Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
July 4, 2009
 

Earlier in the week, we asked if you thought we should put the experiences of real American families on the air and online to show why we need heath care reform. The overwhelming answer? Yes.

Thanks to your support, we were able to spring into action and share with America the very personal reasons why we cannot afford to miss this one chance to finally reform our health care system.

I want you to be the first to see this powerful ad. It features real people telling their true stories of lost coverage, watching loved ones go without care, and making the case for why we need reform.

Once you watch this, you'll see what we mean about how powerful these personal stories can be -- and why we need to get them on the air right away.

Will you watch the video now, and then donate $25 or more to put it on the air?

As we speak, Congress is rapidly hammering out the details of the health care bill, and getting this message out now is crucial. Our representatives must understand how strongly we feel about the need for real reform -- and that we need it now.

In the next few days, we must decide how many of these ads we can make, where we can air them, and how many views we can guarantee. The more resources we have, the greater the impact we'll be able to make.

So watch this first video, and then please dig deep with a donation of $25 or more so we can get this ad and others like it on the air and online in key areas across the country.

https://donate.barackobama.com/healthcaread

Thanks for making it happen,

David Plouffe

P.S. -- Over 99,000 people have already donated to power our campaign for health care reform. This is the perfect time to join them, and help us hit our big goal of 100,000 donors for health care.

download .mp4 (91.0 MB)  | read the transcript

(President Barack Obama shakes hands with Energy Secretary Steven Chu following remarks about innovation
in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 2, 2009, following his meeting with business leaders. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is second from left.  Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

download .mp4 (91.0 MB)  | read the transcript

(President Barack Obama shakes hands with Energy Secretary Steven Chu following remarks about innovation
in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 2, 2009, following his meeting with business leaders. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is second from left.  Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

MEDIA ADVISORY: The White House Announces H1N1 Flu Preparedness Summit

WASHINGTON—The White House today announced that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan will host an all-day H1N1 Flu Preparedness Summit with states to further prepare this nation for the possibility of a more severe outbreak of H1N1 flu.  The Summit will be held on July 9, 2009 at the Natcher Conference Center at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

WHO:             
Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary
Janet Napolitano, DHS Secreatary
Arne Duncan, Education Secretary
John Brennan, National Security Advisor

WHAT:
H1NI Flu Preparedness Summit

WHEN:
Thursday, July 9, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.

WHERE:
Natcher Conference Center Auditorium (Bldg. 45)
National Institutes of Health
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Md. 20892

The H1N1 flu virus continues to circulate in this country and in at least 100 other countries around the world – especially in the Southern Hemisphere, where flu season is underway. 

"Scientists and public health experts forecast that the impact of H1N1 may well worsen in the fall – when the regular flu season hits, or even earlier, when schools start to open – which is only five or six weeks away in some cases," Secretary Sebelius said.  "The goal of the Summit is to launch a national influenza campaign by bringing federal, state and local officials, emergency managers, educators and others together with the nation's public health experts to build on and tailor states' existing pandemic plans, share lessons learned and best practices during the spring and summer H1N1 wave, and discuss preparedness priorities."

"The federal government remains vigilant and well coordinated with state, local, and international partners as we prepare for all possibilities as to how the H1N1 flu virus may impact us this fall," said Secretary Napolitano.

"Prevention is everyone's business. Parents, children, teachers, school leaders, communities, government and businesses, we need do our part individually and collectively prevent the spread of the flu virus," said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. "We are emphasizing safety and the need to continue learning. We will continue following guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and encouraging schools and districts to be in close communication with their local public health authorities and political leadership."

--------------------------------------------------------
Logistics Information

Credentialed media interested in attending the Summit should contact Calvin Jackson in the NIH Press Office at 301-496-5787 for specific logistics information and pre-registration.

The National Institutes of Health is a secure government facility with perimeter checkpoints and vehicle inspections.

All visitor vehicles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one (1) form of identification (a government-issued photo ID-driver's license, passport, green card, etc.) and to state the purpose of their visit. Be sure to allow extra time for this vehicle inspection procedure.

Visitors should continue to wear their identification prominently at all times while on campus.

Tune your radios to 1660 AM for further NIH traffic, parking and security advisories. For questions, please contact the ORS Information Line at <email: orsinfo@mail.nih.gov> or 301-594-6677, TTY 301-435-1908.
 

Statement from the President on the 45th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act

Forty-five years ago today, President Johnson signed into law historic legislation that moved America closer toward fulfilling the dream of our founding – a dream of opportunity, equality, and justice for all.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended legal discrimination, helping grant all Americans equal justice under the law – no matter what their gender or the color of their skin.

The Civil Rights Act was born during Freedom Summer 1963, but its passage was only possible because generations of Americans of all backgrounds stood up, sat down, and marched in freedom’s cause. Once it was signed into law, a renewed pledge was made to all Americans not to deny any man a seat at a lunch counter, not to deny any woman an opportunity in the workplace, and not to deny any child a chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

But while the Civil Rights Act opened doors of freedom and opportunity, we know that far too many inequities and barriers remain in the African-American community and across this country.  And we must continue to break down these barriers in our laws, our policies, and our hearts so that we can not only fulfill the full promise of the Civil Rights Act, but perfect the union that our founders created two hundred and thirty-three years ago this week.
 

2:37 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I just held a meeting with the CEOs of some of the most innovative energy companies in America to talk about growth and progress of a sector that represents a big piece of America's economic future. As our economy adapts to the challenges of a new century, new ways of producing and saving and distributing energy offer a unique opportunity to create millions of jobs for the American people.

And obviously, this is a timely discussion, on a day of sobering news.  The job figures released this morning show that we lost 467,000 jobs last month.  And while the average loss of about 400,000 jobs per month this quarter is less devastating than the 700,000 per month that we lost in the previous quarter, and while there are continuing signs that the recession is slowing, obviously this is little comfort to all those Americans who've lost their jobs.

We've taken some extraordinary measures to blunt the hard edges of the worst recession of our lifetime, and to offer assistance to those who've borne the brunt of this economic storm.  But as I've said from the moment that I walked into the door of this White House, it took years for us to get into this mess, and it will take us more than a few months to turn it around.

That's why the discussion that we had today is so important. It's men and women like these who will help lead us out of this recession and into a better future.  My job -- and our job as a government -- is to do whatever we can to unleash the great, generative powers of the American economy by encouraging their efforts.

And I'm absolutely confident that we can, at this period of difficulty, prove once again what this nation can achieve when challenged.  And I'm confident that we're not only going to recover from this recession in the short term, but we're going to prosper in the long term.  To do that, we have to act now to build a new foundation for lasting growth.   And energy is one of the pillars of this new foundation, essential both to our recovery and our long-term prosperity.

I'm pleased to say that we've achieved more in the past few months to create a new clean energy economy than we had achieved in many decades before.  The recovery plan will double our country's supply of renewable energy, and is already creating new clean energy jobs.  Thanks to a remarkable partnership between automakers, autoworkers, environmental advocates, and states, we also set in motion a new national policy to increase gas mileage and decrease carbon pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in this country, which is going to save us 1.8 billion barrels of oil.

And last Friday, the House of Representatives passed an extraordinary piece of legislation that would make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America.  It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  It will prevent the worst consequences of climate change.  And above all, it holds the promise of millions of new jobs -- jobs, by the way, that can't be outsourced.  

The CEOs standing behind me know a lot about these kinds of companies.  These are folks whose companies are helping to lead the transformation towards a clean energy future.  Even as we face tough economic times, even as we continue to lose jobs, the CEOs here told me that they're looking to hire new people, in some cases to double or even triple in size over the next few years.  They are making money and they are helping their customers save money on the energy front. 

     So these companies are vivid examples of the kind of future we can create, but it's now up to the Senate to continue the work that was begun in the House to forge this more prosperous future. We're going to need to set aside the posturing and the politics  -- and when we put aside the old ideological debates, then our choice is clear.  It's a choice between slow decline and renewed prosperity.  It's a choice between the past and the future. 

The American people I believe want us to make the right choice, and I'm confident that the Senate will.  For at every juncture in our history, we've chosen to seize big opportunities -- rather than fear big challenges.  We've chosen to take responsibility.  We've chosen to honor the sacrifices of those who came before us -- and fulfill our obligations to generations to come.  That's what we're going to do this time, as well.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Q    Mr. President, do you have a message for the small businesses on health and economy?

THE PRESIDENT:  The message for small businesses is many of these businesses started as small businesses and they're now getting to be big businesses because of the extraordinary opportunities that are out there.

Another message is that they should probably contact some of these CEOs because it turns out they can save small businesses and large businesses alike up to 20 or 30 percent on their energy usage. 

And when you hear the innovation that's taking place -- everything from LED lighting that can save a huge amount on energy costs to new concrete materials that last longer and are waterproofed from the inside out, and that can mean that bridges and roads and buildings can last 20 or 30 years longer than using conventional concrete; when you look at what's being done with solar energy right now in places like Houston and Florida; and the fact that many of these companies are exporting their goods and their services, but unfortunately, their biggest markets right now are Europe and Japan because we haven't done enough to emphasize clean energy in our own country -- that gets you excited about the future.

And one of the things that I've consistently talked about since I took office, and on a day where we see that our economy is still having a tough time getting moving, is we're going to have to shoot for the future and not look backwards. 

So much of the debate around health care, so much of the debate around energy, has been based on this idea that somehow if we stand still and we don't do anything that we're going to be better off.  And that's just not how this world works.  It's certainly not how the modern economy works.  We know we're going to have to change how we use energy. 

We know we're going to have to change how we operate our health care systems.  We know that we're going to have to change how we train our young people to compete in this new global economy.  And so to make the argument that somehow we should just lock in on the status quo or perpetuate the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place, and that that somehow is going to solve our problems, just doesn't make any sense. 

And what these folks are all about is the future, and that's what America has always been about.  We are not folks who are scared of the future or look backwards.  We always meet the challenges by moving forward.  And that's what I think is going to happen this time, as well.

Thanks, guys.

Q    Mr. President, when are you going to get solar panels and a wind turbine at the White House, sir?

THE PRESIDENT:  I was just talking to Secretary Chu about how he is going to consult with these outstanding folks to figure out how we can improve energy efficiency here.

Q    When will that happen, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT:  I just told you -- we're moving.  Come on, guys.  (Laughter.)  I don't have a date certain.

                             END                2:45 P.M. EDT
 

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals for key administration posts:

• Jonathan Addleton, Ambassador to Mongolia
• Gayleatha Beatrice Brown, Ambassador to Burkina Faso
• Earl M. Irving, Ambassador to the Kingdom of Swaziland
• Douglas Kmiec, Ambassador to the Republic of Malta
• Fay Hartog-Levin, Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands

President Obama said, "I am confident that these fine individuals will represent our nation abroad with distinction, and strengthen our diplomatic efforts to meet 21st century challenges. I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead."

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals today:

Jonathan Addleton, Nominee for Ambassador to Mongolia
Jonathan Addleton, a career member of the US Senior Foreign Service since 1984, is Counselor for International Development at the US Mission to the European Union in Brussels, Belgium.  Previously, he served as USAID Mission Director in Pakistan (2006-2007), Cambodia (2004-2006) and Mongolia (2001-2004).  Prior to that, he served as USAID Program Officer in Jordan, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Yemen.  Mr. Addleton also worked briefly at the World Bank, Macon Telegraph and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  He has a PhD and MA from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a BS from Northwestern University. 

Gayleatha Beatrice Brown, Nominee for Ambassador to Burkina Faso
Gayleatha Brown, a career Minister-Counselor of the Senior Foreign Service, is Ambassador to the Republic of Benin.  Her previous diplomatic assignments include:  Counselor for Political Affairs, Embassy Pretoria; Consul General and Deputy Permanent Observer to the Council of Europe, U.S. Consulate General, Strasbourg, France; and Chief of the Economic/Commercial sections at Embassy Harare, Zimbabwe and Embassy Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.   Ms. Brown also has served as Economic Officer in Paris, France; Finance and Development Officer in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire; and Desk Officer for Senegal, Guinea, Mauritania, and Canada.  As Desk Officer for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, Ms. Brown represented the State Department at OECD Export Credit Arrangement negotiations.  Before joining the Foreign Service, she worked as a Special Assistant to the USAID Administrator for Africa and as a Legislative Assistant at the U.S. House of Representatives.  Ms. Brown holds MA and BA degrees from Howard University.

Earl M. Irving, Nominee for Ambassador to the Kingdom of Swaziland
Earl Irving has served as a Career Development Officer to senior-level Foreign Service Officers and Construction Engineers since August 2008.  A career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Mr. Irving joined the U.S. Department of State in January 1983.  Prior to his current assignment, he served as Consul General in Melbourne, Australia (2005-2008); as Political Counselor to U.S. Mission to the Organization of American States (2003-2005); and as Labor Counselor to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City (2001-2003).  Mr. Irving also served as Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy in Harare, Zimbabwe (1998-2001); and Principal Officer of the U.S. Consulate in Recife, Brazil (1995-1998).  His other foreign assignments were in South Africa, the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Sao Paulo, Brazil, where he began his career.  His domestic assignments include two tours in the Bureau of African Affairs.  Mr. Irving holds a B.A. from Middlebury College and an M.A. from the University of California, Berkeley.

Douglas Kmiec, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Malta
Douglas W. Kmiec is the Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California.  He served as Dean & St. Thomas More Professor at The Law School of The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. from 2001-2003.  Earlier he served for almost two decades as a Professor of Law and Director of the Center on Law and Government at the University of Notre Dame Law School, where he founded the Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy.  Nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate, he served as the Assistant Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for the U.S. Department of Justice (1988-89).  During 1985-1987, he was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC.   A graduate of Northwestern University and the law school of the University of Southern California, Professor Kmiec has authored several books on the American Constitution and a legal treatise on the law of property.  The recipient of the Distinguished Service Award by both the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1983) and the U.S. Department of Justice (1986), Professor Kmiec also served as a 40th Anniversary Fulbright Fellow in Asia (1987) lecturing in Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur. 

Fay Hartog-Levin, Nominee for Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Fay Hartog-Levin is a Senior Consultant at the Res Publica Group, a Chicago-based public affairs and media relations firm.  At Res Publica, she advises clients on all aspects of internal and external communications and relationship building, with an emphasis on the non-profit and cultural sector. She has assisted non-profits to develop strategic partnerships, to leverage their visibility, and to maximize their support among traditional and non-traditional audiences and funders. Prior to joining Res Publica, Hartog-Levin served as both an attorney and an executive at Chicago’s Field Museum, where she was the Vice President for External Affairs.  Earlier in her career, Ms. Hartog-Levin served as a legal advisor to the Illinois State Board of Education, advising the State Superintendent and Regional Superintendents of Education on the interpretation and application of the Illinois School Code. She has also worked as an attorney in private practice, primarily representing school boards, private and public colleges, and social service agencies. Ms. Hartog-Levin is a graduate of Northwestern University with a degree in Russian language and literature.  She received her J.D. from Loyola University School of Law.
 

Office of the Vice President

-----------------------------------
For Immediate Release      July 2, 2009

 
Vice President Biden in Iraq to Meet with Iraqi Leaders and Visit U.S. Troops

 
Vice President Biden has arrived in Iraq to visit U.S. troops and to meet with Iraqi leaders, including President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Speaker of the Council of Representatives Ayad al-Samarrai. The Vice President will reiterate the United States’ commitment to fully implement the Security Agreement and the Strategic Framework Agreement and to carry out President Obama’s plan to draw down U.S. forces. He will discuss with Iraq’s leaders the importance of achieving the political progress that is necessary to ensure the nation’s long-term stability. This is Vice President Biden’s second trip to Iraq this year and his first as Vice President.
 
###

Today, President Obama will meet with business leaders from both small and large companies to discuss job creation and ways to develop  long term solution to strengthen our economy. The CEOs participating in the discussion will talk about what steps they have taken to increase productivity in their industry during a recession through innovation and technology.  

Background on Business Leaders Meeting with The President

John Berger, Standard Renewable Energy, CEO
John Berger is the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Standard Renewable Energy. Prior to Standard, Mr. Berger founded and was the Managing Partner of Contango Capital Partners, LP, a venture capital firm.

Standard Renewable Energy has grown to become the largest "on-site" renewable energy generation provider in the U.S.  Standard Renewable Energy provides energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions for homes and businesses through energy audits, weatherization, solar energy systems, solar thermal water heating systems and wind energy systems. Standard Renewable Energy (SRE) is looking to nearly triple its number of employees from about 200 to more than 500 in the next 18 months.

Stephanie A. Burns, Dow Corning, CEO
In 26 years at Dow Corning, Dr. Burns’ career has spanned scientific research; issues management; science and technology leadership and business management. She has been a member of Dow Corning’s Board of Directors since 2001, was elected president in 2003 and chief executive officer in January 2004. She was elected chairman in January 2006.

In the past five years, Dow Corning has announced more than $5 billion in investments in solar technology, including last December's announcement of more than $2.2 billion to increase polysilicon production - creating 1,800 construction jobs and 1,200 permanent new jobs - and another new manufacturing facility for use in thin film solar production which will create even more solar-related jobs and help attract other supply chain investments to the United States.

Amit Chatterjee, Hara, CEO
Amit Chatterjee is Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Founder of Hara Software. Prior to founding Hara he led SAP’s fast-growing Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) unit. Mr. Chatterjee developed his strategic and leadership experience while at McKinsey & Co., working with clients such as SAP, Cisco and Oracle.

Hara builds software that allows companies to track their use of natural resources and their carbon emissions. It is currently being used by companies such as Coca-Cola and the city of Palo Alto to help save millions of dollars in expenses related to waste and energy use.

Alex Laskey, Positive Energy, President and Founder
Alex Laskey founded Positive Energy in 2007. He previously he worked on environmental issues with the public opinion research and political strategy firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, and Associates (FMMA).

Positive Energy works with utilities and power companies to help their customers save energy and money through direct marketing, technology, and energy efficiency. Clients include PG&E and The Sacramento Municipality District.

Jim Robo, FPL Group, President & COO
Prior to joining FPL Group, Mr. Robo was president and chief executive officer of a major division at GE Capital. Before that, he was chairman and CEO of GE Mexico and was a member of the GE corporate development team.

FPL group is one of the nation’s largest providers of electricity and related services. It is number one provider in the US of wind, solar, and energy efficiency and ranks number one among electric utilities nationwide in energy efficiency programs.

David Rosenberg, Hycrete, CEO
David Rosenberg founded what is now Hycrete, Inc. in 2002, when he joined his family’s specialty chemical company. He spun Hycrete, Inc. off from his family’s business in 2005 with a New Jersey state development grant and capital from a private equity firm.

Hycrete developed a groundbreaking technology that improves the way buildings and bridges are constructed. They have transformed traditional concrete by making it waterproof and thus lowering maintenance costs and eliminating pollution and landfill waste. Hycrete has grown extensively in recent years hiring 40 people in 2009 and expanding to 9 US locations.

Michael R. Splinter, Applied Materials, President & CEO
Mr. Splinter is a 30-year veteran of the semiconductor industry and has led Applied Materials to record revenue and profits during his tenure. Under his leadership, the company is helping drive global adoption of solar power by driving down the cost-per-watt of solar energy.

Applied Materials is a leader in nonmanufacturing of semiconductor chips flat panel displays and solar photovoltaic cells. Applied Materials employs approximately 14,600 people throughout the world and had revenues of $8.13 Billion in 2008.

Chuck Swoboda, Cree Lighting, CEO & President
Mr. Swoboda has served as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer since June 2001, as President since January 1999, as a member of the Board of Directors since October 2000 and as chairman since April 2005. He was previously employed by Hewlett-Packard Company.

Cree Lighting is the global leader in LED lighting and has its primary manufacturing facilities in Raleigh Durham area of North Carolina. In the past 6 years has quadrupled to 3,200 employees. In 2008 they were selected to provide the LED lighting for the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics.
 

Office of the Press Secretary

___________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE     JULY 2, 2009

Statement by the President on Health Care Reform Bill Released by Senate HELP Committee Today

For decades, Washington has failed to act as health care costs continued to rise, crushing businesses, families and placing an unsustainable burden on governments.  Today the Senate HELP committee has produced legislation that lowers costs, protects choice of doctors and plans and assures quality and affordable health care for Americans. The Congressional Budget Office has now issued a more complete review of this bill, concluding that it will cost less and cover more Americans than originally estimated.  It also contains provisions that will protect the coverage Americans get at work. When merged with the Senate Finance Committee’s companion pieces, the Senate will be prepared to vote for health reform legislation that does not add to the deficit,  reduces health care costs and covers 97% of Americans.  

The HELP Committee legislation reflects many of the principles I’ve laid out, such as reforms that will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and the concept of  insurance exchanges where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick. Such a marketplace would allow families and some small businesses the benefit of one-stop-shopping for their health care coverage and enable them to compare price and quality and pick the plan that best suits their needs.

Among the choices that would be available in the exchange would be a public health insurance option. The public option would make health care affordable by increasing competition, providing more choices and keeping the insurance companies honest. 

The legislation also improves the quality of patient care, improves safety for patients and strengthens the commitment to preventive health care – preventing people from getting sick in the first place.

I thank chairman Kennedy, Senator Dodd, and all the members of the HELP Committee for their hard work on health reform.

###
 

In our 2007 report to the President, Improving Declassification, we wrote that the declassification system of the Federal Government is composed of many “moving parts.” As a result, it is quite difficult to learn what is actually being accomplished. We also found that current processes at agencies varied greatly. Thus, we found that these reviews could be inefficient, inconsistent, and lacking in uniformity. Finally, we noted that the challenges of reviewing records containing the information belonging to multiple agencies has proven extremely difficult and time-consuming and, in some cases has led to the “reclassification” of information after it has become public. As a Board, we support the creation of an National Declassification Center that would create interagency cooperation for declassification, resolve disagreements between agencies, provide uniform guidelines to govern the declassification activities of the entire Executive branch, and facilitate the identification and review of multiple agencies equities. 

On May 27, 2009, the President directed agency and department heads to review Executive Order 12958, as amended, “Classified National Security Information,” and provide recommendations on establishing a National Declassification Center (NDC). The recommendations for a NDC should “bring appropriate agency officials together to perform collaborative declassification review under the administration of the Archivist of the United States.” As you consider your recommendations for the creation of a National Declassification Center, please take into consideration the following questions. 

• How should a National Declassification Center prioritize review based on researcher interest?
• What elements should a National Declassification Center have to be successful?
• What should be the end goal of a National Declassification Center?
• What would improve public access to declassified records?
• How could a National Declassification Center best employ technology?
• How could the operation of a National Declassification Center be made as transparent as possible?

David E. Skaggs, Public Interest Declassification Board Member

MS. JARRETT:  I'm going to be in charge.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

So in my opening remarks, Mr. President, I mentioned that when you released your YouTube video over the weekend, we received literally hundreds of video questions from all across the country.  Your staff looked through all those questions and have selected a cross-section that represents a broad cross-section of the kinds of questions that came up.

I want to emphasize that the President has not seen the questions ahead of time.  (Laughter.)  Absolutely not. 

And so we're going to begin with a video question, Mr. President, if you look at the screen.

THE PRESIDENT:  All right.

VIDEO Q   Hi, my name is Steve White.  I'm in Spring Valley, New York.  And my question for the President is:  Why are we considering a health care plan which maintains the private insurance companies with their high overhead costs, instead of a single-payer plan, which would eliminate the high overhead costs, saving the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, while covering everyone in our country?  Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.  Well, it's a terrific question.  I'm not sure if everybody could hear it, but the gist of the question is, why have we not been looking at a single-payer plan as the way to go?

As many of you know, in many countries, most industrialized advanced countries, they have some version of what's called a single-payer plan.  And what that means is essentially that the government is the insurer.  The government may not necessarily hire the doctors or the hospitals -- a lot of those may still be privately operated -- but the government is the insurer for everybody.  And Medicare is actually a single-payer plan that we have in place, but we only have it in place for our older Americans.

Now, in a lot of those countries, a single-payer plan works pretty well and you eliminate, as Scott, I think it was, said, you eliminate private insurers, you don't have the administrative costs and the bureaucracy and so forth. 

Here's the problem, is that the way our health care system evolved in the United States, it evolved based on employers providing health insurance to their employees through private insurers.  And so that's still the way that the vast majority of you get your insurance.  And for us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive.  And my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free market system.

I think that we can regulate the insurance companies effectively; make sure that they're not playing games with people because of preexisting conditions; that they're not charging wildly different rates to people based on where they live or what their age is; that they're not dropping people for coverage unnecessarily; that we have a public option that's available to provide competition and choice to the American people, and to keep the insurers honest; and that we can provide a system in which we are, over the long term, driving down administrative costs, and making sure that people are getting the best possible care at a lower price.

But I recognize that there are lot of people who are passionate -- they look at France or some of these other systems and they say, well, why can't we just do that?  Well, the answer is, is that this is one-sixth of our economy, and we're not suddenly just going to completely upend the system.  We want to build on what works about the system and fix what's broken about the system.  And that's what I think Congress is committed to doing, and I'm committed to working with them to make it happen. Okay?

MS. JARRETT:  I'm going to be in charge.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

So in my opening remarks, Mr. President, I mentioned that when you released your YouTube video over the weekend, we received literally hundreds of video questions from all across the country.  Your staff looked through all those questions and have selected a cross-section that represents a broad cross-section of the kinds of questions that came up.

I want to emphasize that the President has not seen the questions ahead of time.  (Laughter.)  Absolutely not. 

And so we're going to begin with a video question, Mr. President, if you look at the screen.

THE PRESIDENT:  All right.

VIDEO Q   Hi, my name is Steve White.  I'm in Spring Valley, New York.  And my question for the President is:  Why are we considering a health care plan which maintains the private insurance companies with their high overhead costs, instead of a single-payer plan, which would eliminate the high overhead costs, saving the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, while covering everyone in our country?  Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.  Well, it's a terrific question.  I'm not sure if everybody could hear it, but the gist of the question is, why have we not been looking at a single-payer plan as the way to go?

As many of you know, in many countries, most industrialized advanced countries, they have some version of what's called a single-payer plan.  And what that means is essentially that the government is the insurer.  The government may not necessarily hire the doctors or the hospitals -- a lot of those may still be privately operated -- but the government is the insurer for everybody.  And Medicare is actually a single-payer plan that we have in place, but we only have it in place for our older Americans.

Now, in a lot of those countries, a single-payer plan works pretty well and you eliminate, as Scott, I think it was, said, you eliminate private insurers, you don't have the administrative costs and the bureaucracy and so forth. 

Here's the problem, is that the way our health care system evolved in the United States, it evolved based on employers providing health insurance to their employees through private insurers.  And so that's still the way that the vast majority of you get your insurance.  And for us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive.  And my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free market system.

I think that we can regulate the insurance companies effectively; make sure that they're not playing games with people because of preexisting conditions; that they're not charging wildly different rates to people based on where they live or what their age is; that they're not dropping people for coverage unnecessarily; that we have a public option that's available to provide competition and choice to the American people, and to keep the insurers honest; and that we can provide a system in which we are, over the long term, driving down administrative costs, and making sure that people are getting the best possible care at a lower price.

But I recognize that there are lot of people who are passionate -- they look at France or some of these other systems and they say, well, why can't we just do that?  Well, the answer is, is that this is one-sixth of our economy, and we're not suddenly just going to completely upend the system.  We want to build on what works about the system and fix what's broken about the system.  And that's what I think Congress is committed to doing, and I'm committed to working with them to make it happen. Okay?

Today, the President signed into law:

H.R. 1777, which makes technical corrections and other changes to the Higher Education Act of 1965; and

S. 614, which provides for the award of a single congressional gold medal in honor of the Women Airforce Service Pilots.

##
 

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   JULY 1, 2009

Declassification Policy Forum to Launch This Week

WHAT:          An important extension of the Open Government Initiative began this week: The Declassification Policy Forum.  This will be an interactive conversation available at www.whitehouse.gov/open/blog.  Members of the Public Interest Declassification Board will moderate and solicit recommendations from the public on possible revisions to the classification and declassification policies found in Executive Order 12958, as amended, "Classified National Security Information."  This a request of the National Security Advisor in support of the ongoing review of the Order directed by President Barack Obama on May 27, 2009.

                                                                                               
WHO:           Public Interest Declassification Board Members

WHEN:          Monday, June 29, 2009 (start) – Monday July 13, 2009 (end)
 

WHERE:        www.whitehouse.gov/open/blog
 

The President’s goals of promoting greater government transparency and participation is about to mark a new milestone in what one may think is a very unlikely topic for citizen participation: Classification and Declassification Policy.  This is an interesting avenue for public participation and a new facet to the President’s Open Government Initiative. 

The Declassification Policy Forum will be used to solicit recommendations for revisions to the Order in four topical areas: Declassification Policy (June 29 – July 1), a National Declassification Center (July 2 – July 4), Classification Policy (July 5 – July 7), and Technology Challenges and Opportunities (July 8 – July 10).  Once posted, each topic will be available for comments for three days.  At the conclusion of the third day, the comment function on the topic will be turned off and the next topic will begin the following day.  After each topic closes, a concluding summary will be posted. 

The Declassification Policy Forum began on Monday, June 29, 2009, and will require registration to participate.  Participants may make suggestions or comments, vote on previous postings, and flag topics that are off-topic.  The Public Interest Declassification Board members look forward to receiving thoughtful ideas and innovative suggestions that will further the policy discussion and assist the Board in making recommendations to the National Security Advisor. 

In addition to the online discussion, the Board will also accept input via email (PIDB@nara.gov), fax (202-357-5907), and US mail (Public Interest Declassification Board, National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 100, Washington, DC 200408-0001). 

Background

The Public Interest Declassification Board is an advisory committee established by Congress in order to promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant U.S. national security decisions and activities. The Board is composed of nine individuals, five appointed by the President and four by the Congressional leadership. Current Presidential appointees include: Martin C. Faga (Acting Chair),
Herbert O. Briick, Ronald Radosh, Jennifer E. Sims, and Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker. The Minority Leader of the House appointed Admiral William O. Studeman, USN, (Ret.), the Majority Leader of the Senate appointed Sanford J. Ungar, and the Speaker of the House appointed Representative David E. Skaggs.

For more information see:  http://www.archives.gov/declassification/pidb.

*   *   *
 

Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                  JULY 1, 2009

President Obama Signs Bill Awarding Congressional Gold Medal to Women Airforce Service Pilots

First women to fly American military aircraft served courageously, blazed trails during WWII

WASHINGTON – President Obama today signed into law S. 614, a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).  WASP was established during World War II with the primary mission of flying non-combat military missions in the United States thus freeing their male counterparts for combat missions.  Its pilots were the first women ever to fly American military aircraft and flew almost every type of aircraft operated by the United States Army Air Force during World War II on a wide range of missions.

"The Women Airforce Service Pilots courageously answered their country’s call in a time of need while blazing a trail for the brave women who have given and continue to give so much in service to this nation since," said President Obama.  "Every American should be grateful for their service, and I am honored to sign this bill to finally give them some of the hard-earned recognition they deserve."

From 1942 to 1943, more than 1,000 women joined the WASP.  38 of them made the ultimate sacrifice for their nation in performing its mission.  But their contribution went largely unrecognized for years, not even being acknowledged with veteran status until 1977.

The groundbreaking steps taken by the WASP paved the way for hundreds of United States servicewomen combat pilots who have flown fighter aircraft in recent conflicts.

The bipartisan effort in Congress to recognize the contributions of the WASP was led by Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), and Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Susan Davis (D-CA).  At today’s signing, President Obama and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen were joined by three members of WASP as well as five active duty United States Air Force pilots who have followed in their footsteps.

To view a picture of the President signing the bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Women Airforce Pilots in the Oval Office today click HERE.

The names of the pilots in attendance are below:

Women’s Airforce Service Pilots
Elaine Danforth Harmon
Lorraine H. Rodgers
Bernice Falk Haydu

Active Duty United States Air Force Pilots
Colonel Dawn Dunlop
Colonel Bobbi Doorenbos
Lieutenant Colonel Wendy Wasik
Major Kara Sandifur
Major Nicole Malachowski

For photos of the event:
www.flickr.com/whitehouse

###
 

They'll overnight on Thursday, the 9th, in L'Aquila; will on Thursday (EDIT: "Friday", not Thursday) morning finish with additional G8 sessions, including a working breakfast of the G8 plus African countries plus five international organizations.  The President will have a bilateral with our South African counterparts.  And then after lunch the President will have a press conference on Friday afternoon.  Then the President will move from L'Aquila back to Rome for a meeting at the Holy See with the Holy Father, as well as a meeting with the Vatican Secretary of State.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
____________________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                                                       July 1, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
ON THE PRESIDENT’S TRIP TO RUSSIA, ITALY, AND AFRICA
BY DENIS McDONOUGH, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS, MICHAEL FROMAN, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, MICHELLE GAVIN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR AFRICAN AFFAIRS, AND MICHAEL McFAUL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS

Via Conference Call

3:35 P.M. EDT

MR. VIETOR:  Hey, everybody, thanks for getting on.  We're joined today by Denis McDonough, Mike Froman, Mike McFaul, and Michelle Gavin.  You guys have their titles on the advisory that went today, they're all listed there.

So we're going to walk through the trip, the schedule and top-line, point to what the President hopes to do and accomplish, and then turn it over to specific individuals to talk about their areas of expertise.

So to kickoff the call we're going to turn it over to Denis McDonough, who's going to start with an overview of the trip.

MR. McDONOUGH:  Hey, everybody.  Good afternoon, thanks for joining us.  I want to just talk to you in very general terms, what Mark Lippert normally does, which is the schedule.

The delegation will arrive in Moscow on the morning of July 6, that's next Monday.  During the course of the day on the 6th the President will have a private and a working meeting with President Medvedev.  He will hold a press conference that afternoon in Moscow.  After the meeting with President Medvedev, then he and the First Lady will have dinner Monday evening with President and Mrs. Medvedev.

They'll overnight in Moscow and the next morning will have breakfast with Prime Minister Putin; will have a meeting with former President Gorbachev.  The President will give a major speech at the New Economic School that afternoon on U.S.-Russia relations.  And then the President will hold meetings with a variety of Russian political, business leaders during the course of that afternoon.  That will be on -- through the course of the 7th.  Then we'll overnight again on the 7th in Moscow and head -- leaving the next morning from Moscow to Rome.

In Rome the President will then go to L'Aquila, Italy, where we will have the G8, a series of meetings associated with G8 and with Italian political leaders, including a bilateral meeting with President Napolitano, before leaving Rome and heading up to L'Aquila.

Once getting to Rome -- once getting to L'Aquila will have a series of G8 sessions, and Mike Froman, in a minute, will talk you through the big pieces of that, but they include a working lunch with the G8 leaders, a session on a variety of foreign policy and political issues at the leaders level, and then some cultural events in L'Aquila.  Then they'll overnight in a L'Aquila, wake up the next morning and close out the G8 meetings, including the G8-plus-5.  And Mike will get into that in just a minute, in terms of who the plus-5 will be that we're meeting with while in L'Aquila on the 9th, Thursday the 9th.

There will also be a series of important bilateral meetings at the G8, which will include a bilateral meeting with President Hu of China.  Then another -- the working lunch, as I suggested, with the G8-plus-5-plus-1.  And then of course the Junior 8 meeting – leaving late that afternoon.  And that evening will be -- that late afternoon will be a meeting of the Major Economies Forum, which President Obama will co-chair.  That meeting will be a discussion of energy and climate, and obviously bolstered by the great progress in the House last week.  The President will chair that meeting and press for continued progress on energy and climate.

They'll overnight on Thursday, the 9th, in L'Aquila; will on Thursday morning finish with additional G8 sessions, including a working breakfast of the G8 plus African countries plus five international organizations.  The President will have a bilateral with our South African counterparts.  And then after lunch the President will have a press conference on Friday afternoon.  Then the President will move from L'Aquila back to Rome for a meeting at the Holy See with the Holy Father, as well as a meeting with the Vatican Secretary of State.

After that meeting, we'll load and fly on to Accra, Ghana, arriving late Friday evening, waking Saturday morning, the 11th, in Ghana for a series of meetings as well as a major address on development and democracy in the Ghanaian parliament.  After the speech, the President and First Lady will tour the Cape Coast Castle, where the President will make -- after which the President will make very brief remarks.  And then they will be leaving from Ghana, returning to Washington.

So that's just a quick walk through the schedule.  Let me just hand it now to -- and chronologically we'll go from Russia, which will be briefed by Mike McFaul, to L'Aquila, which will be briefed by Mike Froman, and then to Ghana, which will be briefed by Michelle Gavin.  And then I'm happy to take questions as it relates to the stop at the Holy See.

We'll give you a quick overview of what the President will be working on in each of these stops, then we'll take your questions.

MR. McFAUL:  So, this is Mike McFaul.  Let me just say briefly what we plan to do while we're in Moscow.  As I'm sure you all know the President made very clear that he wanted to establish a different kind of relationship with Russia.  He's used the metaphor of "reset" to describe what we're trying to do.

In London, on April 1, when the two Presidents met, they established a set of aspirations for how we can have a more substantive relationship with Russia.  And notice I'm using the word "substance" as opposed to "good" or "bad" or "indifferent."  We want to actually do real business with the Russians on things that matter to our national security and our prosperity.

We have been working on a series of agreements and statements.  Most of the focus in the press has been on the post-START agreement, and at the meeting -- the formal meeting that the two Presidents have in the Kremlin on the first day we will hear reports of where our negotiators are at.  The START treaty expires in December, so we are under the gun to try to get something to replace it by the end of the year.

But I want to emphasize that we'll be talking about many, many more things and other agreements and statements that we want to try to get done both in this meeting and in the coming months and years in dealing with our Russian counterparts, dealing, again, on all the issues:  Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, nonproliferation, European security -- all the issues that matter in terms of American security and prosperity and the security of our allies.

So that will be a wide-ranging discussion, and a kind of report on where we've gotten so far in terms of trying to establish this new relationship, more substantive relationship with the Russian government.

On the second day, to kind of -- I would just summarize it as the following, that as we reset relations with the Russian government, we also want to reset relations with Russian society.  And virtually the whole day, with the exception of the meeting with Prime Minister Putin in the morning, will be devoted to events and different organizations -- business leaders, as Denis has already said, very political and civil society leaders, to try to establish a direct relationship with the Russian people, as well.

And the idea here is that this is not 1974, this is not just where we go where we do an arms control agreement with the Soviets, but that we have a multidimensional relationship with the Russian government and with the Russian people.  And that's what we're going to try to begin to establish in this first substantive discussion that we have with the Russian government, and then to follow up with that with different parts of Russian society.

MR. VIETOR:  Anything else, Denis, you want to --

MR. McDONOUGH:  Well, we're going to go, as we indicated a minute ago, from Moscow to Rome and then to L'Aquila.  So, Michael, just talk us through -- Mike is the President's Sherpa for the G8, has been working this very aggressively with our colleagues.  And so he'll read us what we have prepared for this.

MR. FROMAN:  Thanks, Denis.  As Denis indicated, (inaudible) L'Aquila is actually a series of summits, sort of ever larger summits over the 48 hour period there.  It starts with the G8; added to the G8 on the second day are the "plus-5" as the major emerging economies -- China, India, South Africa, Mexico, and Brazil.  In addition, for this summit, Italy invited Egypt to join those meetings.

On the afternoon of the second day, Australia, Indonesia, and Korea will join us for the Major Economies Forum and we'll have a discussion both of the international trading system and a Doha Round and then climate change -- and go back to that.  And then that night and the following day they'll be joined by three other countries from Europe -- the Netherlands, Spain, and Turkey -- plus six additional representatives from Africa for the African dialogue on the third day.  There will also be the international organizations there (inaudible) bank, World Trade Organization, the (inaudible), the ILO and others.  So it will be a group that will be about various issues over those three days.

The purpose of the summit for the President -- the President seeks to accomplish there is the following.  This summit falls squarely between the G20 summit in London and the G20 summit that we will host in Pittsburgh at the end of September.  It's a time when the leaders can get together and assess where they are in the economic recovery effort, what further steps need to be taken to restore the balance of economic growth, expand and restore exports, and create jobs.  And so it dates very much back to our own domestic, economic, policy and strategy here.

Secondly, it's an opportunity for the President and the other leaders to work together to address global issues like nonproliferation, climate change, international trade, and food security.  And these are issues that the President has invested a great deal of himself in.  Climate change, for example, the President invited 16 other countries to join him in the Major Economies Forum at this meeting and there have been preparatory sessions of 17 countries over the last few months in an effort to try and get these major economies, who represent 75 percent of all (inaudible)emissions to give political momentum and impetus to (inaudible) negotiations, heading towards Copenhagen later this year.

On nonproliferation, as you recall, the President gave a speech in Prague laying out his -- (inaudible) -- the G8 leaders, as well.  And on food security, you may recall in April the President announced a U.S. commitment to double our investment in agricultural development and productivity.  And this will now be a part of the broader discussion among the -- actually, all the countries attending L'Aquila, including the African delegation, about where to take this initiative going forward.

Finally, on trade, it came up in London in April at the G20 when the President suggested that the leaders get back together at the summit and review where we were with regard to the Doha Round of negotiations, and see if we could get that back on track.

So there will be work over these days on economic issues, development issues, political and foreign policy issues, including a dinner, as Denis mentioned, the first night, among the G8, where the agenda is likely to range from Iran to North Korea, as well as nonproliferation, the Middle East, and other issues.  And then those issues will carry out throughout the day.

I think that's it.

MR. McDONOUGH:  We're going to finish up with Michelle Gavin and then we'll go to your questions.  Michelle, talk us through Ghana.

MS. GAVIN:  Sure.  Well, the President then will be moving on Accra, Ghana.  And this is a bit unusual, in that typically Presidents, when they travel to Africa, do a number of African stops.  And I think that President Obama certainly looks forward to traveling more widely in Africa in the future.  But it's quite intentional and underscores the point that Africa is integrated broadly into foreign policy thinking.  African voices are an important part of global discussions on key global issues, including many of those just discussed in the context of the G8.  And so it makes sense to incorporate Africa in our foreign policy (inaudible).

And the President wanted to stop in Ghana particularly because he's interested in emphasizing themes of governance -- the importance of governance for making development progress, the importance of governance for stability.  And Ghana is a truly admirable example of a place where governance is getting stronger, a thriving democracy.  They just had an extraordinarily close election at the end of last year, decided ultimately by about 40,000 votes, that remained peaceful, power was transferred peacefully, and they continue to pursue a development agenda and bolster the rule of law.

And this is worth pointing out, because far too often discussions of Africa are focused on crisis.  Ghana is not in crisis, and it's an example for the region and more broadly.

So while he's there, the President will obviously meet with his counterpart, President Mills, and they'll have bilateral discussions about a number of important issues.  It's a strong bilateral relationship, and not only will we discuss governance issues but Ghana's challenges as a new oil wealth is slated to come online within the next couple years, which always creates an interesting governance challenge; development priorities, including agricultural development.  Ghana will be a focus of the food security initiative, and this will be a great opportunity to talk about how that's going to create new opportunities for young Ghanaians and young Africans when it's rolled out more broadly.

One of Ghana's key priorities is maternal health, trying to bring down their maternal mortality numbers.  And the President will be doing some work on that, as well.

And of course regional issues, again, relating to stability, governance, counternarcotics, which is an important issue in West Africa. 

The President will then give a speech about some of the themes that I just articulated at the Ghanaian parliament, again, sort of sending the signal that this is a bolstering of an important institution of governance.  But he'll also be talking a lot about how governance isn't just an agenda for political (inaudible) for elected officials, and it's not just an agenda for citizens when it's voting time.  It's a constant process.  And it involves civil society and local initiatives, and the message is about how the people of Ghana are driving their countries forward, and more broadly how Africans can be driving their country forward, and more broadly how Africans can be driving their countries forward, rather than a notion of donor countries in the driver's seat.

And so then after the speech, the First Family will be off to the Cape Coast.  Following that, they'll come back to the airport for a departure ceremony that will allow (inaudible) an opportunity to participate in the visit.  And that will be it.

MR. McDONOUGH:  Great.  Thanks, Michelle.  Let's go to your questions.

Q    Hi.  Thanks, you all, for doing the call.  Two quick topics for Mike McFaul on Moscow.  Could you elaborate a bit on what the President would like to accomplish on the START treaty?  I know that you said there will be many other topics, but what specifically should we expect there?  Is he going to get down to agreement to 1,500, more of a broad framework?  What should we expect?

And then, too, real quickly on Michelle's point on Ghana, I understand you said that this underscores how Africa fits into the foreign policy thinking, but I was wondering if you could broaden that a little bit more about why this is so important to include Ghana on this trip.  It seems to some people to be a little bit eclectic that Africa is included on the way home.  If you could elaborate a bit more.  Thanks.

MR. McFAUL:  So on the follow-on agreement to the START treaty -- and, guys, we got to figure out what we're going to call this thing; we need to come up with a name, the follow-on treaty.  I would just say this:  We are -- we just launched these negotiations very recently.  We released the negotiating instructions on April 1st.  We are working through -- I don't want to get into the details -- but it's a very complex treaty for a couple of reasons that are important.

One is it involves real verification procedures.  This is what we were not doing recently in the last eight years, so we are going -- have to work through those and with new technology.  That requires a lot of heavy lifting and you can't get to the numbers that you're talking until you know what you can verify and what not because of the counting procedures that go with that.

Second, we agreed that it will be a treaty that will limit delivery vehicles as well as warheads, and the relationship between those two numbers is quite complicated because the Russian forces are structured in a different way than our forces.

So, you know, whether it's -- it's way too early to talk about whether it's 1,500 or a different number.  I do know that it will be below the levels that were in the Moscow treaty, which were 1,700 to 2,200.  And I would just remind you that we're at the high end -- of course, whenever you see a range, we're always at a higher end.  So whether -- you know, we're going to see progress on all those other things.  And my guess is we'll get around concrete numbers right towards the end of negotiating a treaty because it depends on what you count; you have to get those things right first.

MS. GAVIN:  To your question on Ghana, well, it makes sense for a number of reasons.  Certainly, a number of the things that they'll be discussing at the G8, and the reason there is African participation in the G8, as well, relate to economic resilience, capacity to weather a downturn and move forward, development agendas, global issues, including climate change -- and there's a recognition, broadly, that African voices are important in these debates.

One of the things the President wants to highlight is that Africa's capacity to address all of those issues pivots on sound governance.  And in order to underscore the importance of that, he's stopping in an African example of extremely strong governance that deserves support and attention.

So I think it makes a lot of sense, particularly in light of the fact that there have been some worrying trends in Africa recently.  We've had, frankly, a number of coups:  Mauritania, although that seems to be getting on the right track now; Madagascar; Guinea; a problematic election in Nigeria, in Kenya, in Zimbabwe; you have this third-term bid that's led to a rule by emergency decree in Niger.  So it's important to talk about why this matters, and I don't think there's a lot of time to waste on that.

MR. McDONOUGH:  You know, Ben -- this is Denis -- let me just add one thing.  The President will give two major addresses on this trip, one in Moscow and one in Accra.  And basically the President sees these two as the next two speeches in a four-speech series:  Prague, where he laid out a vision as it relates to proliferation and as it relates to the role of small states like the Czech Republic in the international system and in our national security goals; Cairo, a speech that obviously laid out a vision for the United States' relations with Muslim communities around the world and a range of issues and the threat that we look to confront jointly with those communities, including terrorism, extremism, including the push to have a lasting peace in the Middle East.

Moscow will be a speech about U.S.-Russia relations and how great powers ought to see this new century.  And then, of course, the speech in Ghana will be an enunciation of democracy and development goals as it relates not just to Ghana or not just to West Africa and not just to Africa, but to the whole part of this world that is the developing world, and that is seeking to have the kind of opportunity that the President wants to see fulfilled.

So this is part and parcel -- the geography of this trip is part and parcel with the President's national security goals as he's enunciated them throughout these first seven months.

Q    Hi, everyone.  Thank you for doing this call.  I've got two questions here.  The first is, what kinds of energy issues will the President be discussing with Medvedev and Putin in Moscow?  And secondly, in Italy, what sorts of deliverables are you hoping for at the major economies meeting?

MR. McDONOUGH:  You know, on --

Q    I'm sorry, who's speaking right now?

MR. McDONOUGH:  This is Denis.

Q    Okay, thanks.

MR. McDONOUGH:  I'll let Mike and Mike go in a second here, but we're not going to announce all of our announcements today.  (Laughter.)  Gibbs used that on the last call; I've been looking for an opportunity to use it.

MR. McFAUL:  So on energy issues, obviously for both the meeting with President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin, it's a major topic, both because of Russia's role as a supplier of energy, oil, and gas, but also in terms of Russia's role in terms of becoming a more energy-efficient country as we look to do things on climate change that I'll let Mike talk about.

Again, given what Denis just said, I don't want to talk about deliverables and agreements on those issues.  But especially for the Prime Minister, Mr. Putin, this is a subject that he's focused a great deal of attention on, and we're going in there to talk about how we want to do things in cooperation with Russia.  In particular, we want to have conversations about diversification of supplies out of Russia and through the region in a way that it's not thought about in a zero-sum way.

And second, we want to talk just more generally about our national interests.  I think there's a big problem in U.S.-Russian relations now and has been for some time in that if you look at Russian public opinion, what Russian elites say, and even some of their leaders, they think of the world in zero-sum terms.  The United States is considered an adversary; I'm sure many would use harsher words among themselves when they talk about us.  And they think that our number-one objective in the world is to make Russia weaker, to surround Russia, to do things that make us stronger and Russia weaker.

I think what you're going to hear when President Obama is in Moscow, that that is not the way that he sees the relationship; that there are lots of interests that we have and we're going to speak about them very explicitly, both privately and publicly when he gives his speech.  And then he's going to pivot to those and say, well, this is our interest in fighting terrorism; this is our interest in energy efficiency and dealing with climate changes; these are our interest in dealing with Iran -- is there anything here that I've just said that in any way is negative in terms of Russia's own interests, and Russians' own interests in terms of their security and prosperity?

And that pertains very much to the question that you talked about in terms of energy issues.  It's not, in our view, a zero-sum game, that if it's two points for Russia it's negative two for us, but there are ways that we can cooperate to advance our interests and, at the same time, do things with the Russians that are good for them, as well.

MR. FROMAN:  Let me just add on the climate change piece or the Major Economies Forum.  The purpose of the Major Economies Forum is really twofold.  One, as I said, is to give momentum to the negotiations toward Copenhagen.  And around that, there are issues of mitigation, adaptation, and financing.  Those are the three major issues at Copenhagen and we expect that there will be a good discussion among the leaders on those issues.

The second area -- and this perhaps looks back to what Mike McFaul just said -- is on technology cooperation and that these countries are coming together to look at what needs to be done in terms of technology innovation to address the climate change challenge, and is a recognition that how we use our minds and our resources will be our defining issue going forward, and that there are certain challenges that we can collectively get at that are necessary to resolve.

It's (inaudible) negotiations, but frankly, separate from the negotiations, if we're going to solve the climate change problem.  And there will be discussion of that as well at the Major Economies Forum.

Q    A couple of questions.  First, for Mike Froman, you've talked a lot about climate and the Major Economies Forum.  Does that mean that the gathering in L'Aquila is going to be primarily focused kind of as a preview for Copenhagen?  And if not, what are you expecting in the other pieces of it, especially the economic piece?

And for Michael McFaul, on Russia, what is the President prepared -- what kind of reassurances is the President prepared to offer Russia on its two stickiest points -- NATO expansion for Ukraine and Georgia, and the third missile site -- missile defense site in Eastern Europe?

MR. FROMAN:  Jonathan, it's Mike Froman.  I mentioned the Major Economies Forum because the issue was energy was climate change.  Obviously there will be a number of other issues dealt with by the G8 and the G8-plus-5 and in the other forums, as well -- including, on the economy, assessing where we are in the economic recovery and what further steps may be necessary to restore the global economy to balanced growth.  And when I say "balanced growth", I think there will be a discussion of how will we come out of this recovery in a way that doesn't go back to the boom and bust cycles of before and put us on a more sustainable path.

So that will be a major issue of the discussion both among the G8 and the G8-plus-5.

Q    Are you expecting any deliverables on that front, like we had out of the G20?

MR. FROMAN:  I'll just refer back to Denis's comment.  We won't announce everything in a pre-announcement.  But I think on the economy itself, this will be more about exchanging views at this midpoint between the two G20 summits than an opportunity to produce a series of specific deliverables, as you would call them.

MR. McFAUL:  This is Mike McFaul.  On NATO expansion and missile defense, I would just say this, that we're definitely not going to use the word "reassure" in the way that we talk about these things.  We're not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense.

Rather, our approach is different than that.  We're going to define our national interests, and by that I also mean the interests of our allies in Europe with reference to these two particular questions.  We're going to talk about them very frankly as we did in April when we first met with President Medvedev.  And then we're going to see if there are ways that we can have Russia cooperate on those things that we define as our national interests.

So we don't need the Russians, we don't want to trade with them.  We actually think that if you frame it that way, you're going to do a lot more business than in other ways.

So in particular to your questions about NATO expansion, we've been very clear about NATO expansion.  The door is open.  The principles have been laid out well before our administration.  We have not messed with those at all.  If countries meet the criteria, if they do the reforms that qualify, if the people of those countries want to join NATO, and if they provide security to the alliance -- let's remember, this is not just an American decision, this is an alliance decision -- then the negotiation is open.  And that pertains to Georgia and Ukraine and other countries in the region.

We have commissions, as you know, with both Georgia and Ukraine to work to get them along the path to become a more active, cooperative member with NATO, well before they become members.  And I would remind you that the Vice President is traveling two weeks later to those two countries as a signal of our support that we are not in any way, in the name of the reset, abandoning our very close relationships with these two democracies, Ukraine and Georgia.

With regard to missile defense, as you know, we have a review that's underway right now.  It's a congressionally mandated review, but we'd be doing it anyway, because we're reviewing all policies.  And the way I understand that review, we want to enhance missile defense in Europe and around the world as it relates to real threats.  And by "real threats," I mean countries like Iran and not Russia.  But we also have to do it in ways to make sure that it works and it's affordable, as the President has said many times before.

We believe that when you think about enhancing missile defense in that part of the world, that Russia could play a very -- a role that would enhance their security, as well.  And when we're in Moscow, we're going to talk in those terms, not abandoning the third site in order to do a deal with Russia.  That is a formulation we just don't use at all.  But we want to enhance European missile defense.  And it turns out that Russia is right there.  If you look at the geography, and you look at the assets that they have, we believe that there are things that we could do together that would enhance American security, enhance the security of our European allies, and enhance the security of Russia.

MR. VIETOR:  Thanks, guys.  We have time for one more.

Q    Good afternoon.  I wanted to ask a question.  Do you think the President is going to meet people from Novaya Gazeta?  The people of Anna Politkovskaya want -- is in Moscow.  And the second thing, what's your goal, regarding Iran, at the G8?

MR. McFAUL:  With regard to Novaya Gazeta, the President will do an interview with Novaya Gazeta.  He committed to do that.  As you probably know, President Medvedev did an interview with Novaya Gazeta.  It was communicated to us through various channels that we all thought it would be a good idea if President Obama did that, and he will do that, and that should be on newsstands by the time we get to Moscow.

MR. McDONOUGH:  This is Denis.  I think I understood you to ask what we think the role of Iran will be --

Q    And the goals, your goals?

MR. McDONOUGH:  -- the issue of Iran at the G8.  I think what you should have heard from each of us is the fact that Iran will play -- the issue of Iran will play -- will be front and center at each of these stops, certainly as it relates to our discussions and our shared interests in Moscow, and building up the very strong statement that was agreed to last Thursday night by the foreign ministers of the G8.  I think the meeting was in Trieste.  But it was a very strong statement outlining our concerns, as it relates to Iran, the most recent actions, and of course the ticking clock as it relates to Iran's illicit nuclear program.

And the bottom line is I think the President was quite gratified to see the role that Russia played in finalizing that statement, and looked forward to continuing his discussions on this important issue both in Moscow and at L'Aquila.

MR. McFAUL:   Can I add one more thing?

MR. McDONOUGH:  Yes.

MR. McFAUL:  Can I just add one more thing about Novaya Gazeta, because I think you may have been implying a different thing that I should have mentioned.  On the second day in Moscow, as I alluded to in my opening remarks, he'll have a series of meetings with non-governmental organizations, media representatives, and in other words, all of those that are dealing with issues of democracy, independent media, rule of law.

And I would like to underscore points that Denis made.  Remember in the Prague speech, the Prague speech was about nonproliferation, but he also talked about small countries and the role that they can play.  He then went to Cairo to talk -- in terms of change for freedom and democracy.  He went to Cairo, said that.  He will -- I suspect he will -- I shouldn't say "I suspect" -- I anticipate he will talk about such issues in his speech in Moscow and when he goes on to Accra, so one of those themes that I think will be consistent in all four places in different venues -- not the only theme but it will be a theme that will be consistent throughout the four speeches.

MR. McDONOUGH:  All right, thanks a lot, everybody.

END
4:13 P.M. EDT

Did you see Vice President Biden's email last week, sharing personal health care stories from supporters across the country? Well, the stories have been read millions of times, and the reaction is an overwhelming, "Wow -- we've got to get to work."

It's not surprising -- these stories show the human face of the health care debate and inspire us all to act.

So here's our latest idea: Putting our supporters in coast-to-coast television and online ads, telling their own stories, in their own voice. It could be a breakthrough moment in this debate, when millions of Americans realize how urgent reform really is.

But recording and nationally broadcasting these stories won't be cheap. We can only go forward if you're ready to chip in. So what do you say -- should we do it?

Yes. I think this is a great idea, and I'm ready to contribute so it can happen.

No, I'm not ready to contribute to this plan.

How big could this be? Many experts believe health care reform was defeated in the early 90's by the infamous "Harry and Louise" ads. They featured actors sitting around a fake kitchen table, pretending to be a family that was frightened by reform.

So just imagine if this time around, the debate is shaped by real people, looking us in the eye, telling their actual story, and asking for our help to fix this broken system.

Phony stories helped defeat health care reform in the past. But this time, real stories could be the reason we win.

If enough Organizing for America supporters say yes and then donate the resources we need to pull it off, we'll start filming and distribution right away. So what do you say?

Yes, let's get these real stories on the airwaves. I'm ready to contribute.

No, I don't think this is a good idea or I can't contribute at this time.

We'll keep you posted with the results and what happens next.

Thanks, as always, for making it all possible.

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

1:28 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good to see you guys.  Thank you, everybody. Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you, Northern Virginia.  Thank you very much.  What a wonderful welcome.  And I'm so grateful to all of you for taking the time to be here. 

A couple of quick acknowledgments.  First of all, I want to thank President Templin and Chancellor DuBois for their wonderful hospitality.  We are grateful to both of them. 

We've got some extraordinary elected officials -- a few that I want to mention.  First of all, you've got one of the finest governors in the country, who also is doing a great job as DNC chair.  Please give Tim Kaine a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  Part of the reason Tim is such a good governor is because he took notes while being lieutenant governor to the former governor and now senator for the state of Virginia, an outstanding public servant, Mark Warner.  (Applause.)  And three outstanding members of Congress:  Bobby Scott, Jim Moran, and Gerry Connolly -- thank you so much, guys, for the great job you do every day.  (Applause.)

So I know there's all kinds of stuff Valerie was explaining. Don't worry, she's in charge, so she'll organize us.  I just want to give a few remarks at the outset, and then we'll save most of the time for questions.

First of all, it's wonderful to be here in Annandale, and I'm looking forward to answering questions about what is obviously one of the most important issues facing American families, American businesses, and the American government.  But before I begin, I just want to say a few words about where we are as a nation and where we need to go.

We're living through extraordinary times -- I don't need to tell you.  This generation of Americans -- our generation -- has been called to confront challenges of a magnitude that we have not seen in decades, perhaps unlike anything we've seen in recent history -- challenges that few generations of Americans are asked to face.  In addition to the immediate threats that we face -- we've got two wars going on and a very deep recession -- our economy has also been weakened by problems that have plagued us for decades:  the crushing cost of health care, the state of our schools, our continuing dependence on foreign oil. 

Now, I know there are some who say we can't tackle all of these problems; it's too much; Congress can't handle it; the President is juggling too many things; my administration is taking on too much too soon; we're moving too fast.

What I say is that America has waited long enough for action on these issues.  It's not too soon to fix our schools when we know that if our children are not prepared they are not going to compete in the 21st century.  It's not too soon to wean ourselves off of dirty sources of energy so that we can grab hold of a clean energy future.  We've been talking about clean energy since Richard Nixon.  And it's time for us to act.  And I congratulate, by the way, the House of Representatives for beginning action this past week on a historic clean energy bill. 

It's also not too soon to reform our health care system, which we've been talking about since Teddy Roosevelt was President.

We are at a defining moment for this nation.  If we act now, then we can rebuild our economy in a way that makes it strong, competitive, sustainable and prosperous once more.  We can lead this century the same way that we led the last century.  But if we don't act, if we let this moment pass, we could see this economy just sputter along for decades -- a slow, steady decline in which the chances for our children and our grandchildren are fewer than the opportunities that were given to us.  And that's contrary to the history of America.  One of our core ideas has always been that we leave the next generation better off than us.  And that's why we have to act right now. 

I know that people say the costs of fixing our problems are great -- and in some cases, they are.  The costs of inaction, of not doing anything, are even greater.  They're unacceptable.  And that's why this town hall and this debate that we're having around health care is so important.

     Let me just give a few statistics.  Many of you already know these.  In the last nine years, premiums have risen three times faster than wages for the average family.  I don't need to tell you this because you've seen it in your own lives.  Even if you've got health insurance -- and 46 million people don't -- if you've got health insurance, you have seen your costs double.  They've gone up three times faster than wages.  If we do nothing, then those costs are just going to keep on going higher and higher.

     In recent years, over one-third of small businesses have reduced benefits and many have dropped coverage altogether since the early '90s -- not because small business owners don't want to provide benefits to their workers, but they just simply can't afford it; they don't have the money.  If we don't act, that means that more people are going to lose coverage and more people are going to lose their jobs because those businesses are not going to be competitive.

     Unless we act, within a decade, one out of every $5 we earn will be spent on health care.  And for those who rightly worry about deficits, the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends today on everything else combined -- everything else combined. 

     The Congressional Budget Office just did a study that showed that when you look at the rising costs of entitlement, 90 percent of it is Medicare and Medicaid -- it's not Social Security -- 90 percent of it comes from the federal share of health care costs. So if we want to control our deficits, the only way for us to do it is to control health care costs. 

Now, those are all abstractions, those are numbers.  But many of you know that this translates into pain and heartache in a very personal way for families all across America.  I know because during the two years that I campaigned for President every town hall meeting I had, people would raise horrible stories about their experiences in the medical system.  And now that I'm President, I'm hearing those same stories.  I get 10 letters a day -- out of the 40,000 or so that the White House receives, my staff selects 10 for me to read every single day.  And at least half of them relate to a story about somebody who has been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, or somebody who finds out that what they thought was going to be a $500 bill ends up being a $25,000 bill.

I was at a town hall meeting in Green Bay, Wisconsin, met a young woman, 36 years old, has breast cancer that's metastasized. She's got two small children.  Her and her husband are both employed, both have health insurance, and yet she still has $50,000 worth of debt.  And all she's thinking about right now is, instead of thinking about how to get well, she's thinking, if I don't survive this, my main legacy to my children may be another $50,000 worth of debt.

Everybody here knows stories like that.  Some of you have experienced them personally.  So this is a problem that we can't wait to fix.  It's not something that we're going to keep on putting off indefinitely.  This is about who we are as a country. And that's why we are going to pass health care reform -- not 10 years from now, not five years from now; we are going to pass it this year.  (Applause.)  That is my commitment.  We're going to get it done.  (Applause.)

Now, we've already started to see some progress in Washington.  Those who said we couldn't do it, they're already being surprised, because as a consequence of us pushing, suddenly the drug companies and the insurance companies and the hospitals, all of them are starting to realize this train is leaving the station, we better get on board.  

So just a few weeks ago, the pharmaceutical industry agreed to $80 billion in spending reductions that we can use to close the so-called "doughnut hole."  Some of you know what the "doughnut hole" is, right, where senior citizens who are on the prescription drug plan under Medicaid, they get their drugs reimbursed up to a certain point, and then suddenly there's a gap until it reaches thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.

And so we've struck a deal with the drug companies; they're willing to cut those costs for seniors in half.  Already we're seeing that when we put pressure to reform the system, then these industries are going to have to respond.  Last month, doctors and hospitals, labor and business, insurers and drug companies all came together and agreed to decrease the annual rate of health care growth by 1.5 percent -- that would translate into $2 trillion or more of savings over the next decade.  And that would mean lower costs for everybody, for ordinary families. 

     In the past two weeks, the committee in the Senate, led by Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd, have made tremendous progress on a plan to hold down costs, improve patient care, and ensure that you won't lose your coverage even if you lose your job, or if you change your job, or you've got a preexisting medical condition.  

     But now we need to finish the job.  There's no doubt that we have to preserve what's best in the health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctor and their health care plan to keep their plan.  And that's going to be a priority for us.  (Applause.)  But we also have to fix what's broken about the system, and that means permanently bringing down costs and giving more choice for everyone. 

     And to do this, we've got to do a couple of things.  We have to build on the investments that we've made in electronic medical records.  We already made those investments in the Recovery Act  -- because when everything is digitalized, all your records -- your privacy is protected, but all your records on a digital form -- that reduces medical errors.  It means that nurses don't have to read the scrawl of doctors when they are trying to figure out what treatments to apply.  That saves lives; that saves money; and it will still ensure privacy. 

     We need to invest in prevention and wellness that help Americans live longer, healthier lives.  We know this saves money.  If we can help somebody control obesity, they are less likely to get diabetes.  And if they are less likely to get diabetes that means that we are going to be saving a whole lot of money in hospital costs.

     The biggest thing we can do to hold down costs is to change the incentives of the health care system that automatically equates expensive care with good care.  Now, this is an important concept, so I want everybody to really focus on this.  We are -- we've been under the illusion that the more health care we get, the healthier we become.  And it turns out that every study shows that the question is, are you getting the right care, are you getting the best care, the high-quality care, rather than are you having a whole bunch of tests ordered that are unnecessary, getting a bunch of treatments that are unnecessary, staying in hospitals longer than may be necessary -- all of which drives up your costs, but doesn't make you better.

     We have to ask ourselves why there are places like Geisinger Health Care Systems in rural Pennsylvania, or Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, that offer high-quality health care at costs that are well below average, in some cases 30 percent lower than in other communities.  If they can do it, there's no reason why all of America shouldn't do that.  We've got to identify the best practices across the country; we've got to learn from those successes, and then we've got to replicate those successes elsewhere. 

And we should change the warped incentives that reward doctors and hospitals based on how many tests or procedures they prescribe, even if those tests and procedures aren't shown to actually make people better, or if they result in medical mistakes.  Doctors across this country did not get into the profession just to be bean-counters or paper-pushers, but more and more time that doctors should be spending with patients are spent on administration and worrying how do they deal with how they're reimbursed.  We've got to create a simplified, more effective system where they are reimbursed for quality care, as opposed to having to distort their practices in ways that don't actually make their patients better. 

It's also time to provide Americans who can't afford health insurance with more affordable options.  I believe this is a moral imperative and it is an economic imperative.  (Applause.)  It's a moral imperative because in a country as wealthy as ours, if people are working and holding up their responsibilities, they shouldn't be bankrupted just because they get sick.  On the other hand, it's an economic imperative because every single one of us who do have health insurance, our families, on average, are paying an extra $1,000 in premiums for uncompensated care. 

Hospitals and doctors are adding those costs to your premiums -- insurance companies are adding those costs to your premiums, even if you don't know it.  And if we can get a system in which people are getting regular checkups, mammograms, all the things that we know prevent disease from occurring over the long term, or at least allow us to catch those diseases early, that's going to allow us to drive down costs for everybody.

So what we have been working on is the creation of something called the Health Insurance Exchange.  And this is going to be a marketplace which would allow you to one-stop-shop for health care plans and compare benefits and prices in simple, easy-to- understand language, and then choose the best plan for you.  None of these plans would be able to deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition.  All of them would include an affordable, basic benefit package.  If you couldn't afford these plans, then we could provide you a little bit of help so that you can afford these plans. 

I also strongly believe that one of the options in the exchange should be a public option, in order for us to create some competition for the private insurers to keep them honest.  If they are in fact giving good service and providing high-quality coverage, then that's where people will want to go.  But there should be a benchmark there of a public plan, non-for-profit plan, that keeps administrative costs low and is focused on providing good service.  And that way you can make the decision which deal is going to be better for you and your family.

Now, I know one of the biggest questions on everybody's mind is how do we pay for all this, how do we finance reform?  And I have made a commitment, because our deficit is a genuine problem, that whatever we do we have to pay for it.  This can't add to our deficits.  It's got to be deficit-neutral over the next 10 years. 
 
Here's the good news:  About two-thirds of the costs of the reforms that we are proposing will come from reallocating money that is already being spent in the health care system but isn’t being spent wisely.  So it doesn’t involve more spending; it just involves smarter spending.  A lot of the money that's being spent in the health care system right now adds nothing to the quality of patient care. 

And I'll just give you one example.  We spend right now about -- over the next 10 years, we will spend $177 billion -- $177 billion over the next decade -- in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies under something called Medicaid Advantage -- Medicare Advantage.  Now, this does not make seniors healthier.  People who are signed up for this private insurance subsidized program don't get any better care than those who aren’t.  The subsidies don't go to the patients; they go to the insurance companies.  Now, think if we took that $177 billion and helped families so that they could have insurance, and that we could have preventive care. 

So about two-thirds of the cost of the reform we're proposing is just reallocating money that's already in the system you, the taxpayers, are already paying for.

Now, one-third of it we're going to have to pay for by increased revenues.  And what I've proposed is, is that if we capped the itemized deductions that very wealthy people do -- the top 2 percent use on their income tax -- so that they're getting the same tax breaks as everybody else, as opposed to getting higher tax breaks because they've got a bigger house, then we can pay for the rest of reform.

We've already identified $950 billion over 10 years -- a little less than $100 billion a year -- in order to pay for reform; two-thirds of it reallocating money, one-third of it with increased revenues.  That's a sensible investment for us to make in solving an intractable problem that has been dragging down family finances, businesses, and the federal government for far too long.

Now, keep in mind, by the way, what we've identified as paying for the system, that doesn’t even include the savings that we're going to get from prevention, or the savings that we're going to get from health IT -- because in using congressional jargon, which I'm never supposed to do because nobody understands it -- it's not scorable.  And what that means is, is that the Congressional Budget Office can't identify exactly how much you would save -- even though everybody believes that it will end up saving a lot of money, we can't put a hard number on it.

So we will get additional savings that will drive down costs.  In the meantime, the costs of reform will be paid for with hard dollars that we've identified.

So here's the bottom line.  Now we're going to -- I'm almost done here, but this is a big, complicated topic, so I hope you forgive me.  We're starting to make progress on Capitol Hill.  We're identifying ways not only to reform the system, to make it smarter and more efficient, more user-friendly, better for American families, but also ways to pay for it in a way that doesn’t bloat our deficit. 

But the hardest part is yet to come -- because everybody here knows that the easiest thing to do when you're looking at big policy questions like health care is just to be saying it can't be done.  And the naysayers are already starting to line up and finding every excuse and scare tactic in the book for why reform is not going to happen.  This is going on as we speak.  And what I say to these critics is, well, what's your alternative?  Is your alternative just to stand pat and keep on watching more and more families lose their health care, more and more families with higher out-of-pocket costs for less insurance; businesses who are not able to compete internationally; a Medicare and a Medicaid system that is run amok?  Is that your alternative?

What do you say to all those families who can't pay their medical bills?  What do we tell those businesses that are having to choose between closing their doors or eliminating benefits for their workers?  What do you say to every taxpayer whose dollars are propping up a system that doesn’t work and that's driving us into debt?

This isn't just about those Americans without health care.  It's about every American -- because if we do not act to bring down costs, everybody's health care will be in jeopardy.  If you lose your job, or if you've got a preexisting condition, you don't know that your family is going to be secure.  All of us are in this together. 

So when it comes to energy, when it comes to improving our schools, and when it comes to health care, I don't accept the status quo.  And you shouldn’t either.  And I don't think that the American people want to just stand pat.  They know that change isn’t easy.  They know there are going to be setbacks and false starts.  But they also know this -- that we're in one of those rare moments where everybody is ready to move into the future.  We just can't be scared.  We've got to stop clinging to a broken system that doesn’t work, and we've got to have the courage to reach out for a future that's going to be better for our children and our grandchildren.

I believe we can accomplish it this year.  But in order to make it happen, I'm going to need ordinary Americans to stand up and say, "Now is the time."  You are what are going to drive this process forward -- because if Congress thinks that the American people don't want to see change, frankly, the lobbyists and the special interests will end up winning the day.  But when the American people decide that something needs to happen, nothing can stop us.

So I hope you'll join me.  Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)

Thank you.  Now, all right.  Now, if I'm not mistaken, the way this is going to work -- Valerie, you are going to be in charge of directing -- you're traffic cop.

MS. JARRETT:  I'm going to be in charge.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

So in my opening remarks, Mr. President, I mentioned that when you released your YouTube video over the weekend, we received literally hundreds of video questions from all across the country.  Your staff looked through all those questions and have selected a cross-section that represents a broad cross-section of the kinds of questions that came up.

I want to emphasize that the President has not seen the questions ahead of time.  (Laughter.)  Absolutely not. 

And so we're going to begin with a video question, Mr. President, if you look at the screen.

THE PRESIDENT:  All right.

     VIDEO Q   Hi, my name is Steve White.  I'm in Spring Valley, New York.  And my question for the President is:  Why are we considering a health care plan which maintains the private insurance companies with their high overhead costs, instead of a single-payer plan, which would eliminate the high overhead costs, saving the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, while covering everyone in our country?  Thank you.

     THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.  Well, it's a terrific question.  I'm not sure if everybody could hear it, but the gist of the question is, why have we not been looking at a single-payer plan as the way to go?

     As many of you know, in many countries, most industrialized advanced countries, they have some version of what's called a single-payer plan.  And what that means is essentially that the government is the insurer.  The government may not necessarily hire the doctors or the hospitals -- a lot of those may still be privately operated -- but the government is the insurer for everybody.  And Medicare is actually a single-payer plan that we have in place, but we only have it in place for our older Americans.

     Now, in a lot of those countries, a single-payer plan works pretty well and you eliminate, as Scott, I think it was, said, you eliminate private insurers, you don't have the administrative costs and the bureaucracy and so forth. 

     Here's the problem, is that the way our health care system evolved in the United States, it evolved based on employers providing health insurance to their employees through private insurers.  And so that's still the way that the vast majority of you get your insurance.  And for us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive.  And my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free market system.

     I think that we can regulate the insurance companies effectively; make sure that they're not playing games with people because of preexisting conditions; that they're not charging wildly different rates to people based on where they live or what their age is; that they're not dropping people for coverage unnecessarily; that we have a public option that's available to provide competition and choice to the American people, and to keep the insurers honest; and that we can provide a system in which we are, over the long term, driving down administrative costs, and making sure that people are getting the best possible care at a lower price.

     But I recognize that there are lot of people who are passionate -- they look at France or some of these other systems and they say, well, why can't we just do that?  Well, the answer is, is that this is one-sixth of our economy, and we're not suddenly just going to completely upend the system.  We want to build on what works about the system and fix what's broken about the system.  And that's what I think Congress is committed to doing, and I'm committed to working with them to make it happen. Okay?

     MS. JARRETT:  Now, how about a question from the audience.

     THE PRESIDENT:  All right.

     MS. JARRETT:  Please, show of hands.

     THE PRESIDENT:  What I always do here is I go girl, boy, girl, boy, so that I don't get into trouble here.  (Laughter.)   All right, this young lady right here -- since somebody was pointing at you, so I figured -- do we have a microphone for folks in the audience, so that everybody can hear the question?  Okay.  I think there's somebody coming from this direction.  You can just hand her the mic.

     Q    Good afternoon, Mr. President.  I'll try not to cry.  I'm trying to figure out what I can do currently.  My situation is I had renal cell carcinoma in '98 that was radiated, because my dad was dying of colon cancer at the time, and I was his health care server on his living will, so I could not be tied up having my kidney removed.  So they did radiation procedures to kill the tumor then.  And I had insurance and everything was taken out. 

     But basically because of the damage that the radiation did in things, I'm no longer able to work and I have no health insurance.  Now I have a new tumor.  I have no way to pay for it. Doctors will not see you without paying $100 or $150 to come into their office.  I can get checked into a hospital -- under their program, they will run tests and release me, but that costs a lot of money.

     So currently I basically -- Social Security will not give me disability because renal failure is no longer a qualifying factor under Social Security currently.  I cannot get Medicaid from the state of Virginia because you have to be considered disabled through Social Security to qualify for Medicaid in the state of Virginia because I have no dependent children at home -- it's just me.  I get food stamps, but that's it.  And I'm just trying to figure out how I'm going to make it in nine years until I'm qualified to get my regular Social Security -- now that I have a new tumor and I have nowhere to turn.
    
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, here, come on over here.  First of all, we're going to find out what -- we'll get your information and we'll see what we can do to help you.  I don't want you to feel all -- like you're alone.  (Applause.)

     You know, without knowing all the details I'm not going to give you an answer right now about exactly how we can help.  We're going to find out what we can do within existing law.  But -- what was your name again?

     Q    My name is Debbie. 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Debbie.  Debbie is a perfect example of somebody who we should, in a country this wealthy, be able to provide coverage for her health care problems.  And what we don't want is a situation where Debbie gets worse and worse because she's not getting treatment, and then ends up having to go to the emergency room.  As I said before, all of you will pay for it anyway; it's just you'll pay for it in terms of a hidden subsidy. And she's not getting the best care, and we're actually paying more than we would have if Debbie right now was getting treated on a regular basis by a physician who knew her history.

     So, Debbie, you are Exhibit A.  And we appreciate you sharing your story.  We are going to try to find ways to help you immediately.  But the long-term problem here is going to be how do we create a system in which Debbie is getting the preventive care that she needs and is able to get regular checkups, is able to get treatment in a way that is much more cost-efficient than the one that we've got right now.  And I'm going to make a commitment that we're going to get that done this year.

     All right?  (Applause.)

     Q    Sir, July 24th through the 26th, there's a thing in Wise County, Virginia, called RAM Ear and Medical, and that is -- Rural Area Medical is where anybody who needs medical treatment can get free treatment for those three days -- the 24th, 25th, and 26th  --

     THE PRESIDENT:  The 24th, 25th, and 26th --

     Q    -- of July.

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we will help advertise that --

     Q    If you would like to showcase why there's a need.  I think they treated -- Governor Warner and Kaine can say how long -- but I think it's 7,000 people get treatment there every day of those days that it's free.

     THE PRESIDENT:  Which is a wonderful program.  But I think, as Senator Warner and Governor Kaine would agree, we can't have a system that's reliant on three days of free care and 362 days in which people don't have health care.  That doesn't make any sense. 

Debbie, thank you for sharing your story.  We appreciate you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

     All right.
MS. JARRETT:  Thank you, Debbie. 

So many of the questions that are put to on the videos, Mr. President, are also very personal.  So now we're going to take another from a video.

     (Video is shown.)  SMALL CHILD:  My mommy and daddy have small businesses and we need health care.

     MOTHER:  I actually have to work for a company so that we can get coverage because my older daughter is an automatic decline and we're just too small of a business to be able to absorb the cost.  How can health care reform help us? 

     THE PRESIDENT:  As somebody with two daughters, I'm a sucker for anybody who uses their daughter in their video.  (Laughter.) So my staff probably knew that.  They figured, well, he's going to be a soft touch after that one.

Small business owners are those who are being, in some cases, hardest hit by the rising cost of health care.  And in some cases, they just can't afford to provide health insurance to their employees, and that's frustrating, but they're operating on too small a margin, or they don't have enough employees so they've got no leverage to negotiate with the insurance companies.  And so the offers that insurance companies give them for the cost of coverage per person end up being way higher than they would be for big companies that have more consumer power. 

In some cases, though, it's gotten so bad that small businesses, they can't even afford to provide health insurance for themselves, small business owners.  And a lot of small businesses, a huge percentage of small businesses are sole proprietorships.  Maybe it's a family business -- they've got one or two people working for them.  And so they're like consultants out there or self-employed individuals -- they just can't get a good deal.

This is an example of where this health care exchange could be so helpful, because by creating a health care exchange, part of what we want to do is to allow small businesses, as well as people who are self-employed, individuals whose companies don't provide coverage, to come to this exchange, take a look at a menu of plans that are available, join one of these plans -- you may qualify for a subsidy from the federal government -- and you then become part of a big pool that gives you some leverage over the drug companies and the insurance companies to drive down costs.   

And that's part of the way that health care reform can provide direct savings to American families right now, by giving them more leverage.

Look, I am very pleased that the drug companies decided to cough up $80 billion to help close this "doughnut hole."  I have to be honest with you, though:  Were it not for the prospect of serious health care reform, I don't think they would have given up that money.  That's just my guess.  (Applause.)  And so these same principles apply when it comes to setting up this health care exchange.  If we do it effectively, then not only will families be able to make some very clear choices, and small business owners make some clear choices, about here's the best plan available for us that fits our particular needs, but they're also going to be part of a broader group that can apply some leverage in the system.

And that's essentially what federal health care employees do.  Mark Warner has a plan that all members of Congress and federal employees have, and it's not Cadillac care, but it's good, solid, decent care with a range of options.  Part of the reason that it is a good program is because there's so many federal employees.  Well, we should provide that same kind of leverage for the small business owner who right now is too small on their own to be able to get the best possible deal on the insurance market, and that's what we want to provide in this health care reform package.  All right?  Good.

MS. JARRETT:  All right, I think we're ready to go back to the audience.

THE PRESIDENT:  All right, it's a guy's turn now, all right, so, ladies, keep your hands down.  (Laughter.)  All right, this young man right here.

Q    Thank you.  I've been hearing a lot --

THE PRESIDENT:  What's your name?

Q    Jason Rosenbaum.

THE PRESIDENT:  Hey, Jason.  What do you do, Jason?

Q    I work for a group called Health Care for America NOW.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  I think he knows something about health care.  This is like --

Q    I've been -- obviously I read the news a lot, and I've been hearing a lot about the price tag of health reform and how people are very concerned that it's going to cost a trillion dollars, and we're trying to keep it under a certain number.  I'm most concerned about making it affordable, folks like me, the American people.  So what do you -- and like you said, you're committed to making this deficit-neutral.  So I hope you could talk a little bit about affordability and what your plans are for that. 

THE PRESIDENT:  Good.  Well, look, the first thing that I think is very important for people to do is to understand the costs of doing nothing, because sometimes opponents of health care reform pretend as if we've got this great thing going here and the Obama administration wants to completely upend it just because I don't have enough to do.  (Laughter.)  And I keep on trying to explain to people, look, I've got a war in Afghanistan; we haven't gotten the troops out of Iraq yet; I've got North Korea and Iran; and H1N1 flu.  So if the health care system was really working well, I would be happy to leave it alone.

     So understand where we're at.  If we don't do anything, the costs are going to keep on rising.  I mean, some employers see their costs going up 8, 9, 10 percent a year.  As I said, families have seen their health care costs double over the last nine years.  So you just project out nine years from now -- your wages or incomes aren't going up that fast, which means that a bigger, bigger bite is being taken out of your paycheck, even if you've got health insurance.  More and more employers are saying in this very competitive atmosphere, we can't afford to do more.

     So what's happened if you've got health insurance?  Your employer has basically done what?  They've increased deductibles; they've increased premiums.  Your out-of-pocket costs have gone up by about 62 percent, and they're just going to keep on rising. And the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, because they track all these other costs, they're going to keep on skyrocketing.  So our deficit will be completely out of control.

     Don't let people fool you with this notion that somehow the reason for our deficit has to do with, for example, the Recovery Act.  The Recovery Act was designed to make sure that local school districts didn't lay off teachers and firefighters and police officers -- and it's done its job, and it's building the kind of infrastructure that we need to be competitive in the future.  But it is a tiny fraction of our long-term deficit projections.  Almost all of the long-term deficit projections come from increases in Medicare and Medicaid.
    
     So the reason I say all this is because the costs are going to be there if we don't do anything.  The deficit will grow if we don't do anything.  Our debt will grow if we don't do anything.  What I'm trying to do is figure out how do we bend the curve of costs so that we're getting more and more efficient care, higher-quality care, at less cost per person?  How do we eliminate the $1,000 per family that's coming out of your pocket in subsidized care, uncompensated care at hospitals that's going on right now?

     And if we can do that, then, A, we can cover more people with the savings; and, B, we have more leverage over the insurance companies and the drug companies so that they give a better deal.  That's what we're trying to do.

     Now, I do think that we can't add to the deficit; we should find ways to honestly pay for whatever reforms we're proposing.  And I already gave you an indication of how we would do it.  About two-thirds of it would come from reallocating money that's currently in the system -- taxpayers, you're already paying for it, so this isn't new money coming out of your pocket; this is money that's right now being spent by the federal government but not spent wisely in a way that makes you healthier.  That's two-thirds of it.

     One-third of it, because we've got to make some initial investments up front and a lot of the savings -- remember what I told you -- aren't scorable, we're going to have to raise some additional revenue to make sure that people are adequately covered and we're providing some help to families who may have health insurance but are really starting to struggle right now.

     And I think the best way for us to pay for it is, as I said, capping the itemized deductions that people making over $250,000 a year, people like myself -- used to be Valerie was making that, but now she's working for the federal government so -- (laughter) -- she wouldn't be affected by this -- capping those itemized deductions.  Then we can raise enough money to pay for a good, high-quality health care reform proposal that will provide health care security for everybody.

     And as I said before, many of you may be satisfied with your health care now.  What you've got to do is project, if current trends continue, are you still going to be happy with your health care five years from now?  Will you have health care five years from now? 

     A lot of people here, if you change jobs right now but you've got a preexisting condition -- and just about anything these days can be called a preexisting condition -- you may have trouble signing up for health care the next time around -- just because you changed a job, set aside the situation where you lose a job. 

     One of the things that we did in the Recovery Act was to help people with COBRA.  Everybody knows what COBRA is?  That's the program that allows you to get health insurance -- to continue your health insurance even when you lose your job.  The problem is premiums are so high that most people, when you lose your job, you can't afford it.  The last thing you can do is afford suddenly a $1,000 or $1,500 in premiums.  So what we did was we subsidized people being able to keep their health insurance longer, cutting those COBRA costs. 

I think that was a pretty smart thing to do.  That was the right thing to do.  But we can't just do that indefinitely.  We can't do patchwork, piecemeal fixes through a Recovery Act.  What we need is a permanent solution that ensures that when you lose your job or change jobs, you can still have health care; if you're self-employed, you've still got health care. 

     Every nation on Earth that is as wealthy as ours is able to do that.  And they don't do it perfectly -- that's why I say we've got to find a uniquely American solution -- but don't tell me that we can't get this done.  And for those who say, well, you know what, this is something that is very complicated so we shouldn't rush into it -- that's what happens in Congress all the time.  They have hearings, they write white papers, and then suddenly the lobbyists and the special interests start going at it, and the next thing you know, another 10 years has gone by and we still haven't done anything. 

That's not what's going to happen this time.  I am going to keep on pressing until we get it done this year.  All right.  (Applause.)

     MS. JARRETT:  All right, Mr. President.  So Macon just slipped me a note, and he said, right now on Facebook and on Twitter, a lot of people are talking about the proposal to tax health care benefits.  For example, Rob on Twitter said, "Does it really make sense, Mr. President, to tax me on my health care coverage?"

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, here's -- let me describe for you how this argument has evolved and where I've stood on it in the past and what's being debated in Congress. 

     Part of the reason that employers provide health care to most American is because they get a big tax exclusion.  They don't pay taxes on -- and you don't pay taxes on the health care benefits that you receive.  So it's a huge subsidy that's provided through the tax code for employers to provide you coverage. 

     Now, up until, let's say, a generation ago, this worked reasonably well.  It's starting to break down because even with the tax exclusion, the cost for employers, just out of pocket, paying the insurers, is getting more and more expensive.

     Some people have said that what we should do is just eliminate this tax exclusion so that the federal government isn't indirectly subsidizing employers providing care, and that we could take that money and then just give everybody a tax break individually and then they could go out and shop for their own health care.  This was essentially John McCain's proposal during the campaign.  I mean, I want to be fair to it.  The idea was, you eliminate the exclusion; the billions of dollars that come back into the Treasury are then given out to each person in the form of a $5,000 or a $7,000 tax credit, and then you go out and you buy your own insurance. 

And the thinking is that if you do it that way, then each of you are going to be more discriminating consumers, and you are going to go out and get the best possible deal, and you won't be overusing the health care system.  You won't be going to the doctor unnecessarily or taking drugs that you don't really need. And you will be the -- you will essentially engage in self-rationing.  That's really the concept behind this idea.

Now, in fairness, the other notion is, is that if you don't have your health care tied to employers, then you're not going to be as worried about losing your health insurance if you change your job because the money follows you as opposed to being with the employer.  So that's the concept.

Now, I opposed this during the campaign, and I opposed it for a couple of reasons:  Number one, if you completely eliminated the exclusion, there is no doubt that what would happen is, is that a lot of employers would stop providing health care.  And so a lot of people who currently get health care through their employers wouldn't be able to get it.

The second thing -- remember what I told you earlier about how if you are on your own shopping for health care you've got no leverage with the insurance company.  Well, the problem is, is that if suddenly now you get a tax credit for $5,000 or $7,000, you try to go buy some health insurance for your family, and it costs $14,000, you're a lot worse off than you would have been.  You're out of luck.  And you've got no leverage; they've got no incentive to give you a lower price because you're on your own.

 
The other problem is that when you're not part of a pool, the insurance companies have every incentive to make sure that if you are older or you are sicker, that they do not cover you.  They want to cover the young, healthy folks like Mark Warner.  (Laughter.)  That's who they want.  But if you're older or sicker, you are more likely to be excluded from coverage, or they really jack up the rates.  When you're part of a pool, then the insurers say, well, I guess we'll take the older, sicker folks because we're also getting the younger, healthier folks at the same time.

So, for all those reasons, I opposed the proposal that was put forward, because essentially it would be, for the first time, taxing the health care benefits that are provided by employers.

Now, nobody at this point is -- or not many folks are talking about taxing benefits or completely eliminating the exclusion.  What they are calling for now in Congress is to cap the exclusion so that people who have very high-priced health care, at a certain point they can only get a deduction up to a certain point, right?  So let's say that the average health care cost for families -- a good health care plan costs $13,000.  What they would say is the employer and the employee get an exclusion up to $13,000, but if you get some Cadillac plan that costs $17,000, then what we're going to do is you're going to have to pay taxes on that last $4,000.  And the idea that is being debated in Congress right now is, is that a good way to ensure that people don't have these big Cadillac plans but instead have more sensible plans?

     Now, I don't think -- and by the way, that also raises some money.  So this has been offered as an alternative way to pay for that extra one-third of health care that we're not able to pay for through simply reallocating money.

     I think the better way to do it remains the proposal I have to cap itemized deductions.  I think that is a way that we can ensure that people who currently have health care aren't suddenly seeing the costs go up to pay for other people's costs going down, but instead everybody's costs can go down effectively.

     But this is something that's going to be debated in the House and the Senate.  Mark Warner is going to have to weigh in on it.  We're all going to have to weigh in on it.  My bottom line, though, is that if you've got health insurance right now, you shouldn't suddenly see your costs go up as part of health care reform. 

Okay?  Good.

     MS. JARRETT:  All right, Mr. President, I think we're teed up for another video question.

     THE PRESIDENT:  All right.

     VIDEO Q   Mr. President, as a physician, I know the cost of defensive medicine drives medical costs upward.  Now, at your health care forum you said that you wanted to find out what works.  In my home state of Texas, we know what works, and our Medical Justice Act has done just that. 

     Now, unfortunately, you recently told the AMA you were opposed to capping non-economic damages, even though a state like mine has proven that it does work.  Now, will you reaffirm your commitment to find out what works and then ask Congress for its implementation?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  I want to make sure everybody understands the question here.  A lot of doctors have argued -- and in some cases they're justified -- that their costs for medical malpractice insurance, the threat of a lawsuit if something goes wrong with a patient, even if it's not their fault, is so high that not only is it increasing their out-of-pocket cost, but they're also engaging in what's called defensive medicine; that they've got to order five tests when one is enough just to make sure that they're covered so that if something goes wrong that's not their fault later, they can say, look, I did everything possible -- even if a lot of that isn't required.

     And so the argument is if you can cap the pain and suffering or the liability that is awarded as a consequence of you being hurt in the hospital or by a doctor, that that would drive down everybody's costs.

Now, what I've said is that I don't like the idea of an artificial cap on somebody if the doctor or the hospital really was negligent.  And in some cases, I've got to tell you, they are.  I mean, there are cases where folks leave a sponge in your gut and sew you back up, and after a while you're feeling worse than when you went in.  And in some cases, obviously that can cause very severe damage, and I want to make sure that people's pain, suffering, out-of-pocket expenses, that those are covered. 
So I don't like the idea of just an artificial cap.  I do want to work with doctors to find ways that we can reduce their liabilities where they haven't done anything wrong, where they've performed effectively.  I want to see, are there ways that we can reduce the constant threat of lawsuits that doctors and hospitals experience, because I do think that that causes defensive medicine.  And so I've committed to working with the AMA to see ways that we can reduce some of these litigation costs and malpractice rates.

One point that I've got to dispute, though, with the gentleman who asked me the question -- he says he's from Texas, and that we've got caps in Texas, and so we've seen what works.  Well, the fact is, is that there was just recently an article about a town called McAllen, Texas, where they have the highest health care costs in the country.  It's down by the border.  And even though they have caps there, in McAllen, Texas, they spend about three times as much per person as -- or not -- they spend about 30 percent more per person than they do in El Paso, Texas, which also is operating under caps.  So what that tells me is the problem of rising costs doesn't simply have to do with whether or not liability is capped.  What it really has to do with is the incentives that are operating in various communities.

There are some places, like the Mayo Clinic, many of you have heard of, provides outstanding care, some of the best in the world.  People fly in from everywhere to go to Mayo Clinic to get treated.  Turns out Mayo provides care much more cheaply than a lot of other health systems, even though it's better care.  And part of the reason is they do some things that are commonsensical, but unfortunately we don't do in the health care system. 

For example, instead of you going to one -- your primary care physician, who has you do a bunch of tests, then refers you to a specialist who has you do a bunch of tests, then maybe you go to a third specialist, another bunch of tests; go to the hospital, they retest you.  What they do is, at Mayo Clinic, when you meet with the -- your primary physician, he calls in all the specialists all at the same time, and as a team they evaluate you, do all the tests right there, so you're not duplicating a whole bunch of stuff.  And that coordinated care drives down costs tremendously.

     That's the kind of common-sense approach that we're going to have to take.  And one of the things that we're going to need to do in the health reform that we're proposing is to incentivize those kinds of smart practices coordinating care, as opposed to what we do right now, which is we just pay you -- the more services you provide, the more we pay you, which gives doctors and hospitals a pretty strong incentive to test you five times instead of one time.  I'm not saying they do it consciously, but right now we're preventing them from coordinating in a smart fashion because of the ways that we reimburse.  That has to be part of the reform that we initiate.

     All right.

     MS. JARRETT:  All right, Mr. President, I'm getting the high sign, so how about one more question from our wonderful audience?

     THE PRESIDENT:  One more question from the audience.  Let's see.  It's a girl's turn, isn't it?  I think so.  This young lady right here.

     Q    Hi, Mr. President.  I'm a member of SEIU and I'm down here in Fairfax County working on Change That Works.  What can I do, as a member of the union, to help you with your reform bill?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I appreciate the question.  The most important thing I think the American people can do right now is to just be informed.  Tell your friends, tell your neighbors to get informed about what's happening in the health care system right now.  It's very complicated and I don't expect everybody to be an expert, but I want everybody to be well enough informed that the scare tactics of those who would oppose reform don't work.

     So when you hear somebody say this is -- "Obama is proposing a government takeover of health care" -- that's an old argument that's been used for years.  I just want to be clear.  If you've got a health care plan that you get through your employer or some other private plan, I want you to keep it.  I actually think reforming the system is the most likely way for you to keep the health care that you've got.  I don't want to take it over.  I think it's great that you can keep the care that you've got.

     All I've said is I want to make sure that those things that taxpayers are paying for, that we're getting our money's worth.  I don't want to provide $177 billion in subsidies to insurance companies.  I don't want to reimburse for five tests when the evidence shows that you just getting one test is going to be better for you because that means that the taxpayers are saving money and I can use that to lower your costs, or to help somebody who doesn't have health care at all.

I do think we should have a public plan to compete with the private plans.   But these private insurance companies, they're always telling me what a great deal that they give to the American consumer; if it's such a great deal, why are they worried about competing against the public plan, especially when they say government can't do anything?  (Applause.)

So they'll tell you that we're trying to take over health care.  I don't want to take over health care. 

They'll tell you that we're going to try to ration the system.  We don't want to get between you and your doctor.  What we do believe is that if there's good evidence out there that shows that the best way to treat your illness is to give you the blue pill, and instead right now you're getting prescribed the red pill that costs twice as much, I think that you and your doctor, having that information, are probably going to decide to go with the cheaper pill that does just as good of a job, and that will save you money.  That's not rationing.  That's being sensible.

So whenever you start hearing these arguments about socialized medicine, government takeover, rationing, Canada-style health care, what I need you to do -- and I need everybody here to do and everybody who's watching to do -- is to actually pay attention to the argument, and don't let people scare you out of reforming a system that we know is not working.

America -- one of the great things about this country is we've got a system that's sometimes kind of hard to change.  Congress gets kind of bogged down, and part of that is because of the way the Constitution is designed -- it's served us well because it keeps us very stable.  We don't have coups and all kinds of governments collapsing all the time.  But the disadvantage sometimes is, is that it's hard for us to make big, bold steps.  But the great thing about the system is that, every once in a while, when we finally hit a point where things just aren't working at all, we are able to generate the political will to finally get things done. 

That's how we got Social Security.  After the Great Depression, nobody had any pensions or protection, and people started realizing, we can't have a country where suddenly older Americans are just on the streets, after working hard all their lives.  And finally we got Social Security.  And then people said, well, we can't have older Americans who don't have any health care, and we got Medicare.  At every juncture, when we finally need to make a change, we make a change.  This is one of those times. 

So don't be scared about the future.  Let's embrace the future.  Let's go after the future.  If we do, then I'm confident that we can create a health care system that gives you choice, allows you to keep your doctor, drives down costs, makes sure that every American doesn't have to worry if they lose or change their jobs.  That's our aim.  That's our goal.  We're going to make it happen this year. 

Thank you, everybody.  I appreciate you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

END
2:31 P.M. EDT
 

• A new executive order should be designed for the electronic environment.
• The older information is, the less need there should be for a declassification review. There should be a “drop-dead” date of 50, 75, or 100 years for declassification. 
• We should re-think the principle that only the classifying agency has the authority to declassify a document.
• Each agency that classifies information should be required to spend a fixed percentage of the amount spent on classification on declassification. 
• The only human intelligence sources that should be eligible for continued classification are those that could be placed in physical jeopardy if disclosed. 
• There should be incentives for personnel to produce material at the lowest classification levels possible.
• The CIA veto at the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) should be eliminated.
• The ISCAP should provide more information about its decisions to the public.
• The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) should have declassification authority, which would strengthen its oversight capabilities. 
• There should be an expert panel to identify records concerning events which should be classified for longer than 25 years and allow the remainder of the records to be automatically declassified.
• There should be a central public database for declassified documents.
• Decisions to continue classification should be based on the substance of the information to be released and on the real damage to national security that could occur if disclosed.
• If prioritization of records is done, it should be done by archivists in the final, or access, phase of the declassification process, to identify records for scanning, electronic distribution, or other levels of processing and description.

We have heard from those of you who are participating in the Declassification Policy Forum that it would be helpful if the period allowed for commenting were extended. We have taken this into consideration and will be extending the comment period on all topics until Sunday, July 19, 2009. We will continue to summarize comments in a posting at the end of the third day of each posting. If you are unable to post your comments to the Declassification Policy Forum, please email pidb@nara.gov to submit your comments. 

Tomorrow, the Declassification Policy Forum will begin its second topic, “Envisioning a National Declassification Center.” The Public Interest Declassification Board is looking for your ideas on the possible creation of a National Declassification Center that would promote interagency cooperation for declassification. This idea is being considered in the Administration’s review of Executive Order 12958, as amended, “Classified National Security Information.” We look forward to having a productive discussion.

Public Interest Declassification Board Support Staff

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:27 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS:  Ms. Sidoti, you've got poor attendance on the front row, but we'll start.

Q    Thanks, Robert.

MR. GIBBS:  Here comes Chuck.

Q    Still getting dressed.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Fix your collar, there -- just trying to help you out there.

Go ahead.

Q    What's the White House's sense of the situation in Honduras at this point?  Are we on the cusp of a true meltdown?  It seems to be spiraling.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think it's best for me to characterize what actions have happened here.  Assistant Secretary Tom Shannon, who deals with the Western Hemisphere at the Department of State, and Dan Restrepo from the National Security Council, met yesterday at the OAS with President Zelaya.  I think you've seen the OAS take some actions and set some deadlines for the restoration of President Zelaya before actions kick in, and I think that's where we are.

Q    But with the Pentagon suspending joint military operations, how far-reaching is that and are there next steps that are under consideration as well?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, we continue to monitor the situation and will respond accordingly as events transpire.  But, again, as I said, we're watching closely what's going on.

Yes, sir.

Q    Another kind of meltdown, this one California.  The legislature there failed to agree on a balanced budget plan and they're on the verge of having to take the extraordinary step of issuing IOUs to their creditors.  How concerned is the administration about this development in California -- and possibly in other states, as well -- and what, if anything, will the federal government do to help them out of it?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think the biggest step the federal government can do we have done, as it related to the recovery plan.  I think about $144 billion is the amount of money in the recovery plan for states, as many of them struggle with the downturn in the economy and how it affects each of their state budgets.

As you mentioned, there are a number of states that find themselves at the end of the fiscal year and required to pass budgets.  We're certainly watching -- I know in California's instance they had sought many weeks ago a designation under TARP, which I think the Secretary of Treasury said, based on the law, wasn't possible.

But I think the major contribution from the federal government has been an increase in Medicaid and education money to go to helping to close some of those fiscal gaps.

Q    But that really has only been a drop in the bucket for the problem they have.  The stimulus plan hasn't really given them enough to make ends meet.  Is the administration considering anything further than that?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, let me -- I forget the exact number of budgetary shortfall, but understand $144 billion represents a pretty large chunk of total state budget shortfall.  It's not the whole thing, but I think it's an important step that we took, understanding that an economic recovery had to include individual state governments.  And we've certainly taken, I think, important steps to cushion as much as possible that blow.

Q    Does it concern the administration that the largest state is about to start issuing IOUs and what kind of message that sends to international credit markets?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, we continue to watch the situation, and we'll see as it develops.

Yes, sir.

Q    Robert, I know you don't like polls, and tend not to like --

MR. GIBBS:  Depends.  (Laughter.)

Q    You like the positive polls, but any negative polls typically are dismissed.  But in this new CNN poll, when it comes to health care --

MR. GIBBS:  Some CNN polls --

Q    We actually like those and think they're quite credible.  But it shows that there is some resistance among the public for the President's plan.  They believe that their health care costs will go up under the President's plan, and only a bare majority, 51 percent -- 45 percent approve of the plan.  Any concern at all that there's some resistance, perhaps, among the public to the President's plan on health care?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, you might elicit a different answer if the poll was 45-51, rather than 51-45.  So --

Q    But to the question, then, of concern that their health care costs will go up.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think that's why we have to do -- continue to do the job of telling people what will happen if we change the rate of spending on health care; that if we seek greater efficiency, seek treatments not simply -- when we approach people's health care, we seek to treat them, not simply to provide more and more treatments.  That's certainly one of the things that the President has talked about.  Changing the way we spend money on health care is extremely important.  That's obviously something the President has dedicated a lot of time to doing.

Millions and millions of Americans right now are paying a premium every day for the millions of people that don't have health insurance but have to seek medical treatment in an emergency.  There are tons of hidden costs in our health care system that have to be addressed through comprehensive health care reform.

I think yesterday, though, there was some important developments relating to this, right?  The nation's largest employer, Wal-Mart, is supportive of aspects of our health care plan because they understand, as a business, they are seeing the crushing effects of skyrocketing health care costs -- just as families are, just as state governments are, just as the federal government is.

So I think the President you'll see today continue to describe for the American people the positive aspects of health care reform and the reason why doing nothing just isn't an option.

Q    So then -- is it an issue, then, of the President having to better explain himself to the American people?  Perhaps they're not --

MR. GIBBS:  Or the news media.  No, I'm just kidding.

Absolutely.  The President -- I mean, I don't think the President -- one of the reasons the President is out there today is for people to get a better understanding of what his health care plan will do, how it will help and impact them, what it will do to change the cost for their family or for their small business.  All of those are aspects of what the President will seek to do -- has done and will do, certainly later today in Virginia.

Q    Just one more point on that, though.  But does he have to change anything at all?  I mean, he's been talking about holding town hall meetings, and now, of course, going online, interactive.  But does anything have to change to sort of ramp it up, to better explain it to the American people if, at this juncture, there's still some confusion perhaps, they're not buying into it?

MR. GIBBS:  My sense is a lot of this is frequency, and I think that's why you've seen us frequently do more events on health care.

Q    Follow up on Wal-Mart.  What did Rahm Emanuel say to Wal-Mart's people on Tuesday to get them to issue that letter yesterday?

MR. GIBBS:  I don't -- I think this was something that -- I think Rahm would appreciate you denoting that he might have twisted or broken an arm, but I don't think that's the case.

What happened was this is something that I think the nation's largest employer, as well as one of the nation's -- if not the nation's largest union -- I think they both understand the same thing.  They're watching skyrocketing health care costs. 
There was a -- I wish I would have brought it out -- there was a great quote in the Wall Street Journal by the head of the retail association who said that he was surprised that Wal-Mart had traded -- had abandoned their previous position on an employer mandate for the promise of health care savings.  The ridiculous notion that a business would make a business decision; that a business that's suffering the crushing cost of health care increase year after year after year might eventually year after year after year come to the conclusion that the status quo was unacceptable.  That's precisely where the President has come to.

I think a lot of the American people have come to that conclusion and I think that's why Congress is making significant progress on health care reform.

Q    Can I follow on that, Robert?

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.

Q    In its letter, Wal-Mart said the commitment to rein in health care costs must be the strongest possible and endorsed the idea of a trigger mechanism that would automatically enforce reductions in medical expenditures.  What's the White House position on the concept of a trigger in the ultimate health care reform legislation?

MR. GIBBS:  I don't know if what that is explaining -- and I'll find out from Nancy-Ann -- I don't know if what that is talking about are some of the MedPAC recommendations that the White House has also endorsed.  I think you've heard Peter and others talk about this notion that -- set up as a result of, I think, the balanced budget agreement of 1997 -- there is a board that considers options to rein in unnecessary health care costs from the government -- from the government's perspective.

And each and every year, almost en bloc, these recommendations are gathered and moved aside.  Obviously the President and his team believe that this is a key component of health care reform; that ensuring -- and again, I want to make sure that these two things are similar, but --

Q    They specifically mentioned the Baker/Daschle/Dole approach to this, which may be different than MedPAC, I think it's a slight variation on that.

MR. GIBBS:  Let me check on the differences.  I mean, again, I think the President -- to underscore --

Q    There are some Democrats who are not in favor of this at all, and that's why I wanted to get the specific --

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.  Again, I think you've heard the President say that -- remember this isn't a bill for a bill's sake, this isn't reform for reform's sake.  This has to be something that's meaningful.  One of the meaningful aspects of any of this legislation has to be something that significantly reins in the costs of health care.  We can't -- if all we do -- right, if all we do is take what's happening now with those skyrocketing exponential costs and simply add to that, you're just creating a system that can't sustain itself.  Obviously we've got to change the arc of health care spending.

Q    But, Robert, what about the smaller businesses?  I mean, obviously Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the country.  What does an employer mandate really look like and what level could be able to opt out?  What does the White House want to --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I mean, obviously there's going to have to be discussion on this.  This is not -- without having the details in front of me, this is not something that is going to be -- there are certainly going to be exemptions for business size in this.  There's no doubt about that.

Q    So, ideally, what size?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I'll leave that up to some health care negotiators rather than picking a number here.  But I think, again, I think what's important is -- you know, I think this represents a pretty big mindset change on behalf of the nation's largest employer, and it's a recognition first and foremost of the notion that health care costs are increasing at a rate that cannot be sustained even by the largest employer.  So you can imagine the crushing impact that it has on people that are not seeing gross revenues like they are.

Q    But those same people say that this will crush them even more.

MR. GIBBS:  Who says that?

Q    I mean, the smallest businesses having some kind of a mandate like that.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, that's why the smallest business is not going to fall under that scenario.  There's obviously going to be some carve-out as it relates to that.

Q    Can I ask you just one -- on a lighter note, Sarah Palin in an interview with Runner's World said that in a one-on-one with the President she thinks she has more endurance.  Would he consider going for a run with the Alaska Governor?

MR. GIBBS:  That's an interesting question.  How's her jump shot?  I guess it depends on where they were going to run.  Maybe there's a terrain advantage in a place like Alaska.  But I will certainly ask him if he's got any free time in his summer to do that.

Q    At today's town hall meeting, questions coming in on YouTube and Twitter and such -- who decides what questions will be asked?

MR. GIBBS:  I think a group over at New Media is shuffling through questions.  I think if you go on -- I did not do this today, but I think if you go on our Web site you'll see some of those questions.  And I think, Chip, at the end of the day, when you -- I think the questions that will be read to the President -- obviously he'll take some questions from the audience there -- I think will be a representative sample of the issues in this debate that we're dealing with.

Q    And the audience is all preselected, right?

MR. GIBBS:  No, we usually just generally hand out tickets on a first come, first serve basis.

Q    Well, I think in this case, the people were invited either by the White House or by the university -- I mean, invited by this community college, as it was explained to us.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, if the university is --

Q    It just feels very tightly controlled.  It feels -- I mean, the concept of a town hall I think is to have a open public forum, and this sounds like a very tightly controlled audience and a list of questions.  Why do it that why?  Why not open it up to the public?

MR. GIBBS:  How about we do this -- how about you can ask me that question tomorrow based on what questions were asked rather than preselecting your question based on something that may or may not come through.

Q    But why pre-select?  Why not just open it up for people and allow any question to come in?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Chip, I think if you get on your computer from your e-mail address --

Q    I have.  I have.

MR. GIBBS:  Have you sent in your question?

Q    I think that would be inappropriate.  This is for the public.

MR. GIBBS:  I'm sorry, I'm confused -- are you not a member of the public?

Q    Well, I think if you were going to allow questions from the press you'd have us in a prominent position over there and allow us to ask questions -- you haven't done that.

MR. GIBBS:  Let's not get into the notion of where you'd be sitting -- (laughter) -- if I let you ask a question, but --

Q    Well out of shouting range.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, but you could e-mail.

Q    Would you put my question in there?  I don't think so.

MR. GIBBS:  Maybe.  Have you e-mailed?

Q    I mean, this is a town hall.

MR. GIBBS:  It's a little -- if you haven't e-mailed.

Q    This is an open forum for the public to ask questions,  but it's not really open.

MR. GIBBS:  I couldn't agree more.

Q    But it's not open.

MR. GIBBS:  Based on what?

Q    Based on the information that your staff gave us on how the audience and the questions are being selected.

MR. GIBBS:  The questions are being selected by people that e-mail on Facebook and Twitter.

Q    Well, they're not deciding what questions actually get in.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Chip, I appreciate, again --

Q    It just feels completely controlled --

MR. GIBBS:  I appreciate, again --

Q    -- in a way unlike his town meetings all the campaign and --

MR. GIBBS:  I appreciate the pre-selected question on your part.

Q    Will there be dissenting views --

Q    Yes, how about that?

MR. GIBBS:  I think that's a very safe bet.  But, again, let's -- how about we do this?  I promise we will interrupt the AP's tradition of asking the first question.  I will let you ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted at Annandale --

Q    I'm perfectly happy to --

Q    That's not his point.  The point is the control --

Q    Exactly.

Q    -- we have never had that in the White House.  And we have had some, but not --

Q    This White House.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, I was going to say, I'll let you amend her question.

Q    I'm amazed -- I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and --

MR. GIBBS:  Helen, you haven't even heard the questions.

Q    It doesn't matter.  It's the process.

Q    You have left open --

Q    Even if there's a tough question, it's a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened.

Q    It's shocking.  It's really shocking.

MR. GIBBS:  Chip, let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting.  How about that?

Q    Okay.

MR. GIBBS:  I think --

Q    No, no, no, we're having it now --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I'd be happy to have it now.

Q    It's a pattern.

MR. GIBBS:  Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?

Q    It's a pattern.  It isn't the question -- 

MR. GIBBS:  What's a pattern?

Q    It's a pattern of controlling the press.

MR. GIBBS:  How so?  Is there any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press -- poorly, I might add.  (Laughter.)

Q    Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.

MR. GIBBS:  How so?

Q    Well, and controlling the public --

Q    How so?  By calling reporters the night before to tell them they're going to be called on.  That is shocking.

MR. GIBBS:  We had this discussion ad nauseam and --

Q    Of course you would because you don't have any answers.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen.

Go ahead.

Q    Well, you should have.

Q    Thank you for your support.

MR. GIBBS:  That's good.  Have you e-mailed your question today?

Q    I don't have to e-mail it.  I can tell you right now what I want to ask.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  I don't doubt that at all, Helen.  I don't doubt that at all.

Q    Actually, could you pass along a question to the President from all of us, is he going to support a tax increase on the middle class?

MR. GIBBS:  I will -- if you get on your computer you can ask him that yourself.

Q    I think you're a more direct pipeline than --

MR. GIBBS:  I don't know.  I was just told that you guys have a pretty good -- go ahead.

Q    So, ADP, private employers, they've released their estimates on what the job loss figures on private payrolls -- they have it at 492,000 for June.  Obviously we know we're going to get the public number tomorrow.  Worse than expected.  Wall Street just concluded -- stock market just concluded its first positive quarter.  I know we hear all this time that unemployment --

MR. GIBBS:  Lagging indicator.

Q    Lagging indicator on this stuff.  But it is just such a stark contrast:  Wall Street recovering; Main Street, not.  I mean, there it is.  What do you say?

MR. GIBBS:  I think we've probably had this discussion more than virtually any other.  And I think I have long said, despite your questions, that I don't equate what's going on necessarily each and every day in the economy to the ups and downs of the stock market.  I never have.

Q    A full quarter they had positives, though, which means they're on an uptick, so --

MR. GIBBS:  Right.

Q    -- but it goes to this concern that somehow that you've done a lot to help Wall Street with the financial bailouts, and it hasn't trickled down to Main Street.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I think you can go back to any number of your questions about what was going on as it related to the recovery and what was going on in Wall Street.  I wasn't the one making that connection -- many of you were.  So I'll leave that largely aside.

This is not -- as I've said before, this is not going to happen overnight.  This is not something that we got into recently.  This is a recession that I think statistically dates back to December of 2007, and I think if you look at the job loss figures, specifically in the last six months, you see a real change in the number of figures -- a real jump in the size of those figures.

Q    But it's clear the number is not moving the way I think you guys thought it was going to --

MR. GIBBS:  No, no, no, we've always said this was going to take time.  I said last week that I would -- I think that either this month or next month we'll hit 10 percent.  I think if you go back and look at economic forecasts around November, December, and January, you'll find that a lot of people were surprised at what we ultimately learned in November and December, which was the level of growth -- I forget the numbers -- were less than -- we were contracting at less than a percent, and then all of the sudden, I think the ultimate revised figure for the last quarter in 2008 was negative 5.5 percent growth.

Q    Should the public feel better?  They should feel better, we're going to have -- shed a half-million -- another half-million jobs?  But Wall Street --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I'm going to wait for --

Q    I understand the statistics stuff, but, I mean --

MR. GIBBS:  I'm going to wait for --

Q    -- should the public feel better about this?

MR. GIBBS:  I think that the public rightly, as the President will be, rightly anxious until we see job creation, not job loss; positive economic growth, not negative economic growth.  I think that's going to take some time -- not simply because it's a lagging indicator, but I think for the economy to turn around from the depth that it has been in is not going to happen over the course of one or two months but the course of many, many, many months.

Q    Sixty Senate seats -- your party has them.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    The no excuse -- Republicans saying no excuses now, everything is on the Democrats, everything is on this White House, you know, if you fail to get something it's because you can't get unity in your own party.  Is that fair?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, it's a little -- I don't know who said that, but it's a little odd from -- it's a little odd if --

Q    The Chairman of the -- I think Michael Steele said it.  I just set you up -- (laughter.)  That's okay.  There are others saying it, it's not just Steele.  It's Republicans saying, hey --

MR. GIBBS:  Wasn't he complaining last week about bipartisanship?

Q    Don't ask me.

Q    He wanted to meet with the President about health care last week.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, apparently it's all on us.  Why does he need to meet with us?

Q    But is that fair?  I mean -- but you have the 60 Senate seats.  You have a huge majority in the House.  You have the White House.  Your agenda -- it is in your -- it's in your party's hands, correct?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, there's no doubt -- I don't know that 60 -- I don't know that the seating of one senator changes the notion that Democrats control both Houses of Congress and the White House.  I hope the implication by Chairman Steele is not that addressing America's problems isn't the priority of all Americans that serve in government, it's not simply one party.  That is a follow-up you could ask him.  This President is going to continue to pursue the policies that he believes are important to turn our economy around, to lay that foundation for long-term economic growth, to change our image throughout the world, and continue to reach out to Democrats and Republicans to make that agenda happen.

Q    You say it's one senator.  I have heard from plenty of -- from you, from others -- 60 senators -- understand how the Senate works; if you don't have 60 votes, you don't have it.  Well, you now have -- your party has 60 seats, and I understand that it's still always difficult to get the 60.  You don't have that excuse anymore, though.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, there's math, there's -- look, I will say this, as I've said many times, I think we don't get everybody from every party on every vote.  That includes the Democratic Party.  But where we'll continue to make progress -- I think that -- I think all of us, Democrat or Republican, have a unique responsibility serving in government in times like this to work as much as we can together to address and solve these problems.  I don't think one party can simply say, okay, it's all yours.  That certainly doesn't seem to be the message, again, in prior weeks about making sure that they're part of the solution.  I think that's the outreach that the President will continue to do in order to restore our economic growth and get this country back on track.

Mark.

Q    Are you saying you don't see 60 votes as a rubber stamp in the Senate?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think you can -- I assume there's about 60 U.S. senators that would confirm that for you, yes.

Q    Has the President changed his mind about sending more troops to Afghanistan?

MR. GIBBS:  Changed his mind how?

Q    Well, when he has spoken about Afghanistan, he has spoken about upping the U.S. military presence.  Yesterday on Iraq he said forces that come out of Iraq could be used in Afghanistan.  And yet General Jones is making it sound that your emphasis will be on economic development in Afghanistan rather than military victory.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think there are several hundred years of evidence that military might alone is not likely to solve all of your problems in that country or that region of the world.  Understand that the troop increases that the President ordered upon coming into office are in the process of phasing in.  Not all of that has been done.  The President was concerned about the security situation in Afghanistan, as were commanders on the ground, and additional troops have been approved in order to stabilize the security situation as we head into those important elections.

But I think the important point that General Jones was making on that trip throughout the region in Afghanistan and Pakistan and India is, in order to -- and I made this point yesterday in Iraq -- in order to stabilize that country, to get it back on track and to solve some of the long-term problems, you're going to have to have more than just military might.  You're going to have to have more than military power.  The onus is also going to have to be on the Afghans to improve their security situation, which is why a portion of the additional troop increases go for training the Afghan police and the Afghan military, which is tremendously important.

But if we don't get good governance and improvement in governance, if we don't get an increase in development and a change in the economy, I think the President, and I think General Jones would agree, that no amount of troops are going to leave that country in a situation that is sustainable.

Q    Can I follow up on that, please?

MR. GIBBS:  Hold on, let me finish.  Yes, you can.  But I think that's the point, much as the point I made yesterday on a couple of questions as it related to Iraq.  I think it's pretty clear that an increase -- or I should say a decrease in the amount of violence, and in some ways an increase in troops to change the security environment, while extremely important, isn't going to get us all the way until there in Iraq is political reconciliation, until you see a government that is able to economically create jobs and things like that in order to promote sustainability and security there.

So I think this is -- the President strongly believes this is something that, as he said before, this isn't either/or.  It's not military or economic.  It has to be both.

Q    President Obama, in his remarks yesterday on the community solutions agenda, he was commenting on Iraq, and he said that by 2011, that all of the U.S. troops will be out of Iraq.  Did he mean all, there will be zero, not one troop left in Iraq, especially since in legislation that he sponsored before as a senator, said that we need to leave some amount of troop presence there to protect civilians, to fight terrorism, et cetera.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, understand there's two different deadlines I think that we're talking about here.  The plan that the President has and that commanders on the ground and commanders here are implementing is in about 14 months, you'd see the removal of all combat brigades from Iraq.  There would be trainers and a residual force that's left.  But understand, when the President says all our troops will be out of Iraq, that's in accordance with the deadline established in the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by the previous administration and signed by the sovereign government of Iraq.

So I think --

Q    Is there flexibility on that?  Does it mean that there could be troops there after 2011?

MR. GIBBS:  I think the agreement -- I think there's an agreement that's been signed between two countries that denote the end of military involvement at the conclusion of 2011.

Yes, sir.

Q    Concerning the trip next week, has the President spoken with Medvedev since he met with him in London in April?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.  They spoke yesterday about the importance of the upcoming summit and in making progress on issues that will be on their agenda.

Q    And we have the briefing at 3:30 this afternoon -- that's on the record, right?

MR. GIBBS:  I think it is.  We have Denis, Michelle Gavin, Mike Froman, and Mike McFaul, who will walk you guys through each aspect of the three stops.

Q    Could you elaborate a little bit on that phone conversation?

MR. GIBBS:  Just to say that they spent a few minutes discussing the issues that they're going to discuss in the upcoming summit.

Q    What issues --

MR. GIBBS:  The reduction of nuclear weapons.

Q    The arsenal stuff?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Iran?

Q    Missile defense, could that come up?

MR. GIBBS:  Only in relation to the notion that will be discussed next week.

Q    Robert, for a couple of weeks now, the internal report from the CIA put together by its inspector general on the interrogation techniques of that agency has been delayed.  There are concerns among those -- specifically, the ACLU has been fighting to get this -- that it will be dumped late this week or right before the holiday weekend and sort of missed or lost.  What is the status of that report?  Why is it being delayed?  And will it meet or exceed what you have set as a standard of transparency on this particularly sensitive national security topic?

MR. GIBBS:  My standard or Helen's standard?

Q    The administration's.

MR. GIBBS:  I think -- here's what I know of the report, and I would refer you to DOJ because I think part of this is obviously based on Freedom of Information Act litigation involving the ACLU and in some ways an outcropping of what you saw in the OLC memos that were released earlier this year in the President's term.

It's my understanding that the interagency review of the document and what can be released is continuing and I don't anticipate that that's going to be released today.

Q    Today?  This week?

MR. GIBBS:  It's my understanding that it's doubtful that it will be released this week.

Q    Doubtful.  And this interagency review process, is part of it to increase the amount of information that's available?  Obviously the first report was almost thoroughly redacted.  Is part of that process, part of the delay, to make this as transparent as possible or is it principally legal issues --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I would say it's a -- in some ways, it's a combination.  Obviously part of this report, as I said, is an outcropping of that Freedom of Information Act litigation that resulted in the release of the OLC memos.  Obviously some of the information that's out now can -- you can go back now through the older IG report -- in a sense, I don't know if this is a word, "unredact" some of that material.  That's what -- I think that's a decent part of what's going on interagency-wise right now.

Q    Quickly, the Iranian police has conducted an investigation into Neda's death and concluded it was staged.  I don't know if you had a chance to look at that, if you have any reaction to that?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think that is the ongoing campaign of misinformation about what's going on.  I think the notion that the death of an innocent woman would be staged is -- even with them it's shocking that that would be what would come out.

Q    Follow-up on Iran?  Follow-up on Iran, Robert?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Mousavi earlier today put out a statement in which he called for protests to continue.  He also said that he considered the government now to be illegitimate.  He demanded the release of political prisoners.  Does the President have a reaction yet to that statement?  And has the President himself talked to the release of people who've been detained in Iran?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me check and see if that's something that we've done or not.  Obviously, David, you've heard the President speak on a number of occasions that the President strongly believes in the right for people to gather in protest without fear or harm or violence.  Obviously there are still a lot of questions that surround the most recent election.  And I think I'll leave it at that.

Q    On Honduras?  One of the triggers of the coup was President Zelaya's attempt to alter the constitution to allow for reelection.  Does the White House believe that the President -- that President Zelaya shares an element of blame in his ouster, and what message does the White House have to other leaders in Latin America who seek to alter the constitution to further their political ambition?

MR. GIBBS:  You know, let me get a little guidance on that.  I don't know, except to say -- let me just say that obviously we were working in order to prevent what happened from happening.  And I think -- I don't want to stray too far from just the notion that obviously at OAS there's an inter-American charter that establishes rights, rules, and responsibilities as it relates to democratic governance.  That's obviously something that's been violated.  And the OAS, with the help of the United States, has reacted to that.  But let me get some more guidance on the other question.

Q    A quick follow-up?  Was one of the -- did you ask President Zelaya, in your attempts to stop this from happening, to not hold -- to not proceed with --

MR. GIBBS:  We'll reach out to those guys --

Q    On Honduras?  Just to clarify, Micheletti, the (inaudible) President has said that he's planning to send some representatives to Washington to talk with the U.S. government.  Is the White House or the State Department planning to talk with them?

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

Q    Micheletti has also said that if Zelaya returns to Honduras, he's going to be put in jail.  Do you have any comments to that?

MR. GIBBS:  No, except I think, again, I would simply reiterate that I think the OAS has laid down some fairly strong conditions and a timeline that we're supportive of and think that should be met in order to restore the democratic rule of law.

Q    Why hasn't the President seen him -- having deplored the coup?

MR. GIBBS:  I think he's in Panama.

Q    With regard to the health care debate, obviously this is going to be controlled more by Congress than the White House, but does the White House have a good sense now of the pace at which things will proceed, the pace at which each chamber will probably have a bill, and the pace at which, on the calendar, negotiations will proceed?

And as a follow-up, the President, during the campaign and since taking office, has emphasized his desire to have the policymaking play out in the public eye.  And so far there have been sort of town halls or a meeting at the White House with cameras and a transcript.  But in terms of how the actual policy is being crafted, that's going on in Congress behind closed doors.  What can you do to make sure that he's able to have this play out in public as he's promised, as things go forward?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I don't want to interject too heavily into the committee process, but, I mean, obviously -- and I've been asked about them on any number of occasions, reactions to different aspects of bill mark-ups, obviously that are done in a very public way.  I think what the President has talked about and I think what -- particularly what the step taken by Wal-Mart demonstrates is that as I've talked about a lot this week is unlike previous attempts to reform our health care system in a way that is comprehensive and brings down costs, those players are still at the table, those players are actively participating in working in finding a solution.  And the President thinks that's how we're going to get enduring comprehensive reform to an issue that we've been debating for 40 years.

Q    But do you think the sausage-making part is public enough?  For example, one of these questions that --

MR. GIBBS:  For me?  Yes.  (Laughter.)  I've been asked about it I don't know how many times.  I think it's -- I seem to be dealing with it -- yes.

Q    -- issues such as the possible partial taxation of insurance benefits and these sort of things, which are yet to be determined.  The way legislation often works is everybody says, well, we'll talk about it when we get there, and then like, you know, suddenly it's done and it's in the bill.  And I know that's something you're trying to avoid in this process.  How will you make sure that this is done publicly?

MR. GIBBS:  Since I've been asked about it about 10 times in the last two weeks, if it's being done in secret, somebody is doing an awfully poor job of keeping it that way.

Q    I'm doing a poor job of asking my question.

MR. GIBBS:  I don't want to render an opinion on that.

Go ahead, yes.

Q    Well, first off, for the record, I did submit a question through the Web site today about public options, so --

MR. GIBBS:  Excellent.  Well, I'll --

Q    But my question today is about -- the Justice Department didn't appeal a ruling in this discrimination case involving a potential Library of Congress hire who was planning a gender change.  Why not, and is that part of the President's promise that he made during the LGBT meeting last --

MR. GIBBS:  That I don't have any -- let me find something on that.  I don't have anything on that.

Q    Then another health care one then.  How does the President feel about some of the liberal groups like MoveOn targeting Senator Kay Hagan and Senator Mary Landrieu on public option, the fact that they said they won't support that in the bill?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I don't know that I -- the President has much to say about what the groups are doing, except to reemphasize the principle that he has that -- of the importance of providing that public option to give those that are not able to buy insurance through their workplace or that are having trouble in the normal health insurance market go through a health insurance exchange that will provide greater choice, greater transparency, and more competition in a way that we believe will be effective and cost-effective.

So I think -- I mean, obviously the President is a big believer in an option -- in that option.

Q    Are these ads helpful when you've got senators who -- he was trying to convince them to support what you just said, and you've got these groups that are saying we're going to withhold your money, we're going to pressure you with your citizens back home to support --

MR. GIBBS:  I'm not sure how much money Mary gets from MoveOn.  But I don't have any general reaction to that.

Q    Thanks, Robert.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Thank you, Robert.  Medicaid is a big part of the health care problem, and I think it's costing $300 billion a year, and that's a big reason the states need help.  Last year the state of Rhode Island became the first and so far only state to get a waiver on Medicare.  And of course --

MR. GIBBS:  Medicaid?

Q    Medicaid, sorry, on Medicaid.  As it is, they'll allow Washington to put a cap on Medicaid funding and, in turn, if they can determine eligibility, put limits down and reform the system.  Allowing states to have waivers on Medicaid, is that something that's on the table with the President now?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me talk to the health team.  I don't know the degree to which that's something that -- how much they've gotten involved in that.  Obviously, I think you mentioned Medicaid represents a growing fiscal component for states, especially in harder economic times, and that obviously is something that has to be looked at and addressed in anything that's comprehensive.

But again, I think that also strengthens the argument for changing the way health care is done and ensuring that it's done in a way that's affordable, again, not just for families and small businesses but for state governments, as well.

Thanks, guys.

END
1:11 P.M. EDT
 

THE WHITE HOUSE

Vice President Biden Commends Department of Education for Accelerating Recovery Act Funds

"Last week, the President asked me to work with the Cabinet to find ways to accelerate our already stepped-up Recovery Act efforts.  I’m pleased to announce today that the Department of Education will be making over $2.5 billion in Recovery Act funds available to states in the coming days to support state education budgets, thereby helping states in fiscal distress.  These Recovery Act funds will enable states to move quickly to protect critical jobs and will help states cope with their immediate budgetary challenges.   I applaud Secretary Arne Duncan and his team for moving so quickly, and will continue to press the Cabinet to find ways to accelerate the pace of Recovery Act spending."

THE WHITE HOUSE

     WATTSBURG, PA – Vice President Biden today announced the availability of $4 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act loans and grants to help bring broadband service to un-served and underserved communities across America. This is the first round of Recovery Act funding aimed at expanding broadband access to help bridge the technological divide and create jobs building out Internet infrastructure.

Vice President Biden was joined today by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper at Seneca High School, the first stop on the President’s National Rural Tour. 

     "Today’s announcement is a first step toward realizing President Obama’s vision of a nationwide 21st-century communications infrastructure – one that encourages economic growth, enhances America’s global competitiveness and helps address many of America’s most pressing challenges," said Vice President Biden.

The Recovery Act provided a total of $7.2 billion to the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to accelerate broadband deployment in areas of the country that have been without the high-speed infrastructure. Of that funding, NTIA will utilize $4.7 billion to deploy broadband infrastructure in un-served and underserved areas in the United States, expand public computer center capacity and encourage sustainable adoption of broadband service. RUS will invest $2.5 billion to facilitate broadband deployment in rural communities.

     "The Commerce Department’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program will reach the last frontiers of America’s information landscape, and the investments it makes in inner-city neighborhoods and rural communities will spur innovation and pave the way for private capital to follow," Secretary Locke said. "This first wave of funding will help create jobs, jumpstart additional investment and provide model projects that can better inform our national broadband strategy."

      "The funding we’re announcing today will carry out President Obama’s goal to expand broadband to communities that lack access to it," Secretary Vilsack said. "The President is committed to bringing the educational and economic benefits of the Internet to all communities."

"Access to high-speed Internet is no longer a luxury, but an essential tool to compete in this 21st-century economy. The availability of this technology is critical to attracting the business and development that will create the good paying jobs that stay in the United States," said Congresswoman Dahlkemper. "I am so pleased that Vice President Biden and the administration chose Western Pennsylvania to announce this critical broadband initiative - a region that will benefit from this strategic investment."

     NTIA and RUS will be accepting applications for loans, grants and loan/grant combinations to be awarded by each agency under a single application form. This collaborative approach will ensure that the agencies’ activities are complementary and integrated, make the best use of taxpayer funds and make it easier for applicants to apply for funding. This is the first of three rounds of funding the Agriculture and Commerce Departments will provide.

     Vice President Biden also announced today that Commerce and USDA officials will host public workshops in July to share information about the funding availabilities and the application process. Forums will be held in Boston, Mass.; Charleston, W.Va.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Memphis, Tenn.; Lonoke, Ark.; Birmingham, Ala.; Billings, Mont.; Albuquerque, N.M.; and Los Angeles, Calif.  

     Applications will be accepted beginning July 14, 2009, through 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 14, 2009. The complete details of this Notice of Funding Availability are available at http://www.broadbandusa.gov.

     The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009. It is designed to jumpstart the nation’s economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century. The act includes measures to modernize our nation's infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief and protect those in greatest need.

     More information about efforts regarding the Recovery Act is available at www.usda.gov/recovery, www.commerce.gov/recovery and www.recovery.gov.  
 

You can watch the event live at WhiteHouse.gov/live starting at 1:15 Eastern.