in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 The Temperature Of Health Care Reform - Martha's Vineyard Press Briefing by Bill Burton 8/27/09 — Wednesday, September 02, 2009 —  Q Obviously lawmakers are not actively engaged in the debate over health care because they're out -- MR. BURTON: Can you speak just a little louder -- I can barely hear you. Q I said lawmakers have not been actively involved in the debate over health care reform since they're away from Washington. But has the President been able to test the temperature of health care reform? And if so, how does he view it? MR. BURTON: Well, I can say that this week Secretary Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle have been very busy working with both members of Congress, their staff, and different groups who have a stake in this. So the President's view is that we're continuing to make progress on health care reform. The American people are still foursquare behind making some progress on health care reform. He still believes that we'll be able to get a bipartisan bill through the House and the Senate. And that's the end that we're working towards. So I would say that the temperature right now is that the American people want and need health care reform, and the President is committed to getting that by the end of the year. Q What is his reaction when he hears news reports that health care reform has been derailed, or major roadblocks for health care reform? MR. BURTON: Well, health care reform is obviously a very difficult thing. Over the course of the last 60 years, a lot of different Presidents have tried to bring about comprehensive health care reform, and the reason that they haven't been able to get it done is that it's not just a series of easy and politically popular decisions. But we've been able to make more progress than has been made before by getting the doctors and the nurses and the hospitals on board; the AARP is supporting health care reform. It's been passed through four of the five committees that need to pass it out. Because costs have gotten to a point where if we don't do something not only is health care going to be in crisis, but the deficit will -- we just will not be on a fiscally sustainable path as it relates to the deficit. So the President's view is we've made a lot of progress already; we continue to make progress; we're going to be able to -- he's working towards getting a bipartisan result and he'll continue to work towards that end until we get health care reform for the American people. Bill Burton | Congress | Health Care | President Obama | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Bill Burton, Congress, Health Care, President Obama, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:16:00 PM  By Any Legislative Means Necessary - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/20/09 — Thursday, August 20, 2009 —  Q The spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that while they intent to -- their hope is that it will be a bipartisan health care reform effort, they will get health care reform accomplished "by any legislative means necessary." And I'm wondering if you could walk us through -- obviously people in the White House have been talking to each other, strategizing about different ways that this can be done. First of all, could you comment on today's Wall Street Journal story about the discussions about possibly splitting up the bill? But also, what are the thoughts -- obviously we all know that your intention is that it be a bipartisan bill, but beyond that what are you planning for?MR. GIBBS: I said this this morning. I have -- I read the story in the Journal. I've tried to get guidance from people. I have not been able to, largely because many people we get that from are on vacation. We'll try to get you better guidance on that in terms of splitting up bills. Q Jon, if you could give Robert the numbers? (Laughter.) Q That would be good. MR. GIBBS: I mean, Jonathan's story also had in there that the President was going to meet with advisors next week on this, and as I said in the gaggle this morning, unless that is a meeting that includes Marvin on a golf course, that's -- Q I did not say that. MR. GIBBS: Can somebody go get me the newspaper Q That was not supposed to be on the budget. That was just supposed to be on the -- MR. GIBBS: Maybe Jonathan could clear it up for both of us. (Laughter.) Q Are you going to take questions? (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Sounds like he needs to. (Laughter.) No, let me discuss a little bit -- obviously, our focus, as I said yesterday, is on continuing this process in a bipartisan fashion. You heard the President say that again today. He's reached out and spoken with members of Congress, including members of the Finance Committee over the past several days. Q Republican members of Congress? MR. GIBBS: Yes. He talked with Senator Olympia Snowe yesterday, talked with Senator Conrad yesterday, and, as we've discussed, talked with Senator Baucus on Friday. That's our focus, is continuing to work this in a bipartisan way. I know the six senators on the Finance Committee have a conference call slated, according I think even to Jonathan's report and others, that -- have a conference call on that tonight. Q Does the White House have a presence on that conference call? MR. GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of, no. I think this is part of the regular negotiating sessions that they've had that we have not taken part in. I am trying to get the extent to which conversations have been had here looking into what possibilities are next. I talked to the President briefly about it, and all he said was our focus was on doing something in a bipartisan way. Q Do you agree with what Jim Manley said about by any legislative means necessary -- obviously, bipartisan being the hope and the priority, but you're going to get this done? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has said on a number of occasions that -- excellent, thank you. (Laughter.) Q Wow. Q What is that? MR. GIBBS: That's one, yes. You don't recognize a newspaper, Chuck? (Laughter.) And all he did was mention to me that our focus was on doing so in a bipartisan way. I think he'll continue even when he's out next week to talk to members of Congress, including additional members of the Finance Committee, including Republicans. Q He also said they -- Republicans conspired during the Clinton administration to defeat any health legislation. He indicated they might be doing the same. What do you think is going to break through that? And why do you need them? MR. GIBBS: Well, as I said yesterday, we take people seriously that say they're working and want to work on a bipartisan result for health care reform. I don't think the President is under any illusions that he's going to get every Republican to sign up for his ideas. The HELP Committee approved a piece of legislation with nearly 200 Republican amendments that had been added to it. I think he continues to be hopeful that we can continue to make progress, and until we see otherwise, that's what our focus is. Q Even if all the Republicans are against it? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, we take at face value that people have -- that Republicans that you read about in the newspaper are interested in working on a bipartisan solution to reform the problems that we all understand in health care. Bipartisanship | Congress | Health Care | Legislation | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Congress, Health Care, Legislation, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:53:00 PM A Tendency To Keep The Final Score - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 7/15/09 — Thursday, July 16, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Follow-up, Mara?Q Just a question on health care, and then also about tomorrow. Today the President said something that was a little confusing. He said that the 160 Republican amendments that were adopted in the HELP committee bill was a hopeful sign of bipartisan support for the final product. The final bill got zero Republican votes. Why is that a hopeful sign? I mean, there's not a single Republican who voted for the HELP bill. MR. GIBBS: Well, but, how many -- I wish I knew how many times I've been asked to -- the number of times that Republican ideas were ultimately incorporated in a legislative vehicle that's moving its way through the process -- 160 would be the answer today. Q And they were incorporated in the stimulus, too, and it didn't get you any final votes. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm happy that you acknowledge the efforts in the stimulus -- Q I'm just wondering why it makes him hopeful. MR. GIBBS: Well, Mara, this is a process. I mean, again, I know that there's a tendency to keep the final score at the -- even, hell, in the midpoint of every day; let's not wait until the end. Let's wait and see what the final product is before we declare that all of the good work of many people is dead. I think the President is encouraged that a process is working; 160 amendments that encompass the ideas of Republicans are now part of a piece of legislation that's making its way through Congress. Q And on one idea that I think you were open to, the idea of taxing sugary soft drinks -- that's one of the ideas that he's open to, is that correct? MR. GIBBS: Again, I don't think we've -- I drank a Diet Coke earlier, I didn't put a deposit down, so maybe that wouldn't count. Again, I think we're watching this process. Q So you haven't made an opinion on that? I'm just wondering how that squares with the pledge -- the promise that he restated on Monday not to raise taxes on people under $250,000 -- because that certainly would. MR. GIBBS: Well, maybe that's why we didn't have him come out foursquare for that. Q All right, thank you. That's actually helpful. (Laughter.) Can you just talk a little bit about -- MR. GIBBS: I'm glad for the minute-by-minute update on my utility at the podium. (Laughter.) Bipartisanship | Congress | Health Care | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Congress, Health Care, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:01:00 PM The Details Are Less Important - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/25/09 — Sunday, June 28, 2009 — MR. GIBBS: Let me go to Laura real fast. Yes. Q On the energy bill, what is the President or the White House's view on this provision that's come up regarding punishing imports from China and other countries that do not have similar controls on their carbon emissions? And sort of as a corollary to that, how important are the details of this actual bill right now, or is it more important just to get sort of anything out of the House? MR. GIBBS: Well, I've seen very little -- something but not in any detailed way, and we can look through something relating to I think some of these Ways and Means provisions. Again, I haven't -- I have not focused in on that. I think in terms of your larger picture, look, obviously getting something through -- onto the floor and through the House would constitute I think a big step towards progress and create momentum that it's possible to get this done. I think we are at a time and a place where, as the President said today, those that can deny that the planet is getting warmer -- we're past, in many ways, that debate. We have an opportunity to create millions of clean energy jobs. We have an opportunity to further lessen our dependence on foreign oil. And all of that together represents -- would represent a big step forward, and I think the President believes that that would be an important facet of getting something ultimately to his desk that he can sign. Q So, really, the details are less important than just moving the process forward? MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean -- I think obviously the fundamental details are important. I think moving the bill forward is tremendously important. And I think this is the first of quite a few steps, and I would assume that some of those details will be debated even -- will be debated further as this goes to the other side of the Hill and then ultimately when both bodies iron out whatever differences exist. Congress | Global Warming | Legislation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taxes | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Global Warming, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:34:00 AM Unnecessarily Personal And Accusatory - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/17/09 — Thursday, June 18, 2009 —  Q Okay, and just one other question. Senator Claire McCaskill yesterday expressed concern about the way in which President Obama fired the Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service, saying that it did not abide by the law that McCaskill wrote and President Obama, as a senator, co-sponsored, in terms of giving Congress 30 days notice.Do you think that the White House handled the firing of Inspector General Walpin appropriately and according to that law? And if so, why is the author of the law incorrect? MR. GIBBS: Well, I would direct you, Jake, to the letter that Senator McCaskill received last night addressed to Senators Lieberman and Collins, which outline exactly the reasoning for the board's -- the bipartisan board's request to change Inspector Generals. Q Right, I've seen the letter. The law that McCaskill wrote -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not familiar with that part of what she's saying. But again, I'd point you to the letter. Q Okay, well, the law says that the President needs to give 30 days notice to Congress before an Inspector General is terminated. So that letter came, whatever, five or six days after he was terminated. MR. GIBBS: Again, I'll check into that. I mean, again, the board's action was precipitated by a meeting that happened on May the 20th. [...] MR. GIBBS: Major. Q Robert, just to follow up on Jake, was the White House unaware that it needed to inform Congress 30 days in advance about Mr. Walpin's intended firing? MR. GIBBS: I need to look at what Ms. McCaskill said regarding that. I just don't have that with me. Q But it's -- number one, it's the law of the land, and number two, Senator Obama voted for it. I'm just wondering if the White House was aware of that -- regardless of what Senator McCaskill said. MR. GIBBS: Well, since the question came based on what Senator McCaskill said -- and I haven't seen that part of it -- let me, as I just stated twice, check on that. Q Okay. The letter that was sent out last night was regarded by Mr. Walpin as "a total lie." And -- that's what he told us -- and he said it was unnecessarily personal and accusatory. And I wonder if you felt there was anything the White House wanted to say about that letter and the contents thereof in response to that? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think this was -- let me read the first sentence of the second paragraph. "Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bipartisan board of the Corporation." These were views that were held by many people as part of that board, and certainly the administration stands behind what's in the letter. Q Following up on that, why not leave it at that and why did the White House feel it necessary to say he was disoriented and confused? MR. GIBBS: Well, I have occasion to watch FOX every now and again, and I think there have been commentators that surmised that maybe we needed to be more specific about the reasons. I think members of Congress have asked for that, and I think it's detailed in the letter. Congress | Inspectors General | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Inspectors General, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:18:00 AM Quagmire! - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/1/09 — Tuesday, June 02, 2009 —  Q Thank you, Robert. Leader Boehner said the administration has got to release an exit strategy for General Motors. Does the President have an exit strategy? And I know he described these principles that he's going to follow during restructuring, but is there a timeline for Washington to get out of Detroit for good?MR. GIBBS: Well, Phil, as you know, the President has made a series of difficult decisions that lead us to the point where we are now. And as he has said on many occasions, he doesn't desire to hold a significant share of, or run on a day-to-day basis, an auto company. But he does believe that the investment that we're making -- structured in what is in the best interests of taxpayers, and it -- we'll get out of this equity as quickly as possible in order to protect the investment that taxpayers have made. I don't know that there's a specific timeline. But, Phil, let me broaden a little bit, because -- and I did this a little on Friday, but you basically have several different pathways here. On one side you have a bankruptcy that largely would have resulted in a liquidation -- probably 60,000, 70,000 direct jobs lost, not including suppliers or things like that -- obviously would have had a dramatic economic devastation in the Midwest region and throughout the country. I think another side of this was simply to continue pouring money into a company that you knew wasn't acting in any viable way. The President decided on a different path that I think made some real concessions in restructuring the company. You'll have a company after about a 60- or 90-day bankruptcy that will emerge without a balance sheet loaded down with debt; a restructured company that the task force and the President believe can be profitable in a scenario that sells far fewer cars than what it would take to break even at this point. So the President is certainly anxious to get out of this business, but at the same time he made a series of tough decisions to stave off something that I think would have been far more economically devastating. Q But there is no exit strategy? MR. GIBBS: Well, no, no, no -- I don't -- Q Do you want to -- MR. GIBBS: Well, maybe I should -- I can start all over again. There is an exit strategy -- it's to get this company viable; it's to get the economy strengthened so that GM is producing cars that people want to buy; that Americans have the income to buy those cars; to do so in a restructured way that allows them to be profitable more quickly; and then in order to protect the investment that taxpayers have made, we get out of any involvement in the company -- that's the exit plan. Yes, ma'am. Q Robert, I wanted to zero in on the President's pledge to be hands-off when it comes to the day-to-day management of the company. And you said the same thing from the podium, but a lot of people are very skeptical that Washington will really be able to resist the temptation to be hands-off. There's a lot of decisions that will come up that are politically sensitive, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, such as which plants are going to close -- those types of things. MR. GIBBS: Well, a lot of those decisions are being made right now. Those decisions are being made by the companies. The dealership structure -- those are decisions that are being made by the companies. Q But down the road there may be other decisions that have to be made -- dealerships and plants and things like that -- MR. GIBBS: Let me interrupt you for a second. I don't think many people ever thought that we could get to this point of restructuring, in all honesty. I think if you take a look at what was set up by some in Congress in November and December when the very first discussions were going on about bridge loans to cover the operating costs for fixed period of time while GM made some restructuring -- I think if you look at some of the standards that were laid out, the Auto Task Force has far exceeded what anybody thought was possible in restructuring. This is a company that will emerge from bankruptcy in 60 to 90 days with no debt, whereas people were saying, well, it would be nice to have -- if we could get to some place that reduced the debt by maybe half. You've got a company that has, I think, a real chance to emerge viable based on some of the tough decisions that have been required. And I think a lot of those decisions have been made without politics in mind. Q But if lawmakers decide they do want to interfere with decisions such as the mix of vehicles and things like that, you can't prevent them from passing a law. What are the safeguards? MR. GIBBS: I think you're now into a little bit of a different question. What if Congress acts to -- Q No, the question is about interference and meddling the day-to-day operations. MR. GIBBS: But let me make sure that I understand your question. Are you talking about if Congress does that or -- Q If Congress does that, as well as if Congress asks you to do it. MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think it would be unhelpful to get into a hypothetical on what we would do based on a bill that Congress might pass asking us to do something. I think that's a few too many leaps for me to go into. I can simply say that we will work on core governance issues. I think one of the ways to get to a viable company as quickly as possible is working on a board of directors, and a serious and stable management structure that moves this company quickly through bankruptcy and quickly to viability. I think those are the type of core issues that are important as we protect the investment of taxpayers while at the same time, as the President has said, as the task force has said, and lastly as I have said, not involved in the meddling decisions on a day-to-day basis. That's never been and isn't our desire. Q Just to probe a little further on the White House, on the administration's -- how much you're going to be involved in the day-to-day operations of the company -- if General Motors wants to manufacture a car that your Auto Task Force -- whether it's Rattner, Deese, or whoever -- thinks is not going to be a car that's going to sell very well, are you going to stop General Motors from manufacturing that car? MR. GIBBS: Jake, we don't make those determinations. Those aren't -- Brian Deese isn't picking out Chevy Malibu's colors for next year. Q I'm not talking about the color for next year. You said that the point is -- that the exit strategy to make the company about viable for the GM is making cars that people want to buy. So are you going to be involved in -- MR. GIBBS: No, we will be involved in corporate governance decisions such as setting up a board of directors that is going to make those business decisions based on how to get the company the profitability. That's what each company -- that's what the board of directors and the CEOs and the managers and the workers of every company we want to be involved in is a viable, strong, profitable company. Look, now, I don't want to confuse this, so obviously Congress and the executive branch are involved in -- have always been involved in some decisions. And again, I'm not -- I don't want to co-mingle these issues, but I am separating to some degree -- two years ago, Congress set fuel mileage standards that go through model 2016, okay. Those have been established. I've seen reports that said, well, you know, we may -- the Auto Task Force may decide that it's time to build these tiny little cars that go 40 miles an hour, blah, blah, blah. Congress has always exercised its purview to set, for instance, corporate average fuel economy standards. That's, I know, not what you're talking about, but I am sort of separating some of those issues so that we're not in the midst of confusing them. Q Right. I guess my point is, Fritz Henderson said today that the standard is going to be that they're going to try to build, for their new lines of cars and trucks, ones that are outstanding that people want to buy -- which came as a surprise to me that this was some new idea for an auto manufacturer, the idea that they would try to come up with something that consumers actually would like to purchase. What reason do you have for confidence that United Automakers, the people who have been running these companies, are going to be able to come up with something that Americans are going to want to buy, and therefore, this $30 billion to $50 billion investment is going to pay off? MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think you have seen over the course of several years an auto industry that has seen, regardless of economic conditions, a fairly dramatic decrease in its auto sales, not the least of which is because some of -- you know, you've seen the reports -- Q Yes, and they kept on making Hummers and they kept on making junky cars that nobody wanted to buy. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think part of the restructuring ultimately is that the Auto Task Force forced some decisions that I think in many ways some of these companies had been putting off for years. The auto companies have dropped brands. We've all seen that -- whereas some people -- different companies are marketing only a few different models and using a fixed number of advertising dollars to push them, whereas some of the American auto companies have had 10 or 12 different models. You've seen different companies that have the same car -- literally the same car under different names and several different manufacturers, which hasn’t made a lot of sense. Obviously I think, again, one of the things that's been done is there is a fundamental -- Q You're proving my point. You're proving my point. It's not like Fritz Henderson just walked in from another company. I mean, what makes you think that this investment is going to pay off? Just because they've learned a lesson now? MR. GIBBS: I think in many ways their previous business model had been very locked in. I think you've all seen the reports today of the serious amount of debt that GM was carrying, right? When you're losing that kind of money, it's hard to undergo some fundamental restructuring without making some very fundamental decisions. I think it's pretty clear that the companies have, in many instances, decided that they've got to produce different cars; some of those are coming on in later model years. There are things like the Chevy Volt that I think people believe, based on the high price of gas, based on consciousness about our dependence on foreign oil, can create different markets. But I think that fundamentally what has happened is a company is free now to make fundamentally different decisions. Yes, sir. Q Robert, have you defined the criteria for the board of directors? MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of, but I can check on that. I don't know if there's been a strict delineation. Q But, I mean, sort of overriding principles for these people, because they will key. MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think you want a group of people that have been very successful in the businesses that they've run; that have some experience in running companies and understand what it means to undergo fundamental restructuring; to operate in a whole different world. Again, if you look at -- I used this analogy last week -- you're going to have to make fundamental different decisions. Thirty years ago this was a company that employed probably 10 times the number of workers that it does right now. Obviously, there's a mind-set change that has to go on, and I think that's what they'll look for in a board of directors. Q Do you think they have to come from the auto industry, per se? MR. GIBBS: Well, no I don't. I don't think that's necessary, no. I think that having people that understand how to run a good business means running a good business regardless of what you're doing. Auto Task Force | Automobile Industry | Congress | General Motors | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Auto Task Force, Automobile Industry, Congress, General Motors, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:46:00 PM A Vote Of No Confidence - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/19/09 — Wednesday, May 20, 2009 —  Q Robert, back on Guantanamo. Are you saying that you have a plan that will satisfy the concerns of Congress and that -- but that hasn't been shared with them yet? The President has a plan --MR. GIBBS: I don't remember that -- I appreciate that, but I don't remember making any remark like that. Q So do you believe that the plan that the President will outline or discuss on Thursday will be enough to satisfy the concerns of lawmakers, such that they will put the money back in the bill? MR. GIBBS: Well, let me try to say what I said earlier. The President and Congress will work together on a timeline for a renewed request for whatever resources are needed. The President still believes it in our national interest to close Guantanamo Bay; that's why he signed the executive order. And Thursday he'll outline his thoughts on detainee and detention issues, as well as the other issues like photos and memos that I talked about earlier. Q The main concern on the Hill seems to be that detainees will be released from Guantanamo either inside the United States or will be even held in prisons inside the United States, which some find objectionable, or that they'll be sent to other countries and released there. So will the President address these concerns in his speech on Thursday? MR. GIBBS: Yes. Yes. Q And does he have some plan that -- for doing something else with these detainees, other than -- MR. GIBBS: Well, let's not get -- I'm not going to give the President's Thursday speech here on Tuesday. Q You'd probably do a good job of it. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not quite as tall. But I think the President will outline in greater detail his thoughts and thinking on this. He'll outline the reasoning of why he strongly believes, and many in both parties believe, that closing Guantanamo Bay is in our best national security and foreign policy interest. And he will go through a number of the decisions related to that and other issues that we've discussed in the last few weeks that all relate to it. Q Isn't this, though, kind of a vote of no confidence, this withholding of the money that he has asked for? MR. GIBBS: No, I don't agree with that at all. Congress | Guantanamo | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:37:00 PM The Pakistanis Are Nervous - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/5/09 — Tuesday, May 05, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Helen.Q Does the President have congressional approval to send thousands of troops to Afghanistan? And what does he mean that extremists are a direct and general threat to us? Can you explain that? MR. GIBBS: Sure. I presume that the authorization for increased troop activity in Afghanistan goes back to 2000 -- I don't know exactly when the vote was, late 2001. I think the President outlined a strategy to deal with this region and to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan, understanding that al Qaeda and its extremist allies operated in these two countries. I think it is clear from their actions that they pose a threat not only to those countries, but also to the United States. And I think we saw that -- Q Are they a threat because we're there intervening in their civil war? Or are they going to come here? MR. GIBBS: I think it was pretty apparent the threat that they posed and the destruction that they ultimately caused in 2001, and that the President will take action to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies. Q Robert, what is the President going to do to reassure Zardari in Pakistan when he comes here tomorrow that this growing opposition on Capitol Hill or sort of reticence opposition on the Hill is from reticence about providing aid to the country -- how is he going to reassure him that he can guarantee the money, that the money is going to come, that Congress will be able to get this done? MR. GIBBS: Flesh out for me the reticence a bit. Q I guess that it seemed to be -- Chairman Obey today saying that he -- on sort of a stricter basis, he's not going to have an -- sort of an unfunded aspect to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And there's clearly -- the Pakistanis are nervous that they're not going to get the same amount of aid that they've seen in the past. MR. GIBBS: Well, a couple different things. Understand that nobody is more impatient in seeing progress on a strategy to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan than the President of the United States. He has talked about this for several years. These meetings over the course of the next couple of days make good on the promise of being engaged in this region actively. As I said to Helen, there is a shared threat from al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and the best way to confront that threat is through an alliance and cooperation with both of those countries. Q You say al Qaeda, but then is it the Taliban, or do you call al Qaeda -- the Taliban one of al Qaeda's allies in this case? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'd say al Qaeda's -- I think I said al Qaeda and its extremist allies. Obviously that denotes al Qaeda, and in specific instances, the Taliban. Q Who Pakistan is, at one hand, at war with; on the other hand, negotiating with. MR. GIBBS: I think they can speak to the danger of doing that. Q Well, I understand it, but I guess, going back to the funding -- MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- back to your funding, I mean, understand that we organized -- helped organized a donors conference in Japan that brought forward $5 billion worth of assistance to help with this problem in Pakistan. But, Chuck, as I said here yesterday, and I think the President has said on numerous occasions, there shouldn't be and there won't be blank checks; that the President supports the building in of accountability measures to ensure that we're making progress and that if progress isn't made that we'll readjust our strategy. He said that in ordering and conducting the review of our strategy in this region, and in the delivery of that review just a little while ago. Q Disengagement could be a possibility here? That seems to be what some on Capitol Hill are saying -- hey, if progress can't be seen in a year, then why should we keep throwing more money at it; in fact, we should back off. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has made clear the priority in ensuring that we're addressing this extremist threat. Nobody is more impatient than the President in seeing that succeed as quickly as possible, and if, for whatever reason, parts of, or aspects of the strategy aren't succeeding as well as we'd like, then those will be changed in order to succeed. But again, Chuck, we have a threat, the Pakistanis and the Afghanis have a threat that has to be addressed and that's what the President intends to do. Afghanistan | Al Qaeda | Congress | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taliban | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Congress, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taliban, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:05:00 PM Lowering Corporate Taxes By Raising Them - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/4/09 — Monday, May 04, 2009 —  Q When the President had a Q&A session with the Business Roundtable, this idea, the tax proposals he's introduced today, came up. And one of the questioners said, Mr. President, would you consider, as you evaluate this policy, reducing corporate income tax rates -- because there is an economic argument that one of the reasons these tax havens flourish is to avoid higher corporate income tax rates around the globe, particularly in the U.S. The President said he would take it under consideration. It's not here today. Can we therefore assume we're not going to see any proposals from this White House on lowering corporate income tax rates anytime soon?MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what the President has laid out here would lower corporate taxes because for 10 years we are instituting certainty in the research and development tax credit. Businesses will pay less taxes by taking advantage of that. But as I said a minute ago, the President believes this is a down payment on tax reform and I think the President would be -- I think the reason the President said he would take that under advisement is the President believes that closing loopholes and using that to bring down the corporate tax rate is exactly what he has in mind. But what that requires is a closing of the loopholes and the tax havens that you talk about that companies are taking advantage of to put money elsewhere to avoid paying taxes here. Q Chairman Baucus said that this needs further study to assess the impact on the plan -- of the plan on U.S. businesses. Mitch McConnell said, I can't endorse a plan that gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies and the 52 million people they employ. At least at this level of bipartisanship, there appears to be some more that Congress would like to learn about this than it presently knows. How do you answer that? MR. GIBBS: Well, we are fortunate that Congress has to the power to call hearings and investigate the topic, but we're happy to have a long discussion about the fairness of tax havens and tax loopholes that let companies avoid paying the taxes -- taxes like you and I pay each day -- and instead reward companies that are investing right here and creating jobs in America. Congress | Legislation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taxes | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:46:00 PM Grading On A Curve - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/28/09 — Wednesday, April 29, 2009 —  Q At the 100-days mark, what kind of a grade would you give the President on bipartisanship? Certainly his idea of bipartisanship isn't to have people change parties. How would you grade him on working with --MR. GIBBS: Well, but I don't think we're sending anybody back, if that's your -- (laughter.) Look, I think on each and every issue the President has reached out to members of the other party. Q And how has he done MR. GIBBS: I think he has -- I think at every turn he's asked for their help and their support and asked for their ideas. On some issues we've seen big bipartisan votes; on others we've seen more partisan votes. I said here yesterday I'd let the Republicans delineate for you the thinking behind their strategy of the first 100 days. I think if you look at both what the President and the team have achieved in the first almost hundred days it's something we're proud of, understanding that there's a lot of work going forward and that -- my sense is that whatever hundred-day mark we're at, 100, 200, 300, or so forth, that the next hundred days will be equally or more important than the previous. The President takes the long view on all this, as he did during the campaign. He thinks the American people are focused on what our efforts are doing to produce jobs and stabilize the economy, not just on the 99th, or 101st, or 100th day, but each and every day. Q Is he dissatisfied with his achievement on bipartisan so far? MR. GIBBS: No, I think he'll continue to work on it. I think he'll continue to have members of Congress down here to discuss the issues. I think he'll continue to reach out to the bipartisan leadership and see how we can work together to move things forward. I will tell you, Ann, our goal is to get First Lady-type approval numbers. (Laughter.) Bipartisanship | Congress | Legislation | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Congress, Legislation, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:58:00 PM A Billion Dollars An Hour - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/11/09 — Thursday, March 12, 2009 —  Q Robert, following on what Jennifer was saying about gentle rhetoric from the President today, when you mentioned that Congress didn't get nine of the 13 appropriations bills done, that's something the Democratic Congress -- his fellow Democrats failed to get those bills done last year. Now Mitch McConnell today, the Republican Leader, was saying that when you add up the $787 billion stimulus, you add on the $410 billion the President is about to sign for omnibus, that's a billion dollars an hour in 50 -- 51 days. When the American people look at that, is that really change to the way Washington is working?MR. GIBBS: Well, I probably shouldn't engage an individual Senator who ran Congress for a number of years where deficits set records, and I won't do something like that today. I mean, I -- (laughter.) Q Tomorrow maybe? MR. GIBBS: Or later in this briefing. (Laughter.) Q But the President is signing these now. Regardless of what Mitch McConnell did before, the President is signing -- MR. GIBBS: Well, but hold on, let's not -- I'm asked about the debt every day. That's not exactly -- let's not exactly put aside -- Q That's last year's business, right? MR. GIBBS: No, I -- well, according to some in the Senate, it was last hour's business. The President has proposed a return to fiscal sanity, and a path towards fiscal responsibility. Look, here's what I would say -- I'll break my campaign promise and engage the Senator from Kentucky, and any senator or representative in Congress. They're -- it is certainly within one's right to criticize the budget. That's -- we get that. I think the best way for him to put forward a budget that we can look at and debate and see whether there's honest accounting -- whether we take into account natural disasters, paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the possibility of continued financial stability, investments in health care, education, and energy independence -- I think the best way to do that is for Senator McConnell, and anybody else, to put forward a budget plan that does those things and puts ourselves on a path towards fiscal responsibility. I think that's the best way to have the debate joined. It's an important debate that we're having, and I think it's important that, as Mr. Buffett said, we work constructively together to try to solve our economic challenges. But that's all part of the process. Q Why did the President apply a different standard of "this is last year's business" for this legislation, when in things like TARP, when he was President-elect, he reached out to then-President Bush and said, look, we need to authorize the other $350 billion -- even though TARP was last October, it was clearly last year's business -- MR. GIBBS: Well, no, no. let's be fair, Ed. Q I am being fair. MR. GIBBS: Okay, well, let's understand -- how does the next $350 billion get triggered? Q It's triggered by the President -- MR. GIBBS: No, it gets triggered by the Senate. The Senate had to -- I'm sorry, one House of the Congress had to basically authorize the re-spending of that money. So that was something that was put in by last Congress -- at our request certainly -- I mean this -- but it's not a -- trust me, having listened to some of those phone calls, it wasn't a one-sided deal. Triggering an additional amount of money in order to be spent in the current -- isn't last year's business. Q There are a whole host of things like that, that President Bush -- you've said you inherited from President Bush, but you're not running away from them -- like Iraq timetable. The President followed through on that, said -- MR. GIBBS: I'm glad to see you -- Q Okay, the question is, on this piece of legislation, the President used the principle: This is last year's business. So even though it's got all kinds of things I don't like, I'm going to sign it anyway. Okay? There are a whole bunch of other things he got from President Bush that he doesn't like either. And he's going to change -- President Bush didn't want to have a timetable in Iraq, but President Obama came in and said, we're going to put that timetable -- I campaigned on that. Well, he campaigned on earmarks, as well, pulling them out of these bills. Where is the consistency? MR. GIBBS: I'm having a lot of trouble connecting the dots in your -- I mean, I suppose the President could have come in and assumed that people weren't in Iraq, but I don't understand your analogy. Q You're saying this legislation is last year's business, but he's signing it into law this year. He could have vetoed it. Why wouldn't he veto it? MR. GIBBS: Let me give you last -- let me give you yesterday's answer. The President believes that, despite protestations, that appropriations bills designed to be completed before September 30th of the previous year are last year's business. I think any reasonable look at the appropriations process would understand that. The President believes that, moving forward, dozens and dozens of appropriations bills will cross his desk because he's asked, first and foremost, that Congress not lump large bills together. And to be fair, that's done virtually every year; six to nine of these appropriations bills get glommed on at the very end or go into overtime in order to do that -- that changing the rules going forward were important because the President is best able to have an impact on that legislation moving forward. That's what the President enumerated through transparency and a full set of earmark reforms that -- I bet when we look back on a year or two from now we'll see a decrease in the number of spending projects, just as the President has asked that we put ourselves back on a path toward fiscal responsibility through a budget that will cut the deficit in half in just four years. Congress | Legislation | Obama Administration | Pork | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | TARP | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Obama Administration, Pork, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, TARP, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:50:00 PM Let Them Eat Pork - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/10/09 — Tuesday, March 10, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Mark.Q Robert, is it still the President's intention to sign the omnibus bill when it reaches his desk? MR. GIBBS: It is. Q He has no second thoughts about it? MR. GIBBS: No. Q Does he believe that everything in that bill is essential spending, considering the over $1.5 trillion deficit he's projecting for this year? MR. GIBBS: Mark, I dare say that -- I bet many Presidents have signed bills that may not meet a hundred percent of their desires. As I've said before, this is -- we're finishing the appropriations process that is generally concluded before the fiscal year starts on October -- this would be October 1, 2008. This stuff should have been done before Senator Barack Obama became President-elect Barack Obama, and certainly before he became President Obama. That having been said -- and I've said this from up here and I think it is safe to assume that tomorrow we'll have more on our concern for the appropriations and the spending process moving forward -- because though this represents one bill and several different appropriations bills, over the course of the President's tenure in Washington, dozens of those bills will come to his desk and that there will be some new rules of the road. Q Are you saying the bill contains more spending than he thinks is necessary or warranted? MR. GIBBS: Again, I have not and I think it's reasonable to assume that the President has not gone through each and every item in the legislation. This is necessary to continue funding government. It represents last year's business. Although it's not perfect, the President will sign the legislation, but demonstrate for all involved rules moving forward that he thinks can make this process work a little bit better. Q Is it going to be a public event? MR. GIBBS: I don't know. The President signs -- certainly some events that he signs things on are public, and some of them are not. Q These are the rules of the road? MR. GIBBS: Yes. Congress | Legislation | Pork | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Pork, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:50:00 PM Take the Bull by the Tail and Face the Situation - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/4/09 — Thursday, March 05, 2009 — Q Secretary Vilsack, just moments ago, spoke about saving $18 million in savings on modernizing financial systems, $400,000 by canceling a consulting contract. And he spoke very movingly about everybody is tightening their belts in this nature and, therefore, the government needs to do so. You probably know where I'm heading with this. The President is going to sign a bill, the spending bill, which contains $8 billion in earmarks. Democrats in the Senate are now calling for the President to, if not make an effort to have it stripped in the Senate, to veto the bill. Evan Bayh has an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal today. I don't fully understand this argument that this is -- we're moving forward. This bill hasn't even come to the President's desk yet. If you guys are really serious, why not take the bull by the horns and get this stuff out of the omnibus spending bill? MR. GIBBS: Well, let me try again, what we've talked about before. This is the culmination of the legislative business from the previous fiscal year and the previous Congress. The President is greatly concerned, and I think that shows in the efforts that he's taken to illuminate through transparency and accountability wasteful spending and earmarks in legislation. That's why he put his on the Internet. That's why he hasn't asked for any in the past few years. The President believes that we can work with Congress to reduce wasteful spending in the future. Q Why not now? MR. GIBBS: Well, we are -- Q This isn't a legislation -- I guess -- you make it sound as if the legislation is written and it's just waiting for him to sign, and it's not. It's being worked on right now on Capitol Hill. It's in the progress of being assembled. So it's not that he comes to office and this is outstanding business. MR. GIBBS: Well -- well, it is outstanding business in the sense that typically appropriations bills are done before half the fiscal year is over. Q Right, but it's not too late to, like, tell Harry Reid, if you send this to me with this $8 billion --- MR. GIBBS: I think as I said before, Jake, that the President will lay out some very clear objectives on how we move forward. There will be, over the course of the next several years, dozens and dozens of appropriations bills that cross his desk. And we'll change the rules going forward, understanding that we have to deal with last year's business. Congress | Economy | Legislation | Obama Administration | Pork | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Economy, Legislation, Obama Administration, Pork, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:50:00 PM Pork for All My Friends - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 3/2/09 — Wednesday, March 04, 2009 —  Q A quick follow on the omnibus. Last week it was pointed out that a couple of Cabinet secretaries, LaHood and Mrs. Solis, have earmarks in this omnibus from last year, leftover funding. Now it's also been learned that Vice President Biden has -- I think it's $750,000 for the University of Delaware satellite station, and Rahm Emanuel $900,000 for the Chicago Planetarium.Since the President talked so much about earmarks in the campaign, and as President, about keeping them out of the stimulus -- I know this is leftover business from last year -- but as something that he is either going to sign or veto, why not have earmarks that come from his administration essentially at least taken out to set -- send a signal, number one? And number two, is he -- is there any chance he'll veto this bill and send it back and say, get these earmarks out; there's over 9,000 of them? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you saw remarks this weekend by the chief of staff and the budget director about the legislation. Obviously the President is concerned, despite the progress that has been made in this town, about the size and the scope of earmarks that we've seen over the past few years. I think even the most cynical among us would have to at least acknowledge that the number of overall earmarks has been cut. I think it's important to recognize that a piece of legislation probably twice the size of the piece of legislation that you're asking me about was passed through Congress at the President's direction without earmarks. This is the finishing up of last year's appropriations legislation. And I think what's most important and what the President would tell you is important here is that though he doesn't control everything that happened before he became President of the United States, that dozens and dozens and dozens of appropriations bills will go through Congress and come to his desk over the course of the next four years. And -- Q But this incremental reform you're talking -- MR. GIBBS: Hold on. Well, hold on. The President you will see and hear outline a process of dealing with this problem in a different way, and that the rules of the road going forward for those many appropriations bills that will go through Congress and come to his desk will be done differently. Q So he'll have a new standard that he's going to lay out for the appropriations bills that will come to his desk that are actually written while he's President? MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir. Q And when is this? MR. GIBBS: Soon. Congress | Legislation | Pork | President Obama | Press Briefing | Rahm Emanuel | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Pork, President Obama, Press Briefing, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:51:00 AM Because Democrats and Republicans Worked Together (Laughter) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/13/09 — Wednesday, February 18, 2009 —  Q Can I follow up one thought, or try Jennifer's question one more time --MR. GIBBS: Sure. It's allowed. (Laughter.) Q -- looking forward on the Gregg nomination. What can you do differently to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Does it -- does the White House Counsel's Office need to be more deeply involved? Do they need to ask more questions? I mean, you know, the -- MR. GIBBS: Well, I just -- I'm not entirely sure. You guys ask questions for a living. What might we pose that -- Q Yes, that would be an excellent idea. Get us involved. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: "Are you likely within a seven-day period to come to a different conclusion than the one which you're giving the President?" (Laughter.) You know, I don't -- Q Well, most of us thought he might. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I mean, I don't know -- I don't know, maybe -- Q "Are you aware the President is a Democrat?" (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: You know, the ten best questions I'll certainly get from you all over e-mail, I'll pass on to the Counsel's Office to expand our process. You know, again, I think that -- you know, like I said, it's hard to generalize over individual instances. You know, I mean, there's been a lot of discussion about, even in today's papers, about what does this mean for bipartisanship; is bipartisanship dead; isn't it just futile or silly for the President to reach out to the other side of the aisle? You know, it all seems somewhat silly to me, the arguments. I think if you look at the four -- the almost four weeks of this administration, and even a little bit beforehand because the President had to be -- was involved in talking to senators, including working with Senator Gregg on approving the money for -- the additional $350 billion for financial stability. That was done with Democrats and Republicans. The legislation the President signed to ensure that if a woman works in a factory all her life and is paid less than a man, that that won't stand in a court of law in this country. And that was done with Democrats and Republicans working together, and the President's signature. The expansion of children's health insurance, a very successful program that will now cover an additional 4 million people, was done with bipartisan support, and the President's signature. And I think when the dust finally settles today, whatever time that is, I think you'll see an economic recovery plan that moves forward because Democrats and Republicans worked together in order to get it to the President's desk -- something, as I've said, he'll sign quickly. And then we'll look forward and continue to reach out to Republicans in a way that moves an agenda forward that works best for the American people. The President is not going to -- the President is not going to stop reaching out to Republicans because one Republican he respects decided to change his mind and continue to serve and represent his state in the U.S. Senate. The President will continue to work and reach out to folks to move the agenda of this country forward. Bipartisanship | Congress | Economy | Legislation | Nominees | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Congress, Economy, Legislation, Nominees, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:22:00 PM The Ways of Washington - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 1/29/09 — Thursday, January 29, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Sheryl.Q Robert, something you said earlier struck me. You said that it's going to take longer than 10 days to sort of change the ways of Washington. Does the President believe that the vote in the House was the result of sort of the deep ingrained patterns of the parties voting along party lines, or does he think that it was the result of philosophical differences over whether this bill would in fact work? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that's in many ways a question to ask those that exercised that vote yesterday. Q Well, no, you're assessing the bill and the vote and the way -- MR. GIBBS: It's hard for me to speak to the mindset of -- either collectively or individually -- members of Congress. The President and his team formulated a proposal that they thought, and a framework and principles, that they thought would put money back in people's pockets and spend money to create jobs. That's what we endeavor to do, and what the process endeavors to do as it moves forward. Q Can I follow on that, though? Q Robert, you're the one that said, "changing the ways of Washington." What did you mean by that? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there's any number of ways. I mean, obviously we've had a several-day discussion about bipartisanship. We've had -- we've talked about different vote counts. We've talked about nominations and confirmations. And we've seen somebody -- certainly some people in this room seem surprised at the lengths the President will go to to reach out to the other party, regardless of the results that happen on any given day. But that's not going to change the President's desire to do that reaching out, and to try, as I said earlier, figure out a way that even while we disagree we don't have to do it in a way that's disagreeable. Q Well, I guess the question is, doesn't your statement imply that it was politics as usual? If you say, there were no Republicans, it's going to take awhile to change the ways of Washington, doesn't that imply that it was a political move by the Republicans? MR. GIBBS: Again, I'd leave it some to them to figure out motivations. I think we all believe -- Democrat or Republican, Congress or the executive branch -- that we're going to be held accountable to the American people to get something done. Again, whether it's unemployment claims, whether it's GDP numbers, whether it's layoffs, we're in a crisis that requires us acting quickly to get something done. Bipartanship | Congress | Economy | Legislation | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Bipartisanship, Congress, Economy, Legislation, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:14:00 PM Animal House - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 1/27/09  Q At the meeting today Congressman Pence, among others, expressed concern that they had been shutout of this process when it comes to negotiation on Capitol Hill. Does the President think that Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey have been bipartisan the way he likes to hold out bipartisanship as a goal? MR. GIBBS: You know, Dick, I have not been in meetings about the stimulus bill. I can only talk most substantively about the viewpoint of the President and his involvement in this. And I think on any number of occasions -- whether it's going up there when he was President-elect, whether it's bringing a group down here last week, whether it's going back up there today -- that the President believes honestly that we can put something together with input from both parties that will most benefit the American people. Q But is he, for want of a better word, leaning on Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey and others to be more bipartisan? You're probably not going to get more than a dozen Republican votes tomorrow -- that's hardly bipartisan. MR. GIBBS: You know, I think we've all seen votes in this town where a few Republicans sometimes are hard to come by or a few Democrats are hard to come by. We'll take what we can get tomorrow. I think the most important thing about tomorrow is keeping this process going. Because again, the American people deserve a process that understands the severity of the crisis that they're involved in, not to get involved in some "Animal House"-type food fight on Capitol Hill about what's going to happen up there. I think what's most important is that we move this process along. The President was willing to go up there today and do what he can to help move that process along and get something quickly for the American people. Congress | Economy | Legislation | Press Briefing | Republicans | Robert Gibbs | Stimulus Package | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Economy, Legislation, Press Briefing, Republicans, Robert Gibbs, Stimulus Package, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:15:00 PM Automakers Bailout Up in the Air - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 12/12/08 — Friday, December 12, 2008 —  Q Will you start using TARP money now? Are you going to direct the Treasury --MS. PERINO: I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I said that given the current state of the U.S. economy, we'll consider other options if necessary, and I said including use of some of the TARP; that's one of the options. Q How soon -- walk us through his thought process right now. Who does he need to talk to first? What decisions need to be made before he decides -- MS. PERINO: He's in regular contact with all of his economic advisors. And so we'll be weighing all of the options and making decisions as soon as we need to. Q How soon does he feel he needs to make a decision? MS. PERINO: We didn't discuss that. I mean, obviously we have talked about he urgency of the situation. We have been pushing to get this done; we wanted to get it done last night. Both Congress and the -- the House and the Senate had bipartisan majorities supporting our approach, but they didn't get it over the goal line. And so we have to consider what other options we would take. But I don't have a time frame on it. Q Are you basically saying that you are going to make the decision -- it's not Congress now? I mean, basically, you are going to make the decision on what to do -- MS. PERINO: Congress spoke. Congress spoke last night. They don't have the votes to do anything, despite having majorities in both the House and the Senate supporting a reasonable approach that we put forward. We thought that the legislation could have even been improved. We thought that senators were making good progress last night and talking about the Corker amendment. But again, it just -- it didn't get the votes that it needed to pass the Senate. They needed 60; I think they had 53. Q You mentioned the use of -- you mentioned TARP funds as one option. Are there any other options? MS. PERINO: We're going to weigh all options. I mentioned TARP, as that's been something that you all have been asking about for weeks. And it's just one of the options that's out there, sure. Q Can you describe the other options? MS. PERINO: No. Q Is the Federal Reserve -- cash from the Federal Reserve an option? MS. PERINO: I don't know. Q Will the decision be made this week? I mean, it's Friday today. Or is next week -- MS. PERINO: I don't know. Air Force One | Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | President Bush | Press Gaggle | TARP | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, President Bush, Press Gaggle, TARP, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:45:00 PM Kicking the Can - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/11/08 — Thursday, December 11, 2008 —  Q Dana, one of the concerns of some Republicans is this doesn't solve the automakers' problem. Bob Corker says you're just kicking the can down the road. With $14 billion you really only get them into the Obama administration. Is that the solution to -- is this only a matter of holding off for a few months the ultimate collapse of one or more of the auto companies? MS. PERINO: Well, I don't think that the companies think that they have a few months. That's why we are trying to act now. I will let them speak for themselves, but I think they've been very open about the difficulties that they're having right now. And that is why they've come and asked for help. It's not an easy thing or a thing to do to come and ask the federal government for help. You have to put away your pride and say, we want these -- we want our companies to be able to be successful; here's what we're going to be willing to do. Now, the auto czar that we would put in place would have the opportunity to make them -- force them to make really tough concessions. But the other thing is, is that if we don't act and these companies go away, we could wake up and not have any domestic auto industry, which is certainly not the outcome that this President wants and I would think that most members on Capitol Hill don't want it either. But here's the thing, Wendell -- for those members who think that, I would ask them just to look at this legislation because there's really only one of two outcomes: either fundamental restructuring that will make them viable in the long term, or an orderly bankruptcy filing. And we're just asking for a little bit of help from money already appropriated to help the automakers in order for them to be able to either make their companies profitable or to go into an orderly bankruptcy. Those are the two outcomes that we're seeking. Q And the idea that you're kicking the can down the road? MS. PERINO: I don't see how that -- we're trying to pass legislation today. I don't understand how that's kicking the can down the road. Plus, we have also been working with the Obama administration, as you heard -- I'm sorry, Obama team, not quite administration yet -- but we've been working with them, making sure that they understood the actions that we are wanting to take. And I think that they've been at least generally supportive -- I won't speak for them -- but generally supportive of the measures we're taking, because they recognize the ramifications of not acting. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:52:00 PM Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant! - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/8/08 — Monday, December 08, 2008 —  Q What about this idea of an oversight board? Is the White House okay with that? MS. PERINO: One of our ideas was a financial viability advisor. They gave me an acronym of FVA, if you want to add one to your list. (Laughter.) This is a person who would be named by the President with the authority to negotiate a credible viability plan with automakers seeking assistance. So, for example, if an automaker comes to the government seeking assistance, we will make short-term financing available, providing that the automakers and the stakeholders, like the UAW, agree to negotiate with the advisor in good faith and on a credible plan for long-term viability. Near the end of that short-term period, the FVA will report on whether the automaker is executing a credible plan for long-term viability. And if he or she determines that they are indeed -- and progress is being made in negotiations, then additional assistance could be made available at that time. If the talks, however, are not headed in that direction and if that fails, then the FVA will submit an alternative viability plan that would involve restructuring through Chapter 11, and require automakers to repay the government the amount of their short-term bridge financing. Long-term financing in this case would only be made available subject to the approval of this new advisor. Q So -- and that's different from what they're talking about is an oversight board? MS. PERINO: Not necessarily. Again, we don't know what the legislative language is going to show. I think that the key is advisor, more than one, but an entity that would serve as a viability validator. Q But what you're talking about are conditions for oversight to work, not necessarily if it's this particular person or board or whatever. MS. PERINO: Right. Our idea was one person that would serve as an advisor, somebody appointed by the President. Of course when you're working on a negotiation, you talk to them about their ideas, as well; we'll see what they come back with. But our concern right now is on the process, because we haven't seen the legislation, so we can't give you any more details. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:27:00 PM The Big 3 Bailout Request - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/3/08 — Wednesday, December 03, 2008 —  MS. PERINO: Matt.Q The automakers' funding request, in their just-presented plans, totaled $34 billion in loans and credit lines, and that would be above and beyond the $25 billion in the Energy Department technology improvement funds that were already appropriated by Congress. That's quite a big sum over and above what the White House has shown a willingness to agree to or to support. MS. PERINO: Good point, right. Q What's your -- what's the White House -- MS. PERINO: Well, that's a good point, and we'll have to -- again, we're going to have to look at the plans and see what may or may not be able to be supported by us for those companies as they move forward. We have said that we want to try to help the automakers, and we've put forward a plan that we think that can get bipartisan support. But we need to look at each of them and see if what we would be able to support could actually be a good investment for the taxpayers, and we just don't know that yet. Q But you had said yesterday that $25 billion sounded -- the technology funds alone sounded pretty generous. MS. PERINO: Well, I think that to the American people, that giving $25 billion in taxpayer dollars to a specific industry is generous. But these are very serious times, and I'm sure the companies have spent a lot of time thinking through what they think they will need. And we'll have to wait and see what their plans say. Give us a chance to look through them. Let's see what they have to say tomorrow, and let's see what kind of support they can get on Capitol Hill tomorrow, as well. I think that remains a little bit of a mystery. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:38:00 PM Mindless Opposition of Reid & Pelosi - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 11/21/08 — Friday, November 21, 2008 —  Q Dana, are you saying Congress should have stayed in session and acted to authorize the 136 loans right now, and not waited a couple of weeks?MS. PERINO: Well, it seems to me that it's sort of senseless. You had a bipartisan path forward to help the automakers, as long as they were willing to show viability through the 136 program, that would not relax environmental standards. And nothing would bar the Congress from putting more money towards helping companies retool their plants if they wanted to in the future. So I would -- I just think that it was mindless opposition to anything that we would propose, and they cut off their nose to spite their face. So now we'll have to wait and see if they even come back on December 8th. But one thing that is very curious is how in the world are 535 members of Congress going to determine viability of a company? It's mind-boggling. They can't even get together to pass a Mother's Day resolution. So we are a little bit perplexed as to what they plan to do when they get back on the 8th and how they plan to do it. We agree that the viability portion of the language is absolutely critical. But we want these automakers to succeed. We don't want to see the huge numbers of unemployment that would result from a possible insolvency. And these companies have to be willing to make hard decisions to change for the long run. Q And those who are engaged in mindless opposition would be Reid, Pelosi, those people? MS. PERINO: Well, I think it's obvious. I don't have to name them -- they know who they are; you know who they are. They're the people who are opposing our plan, and the people who decided to go home without actually getting anything done. I mean, this is like do-nothing Congress part two, same song as they sang last time. And as I said, we will do what we can to try to put forward innovative policies like we had with this 136 program. It had a bipartisan path to succeed. And they wouldn't even allow for a vote. What kind of democracy is that? So we're a little bit perplexed. But we'll see what the companies come up with, and if they can meet the Democrats' so-called test. Okay. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Democracy | Harry Reid | Nancy Pelosi | Press Gaggle | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Democracy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Press Gaggle, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:47:00 PM Harry Reid: An American Prorogation - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/20/08 — Thursday, November 20, 2008 —  Q But my question is, if Congress does not act this week, is the administration just going to watch GM sink? MS. PERINO: If the Congress doesn't act this week and one of the companies is in imminent danger of insolvency, we would suspect that they would want to come back and finish the work that they didn't get done this week. Q You would anticipate that Congress would come back? MS. PERINO: We would -- I can't imagine a scenario where they wouldn't come back, unless the answer is that they just don't care. And if that's the case, then the American people ought to know that and hear it from them. Q What are the chances that something is going to get done this week? MS. PERINO: Well, we always remain hopeful. We believe the path that we've set forward could get bipartisan support if it was allowed to come for a vote. And so we would ask them to just think about taking a step back from partisan politics and throwing up obstacles for the sake of throwing up obstacles, and consider our proposal, and the one that Senators Bond and Voinovich have put forward, because we do think that they would be able to get help for the automakers in a way that would help them get through this rough patch, but also help them restructure, make the hard decisions necessary to restructure. I think the key point is that the American taxpayer should only be asked to help these companies if they're willing to make the hard decisions necessary to be viable in the long run. Q But why do you remain hopeful? I mean, are you hearing anything in the -- MS. PERINO: Well, they haven't left town yet. The gavel hasn't come down. And presumably, given the rhetoric that they've used over the past week, the Democrats believe that the automakers need help. Well, if that's the case, then they should allow us to move forward to have a vote on something that we think could get passed. The truth is Senator Reid's idea could not get enough votes in the Senate to get through the process. So the alternative would be to, well, could we think of another way, a bipartisan way where we could get the automakers help? Instead, he just wants to pull the plug and leave town. And we don't think that that is a good way to help the auto industry, and we certainly don't think it's a good signal for the bipartisanship that everyone pledged over the past year. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Democrats | Harry Reid | Legislation | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Democrats, Harry Reid, Legislation, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:26:00 PM It's a TARP! - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/18/08 — Tuesday, November 18, 2008 —  Q Congressman Hoyer says he is hopeful that the Democrats can reach a compromise with the White House on aid to automakers. Does the White House believe that such a compromise can be achieved this week, or are you beginning to see this as something that's going to have to be left for -- to be worked out with the Obama administration? MS. PERINO: Well, of course we remain hopeful that we can find a bipartisan solution. We think that we already have a bipartisan solution, because we have legislation that's already on the books, where money has already been appropriated to help automakers through the DOE loan program, 136 loan program. We've already put forward regulations that would guide how that would work. What we're simply saying is that maybe we can work together to amend that process so that companies that can prove viability could take advantage and have that money sooner if they need it during this rough patch. The House and Senate are in today, but they're having hearings. I think tomorrow you'll probably see a little bit more action once they're able to bring something to the floor. We still don't know exactly what they would bring to the floor. But we think that we have a solution here that is very logical and very reasonable. Perhaps it's so logical and so reasonable that people really just can't get their arms around it, because it's Washington, D.C. But we think that we have a path forward. And we'll let you know as we continue to work with members of Congress whether or not we can forge an agreement. We hope to do so this week. Q When you say "amended," do you mean amended so that it is not required to be used for fuel efficiency? MS. PERINO: Right, that those funds would be freed up and that they could use those funds for other things. That does not mean that we are relaxing any standards when it comes to fuel efficiency. President Bush proposed the changes that we are starting to implement now; Congress finally passed them. And we have a chance now to really improve the fuel efficiency of these vehicles. What we're saying is that the Congress already passed $25 billion for the auto industry so that they could retool their factories and meet those standards. They're still going to have to meet those standards, but if they need that money sooner and need it for other purposes, we're saying simply amend that bill and allow that money to be used for other things. And if in the future they decide -- the next administration and the Congress decides to add additional funds to help the automakers to meet those standards, that will be up to them. We just don't think that we should provide the $25 billion that was already on the table, plus an additional $25 billion, unless companies can show us that they have a long-term path for viability. Q So, Dana, is the primary sticking point, then, just the source of the money? If it comes from TARP, you don't like it; but if it comes from the Department of Energy, you do like it? I mean, does the White House completely agree that automakers do need and deserve this money? MS. PERINO: We want the automakers to succeed. There is a pot of money that exists, it's there for the taking, it's on the table. And we think that a simple amendment to the law that has already been passed to allow them to be able to use these funds is the best way for us to be able to help the automakers right now. And so we're going to try and help them do that. We don't think that these funds should be taken from the TARP. That was never the intent of Congress. That money is specifically for the financial industry, to help prevent collapse in our financial system. And that's what Secretary Paulson and Ben Bernanke are talking about this morning on Capitol Hill. Q So that's the only difference is that you don't like one source and they like a different source? I mean, I don't really see -- it seems like that is very close to an agreement. MS. PERINO: It's a significant difference. Well, it's a significant difference when you're talking about which pot of money to use, because we want the money that has already been appropriated, that we have rules that govern how it would be used. We also went through the process of rushing through, but doing it in a proper way, the rules of the road to prove viability that's defined in our legislation. What the Democrats put forward yesterday is a proposal that fails to require automakers to prove viability. We don't think that taxpayers should be asked to throw money at a company that can't prove that it has a long-term path for success. That's a key difference between us and them. Bret. Q Isn't it true that they want both? They don't one or the other, they want both. MS. PERINO: Right, they want the money that's already been appropriated and they want an additional $25 billion, which we think is unnecessary and unreasonable at this point. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | Press Briefing | TARP | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, Press Briefing, TARP, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:39:00 PM TARP Cover for the Auto Industry - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/17/08 — Monday, November 17, 2008 —  Q You've repeated over the last 10 days your opposition to funding anything for the auto industry out of the TARP program. Are you opposed to Congress amending that so that monies in that program could go to the auto industry? MS. PERINO: I don't think we think it would be necessary to do so when we already have a program with monies, $25 billion, appropriated specifically for the auto industry. The TARP funding is there for financial institutions. It was -- Congress never intended for individual industries to be able to come forward to -- Q And what if they change their mind? MS. PERINO: Well, I think that what they should be able to do is -- look, there's not an appetite in Congress, or in the administration, to open up the TARP funding for individual industries, because once you start down that road, it's a slippery slope to other industries that might say that they need help. But we do have an entire pot of money, $25 billion, that the auto -- that is specifically for the automakers. And we also know that opening up the TARP will not get through the Senate. Therefore, to avoid partisan gridlock, what we are recommending is to work hand in hand on a program that would simply amend the 136 program and help companies that can show long-term viability and a willingness to restructure. Q Would you guys veto? MS. PERINO: I think it's too early to say since we haven't even seen their legislation. It's too early to say. Q Dana, on that viability point, regardless of where the money comes from, whether it's TARP or the Department of Energy, it's still taxpayer money. Is that a good investment? Are the automakers a good investment? MS. PERINO: Well, I think that's another thing to remember, which is that the TARP program was specifically designed to help taxpayers get a return on their investment. This is monies that we are investing into companies. We are providing capital. And it has to be paid back. There is no direct subsidy that we are suggesting in the TARP. The Treasury Department has been making decisions based on what they think will at least make the taxpayers whole, if not help us get a return on that investment. When we're talking about the auto industry, and while we haven't seen the Democrats' proposal yet, it doesn't seem that would be the case, that the taxpayers would actually be paid back. But when we're talking about viability, what we mean is that a company needs to be able to show that they have long-term plans, so that they will be on -- have sound financing, and not have a vicious cycle of getting back into this situation again. One of the reasons that we agreed to go forward with the 136 program was to allow the companies to have access to a stream of funds to help them retool their factories so that they could build more fuel-efficient cars, which is what consumers of today are looking for. But in addition to that, the automakers have over time made some decisions based on their needs for their employees, and some of those decisions might have to be reworked, going forward. So they're going to have to be able to show how they can survive. If you look at their ability to compete worldwide -- we think that our companies can compete, but they're not going to be able to do so unless they make some of these really tough decisions. Q So are you saying they should get rid of pensions or health care provisions? MS. PERINO: It's going to be up to the companies to decide how best to -- how they can best compete in the world and show viability. We're not going to get into dictating that. Q But are you willing to let one or all of these three big automakers go under? MS. PERINO: Our position is that we want these companies to succeed. We have figured out a way to provide them funds so that they are able to do that. And we think that there is a bipartisan path that we could get this done very quickly this week and avoid that. Q But at the same time that you say that, you also are saying that they don't measure up to the viability standard, which -- MS. PERINO: But they might, and they might -- and if they can show that they can have a long-term -- that they have a long-term plan so that they are viable, then that would be taken into consideration. Q And so what is the next move for the administration to, you know, close the gap between you guys and the Democrats? MS. PERINO: Well, we're waiting for them to get back in town. We're waiting -- we haven't even seen their proposal. They've talked sort of around a proposal this week, but until we see it, it's really hard to react to it. And then we'll continue to work with our Republican colleagues as well to see if we can forge an agreement and get something done early this week. Automobile Industry | Congress | Dana Perino | Economy | Press Briefing | TARP | White House Press Corps Labels: Automobile Industry, Congress, Dana Perino, Economy, Press Briefing, TARP, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:55:00 PM Bailout Pork - White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 10/3/08 — Friday, October 03, 2008 — MR. FRATTO: Yes, Mark.Q Tony, listening to the debate on the House floor, many of the opponents were quite alarmed by what they described as a "pork-laden, earmark-laden bill." They talked about tax breaks for rum producers in Puerto Rico, arrow -- wooden arrow makers in Oregon for Hollywood producers -- MR. FRATTO: I think you should look for -- Q How do you answer that? MR. FRATTO: Well, the ranking member, ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee just put out a very long statement addressing some of those things. And as he pointed out, this was the same package that was promoted by Republicans not too long ago. I think Representative Camp had sent it up as -- or put it forth on their motion to recommit, same exact package. There are -- the rum provision, it's not a tax break for rum producers. These are excise taxes that actually go back to the government of Puerto Rico. Some of these things have sort of interesting headline-making characteristics to them, but when you look deeper at them, they make a lot of sense. I mean, I didn't know anything about children's arrows, but I've learned a lot over the last 24 hours, and it turns out that the -- Q Did you get the point? (Laughter.) MR. FRATTO: You hit the bulls-eye with that one, Mark. (Laughter.) It turns out that the excise tax is -- would be 39 cents an arrow, but it only costs about 30 cents an arrow to make, so there are very real reasons why you wouldn't want to have that kind of tax on that kind of product. So I would point you to what Representative McCrery put out. He has a document that explains each one of these provisions. And the entire package of extenders is something that we are very, very comfortable supporting. Congress | Legislation | Pork | Press Briefing | Tony Fratto | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Pork, Press Briefing, Tony Fratto, White House Press Corps
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:14:00 PM Raising FDIC Coverage - White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 10/2/08 — Thursday, October 02, 2008 —  MR. FRATOO: Jennifer.Q I'm trying to understand this deposit insurance increase. MR. FRATTO: Sure. Q One of the reasons obviously that the vote went the way it did on Monday was that folks were uncomfortable with the idea of so much government money into the private markets, into Wall Street, that whole line of concern. But I'm trying to understand how protecting deposits that are over $100,000, which is a lot of money -- not -- most regular people don't have $100,000 sitting around in any one account --how is that getting to the Main Street regular people -- MR. FRATTO: Sure. Actually, it's one of -- America's small businesses use their local banks in order to fund their operations. That's where they keep their money for day-to-day operations -- their funds for payroll, for example. And so they would have -- in fact, a great many of them would have far more than $100,000 in their accounts. And what a lot of small businesses have had to do across the country is to split up their accounts as they felt that maybe banks were threatened -- split up their accounts in numerous banks, which is incredibly inefficient; it's not a very efficient way to do business. And you're also noticing that small businesses were moving their funds from banks that were perceived to be weak to banks that were perceived to be strong, and so really not normal ways of doing business. Raising the cap allows them to have the confidence that they can keep those funds in their local bank. They don't have to move them around. And so it's a much bigger cushion. Q Okay. Congress | Legislation | FDIC | Press Briefing | Tony Fratto | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, FDIC, Legislation, Press Briefing, Tony Fratto, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:32:00 PM Add-ons to Financial Bailout Bill - White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 10/1/08 — Wednesday, October 01, 2008 —  Q Tony, is the White House concerned at all about the possibility of losing votes in the House because of the add-ons in the Senate bill?MR. FRATTO: Right now we're focused on the Senate. We think the modifications are helpful and will help to achieve passage in the House. Q Didn't you want a clean bill, though? You didn't want a lot of add-ons and you're ending up with add-ons. MR. FRATTO: Well, we didn't want a lot of add-ons. We didn't want things that we felt would be harmful to the economy. But since we started working with the Congress 10 days ago on the actual legislation, we've made a number of changes and modifications. The things that are being added on right now, on the tax extenders, these are things that we have all supported. In fact, both Houses support extending the tax credits for renewable energy; both support AMT reform. There's a dispute in terms of whether they should be offset, and of course, we have opposed increasing taxes to pay for fixing a problem in the tax code. And the FDIC decision has been a recent one that we think will garner some additional support. So, yes, look, this is not -- it's never a straight line in trying to get legislation like this, and we're very appreciative of the Senate's efforts to try to develop this legislation in a way that will be successful. Congress | Legislation | Press Briefing | Senate | Tony Fratto | Wall Street | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Legislation, Press Briefing, Senate, Tony Fratto, Wall Street, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:26:00 PM Unemployment Insurance - White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 9/30/08 — Tuesday, September 30, 2008 —  MR. FRATTO: Paula.Q You mentioned repeatedly of frozen assets, assets that have value. But what about human assets? Because there's a lot of argument out there that people around that kitchen table might not be able to wait three or four steps along the way. As you know, unemployment insurance is running out mid-October, about three weeks before the election. The White House said it opposes that. There's supposedly a bargaining chip out there by Democrats for the President to drop his veto threat on the second stimulus bill. Are you rethinking any of these positions? MR. FRATTO: Which -- let me try to break down your question in a few different ways. You talked about unemployment insurance. We extended unemployment insurance. Congress put that forward for a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance, from 26 weeks-six months, for an additional 13 weeks extension. Q It expires in October -- MR. FRATTO: The additional 13 weeks for those people who have been on unemployment insurance already for six months, for them it does expire. But it rolls, depending on when you get on the program, so that if you are on the program today, if you go on this week, you have the original 26 weeks, plus an additional 13 weeks. So that's where it stands today. Congress may have ideas on things that they want to try to do with respect to unemployment insurance. They may try to find legislative vehicles to deal with them. We'll have those conversations with Congress if there are other efforts that they want to do. But with respect to this particular problem, if you want to help those people at their kitchen table, if you want to help the ability of their employers to keep them employed, then you want to fix the problem that we're trying to fix this week. And there will be -- there is nothing we can do that is more important for the U.S. economy, short term and long term, than to fix this problem with this frozen asset class. It is the single best thing we can do for the economy. That's our primary focus, and that's what we're going to be working on. We'll obviously continue to talk about other issues also if Congress has interest in them. Q But you have to acknowledge that one of the key issues here is also to get something that will pass. And if the bargaining chip is to drop the veto threat on a second stimulus package, would you reconsider it? MR. FRATTO: I think we will leave our negotiations for our discussions with members of Congress and not try to have me negotiate from here. Congress | Press Briefing | Tony Fratto | Unemployment | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Press Briefing, Tony Fratto, Unemployment, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:24:00 PM Wall Street Bailout and McCain - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 9/26/08 — Friday, September 26, 2008 —  Q What do you think -- what progress do you think happened between yesterday and just now for John McCain to say he's going to resume his campaign and go to the debate?MS. PERINO: I don't know. I couldn't tell you what his -- Q He says there's been progress since yesterday's meeting. MS. PERINO: Senator Reid said the same thing; so did Senator Gregg. And I'm going to let the negotiators continue. As I said, we've been -- we feel like we've been close, but we're not quite there yet. There are many members of Congress, especially on the House Republican side, who have a lot of concerns, and I understand those concerns. We get it. This President did not want to have to take this route, either. But it was after being briefed repeatedly by his Secretary of the Treasury and his Fed Chairman that if we did not do something drastic, that we would have -- we would be facing financial calamity, that the President of the United States said we can't sit by and let that happen. If we have a way that could fix it and to stabilize and strengthen the financial markets, we have an obligation to do that. Q Do you think the debate adds to or detracts from the work that will be done on the Hill? MS. PERINO: I just don't know. But I think it'll be fun to watch. (Laughter.) Congress | Dana Perino | John McCain | Legislation | Press Briefing | Wall Street | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Dana Perino, John McCain, Legislation, Press Briefing, Wall Street, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:53:00 PM Lifting of Executive Prohibition of Federal Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 7/14/08 — Monday, July 14, 2008 —  Q Does [the President's] action today revoke entirely the executive order his father signed, or is it more nuanced? MS. PERINO: It doesn't. It doesn't. Q Okay. MS. PERINO: Yes. Q Given the reluctance of the Congress to turn the other key, is it fair to call this a symbolic gesture? MS. PERINO: Well, I think that you have seen increasingly Americans are understanding the importance of this issue; they're becoming more educated about the advances in technology that have taken place that would protect the environment. I know that across Europe, especially in the North Sea, there's a lot of offshore oil drilling that takes place, and they've been able to do it in ways that has been able to be protective of the environment. So there's three more weeks left of Congress, and you've been in town long enough to know that oftentimes Congress gets most of its work done in just the remaining weeks right before it goes off for August recess. One thing I know that the Democrats continue to recommend is that we -- or to suggest -- is that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the answer to all of our problems. We strongly believe that it's not. That trick has been tried before and it doesn't work. It's unfortunate that the only place Democrats in Congress seem to be able to think we can get oil is from our insurance policy, which is the extra supply that we have in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And to my knowledge, Speaker Pelosi or others have not indicated how long they would recommend -- or how many -- how long they would recommend taking oil out of the SPR. They've not said what the price point is they're trying to get to. They've not said how long it would last. And so I think those are -- a lot of questions have to be answered before they could even be taken seriously. I believe that Democrats believe a problem delayed is a problem half-solved -- and in this case, it doesn't work. Q Are you seeing increased support from Democrats? MS. PERINO: I think -- you can -- I won't speak for them, but I think you have seen increasingly there have been some Democratic members of Congress who are starting to change their position on this, and what -- in ways that they can look at the technology that has improved, the demand from Americans because they are paying record-high gas prices. And I will repeat again, there's no magic wand that's going to decrease prices overnight. But what we're trying to do is send a signal to the market that more supply would be coming on line. And we will work with Congress to try to do that. Congress | Dana Perino | Natural Gas | Oil | President Bush | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps | White House Press Secretary Labels: Congress, Dana Perino, Natural Gas, Oil, President Bush, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:39:00 PM Domestic Energy Production Act - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 5/23/08 — Friday, May 23, 2008 —  Q Okay. Senate Minority Leader McConnell and 28 other Republican senators introduced the Domestic Energy Production Act to allow oil production in only 8 percent of the entire ANWR area. And my question: Does the White House believe that the nation needs to know that among those senators who voted to defeat this bill, which could have cut the now huge cost of gasoline, were certain United States senators from Illinois and New York?MS. PERINO: No; it's very interesting, though. Thanks for pointing it out. Q The President realizes this, doesn't he? MS. PERINO: I don't know if he did a whip count. Q All right, thank you. ANWR | Congress | Dana Perino | Democratic Candidates | Les | Oil | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: ANWR, Congress, Dana Perino, Democratic Candidates, Les, Oil, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:31:00 PM Farm Bill & Veto - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 5/22/08 — Thursday, May 22, 2008 —  Q Farm bill -- where are we with the farm bill?MS. PERINO: You tell me -- or the Democrats tell me. Q What did he veto? MS. PERINO: He vetoed -- the President vetoed the bill that the Democrats sent us. And, look, I understand there's a technical error and we'll have to see what the Congress decides to do, but maybe it gives them one more chance to take a look and think about how much they're asking the taxpayers to spend at a time of record farm income. The Congress had an opportunity to put forward -- I'm sorry -- to implement reforms, much needed reforms, and they decided not to. And I think with this move it shows that they can even up screw up spending the taxpayers' money unwisely. Q What was that -- MS. PERINO: Said they can -- they've proved that they can even screw up spending the taxpayers' money unwisely. (Laughter.) Laughter by reporters. (Laughter.) Air Force One | Congress | Dana Perino | Legislation | Pork | Press Gaggle | Vetoes | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Congress, Dana Perino, Legislation, Pork, Press Gaggle, Vetoes, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:14:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/14/07 (Iraq Funding Bill) — Wednesday, November 14, 2007 —  MS. PERINO: Mark.Q Yes, back to the Iraq funding bill, Dana. The legislation that I gather is going to pass this afternoon does not have a binding deadline in it; it's a goal, it sets a goal. The President has said he would like to bring U.S. troops home. And it's also -- MS. PERINO: And actually, the troops are coming -- are starting to come home. Q Well, and that's -- that was the other part of it. So why would you veto something that's basically what he is already doing? MS. PERINO: As I understand it, there is an -- the way we read it, there is an arbitrary date for withdrawal. And I would remind you that it was Senator Reid yesterday who said that if the President doesn't go along with this, then he's not going to get his money. This is not money for the President, this is money for the troops. And we are urging Congress not to play political games. Think about it -- they only have approximately nine legislative days left in their calendar in order to get all of this work done. And I think that I have a slide here. I've had this up here before; I'm going to show you again. There are 12 appropriations bills. They sent one to the President that he signed yesterday, and one that he vetoed. I don't know how many days have passed, legislative days have passed this past year, but they only have nine working days left, and it is unlikely that they'll be able to get all of this work done before that deadline. Q And by "appeasing radical groups," are you talking about MoveOn.org, et cetera? Or are you talking about the large numbers of Americans who tell interviewers and pollsters that they would like troops home as soon as possible? MS. PERINO: I am talking about MoveOn.org and CODEPINK, in particular. I would also say that they have held these same -- similar votes over and over again. Dozens of these votes have been held. And in fact, on the Senate side -- I realize this is a House bill -- but on the Senate side, resolutions were passed earlier this year that said that it is the sense of the Senate that we do not believe a withdrawal date is appropriate for this war. And in case they have missed it, our troops are fulfilling their mission in spectacular fashion. They are working to bring down that violence in Iraq, to establish political reconciliation, to improve the economy. People are starting to return to Baghdad and to their homes. Pulling the rug out from under our troops now is the height of irresponsibility. Congress | Dana Perino | Democrats | Iraq | President Bush | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Dana Perino, Democrats, Iraq, President Bush, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:52:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 10/30/07 (Do-Nothing Congress) — Tuesday, October 30, 2007 — Q Thank you, Dana; two questions. Agency French Press reports that of the 100 bills passed by Congress and signed into law since the Democrats became the majority, 46 of the 100 name post offices, court houses and roads. And my question: Does the President believe this Congress is earning the title "do nothing" or not? MS. PERINO: Well, you've heard the President, himself, say that. Look, there's many of these post offices -- are being named for veterans of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or other places. And that is appropriate. But certainly Congress should be able to get a lot of other work done. Congress | Dana Perino | Democrats | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Dana Perino, Democrats, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:23:00 PM
|
|
