May 2009
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
		Jun »
	1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Archive for 18. May 2009

Obama Notre Dame Speech- Obama News

18. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 17, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME

University of Notre Dame
South Bend, Indiana

3:06 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, congratulations, Class of 2009. (Applause.) Congratulations to all the parents, the cousins — (applause) — the aunts, the uncles — all the people who helped to bring you to the point that you are here today. Thank you so much to Father Jenkins for that extraordinary introduction, even though you said what I want to say much more elegantly. (Laughter.) You are doing an extraordinary job as president of this extraordinary institution. (Applause.) Your continued and courageous — and contagious — commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all. (Applause.)

Good afternoon. To Father Hesburgh, to Notre Dame trustees, to faculty, to family: I am honored to be here today. (Applause.) And I am grateful to all of you for allowing me to be a part of your graduation.

And I also want to thank you for the honorary degree that I received. I know it has not been without controversy. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. (Laughter.) So far I’m only 1 for 2 as President. (Laughter and applause.) Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. (Laughter and applause.) I guess that’s better. (Laughter.) So, Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame –

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Abortion is murder! Stop killing children!

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: That’s all right. And since –

AUDIENCE: We are ND! We are ND!

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

THE PRESIDENT: We’re fine, everybody. We’re following Brennan’s adage that we don’t do things easily. (Laughter.) We’re not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes. (Applause.)

Now, since this is Notre Dame I think we should talk not only about your accomplishments in the classroom, but also in the competitive arena. (Laughter.) No, don’t worry, I’m not going to talk about that. (Laughter.) We all know about this university’s proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world — Bookstore Basketball. (Applause.)

Now this excites me. (Laughter.) I want to congratulate the winners of this year’s tournament, a team by the name of “Hallelujah Holla Back.” (Laughter and applause.) Congratulations. Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the “Barack O’Ballers” did not pull it out this year. (Laughter.) So next year, if you need a 6’2″ forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live. (Laughter and applause.)

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty-three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you sit today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare — periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. You have a different deal. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and for the world — a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It’s a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations — and a task that you’re now called to fulfill.

This generation, your generation is the one that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before the most recent crisis hit — an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day’s work. (Applause.)

Your generation must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. Your generation must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. (Applause.)

And it’s this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today, despite the fact that Father John stole all my best lines. (Laughter.) For the major threats we face in the 21st century — whether it’s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease — these things do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education that you’ve received here at Notre Dame is that you’ve had time to consider these wrongs in the world; perhaps recognized impulses in yourself that you want to leave behind. You’ve grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose — even accomplishing that can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved. (Applause.)

The question, then — the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonetizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called “The Audacity of Hope.” A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website — an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.” Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn’t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that — when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let’s make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. (Applause.) Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where “¼differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about. (Applause.)

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago — also with the help of the Catholic Church.

You see, I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. And a group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

And it was quite an eclectic crew — Catholic and Protestant churches, Jewish and African American organizers, working-class black, white, and Hispanic residents — all of us with different experiences, all of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help — to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in these neighborhoods — perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I was really broke and they fed me. (Laughter.) Perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

And at the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. (Applause.) For those of you too young to have known him or known of him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads — unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty and AIDS and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together, always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched hearts and minds.”

My heart and mind were touched by him. They were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside in parishes across Chicago. And I’d like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

Now, you, Class of 2009, are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You’ll be called to help restore a free market that’s also fair to all who are willing to work. You’ll be called to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or simply someone who insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communication than ever existed before. You’ll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you’ll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they’re talking about. (Laughter.) Occasionally, you may have the great fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do know what they’re talking about — by well-intentioned people with brilliant minds and mastery of the facts. In fact, I suspect that some of you will be among those brightest stars.

And in this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.

But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It’s the belief in things not seen. It’s beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It’s no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame — by the last count, upwards of 80 percent — have lived this law of love through the service you’ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. Brennan is just one example of what your class has accomplished. That’s incredibly impressive, a powerful testament to this institution. (Applause.)

Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn’t just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens — when people set aside their differences, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another — then all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Now, Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the “separate but equal” doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God’s children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of this commission. It included five whites and one African American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. (Applause.) So they worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. And finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin — (applause) — where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. (Laughter.) And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away — because life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations, Class of 2009. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END
3:37 P.M. EDT

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

White House Press Briefing- 5-15-9

18. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 15, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:20 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Before we get started let me do a quick week ahead, so we can get into that. The President has no scheduled public events on Saturday. On Sunday, as you know, the President will deliver the commencement address at Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. Following the speech he will travel to Indianapolis to attend a fundraiser for Democratic members of Congress from Indiana. He will return to Washington, D.C. and the White House that night.

On Monday the President will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu here at the White House. On Tuesday the President will attend an event honoring the SBA’s National Small Business Winners of the Year at the White House.

On Wednesday morning the President will attend the first quarterly meeting of the Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board. In the afternoon the President will participate in a credentialing ceremony for foreign ambassadors at the White House.

On Thursday the President will deliver a speech discussing issues associated with Guantanamo Bay and anti-terror tactics, including detention. He will also welcome the Pittsburgh Steelers to the White House.

On Friday the President will deliver the commencement address at the U.S. Naval Academy graduation in Annapolis. The First Family will spend Memorial Day Weekend at Camp David. They will travel there next Saturday and return during the day on Monday.

Q Robert, do you have a venue for Thursday’s speech?

MR. GIBBS: Not yet.

And Ms. Loven, with that, we’ll take it away.

Q Thank you. Just a couple details about the military tribunal announcement and then a little broader question. On details, you talked about going to Congress to revise the law in addition to the executive authority changes that he’s making right away. What are the changes that he wants from Congress and how long of a stay is he asking for of the tribunal?

MR. GIBBS: I believe that the continuances are additional 120-day continuances. There are executive changes that can be made in the military commissions law, with which Congress has 60 days to review. We have been in discussions with folks like Senator Levin, Senators McCain and Graham about what additional changes might be sought through a legislative vehicle. But those conversations are ongoing and continue.

Q So he doesn’t know yet what more he wants –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think they’re working through some of the details about what the distinction and difference between executive and what can be — what has to be done legislatively.

Q Okay. And then, just more broadly, liberal groups are angry again. They say they were spurned on Wednesday and they’re upset by his decision. How worried are you that you’re alienating some of the President’s most loyal supporters with these decisions?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, first and foremost the President of the United States is going to do what he believes is in the best security interests of the people of the United States.

I think military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. The President spoke in 2006 in his belief that military courts and commissions had a role to play in the detainees that were at Guantanamo Bay, but also spoke forcefully about the notion that the system that had been first set up and ruled unconstitutional, and then passed legislatively and largely ruled unconstitutional again by the Supreme Court, wasn’t working. And I think the best way to understand why it wasn’t working — and when I say “wasn’t working,” I mean, wasn’t working in seeking swift and certain justice for families of victims as well as the American people because in about eight years — a little less than eight years’ time — exactly three cases had gone through military commissions.

The President, as I said, during the debate said that properly structured military commissions had a role to play. The changes that he is seeking he believes will ensure the protections that are necessary for these to be conducted in order to reach that certain justice as well as live up to our values.

Q Can you describe more completely the changes the President wants and which ones he feels will require legislative –

MR. GIBBS: Well, on the second part, they’re still working through some of that exactly. I don’t have a lot to add from what the President said, but statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhumane, and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial.

Second, the use of hearsay will be limited so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability.

Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel.

Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify.

And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts.

Again, if you look back through the arc of this process beginning back in 2001 and 2002 through Supreme Court making decisions in 2005, moving this to the venue of Congress in 2006, and the legislation that the President supported that came out of the Senate Armed Services Committee with strong bipartisan support — four Republican senators joining all the Democrats involved — in passing legislation that the President believes met the goals of instituting swift and certain justice and the protections adequate enough to be reviewed by courts, and believes so.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, switching topics. Two questions for you, first on GM and then on climate change. On GM, there seems to be a growing consensus, both from company executives and from observers outside the company, that it will have to go into a bankruptcy proceeding as well, just as Chrysler did. Is that the feeling at the White House, as well, or is there a chance that more public money could be put up to prevent that from happening?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think without — we’ve got a couple more weeks to go to make — for the company to make some decisions. Whether or not a bankruptcy like that, that we’ve seen in the situation with Chrysler and Fiat, is necessary, I don’t want to get ahead of, based on the fact that we’ve got several weeks to go, or at least a couple of weeks to go here.

And I think the larger thing is obviously there are a number of difficult decisions that GM has to make, just as Chrysler had to make. I think we can — we all can look at the announcements that were made by the auto companies in the past 24 hours about dealerships. And everybody understands the role that a lot of these dealerships play in local communities. You can — I bet a lot of you can remember, either you or your kids, playing on a little league team that was sponsored by a local dealership. The role that they play in the community is a big one.

I think it’s important to note the President understands the role they play and also understands the economic and job — the jobs that are in those dealerships. I think the decision that was made several weeks ago largely in many ways saved all of those dealerships, the President becoming involved in a way that without it he might not have seen letters go to some dealerships at Chrysler or GM, but letters go to all the dealerships at Chrysler and GM, and the job loss associated with the closing of each and every dealership across the country. That would have been exponentially great.

Q Sorry, is there reason for bondholders or other investors to hold out for the chance that more government money would be put up to keep GM out of bankruptcy?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we saw this in the Chrysler negotiations. I don’t want to — I’m not going to become an active participant in those negotiations from here in order to provide anybody — I think the best place for those negotiations to happen are with the individual stakeholders and the auto company. I think they understand the issues that they’re dealing with and I don’t want to provide something one way or the other that gives somebody the ability to change their tactics.

Q Let me ask a quick question on time. If there’s a bill, a compromise bill coming out of the House on emissions — it looks like they are now saying 15 percent of CO2 permits would be auctioned, which means the other 85 percent would be given away to industry. That’s a huge change from the 100 percent that the President supported. Can he support this bill?

MR. GIBBS: I know that the legislation is being reviewed at the White House. I think we believe that the legislation, as the President said a few days ago, represents a big step forward in dealing with dangerous greenhouse gases in producing a sustained market for the creation of clean-energy jobs with targets that demonstrate the need for reduction in those gases, as well as a standard for the amount of power that has to be produced through renewable sources, which is important; and that the President believes we have to undertake protections to ensure that price fluctuations don’t affect middle class families here in this country.

Q But is 15 percent auctioning –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that they’re looking through that. I know that this is the first step in this process. But I think the President overall believes that the legislation going through this process is a very positive step on the road to addressing these important issues.

Jake.

Q Of the five steps that you’re looking for — changes in the military commissions — can you explain that fifth one?

MR. GIBBS: I can get somebody who has a law degree to do that.

Yes.

Q One of the reasons that human rights groups are upset about the announcement today is many of them believed, based on a couple statements the President had made, that the President was looking — then-senator, now President — was looking forward to a system where detainees would be tried either through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or through U.S. courts.

And there are a couple statements the President made. I’m wondering if you could just reconcile it. He said in August ‘07: “I have faith in America’s courts. I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I’ll close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.”

And then in August, the campaign issued a statement responding to the Hamdan conviction. The key line being: “It’s time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and through our Uniform Code of Military Justice” — no mention of military commissions.

Now, I understand he supported McCain-Graham-Warner back in ‘08. But how do you reconcile these statements with the military commissions? They make no mention of them.

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, Jake, the underlying issues in each of those statements affording — first affording for swift and certain justice, as well as sufficient detainee protection that the Supreme Court has now rendered have to be a part of any military commission is embedded in the exact suggestions that the President is filing today with the Court, ensuring that — the Court ruled last year that significant protection had to be afforded for the first time to detainees in order for something like this to be constitutional, and those are the changes that the President sought.

Again, I think if you go back and look at his statements and understand the role that military commissions have played in the history of the United States, the President believes that, in dealing with certain detainees at Guantanamo Bay, that this is an appropriate avenue.

Obviously we will also use, in some instances, Article III courts in order to ensure the certainty of justice that the President spoke about.

Q I’m sorry, just to follow up. I mean, are these just two statements where, if you could go back, you would just add the term “military commission”? They were just — they were just vague? Because –

MR. GIBBS: No, I think that the — I think if you look back at all these statements, Jake, the President has been consistent in his views on this issue and been consistent on what was lacking in order to ensure justice, in order to ensure protection, and most of all to ensure that this process goes forward with — and doesn’t see repeated legal stalls in going through the court system.

And again, the notion of military commissions in a larger sense is something that’s been with us now for almost eight years. I think some 242 detainees resided at Guantanamo when the President took office, obviously at certain points there have been even more, and exactly three cases have gone through this system in those almost intervening eight years. I don’t think this is a system that works in any way, shape, or form for the American people.

Q But if I can just follow on that, when you say the President has been consistent, the quote that Jake read from 2007 where the President flatly said, I would reject — using the word “reject” — the Military Commissions Act. He’s not rejecting it today. He’s embracing the Bush law –

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no –

Q — with tweaks. He’s embracing that law but saying, “I want to tweak it.”

MR. GIBBS: “I’m buying a car except I’m changing the engine and painting it a different color and calling it a different” –

Q Well, he’s not rejecting this law. There’s not a new law coming. He’s not rejecting this. He’s saying, “We’re going to live with this law with tweaks.”

MR. GIBBS: No. The law, as you talk about it, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed in late September of 2006 and signed by this President, was ruled in 2007, Section 7, to be unconstitutional, okay. That law doesn’t work, okay. The President will seek a continuance in the nine cases that are currently part of the military commissions, setting those cases aside for 120 days in order to institute these changes. These cases won’t go forward under these rules. Therefore, the system that was set up by Congress and signed by then-President Bush won’t be the course under which these cases will ultimately be heard. Your characterization is just simply wrong.

Q So then why is the ACLU saying you’re just building on a flawed system, a system that is unconstitutional, as you just pointed out? You’re just building on that flawed system.

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, Jake — I’m sorry, not Jake, Ed, you — sorry — (laughter) — you know, I think you started out on Monday wondering why — in questioning why we were being so much like — so opposite of George Bush in all these questions. And on Friday I’m answering questions about why are we so much like George Bush on all these questions. I’ll let you guys discern what inflection point — what period of day that all changed.

But this notion that somehow the law is the same under the protections that the President is entering into, I would simply point to you the opinion that Justice Kennedy wrote in a Supreme Court case in 2007, denoting that without the protections that the President is enumerating to the court today, those trials can’t go forward.

This notion is the same — the notion that this is the same vehicle is simply — it’s simply not true. The protections –

Q So if you want to take issue with the characterization of the relation to Bush –

MR. GIBBS: I think you should take issue with those –

Q — former President Bush –

MR. GIBBS: I don’t think I would. I think you should. I think the protections that are afforded — that the President will ask the court or will note that he’s going to send to Congress to amend represent a far different system. Again, in 2006, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin and John Warner all supported a piece of legislation similar to what the President is enumerating today. Have you asked each of them why they’re –

Q You just said three Republicans, right? Warner, Graham, McCain –

MR. GIBBS: Four. I’m sorry, and Susan Collins. Four Republicans joined 11 Democrats in a 15-9 vote for a very different set of rules governing military commissions.

Q When you mentioned President Bush –

MR. GIBBS: That which got politicized, a different proposal got into the mix, and the law that ultimately came from that was very different than what was proposed in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Q But when the ACLU and other critics say — what they complain about, in part, is they look at the executives orders that were signed on week one of this administration, and there seemed to be a signal that was being sent that you were turning the page on the Bush years, there was going to be a sharp break. Now you’re looking at what you did on the photos Wednesday, what you’re doing here today — they’re getting the sense that you’re moving closer to President Bush. And again, you’re quoting what Republicans were saying, like John Warner, John McCain. And they see John McCain cheering this decision today and they say this is not what we voted for.

MR. GIBBS: But, Ed, first of all — let me give you two answers. First of all, go back and talk to those that voted for S. 3901 in 2006. The reason that bill didn’t get a majority was, that’s not what the Bush administration wanted, okay? And secondly — and I would say this to somebody who criticizes us from the left and criticizes us from the right — one thing that we’re not having a debate about is whether or not these tactics exist, whether they can currently be used by this administration, because this President took, with one stroke of a pen, the swift action to ensure that these enhanced interrogation techniques aren’t used by this administration.

I think, if I understand the former Vice President of the United States correctly, I’m to understand that he doesn’t necessarily agree with that, marking somewhat of a change from the previous administration’s discourse of justice.

Q I didn’t mention the former Vice President in my question.

MR. GIBBS: I did.

Q Okay.

MR. GIBBS: I did.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, looking forward to Sunday, should we expect to hear the President use his speech at Notre Dame to try to, as he said at the press conference, tamp down the emotions surrounding the question of abortion?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the President will obviously make mention of the debate that’s been had. I think the President, as somebody who has taught in a university setting, would understand that this is exactly the type of give and take that’s had on college campuses all over the country.

So I think you’ll hear him address it, but I think you’ll also have a President and a commencement speaker that’s quite cognizant of the fact that this is a commencement ceremony. This is a special occasion for families to celebrate the conferring of degrees in this ceremony and that the President will understand that’s the most important aspect of the day.

Jonathan.

Q A couple of things. Could you clarify a little bit more on where the President is on indefinite detention of prisoners without trial? There’s some suggestion in the statement today that that is still under consideration and some — a lot of people saying that it’s under very serious consideration.

MR. GIBBS: Well, there are many issues being dealt with by several task forces that were created to institute the President’s executive order. Those discussions continue and I don’t have any announcements on that.

Q Second of all, if you look at the broader context here — the President made his decision on military commissions; he made his decision on photos; he is embracing — or at least not opposing — a very different bill on climate change than the one that he talked about when he talked about a hundred percent auctions; he’s not standing in the way of the ousting of gays in the military, some of whom are interpreters of Arabic; there’s some restiveness on immigration, a sense that the President has not moved fast enough and not doing anything more than speaking to Latino groups about his commitment on immigration reform. And I wonder what we’re seeing here. Are we seeing a change in attitude toward compromise and a shift toward the middle since the first hundred days ended?

MR. GIBBS: Whether we’re going to mark this period of the next –

Q The 16th.

MR. GIBBS: The next 16 days of — I’ll leave it up to people far smarter than me to parse out the thematics of every 16th day over the course of this administration.

Not to go through each individual one of your things, Jonathan, but the overlying legislative principle of a piece of climate change legislation that’s being considered by Congress is to see an 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 from the levels that were effective in 2005.

Now, I’m not a climate scientist, but this is a proposal that has been talked about on Capitol Hill for any number of years and any number of legislative sessions. Some of the details may not be perfect into what the President campaigned on. If the President gets an opportunity to sign a bill that puts into law this nation reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by that 83 percent by 2050, I think it will be hailed as a substantive achievement by all of those involved. And I think if you look at those that are at the table right now working on something like that piece of legislation, whether it’s environmental groups or utility and energy companies, I think there’s been a shift in the paradigm of what’s going on in this town in order to see real change come about.

Yes, sir.

Q Is it fair to say, though, that the President realizes he needs to see issues differently as President than he did as presidential candidate?

MR. GIBBS: How so?

Q Well, that he’s making decisions like the photo decision on Wednesday, and today’s decision that seemed at odds with stands he took as a candidate.

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me — maybe I misinterpreted what the President said on September 28, 2006, but I’ll read it for everyone to understand: “I have heard, for example, the argument that it should be military courts and not federal judges who should make decisions on these detainees. I actually agree with that. The problem is that the structure of the military proceedings has been poorly thought through.”

I’ll leave it up to somebody else’s interpretation, but I think if you go back and read in 2006, I think if you look at the floor vote that was had around that same debate, you’ve got something that’s markedly different than what was ultimately passed. Certainly he was critical of the structure that was set up around military commissions. But I think it makes pretty clear there that the President believes and understands and supports the historic role that military commissions have played in cases involving battlefield detainees.

I don’t think there’s — I don’t think there’s been in any way, shape or form a migration on where he stood on the issue of military commissions from 2006 to today, 2009.

Q Does he believe civilian criminal courts aren’t able to handle these trials?

MR. GIBBS: No. I think that you’ll see announcements likely forthcoming that detainees currently at Guantanamo will soon be moved into the court system, an Article III court system. I think there are many different avenues by which this administration will use to seek the justice that is deserved.

Q And on Monday, Robert, will there be a NASA administrator announcement?

MR. GIBBS: I think you know that the President will meet with somebody that he hopes will — wants to meet with somebody about filling the important role of future NASA administrator.

Q Charles Bolden?

MR. GIBBS: He will meet with him on Monday, and we’ll see how that goes.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, two quick questions. Sheila Bair today said that some bank chief executives would be replaced in the coming months after the stress tests have run their course. Is the administration behind that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Ed, the process for the stress test, as you know — the initial results are back and have been released, as you know. The banks that need additional capital cushion under the scenario sketched out by the regulators in these tests, those plans have to be back in the next several weeks to the regulators and those that did the tests in order to ensure their acceptance.

Based on looking at those plans, I assume those regulators also will make determinations about not just the suitability of those plans going forward, but whether or not the corporate leadership of those institutions is right in instituting what has to happen in those plans. But I think that’s a process that has got to play out for a few weeks.

Q On the Supreme Court, is the President making progress on that search? And should the public consider as a disqualifying factor not being square with the Internal Revenue Service?

MR. GIBBS: I’m not that privy to the individual vets in any of these instances. I think the President believes in the meetings that he’s having that he’s making progress on selecting the person that he believes will be best able to serve as a member of the Supreme Court, understanding the importance of the rule of law, and understanding the role that the law plays in the lives of everyday citizens.

Q If I can ask — has the President conducted interviews to your knowledge, for the Supreme Court?

MR. GIBBS: He has not.

Q Is that going to happen in Camp David on Memorial Day weekend?

MR. GIBBS: I do not have that detailed a week-ahead.

Q Where will these military commissions reconstituted occur?

MR. GIBBS: I think some of that will depend on timing.

Q Will they occur in Guantanamo?

MR. GIBBS: They could, yes.

Q And does that fact in any way affect the President’s commitment to close it by the deadline he set with an executive order?

MR. GIBBS: No. And, look, I think there are any number of decisions and details that have to be gone through over the next several months on a lot of these issues.

Q Would it not be incumbent on the President to have these details ironed out before making this decision?

MR. GIBBS: No, because –

Q Is the venue important –

MR. GIBBS: Well, the venue is important but I think it’s important to understand, Major, that the filings that are being undertaken by the Department of Defense today are to seek additional continuances from those that were received when the President originally signed the executive order, delaying what at that point would be military commissions that would have gone forward — (cell phone rings) — careful — (laughter) — my son told me I can’t take any more phones — so the filings are required in order to seek additional continuances as the original 120 days expire.

Q I understand. But taking your commitment to swift and sure justice, looking at a calendar, if the binding deadline to close Guantanamo remains, and you are continuing cases, and there is no other place that I’m currently aware of in which military commissions of the kind that are envisioned can take place, I’m just trying to figure out where these cases are going to be adjudicated. And don’t the American people deserve an answer to understand where this swift and sure justice is going to be carried out?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I know those are — this is a process that is being worked through as part of these continuances.

Q Okay, let me ask you about Speaker Pelosi. Yesterday she said that she — it was her belief that the CIA lied to her. The CIA Director Leon Panetta said in a message to employees today that it is important for them to focus on their job, not listen to all this noise, that they take any kind of accusation of that nature very seriously. Does this White House agree with the Speaker that the CIA lied to her? Does it have any opinion on the propriety of the airing that kind of accusation publicly?

MR. GIBBS: I think you’ve heard the President say this a number of times — the best thing that we can do is to look forward. The President is spending his time on any number of issues, including keep the American people safe, by looking forward.

Q Yes, but it is a crime, what the Speaker alleged.

MR. GIBBS: You know, and –

Q That’s a serious allegation, one that would be — would necessarily alarm the American public at a time of war, which the President, I know, as you’ve told us, takes very seriously.

MR. GIBBS: He does, and Major, I appreciate the invitation to get involved in here, but I’m not going to RSVP.

Yes, sir.

Q You let him take so many questions, he asked all of mine. (Laughter.) But do you have any –

MR. GIBBS: Can I go now?

Q Not all our questions. (Laughter.)

Q That is such –

MR. GIBBS: You’ve asked a lot of questions. (Laughter.)

Q I’ve forgotten that my job as a journalist is to ask questions, I apologize.

MR. GIBBS: Thirty seconds to respond –

Q I was going to actually ask the same one, so I was praising his question.

Do you have a sense of how many of the detainees that are currently in Guantanamo will ultimately go through the tribunals? We had some sources over the week as saying somewhere between 50 and 100.

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know that it’s that high, to be honest with you. I don’t have in front of me that answer, but I think part of — part of the process that you heard me discuss when the President signed the executive order was that determinations would be made on acquiring knowledge on individual cases for all of the detainees at Guantanamo. I know that process continues. So I think the overall number may not yet be determined based on detailed reviews of individual instances and detainee records.

Q Okay, thank you.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q Robert, can you just delineate what the President thinks — the kinds of cases where the tribunals would be appropriate as opposed to a civilian court?

MR. GIBBS: You know, I don’t want to get ahead of the lawyers and some of that stuff. I’m not going to get ahead of that.

Yes, sir.

Q Do you have an idea of how many detainees will be taken out of Guantanamo, tried in the commission process? There was some reporting yesterday that suggested it was about 20 or just under that number, and that number was –

MR. GIBBS: You’re trying the same question.

Q — disputed by the White House. And then Monday, how important is it to the President to get Prime Minister Netanyahu to agree or use the phrase “two-state solution” or support that? And what’s the thinking inside the White House about the fact that a lot of people expect this meeting to be tense and adversarial?

MR. GIBBS: You know, on the first question, again, I think the individual detainee reviews are* happening about what is the most appropriate venue, and I don’t have a specific number, as I said to Michael, on that.

In terms of Prime Minister Netanyahu, look, the President has met with him before. I think they have a good relationship. I think they want to discuss, obviously, the importance of our bilateral relationship, the mutual interest that we have in peace and stability in the region, and a number of other issues of common concern. This is part of this — an ongoing process that the President began the very first day of his administration. This will be followed by meetings.

We’ve obviously had King Abdullah here. We will have President Mubarak and President Abbas. I don’t expect that the meeting will be quite as contentious as you might suggest. I think this is the beginning of a long effort and I think the President — I think all involved understand that, like so many issues that arrive in that office, that the solutions aren’t going to be easy.

Q But his government — Netanyahu’s government has not agreed to support or pursue a two-state solution.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t doubt that the parameters of — the beginning parameters of some peace deal is something that’s going to be –

Q I mean, that’s fairly important to this White House –

MR. GIBBS: — it is, it will be discussed, and I think people understand the position that this administration has.

Peter.

Q Robert, just following up a bit on Jonathan and Mark’s questions, the President shifted positions on the issue of the photos depicting abuse. When a President makes a decision, should the American people conclude that it is subject to change or will he stand by it?

MR. GIBBS: Which decision?

Q Well, let’s take the photo decision. I don’t want to get into necessarily a discussion about that particular decision, but generally when a President makes decisions, does he stand by these decisions or are these decisions subject to change as new facts come in, or how would you describe the President’s approach?

MR. GIBBS: I think anybody that doesn’t take into account facts as they are, facts as they change, in making a decision — I think the President would believe that of course one would make a decision based on the most up-to-date, readily available information. I think to do otherwise would be to short-change, in many ways, the importance of the decision that you make.

Q Robert, if the President is granting additional rights to these detainees, these suspects, in these military commissions, what’s the status of double jeopardy? If they’re acquitted in these military commissions, will they be released, or are they subject to either being held without trial or tried in other venues?

MR. GIBBS: I can get a lawyer to answer the question. I don’t off the top of my head know the answer.

Yes, sir. (Cell phone rings.) Are you going to phone this question in or — (laughter.)

Q I’ve already had an offer for a more up-to-date model with a big off button on it.

MR. GIBBS: You know, having held that phone, you should take somebody up on that. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you, Robert.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q Two quick questions. On Wednesday, I saw Senator Sessions of Alabama, who said he has twice written the administration about the release of the Chinese — the Uighurs, Chinese Muslims, into the United States and has not received a reply. Are you familiar with this and going to reply to him?

MR. GIBBS: I’ve not seen any letters. I don’t doubt from Senator Sessions that they exist. I don’t know — I don’t have any announcements and I think I would point to what the Attorney General testified in front of Congress yesterday.

Q Also, Congressman Lamborn and other members in the House Sovereignty Caucus said they believed President Obama would take the United States — would submit ratification to the Senate of U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court, but he has not officially said that. Is that the administration’s position?

MR. GIBBS: I honestly don’t have anything on that but I can — I will check for the House Sovereignty Caucus.

Q Thank you.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q Is the administration prepared to offer the Israelis some kind of undertaking that any negotiations with Iran would not be open-ended; that it would have some kind of end date? And do you think it’s fair for people to sort of form the view that, given the statements from the administration and given the statements from Netanyahu government on issues like settlement, Iran, a Palestinian state, that although they’re still good allies, there are certainly differences of approach to the Middle East right now?

MR. GIBBS: My sense is that probably — that’s probably a strain in any number of — a common strain in any number of our relationships. Look, I — this I think, again, is going to be a long process. I think many of the issues that you enumerated this government has been in contact with the Israelis about, and that conversation will continue here on Monday.

We understand the common security challenges that Israel and the United States face, and I think those will be paramount in the discussions.

Yes, sir.

Q Thanks, Robert. I have two quick questions. First, I wanted to know if the President has any reaction to the RNC’s rebranding effort. They’re going to pass a resolution to rename the Democratic Party. And I also wanted to know if you could flesh out –

MR. GIBBS: That seems — I would say, given the challenges that they face, that seems like just exactly the way I would be using my time too.

Q Does the President have a reaction?

MR. GIBBS: You’ll be surprised I haven’t talked to him about this.

Q And my second question was, I wondering if you could describe the difference between the President’s decision to intervene with regard to the abuse photos but not to intervene when it comes to discharging otherwise qualified soldiers because they’re gay.

MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry, I don’t understand the analogy.

Q Well, the President says that releasing the detainee photos poses a danger to our troops, but doesn’t dismissing otherwise qualified soldiers also pose a danger? Is it a question of degree?

MR. GIBBS: No, no. What I talked about in terms of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was the President — the President, as you know, supports changing that because he strongly believes that it does not serve our national interest. He agrees with former members of the Joint Chiefs in that determination.

But unlike photos, the only durable solution to “don’t ask, don’t tell” is through a legislative process, and the President is working with Congress and members of the Joint Chiefs to ensure that that happens.

Q But couldn’t he in the meantime put a moratorium on these discharges until that can be accomplished?

MR. GIBBS: But again, the President has determined that that’s not — that’s not the way to seek any sort of lasting or durable solution to the public policy problem that we have.

Q Then how would you respond to the criticism, though, that dismissing a qualified linguist endangers the troops?

MR. GIBBS: I think I would respond by saying that the President has long believed that the policy doesn’t serve our national interest.

George.

Q Presidents have often used commencement addresses at the military academies for major speeches on foreign or defense policy, an example being Bush outlining the policy of preemptive war at West Point. Can we expect anything that sweeping at the Naval Academy speech next week? What is the topic?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you’ll see two things. One, as I had stated earlier, I think the President first and foremost understands that it is a time of celebration for families, particularly individuals at the Naval Academy that are entering into serving their country. So I think obviously there will be a celebration of that.

I think the President will talk about the challenges that we face and the commitments that he’s making to ensure that the investments that we make in protecting our men and women in uniform, that we’re doing so in a way that understands the precious resources that they are and the precious resources that we have in ensuring that we’re using those resources to their greatest ability in the missions that they are undertaking now and the type of missions that we believe they’ll be taking in the future.

Thanks, guys.

END
3:05 P.M. EDT

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Presidential Weekly Address-5-16-9- text version

18. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

EMBARGOED UNTIL 6:00 AM ET, SATURDAY, May 16, 2009

WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Says Progress on Clean Energy and Healthcare Reform Will Lay New Foundation
WASHINGTON – This week, President Barack Obama praised individuals representing different perspectives for coming together to address the challenges of building a clean energy economy, reforming the healthcare system and laying a new foundation for the long-term strength of our economy. Utility companies and corporate leaders are working with environmental advocates and labor leaders to find a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to fight climate change, and to create millions of new jobs in America. Recently, past critics and advocates of healthcare reform sat down with the President to work on reducing the healthcare costs by $2 trillion in the next decade and saving families $2,500 in the coming years.

The full audio of the address is HERE. The video can be viewed online at www.whitehouse.gov.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Good morning. Over the past few months, as we have put in place a plan to speed our economic recovery, I have spoken repeatedly of the need to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity; a foundation that will support good jobs and rising incomes; a foundation for economic growth where we no longer rely on excessive debt and reckless risk – but instead on skilled workers and sound investments to lead the world in the industries of the 21st century.

Two pillars of this new foundation are clean energy and health care. And while there remains a great deal of difficult work ahead, I am heartened by what we have seen these past few days: a willingness of those with different points of view and disparate interests to come together around common goals – to embrace a shared sense of responsibility and make historic progress.

Chairman Henry Waxman and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee brought together stakeholders from all corners of the country – and every sector of our economy – to reach an historic agreement on comprehensive energy legislation. It’s another promising sign of progress, as longtime opponents are sitting together, at the same table, to help solve one of America’s most serious challenges.

For the first time, utility companies and corporate leaders are joining, not opposing, environmental advocates and labor leaders to create a new system of clean energy initiatives that will help unleash a new era of growth and prosperity.

It’s a plan that will finally reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and cap the carbon pollution that threatens our health and our climate. Most important, it’s a plan that will trigger the creation of millions of new jobs for Americans, who will produce the wind turbines and solar panels and develop the alternative fuels to power the future. Because this we know: the nation that leads in 21st century clean energy is the nation that will lead the 21st century global economy. America can and must be that nation – and this agreement is a major step toward this goal.

But we know that our families, our economy, and our nation itself will not succeed in the 21st century if we continue to be held down by the weight of rapidly rising health care costs and a broken health care system. That’s why I met with representatives of insurance and drug companies, doctors and hospitals, and labor unions who are pledging to do their part to reduce health care costs. These are some of the groups who have been among the fiercest critics of past comprehensive health care reform plans. But today they too are recognizing that we must act. Our businesses will not be able to compete; our families will not be able to save or spend; our budgets will remain unsustainable unless we get health care costs under control.

These groups have pledged to do their part to reduce the annual health care spending growth rate by 1.5 percentage points. Coupled with comprehensive reform, their efforts could help to save our nation more than $2 trillion in the next ten years – and save hardworking families $2,500 each in the coming years.

This week, I also invited Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and other congressional leaders to the White House to discuss comprehensive health reform legislation. The House is working to pass a bill by the end of July – before they head out for their August recess. That’s the kind of urgency and determination we need to achieve comprehensive reform by the end of this year. And the reductions in spending the health care community has pledged will help make this reform possible.

I have always believed that it is better to talk than not to talk; that it is far more productive to reach over a divide than to shake your fist across it. This has been an alien notion in Washington for far too long, but we are seeing that the ways of Washington are beginning to change. For the calling of this moment is too loud and too urgent to ignore. Our success as a nation – the future of our children and grandchildren – depends upon our willingness to cast aside old arguments, overcome stubborn divisions, and march forward as one people and one nation.

This is how progress has always been made. This is how a new foundation will be built. We cannot assume that interests will always align, or that fragile partnerships will not fray. There will be setbacks. There will be difficult days. But we are off to a good start. And I am confident that we will – in the weeks, months, and years ahead – build on what we have already achieved and lay this foundation which will not only bring about prosperity for this generation, but for generations to come.

Thanks so much.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Vice-President-Biden-Announces-Nearly-100-Million-In-Recovery-Act-Funds-To-Clean-Up-Dangerous-Lead-In-Housing/-5-15-9

18. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Vice President

_________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release May 15, 2009

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCES NEARLY $100 MILLION IN RECOVERY ACT
FUNDS TO CLEAN UP DANGEROUS LEAD IN HOUSING
Grants to protect children, create healthy housing and create jobs

LOS ANGELES – Following a tour of the Esperanza Community Housing Corporation in South Central Los Angeles, Vice President Biden today announced that HUD is making nearly than $100 million in Recovery Act funding available to help eliminate dangerous lead-based paint and other health and safety hazards from low-income homes. These grants will help 53 local programs in 20 states and the District of Columbia to protect young children from lead poisoning and create jobs.

The Vice President was joined by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Rep. Xavier Becerra and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Deputy Secretary Ron Simms on the visit to Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, which is receiving $875,000 to help identify and clean up lead and other health hazards in 225 homes in Los Angeles.

“It is unacceptable that some 40 percent of homes in this country still contain lead-based paints, the majority of which are in low-income areas where homes have not been renovated in decades,” said Vice President Biden. “These are our children, our next generation – and thanks to the Recovery Act, we are investing in their future by reducing lead paint in their homes, educating their families about its abundant hazards and improving the safety of the communities they grow up in.”

“In making these grants available today, the Department is acknowledging the importance of healthy homes and protecting our children from dangerous lead hazards,” said Secretary Donovan. “And not only will this program contribute to healthy, safe homes for all children and families, which is a top priority for HUD, but it will also support shovel-ready projects that are essential to getting Americans back to work and fixing the nation’s economic crisis quickly and efficiently.”

Funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), which was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, the grants to States and local governments are being offered by HUD’s Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. The recipients of these Recovery Act grants were qualified applicants in the FY08 funding cycle but were not initially awarded grants because of the limited number of funds available at that time. The grants will contribute to President Obama’s mission under the Recovery Act to create and sustain jobs and jumpstart the nation’s economy. To view a summary of local programs funded through the Recovery Act, visit HUD’s website.

The Recovery Act includes $13.61 billion for projects and programs administered by HUD, nearly 75 percent of which was allocated to state and local recipients only eight days after President Obama signed the Act into law. The remaining 25 percent of funds will be awarded through a competitive grant process in the coming months. HUD is committed to implementing Recovery Act investments swiftly, but also effectively as they generate tens of thousands of jobs, modernize homes to make them energy efficient, and help the families and communities hardest hit by the economic crisis.

In addition, Secretary Donovan and the Department are committed to providing the highest level of transparency possible as Recovery Act funds are administered. It is vitally important that the American people are fully aware of how their tax dollars are being spent and can hold their federal leaders accountable. Every dollar of Recovery Act funds HUD awards can be reviewed and tracked at HUD’s Recovery Act website. The full text of HUD’s funding notices and tracking future performance of these grants is also available at HUD’s Recovery Act website.

###

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Treasury-Department-statement-on-GM-Dealer-consolidation-announcement- 5-15-9

18. May 2009 by admin.

U.S. Treasury Department
Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
May 15, 2009

CONTACT: Treasury Public Affairs (202) 622-2960

Treasury Department Statement
on GM Dealer Consolidation Announcement

WASHINGTON – Today, General Motors initiated the dealer consolidation plan it laid out in its interim plan on April 27, 2009.

GM’s announcement is part of the company’s larger effort to restructure to achieve financial viability. The Task Force is continuing to work with GM and all its stakeholders and will stand behind GM during this process to ensure that it emerges as a more competitive, viable business in the long-term. As was the case with Chrysler’s dealer consolidation plan, the Task Force was not involved in deciding which dealers, or how many dealers, were part of GM’s announcement today.

As difficult as these announcements are for the dealers that will no longer be selling GM and Chrysler cars and the communities in which they operate, without the President’s intervention, the entire GM and Chrysler dealer networks could have been lost. The Administration’s commitment to this industry has given both companies a new lease on life. By supporting a restructuring that results in stronger car companies – supported by efficient and effective dealer networks – this process will not only provide more stability and certainty for current employees but the prospect for future employment growth.

In addition, the Administration is committed to continuing its significant efforts to help ensure that financing is available to creditworthy dealers and to pursuing efforts to help boost domestic demand for cars. These steps will help auto dealers, the auto industry, and the American economy.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »