that determination, despite the great importance of the trip.  So as a result of it we have the opportunity to be here the rest of this week and all of next.

Q    Thank you, Robert.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Major covered most of the ground that I -- (laughter.)   

MR. GIBBS:  Density aside, he covered it all?

Q    Two quick questions on the trip.  Did the President actually make --

MR. GIBBS:  Now he’s got his sunglasses and his Coke out.  Do you see --

Q    Leaning back --

MR. GIBBS:  I know, it’s -- margarita for Mr. Garrett, please, margarita.  Sorry, go ahead.  (Laughter.)  Oh, double.  Easy.  It’s early yet.

Go ahead, I'm sorry.

Q    That's okay.  The President actually made the decision to cancel the trip?  And when was that made?  Was that this morning or last night?

MR. GIBBS:  About 9:45 this morning. 

Q    Okay.  And both sides, all sides that have been working on the trip have been trying to produce some agreements on a variety of things, some of which had been, I guess, getting closer, and others had not.  Was any -- was that any consideration in terms --

MR. GIBBS:  No, no, this was --

Q    -- of like not having time to finish some of the --

MR. GIBBS:  Again, the only thing we discussed this morning -- it was, as I said, a very quick conversation based on what every -- the scheduling knowledge that we all brought to the discussion that pushing our departure past a very early window in the afternoon, a drop-dead time in the afternoon, would quite frankly have just -- would have affected everything else.  We just didn’t have that kind of padding left.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  A couple of quick health care questions.  First, did the President call Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid after he made the decision to cancel the trip to let them know that he was staying?

MR. GIBBS:  I have not gotten a readout that he has, no.

Q    Okay.  Secondly, I believe Representative Stupak was here earlier for the --

MR. GIBBS:  For the bill signing, right.

Q    -- for the bill signing.  Is it safe to assume that he met with the President over health care or --

MR. GIBBS:  I don't know who he might have met with.  I don't know.

Q    Does the President think that he can still get Representative Stupak’s vote?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think over the past 24 hours, we have seen strong indications from those in the Catholic Church that support our belief that the legislation is about health care reform, and that it shouldn't and doesn’t change the existing federal law.  The Catholic Health Association, the order of nuns support -- I think is very important.  I think you saw Congressman Kildee’s statement yesterday regarding those developments and how it affected some of his thinking. 

So, again, I think the President remains engaged on that issue.

Q    And so that leads into my next question, which is that was very significant what the Catholic -- especially what the nuns said yesterday, and I’m wondering, is the President or anyone else from the White House engaging in outreach to groups like that?  Did the President speak with members of the nuns group or the health associations personally?

MR. GIBBS:  The President met earlier this week with Sister Keehan of the CHA.

Q    Where was that meeting?

MR. GIBBS:  I believe the meeting was in the Roosevelt Room.  I don't know if she also made it into the Oval Office as well.

Q    And can you share with us any -- the pitch that he perhaps made to her or --

MR. GIBBS:  The only thing that -- I did not get a detailed run-down of what the pitch was that he made.  I know he was effusive about her support and about her as a person for making the courageous statements that she has.

Q    And so fair to say, as a result of that meeting and the letter yesterday, that he does have in fact optimism that he could gain the vote even of someone like Bart Stupak?

MR. GIBBS:  I think the President again remains very engaged on this in his discussions with members of Congress.

Q    And then one last one, sorry.

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.

Q    But part -- was part of the thinking of staying on, or is part of the benefit that he can be here to actually sign the bill?  Because once the House acts, the Senate -- the bill will become law, and in fact it’s my understanding the parliamentarian has ruled that the Senate needs to reconcile two existing laws.  So does he have a plan to sign the bill after the House acts?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, we would -- I would describe this much as I have earlier this week that, depending on what the parliamentarian rules and depending on what’s driven down here, if the President need sign a bill, he’ll certainly do that.

Again, the discussion that we had about the trip was, as I said, very, very short, because what -- the developments of the timing of a likely vote and the President’s desire to be here for that, that there wasn’t a lot of discussion about different aspects of the Senate -- being here for the Senate or for the signature largely because, again, that was all mostly moot when we got to the point that -- with a drop-dead time it was impossible to move the trip.

Q    So assuming passage, do you envision the big bill signing with all the hoopla after the Senate reconciliation or --

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I don't want to get ahead of where the parliamentarian is.  If the President needs to sign legislation for this process to continue, many of us would loan him a pen.

Q    Robert, sorry, very briefly on the jobs bill again.  I know you spoke and the President spoke obviously with delight about having 11 Republicans on board.  That’s not a tremendous amount, and do you --

MR. GIBBS:  For the Republicans this year, it is.  (Laughter.)  For where -- I’m somewhat struck reading a profile of the leader of the Senate Republicans yesterday -- I think many of you all or your news organizations have quoted his strong desire for bipartisanship, despite the fact that the profile led with what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated plan well before the President was ever involved in the economic recovery package at doing each and every thing humanly and senatorially possible to slow to a grinding halt the progress on the President’s agenda.

So I would say given the fact that the bar set apparently before the President was sworn in to not have any Republicans support anything the President does, I’d say 11 is pretty darn good.

Q    So you accept that, that that has been the Republican plan all along to not support him on anything?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t -- Ms. Stolberg, has anybody from the leader’s office sought a correction on the beginning of that profile?

Q    I’m not the author of that story.

MR. GIBBS:  I’ll follow up later.  (Laughter.)

Q    But my question was about -- but my question was about the jobs bills going forward.  Do you have any reason to believe you’re going to even get that number of Republicans for these other measures that you are looking to pass?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I think if you look at virtually every -- every member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, talks about the importance of small business.  If we have the ability to have community banks lend an additional $30 billion to small businesses to meet payrolls and to expand, it’s somewhat hard for me to think what your objection to that would be.

Q    But have you had an actual indication from Republican leaders?  Have they come down here and said, “But you can get on this possibly”?

MR. GIBBS:  I think generally they’ve been supportive of small business, but I don’t know whether specifically there have been, to some degree, vote counts on that.

Ann.

Q    Robert, on the Democrats who have come in to see the President, what retribution have they been told they will face if they walk out of the West Wing, go back and vote against the health care bill?

MR. GIBBS:  None.  I mean, I addressed this the other day.  There was this --

Q    A lot has happened since the other day.

MR. GIBBS:  Tell me about it.  There was a much ballyhooed Internet report that the President wouldn't campaign or support anybody that voted against the bill.  The President has never made any such declaration.

Q    Have any of his advisors?

MR. GIBBS:  No.

Q    Robert, just to follow up on Sheryl’s questions.  Have you -- has the White House made a request to the parliamentarian to find out if he has to sign a --

MR. GIBBS:  I can check with health care staff.  I have not -- I don't know the answer to that.

Q    And you don't know when you're going to get an answer from him?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I don't know if we've asked so I don't know --

Q    But would you have to ask, or is this a matter for Congress to ask?  I'm just wondering how it works.

MR. GIBBS:  My sense is that they’ll make a ruling and nobody will have to ask.  But I don't know what that --

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I've simply said that we will --

Q    Sign it if you have to to get the process to continue is what you said.

MR. GIBBS:  I would not stray from those wise words. 

Q    But what I'm trying to get at is there’s a certain amount of awkwardness of the President signing a law that includes all the things that the Speaker has been kind of tying herself up in knots to avoid her members voting on.

MR. GIBBS:  We discussed this yesterday, Mara.  That's -- the corrections bill --

Q    I know, but what I'm asking you is do you --

MR. GIBBS:  -- I think deals with much of that almost instantly. 

Q    Right -- well, instantly in the House, but quite a few days later, perhaps, in the Senate, or not at all.  So what I'm wondering is, does he consider health care passed as soon as the House votes?

MR. GIBBS:  He will consider it passed the House.

Q    Well, actually, that's not true.  It will be passed, period, if they accept the Senate bill.  It’s not passed the House; it’s passed, period. 

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I'm talking about -- again, we've always discussed this as a two-step process.  The Senate will also be part of this process.  Mara, I will let --

Q    But legally, is it really a two-step process, or is it over once the House votes?

MR. GIBBS:  No, the President has -- look, I wouldn't have made it through a semester of law school, so this is not based on some grand legal understanding except to say that there are -- the President has set out things that were in the original Senate bill that will not be in what is ultimately -- what he wants ultimately approved as law.  So, again, I don't know what --

Q    So he won't be satisfied until the Senate acts?  Is that what you're saying?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, that's what we've -- I've talked throughout the weekend of the fact that, and mentioned to one of the questions up here, that he’s been actively engaged in discussions with senators.  So again, this is something that we've always considered to be a two-step process. 

Q    But so should we understand that he will not be taking any victory laps or making kind of any statements about the historic significance of this until the Senate acts?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think in many -- I will say this, Mara, when the bill passed both the House and the Senate, the President found it be a historical act because that had never happened before.  I think it’s likely that we will -- when this bill passes on Sunday, I think you’ll likely hear from the President, as you have at many -- many of the different stops in this process.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Hi, Robert.  Last time around this year the President recorded a video message to the people and government of Iran in honor of Nowruz, the Persian New Year, which happens to fall this Sunday.  I’m just wondering how he plans to recognize that holiday this year.  Is he going to do another video?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me check with NSC on that.

Q    Okay, if you could get back to me.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Thank you, Robert.  Mark Levin with the Landmark Legal Foundation has prepared a suit against the President that if he signs the health care bill passed by the House without a recorded yea or nay vote required by Article I, Section 7 -- my question on that is, would the President rule out signing future bills such as immigration reform or finance reform you mentioned earlier that are not subject to a yea or nay vote in both chambers?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, this is -- I think we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, certainly the last time we met inside, that this was -- this is the type of thing that -- the type of rule that you’ve seen pass on any number of instances.  So I understand that there are those that want to discuss this as being a unique thing.  It is not.  I stated earlier that when this bill passes the House the President will be happy to sign it.

Q    Well, is that still a constitutional argument in favor of it, that it’s been done before?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m unaware -- again, I didn’t go to law school -- I’m unaware that -- I’m unaware of legal suits filed by a similar organization when the Republicans did similar things on legislation.

Q    So the President wouldn’t rule out signing future bills that didn’t pass both houses by a yea or nay vote?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m not going to get into a series of legal hypotheticals that both of us seem unprepared to discuss.

Margaret.  I’m kind of enjoying the sun.  With my skin tone, I’ll probably have a golden tan by the time we’re done.  Go ahead, Margaret.  (Laughter.)

Q    Has the President been in more than normal contact with the Clintons in the last few days as the passage of this approaches in terms of their experience?  I mean, has that caused them to talk more with either President Clinton or with the Secretary of State?  And I have a second question too.

MR. GIBBS:  Not that I’m aware of.  Mike, do you remember if the President was over here -- she was -- I don’t know if she was over here earlier in the week or not -- I forget based on the schedule -- but I do not -- I have not gotten a --

Q    Not about this.

MR. GIBBS:  -- an e-mail that has -- that would denote that.  Obviously he talked with Senator -- Secretary Clinton yesterday as she was over here with the Irish Prime Minister.

Q    And in light of the legal challenges that are most likely expected, is the White House looking at putting together any kind of a special legal team to deal with health care?

MR. GIBBS:  None that I’m aware of.  None that I’m aware of.

Q    Okay, thanks.

Q    Robert, the Republicans -- maybe you can put this to rest too, I don’t know.

MR. GIBBS:  I’ll try.

Q    The Republicans put something out saying that Bart Gordon and John Tanner have been promised cushy government positions in exchange for their votes.

MR. GIBBS:  And what were those positions?

Q    Those positions are NASA administrator and U.S. ambassador to NATO.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Well, that’s --

Q    At some point.

MR. GIBBS:  I think those are -- I think those jobs are currently filled, but -- and I’m not sure that anybody would think -- certainly the current occupants -- that those are otherwise cushy jobs.  So that’s just not true.

Stephen.

Q    Has the White House yet received the communication from Israel on whether it is willing to take the kind of steps that were laid out to show commitment to the peace process?  And can you talk about the -- can you kind of characterize the ongoing negotiations, which the White House said the Vice President and the Prime Minister talked about in their phone call yesterday?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m not aware of any conversations besides the one you mentioned with the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday.  So I don’t have anything else to add on that.

April.

Q    Robert, who, if any, beyond the President, is meeting here at the White House with other Hill lawmakers on health care?

MR. GIBBS:  I imagine that the chief of staff is.  I’m sure Nancy-Ann DeParle is.  Those are the most immediate names that come to mind.

Q    Axelrod, Jarrett, by any chance, as well?

MR. GIBBS:  Not that I’m aware of.

Q    Well, what’s the --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I take that back.  I know that -- I think Valerie has met with groups of people.

Q    What’s the criteria to say who meets with the President or who talks with the President, versus talking to Nancy-Ann or Valerie or --

MR. GIBBS:  I mean, I think in many ways it depends on -- it depends on what questions.  You know, obviously I think sometimes members will come over.  Their staff will meet with Nancy-Ann as members meet with the President.  Legislative Affairs decides who meets with whom.

Q    And on another topic, the last question, Black Farmers -- March 31st deadline -- they are very upset, they’re very antsy.  They’re saying, you know, they can’t get anything through.  The bill is -- the monies are attached in the Senate bill, but they’re saying they’re hearing very negative things; that Hispanics should be paid off as well from these settlements.  So what say you?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me check with OMB on where this is.

Q    Does the President still stand by this for the March 31st deadline?

MR. GIBBS:  Absolutely.

Q    Is he showing them that they’ll get their money?

MR. GIBBS:  The President is supportive of the settlement that was reached.

Mike.

Q    Robert, in response to Ann’s question, you said that the President does not engage in any threats of retribution over this coming vote.  Would you encourage Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to also forswear any kind of retribution?

MR. GIBBS:  I would encourage news media not to do that too.  I don't know what you’re asking me to do.  I don't --

Q    Well, I mean, typically during --

MR. GIBBS:  Look, again, I think the President is talking about and the team here is talking about the merits of making historic progress on health insurance reform.

Q    Right, and my only question is, is there sort of -- could there be sort of a good cop/bad cop dynamic here?  The President doesn’t need to make those threats because he knows that the leaders will.

MR. GIBBS:  I have no evidence that that's -- that that's the case.

Q    What is the line between appropriate persuasion and inappropriate pressure on a lawmaker?

MR. GIBBS:  That's -- seems hazardous for me to get into different examples on.  Do you have something specific?

Q    Well, I'm thinking of the ’93 Medicare prescription drug vote.  There were some questions --

MR. GIBBS:  2003.

Q    I'm sorry, 2003, right.  And so I'm wondering, in light of that and in light of past precedent, have you examined what might be appropriate pressure and inappropriate pressure?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I think the President has -- and the team here are focused on why this legislation is good for the American people, why it’s good for the constituents with the member that they’re meeting with.  This is -- that's the focus of what these meetings are, not coercion or inappropriate -- I forgot what your term was.

Q    Okay.  And finally, on Sunday, how do you envision administration resources and people being deployed around?  Do you expect to send people to the Capitol?  Will the President be here physically?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, the President lives right there, so I can assure you he'll be here.

Q    I understand.  I mean, there’s no chance that he would go to the Capitol, in other words?

MR. GIBBS:  I've not heard plans for the President to go to the Capitol --

Q    And what about Cabinet Secretaries and so forth?

MR. GIBBS:  I can check with Legislative Affairs on that.

Glen.

Q    Robert, Stephen Lynch, the congressman from Massachusetts, yesterday mentioned that he was getting calls from administration folks wanting to talk with him and that he was not particularly eager to engage in those conversations.  Have you found -- either the President personally or any of the surrogates that have been reaching out to members -- that people are just simply trying to duck you and don't want to talk?

MR. GIBBS:  Not that I'm aware of.  I mean, again, the President has had an otherwise pretty full schedule on this.

Q    Robert, a couple of questions.  First of all, while we've been out here, apparently Lieutenant Dan Choi has handcuffed himself to a fence on the White House grounds, according to a report.  I was wondering if the White House was given any heads-up that there would be any kind of civil disobedience like that and whether or not the President has any plans to meet with him?

MR. GIBBS:  No heads-up that I'm aware of, and I don't believe there’s any meeting scheduled today, no.

Q    To follow up on Ann’s question, some labor unions have said that they’re willing to take some pretty rough steps, if necessary, going so far as to run a third-party candidate against some folks who would vote -- Democrats who would vote no.  We have one up in the city who feels that -- who’s going to vote no, and may face some pressure.  What’s the White House opinion of this kind of tactic and is this something the President would support?

MR. GIBBS:  Ken, I can only speak for what the President has actively tried to do to get members to support a bill that he thinks provides small businesses and families with far more affordable coverage, reduces our deficit over the next 20 years by more than $1 trillion and covers 32 million more people.

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, when -- you said you’d given Australia and Indonesia a window for rescheduling.  When would you hope to have this nailed down?

MR. GIBBS:  Scheduling has been busy nailing and un-nailing for the better part of several days, so I don't -- I think, again, we’ve -- we have communicated to them our strong desire to come back quickly, to do so in June.  I don't have the dates of that specific window, and I doubt that we would have that trip completely laid out, even at this point -- at this point anyway.

Tom.

Q    I have two quick questions.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    First, earlier this week -- sorry, I have two questions.  First, earlier this week, both Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore pointed out that the preexisting condition provision of the legislation doesn’t take effect for another four years, and I’m wondering if you could tell us, was that a concession, and if so, who fought for that and what did they -- what did you get in return?

MR. GIBBS:  There is --

Q    For adults, that is.

MR. GIBBS:  Right.  Well, again, the -- as I described earlier and as the President has described, there are certain things that cannot be instituted until you have everyone in the system.  Obviously this is a piece of legislation that phases in over the course of many years those changes.  And as a result of that phasing in, when that's done, preexisting conditions for adults will be outlawed.  But understand this -- when this becomes law, an insurance company will no longer be able to discriminate against a child that has -- that they believe or says that has a preexisting condition.

Q    That’s on day one.

MR. GIBBS:  Right.

Q    Children.  And so it’s pegged to the mandate then, is that fair to say?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    And my second question was, during the President’s interview with Bret Baier last night, he seemed rather perturbed by both the number of interruptions and to a lesser degree the process-heavy nature of the questioning.  I was wondering if you, watching that interview, what your reaction was to the conduct and the substance of it.

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I will simply say that I think it’s always better if you -- when you interview the President that you let the President give his answer.  I’ve always found that to be the most effective way to conduct an interview.

Thanks, guys.

END
1:52 P.M. EDT