President Obama Nominates John Gibbons and Robert Heun to be U.S. Marshals

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama nominated John Gibbons and Robert Heun to be U.S. Marshals for the Districts of Massachusetts and Alaska, respectively.  Gibbons currently serves as a Lieutenant with the Massachusetts State Police in Boston, Massachusetts and Heun recently retired as the Chief of Police in Anchorage, Alaska.

“John Gibbons and Robert Heun have dedicated their careers to protecting the public, and I am honored to nominate them to continue their selfless work at U.S. Marshals,” President Obama said.  “They will be relentless in their pursuit of justice on behalf of the people of Massachusetts and Alaska.”    

John Gibbons: Nominee for U.S. Marshal for the District of Massachusetts
John Gibbons currently serves as a Lieutenant with the Massachusetts State Police in Boston, Massachusetts.  He joined the state police in 1979, rising through the ranks to Detective Lieutenant.  Gibbons graduated with a Masters degree from American International College in 1979 and a Bachelor of Arts degree from American International College in 1978.

Robert Heun: Nominee for U.S. Marshal for the District of Alaska
Robert Heun served as Chief of Police in Anchorage, Alaska until August 2009, when he retired after 26 years of service. He joined the police department in 1983, rising through the ranks from Patrol Officer to Chief of Police.  Heun served in the United States Army from 1977-1982 after graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point with a Bachelor of Science degree in 1977.

Remarks by President Obama, Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt, European Commission President Barroso, and European Council High Representative Solana after meeting

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA,
PRIME MINISTER FREDRIK REINFELDT OF SWEDEN,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT JOSÉ MANUEL BARROSO,
AND EUROPEAN COUNCIL HIGH REPRESENTATIVE JAVIER SOLANA
AFTER MEETING

Cabinet Room

4:11 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, I want to welcome, for the second day in a row, Prime Minister Reinfeldt.  I also want to recognize President Barroso and Javier Solana.  These three gentlemen obviously represent the leadership and the increasing integration — successful integration that’s been taking place in Europe.

I congratulated them on the conclusion of the Lisbon Treaty, which will further move Europe in the direction of integration not only on economic policy but also on a number of security issues.  I believe that a strengthened and renewed EU will be an even better transatlantic partner with the United States.  And so we are extraordinarily appreciative and supportive of the efforts that they’ve made and the leadership of these three gentlemen.

Our discussions today built on my April meeting with all 27 EU leaders in Prague.  We discussed our shared commitment to success in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where EU civilian assistance has played an absolutely critical role. 

We discussed climate change extensively, and all of us agreed that it was imperative for us to redouble our efforts in the weeks between now and the Copenhagen meeting to assure that we create a framework for progress in dealing with what is a potential ecologic disaster.

We discussed the situation in Iran and emphasized how important it is for the United States and the European Union to coordinate carefully and closely in sending a clear message to Tehran that we want them to be a full member of the community of nations, but that they have to act consistent with international rules and responsibilities with respect to their nuclear program.

We reaffirmed our commitment to strong, sustained economic growth that was articulated by the G20 in Pittsburgh, and reaffirmed our intent to continue to expand trade and resist protectionist measures between the United States and the European Union.

And we spoke about how we can actually coordinate more effectively in preventing terrorism from spreading between our various countries.  We also had a discussion about the Middle East and how we can work together closely on that front.

Over all, I want to say a special congratulations to President Barroso, who’s been reelected for another five-year term.  He has done an excellent job in his role with the Commission.  And I want to thank Fredrik for the leadership that he’s shown on a wide range of issues, not just within Europe but around the globe as well.  Javier has been a critical partner with us in dealing with the Iran issue.

So these three gentlemen have shown global leadership.  I’m glad they had a chance to visit the United States, and I’m absolutely committed to continuing to strengthen the transatlantic partnership that this meeting represents.

PRIME MINISTER REINFELDT:  Well, thank you very much, Barack.  Thank you for the hospitality.  This is also very important for Europe to value this trust, cooperation with the United States, and since we share the same values.  And I think we had a very good meeting. 

We had at length a discussion about climate change.  And I want to say that we need an agreement that can deliver on the 2-degree target that could give us a solution on financing and that is global and that keeps — puts everyone together.  That is what we need to see.

And I want to say that I think President Obama has shown real leadership on this issue.  When we talk to people here in the United States they all come back to this, that President Obama himself is very committed.  He has great knowledge in this item and we have great hopes for your leadership in this issue.

When it comes to Afghanistan, we also have a close partnership in Afghanistan.  We have a huge representation also on European Union side; we have 35,000 troopers there and more than a billion euros a year that we actually invest in development resources given to Afghanistan.  So of course we need to have a close working relation when it comes to finding a way for Afghani ownership of the development in Afghanistan.

We actually have also delivered on four points.  We have a start on cooperating on energy and launched an EU-U.S. ministerial energy council.  Our foreign energy ministers will have their first meeting tomorrow, which we welcome.  Secondly, we intensify our cooperation and dialogue on transatlantic economic integration in order to reduce the barriers of trade.

Third, deliverance is restored on dialogue and development on global food security, climate change litigation, and the Millennium Development Goals; and last, to intensify the EU-U.S. cooperation on anti-microbio resistance.  So we are very glad for all of these deliverances as well.

Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Excellent.

PRESIDENT BARROSO:  I think President Obama and Prime Minister Reinfeldt already made the most important points regarding this very productive meeting we just had.  I’d like to thank President Obama for his very kind words to the European Union.  In fact, we believe that is more important than ever, this relationship.

In this age of globalization it is quite obvious that the United States and Europe can make a real difference.  There are so many issues on the global agenda, from climate change to financial and economic cooperation, to trade — many issues that we have discussed today.

Regarding climate change I want to tell that I am more confident now than I was in days before.  The Copenhagen — this issue has been slow, but I would like once again to pay tribute to President Obama’s leadership.  As I said earlier, President Obama changed the climate on the climate negotiations because with the strong leadership of United States we can indeed make an agreement.  We are working toward a framework agreement in Copenhagen that will be an important agreement for the world.

And we had particularly a very good discussion on this today and I think it was one of the most important points of our exchange. 

Of course I want to repeat what President Obama and Prime Minister Reinfeldt just said, it is extremely important on the other issues like Afghanistan and Pakistan and the issue of global security also we work together, now negotiating it with the Lisbon Treaty — the Lisbon Treaty, the treaty that we will give the European Union a reinforced capacity to act, a more clear position also, externally working with our main partners, and of course working especially with our American friends.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Javier.

PRESIDENT SOLANA:  I have nothing to add, Mr. President. (Laughter.)  Mr. President, thank you very much for your hospitality.  We appreciate it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, thank you very much.  You should understand that the rule in Washington is even if you don’t have anything to say — (laughter) — you should take a long time to say it.  (Laughter.)  So obviously we’ll have to give you more training.  (Laughter.)

Thank you very much, everybody.

END
4:19 P.M. EST

Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 11/3/09

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

12:45 P.M. EST

Q    Do you know who the President is rooting for in the World Series yet?

MR. GIBBS:  I emailed this to Basinet, who asked at the conclusion of last Friday’s briefing –

Q    I was the one who asked this question — for the record.

MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry.  He emailed me, because I guess –

Q    Because you evaded the question.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I didn’t know the answer.  It drew some apparent attention in New York.  I asked the President.  He said he hoped for a good series, but didn’t have a strong pull for either team.

Q    There goes Pennsylvania.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  We’ll see.  What’s that?

Q    Does that means seven games?  A good series?

MR. GIBBS:  I think he would probably hope to see seven.  I know Jake would hope to be around for seven.  There’s no doubt that he was rooting for Plouffe last year, but apparently he thinks Plouffe is just fine this year.

So, Mr. Feller.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  A few questions on Afghanistan.  When the President announced earlier this year he was sending more troops –this was back in March — he said that the Afghan government was undermined by corruption and he said "We will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior and set clear benchmarks."  So, to start, I’m wondering has this government delivered on any of that yet?  Are you all measuring whether the Karzai government is trying to stop corruption and whether that’s working?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think what the President was alluding to in March is precisely the conversations that are being had by the embassy, by the ambassador, by the State Department, and by others here with the newly elected Karzai government. 

Q    So that’s a process that’s still starting?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, these are conversations, as I mentioned yesterday, that were had before and during the election process that took quite some time.  But the President and his team are actively engaged in seeking that new compact.

Q    He said just yesterday that — he reiterated that he wants a more serious effort to eradicate corruption, better governance, and so forth.  I’m wondering, are those — he talked about he wants deeds not just words.  So I’m wondering when he lays out those points that he’s looking for, what is he — are they just wishes, or is there going to be any connection between wanting to see results and his decision to send more troops?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, understand the end of the quote that you read set clear benchmarks for international assistance that is used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people.  Obviously, as the President reiterates, this is not just rhetoric; there have to be deliverables to this.  And I don’t want to get ahead of where the process is at this point in commenting on some of the specifics.  I’d also mention what the President said yesterday, that includes an infrastructure for training Afghan national security forces.  Both the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police ultimately are going to have to take charge of the security situation in the country.  I’ve said this, the President has said this, that we’re not going to be there forever.

What is accomplished on the security side will eventually have to be transferred to those two entities that comprise the Afghan national security forces, and that’s certainly part of improved governance. 

Q    Just to sum up here, I guess I’m just trying to figure out the connection between those important points that this government is looking for from Afghanistan and the President’s upcoming decision.  Is there a direct connection?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, as I said yesterday, Ben, there isn’t anybody involved in these discussions, whether you’re on the civilian side from the State Department, whether you’re on the civilian side of the National Security Council — I have no idea what that noise was — or whether or not — or whether you’re in the military at the Pentagon, that without improvement and without a sustained effort by the government of Afghanistan, our efforts there are not and won’t be successful.  So obviously ensuring improved governance is part of that equation.

Yes, sir.

Q    On the corruption issue in particular, are there any deadlines or actual measuring sticks that are being contemplated now to impose upon Karzai –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, as I said, I don’t want to get ahead of the process that’s ongoing with the embassy right now.

Q    It has been years in which Karzai has been under this kind of pressure, and are we to see something new here that hasn’t been tried before?

MR. GIBBS:  I think the President was clear yesterday that it was time for a new chapter, absolutely.  I think — I don’t want to delve too far back into the history of this, but I don’t think there’s anybody that would tell you that we can continue doing what has been done in years past and hope to see different results.

Q    European Commission President Barroso is here and he’ll be meeting with the President later.  He already said today that the European countries have no interest in sending more troops to Afghanistan.  Does that in any way affect or figure into the President’s review process on a possible U.S. –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, there’s a security conference I think scheduled — I don’t have the calendar in front of me — I think for the 23rd of November involving NATO countries, and I’ll wait for them to meet and have more definitive news on this.

Yes, Jake.

Q    Working on good governance and anticorruption — those are general goals.  What are some specific things that you guys will be looking for?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I’m not going to get into discussing publicly the compact that’s — that the embassy is working through with the Afghan government.

Q    The CIT bankruptcy, do you guys have any response to that?  It’s $2.3 billion of taxpayer money that I guess is just going to vanish into thin air.

MR. GIBBS:  Obviously CIT received, as you mentioned, several billion dollars of assistance in December of 2008.  They have come back a couple of times looking for additional assistance.  They’ve had a year to restructure, which they are now in a process that is now ongoing.  We are heartened by the fact that they will continue to lend to important small business customers and we will continue to seek ways to stabilize the financial system.

Q    Are the taxpayers just out that money?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, there’s obviously a process that’s now — that will now be ongoing in terms of their planned bankruptcy.  And obviously we have a stake in how that comes out as to the — taxpayers have invested that money.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  I wanted to talk about H1N1 virus.  A year ago in the campaign one of the themes from the President was about Republicans had not governed very effectively — citing Katrina, war in Iraq, incompetence in government.  But when it comes to H1N1 you made some big promises about tens of millions of vaccines that would be available to the American people.  They are obviously not available.  And so far the message has been that the manufacturing companies had really rosy scenarios.  But don’t people here in the Obama administration bear some responsibility for not asking the right questions, getting the right answers from these manufacturers before you told the American people you could deliver 120 million vaccinations?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, again, did we fell — fall to the scenarios that the manufacturers said that they could manufacture a vaccine in?  Of course.  Ed, I’ll take you back to last spring at the beginning of this process, in which H1N1 is a virus that we see popping up around the world, around the globe.  The President took very strong action in setting up a team to deal with this.  I’m reminded of — I think there was some snickering about the President talking about how to cough and how to sneeze and that you should wash your hands, all of which for anybody that has — knows somebody with that, it’s not a laughing matter now. 

I think the President and his team have taken extraordinary action to deal with this situation.  And as I said last week, Ed, I don’t know if you asked this or somebody else did, obviously the President is frustrated that there’s anybody that is in one of these groups, at a high-risk group, that is having trouble getting the vaccine now.  And we’re making progress on getting more and more of that vaccine each day.

Q    So what’s your promise to the American people now? Because they are wondering — they’re waiting in long lines, sometimes they wait two hours and they get to the front of the line, there’s no more vaccine.  What’s your message then?  What’s the promise now about –

MR. GIBBS:  The promise is that we’re working each and every day to fix this.  I don’t know what the updated numbers are.  I know there’s a daily briefing now with — that I’m sure many of your technical questions will be addressed.  I don’t know the available number of doses now, but when we went through this last week there were 3 million additional doses over a two-day period of time.  And again, the President is working every day — ensure that people that want and need this vaccine have it.

Q    And last thing — while you’re still trying to ensure that, and there are a lot of Americans who haven’t been able to get it, why did the Obama administration decide to make the vaccine available to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? 

MR. GIBBS:  There is no vaccine in Guantanamo and there’s no vaccine on the way to Guantanamo.

Q    So the Pentagon was wrong when it confirmed that on Friday?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know what the Pentagon said.  I know in asking yesterday whether or not there was any vaccine there or whether there was any vaccine that was on its way, the answer to both those questions was no.

Q    Did the White House stop –

MR. GIBBS:  No, that was because there wasn’t any there and there wasn’t any on the way. 

Q    Getting back to the topic of money possibly vanishing into thin air, it’s not just CIT.  GAO reported yesterday that the taxpayers will probably never recoup all or even close to all of the tens of billions of dollars that have been poured into General Motors and Chrysler.  Should the American people assume that that money is just gone?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I don’t think so.  I don’t think that’s what the GAO reported.  The President made some tough and extraordinary decisions to seek some financial assistance for GM and Chrysler.  Again, not easy decisions, but the President also believed that we had a chance to remake a more competitive American auto industry that employs tens of thousands of Americans.

Q    But GA found that they would have to have a market cap –

MR. GIBBS:  GAO.

Q    GAO, excuse me, would have to have a market capitalization of $67 billion.  They’ve never exceeded $57 billion.  Isn’t it just wishful thinking to think that they would ever get to that level again?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think what we need to do is get our economy moving again so that we have car sales that begin to see an uptick.  I think you saw reports yesterday of the first time that Ford Motor Company had turned a profit in its North American operation since 2005 –

Q    But Ford and GM are very different creatures.  I mean, you’re talking about — I mean, everybody has been talking about a sized-down GM.  How are they going to exceed their market capitalization –

MR. GIBBS:  The basis for any market capitalization is what?  Cars, right?  So obviously we have seen a — as the economy has slowed, a decline from traditional auto sales figures that you saw in 2006, or even 2007 and parts of 2008. 

The President is working each and every day to get the economy moving again, to create conditions where people have the type of income they need to purchase new cars.  We’ve instituted new fuel mileage standards so that the new cars that people buy go farther on a tank of gas and spit out less pollutants as they do so.  And I think we see that GM and Chrysler have begun to make strides in putting themselves on firmer footing.  

Q    — that $67 billion, or depending on how you count it, $67 billion that went in to those two companies, what can the –

MR. GIBBS:  That or that market capitalization?

Q    That’s the money that went to them.  How much of that can the American people expect to get back?

MR. GIBBS:  I haven’t read the full report.

Q    No, but are you saying that the American people will get a substantial amount of it back?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have any of that — I think the American people will see some of that money returned, yes.

Q    A lot of it, a little of it?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m not the car czar.

Q    The President’s decision on Afghanistan is still weeks, plural, away?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Weeks?

MR. GIBBS:  It was weeks yesterday, and it’s weeks today.

Q    Okay.  What additional information is the President waiting for to make a decision?  Are there outstanding issues?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, the President continues to meet with advisors.  He met last Friday with the Joint Chiefs and they’ll be back again for an additional meeting either late this week or early next week.

Q    But doesn’t he feel a sense of urgency at all?

MR. GIBBS:  He’s said that since the beginning, yes.

Q    It just seems that there’s a lot of meetings — we now have the election.  I just wonder if you could let us in on the process here, particularly in the context, let’s face it, of some accusations of delaying or dithering.  I’m just wondering if you could let us into the process –

MR. GIBBS:  I addressed those — I addressed those so-called allegations before.

Q    I guess — but you understand what I’m getting at.  What is the President trying –

MR. GIBBS:  Vaguely.  (Laughter.)

Q    Okay.  What is the President hoping to learn?  What is he — what more information is he hoping to obtain?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me explain this the way I explained this yesterday, Savannah.  The President — as you saw administration officials explaining over the weekend, the President and his team have a goal that remains unchanged:  to dismantle, disrupt and ultimately destroy al Qaeda.  That is — what the team is working on putting together is a military and a civilian strategy that best accomplishes that goal.  That’s what the team has been evaluating in Afghanistan, how that relates to our relationship with Pakistan, and the region as a whole in crafting a policy that addresses all of these things.

Q    Last thing.  Will the President seek to meet with General McChrystal in person here at the White House before making his decision?

MR. GIBBS:  I have said in the past that that will likely be the case.

Q    Can I just follow up?  Why would the decision not come sooner now that the election has been settled?  Wasn’t that one of the reasons it was taking so long?

MR. GIBBS:  The election certainly was part of the equation, but not the whole equation.

Q    But that’s — it should be sooner now that the election is settled.

MR. GIBBS:  Why?

Q    Well, if it’s part of the equation then that’s one factor that now has been settled.  So you’d think you could move more quickly.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, it’s been a couple of days, but I still think it’s a couple of weeks.

Yes, sir.

Q    Two quick questions.  First, on the election –

MR. GIBBS:  Which one?  You’ve got to be a little more specific.

Q    The elections of today.  A year ago the President was appealing to independent voters, Republican voters as a post-partisan politician.  And in recent appearances, especially on Sunday, he seemed to be trying to rally the Democratic base.  I wonder if the lesson for midterm elections next year and for today’s elections is that post-partisanship is over and now it’s a question of just getting out the base.

MR. GIBBS:  No, I don’t — well, that generally happens two days before an election, right?  You tend to want to get your voters — I know this isn’t a new concept — you tend to want to get your voters to the poll on Election Day.  I think that’s generally the case.  This President believes that the candidates that he’s made appearances for are — he believes will be — are the best candidates for the jobs with which they’re running. 

In talking about appealing to both independent voters — I’d let the President’s approval rating with independent voters speak for itself.  And I think if you look at the efforts that the President has made and the perception of the efforts — the perception that people have about those efforts, that they see a President that’s trying to work with the Republican Party on the issues that are important to the American people. 

We tried that in the recovery plan.  We’ve tried that with health care only to have, I think in the last 24 hours, Republicans finally decide to come up with their alternative ideas for health care reform — health care reform ideas, I might mention, that by all reports don’t include banning insurance companies from discriminating against sick people.

But the President is going to continue to try to work with Republicans that seek to and want to work — seek to work with him and want to work for reform and to address the issues that are important in people’s lives.

Q    On health care, do you think — does the President feel that the House bill is sufficiently neutral on the abortion question, or would he support some conservative Democrats who want — would want language –

MR. GIBBS:  I’m not going to interject from here into a process of discussion on the House side of how to address that.

Q    And although you’ve said it before, you haven’t said it today:  On the referendum issue –

MR. GIBBS:  I’m happy to do it again.

Q    If Creigh Deeds or Jon Corzine or Bill Owens were to win today, the President doesn’t want any credit, and if they lose he doesn’t want any blame?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I don’t — unclear if I’ve had an opportunity to intone either of those.

Q    Please take it now.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  I simply said — and I find it — I’m always amused by the fact that the motives for which I say these things are always imparted — this is just what I believe.  I don’t think the two gubernatorial races — I don’t think looking at the two gubernatorial races, you can draw with any great insight what’s going to happen a year from now any more than if Jake’s team wins tomorrow night I can tell who’s going to win next year’s World Series.

Q    Not really what I was asking.  (Laughter.)  If the three candidates that the President has campaigned for and wants to win and are seen as the three key races this year, if they win, will the White House view it as support for the President’s views or –

MR. GIBBS:  Again, we don’t look at either of these gubernatorial races or the congressional race as something that portends a lot for our legislative efforts going forward or political prospects in 2010.

Q    You still didn’t hit it on the nail, you know that?  Is it deliberate, or is it –

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t — maybe we’re just passing in the night, Mark.  I don’t know whether that’s — maybe with less sound, but it’s — yes, go ahead.

Q    Warren Buffett described his acquisition of Burlington Northern represents an all-in wager in the economic future of the United States.  Does the White House take this as an endorsement of the President’s economic policies?

MR. GIBBS:  I am not going to comment on the investment decisions of certain investors.  I don’t think that would –

Q    You’ve moved markets before.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  And I’m seeking desperately for a little stability today.  I think that Warren Buffett is somebody who obviously, as you know, the President has sought advice and counsel from, but I’m not going to get into his individual investment decisions.

Q    There’s more than just words.  I mean, he’s talking about it’s an instant all-in wager in the economic future of the United States.  I mean, you know, if we’re back to baseball metaphors, this is a big fat one right up the middle.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I will simply say this.  I think that the President values his advice, as he does many others, and the President is doing what he believes is right and best to get our economy back on track and moving again — I think you saw that in the statistics that were released just at the end of last week — and hope that people continue to have confidence in the decisions that the President makes.

Q    Tomorrow, the education speech in Madison, what can we expect on that?

MR. GIBBS:  I think you all — I’ll leave some of this aside for you all to talk to Melody about in a little bit.  Obviously the President has, through both the recovery plan and through initiatives at the Department of Education, sought to reform our schools so that they can better compete in the 21st century and create a more skilled workforce to assume the jobs that we’re creating for the future.  I think the President will take some time to talk about those efforts tomorrow, and I would encourage you all to get on the phone and ask Melody specifically about that.

Major.

Q    Robert, let me follow up on Mark, if I could.  Sunday when the President appeared with Governor Corzine, Governor Corzine said, "I’m going to be a partner."  The President said Jon Corzine has been a reliable partner.  Corzine has made it very clear that he wants to work with the President, has talked about job creation and jobs saved in New Jersey because of the stimulus.  Why then shouldn’t what happens today reflect in some way shape or form the New Jersey’s attitudes about their governor partnering with this President?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look –

Q    Because in Virginia that has not been the message of the Democratic candidate, to the consternation here at the White House.  Creigh Deeds did not say, "I’m an Obama Democrat," and the White House did not take kindly that strategic approach to his campaign.  So when you have two different campaigns like that, why shouldn’t what happens in New Jersey at least reflect in some way, shape or form what voters are thinking about Corzine and the President now — not 2010, but now?

MR. GIBBS:  I’ll let people look into their crystal balls and figure out what all this stuff means for the future.  The President believes that the best candidate to lead New Jersey today and tomorrow is Jon Corzine.  That’s what the endorsement is about. 

Governor Corzine was somebody who the President knew and worked with in the Senate and somebody he believes is best suited to lead New Jersey for the next four years.  I think that’s what the endorsement means, and I think that’s the support that the President was trying to convey.

Q    And if Corzine wins, then his endorsement means what?  Does his endorsement mean that there are tangible benefits to running alongside the President, correct?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m going to wait to navel-gaze when we have some navel gazing to look at.

Q    Okay, why did the White House –

Q    Ask Tommy on Wednesday, right?  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  He’s in Copenhagen.

Q    Why did the White House find it worth its while to encourage Dede Scozzafava to endorse Bill Owens?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think that what the candidate — the former Republican nominee decided was — and talked to, I’m sure, both Republicans and Democrats both in New York and nationally, about who she thought was best suited to carry on the things that she cared about and believed in, and she decided that that candidate was the Democrat.

Q    But Patrick Gaspard, from the White House, called her and talked to her, and helped arrange –

MR. GIBBS:  I’m sure Michael Steele and –

Q    — Andrew Cuomo and others –

MR. GIBBS:  And I’m sure Newt Gingrich — sure, I mean –

Q    I’m just curious why the White House thought it was worth your while to get so deeply involved in that race if none of this really matters as far as 2010, or anything else.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think there are interesting — I do think there are interesting tidbits that we see coming out of New York 23.  You see, the Republican Party having picked the candidate, elements of the Republican Party deciding they don’t like that candidate and basically doing what they needed to do to get that candidate off the ballot.  I think there are a host of primaries that will affect 2010 next year that pit moderate Republican candidates and conservative Republican candidates.

I think a lot of people decided that in a district that had sent Republicans to Congress, parts of that district, since the 1800s traditionally had sent moderate Republicans.  I think many in the Republican Party hung out a sign, as you heard people at the White House say this weekend, that moderates need not apply. I do think that has ramifications for next year because you’ve got primaries that you all are and will cover that pit very similar elements of that argument against each other next year. 

Q    A couple of quick ones on Afghanistan.  Karzai said today he wants to "Make sure that the taxpayers’ money coming to us from your countries" — the United States and others, but let’s just talk about the U.S. — "is spent wisely and rightly by us."  Does the White House believe that standard is currently being met?

MR. GIBBS:  We have made, obviously, important investments in the troops that we have put in Afghanistan, as well as through international assistance.  I think I would simply — without getting into — as I said earlier, not to go back too far in history, I think the President understands that for any of our efforts to be successful it’s time for a new chapter in Afghan history.

Q    But you can’t say whether it’s being — that standard that he set is being met yet?

MR. GIBBS:  The President is anxious to see improvement.

Q    Would the President need to visit Afghanistan before making his final decision on troops or strategy?

MR. GIBBS:  No.

Q    He would not?  Okay.  That’s not necessary?

MR. GIBBS:  The President was in Afghanistan — what, I guess sometime last July or June, I can’t remember when the trip was.  I don’t think it’s necessary for the President to do so.

Q    Okay.  And does he need any more information from the Joint Chiefs?  There was reporting Friday that he asked them for some specific data –

MR. GIBBS:  As I said to Savannah, I think there’s a — there will be — as we said Friday, there will be another meeting to go through additional recommendations that the Pentagon is working through.

Q    Will that meeting occur before he leaves for Asia?

MR. GIBBS:  Either early this week — I’m sorry, either late this week or early next week, but I assume before Asia, yes.

Q    Thank you, Robert.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  In meeting with Chancellor Merkel this morning and the European Commission officials this afternoon, will President Obama be making specific requests for additional help in Afghanistan?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me get a readout from the private meeting that the President — if there is a readout on the private meeting that the President had with Chancellor Merkel.

Q    Quick follow.  Yesterday, you said –

MR. GIBBS:  I will say this, I think you all heard the President say — and I would be remiss if I didn’t repeat what the President said about the tremendous and important contributions that Germany in particular has made to NATO efforts in Afghanistan. 

Q    Yesterday you said that once he makes his decision he’ll be walking the American people through it.  Are you planning an Oval Office address?

MR. GIBBS:  I said this last week — I think a question that Jeff asked — we have not spent a ton of time on the actual — on actually what that would look like except I know the President has told us — not necessarily as it relates to some venue or some speech, but that it is important for the American people to understand why he made the decision that he’s made.  And I anticipate that the President will spend some time walking the American people through the process that we’ve undertaken and the decision points that he’s made along the way to come to the ultimate conclusion that he’s come to.

Q    One more very quick thing, again, on timing — and I know we’re slicing this pretty thin, but if he may not meet with the Joint Chiefs until early next week, it sounds like a decision will wait until after Asia.

MR. GIBBS:  The only guidance that I have is to reiterate coming weeks.  I don’t have anything more clear than that, I’m sorry.

Q    Robert, climate change is also a big issue for the European Union.  To what extent is the President using his personal powers of persuasion to talk to folks on the Hill, members of the Senate, on climate change in the fashion that he has been doing on health care?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I mean, I think he’s obviously had an opportunity to meet with members of the Senate over the past few weeks.  I assume those conversations have included discussions on energy, and I think those conversations will continue as we seek to continue the progress that the House made in passing comprehensive energy and climate change legislation.

Q    But have there been any specific energy or climate change-related meetings or –

MR. GIBBS:  Let me get from Ben LaBolt and others what Carol Browner, what the EPA, the Department of Energy have done on this, and see the degree to which the President has also had individual conversations.

Q    And then also on the elections today, you talked about interesting tidbits come out of New York.  To what extent is the President looking at the elections today in New York, Virginia, and New Jersey as a reflection of what Americans think about the job he is doing, and sort of to what extent is he looking at them to forecast ahead to what he and Democrats need to do in 2010? 

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I doubt the President disagrees with me in saying that I don’t think these — as I have said — Mark — each of the last three times we’ve met, I don’t think the President is looking at these and believes that they say anything about our future legislative efforts or our future political efforts.  Again, in 2001, President Bush lost Virginia and New Jersey.  I don’t believe that it impacted his legislative initiatives going forward, and as I recall, happily sitting at one of the campaign committees in 2002, that the elections didn’t seem unambiguous as to their results.  In 2005 –

Q    — in any way on his performance?

MR. GIBBS:  I would quote for you the pollster that — from The Washington Post who asked specifically this question of the Virginia electorate; 70 percent said that their vote had nothing to do with the President.  Those that — the other 30 percent that said their vote either had — was intending to either show support for or opposition to the President, that number was evenly split.  And if anything, the illuminating number coming out of that is registered voters approved of the President’s job among Virginians by a number of 57 percent, which exceeds by 5 the amount the President received in Virginia a year ago.

Q    Well, it shows — your answer gets partway there — that these political questions aren’t about –

MR. GIBBS:  I’ll be graded.  Mark, I got an incomplete from you, but as I work my way this way I’m getting better, apparently.

Q    We’ll see.  (Laughter.)  It’s not over yet.

Q    Robert, these questions aren’t about next year and the future and what it portends; it’s about what the President has done for the last year since he won reelection.  Are you saying that if Democrats win in any of these locations you won’t stand there tomorrow and say, yes, the President gets some credit for that?

MR. GIBBS:  What I’m saying, again, as I said Monday and I said Friday, I know there’s a great cottage industry in this lovely town that looks at what happens today and sees what it portends for next year — hold on, hold on, let me — I know, you’ll find it incomplete, but it’s my answer.  You know, we can do this, we can look at this and what it means, and I happen to honestly believe — I know that’s, gasp, get your notebook out, Gibbs honest — (laughter) — I don’t believe that local elections in Virginia and New Jersey portend a lot about legislative success or political success in the future.  I just don’t.

Q    Forget the future.  What does it mean for the people to think of what the President has done for the last year?  Is it a grade for the President in the last year?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, the question was asked specifically amongst a representative sample of those that will participate in the elections taking place today to elect the next governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, right?  That question very specifically resulted in 70 percent of the Virginia population — I know, I hate to let fact get in the way of good navel-gazing, but that’s just what the poll said.  Don’t quote me.  Quote The Washington Post.

Q    I don’t want to.  (Laughter.) 

MR. GIBBS:  That’s an entirely different subject, apparently.

Q    Robert, considering the United States’ long engagement in Berlin, and President Kennedy’s statement when he went there, why did this President decide he could not accept the invitation to go for the 20th anniversary of commemoration, like all the other leaders who helped control Berlin during the interim?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, the President obviously has talked a little bit about, in his remarks with Chancellor Merkel today, talked about the momentous events of almost 30 years ago — I’m sorry, almost 20 years ago — with the fall of the wall.  Obviously we have a lot to work on here and we have commitments for an upcoming Asia trip.  But soon a very senior delegation of American officials will be announced to go to that ceremony in Germany.

Q    Can I do a quick follow-up on Ann?

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.  Which one?

Q    The one about the elections.  Are you asserting that the voters who go to the polls today who are feeling economic anxiety, who feel the country is on the wrong track, the Democrats who are not as enthusiastic today as they were a year ago — none of that has any bearing on the President’s performance at all?

MR. GIBBS:  No, I don’t — I’m not sure exactly what some of that is — what some of what you’re premising your question on is based off of.  I’m not suggesting there’s not economic anxiety.  I’m not suggesting that there’s not frustration with Washington’s inability to deal with fundamental problems in our society.  That’s exactly what the President is working on each and every day:  to make health care more affordable; to create good-paying jobs; to create a new foundation for economic recovery through jobs in the 21st century.

I’m not saying there’s not economic anxiety in this country. But again, if you look at what — if you look at — I’m just reading what was written about the poll by the people conducting the poll, who talked to the voters about what they’re saying and what they’re feeling.

Q    But what about voter enthusiasm and the fact that it seems, at least anecdotally, we’ll know it more at the end –

MR. GIBBS:  Let’s discuss when we have something to base it more on than anecdote.

Q    Robert, the President said in Massachusetts that Congress looks at local elections and they read tea leaves.  That being the case, if the Democrats go 0 for 3 today, why wouldn’t Congress look at that and think maybe there’s not that support –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, let’s deal with hypotheticals tomorrow when we can decide whether somebody went 0 for 3 or 1 for 3, or whether a walk counted as not counting as an at-bat.

Q    Let me just get the question out.

MR. GIBBS:  What’s that?

Q    Let me just get the question out.

MR. GIBBS:  Do you want me to wait for you to tell you what I’m going to do with hypotheticals?

Q    Let me just try the question.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, sure.

Q    And then you can tell me you’re not going to answer.

MR. GIBBS:  Okay.

Q    If he goes 3 for 3, and they do really well, why isn’t that in a sense a validation of the President’s policies?  And why wouldn’t Capitol Hill look at that and decide this is a strong President, politically in a good position, we want to get behind this agenda?

MR. GIBBS:  Should I do it now?

Q    Sure.

MR. GIBBS:  Okay.  Let’s wait and deal with hypotheticals tomorrow.

Q    Incomplete, incomplete.

MR. GIBBS:  It’s the best I can do. 

Q    I’m going to switch to the economy — and you might have touched on this yesterday.  When the Volcker board comes up with their recommendations and when you make decisions on those recommendations, does that –

MR. GIBBS:  Are you talking about the PERAB?

Q    PERAB, yes. 

MR. GIBBS:  Okay, yes.

Q    Is that — first of all, is that going to be before the budget, or I mean, is that going to be this year that you come up with this not stimulus two, but whatever you want to call it?

MR. GIBBS:  I believe that one of the reasons, obviously, that the President wanted to have this quarterly meeting of his Economic Recovery Advisory Board focus on jobs was as we’ve seen the beginnings of economic growth, we have to make sure that we’re looking at and evaluating all ideas for creating an environment — a better environment for creating jobs.  I think the suggestions that he got from individuals yesterday will be analyzed and looked at this year by our economic advisors here.

Q    — this year as part of coming up with individual proposals this year, or could they be part of the budget?

MR. GIBBS:  Again, they could be either.  They could be — again, as I’ve said, the President is constantly evaluating ideas for job creation, as well as for implementing in the budget.

Q    One more.

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.

Q    Is he less inclined to make those recommendations add to the deficit?  We have the budget director today in New York talking about the importance of the deficit.  Is it possible that those — the decisions that he makes on the next economic steps will be deficit-neutral?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think that part of that is an evaluation that the economic team will have to make.  I think what one of the messages that Peter had in New York was, one way to — the most important way in dealing with our federal deficit right now is to get our economy moving again.  That’s what the economic team is focused on, and that will have the most impact in the short term on that budget deficit.

April.

Q    Robert, two questions, one on the economy, then on the elections.  First, on the economy, a report saying nearly half of all U.S. children will be on food stamps; 90 percent of black children at some point during their childhood.  What say you about that?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I have not looked through the entire report.  I saw some news reports of what you just mentioned.  A couple things.  Obviously the President has, in the recovery plan, worked to ensure that those that are struggling with our economy have the appropriate safety net that they need when they’ve hit on hard times.  And an answer not dissimilar to what I just gave on the budget deficit, and that is the best way to address that problem is to get our economy moving and growing more consistently in a robust fashion.  We have — we are more than a year removed from the events of last September and are almost two years into — or two years away from, I should say, the official delineation of an economic recession that caused a huge economic slowdown and obviously has resulted on more and more people hitting on hard times and their ability to find work.

Q    And on the election issue, and it’s centered around today, via Michael Steele — Michael Steele says there are — these elections are competitive, but if indeed there are Democratic losses today, you can blame it on the fact that this President is overexposed, primarily on issues to include the health care debate.  Now, this is today.  This is not next year, this is not yesterday.  This is today. 

MR. GIBBS:  It was convoluted reasoning yesterday and it’s convoluted reasoning today and tomorrow.

Bill.

Q    Wait a minute, but if the President — I’m sorry, Bill.

Q    No, go ahead.

Q    But if the President does lose these gubernatorial seats, what does that say to this administration on a year away from when –

MR. GIBBS:  You’ve asked Ann’s question, and I would refer you to Ann’s –

Q    Ann, by the way, I’m trying to get an answer. 

MR. GIBBS:  Right.  I refer you to Ann’s answer.

Q    Okay.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, sir.

Q    On health care, there is a public plan option as part of the House bill, a public plan option, a very different one, as part of the Senate bill.  Debate starts very soon in both houses. Which version of the public plan option does the President prefer?  Which one?

MR. GIBBS:  I have not talked specifically to the team about that.  The President, as I’ve said in the past, will evaluate what comes to his desk for choice and competition.

Q    But before that, isn’t it time for the President — or important for the President at some point to say, "I prefer this one over that one"?

MR. GIBBS:  The President is very pleased with the progress that we’re making in the approach that he’s taken to get us to a point where –

Q    He’ll sign either one?  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  No, I — now you’re back to my first answer — getting back to my first answer, which, I said, when that bill gets to our desk, we’d be happy to evaluate it.

Sam.

Q    It’s reported that the President is meeting with Senator Blanche Lincoln tonight, and I was wondering if there are similar scheduled meetings with Senator Joseph Lieberman or if the President has reached out to Senator Lieberman since he’s expressed his concerns about the bill.

MR. GIBBS:  I know of either no meetings — neither meetings nor phone calls with the President and Senator Lieberman.

Q    Thank you very much.

MR. GIBBS:  Thanks, guys.

END
1:31 P.M. EDT

Statement by the Press Secretary on S. 1818

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

On November 3, 2009, the President signed into law:

S. 1818, which renames the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992, and the Foundation and Trust Fund established by that Act, to honor both Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall.
 

Remarks by President Obama and Chancellor Merkel of Germany before Meeting

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

9:14 A.M. EST

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Hello, everybody.  Well, I’m just going to make a brief statement.  I am thrilled to have Chancellor Merkel here today.  I want to congratulate her again for her victory in her recent election, the formation of a government, and we are honored to have her visit the Oval Office. 

But the main reason she’s here is that a great honor has been bestowed upon her.  She is going to be the first German chancellor in 50 years to address Congress — the first chancellor ever to address a joint session of Congress.  And it is, I think, a very appropriate honor that’s been bestowed on Chancellor Merkel.  Obviously the alliance between the United States and Germany has been an extraordinary pillar of the transatlantic relationship. 

We are now moving towards the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down and Germany being reunified after so many painful years.  And this is a special moment for Chancellor Merkel, as somebody who grew up in East Germany, who understands what it’s like to be under the shadow of a dictatorial regime, and to see how freedom has bloomed in Germany, how it has become the centerpiece for a extraordinarily strong European Union.

I think all of these things converge, and we are very pleased that she’s going to be here to spread her view of what’s taking place in the world, the many challenges we face, to members of Congress and the American people.

I should just note that Germany has been an extraordinarily strong ally on a whole host of international issues.  We appreciate the sacrifices of German soldiers in Afghanistan, and our common work there to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and to create the environment in which the Afghan people themselves can provide for their own security.

Chancellor Merkel has been an extraordinary leader on the issue of climate change.  And the United States, Germany, and countries around the world I think are all beginning to recognize why it is so important that we work in common in order to stem the potential catastrophe that could result if we continue to see global warming continuing unabated.

And on economic issues, on issues like nuclear proliferation, consistently I found Chancellor Merkel to be thoughtful, to be energetic, and to have a strong vision of how we can move forward in the future.

So I am very pleased to be working with her as a partner.  We are thankful, Chancellor, for your leadership not just in Europe but around the world.  And I’m looking forward to many more years in which the American people and the German people are working together to expand the boundaries of freedom and to create prosperity for ordinary men and women on both sides of the Atlantic.

So thank you so much for coming.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  (Speaking in German.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I think what she said was good.  (Laughter.)  I’m teasing.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  (As translated.)  First of all, I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to be here again today.  I would also like to say that it is obviously a very great honor for me to address today the joint session of Congress, both houses of Congress, as it were. 

But I’m also very much looking forward to having an exchange of view with the President again.  We have always had very intensive discussions and we’re going to have those today again on issues that are of mutual interest to us and that we have been working on almost daily.  We are working and discussing issues, for example, related to climate change, Afghanistan, Iran, and obviously also the world economic situation.
    
But I wanted to use this opportunity today also to express our gratitude, my gratitude, to the American people for the support that the American people have given us throughout the process leading up to German reunification, and I think it something that I would like to later on say it very clearly also in my speech to both houses of Congress.  And let me tell you that this is something that we, the Germans, shall never forget.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  All right, thank you guys.

                                                              
END  
9:20 A.M. EST 

Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 11/2/09

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

MR. GIBBS:  Take us away, Ben.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  A few questions about Afghanistan.  Can you tell us, first generally speaking, what’s the President’s reaction to the end of this election?  And is he in any way relieved that this sort of messy process is over?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think by all accounts, this has been a difficult process.  This is the first election run by the Afghans.  But I think the President, the embassy there, and everyone can take heart in the notion that the laws of Afghanistan and the institutions of Afghanistan prevailed in both instances. 

The President will telephone — President Obama will telephone President Karzai within the next half hour, and we’ll have a readout from that phone call for you all right after that.

Q    Speaking of that, you’ve talked a lot about the need for a credible, legitimate partner.  Does the President consider President Karzai to be a legitimate, credible partner?

MR. GIBBS:  President Karzai has been declared the winner of the Afghan election and will head the next government of Afghanistan.  So obviously he’s the legitimate leader of the country.  Obviously what we’ll begin — now that we know the government that will lead Afghanistan for the next five years, continue conversations about governance, civil society, and corruption, going forward to ensure that we have a credible partner in our efforts to help secure the country.

Q    How does this resolution, if at all, affect the President’s timetable on war strategy?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, again, I think there’s — we obviously now know who the government is going to be, so I think some of the conversations that I just alluded to can take place with who we know is going to lead the country.  I think the decision is still — will be made in the coming weeks.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    The President said today that he expect more job losses.  And his comments today suggested more than ever that he might take action — more actions to stem the tide, to improve the jobs picture.  What kind of thing might he want to do?  And also, when do you think that the jobs picture might show some — more improvement?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I would point you to the meeting that was just held, which I think you all watched, for ideas that the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board — ideas that they have and that they shared with the President today.  I know that the President and the economic team will evaluate those proposals. 

In terms of help, we’ve said throughout this process that the team is continually looking at ideas that will create an environment for sustained economic growth.  I know that’s what the President — the ideas the President wanted to hear today, and I think that’s what he got.

In terms of — look, I don’t know what the jobs picture will be at the end of this week, but I know that the President is focused on working to create an atmosphere to create more jobs.  I think we took a big step forward.  We can’t have job growth until we begin to have economic growth.  And for the first time in more than a year, the economy registered positive economic growth, according to statistics released last week.

Yes, sir.

Q    President Obama, last month in Pittsburgh, said of the Afghan elections and the aftermath, "What’s most important is that there’s a sense of legitimacy in Afghanistan among the Afghan people for their government."  Is there a sense of legitimacy in Afghanistan among the Afghan people for the Karzai government?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I have no reason to believe there is not. 
Q    Well, Abdullah Abdullah, as you know, one of the demands — or the only demand at the end that he asked for from Karzai to continue with this runoff was for the head of the IEC to be replaced because there was such a lack of trust in him after the last election.  Karzai refused.  So obviously Abdullah Abdullah feels that there is a lack of credibility in the IEC.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Dr. Abdullah made his own personal and political decision about this particular runoff.  I think if you look at the election results even after the investigation of allegations of fraud, which, by the way, worked, throwing out enough votes to require a second round and convincing President Karzai to participate in that, which clearly was not a — by any means a given — I think even in that balloting you saw that Dr. Abdullah trailed by a fairly large margin President Karzai.  So I don’t see — I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that the Afghan people won’t think this government is as legitimate as it is.

Q    Well, the reason would be that the last election was considered tainted by fraud and that’s the only election they’ve had.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, and those results were thrown out.  The fraud was reported, investigated.  The committees that you talk about threw out those votes.  A second round was scheduled and the participant, the second participant in the second round, decided, again, for personal and political reasons, not to take part in the election.  I don’t know how you can have an election of two candidates if the one who finishes second decides not to participate, even after the laws and institutions of the government threw out what he declared were fraudulent results from the first one.

Q    Personal political reasons?

MR. GIBBS:  I said "personal and political."

Q    The reasons were he said there would be — he would have no faith or trust in this election because the last one was so riddled with fraud, and the same head of the IEC was going to be –

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know how you could presume something was going to happen before it did.

Q    So then how do you have a legitimate election if basically just the only other candidate drops out?  I mean, it’s not like they’ve actually moved forward and cleaned up the fraud. How is that legitimate?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, first, let’s understand the fraud was talked about, investigated.  Millions of votes were thrown out, that it required a second round.  Ed, if the participant, the second participant in the election decides for his own reasons not to participate in that election, would you suggest that the American government require a second participant to –

Q    The person who allegedly committed the fraud or had the fraud committed on his behalf, President Karzai, is now going to stay on as the leader.

MR. GIBBS:  But, again, you guys have — I appreciate, but you’ve skipped an entire range of — remember, we were talking just probably 10 days ago about whether President Karzai would even accept the ruling that threw out millions of ballots that required him to go through a second round.  That was certainly not given.  That was something that — again, the fraud — the fraud was analyzed; a decision was made to throw out millions of ballots to push somebody under 50 percent, which required a second round.

Q    But you’ve repeatedly said in recent days that there — you need to have a credible partner.  When Ben asked you that question at the top, is he a credible partner, you said he’s a legitimate leader.  You didn’t say he’s credible.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, because — listen to the second part of the question and my answer with Ben.  Nobody said — nobody has ever made the accusation that credibility was going to be had simply out of one election.  That would have been true, quite frankly, whomever got elected and whoever participated. 

The conversations that now have to be had and continue with the Afghan government are the steps that they’re going to take to improve their governance, to improve their civil society, and to address fraud and corruption.  There’s no doubt about that.  But that wasn’t all going to be had at a ballot box.

Q    So why did you say a moment ago that the troop decision is going to come in weeks, which you’ve been saying for weeks, when Rahm Emanuel was on some programs a couple of weekends ago saying that we’ve got to wait till this runoff — when we have the runoff, then we’ll know the leader, we’ll know the government we’re dealing with you.  As you acknowledged a moment ago, we now know it’s President Karzai.

MR. GIBBS:  This decision was not dependent upon when a leader was determined.  We’ve never said that.

Q    Rahm clearly said we had to wait until after the runoff because you have to figure out who’s actually going to be in charge.  We now know.

MR. GIBBS:  There are a number of decisions that have to be made.  One of them — this was not simply predicated on when or if this election was held and when it was.

Q    What else does he need — what else does the President need to make the decision then?

MR. GIBBS:  The President is working with his national security team to evaluate, as I think you saw many people say yesterday on the news shows, how best to formulate a strategy that supports the goal of disrupting, dismantling and ultimately destroying al Qaeda.  That’s what the team is working on, and they had a productive meeting with the Joint Chiefs just at the end of last week.

Q    Robert, you can talk all you want about the law having prevailed, but in the end, you’re left with somebody who the U.S. has been dodging for months because he hasn’t been a reliable partner, and yet he’s now your only — your only alternative.  And what does this do to the decision-making process here?  It hasn’t been made any easier, certainly.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, our problems don’t generally get easier dealing with anything, Bill.  As I said in response to at least two previous questions, now begin the hard conversations about ensuring credibility and ensuring — improving governance, addressing corruption. 

Q    These are conversations you tried to have before the election.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, we are focused on what has to happen in order to have a credible partner so that there is a — there will be a point in this process where the United States is not going to stay forever.  I’ve said that a hundred times.  At some point, what is built and what is secured has to be transferred to somebody else, has to be transferred to a government in Afghanistan to do for itself.  That’s what we’re focused on now that we know who that government will be, going forward for the next five years.

Q    Yes, but now, given what’s transpired, how long is it going to take to decide whether you have a credible partner and whether the United States should commit further troops and resources?

MR. GIBBS:  That’s what — that’s part of the decision-making process that’s ongoing.

Q    Yes, but it’s been going on forever, as your critics have pointed out.

Q    Can you elaborate on this "personal and political decision" from Dr. Abdullah?  You referred to it two or three times now.  He made a personal, political decision.  That’s a — it sounds like — are you playing Afghan pundit here?

MR. GIBBS:  No.  I generally avoid playing American pundit, let along Afghan pundit.

Q    What is the political — what evidence –

MR. GIBBS:  What’s the equivalent of Afghan "Meet The Press"?  I don’t — (laughter.)

Q    What is the equivalent –

Q    You don’t want to know.  (Laughter.)

Q    It’s the longest running show probably in Afghanistan.  (Laughter.) 

Tell me about — what’s the evidence that it was a political decision?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m just saying that he made a decision for probably a series of reasons –

Q    Can you elaborate?  You’ve already said it’s political.  Can you elaborate a little bit?

MR. GIBBS:  I think you saw some of this over the weekend.  There were decisions that he made to no longer be a contestant in this race. 

Q    Who in the U.S. government has reached out to Dr. Abdullah over the last few days?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know if folks at the State Department or others have — you should check with them.

Q    Is the President at all having any –

MR. GIBBS:  Again, the President will speak –

Q    Is there any chance he’s going to make a phone –

MR. GIBBS:  — is probably on the phone in the next few minutes with President Karzai.  But, look, I don’t think there’s any doubt that Dr. Abdullah will play a role, it’s quite clear, going forward in Afghanistan.  And I think that anybody — we would obviously want to be in consultation with a number of people that are going to have roles going forward in Afghanistan.

Q    Are you still going to reach out to tribal leaders that don’t really have a relationship with the central government in Afghanistan as you do the strategy review?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, obviously there’s an evaluation that’s going on on governance issues, not just in Kabul but throughout the country, and certainly that will be part of it.

Q    On tomorrow’s elections, what do you tell generic Democratic Congressman X not to read into the results in New Jersey or Virginia?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I would — well, I think, one, I’d wait for the results to talk to Congressman X, without — like I said, I don’t want to play pundit in Afghanistan or certainly don’t want to pre-play pundit here.  Obviously, as we talked about –

Q    Are you guys going to take a lot of credit if Corzine wins, but then –

MR. GIBBS:  No, I would point you to the answer I gave on Friday, which is I don’t think that these elections will portend a lot for what happens in 2010 any more than the 2001 elections seemed to denote relative electoral legislative strength for President Bush in 2002.  It’s just –

Q    But are you concerned that some Democratic incumbents in Congress might suddenly be tougher –

MR. GIBBS:  — the results based on the pundits on cable TV? That and corporate governance — or corruption in governance are at the top of my list today.

Q    I thought that al Qaeda was mostly defeated in Afghanistan.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, we want to ensure that –

Q    Isn’t it now the Taliban that you’re going after?

MR. GIBBS:  We want to ensure that a safe haven can’t be created in which they could come back and establish a stronghold with which to plan and attack us.

Q    So you’re going to send 40,000 troops more to do that?

MR. GIBBS:  That’s — the discussion about what to do in terms of troop levels is one aspect of a larger strategy on how to deal with our goal of disrupting, dismantling, and ultimately destroying al Qaeda.

Q    How are you going to pull up short the Afghan government?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry, how are we –

Q    How are you going to make them do more?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think that’s a conversation that’s probably beginning in the Oval Office right now.

Q    — put no conditions on any country.  Pakistan wants how many million and you say, okay, go ahead, we don’t have any conditions.

MR. GIBBS:  No, that’s — Helen, you know better than that, that that’s not true with our assistance.

Q    Well, what conditions were there on Pakistan?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, we had a big back-and-forth about — just two weeks about whether there were too many conditions on our aid in Pakistan, didn’t we?

Yes, ma’am.

Q    On the Economic Recovery Board meeting, how seriously do you take these proposals?  Is this part of an ongoing dialogue with the White House, or are these three individual proposals or presentations, as the President referred to them — are they the beginning of a solid basis for creating jobs over the next year or so?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, you heard the President reiterate in his comments when the pool was in there that we have for years had sort of bubble and bust, and that with what happened a year ago, a little more than a year ago, we now have to find stable, fundamental economic footing for stable and fundamental economic growth; that we need to create jobs in things like clean energy that we know are growth industries for the future, rather than having economic growth predicated on free credit or other aspects of consumer spending; that we have to have stable ideas for that economic growth.  These were obviously ideas that three believe can begin that process and the President wanted to listen to their ideas, and they’ll be further examined here by the economic team in consultation with those individuals.

Q    But they were quite concrete ones — an infrastructure bank –

MR. GIBBS:  Which is something the President has talked about — the infrastructure bank as far back –

Q    Right.  So were these vetted and were these proposals created in concert with the White House?  Were they vetted in advance?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, some of the — again, the infrastructure bank is something that the President discussed heading back into the campaign.  Weatherization is something that is beginning to take place as part of the recovery plan.  The question is, can you create more jobs by expanding that and also helping to take care of another problem like energy efficiency, which we all know is a big avenue towards saving — toward doing something about greenhouse gases.

Q    So can we look at these proposals as the basis for a jobs creation program going forward over the next year?

MR. GIBBS:  You can as — for what was presented by this group to the President.  The President will — was happy to listen and was happy to get the ideas, and will now further evaluate whether they make the basis for something that we might propose.

Yes, sir.

Q    What does Karzai have to do to become a credible partner?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, what I’ve broadly listed here before.  Obviously there’s — we know there are problems related to corruption that have to be addressed moving forward.  I think that’s — clearly we’ve got to — as assistance is given to Afghanistan, we’ve got to make sure that that assistance for things like economic development and growth get down to the people that need it.  I would think that’s certainly one good example.

Q    Is the President laying out guideposts for him or markers that he has to take to –

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t know that the conversation that’s happening right now will get that specific, but I can assure you that throughout this process our team at the embassy, under the guidance of Ambassador Eikenberry, have been discussing with both candidates the need to ensure that this happens with whomever is elected to lead this government.

Q    Just one more question.  So would it be accurate to say then that thousands of American troops are on duty in a country that’s led by a guy who is not credible, not reliable, and running a corrupt government?

MR. GIBBS:  I didn’t say that.  I said that we are working with our Afghan partners to ensure that as we move forward, as I said earlier, when ultimately we leave there’s somebody there that can sustain the progress that’s been made.  Obviously one of the things that has been talked quite a bit about in the Situation Room meetings is how do we create an environment that best trains Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police as part of an Afghan national security force.  I’m sure those are conversations that are going to be had, because like we’ve seen in other countries, unless there’s a protection and security force there, it really is not matter what we do if, when the area is vacated by American troops, the same people that caused trouble that led us to come there come back because there’s no resistance to them doing so.

Q    Following up on Peter’s questions, it seems like the President has some new leverage over Karzai now to insist on the governance reforms and the other ones mentioned and he could hold off, delay on his troop decision until he gets some pledge — does he have some new leverage over this to insist on the reforms until he makes a decision?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think — well, obviously there are a number of decisions that have to be made before ultimately a troop decision.  But, Roger, understand that what we talked about, what we’ve talked about for weeks now, is you’re not — we’re not making a decision about whether we are leaving Afghanistan.  We currently have 68,000 American forces in addition to I think probably another 35,000 or 40,000 NATO forces for a pretty large force there.  And a number of countries throughout the world obviously have a great interest in these governance issues and the type of things that have to happen, which is why I mentioned that some of these discussions have been had even before today.

Q    But the President could still insist that — on a commitment.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think — I will tell you this.  I don’t think anybody — I don’t think anybody sitting and participating in any of the meetings about a strategy going forward would tell you that if we don’t have a partner that can do all of the things that I mentioned, that all the troops in the world are going to make it successful.  I’ve seen Democrats and Republicans on television say that.  I’ve seen ambassadors and generals make the very same point in the meetings that we’ve had in the Situation Room.

Q    Can I do a separate quick question?  On the campaign yesterday, the campaign trip yesterday, roughly how much did it cost yesterday?  And did Corzine pay, or DNC, or –

MR. GIBBS:  I’d have to refer to one of these guys on reimbursement and what the DNC does on that.

Yes, sir.

Q    You said now that we have — know who’s going to be the leader of Afghanistan, you can have conversations to ensure a credible partner.  Do you mean that the President’s talks with Hamid Karzai will figure into his decision about strategy –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, again, I think to assume that you’re going to increase a force there without knowing — without having a sense of what that entity is going to do, of course that plays into it.  Like I said — let me just repeat what I said to Roger. There’s nobody — again, there’s nobody in the Situation Room, whether they have — whether they carry an ambassador’s briefcase or a lock bag from the Pentagon, that would tell you that the partnership and the governance of Afghanistan doesn’t mean — well, let me say, nobody would make the point that any strategy could be successful without successful governance of Afghanistan. 
Q    And given the somewhat less than sterling governance of Afghanistan, it would seem we’re talking about what John Kerry called last week "good enough governance."  Is good enough governance in Afghanistan good enough to put the lives of American servicemen and women on the line?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, obviously we have national security concerns with ensuring, as I mentioned to Helen, that the Taliban are not able to create a safe haven that allows extremists like al Qaeda back into the country to disrupt the government in Afghanistan and Kabul and plan attacks on the United States.  But again, I would reiterate simply that there isn’t anybody involved in any of these meetings that wouldn’t say that the situation doesn’t have to get better in order for any strategy to work. 

Again, I think it was — I’ll go back and pull a quote from I think from Senator Graham on "Meet The Press" that said, you know, we can — I think I’ve got this right — that we could put a million troops there, but if you don’t have a partner that’s working with you, none of that’s going to matter.

Scott.

Q    A couple of logistics questions upon where the review is.  What happens this week?  Who will the President be meeting with? 

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have an update for the week ahead and I don’t know if another meeting this week will be scheduled.  I know — he mentioned at the end of the last meeting with the Joint Chiefs that he looked forward to seeing them again, and I don’t know if that’s this week or early next.

Q    Just a quick follow.  Is the U.S. encouraging talks between President Karzai and Dr. Abdullah on his joining the administration in some capacity?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me get some guidance from our guys in Kabul on that. 

Q    Can you get back to all of us on that?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    A couple of questions about the phone call between the President and President Karzai.  First, when was the last –

MR. GIBBS:  Keep in mind that it’s happening right now and I’ve –

Q    I understand, but when was the last time they spoke, either by telephone or videoconference –

MR. GIBBS:  He spoke with both President Karzai, Dr. Abdullah, and Ambassador Eikenberry the morning that Karzai said he would participate in the second round.

Q    Okay.  And how would you characterize the conversation — realizing it’s taking place right now — this is not, I assume, a congratulatory — (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  This is like the Jeopardy version — "What is"  –

Q    No, no, no.  But was the President content to do something more than simply call President Karzai and congratulate him?  Was this to be a substantive conversation about the President’s decision-making process?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t want to get ahead of the readout.  Let me get a readout on exactly what transpired, rather than pre-judge.

Q    Can I ask is he asking specific things of President Karzai –

MR. GIBBS:  Let me get — we’ll get a readout out shortly to you guys on the call.

Q    Okay.  And then separately on a domestic issue, health care, a lot of chatter — I know you addressed this last week — on Capitol Hill about the constitutionality of an individual mandate, with conservatives like Orrin Hatch I think complaining it’s not constitutional.  Have the White House lawyers looked at this issue, or has this been examined in any way that you know of?

MR. GIBBS:  Not that I know of.  I mean, I don’t think it’s gotten to the point where anybody questions the legitimacy of it.

Q    Well, Orrin Hatch questions the legitimacy.

MR. GIBBS:  Then you should ask him.

Q    Do you not feel that there’s any concern at all about whether or not it’s constitutional for Congress to impose a mandate?

Q    May or may not be simple to answer — let me try it this way.  The timing of the President’s decision on troops, does the disappearance of the runoff hasten it, slow it down, or have no effect?

MR. GIBBS:  You gave me multiple choice, didn’t you?

Q    And there’s also, D, all of the above.

MR. GIBBS:  I may take all of the above, just further muddle the — look, obviously we have a sense of now who will be the leader and who will comprise the government of Afghanistan going forward.  Obviously that’s helpful in the discussions that have to be had and in the strategy that will be set.  But I don’t think, as I said in a couple of these responses, I don’t think that was the single question left for a decision to be made.  That’s sort of a roundabout way of saying I still think we’re looking at the next few weeks.

Q    But it sounds like it has at least taken one of the elements –

MR. GIBBS:  There’s no question that it illuminates part of the equation moving forward.  And I don’t honestly know that it hastens it.  I think it hastens the work of the discussions that have been had before this runoff was scheduled, again with Ambassador Eikenberry and others, in order to move forward on those very important governance issues.

Q    On politics, now that the President has had a chance to campaign a couple of times in both Virginia and New Jersey, and it’s a year since his own election, what does he think the mood of the voters is?  What did he find the mood of the voters to be when he was out there?

MR. GIBBS:  Fired up and ready to go.  At least that’s what they told him, right?  Well, look, I think — again, we’ll have plenty of time to hash this out, the election results, on Wednesday.  Oh, I’m getting — don’t worry, it’s just a big windup.  (Laughter.)

Q    Is he going to talk about it –

MR. GIBBS:  Say again?

Q    Is he going to talk about it –

MR. GIBBS:  He may address it.  I honestly don’t know.  That’s a bit ahead of my guidance.  But, look, I think the President mentioned yesterday in his stops in New Jersey that obviously there were a series of very difficult challenges that he confronted upon coming into office.  We’ve spent a decent amount of time here talking about one today in Afghanistan.  We’ve alluded to an even bigger one on the economy.  So, look, I don’t doubt that he has found that — in talking to voters, that we are making progress on getting this economy turned around again.  But obviously there are still tens of millions of people that want to work and can’t find a job.  That’s what the President is focused on continually.

And, look, I would also point to what you heard advisors say over the weekend, that obviously fascinating developments of what’s going on in New York, where the Republican Party picked a nominee and then a district known for generally sending moderate Republicans dating back to the 1800s to Congress kicked out the moderate and is now foursquare behind — or at least part of — part of the party seems to be foursquare behind somebody much more conservative.

Q    Does the President think that’s a trend?

MR. GIBBS:  It appears to be.  And I think if you look at what I think is likely to happen next year, you already have Republicans — some Republicans who are more aligned with the very conservative element of what’s happening in New York saying this is a model for what you’ll see throughout the country.

Q    Robert, you said that no amount of troops in the world could –

MR. GIBBS:  I think I was paraphrasing Senator Graham saying –

Q    But the idea that without successful government — governance and the reforms that you want there, that no military effort can be successful.  What has changed since the election in March to make you think that those changes are more –

MR. GIBBS:  The election in March?

Q    I mean the Afghan election, whenever the — when was the first Afghan election?  I meant August.  What has changed since then to make you think that the kind of governance changes you’re looking for are more likely to happen?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Mara, I think that process is ongoing.  I would say I think one of the things that clearly worked in the August election and in the rulings that led to the definition of needing a second round was the institutions and law of Afghanistan.  Understanding, as I said at the very beginning to Ben’s question, we knew this was going to be a difficult process, an election run fully by the Afghans.  But this was a process through the laws and institutions of the country which determined that allegations of fraud were true and threw those ballots out. Obviously that’s the beginning of a process whereby the rule of law carries the day.  That’s I think the beginning of what one needs to see moving forward.

Q    Karzai’s decision to accept a runoff even if one didn’t happen is a sign to you that he would be more willing to make the changes you’re looking for?

MR. GIBBS:  I would say the circumstances that led to the discussion that a second runoff was necessary is the first part of it.  Obviously it was not a given that he would participate in a second round.  Through a lot of hard work that happened, and we were at that point until a little earlier.

Q    I just have one question about timing on this decision. Next week the President is leaving for a lengthy trip to Asia.  If the Joint Chiefs come back next week, you’re talking about maybe having that meeting, how does this all work?  I mean it sounds like a decision realistically couldn’t be made and announced until after he comes back from Asia.  Is that –

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t have any guidance on that except to reiterate that it will happen in the coming weeks.

Q    The President’s budget director is going to New York tomorrow to talk about the deficit.  I just wanted to get a sense from you guys how much does the White House consider the deficit to be an ongoing concern, maybe even a growing concern among Americans going into next year, even after health care is potentially passed?  How much of the issue do you guys feel like is the fault of the Bush administration?  And do you still remain committed to cutting the deficit in half by the end of the first term?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me take these somewhat in reverse order.  In the first — in the instance of your third part, yes.

Q    Remain committed –

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.  In terms of health care, obviously the President has been insistent on health care reform being budget-neutral and cutting health care costs in the out-years of which the plans that have been scored do that.  So I would mention that partly — I think the budget deficit, if you talk to anybody that’s followed the issue for the past five or six years, this isn’t an issue that started this year.  This has been an issue that’s been ongoing in terms of our ability to continue to spend more and more than we take in each month or each year.

Obviously this is a problem that the President discussed in the election and one that obviously has to be addressed.  We can’t continue to do what we’ve done.  I think if you look at — the President signed last week a defense bill that zeroed out a number of weapons systems, which hasn’t always been the case in this town — weapons systems the Pentagon said they didn’t need.
Usually that doesn’t mean much and the prerogatives of the individual weapons systems carry the day.  A lot of people told us we were crazy to even go down that path, but I don’t think you’re going to make significant progress on the deficit if you don’t at least start with the fact that the President — or the Pentagon has said they don’t want a weapons system, yet you continue to fund it.

Q    Can you refresh our memory also on the President’s position on like a bipartisan BRAC-type commission on –

MR. GIBBS:  You know, I saw the comments.  I would point you to the comments that Peter made in the Sunday paper, where I think he said something like that would be looked at.

Q    Robert.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, sir.

Q    One important one-year anniversary coming up on Wednesday.  What do you think the President has changed in the way Washington works since –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I’ve noticed all of you all, despite not doing many stories in the beginning of September about a change in a 200-year policy of letting you know who comes into this White House, I did notice you guys were all very busy on Friday night.

Q    That’s an answer?  (Laughter.)

Q    What does the President feel needs to be done in this regard?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m sorry, needs to be?

Q    Needs to be done in this regard.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think the President would continue to tell you — I think we’ve certainly seen in health care that change isn’t easy, especially when special interests get involved, particularly in the way they’ve done in the last few weeks with the insurance industry.  I think that’s a pretty telltale sign that change is not a given.  It’s got to be worked at and it’s going to be hard, and that’s what the President is working on each and every day.

Q    Are you anticipating election activity tomorrow in terms of phone calls, attempts to get out the vote, and things of that nature?

MR. GIBBS:  None that I know of now, but I can certainly — I can check on –

Q    Can you provide all the phone calls that he recorded for get out the vote?

MR. GIBBS:  Let me see what I can –

Q    And where?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Robert, in light of the changes in Afghanistan, if a clear majority of the American public tell the White House, tell the President they don’t want to send more troops to Afghanistan, does the President have an obligation to listen to the American public or to follow his own dictates?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, the President has an obligation as Commander-in-Chief to make the very best decision in order to protect our national interest and to protect American citizens here as well as the troops we have on the ground. 

The President would expect that whatever decision he made, as I’ve talked about last week, he would walk the American people through the reasoning of why that decision was made, and the interest that he saw that had to be protected in whatever the outcome of that decision was.  And I expect that that will take place once a decision is made and ultimately announced.

Q    — the situation in the Vietnam War — you were too young to remember that — where a clear majority, voting majority of the American people were — rebelled against the Vietnam War, and it brought down the Johnson administration.  Is this President prepared to go that route?

MR. GIBBS:  I hesitate to make those type of analogies.  I think the President, again, will make the decision that he believes is best in our national interests, and I think that’s the process that’s ongoing.

April.

Q    Robert, on the issue of jobs and the economy, this administration continues to push the green jobs initiative, an initiative they are particularly hoping that the black and brown communities of this country would take part of because it’s a cyclical thing, from what I’m understanding.  At the same time, we’re hearing from the Hill that blacks and browns are not engaging in the green jobs initiative, as this administration thought or hoped.  How is this administration planning to go out to make more of an outreach into a black and brown community for this initiative?

MR. GIBBS:  I’m not dodging this, April, but I just — I don’t know what you mean in terms of what you’re hearing from the Hill.  I just –

Q    Okay, for instance, the head of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, Ed Towns, has said that black and browns are not engaging in this green initiative jobs –

MR. GIBBS:  I’d be happy to look at what he said, and try to come up with something, but I haven’t –

Q    Is it important that this community does engage –

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think it’s important that this community and every community take part in this important idea because creating jobs in a clean energy economy and creating a marketplace that incentivizes that job growth is important not simply for the extremely important idea of getting millions of people that want to work back to work in industries that are headquartered here, manufacturing products like wind turbines or solar panels.  But this also impacts the steps that we’re taking to wean ourselves off our dependence on foreign oil, which means progress as it relates to greenhouse gases and climate change.  But it also impacts our national security.  All of that is what makes green jobs so important.

Q    — more of a demand, I mean, because people are saying the demand is not there right now for –

MR. GIBBS:  I think — look, I think last week’s trip was a very good example.  You had Florida Power & Light, the largest — the power company — the largest power company in the state of Florida — one of the biggest states in the country — investing heavily as a result of the Recovery Act in a solar plant and clean energy projects that they know will produce jobs for the future, but also produce clean energy.  And certainly as we get into a longer legislative debate on climate change, just in my conversations with the CEO, he talked about the notion of if you actually price greenhouse gas emissions into the production of power, you have a powerful incentive to find clean energy alternatives.

David.

Q    You’ve said a few times that the laws and institutions in Afghanistan prevailed.  But Abdullah Abdullah said that he pulled out in part — maybe he had personal reasons — because he expected there to be massive fraud.  So there seems to be a little bit of a disconnect between saying in essence the system worked and Abdullah Abdullah saying the system can’t work.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, David, I can’t render a judgment on what he predicted might happen in an election that will now not take place.  I mean, that seems — trust me, I don’t have that kind of clarity and crystal ball.

Q    There are elections coming up, supposed to come up next year in 2010, for district councils and the parliament, I believe.  I mean, do you have more confidence now that those elections can be free and fair and that the public will see the government as credible?

MR. GIBBS:  I do and I think others do because, David, for the exact reason why a second round was called to begin with.  There was alleged fraud.  The fraud was investigated over a many-week period of time.  Two commissions determined that a series of votes — a big chunk of votes were fraudulent.  They were thrown out, which required the sitting President to have to go through a second round.  I think that demonstrates that the laws and institutions of Afghanistan worked.

Q    Well, you know, finding fraud is different than getting rid of fraud.  And so if Abdullah Abdullah and his criticisms are being taken seriously — he’s saying, yes, fraud was found and dealt with, or at least recognized, but we haven’t taken it out of the system.  You can’t have it — this doesn’t prove that we can have an election without fraud.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, again, I said this process we knew all along was not going to be an easy one.  It would be a difficult one.  But again, David, it’s sort of — it’s hard to evaluate what might have happened in an election that didn’t take place.  Obviously some steps were taken to ensure that the next round was done in a way that produced a legitimate government.  We believe it would have.  Dr. Abdullah decided not to participate; therefore the only candidate in the race was President Karzai.  He was ruled the winner today.

Thanks, guys.

END

1:45 P.M. EST

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Reinfeldt of Sweden after meeting

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

2:45 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I am thrilled to have the Prime Minister of Sweden with us here today.  We have had occasion to meet fairly frequently this year between all the various summits that we’ve participated in.  I’ve always been struck by the Prime Minister’s thoughtful, measured approach to some of the most important global challenges that we face.

We had a very constructive discussion on a range of issues.  At the top of the list was the issue of climate change.  We are approaching the Copenhagen negotiations that will be taking place in December, and both Sweden, the United States, and I think it’s fair to say the EU as a whole, and the world as a whole, are interested in an outcome that can start moving us down the path of a sustainable economy that is not accelerating the potential catastrophe of climate change.

Sweden has been a real leader in this.  We appreciate their leadership.  We are confident that if all countries involved recognize this is a unique opportunity that we can get an important deal done, not that solves every problem on this issue but takes an important step forward and lays the groundwork for further progress in the future.

We also discussed Afghanistan.  I thanked Fredrik for the contributions of Sweden to the very important effort of stabilizing a country that has been war-torn and is a source of security concerns for all of us.  And to the extent that the European Union continues to make contributions on the civilian front, on the training of police, on development issues like agriculture, then we think that we can see real progress.

I should use this moment to say that about an hour ago I spoke with President Karzai and I congratulated him on his election for a second term as President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.  Although the process was messy, I’m pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law, which I think is very important, not only for the international community that has so much invested in Afghan success, but most importantly, is important for the Afghan people that the results were in accordance with and followed the rules laid down by the Afghan constitution.

I did emphasize to President Karzai that the American people and the international community as a whole want to continue to partner with him and his government in achieving prosperity and security in Afghanistan.  But I emphasized that this has to be a point in time in which we begin to write a new chapter based on improved governance, a much more serious effort to eradicate corruption, joint efforts to accelerate the training of Afghan security forces so that the Afghan people can provide for their own security.  That kind of coordination and a sense on the part of President Karzai that after some difficult years in which there has been some drift, that in fact he’s going to move boldly and forcefully forward and take advantage of the international community’s interest in his country to initiate reforms internally, that has to be one of our highest priorities.

He assured me that he understood the importance of this moment, but as I indicated to him, the proof is not going to be in words, it’s going to be in deeds.  And we are looking forward to consulting closely with his government in the weeks and months to come to assure that the Afghan people are actually seeing progress on the ground.

The last point I would just make, the European Union obviously is an important trading partner of ours.  We are seeing a world economy stabilize after a very difficult period of time.  I think Fredrik would agree that it is absolutely critical that we continue to coordinate closely when it comes to our economic policies to assure that we are moving in a direction of more robust growth that creates more jobs in the United States and in Europe and that we continue to shy away from any protectionist measures that might actually reverse some of these positive trends. 

So once again, welcome.  Thank you for your outstanding work both as Prime Minister and as President.  And please communicate the very warm feelings that the United States people have towards the people of Sweden.

PRIME MINISTER REINFELDT:  Yes, we will.

Well, thank you very much, Barack.  As you said, we have met on several occasions.  We share excellent bilateral relations.  And this is also a strong transatlantic link, which is very important for us. 

We have discussed, as mentioned, the Afghanistan situation.  And the European Union has also said that we’re glad that we now can see a second term for Karzai, that it’s now concluded. 
    
We talked about long-term commitment in Afghanistan.  We actually have 500 Swedish troops there.  We’re up to 35,000 now on the European Union side.  It’s very important, as Barack mentioned, to see this as both creating security but also governance issues, which would be of utmost importance to have ownership of their own, and creating sustainable working conditions, living conditions for the people of Afghanistan.

The main issue was, as it often is, the climate issue.  We need to work together.  We need to find ours — find each other in the process to meet the two-degree target when it comes to Copenhagen and the time thereafter.  And we have spoken today I think about that again.

So I thank you very much for your leadership on that issue.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you for the visit.
    
PRIME MINISTER REINFELDT:  Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Okay, guys, thank you.

END
2:53 P.M. EST

Veterans Day Proclamation

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

We have a sacred trust with those who wear the uniform of the United States of America. From the Minutemen who stood watch over Lexington and Concord to the service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, American veterans deserve our deepest appreciation and respect. Our Nation’s servicemen and women are our best and brightest, enlisting in times of peace and war, serving with honor under the most difficult circumstances, and making sacrifices that many of us cannot begin to imagine. Today, we reflect upon the invaluable contributions of our country’s veterans and reaffirm our commitment to provide them and their families with the essential support they were promised and have earned.

Caring for our veterans is more than a way of thanking them for their service. It is an obligation to our fellow citizens who have risked their lives to defend our freedom. This selflessness binds our fates with theirs, and recognizing those who were willing to give their last full measure of devotion for us is a debt of honor for every American.

We also pay tribute to all who have worn the uniform and continue to serve their country as civilians. Many veterans act as coaches, teachers, and mentors in their communities, selflessly volunteering their time and expertise. They visit schools to tell our Nation’s students of their experiences and help counsel our troops returning from the theater of war.

These men and women possess an unwavering belief in the idea of America: no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who your parents are, this is a place where anything is possible. Our veterans continue to stand up for those timeless American ideals of liberty, self-determination, and equal opportunity.

On Veterans Day, we honor the heroes we have lost, and we rededicate ourselves to the next generation of veterans by supporting our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen as they return home from duty. Our grateful Nation must keep our solemn promises to these brave men and women and their families. They have given their unwavering devotion to the American people, and we must keep our covenant with them.

With respect for and in recognition of the contributions our servicemen and women have made to the cause of peace and freedom around the world, the Congress has provided (5 U.S.C. 6103(a)) that November 11 of each year shall be set aside as a legal public holiday to honor our Nation’s veterans.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim November 11, 2009, as Veterans Day. I encourage all Americans to recognize the valor and sacrifice of our veterans through appropriate public ceremonies and private prayers. I call upon Federal, State, and local officials to display the flag of the United States and to participate in patriotic activities in their communities. I call on all Americans, including civic and fraternal organizations, places of worship, schools, and communities to support this day with commemorative expressions and programs.

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

BARACK OBAMA

Weekly Address: "President Obama Says Recovery Act Creating Jobs and Strengthening Economy"

Saturday, October 31st, 2009

WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Barack Obama said that while times are still too difficult for too many American families, this week saw real evidence of progress in the economy.  On Thursday, we learned that in the third quarter the GDP grew for the first time in over a year, and grew faster than it has in the previous two years.  And on Friday, reports from across the country made it clear that Recovery Act has now created or saved over one million jobs.  The American people are still hurting, but these are signs that we are starting to move in the right direction.

The audio and video will be available at 6:00am Saturday, October 31, 2009 at www.whitehouse.gov.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
Weekly Address
Saturday, October 31, 2009

Each week, I’ve spoken with you about the challenges we face as a nation and the path we must take to meet them. And the truth is, over the past ten months, I’ve often had to report distressing news during what has been a difficult time for our country. But today, I am pleased to offer some better news that – while not cause for celebration – is certainly reason to believe that we are moving in the right direction.

On Thursday, we received a report on our Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. This is an important measure of our economy as a whole, one that tells us how much we are producing and how much businesses and families are earning. We learned that the economy grew for the first time in more than a year and faster than at any point in the previous two years. So while we have a long way to go before we return to prosperity, and there will undoubtedly be ups and downs along the road, it’s also true that we’ve come a long way. It is easy to forget that it was only several months ago that the economy was shrinking rapidly and many economists feared another Great Depression.

Now, economic growth is no substitute for job growth. And we will likely see further job losses in the coming days, a fact that is both troubling for our economy and heartbreaking for the men and women who suddenly find themselves out of work. But we will not create the jobs we need unless the economy is growing; that’s why this GDP report is a good sign. And we can see clearly now that the steps my administration is taking are making a difference, blunting the worst of this recession and helping to bring about its conclusion.

We’ve acted aggressively to jumpstart credit for families and businesses, including small businesses, which have seen an increase in lending of 73 percent. We’ve taken steps to stem the tide of foreclosures, modifying mortgages to help hundreds of thousands of responsible homeowners keep their homes and help millions more sustain the value in their homes. And the Recovery Act is spurring demand through a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, and through assistance for seniors and those who have lost jobs – which not only helps folks hardest hit by the downturn, but also encourages the consumer spending that will help turn the economy around.

Finally, the Recovery Act is saving and creating jobs all across the country. Just this week, we reached an important milestone. Based on reports coming in from across America – as shovels break ground, as needed public servants are rehired, and as factories whir to life – it is clear that the Recovery Act has now created and saved more than one million jobs. That’s more than a million people who might otherwise be out of work today – folks who can wake up each day knowing that they’ll be able to provide for themselves and their families.

We’ve saved jobs by closing state budget shortfalls to prevent the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of police officers, firefighters, and teachers who are today on the beat, on call, and in the classroom because of the Recovery Act. And we’ve also created hundreds of thousands of jobs through the largest investment in our roads since the building of the interstate highways, and through the largest investments in education, medical research, and clean energy in history.

These investments aren’t just helping us recover in the short term, they’re helping to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity in the long term – and they’re giving hardworking, middle-class Americans the chance to succeed and raise a family.  Because of the investments we’ve made and the steps we’ve taken, it’s easier for middle-class families to send their kids to college and get the training and skills they need to compete in a global economy.  We’re making it easier for these families to save for retirement.   And in areas like clean energy, we’re creating the jobs of the future – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.

In fact, just this week, I traveled to Arcadia, Florida to announce the largest set of clean energy projects through the Recovery Act so far: one hundred grants for businesses, utilities, manufacturers, cities and other partners across the country to put thousands of people to work modernizing our electric grid – the system that provides power to our homes and businesses – so that it wastes less energy, helps integrate renewables like wind and solar, and saves consumers money. And that’s just one example.

So, we have made progress. At the same time, I want to emphasize that there’s still plenty of progress to be made. For we know that positive news for the economy as a whole means little if you’ve lost your job and can’t find another, if you can’t afford health care or the mortgage, if you do not see in your own life the improvement we are seeing in these economic statistics. And positive news today does not mean there won’t be difficult days ahead. As I’ve said many times, it took years to dig our way into the crisis we’ve faced. It will take more than a few months to dig our way out. But make no mistake: that’s exactly what we will do.

For the economy we seek is one where folks who need a job can find one and incomes are rising again. The economy we seek is one where small businesses can flourish and entrepreneurs can get the capital they need to plant new seeds of growth. The economy we seek is one that’s no longer based on maxed out credits cards, wild speculation, and the old cycles of boom or bust – but rather one that’s built on a solid foundation, supporting growth that is strong, sustained, and broadly shared by middle class families across America.  That is what we are working toward every single day. And we will not stop until we get there.

Thank you. And Happy Halloween.
 

Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 2996 and S. 1929

Friday, October 30th, 2009

On Friday, October 30, 2009, the President signed into law:

H.R. 2996, the “Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division B is the further Continuing Resolution),” which provides FY 2010 appropriations for the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture), the Indian Health Service (Department of Health and Human Services), the Environmental Protection Agency, and various other agencies. Division B of this Act provides FY 2010 appropriations through December 18, 2009, for continuing projects and activities of the Federal Government currently provided under the first Continuing Resolution, Public Law 111-68; and

S. 1929, which extends authorizations of certain Small Business Administration programs until January 31, 2010.