White House press conference with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on April 6, 2010. Transcript and video downloaded from WhiteHouse.gov on April 8, 2010 at approximately 2:15 p.m. Eastern.

Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 4/6/10
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:12 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Let’s start with a few quick announcements. As you all know, the President will host, on April 12-13, the Nuclear Security Summit at the Washington Convention Center here in D.C. I wanted to list for you all a couple of different things — first, the 47 countries including the United States that will participate in the summit.

They include Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Vietnam. The United Nations, the IAEA, and the European Union will also be represented.

As part of the Nuclear Security Summit, the President is currently planning to host a number of bilateral meetings. Those include President Sargsian of Armenia; President Hu Jintao of China; Chancellor Merkel of Germany; Prime Minister Singh of India; King Abdullah II of Jordan; Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia; Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan; President Zuma of South Africa; and President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan.

In addition to the President’s activities this evening, at the White House the President will host a screening of the documentary film, Nuclear Tipping Point, a film which focuses on today’s global nuclear dangers. The screening will be attended by four distinguished statesmen featured in the documentary: former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn; as well as film narrator Michael Douglas, and General Colin Powell, who provides a prologue to the film.

In the film, Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn share the personal experiences that led them to write three Wall Street Journal opinion editorials describing their efforts to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, and to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately end them as a threat to the world.

Q What time is that?

MR. GIBBS: That is — I want to say 6:30 p.m., but I will double-check.

Q It’s Prime Minister Gilani, Robert, not President of Pakistan.

MR. GIBBS: Let me see if I was wrong when I had it written — they had it as Prime Minister. I will admonish the note-takers for — and I regret the error.

With that, I think we’re done with our previously scheduled announcements.

Q Any coverage on the event tonight?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q A couple questions on the mine explosion. The President said that federal resources are already down there. Have there been any federal resources that have gone to West Virginia so far?

MR. GIBBS: The Department of Labor’s Mine Safety Division and FEMA both have dispatched teams; they are there. The President, as you know, spoke with Governor Manchin last evening, pledged our full support and cooperation in the investigation, and that is obviously currently ongoing.

Q And this mine seems to have a pretty significant history of safety problems. Is the President considering any review or overhaul of federal oversight over the mines?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, first and foremost, obviously our thoughts and prayers are with the families who have lost loved ones and for those that continue to pray for a miracle for those that are missing. So I think rescue and recovery is our — first in our mind right now.

Secondly, we want to see obviously a thorough investigation, as you’ve heard the governor and others discuss. The President, as I said, has pledged his full cooperation and resources for that investigation. And I think legislative plans about that might better be addressed at the conclusion of that investigation when we have a few more details about what might have happened.

Q Are there any plans for the President to go to West Virginia?

MR. GIBBS: Not at this point, no.

Q Robert, two questions, one on the Nuclear Posture Review and one on the weekend announcement about currency. Starting with currency, after having put off this report, what are the next steps that the administration will take at the G20 or in other fora to press China to move their currency?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jeff, obviously as we’ve mentioned many times, the President has spoken directly with the leaders in China about his concern and his

GAP

market-based. There are three important meetings coming up, finance ministers of the G20, our yearly dialogue with the Chinese here being two of those, at which the administration will continue to press the Chinese to, as the President has said, value their currency in a way that’s much more market-based.

That’s the way we think is best at this point. And I think you’ve seen reports over the past week or so about the Chinese beginning to take some steps and realize on their own that this is the best path forward.

Q Will you be pressing India or Japan or any other countries in the G20 to get this particular issue on the agenda for the G20?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there’s no doubt this is of great concern to a number of economies around the world. I think the best thing to do is let Secretary Geithner and others work through this process in these upcoming meetings and evaluate where we are.

Q And then once that three-month period is over, you come back to this report?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the exact timing at the end of the meeting period, but we can certainly check with Treasury on that one.

Q All right. And then just quickly on the Nuclear Posture Review — what is your response to criticism from some who are saying that it just makes the United States less safe by taking a big — the possibility of nuclear deterrent off the table?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think this is — first of all, I don’t — I’m not entirely sure what nuclear deterrent it takes off the table. The document obviously contains no assurance for a country that currently possesses a nuclear weapon or for a country that fails that fails to live up to — sign the NPT or live up to its obligations, which obviously the two biggest examples of that are Iran and North Korea.

So I think this is a — and the President believes — a very logical policy intended to, in many ways, help bring security not just to here but to other countries that have — live up to their obligations and give up, if they have programs, nuclear weapons. If not, they’re going to make themselves less secure.

So I think this is an important and balanced step, and this is the beginning, as you’ve heard the President discuss of now more than a week of events that start with the Nuclear Posture Review. The President travels tomorrow evening to Prague to sign with President Medvedev the next START treaty. And then we return here to focus, as I mentioned, with 46 other countries, on locking down any vulnerable nuclear material over the course of the next four years to ensure that we are not faced with that kind of material falling into the hands of a terrorist organization.

Yes, sir.

Q The Nuclear Security Summit, what were the criteria for invitations? Obviously most of those countries are not nuclear powers. And is every country sending their head of state?

MR. GIBBS: Not necessarily, no. I don’t have specific — who’s going to be here for each country. For instance, I know that Prime Minister Brown called an election in the United Kingdom and because of that and I think upcoming debates is not going to be somebody who will be attending.

Let me — as we get closer to, we’ll do a longer briefing on this. We’ll have a better sense of attendees for each of the countries involved and more information on what the President hopes to speak to each of the countries directly about as part of the bilateral meetings that I said are currently planned.

Q Okay. I want to review a quote and get your reaction. “Our nuclear arsenal helps deter enemies from using chemical and biological weapons. In the first Gulf War we made it very clear that if Saddam used chemical or biological weapons then the United States would keep all options on the table. We later learned that this veiled threat had the intended deterrent effect as Iraq considered its options.” That was Secretary Gates two years ago. He now disagrees with that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Secretary Gates obviously was heavily involved in the latest Nuclear Posture Review as the current Secretary of Defense. The briefing that was held to unveil it today was held at the Pentagon.

I would certainly say, as it relates to a country — there’s two things, as part of the Nuclear Posture Review, that I think are important to keep in mind. If a country — if we see that a country greatly expands its biological or chemical weapons capability, the posture review calls for the ability to reevaluate any assurances that have been given; and secondly, I think goes without saying that our country possesses a massive conventional arsenal that we believe has an important deterrent effect on anybody that might make the poor decision to attack our country.

Q But that was your Secretary of Defense saying that the nuclear threat helped deter Iraq in the first Gulf War from chemical and biological –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say that the Secretary of Defense was obviously heavily involved in the formulation of the current posture review; extensive meetings with the President on this subject, and something that, like I said, was rolled out of his building today.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, at any time while this policy was being developed, did the President step in and object to something because it would make America less safe?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I’m not going to get into the — there were dozens and dozens of meetings, not all of which involved the President but involved principals and deputies from any department in government that had an equity in this review.

Dan, the President gets up each day with the safety and security of the American people foremost on his mind. So you can be assured that whether it’s in a meeting about the latest nuclear posture review, or the President’s daily intelligence briefing, or, quite frankly, walking from the Residence to the Oval Office, the safety and security of the American people are on his mind.

Q Was there a push or pull at any time during that process where he was saying, you know, what you are proposing here, I don’t think it would make America safer?

MR. GIBBS: Dan, I think you can be assured that the document that we’ve come up with is done so in a way that the President believes can best keep this country safe.

Q But he actually stepped in? That’s what I’m trying to find out. Did he ever step in at any point in the process?

MR. GIBBS: This is his document. This is his document.

Yes, sir.

Q I do have another question on the health care — the selling of the health care law. And I’m wondering how you feel it’s getting through to the American people. Do you feel it has been effective in knocking down what the President has said have been myths?

MR. GIBBS: This is not a 10-day program. This is — health care is — the law will be implemented over the course of many years. So I don’t — I do not doubt that in the intervening many days, you all will poll every other day to find out whether Joe in Peoria has changed his mind. This is a longer-term effort to reform our health care system in a way that was, in the President’s mind, desperately needed.

Our implementation and our efforts to ensure that what is laid out in the law is — that those promises are kept by insurance companies and others will be the focus of this administration, and has been since the moment the President signed that bill. The first meeting the President had with the team at the conclusion of health care reform was to discuss its — the next morning, was to discuss its implementation.

Q And one more thing — on the Karzai invitation, anything change on that — on the May 12th invitation?

MR. GIBBS: No, I would say that that meeting is still on the schedule as of now.

Q Your answer to Jake about the President speaking to each of the countries’ leaders or representatives directly about — what are you talking about? What agenda items are on the President’s mind for these meetings, these bilats he is going to have?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, each of these — some of them are — some of them, obviously, deal with — directly with our proliferation efforts. Some of them will also deal with the fact that some of these countries we’ve not had a chance to sit down with. Some of them — there are issues that may lie slightly outside of something like proliferation — Armenia comes to mind with the normalization of relations. So I think there are a whole host of things. Obviously the focus is on nuclear security.

Q By proliferation efforts you mean what these countries are doing or not doing?

MR. GIBBS: What these countries we hope can and will do to ensure that vulnerable material — they make every effort to lock down the type of vulnerable material that the President sees as such a danger.

Q Will the President on this trip express support for goals which go beyond the goals of the START treaty he’s about to sign — for further reduction and nuclear capability?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we are returning, Bill, to the city that the President laid out a vision, shared by the four men that are coming for the documentary tonight, to see a world without nuclear weapons. The President I think rightly said that that’s not likely a goal that he will live to see. But that’s the trajectory and the path that he believes that we can and should be on. I don’t doubt that he will express that while this is an important step, it should be the first step in our efforts to reduce the risk between two countries like the United States and Russia.

Q What’s his argument to Republican senators, who have to ratify this if it’s to become United States law?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he would certainly demonstrate that this is far and away in our best interest to reduce the threat that so many of these weapons have.

I would point out, Bill, that this is — Secretary Clinton brought this up when we did our briefing in here a few Fridays ago — and I can get the statistics at the end of this; I think they’re on my desk — that on the last three big treaties, arms control treaties, the votes were in the mid-90s for all three of those treaties. This has always been — and the President believes always should be — a bipartisan issue. The President came to this issue through a friendship with Senator Lugar of Indiana. Obviously Nunn, Perry, Shultz, Kissinger, two each from each party — I think the President hopes that Democrats and Republicans can work together to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and ratify this treaty this year with the type of majorities that we’ve seen done so in the past.

Samantha.

Q On Karzai, are you considering canceling this May 12th meeting?

MR. GIBBS: We certainly would evaluate whatever continued or further remarks President Karzai makes as to whether that’s constructive to have such a meeting, sure.

Q Sort of, three strikes you’re out? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I’ve not seen the form that one fills out to cancel the meeting.

Q But what are the consequences for those remarks? I mean, he’s been pretty defiant. He kind of doubled down on those remarks after a call from Secretary Clinton.

MR. GIBBS: I can’t speak to why he said those things.

Q I was asking if there are consequences from –**

MR. GIBBS: Let me — I mean, they’re troubling, they’re confusing; they’ve been investigated and they’ve been found to be untruthful. So whether there’s some domestic political benefit that he’s trying to gain, I can’t say.

We are in Afghanistan, and our young men and women are in Afghanistan because of the threat that al Qaeda and its extremist allies pose, and posed on September 11th when attacks planned in that area came to New York and just outside of Washington, D.C. So we are there to — for the safety and security of our country. And we understand, and we think that President Karzai needs to understand, that the safety and security of his country is not going to be gained simply by rooting out or moving extremist threats in certain areas that isn’t ultimately then filled with good governance. The President has been clear with President Karzai, going back to last fall, and in numerous meetings and videoconferences since.

Q Robert, can I do a quick follow of that? Is Karzai our ally?

MR. GIBBS: Karzai is the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan.

Q But that’s not what I asked. Is he our ally? Is he the ally of the United States?

MR. GIBBS: There are times in which the actions that he takes are constructive to governance. I would say that the remarks he’s made — I can’t imagine that anybody in this country found them anything other than troubling.

So our position on this, Jake, is that when the Afghan leaders take steps to improve governance and root out corruption, then the President will say kind words. When leaders need to hear stern language from this administration about the consequences of not acting, we’ll do that as well.

Q If I could follow on Jake’s follow, which is — (laughter) –

MR. GIBBS: Little early for Wimbledon.

Q Peter Galbraith was on MSNBC this morning saying that Karzai was mentally unstable and suggesting that he was on drugs. Following up on Jake, is he a credible partner to the U.S.?

MR. GIBBS: Again, he is the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan. And as I just said to Jake, we will not hesitate to ensure that the remarkable investment that our men and women are making is met with the type of governance that has to in place in order to secure parts of a dangerous country.

We’ll continue to speak out again if need be. And we want to see President Karzai fulfill the commitments that he enunciated both at his inaugural address and at a donors conference in London — those commitments he made not just to his people but to the international community that have invested in ensuring the security of his country.

Connie.

Q I want to ask about coal and nuclear. And by the way, isn’t this poppy season in Afghanistan, parenthetically? Anyway, on coal, does the President favor stronger penalties for coal companies that might have violated safety rules?

MR. GIBBS: Obviously, if there are safety violations, the President believes that those violations have to be met with the full force of the law.

Q And on the nuclear — I know nuclear weapons, but why can’t** you discuss nuclear power and nuclear waste? Is that likely to come up?

MR. GIBBS: At the Nuclear Security Summit? I don’t think that’s something that they’ll spend a lot of time on, no.

Mark.

Q Robert, did the United States receive a clarification of Karzai’s remarks that you asked for last week?

MR. GIBBS: Secretary — President Karzai called Secretary Clinton I believe on Friday, yes.

Q And did that clarify anything?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’d refer you to the statement that PJ in the State Department on that, yes.

Q Well, PJ made it sound as though Karzai was stunned that his remarks caused a stir.

MR. GIBBS: Well — (laughter) — now you’re asking me to think for Karzai through PJ. So I think it’s — (laughter) — that seems out of body.

Q Well, do you need a further clarification?

MR. GIBBS: Again, as I’ve said, the remarks are troubling and untruthful. Again, I don’t know why somebody continues to insinuate that there was some sort of foreign corruption when the very thing that he speaks of was looked into. So I can’t begin to decide what reasoning he had for making those comments. Again, our focus is on ensuring that he is continuing to take the necessary steps in governance and corruption.

Q And next week’s bilaterals, are those here or at the Convention Center?

MR. GIBBS: They’re at the Convention Center. If I’m not mistaken, there’s a pretty big press build-out over there. And those will all — at least the last time I checked, they were all over at the Convention Center. I will double-check.

Q You didn’t mention Netanyahu. Is he coming? Will there be a bilateral there?

MR. GIBBS: Israel will be here; I’m not sure if he’s coming. We will have at that point recently met with President Sarkozy, President Medvedev and Prime Minister Netanyahu, so we are not meeting separately with those three because we’ve done so fairly recently.

Q Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said today that Russia may exit the Arms Reduction Treaty if the U.S. increases missile defense. What’s the President’s reaction to that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, any country can leave any treaty at any time. So I don’t — I’m not entirely sure what he’s threatening to do.

I would simply say that, as I spoke of here when we announced a change in our missile defense capabilities to ensure that the threat — the potential threat from Iran in protecting the security of both Europe and the United States — that was our focus and that remains our focus on missile defense.

I would point out that when we announced that, the Russians hailed that. So our stance on missile defense hasn’t changed, despite the fact that they are now — seem to be looking at it through a different lens. I think he’s also — if I’m not mistaken — talking about a missile defense capability, offensive in nature, that doesn’t exist.

Q Will the President bring it up in Prague when he goes?

MR. GIBBS: If President Medvedev — if they discuss missile defense — the President will simply reiterate what he and others have told anybody in the world that our posture on missile defense is to ensure the security of this country and our allies in Europe from a growing threat, and possible threat, from Iran.

Q And the Prague schedule doesn’t have any Obama-Medvedev availability on it, press availability. Is that going to happen?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, it is — there was I think a little confusion on the press schedule that went out. There is a — the signing, the statements, and the Q&A, it’s all blocked off as the signing. So our apologies if that confused –

Q The usual number of questions per side?

MR. GIBBS: A half each, yes. (Laughter.) I always love these things. We go to these things, and we’re like one question apiece. And then whoever gets called on asks four questions and –

Q Well, do you blame us?

MR. GIBBS: No, but it’s always curious to know that when you’ve asked four questions and then you say, I can’t believe we only got one question.

Yes, ma’am.

Q I know what that feels like. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Lester, I would not, in your case, be thinking of a question for Prague. (Laughter.)

So go ahead, I’m sorry.

Q You will come back to me.

MR. GIBBS: I will.

Q Thank you very much.

Q I want to ask about an issue brought up by the group called the September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. Apparently, they’ve sent a video letter to the President expressing concerns about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. They support the decision to go with a civilian trial. They’re expressing concern now that there are discussions and negotiations of a compromise with folks like Senator Lindsey Graham for getting KSM to a military tribunal. They say to do so would amount to the President buckling under political pressure. First, is there anything new on that front with discussions about the trial? And, second, how do you respond to their –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I do not know whether the letter has — I don’t know in what part of transit that’s in. I would say this, there’s nothing new that I know of. I still think we’re a few weeks away from a decision. I would say that we are looking at many possibilities based on the fact that Congress became heavily involved in the potential choosing of venues for such a trial. And we understand the security and logistical concerns that a city like New York has. So, given those concerns and given congressional prerogatives, we’re looking at all available alternatives.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, two quick questions. On the ratification in the Senate, do you all have any early indication of whether any of the Republicans in the Senate do plan on blocking it or trying to block it? I mean, do you have any sort of early read since you announced it on any stumbling blocks? You talked about the ones that are supportive, but you –

MR. GIBBS: I will check with NSC and see whether they have heard — I think when people get an opportunity to look at the text of the treaty, which will happen in short order, they’ll see, as I said earlier, that this is strongly in our national interest. I don’t think this prejudges his decision, but the statement that Senator Lugar put out around the time of our announcement I think many believed was encouraging in his desire to see swift ratification.

And I would — again, I’d just mention, as I said to Bill, this is normally an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to put aside what normally happens in Washington and come together to ratify something that we have seen Democratic and Republican Presidents do for many years. And we’re hopeful that that happens again.

Q And then just on the meeting this morning with the African American religious leaders, can you describe how that meeting went and what they talked about?

MR. GIBBS: I do not have a readout from that, but let me try to get something for you guys.

Q Just two, Robert. Does the –

MR. GIBBS: You were acting all aggrieved a minute ago, Lester, like somehow you only — (laughter.)

Q No, I’m delighted. I’m very grateful. (Laughter.)

Does the President’s apology to Doris in North Carolina for his 17-minute answer to her one question mean that in future White House press conferences he will also be brief in response so as to allow more than 13 questioners, presuming he ever has any more press conferences? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Was that one or four? (Laughter.)

Q That was one.

MR. GIBBS: That was just one? So there’s another?

Q Just one other. Just one other.

MR. GIBBS: I’m looking forward with great anticipation to that.

Lester, I think I’m largely the one who coined the phrase that it used to take the President several minutes to clear his throat giving answers, so — I hope he’s not watching. (Laughter.)

Look, there are complex issues in our times that this President and this Congress have to deal with. Not all of it can be done in neatly phrased eight-second sound bites. When talking about something the size and the scope of health care reform it takes a while to sketch out the landscape and that’s what the President enjoys doing, either in an interview setting or in a town hall meeting where citizens get to ask those questions directly of the President.

I was going to give another 16 minutes on that answer, but I decided — (laughter.)

Q No, no, no, keep it short. Is the President grateful for the statement, “We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of Obama’s government,” as made by Fidel Castro?

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen that statement.

Q Well, he made it and it’s there.

MR. GIBBS: He probably e-mailed you directly, Lester. (Laughter.)

Q But the President likes this statement, Robert. Did the President like it or not?

MR. GIBBS: I am unaware that he’s aware of the statement.

Yes, ma’am. I’ll come back.

Q Oh, you funny man. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I got to keep myself entertained, Lester. So please tip your waitresses. I’ll be here all week. (Laughter.)
Yes, ma’am. Sorry.

Q On Iran, there’s a psychological statement saying, we cannot change anything unless we accept it. Have you tried to change your situation towards Iran — to accept nuclear Iran? And dealing with nuclear Iran?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President has — the President, in an interview yesterday, said he understands and it’s certainly the right of countries to peacefully pursue nuclear power. But Iran has obligations as part of the NPT that it must live up to. Over the past many years, it has taken some very provocative steps in direct avoidance of those obligations. The President outlined with President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown at the G20 an effort by the Iranians to go around the IAEA in a clandestine effort that many presumed was to create nuclear material for a nuclear weapon. Again, that is — that breaks their obligation and their commitment to the international community.

So I think what you’ve seen over the past more than a year are efforts at engagement that Iran has decided on each and every — at each and every turn to step back from. That has brought the international community along to the point where our partners in the P5-plus-1 will soon, as the President and others have acknowledged, take strong sanctions into the Security Council. And the President hopes to see the sanctions pass the Security Council by spring.

Q But regarding meeting with President of Armenia and President of United States, any meeting with the Prime Minister of Turkey? The three of them?

MR. GIBBS: No meeting. Obviously on any number of occasions, offers have been given to accept the help of the international community if it lives up to its obligations. And each and every time, when faced with either living up to those obligations or walking away from them, the government of Iran has every single time walked away from them.

Goyal.

Q Two questions, thanks. One, as far as President decision last week to sign 123 U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement, Indians are celebrating in India, and also across the street at U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S.-India Business Council, 500 Fortune companies, are applauding President’s decision. Are you making any kind of — having any kind of ceremony when Prime Minister of India visits next week here on this issue?

MR. GIBBS: I’m not aware of any specific event around that issue. As we talked about last week, that’s something that the President — President Bush and President Obama both supported. I assume it will come up in their bilateral meeting next week.

Q And as far as this U.S.-Russia nuclear agreement and also this posture is concerned, many think tanks are saying that although U.S. and Russia will reduce, but China is rising and building up all the nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons and spreading. So what — where do we stand as far as China is concerned in the future?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously proliferation and many other topics the President — President Obama and President Hu will get an opportunity to discuss next week.

Obviously we had an expired START agreement with Russia that needed to be renewed, needed to see deeper cuts in each side’s nuclear capabilities. And the President believes it was an enormously — it is an enormously important step, as I said earlier, on the road to reducing the nuclear threat in our world.

Q So obviously there’s a number of cases sort of wending their way through the courts right now challenging DOMA and “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Last week the Department of Justice filed another brief defending “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It angered a lot of advocates; some legal scholars thought it was a step backwards in terms of dismantling the law. Is the President at all concerned that DOJ is a little insular or tone deaf on issues that are sort of politically sticky, especially those of interest to the L/G community?

MR. GIBBS: I will say this, obviously the President has enunciated his support for ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” rolling back — made a commitment to roll back DOMA in the campaign. Obviously, the Justice Department has — is charged with upholding the law as it exists, not as the President would like to see it. We have obviously taken steps on the front of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and I think we’ve made a genuine amount of progress. I will say, was it odd that they included previous statements from General Colin Powell on a belief set that he no longer had? I don’t think the President would disagree with that.

Q Does the President think it’s constitutional, “don’t ask, don’t tell?”

MR. GIBBS: I have not heard him talk about that.

Q To get back to what Secretary Gates may have said a couple of years ago regarding nuclear use posturing, it’s always been sort of ambiguous by design in the past. Does the President believe that that didn’t work or really needed changing significantly?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say this, we have — as I said earlier, I think the President’s new posture review is predicated on the logic of incentivizing good behavior, of ensuring the security of those that live up to their obligations, and provides no assurance to those that either have a nuclear weapon or in the case of Iran and North Korea aren’t living up to its obligations.

I think it’s a — obviously, we’ve entered — we’re entering into a different period with relative stability and peace among larger countries in the world. This is a posture review obviously designed to drill down a bit on places like North Korea and Iran, and to demonstrate to countries around the world, as I said earlier, if you live up to those obligations, you will enjoy the benefits of being an active, responsible member of the international community.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, a couple things on the NPR. Is it true that the administration was considering a blanket “no first use” policy as recently as a few weeks ago?

MR. GIBBS: I can check with those — I was not in the 150 or so meetings that –

Q Also, I’m told that during the campaign, the then-candidate Obama talked about de-alerting the nuclear force. Is that true? And if so, why did he –**

MR. GIBBS: Well, I will say this, we obviously have bombers that are no longer on alert. We have ICBMs and sea-based missiles that do remain on alert status. Our forces are configured in such a way that a retaliatory strike does not need to be launched at the first detection of a foreign launch. The Nuclear Posture Review proposes that we consider a series of options that extend presidential decision-making time, by strengthening command and control apparatus around those nuclear weapons, and that we open discussions with Russia to reduce the possibility of either an accidental launch or a false detection of a launch.

Q So you consider this a version of a de-alert?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that the President believes that this gives — extending that decision-making times gives a President the ability to ensure that that decision is — whatever decision he makes is one that’s based on the best available information for the longest period of time.

Stephen.

Q Thanks. There’s been several very serious bomb attacks in Baghdad over the last couple of days. How serious — closely is the White House following this situation? Is there any concern that the continued political vacuum following the elections could offer a window for insurgents?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think many expected that insurgents would use this time to roll back the progress, both militarily and politically, that we’ve seen in Iraq. The leadership and team here have spoken with our ambassador and with General Odierno. He believes that this does not threaten our ability to draw down our forces later in the year. And obviously we are very focused on, and Vice President Biden is very focused on, the steps that need to be taken to ensure political advancement in Iraq after these elections.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Robert, just back on China really quick. Can you give me a little more detail on what the President is expecting out of this meeting with President Hu next week? NPR mentioned several times the need for transparency with their nuclear arsenal. Is there anything tangible that’s expected to come –

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think obviously proliferation will be a big part of that. Obviously whenever we get together with China, discussions about energy will be on the table, discussions about the global economic recovery, and certainly discussions about what the President has talked about in terms of a market-based currency will be on there.

We’ll have something, again, more detailed at the conclusion of it. I think it’s — and I think right now it’s scheduled for, if I’m not mistaken, Monday morning.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Robert, on two things. On Karzai and his statements, what kind of credibility concerns are there when it comes to Karzai’s commitment to find Osama bin Laden?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I don’t want to get into, from up here, the efforts that are ongoing to specifically root out and identify and capture terrorists. We’ve obviously — you’ve seen the President step up the pacing in this region of the world, in both Afghanistan and in the surrounding countries, to the point that has degraded the capabilities of al Qaeda. And I would just leave it at that.

Q But has he caused any kind of concerns in this administration about his credibility? Are you concerned that there are credibility issues with him after these statements about voting in his country?

MR. GIBBS: About what?

Q The voting statements in his country.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think that we have — we found the remarks to be — continue to be troubling. I don’t — I think people that read the remarks here don’t understand based on, as I said earlier, based on the notion that what he alleges has fully been investigated.

Q But I understand you about the remarks, but does it lend you to feel like, okay, it might permeate into other areas, it’s not just about this one area? Are there concerns about other areas –

MR. GIBBS: Again, we have and the President has been concerned about governance and corruption in Afghanistan before the election, during the time period in which the election was in flux, and on the phone call congratulating President Karzai on his reelection. So obviously the team spent an enormous amount of time discussing governance and corruption during the Afghanistan-Pakistan review that took place over the fall, over many, many hours.

Q And also, the black ministers meeting. Why was it important to have today and why did it even happen?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have a readout on the meeting. Obviously the President wanted to, as we celebrate Easter, have folks here at the White House to share in what is a very important holiday for many. And I will try to get a readout of some more specifics –

Q But not necessarily the readout, but they were a subset before the –

MR. GIBBS: Right, that’s what I’m talking about.

Q I just wanted to know why.

MR. GIBBS: I think the President just wanted an opportunity to talk to them about the work that the administration is continuing to do.

Bill.

Q Robert, on the Census, Erick Erickson, a commentator for CNN, a couple of days ago, he said he was not going to fill out his Census form, and if a Census worker came to the door, he said he would “pull out my wife’s shotgun and see how that little twerp likes being scared at the door.” So my question is, do those remarks concern the White House? And are there any –

MR. GIBBS: It should concern CNN — probably first and foremost. Probably concerns his wife as well.

Q Any thoughts about protection for Census workers?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there are a lot of people that get on cable TV and say stuff so that people will quote it back to other people.

Obviously the Census determines the representation you have in what we call representative democracy. I think it’s why somebody like Karl Rove, who obviously I and others in this administration have disagreed with for going on many years, understands that the lunacy of ripping up your Census form or not sending it in or, God forbid, the remarkably crazy remarks of somebody that would threaten somebody simply trying to ensure that they’re adequately represented in this country. These days it never ceases to amaze you — and usually it’s only trumped by what somebody will knowingly say tomorrow about — I think it was Lincoln who said, “Better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” I think that would be my advice.

Glenn.

Q Robert, thanks for giving me a chance to validate Lincoln’s quote. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: It is Lincoln, right?

Q There’s some remarkably disturbing footage out today of a U.S. helicopter engaging with some folks in Baghdad in 2007; 12 fatalities. In this video the pilots can be heard remarking when an individual flees holding a baby in his arms, that it was the fault of those individuals for bringing the children into combat. Has the President seen that? And do you think that that sort of activity on its face appears to have been appropriate?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Glenn, I do not know whether the President has seen the video that was released on the Internet.

Obviously it is very graphic in nature and it’s extremely tragic. For details of the investigation that the Defense Department and the Pentagon did on that, around that incident, obviously I would point you over to the Department of Defense.

Many of you all have traveled with the President — this President or other Presidents — in war zones. Many of you know colleagues that have reported from exceedingly dangerous places in the world. Our military will take every precaution necessary to ensure the safety and security of civilians, and particularly those that report in those dangerous places on behalf of news organizations.

Q Do you think that this warrants some additional investigation, though?

MR. GIBBS: Glenn, I don’t in all honesty know enough about what was done previously, which is why I would point you over to the Department of Defense.

David.

Q Do you have any statement on the decision that just came down this morning on net neutrality? And also — I’ll give you two now. Related to that there are two vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court that the President has yet to put nominations for. Why the delay?

MR. GIBBS: I will check on the circuit court. I have — I don’t think the administration — I don’t think the White House has had an opportunity to fully evaluate the court case representing a — [cell phone rings] — double pepperoni available at the gate? (Laughter.) Yes, I will — yes, extra cheese, onions ready to be picked up.

I will check on the D.C. court. We have not had an opportunity to fully evaluate the FCC’s decision — the decision affecting the FCC, which as you know is an independent agency.

Q Doesn’t the administration broadly support the notion of net neutrality, though?

MR. GIBBS: It does, it does, it does. And the President discussed that obviously in the campaign. We’re committed to that and committed to providing businesses with the certainty that they need, as well.

Thank you.

Q Thank you for letting so many people ask questions. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I appreciate that pat on the head, Lester. (Laughter.)

END
2:07 P.M. EDT

This is a complete transcript and the full video of President Obama’s meeting with Senate Democrats on Feb. 3, 2010. The transcript was provided by the White House and downloaded from WhiteHouse.gov at approximately 11:15 a.m. Eastern on Feb. 4, 2010

10:09 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, guys. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Everybody please have a seat. Thank you.

Listen, you guys had to listen to me at the State of the Union — or at least pretend to listen to me. (Laughter.) So I’ll try to keep it relatively brief, some opening remarks and then open it up for questions.

First of all, I just want to thank Harry Reid. (Applause.) I recently said he’s got one of the toughest jobs in Washington — managing an institution that by its very nature is, let’s face it, you guys are a little difficult to manage. I’ve been a part of this caucus. I really don’t think anybody could have done a better job under more trying circumstances than Harry Reid. And I think he deserves a huge round of applause. (Applause.)

Now, let me start by saying we always knew this was going to be a difficult year to govern — an extraordinarily difficult year to govern. We began 2009 with a financial system on the brink of collapse, an economy bleeding nearly 700,000 jobs per month, a $1.3 trillion deficit, and two wars that were costly in every sense of the word. We knew that solutions wouldn’t come easily or come quickly. We knew that the right decisions would be tough and sometimes they would be unpopular. And we knew that we might have to make them sometimes without any help from our friends on the other side of the aisle.

But we made those decisions. We led. Those actions prevented another Great Depression; they broke the back of a severe recession. The economy that was shrinking by 6 percent a year ago is now growing at nearly 6 percent one year later. (Applause.) That’s because of the work that you did.

Harry listed some of the work that you did on behalf of the American people, even under these difficult circumstances: extending health insurance to 4 million children, protecting consumers from getting ripped off by their credit card companies, and kids being targeted by big tobacco. Some things that weren’t noted or didn’t get a lot of attention: You reformed defense spending by eliminating waste, and saved taxpayers billions while keeping us safe at the same time. You gave billions of dollars of tax relief to small businesses and 95 percent of working families here in America.

You did all this despite facing enormous procedural obstacles that are unprecedented. You may have looked at these statistics. You had to cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and ’60s combined. That’s 20 years of obstruction packed into just one. But you didn’t let it stop you.

As Harry mentioned, though, our mission is far from accomplished, because while the worst of the storm has passed, far too many Americans are still hurting in its wake. I know you’ve seen it back home in the shuttered businesses, the foreclosed homes; you’ve heard it from constituents who are desperate for work; and we’ve seen it in the burdens that families have been grappling with long since this recession hit — issues that we’ve been talking about now for years: the burden of working harder and longer for less, of being unable to save enough to retire or to help kids with college expenses, the extraordinarily constant rising costs of health care.

Those problems haven’t gone away. It’s still our responsibility to address them. All that’s changed in the last two weeks is that our party has gone from having the largest Senate majority in a generation to the second largest Senate majority in a generation. And we’ve got to remember that. There was apparently a headline after the Massachusetts election; the Village Voice announced that Republicans win a 41-59 majority. (Laughter.) It’s worth thinking about. We still have to lead.

Saving and creating jobs have to continue to be our focus in 2010. Last year, we gave small business — the engines of job creation — tax relief, and expanded lending through the SBA. I don’t know if you are aware that SBA loans have gone up 70, 80 percent, which, by the way, indicates the degree to which there is still huge demand among small businesses. Some of the banks are saying, well, we’re not lending because there’s not as much demand out there. There are a lot of small businesses that are hungry for loans out there right now. And we’ve made progress but they’re still struggling. So I’ve proposed additional ideas to help small businesses start up and hire, to raise wages and expand, and to get the credit they need to stay afloat. You’ve made some of these same proposals, as well. We should put them into action without delay. (Applause.)

We’ve invested in America’s infrastructure, rebuilding roads and bridges, and ports and railways, and putting people to work strengthening our communities and our country. And as you know, the Recovery Act was designed so that a lot of that work is going to be taking place this year, not just last year. Many of the projects you funded come online in the next six months. But we can do more, and we should do so without delay.

Through the investments you made in clean energy startups, we’ve not only helped put Americans to work, we’re on track to double our nation’s capacity to generate renewable energy over the next few years. I’ve proposed additional tax credits that will promote private sector hiring and energy conservation. We should do that without delay.

I think ideas like this should be pretty palatable to the other party. They seem pretty common sense, pretty centrist. We should be able to hear their ideas as well. That’s why I spoke to the Republican caucus last Friday. I think it was to the country’s benefit that we had an open and frank discussion about the challenges facing the American people and our ideas to solve them. (Applause.) I got to admit, I had a little fun at that caucus. (Laughter.)

Now, obviously, on some issues, we didn’t agree. But on some, we did. And I’m reminded that when it came to health insurance reform in particular, I sought out and supported Republican ideas from the start — so did you. Max Baucus — where’s Max? I think he can testify to spending a little time listening to Republican ideas. So can Chris Dodd and Tom Harkin. You considered hundreds of Republican amendments, and incorporated many of their ideas into the legislation that passed the Senate. So when I start hearing that we should accept Republican ideas, let’s be clear — we have. What hasn’t happened is the other side accepting our ideas.

And I told them, I want to work together when we can, and I meant it. I believe that’s the best way to get things done for the American people. But I also made it clear that we’ll call them out when they say they want to work with us and we extend a hand and get a fist in return.

Last week, for example, you put up for a vote a bill I supported — Conrad-Gregg fiscal commission. We were sure this was going to be bipartisan, only to see seven Republicans who co-sponsored the idea in the first place suddenly decide to vote against it.

Now, I’m open to honest differences of opinion. But what I’m not open to is changing positions solely because it’s good short-term politics. And what I’m not open to is a decision to stay on the sidelines and then assign blame. I’ve little patience for the kinds of political calculation that says the cost of blocking everything is less than the cost of passing nothing; that basically says “If they lose, I win.” That’s been the politics in Washington for too long, and the problem is it leaves the American people out of the equation.

So I would just suggest to this caucus, if anybody is searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you the answer is not to do nothing. The American people are out of patience with business as usual. They’re fed up with a Washington that has become so absorbed with who’s up and who’s down that we’ve lost sight of how they’re doing. They want us to start worrying less about keeping our jobs and more about helping them keep their jobs.

And they want to see their business done in an open and transparent way. When we took back the Senate in 2007, we did so in part because we made a case that we’d be better on ethics and transparency. And we backed that up by passing the most sweeping ethics reforms since Watergate and by beginning to address earmark abuse. We should be proud of those accomplishments. But if we’re going to erase that deficit of trust that I mentioned at the State of the Union, we’re still going to have to do more.

That’s why I’ve proposed that we work together to make all earmark requests public, on one central Web site, before they come up for a vote; and to require lobbyists to discuss details of their contacts on behalf of their clients with the administration or with Congress. That’s why, working with people like Dick Durbin, who’s been vocal on this for a long time, we’ve got to confront the gaping loophole that the Supreme Court recently opened in our campaign finance laws that allowed special interests to spend without limit to influence American elections.

We’ve also got to get back to fiscal responsibility. And I spoke about this at the State of the Union. Just 10 years ago, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. Remember, people were worried about what might happen with all these surpluses, and whether it would create problems in the financial markets. That was just a decade ago.

After two wars, two tax cuts, prescription drug program — none of which were paid for — we faced a deficit of over $1 trillion, a debt over the next decade of $8 trillion, before my administration spent a single dollar.

Now, we can’t change the past, but we can change the future. That’s why I’m asking you to adopt a freeze in non-security discretionary spending for the next three years, starting next year. We’re still having a tough time right now, given the economy is just starting to pick up steam — but starting next year.

That’s why I’m grateful that all of you restored the PAYGO rules that worked so well in the 1990s. I already mentioned the fiscal commission. We may not have been able to get the votes for a statutory commission, but we’re going to — I am going to appoint a commission by executive order, because it’s important for us to take these issues seriously — not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren.

Let me just wrap up by saying this. I know these are tough times to hold public office. I’m there in the arena with you. The need is great. The anger and the anguish are intense. The economy is massive and so, as a consequence, no matter what levers and buttons we press, sometimes it doesn’t move as quickly as is needed to provide relief to so many of our constituents. In that kind of circumstance, I think the natural political instinct is to tread lightly, keep your head down, and to play it safe.

I’ve said this before to this caucus; I just want to say it again. For me, it is constantly important to remind myself why I got into this business in the first place; why I’m willing to be away from my family for big stretches at a time; the financial sacrifices that so many of you have made; being subject to criticism constantly. You don’t get in this for the fame. You don’t get in it for the title. You get in it because somewhere in your background, at some point in time, you decided there was an issue that was so important that you were willing to stand up and be counted. You were going to fight for something. And you decided you were going to run as a Democrat because there was a core set of values within the Democratic Party about making sure that everybody had a fair shot, making sure that middle-class folks were treated fairly in our economy, making sure that those who were on the outside had a way in that led you to get involved in public service.

And that’s what we have to remind ourselves, especially when it’s hard — especially when it’s hard. You look at an issue right now like health care. So many of us campaigned on the idea that we were going to change this health care system. So many of us looked people in the eye who had been denied because of a preexisting condition, or just didn’t have health insurance at all, or small business owners in our communities who told us that their premiums had gone up 25 percent or 30 percent. And we said we were going to change it.

Well, here we are with a chance to change it. And all of you put extraordinary work last year into making serious changes that would not only reform the insurance industry, not only cover 30 million Americans, but would also bend the cost curve, and save a trillion dollars on our deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office. There’s a direct link between the work that you guys did on that and the reason that you got into public office in the first place.

And so as we think about moving forward, I hope we don’t lose sight of why we’re here. We’ve got to finish the job on health care. (Applause.) We’ve got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. (Applause.) We’ve got to finish the job even though it’s hard.

And I’m absolutely confident that if we do so in an open way, in a transparent way, in a spirit that says to our political opponents that we welcome their ideas, we are open to compromise, but what we’re not willing to do is to give up on the basic notion that this government can be responsive to ordinary people and help give them a hand up so they can achieve their American Dream — we will not give up that ideal. (Applause.) If that’s where we go, I’m confident that politics in 2010 will take care of themselves.

Harry, thank you very much. I’m going to turn it over to questions. Thank you. (Applause.)

SENATOR REID: First question, Arlen Specter. Let me tell everyone people have come to me and indicated they wanted to ask questions. We’re taking a list of those. Arlen Specter is first.

SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. President, I begin by applauding your decision to place the economy at the top of the agenda, to put America back to work and provide jobs, jobs, jobs.

I have a two-part question, and just a brief statement of the issue. We have lost 2.3 million jobs as a result of the trade imbalance with China between 2001 and 2007. The remedies to save those jobs are very ineffective — long delays, proceedings before the International Trade Commission, subject to being overruled by the President. We have China violating international law with subsidies and dumping — really, a form of international banditry. They take our money and then they lend it back to us and own now a big part of the United States.

The first part of my question is, would you support more effective remedies to allow injured parties — unions which lose jobs, companies which lose profits — by endorsing a judicial remedy, if not in U.S. courts perhaps in an international court, and eliminate the aspect of having the ITC decisions overruled by the President — done four times in 2003 to 2005, at a cost of a tremendous number of jobs on the basis of the national interest. And if we have an issue on the national interest, let the nation pay for it, as opposed to the steel industry or the United Steel Workers.

And the second part of the question, related, is when China got into the World Trade Organization, a matter that 15 of us in this body opposed, there were bilateral treaties. And China has not lived up to its obligations to have its markets open to us, but take our markets and take our jobs. Would you support an effort to revise, perhaps even revoke, those — that bilateral treaty, which gives China such an unfair trade advantage? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Arlen, I would not be in favor of revoking the trade relationships that we’ve established with China. I have shown myself during the course of this year more than willing to enforce our trade agreements in a much more serious way. And at times I’ve been criticized for it. There was a case involving foreign tires that were being sent in here, and I said this was an example of where we’ve got to put our foot down and show that we’re serious about enforcement. And it caused the usual fuss at the international level, but it was the right thing to do.

Having said that, I also believe that our future is going to be tied up with our ability to sell products all around the world, and China is going to be one of our biggest markets, and Asia is going to be one of our biggest markets. And for us to close ourselves off from that market would be a mistake.

The point you’re making, Arlen, which is the right one, is it’s got to be reciprocal. So if we have established agreements in which both sides are supposed to open up their markets, we do so and then the other side is imposing a whole set of non-tariff barriers in place, that’s a problem. And it has to be squarely confronted.

So the approach that we’re taking is to try to get much tougher about enforcement of existing rules, putting constant pressure on China and other countries to open up their markets in reciprocal ways.

One of the challenges that we’ve got to address internationally is currency rates and how they match up to make sure that our goods are not artificially inflated in price and their goods are artificially deflated in price. That puts us at a huge competitive disadvantage.

But what I don’t want to do is for us as a country, or as a party, to shy away from the prospects of international competition, because I think we’ve got the best workers on Earth, we’ve got the most innovative products on Earth, and if we are able to compete on an even playing field, nobody can beat us. And by the way, that will create jobs here in the United States.

If we just increased our exports to Asia by a percentage point, by a fraction, it would mean hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of jobs here in the United States. And it’s easily doable.

And that’s why we are going to be putting a much bigger emphasis on export promotion over the next several years. And that includes, by the way, export promotion not just for large companies but also for medium-size and small companies, because one of the challenges — I was up in New Hampshire yesterday, and you saw this terrific new company that had just been started up — it’s only got 13, 14 employees at this point. But it has a new manufacturing technique for the component parts in LED light bulbs, potentially could lower the price of LED light bulbs, cut them in half.

And these folks, they potentially could market not just here in the United States, but this is a technology that could end up being sent all around the world. But they don’t have the money to set up their own foreign office in Beijing to navigate through the bureaucracy. They’ve got to have some help being over there. And so that’s one of the things that we really want to focus on in this coming year, is making sure that our export-import banks, our trade offices, that we are assisting not just the big guys, although we do want to help them, but also the medium-sized and small businesses that have innovative products that could be marketed if they just got a little bit of help and a little bit of push from the United States government.

SENATOR REID: Sir, Michael Bennet, Colorado.

SENATOR BENNET: Thanks for coming, Mr. President. It’s good to see you. You talked in the State of the Union very well about a number of the challenges that we face as a country, which are serious. I mean, even before we were driven into the worst recession since the Great Depression, the last period of economic growth in this country’s history, was the first time middle-class family income actually fell during a period of economic growth; no net jobs created since 1998; household wealth the same at the end of the decade as it was at the beginning; and an education system that’s not working well enough for our kids. And on top of everything else, got a $1.4 trillion deficit and $12 trillion of debt.

I was saying that the other day, by the way, in Colorado, and I was talking about how our kids were going to have to pay this back if we didn’t make this decision that we’ve got to face up to. And my daughter, Caroline, who’s 10, was there, and she walked out with me at the end and she said, “Just so you know, I’m not paying that back.” (Laughter.) So she has the right attitude, I think.

THE PRESIDENT: But just in case you’re counting on it. (Laughter.)

SENATOR BENNET: At the same time, this place looks broken to the American people. Our ability to make these decisions is open to enormous question in the wake of the health care discussion, in particular. I had a woman the other day in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, ask me where she could get her lobbyist in Washington, D.C.

What are we going to do differently? What are you going to do differently? What do we need to do differently as Democrats and Republicans to fix this institution so that our democracy can actually withstand the test that we’re facing right now?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me just make a couple observations, having served in the Senate and now seeing it from the perspective of the White House.

First of all, whenever people ask me, why isn’t Washington working — I am a fierce defender of the integrity and hard work of individual members, which is, by the way, matched up by –when you look at polls, people hate Congress, but individual members a lot of them feel are really working hard on their behalf.

So the problem here you’ve got is an institution that increasingly is not adapted to the demands of a hugely competitive 21st century economy. I think the Senate in particular, the challenge that I gave to Republicans and I will continue to issue to Republicans is if you want to govern then you can’t just say no. It can’t just be about scoring points. There are multiple examples during the course of this year in which that’s been the case.

Look, I mentioned the filibuster record. We’ve had scores of pieces of legislation in which there was a filibuster, cloture had to be invoked, and then ended up passing 90 to 10, or 80 to 15. And what that indicates is a degree to which we’re just trying to gum up the works instead of getting business done.

That is an institutional problem. In the Senate, the filibuster only works if there is a genuine spirit of compromise and trying to solve problems, as opposed to just shutting the place down. If it’s just shutting the place down, then it’s not going to work. That’s point number one.

Point number two. In terms of what — how we operate, we as Democrats, I do think that the more open we are, the more transparent we are, the more people know exactly how things are working even if sometimes it takes longer to maintain that transparency, the better off we are.

And I think the health care bill is a perfect example. And the truth of the matter is, is that the process looked painful and messy, but the innumerable hearings that were held did give an opportunity for the product to get refined so that I think that the ultimate package, after potential negotiations between the House and the Senate, is better than where we started. And there was a possibility and continues to be a possibility to be in discussions with the American people about what exactly that bill accomplishes.

On the other hand — and I take some fault for this — at the end of the process when we were fighting through all these filibusters and trying to get it done quickly so that we could pivot and start talking about other issues that were so important to the American people, some of that transparency got lost. And I think we paid a price for it.

And so it’s important, I think, to constantly have our cards out on the table and welcome challenges and welcome questions. If the Republicans say that they can insure every American for free, which it what was claimed the other day, at no cost, I want to know. Because I told them, I said, why would I want to get a bunch of lumps on my head doing the hard thing if you’ve got the easy thing? But you’ve got to show me, you’ve got to prove to me that it actually works — because I’ve talked to every health care expert out there and it turns out if you want to reform the insurance system, if you want to make sure that people without preexisting conditions are able to get insurance, if you want to provide coverage for people, if you want to bend the cost curve, then you need a comprehensive bill, because this is a complicated area involving one-sixth of our economy.

But we should be open to that dialogue, and not underestimate the power of the American people, over time — despite millions of dollars of advertising to the contrary from the insurance industry and others — we should not underestimate the American people’s willingness to say, okay, I got it. And there are still going to be disagreements, and some will disagree with us. But we’ve got to constantly make our case, I think, and not play an insider’s game. Play an outsider’s game.

Last point I would make about this. You know what I think would actually make a difference, Michael — I think if everybody here — excuse all the members of the press who are here — if everybody here turned off your CNN, your Fox, your — just turn off the TV — MSNBC, blogs — and just go talk to folks out there, instead of being in this echo chamber where the topic is constantly politics — the topic is politics. It is much more difficult to get a conversation focused on how are we going to help people than a conversation about how is this going to help or hurt somebody politically.

And that’s part of what the American people are just sick of — because they don’t care, frankly, about majority and minorities and process and this and that. They just want to know, are you delivering for me? And we’ve got to, I think, get out of the echo chamber. That was a mistake that I think I made last year, was just not getting out of here enough. And it’s helpful when you do. (Applause.)

SENATOR REID: Mr. President, you’ve told me — suggested don’t pay any attention to the blogs, don’t listen to talk radio, don’t watch cable TV. And I follow that advice pretty good. (Laughter.)

Next question will be from the chair of our Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln.

SENATOR LINCOLN: Me, neither, Mr. President. I stay away from the TVs and everything else. But thank you so much for being here with us today. And I want to thank you also — I had an opportunity with several of my colleagues from the House and Senate to have a bipartisan meeting yesterday with the First Lady on childhood obesity. It was a great meeting and we look forward to working with her and you and your administration to really tackle that problem on behalf of our children and the future of our country.

Mr. President, I come from a seventh-generation Arkansas family. My dad was a good Democrat, and he was a great Arkansan, and he was very typical of Arkansans in that he was very independent-minded, as am I, and as most of my constituents. And he used to tell me early on when I ran for Congress, he said it’s really results that count. And as I look at what’s going on in my state and among my constituents — I visited with a constituent yesterday, good Democrat, small business owner, who was extremely frustrated — extremely frustrated because there was a lack of certainty and predictability from his government for him to be able to run his businesses. He’s — he and his father have worked hard, they’ve built three or four different small businesses, and he fears that there’s no one in your administration that understands what it means to go to work on Monday and have to make a payroll on Friday. He wants results. He wants predictability.

And I think that you’re exactly right. People out there watching us, they see us nothing more than Democrats and Republicans up here fighting, fighting only to win a few political points, not to get the problem solved. And so I just — I want to echo I guess some of what my colleague, Michael Bennet from Colorado, mentioned, but also to ask you, in terms of where we are going, what can we tell the people in terms of predictability and certainty in getting this economy back on track? How are we going to do that?

And are we willing as Democrats not only to reach out to Republicans but to push back in our own party for people who want extremes, and look for the common ground that’s going to get us the success that we need not only for our constituents but for our country in this global community, in this global economy? Are we willing as Democrats to also push back on our own party and look for that common ground that we need to work with Republicans and to get the answers? And it’s really the results that are going to count to our constituents. And we appreciate the hard work that you put into it.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the — look, there’s no doubt that this past year has been an uncertain time for the American people, for businesses and for people employed by businesses. Some of that certainty just had to do with the objective reality of this economy entering into a freefall. So let’s just be — let’s remind ourselves that if you’ve got an economy suddenly contracting by 6 percent, or a loss of trillions of dollars of wealth basically in the blink of an eye, or home values descending by 20 percent, that that’s going to create a whole lot of uncertainty out there in the business environment and among families.

And part of what we’ve done over the course of this year is to put a floor under people’s feet. That’s what the Recovery Act did. That’s what the interventions and the financial markets did. It broke the back of the recession, stabilized the markets. Nobody is talking about a market meltdown at this point. And people haven’t recovered all that they had lost in their 401(k)s, but they’re feeling a little better when they open that envelope now than they did six months ago. State budgets were in freefall; that was stabilized. States are still going through incredible pain, but they did not have to lay off teachers and firefighters and cops at the levels that they would have to otherwise lay them off. That provided some stability and some certainty.

So the steps you’ve taken as a Congress, the steps we’ve taken as an administration, have helped to stabilize things.

Now, moving forward, Blanche, what you’re going to hear from some folks is that the way to achieve even greater economic growth — and keep in mind the economy is now growing at a 6 percent clip, so the question is when do businesses actually start hiring, because they’re now making a profit — what you’re going to start hearing is the only way to provide stability is to go back and do what we’d been doing before the crisis.

So I noticed yesterday when we were — there was some hearing about our proposal to provide additional financing to small businesses and tax credits to small businesses. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle said, “This won’t help at all. What you have to do is to make sure that we continue the tax breaks for wealthiest Americans. That’s really what’s going to make a difference.”

Well, if the agenda — if the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression — we don’t tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don’t put in place any insurance reforms, we don’t mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they’re doing now because we don’t want to stir up Wall Street — the result is going to be the same.

I don’t know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policies that got us into this fix in the first place. Michael Bennet articulated it very well. Part of the reason people are feeling anxious right now, it’s not just because of this current crisis — they’ve been going through this for 10 years. They’ve been working and not seeing a raise. Their costs have been going up, their spouses going to the workforce — they work as hard as they can. They’re barely keeping their heads above water. They’re trying to figure out how to retire. They’re seeing more and more of their costs on health care dumped in their lap. College tuition skyrockets.

They are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, because we don’t want to — we don’t want to stir things up here, we’re just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don’t know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don’t know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us.

So the point I’m making — and Blanche is exactly right — we’ve got to be non-ideological about our approach to these things. We’ve got to make sure that our party understands that, like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can’t be demonizing every bank out there. We’ve got to be the party of business, small business and large business, because they produce jobs. We’ve got to be in favor of competition and exports and trade. We don’t want to be looking backwards. We can’t just go back to the New Deal and try to grab all the same policies of the 1930s and think somehow they’d work in the 21st century.

So Blanche is exactly right that sometimes we get ideologically bogged down. I just want to find out what works, and I know you do, too, and I know the people in Arkansas do, too. But when you’re talking to the folks in Arkansas you also have to remind them what works is not just going back and doing the same things that we were doing before. And, yes, there’s going to be some transition time. If we have a serious financial regulatory reform package, will the banks squawk? Yes. Will they say this is the reason we’re not lending? Yes. The problem is we know right now they’re not lending, and paying out big bonuses. And we know that the existing regulatory system doesn’t work.

So we shouldn’t be spooked by this notion that, well, is now the time to take seriously in an intelligent way, not in a knee-jerk way, the challenge of financial regulatory reform so that you don’t have banks that are too big to fail and you’re not putting taxpayers at risk and you’re not putting the economy at risk — now is the time to do it.

The same is true with health care. The same is true with health care. There are, I promise you, at least as many small businesses out there, if you talk to them, who will say, I just got my bill from my health insurance and it went up 40 percent. And we’ve got to do something for them. All right? (Applause.)

SENATOR REID: Next question, the junior Senator from the state of New York, Kirsten Gillibrand.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Mr. President, I have an issue I’d like to –

THE PRESIDENT: Kirsten, we’ve got a mic for you.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Thank you, Mr. President. I have an issue I’d like to raise that is very important to every New Yorker and to many, many Americans, and that’s health care for our 9/11 responders and for all the communities that live near Ground Zero.

Now, these Americans hail from every one of the 50 states and every single congressional district in the entire United States. And now, because of exposure to toxins from the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, there’s about 20,000 people who are sick — some of them gravely ill, suffering from serious health effects, some are disabled, some have died.

I’ve introduced legislation to provide permanent care and proper compensation for these Americans. And my question is: Would you today commit to working with Congress to pass comprehensive 9/11 — a comprehensive 9/11 health bill that’s fully paid for?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I fully commit to working with you guys. Keep in mind that our budget already significantly increased funding precisely for this purpose. So I’m not just talking the talk; we’ve been budgeting this as a top priority for the administration.

I confess, Kirsten, I have not looked at all the details of your legislation. But I know that not only you and Chuck, but everybody here, wants to make sure that those who showed such extraordinary courage and heroism during 9/11, that they are fittingly cared for, and that’s going to be something that we are going to be very interested in working with you on. All right?

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Good. (Applause.)

SENATOR REID: The next question is the Chairperson of the Environmental Public Works Committee, Senator Barbara Boxer.

THE PRESIDENT: Hey, Barbara Boxer.

SENATOR BOXER: Great to see you here, Mr. President. And thanks for doing this and thanks for meeting with the Republican caucus at the House. I thought it was very instructive for the American people.

As Senator Feinstein and I tell our colleagues every day, California is hurting. I think — I know — that you’re aware of that. And they really want to see a fighting spirit in us — that we are committed, even though we’ve had some political setbacks, to get the job done. And I just want to tell you, as I watched you during the State of the Union, listened to you, what you are doing now is really important to the folks that I represent, because you’re showing that fighting spirit no matter what the adversity is, and you’re coming up with specific proposals.

So I want to ask you about small business. We all know they’re the job creators; 64 percent of new jobs over the last 15 years came from small business. Your new proposal, which does mirror a couple of people — I look at Senator Merkley, I know Senator Warner and others, we’ve worked hard on this.

For community banks to lend, can you do that by executive order? Because my understanding is you can use some of the TARP funds that were paid back and use that — or those funds that have not been used — can you use that and get this going by executive order, or do you need us to put that program into a jobs bill?

And second, are you using your influence as much as you can to get the big banks to lend? They’ve dropped lending by $12 billion over the last year, so I wonder if you can give us an update on that.

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I’ve now taken trips to Allentown, Pennsylvania; Elyria, Ohio; most recently –

SENATOR REID: Baltimore.

THE PRESIDENT: I was in Baltimore. (Laughter.) Had a great time in Baltimore. Just recently in –

SENATOR REID: Searchlight.

THE PRESIDENT: — Nashua, New Hampshire. Haven’t been to Searchlight yet, but we’re going to get there. (Laughter.) And everywhere I go, you talk to small business and they will tell you they are still experiencing a severe credit crunch. The larger businesses right now are able to get financing. Even the medium-size businesses, the credit markets have improved. Smaller businesses, even if they are making a profit and have not missed a payment, are finding that banks are averse to providing them capital.

Now, two reasons that they cite: One is they say their bankers are telling them that the regulators are just looking over their shoulder too much and so the community banks feel that their hands are tied. These are independent regulators. They are diligent in doing their jobs. Obviously they feel caught off guard because of the lax regulation, in some cases, of the banking industry before the financial crisis. You get a sense that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

The challenge that we’ve got is we’ve got to be careful because these are independent regulators and we don’t want to politicize them. But what Treasury Secretary Geithner and others have done is to discuss with the regulators what we are hearing in the field and to make sure that there is a consistency of approach that doesn’t prevent banks from making what are good loans and taking reasonable risks.

So that’s one thing we’re hearing. The other thing, though, that is still out there is that the larger banks generally haven’t been in this market; a lot of the smaller companies never had access to them in the first place, and we want to actually see if we can get more of those large banks to get into this marketplace. And when I met with the big bank CEOs, this was something that I pushed them on. They tell me, and we have seen some confirmation of this, that they are actually ramping up some of their small business lending and setting up more aggressive divisions actively seeking out loans.

So that’s the effort that we’re making to jawbone the private sector to do what it needs to do. In the meantime — you mentioned the specific proposals that we’ve put forward — I do think it’s better to do them through legislation than through executive order. TARP was a congressionally created structure with some fairly stringent guidelines in terms of how we were supposed to approach it. It shouldn’t be hard to do, though. It’s a pretty simple concept. Banks have repaid money; there’s $30 billion that we could take that has already been repaid — immediately apply that to a fund so that small banks are — community banks are able to provide their small business customers with greater lending.

And I do think that getting that as part of a jobs package is priority number one. And I know I’ve already talked to Harry about this — my assumption is, is that if you combine that with the tax credits that we’ve put in place for hiring, the provisions that we talked about to incentivize weatherization programs that can immediately start hiring people to retrofit homes and businesses and help reduce our energy costs — taking some of those immediate steps now I think will pay some big dividends down the road.

And the timing of it is perfect, because our job last year was to make sure the economy was growing. The economy is now growing. But what’s happening is businesses, either because they can’t find financing or because they’re still just dipping their toe in the water, have been hesitant to hire full-time workers. And for us to start giving them some serious incentives, giving them additional access to financing, could accelerate a process that otherwise could take a much longer time and, frankly, all those folks out there who are out of work right now, they just can’t afford to wait any longer — they need it now. All right?

SENATOR REID: We have time for one or two more questions, if the question is short –

THE PRESIDENT: And the answer is short. (Laughter.)

SENATOR REID: Otherwise we’ll only have one question. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Pat Leahy.

SENATOR LEAHY: Mr. President, I want to thank you for coming here. I think this is — thank you for coming here. I was just whispering to Marcel these answers are so good and need to be heard.

You have a great sense of what the federal judiciary should be. I think back to President Clinton’s time, when the other side blocked 61 of his judges. You’ve had some superb judges. You’ve talked to both Republicans and Democrats, sent up some superb names. And Senator Reid still has to file a cloture. We have to spend a week of doing that, and then they pass by 100 to nothing or 90-10.

My thing is this — because of what they did last time, we end up with the greatest shortage and the most judicial crises I think in our history. Will you continue to work very hard to get up names as quickly as possible, so that we can do this, and help us get these judges through? I don’t want the same judicial crises to occur. You’ve had good nominees. Can you commit to work with us, both parties, and keep trying to get them through?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is going to be a priority. Look, it’s not just judges, unfortunately, Pat, it’s also all our federal appointees. We’ve got a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified, nobody has a specific objection to them, but end up having a hold on them because of some completely unrelated piece of business. That’s an example, Michael, of the kind of stuff that Americans just don’t understand.

On the judges front, we had a judge for the — coming out of Indiana, Judge Hamilton, who everybody said was outstanding — Evan Bayh, Democrat; Dick Lugar, Republican; all recommended. How long did it take us? Six months, six, seven months for somebody who was supported by the Democratic and Republican senator from that state. And you can multiply that across the board. So we have to start highlighting the fact that this is not how we should be doing business.

Now, in fairness — in fairness, when we were in the minority, there were some times where we blocked judges, we blocked appointees. I think it’s fair to say we were a little more selective in how we did it — “a lot more,” somebody said. (Laughter.)

So this is an example of where I’m going to reach out to Mitch McConnell; I know Harry has as well. And I’m just going to say, look, if the government is going to work for the American people, I can’t have the administrator for GSA, which runs every federal facility, all federal buildings all across the country — here we are, we’re trying to save billions of dollars, cut waste — Claire McCaskill has been all on top of how can we audit our spending — and we could save billions of dollars in ending old leases that don’t work or renegotiating them or consolidating buildings and efficiencies. But I don’t have a GSA administrator, even though I nominated somebody who was well qualified several months ago, and nobody can tell me that there’s anything particularly wrong with her. They’re blocking her because of some unrelated matter. I don’t know, you guys may know better than I do. And that is — that has to end. It has to end. (Applause.) And the American people want it to end.

Let’s have a fight about real stuff. Don’t hold this woman hostage. If you have an objection about my health care policies, then let’s debate the health care policies. But don’t suddenly end up having a GSA administrator who is stuck in limbo somewhere because you don’t like something else that we’re doing, because that doesn’t serve the American people. Then they don’t know what the argument is about. Then it’s just sort of a plague on both your houses because it looks like you guys are just fighting all the time. And we’ve got to put an end to that.

SENATOR REID: I missed somebody on my list. If you would just be patient with us, we’ll have two very short questions.

THE PRESIDENT: I will indulge, Harry.

SENATOR REID: The first question is going to come from the only person that’s a member of the United States Senate who has a spouse that’s won a Pulitzer Prize — Sherrod Brown from Ohio. (Laughter.)

SENATOR BROWN: Thank you for joining us. Thank you for your visit to Lorain County, Ohio, a week and a half ago; first presidential visit to that county of 300,000 since Harry Truman in 1948.

THE PRESIDENT: It was a great visit. We had a great time.

SENATOR BROWN: It was terrific. Ten miles from there, Oberlin College, one of the great private institutions of higher learning in this country — at Oberlin College, there was a building built there seven or eight years ago, fully powered by solar panels. It’s the only — it’s the largest building on any college campus in America like that. Those solar panels were bought in Germany and Japan, not surprisingly — Germany, a country that has both an energy policy and a manufacturing policy. Seventy-five miles west of there is Toledo, Ohio, where you’ve been several times, and Toledo has more solar energy manufacturing — solar manufacturing jobs than any city in America.

It begs the question of two things in terms of manufacturing policy and energy policy. We have all kinds of things in so many of our states — manufacturing wind turbine components and solar panel components — but we’re the only major industrial country in the world without a manufacturing policy. And every rich country in the world has one. We don’t.

I know what you’re doing with Ron Bloom in the White House and other things, but how do we get there? How do we — when we read these articles in the paper that China is just exploding in terms of wind turbine manufacturing and solar panel manufacturing — how do we rebuild our manufacturing sector with a manufacturing policy, combined with an energy policy that gets us there?

THE PRESIDENT: I hope people had a chance to read that article that was in The New York Times I guess last Sunday, talking about how China is not waiting, it is moving. And already the anticipation is, is that they will lap us when it comes to clean energy.

Now, they’re not a democracy and so they don’t debate. (Laughter.) And there are no filibuster rules. And so obviously over the long term a system that allows for robust debate and exchange of ideas is going to produce a better result. I believe that. But we have to understand that when it comes to some key issues like energy, we are at risk of falling behind.

We’ve already fallen behind, but it’s not irrevocable because we still have the best research, we still have potentially the best technology, we’ve got the best universities, the best scientists, and as I said, we’ve got the most productive workers in the world. But we’ve got to bring all those things together into a coherent whole.

Now, I think there are a couple of elements to this. One, in terms of manufacturing generally — you just mentioned Ron Bloom, who we put in charge of a manufacturing task force, is just issuing now a report to me about the direction we need to go to have some coordination when it comes to manufacturing.

Now, this is not some big bureaucratic top-down industrial policy; it is figuring out how do we coordinate businesses, universities, government, to start looking at where are our strategic opportunities, and then making those investments, filling holes that exist so that we can be competitive with what China is doing or what Germany is doing or what Spain is doing.

And my hope is, is that during the course of this year we’re going to be able to work with all 50 senators, because all of you have a stake in this, to just see where are our manufacturing opportunities and where can we fill — plug some holes in order to make sure that we’re competitive internationally.

Specifically on clean energy, we know that’s an opportunity. I continue to believe, and I’m not alone in this, that the country that figures out most rapidly new forms of energy and can commercialize new ideas is going to lead the 21st century economy. I think that is our growth model. (Applause.)

SENATOR REID: Final question –

THE PRESIDENT: But — hold on, just one last thing I want to say about this: In order for us to maximize it, part of it is the good work that Jeff has been doing in terms of just finding the right incentives. We’ve got to be open-minded about a whole range of technologies. We’ve got to look at clean coal technology. We’ve got to look at nuclear technology.

We’re going to be making some significant announcements this year. This is an example, Blanche, of where we can’t be stuck in the past in terms of how we see these things. We’re not going to be able to ramp up solar and wind to suddenly replace every other energy source anytime soon, and the economy still needs to grow. So we’ve got to look at how to make existing technologies and options better.

But — and this is just the point that I wanted to make because it came up in New Hampshire yesterday — we still — one of the best ways to be on the forefront in energy is to incentivize clean energy, and discourage the old sources or methods that aren’t going to work in the future.

And so the fact that Joe Lieberman is working with Lindsey Graham, John Kerry has been all over this — the three of them are coming together to try to find a workable, bipartisan structure so that we are incentivizing and rewarding the future — and understanding that there’s a transition, so that we’ve got to make sure that the disruptions are minimized as we move into this new energy future — that’s going to be vital.

So don’t give up on that. I don’t want us to just say the easy way out is for us to just give a bunch of tax credits to clean energy companies. The market works best when it responds to price. And if they start seeing that, you know what, dirty energy is a little pricier, clean energy is a little cheaper, they will innovate, and they will think things through in all kinds of innovative ways.

So I want to congratulate specifically John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham, who it probably doesn’t help him for me to compliment him — (laughter) — but has been very thoughtful in terms of how they’re approaching this issue.

SENATOR REID: Final question, Evan Bayh, Indiana.

SENATOR BAYH: Thank you for being with us, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: We can get you a mic. Nice sneakers, by the way, Evan. (Laughter.)

SENATOR BAYH: Oh, thank you. You’ve got to stay light on your feet around here, right? (Laughter.) Mr. President, you’ve already addressed this in part, and several of the other questioners have raised this, but I’d like to present it in a little bit different way that I think is on the minds of people in my state, and perhaps in the minds of independents and moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats around the country — and that’s this issue of the deficit and rising debt, and restoring the fiscal health of this country to a position where it ought to be.

Frankly, I think the public and average citizen have been way ahead of the political class on this. They understand in the long run this is unsustainable, it’s bad economics. They understand that generally — generationally, as Michael was mentioning, it’s unfair to our children to ask them to pay these bills. And most of all, there’s a sense of unfairness. They’re having to make sacrifices in their daily lives, but too many in Washington expect to have continuing increases in the programs they care about; ordinary citizens are making sacrifices, and yet we want our earmarks or pet projects. And they ask, why can’t Washington make the same sacrifices that we’re willing to make?

Now, I think they realize that the other party doesn’t have much credibility on this subject. They handed you a — what, a $1.3 trillion deficit. Vice President Cheney famously said that in his opinion deficits didn’t matter. He just flat out said it. That’s wrong. It’s bad economics. It’s wrong. And so we’ve got a job to do. But I think many people across the country candidly look at us and say, I don’t know if the Democrats are willing to take this on. They think we want to tax too much and spend too much, and do we have the backbone to really stand up and make some of these hard decisions?

Now, to your credit, you’ve called for some things that aren’t always popular in our party. The first thing I noticed when you put into effect that non-security discretionary spending freeze is you got kicked in the shins by some of the left-wing blogs. And you called for more restraint on earmarks. That’s not always popular among our group, but to your credit, you’ve called for those things.

So my question to you, Mr. President, is speaking to independents, conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans — people who know we have to do this — why should the Democratic Party be trusted? And are we willing to make some of the tough decisions to actually head this country in a better direction?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ll tell you why the Democratic Party should be trusted — because the last time this budget was balanced, it was under a Democratic President who made some very tough decisions. (Applause.)

I think this is pretty straightforward. Bill Clinton made some very hard political decisions. Some of you were there in Congress. You know how tough those votes were. You got no help from the other side. But as a consequence, the economy took off and you had a $200 billion surplus at the end of his presidency. So I think he deserves enormous credit for that. Those of you who took those votes deserve enormous credit for that. That’s why we’ve had — we should have credibility.

But we’re still haunted by the debates that took place from the ’70s, the ’60s, right? And that hasn’t completely worked through the political mindset. So we’re still saddled with this notion of the tax-and-spend model when, if you actually look at it, we’ve been very fiscally responsible.

Now, having said that, we have been complicit in some ways over the last decade. The prescription drug bill — not paid for. Two wars — not paid for. Two tax cuts — not paid for. The emergence of a structural deficit that is only going to grow because we all know that the biggest drivers are Medicare and Medicaid, and as people get older, as the population gets older, and as new technologies come online, people are demanding new services for health care, those are going to become more and more expensive, and that’s what’s going to blow up the budget in the long term.

So to answer your question, how do we — having said that, there’s no doubt that we’ve lost trust. And part of it was just bad timing. It’s like the cartoon, right, you’re sort of standing there and somebody hands you a ticking time bomb and it explodes, and you’ve got all this gunpowder on your hands, and you didn’t construct the bomb, but you’re holding it.

And so what happened last year was, we come in. You got a $1.3 trillion deficit that we’re inheriting; you’ve got $3 trillion revenue that are lost because of the recession; you’ve got an $8 trillion projected debt over the next 10 years; and you’ve got trillions more in projected deficits when you start looking — counting entitlements. Everybody has been looking at Kent Conrad’s charts here for the last several years about it. And so at that very moment, suddenly the headlines that people are seeing is, “bank bailout, recovery package,” and it all kind of merges together into just this blob of spending, and people aren’t seeing, how is this benefiting me. It just looks like Washington business as usual. And all that suspicion gets amplified. So it’s completely understandable.

I think the way that we regain trust is to pursue good policies but not be afraid also to explain these policies, and to be honest with the American people that we’re not going to dig ourselves out of this hole overnight.

So a couple of things I’ve done. I have encouraged that we go back to PAYGO, pay-as-you-go. People understand that concept: You pay as you go. I congratulate the Senate on voting for it. I expect the House to get it done. I want to sign that.

SENATOR REID: Not a single Republican.

THE PRESIDENT: The second thing you already mentioned is this non-defense discretionary freeze. One thing I want to mention, though. It’s not as if we’re not going after defense, as well. It’s just it would be irresponsible when we have two wars for me to impose that same kind of limitation, tie my hands not knowing what contingencies may be needed. But if you look at what Bob Gates has been doing in the Defense Department in really going after some sacred cows over at the Pentagon, he’s been serious about it. We’ve already saved billions of dollars. We intend to keep saving billions of dollars more on that front, as well.

We’ve already proposed $20 billion worth of savings for this year by eliminating and consolidating programs. Last year we proposed $17 billion and we were pooh-poohed. Some of the editorials were all, “Uh-huh, 17, this is a pittance.” You know, only in Washington is $17 billion a pittance. But it also indicates one of the dangers that we have, is that you’ve got to chip away at this problem. So every dollar counts. The work that Claire has done on auditing — if we can squeeze out $5 million here, $10 million here, make this program work a little bit better, over time it creates good habits, and it starts exercising the fiscal restraint muscles in ways that won’t affect programming for people but will affect our bottom line. So we’re moving aggressively. We hope this year we get that stuff done.

But what we also have to understand is that if I take all the steps that I’ve put forward and Congress follows my lead on the non-defense discretionary spending, we’re prudent in terms of defense spending, and we do all the things that we’ve talked about, we’ve still got this structural deficit that we’ve inherited.

Essentially what my proposal does is to pay for the Recovery Act and the other extraordinary steps we had to take for last year, so that I will have covered what happened on my watch. That’s important to understand. Whatever spending that I had to take that was extraordinary that you took with me, including the Recovery Act, if we follow my budget outline, we will have taken care of, paid for what happened on our watch.

But what we will not have solved is that huge structural deficit that existed the day I walked in. And we’ve got to be able to tell the truth to the American people that that is hard to solve. And the reason it’s hard to solve is most of it is coming from entitlements that people like. And it has to do with the fact that there’s this huge gap between the amount of money being paid out and the amount of money coming in.

And everybody understands this here, but I think that there’s a misperception in the public. If you ask your average constituent where does federal dollars go, they’ll tell you foreign aid. And you say, well, foreign aid accounts for 1 percent of our budget. And then they’ll say, well, earmarks.

Look, I think we have to discipline ourselves on earmarks just because symbolically I think people — it makes people feel like we’re not showing the same kind of discipline that they are. Even for worthy projects you’ve still got to make choices. So they’re absolutely right about that. But earmarks account for about 1 percent of the budget.

All right, so even if we eliminated all foreign aid and all earmarks, it doesn’t solve our problem. And as far as the arguments that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making, I think it’s important to explain to people that in order for us to balance the budget while exempting entitlements, no new revenues, you’d have to cut non-discretionary defense spending by 60 percent — cut it by 60 percent. That’s everything — student loans, NASA, veterans programs — you name it, we’d have to cut by 60 percent — six, zero.

That’s just not going to happen. That’s why we called for the commission, because we’ve got to look at some tough, long-term policy objectives. And that’s why we’ve got to — and I will personally do this, I will say to my Republican friends, I want to solve it. I don’t want to play politics on it, but you’ve got to step up, you’ve got to fill these slots with this commission that we’re going to set up, put these people in a room, and actually solve some of these problems. And I hope they do.

And maybe I’m naive. I’m still counting, Evan, on the notion that good policy over the long term is good politics. If you do the right thing, and you explain it clearly and you do it openly, I’m confident that the American people — you can have an adult conversation and say, this is not going to be easy, this is not going to be painless, we’re going to be struggling for a while, but our future is bright. And if we show the same grit and determination that previous generations have shown, I have every confidence that we are going to have a 21st century, the American century, just like the 20th.

All right? Thank you, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.)

END 11:25 A.M. EST

See how President Obama spent a recent day in Lorain County, Ohio…from the point of view of his Advance team. His staff work diligently to keep the day moving, from a surprise lunch at a local diner to a tour of a football helmet assembly plant.

I was an idiot to believe him, but I really did think Obama meant what he said on the campaign trail about cleaning up Washington by ridding it of the influential lobbyists that craft legislation in our nation’s capitol. But according to Frank Rich’s latest column, and the shape of health care reform bills, it appears Obama has done nothing to stop the corrupt power of corporate money in DC.

Oh well, maybe next time we’ll elect a president and members of Congress that aren’t bought and paid for, but then again, is that really an option?

Read Frank Rich’s column and then cry yourself to sleep tonight.