The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
September 18, 2013

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 9/18/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:27 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Thank you for your patience.  Before I take your questions, I just had one announcement to make.  To honor the victims of Monday’s horrific shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, the President will attend a memorial service on Sunday.  We will provide more details as they become available, but I wanted you to know that today.

Q    Can we know where that would be?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, more details about the time, the specific time on Sunday, and where the service will be will become available soon.  But I just wanted to let you know today that the President will be attending a memorial service for the victims, on Sunday.

Q    Can we anticipate he’ll speak or just attend?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don’t have anything more on that.  The President will want to mourn the loss of these innocent victims and share in the nation’s pain in the aftermath of another senseless mass shooting.

Julie.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Now that we have a clear sense of the trajectory in the House on their budget plan, does the administration think the fact that they’re taking this approach and the fact that they are probably not going to vote, it sounds, until Friday, does that make the possibility of a government shutdown more likely at this point?

MR. CARNEY:  I hope not.  But as I think we saw in the reporting today, House Republicans have decided to pursue a path away from the center, away from compromise, in favor of voting on a piece of legislation that they know will not become law.  And one sobering paragraph I read in one story about this, I think in the Washington Post, was that members of both parties are becoming increasingly worried that the fact that a faction of the House of Representatives, the House Republicans, is driving this thing in the wrong direction could bring us closer to a wholly unnecessary and damaging shutdown of the government. 

And Congress has some basic responsibilities.  One of them is to fund the government, the operations of the government, and it is not to attach ideological aspirations to the kinds of bills that ensure that the government doesn’t shut down and that we don’t inflict another unnecessary wound on our economy just as it’s continuing to grow and continuing to create jobs.

And what has become more and more apparent is that the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress may want to avoid a shutdown and may want to avoid, even worse, a default.  But there are members of that party, especially in the House, who seem to embrace the prospect.  And the irony is that they are doing it in the name of trying to defund or delay, or defeat in some other way, a law designed to provide access to insurance for millions of Americans -- to health insurance -- a law that is already providing tangible benefits to millions of Americans; a law, as I said the other day, that when implemented will ensure that at least close to 6 in 10 uninsured Americans will now have the capability of buying insurance for less than $100 a month. 

That law was passed by the House, it was passed by the Senate, it was signed by the President, and it was upheld by the Supreme Court.  And yet, in order to refight this political battle, some members of the Republican Party in Congress seem to want to shut down the government and maybe have, for the first time in the history of this great country, see the United States fail to pay the bills that it’s already incurred.

So this is a problem.  And we have to be crystal clear about the fact that there is a majority in Washington, a member of which is the President of the United States, a member of which is every Democrat on Capitol Hill, and a member of which are many Republicans on Capitol Hill, who do not want to see the government shut down, who do not want to see the pain inflicted that a shutdown would inflict on the middle class, and will not negotiate over the ideological aspirations of a small group or a -- unfortunately, not that small group, but a faction within the Republican Party in the House.

Q    But given the dynamic that you’re talking about, does the White House feel like there’s anything that the President can do at this point to change that dynamic, or are you largely powerless to let this play out?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think you heard the President talk today at the Business Roundtable about the need for common sense to prevail here.  He has made clear that, in both the words that he has spoken and in the proposals that he has made, that he is willing to reach common ground when it comes to budget policy.  And he has had numerous conversations with Republican lawmakers in pursuit of that common ground. 

At the very least, Congress needs to move forward with a bill that continues the functioning of the federal government and then do what Congress has done hundreds of times in the past, without drama and without threat to the economy, and simply extend the debt ceiling so that the bills Congress racked up can be paid.

The debt ceiling, I know, is often viewed as a vote over spending, but it is not.  It doesn’t increase the deficit -- by raising the debt ceiling, you don’t increase the deficit by a dime.  You don’t add new spending.  All you are doing is telling Congress that the bills it has already incurred can be paid.  Must be paid.  And Congress needs to make sure that happens.

Q    I guess what I don’t understand, though, is we’ve heard comments from the President this week, we’ve heard similar comments from him in previous budget fights.  So I guess what I don’t understand is, is there anything more than just talking that the President and the White House can do at this point to change this dynamic on the Hill, which at this point seems to make it more likely that we are going to have a shutdown.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, I think we are speaking out.  We are engaging in Washington, and we will continue to make the case that, while it is absolutely true that we have real differences and differences that are honestly come by among ourselves, between Democrats and Republicans, and we should debate those issues and hash them out, and try to reach a compromise, we cannot hold hostage the full faith and credit of the United States government.  We cannot and should not shut down the government in order to make an ideological point. 

I saw one Republican House member quoted in the paper saying, all that matters is that my constituents are for this.  And my question to him would be, will they be for it when, in the wake of the devastation of default, they can say, well, I don’t have a job because the economy is cratering, but thank God you’ve taken away my opportunity to buy health insurance.  I doubt it.

Q    Jay, ahead of the Syria thing on the Hill, you guys were talking to everybody -- the President was on the phone, Denis McDonough was up on the Hill.  I’m not seeing that in this case.  Why isn’t that the case?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, we have been meeting with Republicans all year long over our budget challenges and our efforts to try to find common ground, and we will continue to work with Congress in the days and weeks ahead. 

But, I mean, it is -- to ask the question, do you think that meeting with President Obama is going to prevent House Republicans from what they’ve decided to do, which is to -- for the leadership to ignore their own wishes, not to lead, but to then say, we’ll follow the will of 40 House Republicans who want to attach the funding of government to a bill that will never pass, never become law, to strip away funding for Obamacare -- that, in the end, Republicans in the Congress need to make a decision about what outcomes they really desire here.

One provision related to the Affordable Care Act, that Republicans have pressed or said they might press when it comes to raising the debt ceiling, would increase the deficit.  Right?  Let’s remember, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit significantly.  And trying to repeal it in a backhanded way or a side way, through delaying a central provision of it, would increase the deficit.  So in the name of fiscal conservatism, these Republicans would increase the deficit and call that a victory.  It doesn’t really square.

Q    Well, are you willing to accept any delays in Obamacare in order to avoid a government shutdown?

MR. CARNEY:  No.  The Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.  The President signed it.  The Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional.  And it is providing benefits to millions of Americans today and will provide access to affordable health care to millions of Americans when the marketplaces take effect. 

Republicans seem to believe -- or that faction of Republicans who have entertained this seem to believe that taking away those benefits is good messaging, is good politics.  What it is beyond that, if they believe that, is harmful to the people who have those benefits, harmful to our economy.  And they can, as they have 40 times already, continue to vote to repeal or change or defund the Affordable Care Act, and we can all watch that exercise as it unfolds.  But they should not harm average folks out there in order to participate in that exercise.  They should do their jobs by making sure that the essential functions of government are funded and making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States government is upheld, as it has been since the birth of the nation.

Yes.

Q    Jay, so are we looking at sort of a “Gridlock-Nado,” where we could have the government shut down at the end of the month and then go into default a couple of weeks later?  Is that a possibility?

MR. CARNEY:  (Laughter.)  I’m not sure about the NATO part of it, but the --

Q    Maybe a better term, then.

MR. CARNEY:  It depends on what Republicans really want to achieve here. 

Q    But it’s possible?  The government could shut down and then go into default?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, there’s no question that Congress is the body responsible for passing legislation to fund the government, and body responsible for passing legislation to ensure that the debt ceiling is raised so that the bills Congress has already racked up are paid. 

So if Congress fails to act, yes, it’s possible.  Leaders of Congress in both parties have said they would never allow the United States to default.  We saw just a few years ago when even the possibility of default was in the air, and when some House Republicans enthusiastically flirted with the idea of default, what that meant for our economy.  It did harm to our economy, did harm to our recovery.  One can only imagine what would happen if they did it again. 

Leaders say they don’t want that to happen.  John Boehner, in March, told Sean Hannity that he thought it would be -- that threatening to shut down the government -- we’re not even talking about default -- but shutting down the government over Obamacare was a bad idea.  That’s what he said in March.  Today, he’s I guess reacting to the will of 40 members of the House who insist that it is a good idea.

Q    And we know the President has had dinner with various Senate Republicans and met with them privately over the last several months.  He doesn’t do that with House Republican leaders.  Has he just given up on dealing with the House?

MR. CARNEY:  Look, the President has met many times with the Speaker of the House.  He’s met many times with other members of the House of Representatives, of the Republican Party, and --

Q    But the outreach has not been the same.

MR. CARNEY:  But, again, the President has looked for -- the President laid forth a budget that represented compromise when it came to entitlement reform, something that Republicans said they want but they never talk about now because what they really want is to defund Obamacare and take away health insurance options from the American people and maybe raise the deficit at the same time.  But that’s what they said they wanted, so the President put it forward. 

He put forward a comprehensive budget proposal that deals with our debt and deficit in the long term while funding important aspects -- while providing funds for investments that will help our economy grow, make sure that we’re building our infrastructure, educating our children, and conducting research and doing development in a way that keeps our economy competitive.

A lot of Democrats did not love that proposal because it represented compromise; it represented a willingness to take less than the ideal by the President.  And he met -- he said, my door is open; anybody who wants to meet with me to talk about finding common ground -- Republicans that is, as well as Democrats -- are welcome.  And we had a lot constructive meetings.  But what we never saw from even the Republicans who said they were interested in common ground was a counter proposal, one that represented the same kind of willingness to compromise as the President had put forward.

And that's what the American people expect us to do here.  That's what they sent their representatives to do here, was to work out their differences, reach principled compromises, and take action to ensure that our economy continues to grow, and that we’re investing in the right places, and that we’re responsibly reducing our deficit. 

And again, the deficit arguments are important, but I would point out that you don't hear them a lot anymore from Republicans because the deficit will now be cut in half over the time that the President has been in office.

Q    And what do you say to Americans who see this and say, we’ve seen this movie before -- the government did not technically default the last time; there hasn’t been a shutdown while President Obama has been in office, that this is just sort of Washington theater?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we certainly hope and the President certainly hopes that sooner rather than later, Republican leaders in Congress will be willing to do the right thing and responsibly continue funding of the essential functions of the federal government and, without drama, as they did earlier this year, extend the debt ceiling.  And then we can continue to negotiate over a broader budget compromise.  And they can continue to vote again and again and again to defund or repeal Obamacare in the House as we go about the business of providing expanded opportunities to Americans to get health insurance.

Jon.

Q    Hey, Jay, when was the last time the President had a substantive discussion with Speaker of the House John Boehner about --

MR. CARNEY:  I got this question yesterday.  I don't have any new conversations to read out to you.  Again, I think Speaker Boehner is very much engaged in trying to deal with what everybody in your business has accurately reported as essentially an all-out civil war within the Republican Party, where a faction of the party is basically at odds with the leadership and making demands that, if acquiesced to, could lead us to a shutdown or, even worse, to a default.

Q    Is the White House strategy simply to lean back and watch this, as you call it, Republican civil war --

MR. CARNEY:  No, I think you saw the President of the United States meeting with business leaders from this country today, business leaders who have no small amount of influence over leaders in Washington, including, you might say, especially Republican leaders about the need for responsible compromise when it comes to our budgeting and responsible action by Congress when it comes simply to extending the debt ceiling.  And I think those leaders would tell you that even threatening default is unwise.

And even as John Boehner said in March to Sean Hannity, threatening to shut down the government over Obamacare is a bad idea. 

Q    But I guess the question really is this question of giving up, because --

MR. CARNEY:  No, we’re not.  We are making our points every day.  See, on Monday --

Q    You’re making your points, but are you actually talking to Republicans?  You may make the argument, look, they're completely unreasonable --

MR. CARNEY:  I assume there are some watching now.  And there were a bunch of Republicans in the room with the President today, I’m guessing, right?  A bunch.

Q    Members of the House -- to pass this?

MR. CARNEY:  Highly influential, card-carrying Republican Party members who have the ear of Republican lawmakers and who believe that Congress ought to do the responsible thing, which is not shut down the government and not allow the government to default.

Q    But your position -- let me just be crystal clear.  The President’s position is you will not negotiate over the debt ceiling.

MR. CARNEY:  Correct.

Q    How is that tenable?  So the White House is really willing to risk default --

MR. CARNEY:  The White House is not -- here’s the thing --

Q    No, but you’re threatening default.

MR. CARNEY:  No, no, Jon --

Q    Because you’re saying you won’t even negotiate with Republicans on this issue.  How is that tenable?

MR. CARNEY:  Jon, who has the power to raise the debt ceiling?  Who has the power to raise the debt ceiling?

Q    Well, the Congress does --

MR. CARNEY:  Who has the power to raise the debt ceiling?

Q    And the Republican Congress have put forward a plan --  you may call it ridiculous, whatever you want to call it -- but they have put forth a plan for raising the debt ceiling --

MR. CARNEY:  The Congress has the power to raise the debt ceiling.

Q    -- and you are unwilling to negotiate.

MR. CARNEY:  I like turning the tables here -- I can’t get a direct answer.  (Laughter.)  The Congress has the power to raise the debt ceiling.

Q    I did answer you.  (Laughter.)  And I said they put forward a plan.

MR. CARNEY:  All they have to do is do what they have done hundreds of times before and raise the debt ceiling.  What is the debt ceiling?  The debt ceiling is not new spending.  Raising the debt ceiling doesn’t add a dime to the deficit. 

Q    Well, can I get a question?

MR. CARNEY:  Hold on.  A lot of the rhetoric around it suggests that it has to do with new spending, but as everyone in this room understands and everybody on Capitol Hill understands, and I believe a lot of Americans who are paying attention understand, this is simply a vote to allow Congress to pay the bills that Congress has already incurred.  And that is something we have done as a nation for every year of our existence.

So what the President has said and what John Boehner periodically has publically agreed with is we cannot hold the full faith and credit of the United States government hostage to the ideological desires of a faction of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill.  And it is incumbent upon the leaders of that party to ensure that doesn’t happen, because though he would like to be able to give direction to members of the Republican Party in the House, the President can’t.  Hopefully, the elected leaders of the party in the House can.

Q    But you’re saying you won’t event negotiate on the issue.  I mean, the debt ceiling has been raised -- you’re right -- countless times, but there’s often been a give-and-take.

MR. CARNEY:  Not on the debt ceiling.

Q    Remind me how Senator Obama voted in 2006 on the debt ceiling.

MR. CARNEY:  Right.  And we have addressed this many times, and there was never a threat of default then.  What the debt ceiling has been attached to again and again and again --

Q    He refused to vote for raising the debt ceiling.

MR. CARNEY:  -- the debt ceiling -- because Congress didn’t like to take the vote, because they knew it was their responsibility to ensure that the debt ceiling would be raised, would attach the provision that raised the debt ceiling to other bills that were going to pass anyway, and that is what would happen.  And what we had never seen before in our history is what we saw in 2011 when the newly empowered leaders of the Republican Party in Congress insisted that we negotiate over raising the debt ceiling.

And we all saw, and you reported on, what happened when they flirted with actual default as opposed to protest votes, as opposed to attaching the debt ceiling to some other piece of legislation and holding their noses and voting for it.  This is qualitatively different -- there’s no arguing that.  2011 was different from any other occasion that we’ve seen when the debt ceiling has come to a vote, and it has severe economic consequences.  We cannot allow that to happen again. 

The President is willing to negotiate over budget policy.  He’s willing to negotiate over how we reduce our deficit further moving forward, as we’ve reduced it significantly since he’s been in office.  But he’s not willing to negotiate over Congress’s fundamental responsibility not to default on its obligations.

Q    Is this just semantics, though?  I mean, you’ll be willing to negotiate on those things and --

MR. CARNEY:  We have said all along and we have negotiated all year long over how we pass a budget.  The Senate said -- I mean, the Republicans in Congress said, as part of the end-of-the-year deal, New Year’s Day deal, that they insisted -- that one of their demands was that the Senate pass a budget just as the House had been passing budgets and that normal, regular order would prevail.  So we said, yes.  The President said, yes.  Democratic leaders in the Senate said, yes.  All of that happened.  And then, when it happened and Republicans got what they wanted, they walked away from the process.

So we’re willing and have been willing to negotiate over how we can responsibly reduce our deficit, how we can responsibly reduce the cost of entitlements over time -- how we can do all that in a way that’s fair and helpful to the middle class.  But what we won’t do, what the President will not do, what he cannot do is negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United States.  That should be an absolute certitude that Congress will not default.

Bill.

Q    But to return to an earlier point, all he’s been doing is talking. 

MR. CARNEY:  As opposed to what? 

Q    Why doesn’t he twist somebody’s arm?  Twist some arms.

MR. CARNEY:  Hey, Bill, you know what he did?  He wrote a budget.  And he proposed it, and he sent it to Congress in detail -- detail we have not seen from the Republicans -- and in response, in return, in terms of a compromise proposition.  And he sat down again and again and again with members of the Republican Party in Congress who said they were interested in trying to find a deal.

Q    Since the 14th century, it’s been known that it’s better to be loved than -- I mean, feared than loved when it comes to these things.  Why isn’t --

MR. CARNEY:  Probably prior to that.

Q    Yes, okay.  But why hasn’t he done some more arm-twisting, for example?  I don’t want to go to kneecaps, but arm-twisting?  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  He has twisted arms.  He has used the powers that are available to him to try to convince, persuade, cajole Republicans into doing the sensible thing, which is not threatening to shut the government, not threatening to default, but working with him on a compromise.  And what they said they wanted when it came to some of their demands on entitlement reforms, he gave.  And then they walked away and didn’t come back.

So at some point, you have to have a negotiating partner who is willing to -- if you’re willing to compromise, they have to be willing to compromise, too.  And instead, what we have in the House now is a situation where the House leadership indicates a reasonable approach to making sure the government shuts down and the rank-and-file members say no, so the House leadership says nevermind.

We’re not -- we cannot -- as much as we would like to be in charge of the House Republicans, we’re not.  And that’s not how the system works.

Q    So basically you’re saying he’s not to blame at all?  It’s the other guy’s fault?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m just saying that it’s his responsibility to offer compromises, and he has.  It is also absolutely the right position to take that he and no President should negotiate over Congress’s responsibility to pay its bills.

Q    Can he afford to remain above the fray like this?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, you’re assuming that he’s above the fray.  He’s not.  He’s in the fray.  And he was in the fray today, and he’ll be in the fray until Congress does the right thing.

Q    With talks.

MR. CARNEY:  As opposed to what, Bill?

Q    That's what I’m asking.

MR. CARNEY:  I don't think we’ll take up arms, okay?  I think we’re just going to have to -- this is going to have to be worked out, and Congress is going to have to act.

Yes.

Q    Jay, when you told Jon the debt ceiling is never attached to anything, don't you find that --

MR. CARNEY:  I said the opposite.

Q    You said it’s not attached to other issues, that the Congress does it as a stand-alone.

MR. CARNEY:  I said that in the past, in order to mitigate the unpleasantness of voting for raising the debt ceiling, it has been attached to other bills that aren’t germane that were going to pass so that the debt ceiling has been raised.  And that has been used as an example by the Speaker of times when the debt ceiling itself -- raising the debt ceiling itself has been negotiated over, which until 2011 had not been the case.

Q    Right.  But based on 2011, at that podium, you often take credit for $2 trillion in spending cuts the President got that were attached to the last debt ceiling fight.  So when you get something you want, it’s a good thing.  And if it’s something about health care or whatever, it’s a bad thing.  You tout that you got $2 trillion --

MR. CARNEY:  The President puts forward a proposal to reduce the deficit beyond what was included in that deal.

Q    Okay, but do you think that was a good thing?  You got $2 trillion --

MR. CARNEY:  No, we don't think the sequester was a good thing.

Q    I’m not talking about sequester.  I’m talking about --

MR. CARNEY:  Sequester was part of that deal.

Q    Part of that deal.  But you’ve touted again and again $2 trillion --

MR. CARNEY:  $1.2 trillion --

Q    The sequester is a small part of that. 

MR. CARNEY:  Actually, it’s not.

Q    It’s not $2 trillion.

MR. CARNEY:  You got to go back and check your facts.  The initial reduction in non-defense discretionary spending that was part of that deal was roughly $1.2 trillion.  Josh, am I right?  Along those lines?  A trillion bucks.  And that represented a compromise between the President and the Republicans.

Then the super committee was tasked with coming up with additional deficit reduction.  And if it did not and if Congress failed to act in the ensuing years to come up with a more responsibly achieved deficit reduction in a balanced way, as the President saw it, then the sequester would kick in. 

We’ve never said that the sequester itself was good policy or that we take credit for it.  Far from it.  The President has long said the right and responsible thing to do would be to reduce our deficit in a balanced way so that the burden of deficit reduction does not fall solely on the shoulders of the middle class.

Q    And when you say it’s such a bad thing for the Republicans to want to delay the health care implementation, the President has delayed pieces of the law.  And you said that was a smart way to do it, we need to more slowly implement it, help businesses deal with it.  So if the Republicans come up with it, why is it such a bad idea if they say let’s slow-walk some pieces of this, and when you do it, it’s perfectly fine?

MR. CARNEY:  Ed --

Q    Well, you did, right?  On the businesses, you said they can delay.

MR. CARNEY:  On the employer responsibility provision, which represents a very small portion of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, it was the right and responsible thing to do, reacting in part to the requests of businesses to delay implementation of that for a year.

As every Republican who is pushing the idea of delaying implementation of the individual responsibility provision, they know that that is the heart of the Affordable Care Act.  It is what is essential to ensuring that everyone in your extended family who has a preexisting condition can still get health insurance and isn’t blackballed by the insurance companies to making that work, making sure that the individual responsibility provision is there.

Furthermore, delaying it would do what?  Add to the deficit.  So in the name of deficit reduction, Republicans are saying we should add to the deficit, even as we’re taking away health care for millions of Americans.  Seems like a bad idea.

Q    A couple other quick things.  You’ve a couple of times mentioned that John Boehner, in March, said that shutting down the government is a bad idea, and now apparently --

MR. CARNEY:  Over Obamacare, specifically. 

Q    Over Obamacare.  Over that, specifically.  Now he’s changed his mind.  The President changed his mind on Syria.  It wasn’t a bad thing; he thought it was smart -- go to Congress.
I’m just asking.  These are the facts you’ve been presenting every day at this podium for the last couple of weeks.  He was not going to go to Congress to vote on Syria, then he changed his mind.  Everyone here says it’s a great idea.  He slowed everything down.  John Boehner changed his mind.  What’s wrong with that?

MR. CARNEY:  Because shutting down the government over Obamacare is a bad idea.  Going to Congress to seek an authorization for the use of military force --

Q    That he can’t get now.

MR. CARNEY:  -- was a good idea according to hundreds of members of Congress.

Q    But he hasn’t been able to get it.

MR. CARNEY:  There hasn’t been a vote.  Ed, I’m not sure of the arguments you’re making.  I see oranges and I see apples, but I don't see --

Q    Let me ask you then -- let me ask you about a specific thing on Syria.  Last night there was a forum where two of the President’s former Defense Secretaries, Mr. Panetta and Mr. Gates were there.  They both said going to Congress to authorize force was a bad idea, number one. 

Number two, Mr. Gates said, even though I know previously he’s put out a statement saying he supports a mission in Syria, he said that air strikes would be “throwing gasoline on a very complex fire,” and he went on to say, my bottom line is if you blow up a bunch of stuff over a couple of days, to validate a point or principle, is not a strategy.  How do you respond to that, a former Defense Secretary?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would say two things.  One, the President does believe that it was the right thing to do -- given that there was not an imminent threat to the United States, given that military action -- the success of military action was not dependent on acting immediately, and therefore there was time to allow debate in Congress -- that Congress should be consulted and Congress should be given the right to vote on authorization.  The President has been very clear about that.  Others can disagree, and that’s fine, but the President believes it was the right thing to do.

Secondly, it was precisely because of the credible threat of U.S. military action that we saw Syria do an about-face -- a nation that had -- or a government that had refused to acknowledge that it even possessed chemical weapons, and for 20 years had refused to be a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, one of the very few nations on Earth to refuse to sign that, utterly change its position on both issues within days because of the credible threat of U.S. military action. 

The same is true for Russia, which had -- prior to their adoption of this proposal to have Syria give up its chemical weapons, turn them over to international supervision and be signatories to the CWC -- had acted aggressively to block all efforts to hold Assad accountable.

Now, there is a diplomatic avenue available to achieving the President’s goals that allow -- without the use of military force -- and the President believes it’s the right thing to do to pursue it.  That avenue opened up because of the threat of force.  And for that reason, as well as others, it’s important to make clear that the threat of force remains on the table. 

None of these issues are easy.  None of the decisions that a leader makes in these circumstances are obvious or clear.  But I think it is hard to argue that we are not globally in a better place when it comes to Syria’s chemical weapons today than we were three weeks ago -- when Syria had used chemical weapons against its own people, when Syria denied that it even possessed chemical weapons, when Syria refused to be a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and certainly had not even entertained publicly the idea of giving up its chemical weapons. 

So we have a long way to travel on this road and a lot of work to do and a lot of verification to achieve.  But the positions the President took helped bring us to this point, which is a better point than where we were in the past.

Q    Jay, NBC’s Ann Curry sat down for an exclusive interview with Iran’s President Rouhani today in Tehran.  I know we addressed this briefly yesterday, but I just want to follow up and make sure I get it on the record again today.  Does the President have any plans to meet with the Iranian President during the United Nations meetings in New York next week?

MR. CARNEY:  There are currently no plans for the President to meet with President Rouhani at the United Nations General Assembly.  I think it’s fair to say that the President believes there is an opportunity for diplomacy when it comes to the issues that have presented challenges to the United States and our allies with regards to Iran, and we hope that the Iranian government takes advantage of this opportunity. 

We have heard a lot in the world from President Rouhani’s administration about its desire to improve the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s relations with the international community.  And President Obama believes we should test that assertion, and we are and we will do that.

As you know, the President mentioned in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that he and President Rouhani have exchanged letters, and in his letter the President indicated that the U.S. is ready to resolve the nuclear issue in a way that allows Iran to demonstrate that its nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes.  The letter also conveyed the need to act with a sense of urgency to address this issue, because as we have long said, the window of opportunity for resolving this diplomatically is open, but it will not remain open indefinitely.

Q    Jay, in that event that was held last night, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta  also said that the President should have directed limited action in Syria.  He went on to say that Iran is paying very close attention to what we’re doing -- ”There’s no question in my mind they’re looking at the situation, and what they are seeing is an element of weakness.”  Is Leon Panetta wrong in that assessment?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would say a couple things.  I have enormous respect, the President has enormous respect and appreciation for both of his former Secretaries of Defense, but as your two questions noted, they actually disagree on this issue, which only reinforces the fact that these are not easy decisions to make or easy positions to take. 

The President believes that the credible threat of military force was important and remains important, and that it has brought about this potential for a diplomatic resolution.  He believes it was the right thing to do to go to Congress for authorization prior to the diplomatic breakthrough.  And he understands that others can differ with that view; that others might say he or any President should have deployed military force without going to Congress. 

The President believed, consistent with the principles he has espoused since he was a candidate for President, that given the fact that there was not an imminent threat to the United States and given that the military response that he was calling for could be executed successfully even if there was a delay allowing for congressional debate, that it was the right thing to do to go to Congress.  He understood and made clear when he made his announcement in the Rose Garden that this would be a tough debate.  And that does not take away from the fact that it was a good debate and the right debate to have.

Q    Briefly, on the topic of the shooting that took place only a few miles from here at the Navy Yard.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, today said, "Those who have served in the military should not be stigmatized by having to answer questions about their mental health status on security clearance forms.”  Acknowledging there’s a review in place right now, what’s the President’s position on whether there should be greater mental health checks done, more information provided by people that want to become contractors in that forum?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, there is a review taking place -- one that has been ongoing with regard to some contractors that is being undertaken by the ODNI and then another that is being undertaken by the Office of Management and Budget here, at the President’s direction.  And I wouldn’t want to dictate what the outcomes of that review should be.  There’s obviously an issue, broadly speaking, separate from matters of clearances -- but broadly speaking when it comes to gun violence, there’s an issue that is important to examine when it comes to mental health.  And that was something the President talked about when he put forward his comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence and it is something that he believes is important to talk about today.  How that plays into security clearances and work clearances for contractors I think we should wait and see once these reviews are done.

Q    Given what you’ve described as the obstructionist bent that we’ve seen from some congressional Republicans, would you say that the -- does the President believe that the best way to achieve his second-term goals might be through the midterm elections and putting in a Democratic -- getting a Democratic Congress?

MR. CARNEY:  The President is not waiting to achieve any of these goals, to push for the achievement of any of these goals that help create a better bargain for the middle class, that help making the middle class stronger through broad economic growth and job creation, through education investment and investment in research and development, and new energy and infrastructure. 

He’s put forward these proposals.  He put forward his compromise proposals on the budget.  And he’s continued to press leaders in Congress to take him up in discussion and debate about moving forward on these issues.  That includes his tax reform proposal, coupling corporate tax reform with investments in infrastructure and job creation.  So he is throwing out ideas to try to see if he can move the ball forward when it comes to growing our economy, and he is going to continue doing that.

A term in office for the President may, to some, seem like a long time -- four years -- but there is much work to be done, and he is not going to wait for elections or changes in the seasons to try to move forward.  He has been pushing this ball uphill, sometimes frequently, from the day he took office. 

And as we’ve noted on this five-year anniversary of the financial collapse, there has been a great deal achieved.  Remembering where we were five years ago is to almost reinsert yourself into a nightmare when you think back about the fears that everyone was dealing with in September of 2008 and for the next 18 months, really, at least. 

And it’s important as we do that to remember that many millions of Americans are still struggling and we need to make the right decisions to insert -- to make sure that the economy grows and more good-paying, middle-class jobs are created; 7.5 million is a lot, but it is not nearly enough.  We need to press on.

Anybody?  Ari.

Q    Earlier this year, the President had a real --

MR. CARNEY:  When do you go to London?

Q    January.  You’ve got me for a few more months yet.

MR. CARNEY:  All right.  Well, make sure I get an invitation to the going-away party.

Q    Absolutely.  The President had a real charm offensive with Republicans -- he took them to dinner, he paid out of pocket, he went to a nice restaurant.  Is the difference between that approach a few months ago and this sort of going to business leaders and speaking publicly instead of courting Republicans in person, does that reflect a sense in the White House that the charm offensive failed, that the wooing them didn’t work?

MR. CARNEY:  We have tried and we will try all manner of ways to get to yes with Republican leaders when it comes to doing the responsible thing on budget policy and on raising the debt ceiling, and on a bunch of other issues like immigration reform.  I mean, I think that while it was notable that the President footed the bill for a very expensive dinner at a very nice restaurant in a lovely hotel up the street here, there were many other meetings with the President, and with the Chief of Staff, and with the Vice President, and others, with lawmakers, well into the year, and all around this effort of trying to find common ground. 

And I think that what we discovered is that there is a sincere desire by Republican lawmakers -- some of them, anyway, and not an insignificant number of them -- to try to work out a way to make budget policy and economic policy that reduces the deficit responsibly but invests responsibly as well, and in a way that is fair to the middle class.  And the President remains hopeful that those members who sincerely want to achieve that will be able to -- working with him and working with Democrats.  In the meantime, we’re going to keep pressing, at the very least when it comes to these deadlines, that Washington not inflict harm on the economy. 

We may not be able to achieve the big deal when it comes to a long-term budget with Congress between now and October 1st, but we certainly shouldn’t therefore allow -- and the Republicans in the House should not insist upon -- shutting down the government over that, over the fact that Obamacare is the law of the land and it’s being implemented, and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and it’s providing benefits to millions of people.

I understand that they -- we understand that those Republicans who feel adamantly about this oppose the law, and they’ve campaigned on it, and they’ve talked about it, and they’ve voted on it, but they should not then pair it with shutting down the government or defaulting on our obligations.

Phil.

Q    Two questions, first on Kathy Ruemmler.  Does the President have any opinion on her leaving?  Is there any kind of timetable to replace her in the Counsel’s Office? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can confirm that she will be leaving at the end of the year, so she is here for a good bit longer, and that the President had asked her to stay on as long as she has and will, and that she is an enormous asset and a very important advisor to the President, and one of the smartest people I’ve ever met and one of the best people I’ve ever worked with.  So we will all be sad to see her go when she goes.  Beyond that, I have no information to provide, as ever, on personnel decisions by the President.

Q    Has he identified a successor, or is this going to take time?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I have no information to divulge on that matter or any other personnel matter.

Q    And on immigration --

MR. CARNEY:  As long as you're asking.

Q    Well, I wanted to ask on immigration.  Yesterday the President said in the Telemundo interview that he was not going to use executive authority to delay deportations of illegal immigrants.  Some immigration advocates wish he would do more while Congress is still sort of kind of stalled out on this bill.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, what the President has made clear is that comprehensive immigration reform is the way to resolve our immigration challenges.  And when it comes to this matter of deportations and the idea that there's a plan B available to him, he said yesterday in the interview that you cited that it's not an option.  He said, "That to do so would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally.  That's not an option."

If John Boehner, going back to the Speaker of the House, would put the Senate comprehensive immigration bill on the floor of the House today, it would pass and the President would sign it.  We're confident of that.  There is a majority not only in the nation, but even in Congress to achieve this important piece of legislation that would grow our economy and reduce our deficit.  It would provide a system to allow for the best and the brightest from other countries who study here to stay here and start businesses here, and would ensure that everybody is playing by the same set of rules -- whether it's employers or people working in the United States, that they're paying their taxes and contributing to the common good.

So the President believes that the House ought to do that.  He is entirely confident that comprehensive immigration reform will pass, will become law, and that he will be the one who signs it into law.  And the House ought to do it right away and maybe address some of the political challenges that they've been encountering lately by doing so.

Q    Jumping back to Aaron Alexis, does the White House have any sense for how sequestration budget cuts are affecting/have affected the background clearance check process?  And has that had any impact on this case?

MR. CARNEY:  I would point you to the investigation and the FBI, who are making assessments about this particular case.  And I'm not aware of any impacts one way or the other of sequestration on background check systems or security systems.  These are all under review as a general matter by the DNI and by the OMB.  And I imagine that that piece of it will be taken into account.

Stephen.

Q    Thanks.  Mr. Netanyahu said yesterday that the way to end the Iranian nuclear crisis was for Iran to stop enriching uranium, to ship out the uranium that it’s enriched out of the country, to close Qom, and to stop plutonium activity.

The President yesterday said in his interview that the way for it to end would be for Iran not to weaponize its nuclear program.  Does that not show that despite the good feeling of the President’s trip to Israel earlier this year, that the two sides are still deeply divided on the fundamental way to stop this crisis?

MR. CARNEY:  No, I don't think -- I mean, both are ways for Iran to resolve its obligations to the international community when it comes to nuclear weapons.  Any resolution would have to come through a verifiable compliance and a verifiable commitment by Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.  That has long been our position.  So again, we’re ready to talk in the P5-plus-1, as well as bilaterally, with Iran if Iran is willing to engage substantively on this matter.

Yes.

Q    Thank you.  What are the President’s thoughts on for the first time an Indian American winning the Miss America beauty pageant?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t spoken about it with him, so I don't have his thoughts.  But I think it’s great, personally.

Q    And is he aware of the racial slurs she is facing after she won the beauty pageant?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m sorry?

Q    Is he aware about the racial aspect --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I haven’t discussed that with him, so I don't have a presidential response.

Thank you all very much.

END
1:17 P.M. EDT

President Obama Speaks to the Business Roundtable

September 18, 2013 | 17:51 | Public Domain

President delivers remarks to members of the Business Roundtable.

Download mp4 (657MB) | mp3 (43MB)

Read the Transcript

Remarks by the President at the Business Roundtable

Business Roundtable Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 

10:46 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)  Well, Jim, thank you for the introduction.  Thanks to Dave and Andrew and John -- all the men and women of the Business Roundtable.  I’ve had a chance to not only present before this body before, but many of you have been doing wonderful work with the administration on a whole range of issues.  And the point that Jim just made about the commitment that some of the companies here made in hiring and promoting our returning veterans is extraordinary.  And so we’re very, very grateful for that.

Last time I was here in December I told Jim -- once the mics were working -- (laughter) -- that I’m hugely invested in your success, because this room represents not only an enormous amount of economic output, but also represents the hopes and dreams of people who are working very hard trying to make a living -- small businesses who are supplying large companies like yours.  When you succeed, when you’re doing well, when you’re competitive at a global scale, then America can do well also.  And so we want to be a consistent partner with you on a whole range of issues, and we have. 

If you think about where we were five years ago -- obviously we’re marking the fifth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman that triggered the worst financial crisis and then, ultimately, worst economic crisis that we’ve seen in our lifetimes -- I think it’s fair to say that we’ve come a long way. 

At that point, the auto industry was flat-lining.  You had the entire financial sector locked up.  A number of banks were in deep trouble.  And most acutely for ordinary families all across this country, they were losing jobs, losing homes, losing their life savings.  And there was a genuine fear across the board that we might not be able to pull out way out of it. 

And we have.  Thanks to the grit and resilience of the American people, thanks to some outstanding work that’s been done by many of your companies, we are in a much stronger position now than when we were then.  And we’ve created now 7.5 million new jobs in the private sector.  Many of your companies have added to your payrolls.  And that’s made a huge difference.

We’ve seen quarters of consecutive growth that are still too slow, not as fast as we’d like, but relative to other developed countries around the world, we’ve actually fared a lot better.  The housing market has begun to recover.  Exports are at record highs.  We are producing more energy than we ever have before.  And although in a world energy market, for us to say that we’re entirely energy independent is a little bit of a misnomer.  What’s absolutely true is, is that the geopolitics of energy have shifted, and that’s strengthened our manufacturing base here and made it a much more attractive place for us to invest.

The deficits have been coming down at the fastest rate since World War II.  The deficit has been cut in half since I came into office.  Health care costs, which were and continue to be a major source of concern, are increasing at the slowest rate in 50 years.  And for many of you in terms of your bottom lines, employer-based health care plans have gone up at about a third of what they were going up when I first took office. 

And so there’s a lot of bright spots in the economy, a lot of progress has been made and a lot of good news to report.  But I think what we all recognize is we’re not where we need to be yet.  We’ve still got a lot of work to do.  And we know what it is that we need to do.  We know that if we implement immigration reform, that that can add potentially a trillion dollars to our economy and that we will continue to attract the best and brightest talent around the world. 

We know that we can do even more when it comes to exports, which is why I’m out there negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership and now a Transatlantic Trade Partnership that will allow us to create a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement with essentially two-thirds of the world markets, which is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets.

We know that we’ve still got to make a lot of progress when it comes to our education system.  And I want to thank the BRT because you’ve worked with us on issues like creating a common cause -- a common core that ensures that every young person in America has the opportunity to get prepared for the kinds of jobs that are going to exist in the 21st century.  And I’m going to be talking to all of you a lot to work with us in making college much more affordable, because just as we’ve had to take a hard look at what we can do to start bringing down health care costs, we’ve also got to start taking a hard look at what we’re going to do to bring down college costs.  We now have over a trillion dollars’ worth of student loan debt that is hampering the economy, preventing young people from buying homes, starting families, and spending money buying your products.

The good news is that every one of the challenges that we confront, every one of the barriers -- whether it’s education, immigration, infrastructure -- that prevent us from being as competitive as we could be, they’re all solvable.  We have good ideas.  There’s actually pretty good consensus in terms of how we might move forward.  The problem is right now that this town, Washington, is locked up.  And we are not seeing the kind of progress that we should on these issues.

So immigration is the most obvious example.  We have bipartisan agreement; we got a bill passed out of the Senate.  It’s sitting there in the House, and if Speaker Boehner called that bill today, it would pass.  We’ve got a majority of the House of Representatives that’s prepared to vote for it, and we could transform our immigration system in a way that would be really good for your companies and really good for our economy. 

The reason it’s not happening is because there’s a small faction that insists that our tradition as a nation of laws but also a nation of immigrants somehow is un-American and they oppose it.  And that duplicates itself on a whole range of these issues.  And now, in the next several weeks, it’s going to manifest itself in what is going to be probably the most critical debate about our economy over the next several months, and that is what we do about our budget.  So let me just speak very briefly to that issue. 

As I said before, our deficits are coming down very fast.  In fact, the IMF and other international organizations that had cautioned us previously about our deficits are actually now concerned that we're bringing our deficits down too fast.  That's the assessment of the economists.  On the current trajectory that we're on and if we were to pass the budget that I put forward, our deficits would continue to go down.  And we would have a deficit-to-GDP ratio below 3 percent, which is typically the standard at which it's sustainable. 

Now, in order for us to do that we've got to do a couple of things.  Number one, we've got to continue to be tightfisted when it comes to spending on things we don't need.  We've got to continue to streamline government.  We've got to continue to cut out waste.  And there's waste to be had, and there are programs that don't work or used to work and are now obsolete and we should eliminate.  And we've identified a whole range of programs that we want to eliminate and programs that we'd like to consolidate. 

But what is also true is that if we're going to be honest about our debt and our deficits, our real problem is the long term, not the short term.  We're not overspending on education.  We're not overspending on research and development.  We're not overspending on helping the disabled.  Those things have all been flat for a long time or are coming down.  Our challenge has to do with our long-term entitlement programs and mostly have to do with our health care costs. 

So the fact that the Affordable Care Act has been put into place and that many of you are taking steps within your own companies, we're seeing health care costs come down.  We're still going to have to do a little bit more, because the population is aging and demographics means that people are going to be using more health care costs and the government is going to have to grapple with that.  That's a long term challenge.

The budget I put forward actually proposes some smart fixes on Medicare, some smart fixes on Medicaid, and creates a sustainable path where we continue to invest in the things we need to grow -- education, infrastructure, research and development -- deals with our long-term structural deficits that arise out of entitlements, and put us in a strong position for decades to come.

The problem we have right now is that, again, that same faction in Congress is no longer talking about debt and deficits when it comes to resolving the budget.  Initially, this was an argument about how much we spend on discretionary spending, how much do we spend on defense -- you could sit down across the table, try to negotiate some numbers.  That's no longer the argument.  What we now have is a ideological fight that's been mounted in the House of Representatives that says, we're not going to pass a budget and we will threaten a government shutdown unless we repeal the Affordable Care Act.

We have not seen this in the past that a budget is contingent on us eliminating a program that was voted on, passed by both chambers of Congress, ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, is two weeks from being fully implemented, and that helps 30 million people finally get health care coverage.  We've never seen that become the issue around a budget battle.  And so that's right now the primary roadblock to resolving the budget. 

What’s worse, that same faction has said, if we can't succeed in shutting the government down and leveraging that to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, we may be prepared to let the government default on our debt.

Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up -- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy.  All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress.  It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.

And I’ve heard people say, well, in the past, there have been negotiations around raising the debt ceiling.  It’s always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we’re running up our debt, so people don't like to vote on it, and, typically, there’s some gamesmanship in terms of making the President’s party shoulder the burden of raising the -- taking the vote.  And then there’s some political campaign later that smacks them around for saying, Joe Smith voted to raise the debt ceiling by $2 trillion.  And it sounds terrible and it’s a fun talking point for politics, but it always gets done.

And if there is a budget package that includes the debt ceiling vote, it’s not the debt ceiling that is driving the negotiations; it’s just it’s stuck into the budget negotiations, because if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes anyway, you might as well go ahead and stick that in there.

You have never seen in the history of the United States the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt ceiling being used to extort a President or a governing party, and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and have nothing to do with the debt. 

So here’s where we are -- and I think this is the bottom line, and I want to make sure everybody is clear here.  I have presented a budget that deals with -- continues to deal with our deficit effectively.  I am prepared to work with Democrats and Republicans to deal with our long-term entitlement issues.  And I am prepared to look at priorities that the Republicans think we should be promoting and priorities that they think we should be  -- we shouldn’t be promoting.  So I’m happy to negotiate with them around the budget, just as I’ve done in the past.

What I will not do is to create a habit, a pattern, whereby the full faith and credit of the United States ends up being a bargaining chip to set policy.  It’s irresponsible.  The last time we did this in 2011, we had negative growth at a time when the recovery was just trying to take off.  And it would fundamentally change how American government functions.

And if you doubt that, just flip the script for a second and imagine a situation in which a Democratic Speaker said to a Republican President, I’m not going to increase the debt ceiling unless you increase corporate taxes by 20 percent.  And if you don't do it, we’ll default on the debt and cause a worldwide financial crisis.  Even though that Democratic Speaker didn't have the votes to force through that particular piece of legislation, they would simply say, we will blow the whole thing up unless you do what I want.  That can't be a recipe for government.

And I have responsibilities at this point not just to the current generation but to future generations, and we’re not going to set up a situation where the full faith and credit of the United States is put on the table every year or every year and a half, and we go through some sort of terrifying financial brinksmanship because of some ideological arguments that people are having about some particular issue of the day.  We’re not going to do that.

So the good news is that we can raise the debt ceiling tomorrow just by a simple vote in each chamber, and set that aside, and then we can have a serious argument about the budget. And there are significant differences still between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the budget.

But it is going to be important for all of you I think over the next several weeks to understand what’s at stake and to make sure that you are using your influence in whatever way you can to get back to what used to be called regular order around here -- doing things in a way that reflect the genuine, messy negotiations of democracy but do not promise apocalypse every three months.  And I think this is the time for us to say once and for all we can't afford these kinds of plays.

I know the American people are tired of it.  I'm tired of it, and I suspect you're tired of it, too, because it’s pretty hard to plan your businesses when these kinds of things are looming at any given moment. 

So, with that, let me stop and let me open it up for questions. 

END
11:05 A.M. EDT

Close Transcript

The White House

Office of the First Lady

For Immediate Release
September 18, 2013

Remarks by the First Lady During White House Convening on Food Marketing to Children

State Dining Room

1:13 P.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA:  Thanks for being here.  You guys, as I always say, rest yourselves.  You got a lot of work to do.  (Laughter.)

Well, welcome to the White House.  It is truly a pleasure to be here with all of you today for the first ever White House Convening on Food Marketing to Children.

But before we get started, I just wanted to take a moment to express my sincere heartbreak over Monday’s tragedy at the Navy Yard here in Washington.  The men and women who lost their lives devoted their careers to protecting our country.  And as we mourn those that we lost and we pray for those who were injured, we also honor their service, and we hold all of their loved ones in our hearts at this very difficult time.

So with that, we’re going to put you to work.  Thank you again for being here.  I want to start by thanking Sam for that very kind introduction, but more importantly for all the work that he and his team have done to make Let's Move a reality.

And I want to thank all of you for joining us today.

All of you in this room, you come to this issue from all different angles.  You’re experts, advocates, parents.  You represent food and beverage companies, media and entertainment companies, and so much more.  And we’re eager to have a lively and constructive dialogue with you about how we market food to our children. 

We’re eager to hear more from everyone in this room about what’s working, where we’re falling short, and how we can keep moving forward together on this complex and challenging but very important issue.

And I think it’s important to note that we’re having this conversation in the midst of what I believe is a cultural shift that is happening in this country -- a transformation in how we live and eat that many of us could never have imagined even just a few years ago.  I see it everywhere I go all across this country.  I see it in chain restaurants that are serving kale salads, and they're filling kids’ menus with not just nuggets and fries, but with broccoli and whole-wheat pasta.  I see it in churches where instead of fried chicken and mac and cheese for church supper, they’re serving up grilled fish and brown rice.

I see it online where parenting, cooking, and health blogs are crammed with healthy recipes and tips about providing better nutrition for our kids.  And I see it in schools where students can’t wait to tell me about their new salad bar or how they ate a radish or tried cauliflower for the first time, and actually like it.

In fact, we recently sponsored a recipe contest for kids here at the White House, and we got over 1,300 entries from 50 states across the country, and I can’t tell you how many of those recipes featured quinoa.  (Laughter.)  Go figure.

And if all of this doesn’t provide sufficient evidence of an important shift, then just take a look at the market research.  The National Restaurant Association surveyed chefs about trends in their industry, and three of the top 10 trends were specifically about healthy kids’ meals.  A survey by the Food Marketing Institute found that 90 percent of grocery stores are offering healthy recipes to their customers, and 98 percent of them maintain health and wellness websites.

And today, for the first time in decades, we’re actually starting to move the needle on this issue.  Between 2008 and 2011, obesity rates among low-income preschoolers dropped in 19 states and territories across the country.  And childhood obesity rates are falling in cities like New York and Philadelphia, and in states like California and Mississippi.

But while we have made important progress, when one in three kids is still on track to develop diabetes, and when diet has now surpassed smoking as the number one risk factor for disease and death in this country, then we clearly have much more work to do.  And, yes, we have made meaningful changes in a number of areas by getting healthier food into our schools and communities, but at the end of the day, if we truly want to solve this problem, we also need to get our kids to actually want to eat these healthier options.  And I say this not just as a First Lady who’s been working on this issue for the past three and a half years; I say this as a mom who has been working hard to raise two girls. 

As you know, I haven’t always lived in the White House.  (Laughter.)  Not so long ago, I was a busy working mom desperate to find quick, affordable meals and snacks for my family.  I needed cereal that my girls could pour themselves.  I needed lunches I could pack in a hurry.  I needed juice boxes that my three-year-old could hold in her hand in the backseat of my car.  I needed dinners that came pre-cooked and ready to pop in the microwave.  And most importantly, I needed my kids to actually eat all of this food I was buying for them. 

And all of you in the food and beverage industry delivered for me.  You manufactured and sold the convenience foods I needed, and you did a brilliant job making those foods something my kids would want.  So when I opened those boxes and bags, my girls were happy, and I was happy -- problem solved.

But then, like a lot of moms, I started learning more about nutrition and health.  I started reading labels.  I started getting warnings from my pediatrician about the health of my

Kids.  And I began to realize that some of these foods that were so quick and cheap and tasty weren’t always healthy for my kids.

So once again, moms like me turned to your industry for help. But this time, we didn’t just want the foods to be convenient and affordable -- we wanted them to be good for our kids as well.  And once again, many of you have started to deliver by manufacturing some of the healthier options.  And that is an important first step.

But once again, moms like me are relying on all of you to actually help our kids get excited about eating that food.  And that’s why I wanted to bring all of you together today -- because you guys know better than anyone how to get kids excited.  You’ve done it before, and we need you to do it again.  And fortunately you have everything it takes to get this done because through the magic of marketing and advertising, all of you, more than anyone else, have the power to shape our kids’ tastes and desires. 

You all know that our kids are like little sponges –- they absorb whatever is around them.  But they don’t yet have the ability to question and analyze what they’re told.  Instead, they believe just about everything they see and hear, especially if it’s on TV.   And when the average child is now spending nearly eight hours a day in front of some kind of screen, many of their opinions and preferences are being shaped by the marketing campaigns you all create.  And that’s where the problem comes in.

You see, the average child watches thousands of food advertisements each year, and 86 percent of these ads are for products loaded with sugar, fat, salt.  By contrast, our kids see an average of just one ad a week for healthy products like water to fruits and vegetables.  Just one ad a week.

And as you all know, these ads work.  Kids who see foods advertised on TV are significantly more likely to ask for them at the store –- a phenomenon known as “pester power.” (Laughter.)  New to me.  Sounds right though.  And research shows that a child’s first request for a product happens as early as 24 months, and 75 percent of the time, this request takes place in a grocery store. 

And given what our kids are seeing on TV, it should come as no surprise what they’re asking for.  One study revealed that 45 percent of kids’ food requests were things like cookies and candy, burgers and fries, and chips, but just 3 percent were for fruits and vegetables.  So from the time our kids are still in diapers, we as parents are already fighting an uphill battle to

get them interested in the foods that will actually nourish them and help them grow. 

Now, like many parents, Barack and I do our best to limit our daughters’ TV time.  But as you all know, these ads aren’t just on TV.  They’re on the internet, in video games, smart phones, billboards.  They’re in schools and store displays.  They’re everywhere, and parents just can’t keep up, no matter how hard we try.  So whatever we all might believe about personal responsibility and self-determination, I think we

can agree that it doesn’t necessarily apply to children. 

I think that we can all agree that parents deserve more control over the products and messages their kids are exposed to.  And that’s why I was so pleased that 17 major American companies came together on their own as part of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative to adopt new standards for marketing to kids. 

And I know this wasn’t easy.  Forging consensus among fierce competitors is a challenge to say the least.  But these new standards are beginning to have an impact, and I commend all of these companies for taking action. 

But of course, while limiting the marketing of unhealthy food is critical, it’s not enough.  We also need companies to actually market healthy foods to kids -– foods that have real

nutritional value, foods that are fortified with real fruits and vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy.  Now, I say this mindful that companies exist to make a profit, and they need that in order to survive.  And those profits keep our economy going every day. 

But the fact is that marketing nutritious foods to our kids isn’t just good for our kids’ health -- it can also be good for companies’ bottom lines.  For example, the folks at Birds Eye Vegetables launched a major marketing campaign featuring characters from the popular kids’ show “iCarly.”  And their sales jumped 20 percent in just two months.  Vidalia Onion did a campaign with “Shrek” -- one of my favorites -- and their sales went up 50 percent.  So I’m confident that you all can sell healthy foods to our kids and remain competitive and profitable.

That’s why some of your companies’ marketers are playing a key role in a new campaign to inspire people in this country to drink more water.  You see, we know that water is such an important component to good health, but so many other beverages have millions of marketing dollars behind them that water often gets drowned out.  That’s why last week, we launched the new Drink Up campaign -- a campaign to bring attention to water as a healthy choice so that when people are thirsty, they reach for a glass of water.  So I say this because when it comes to believing in the power of marketing to promote healthy choices to our kids, I’m not just talking the talk, I’m actually walking the walk on this one.

But so far, I’ve spent a lot of time talking about food and beverage companies.  But those of you from media companies also play a critical role in marketing food to our children, and I want to call on all of you to do your part as well.  That means, for example, limiting the use of your licensed characters to market unhealthy food to kids, and limiting unhealthy food ads in your programming.

Disney has pledged to do just that, and I know that other media companies can follow suit.  But I’m also asking you to actually use your licensed characters to promote healthy food.  “Sesame Street” has been doing this for years, which is why, when parents turn on “Sesame Street” or the Disney Channel, they know and trust that their kids won’t be bombarded with messages promoting unhealthy food.

And that trust is valuable.  That trust is good for your businesses.  That’s why so many of you in the private sector are leading the way on this issue.  You are innovating.  You’re taking risks.  You’re serving as models for your industries, and it’s starting to make a difference -- not just for our kids, but for your shareholders as well.

And I’m here today with one simple request -- and that is to do even more and move even faster to market responsibly to our kids.  Now, I want to be clear about what I’m asking here.   I am not asking anyone to take the fun out of childhood.  As we all know, treats are one of the best parts of being a kid. Instead, the goal here is to empower parents instead of undermining them as they try to make healthier choices for their families.  And we need you to lead the way in creating demand for healthy foods so that kids actually start “pestering” us for those foods in the grocery store.  And then parents actually start buying them, and then companies have incentives to make and sell even more of those foods.

And ideally, in a decade or so, we would see a dramatic shift across the entire industry.  We’d see companies shifting marketing dollars away from those less healthy products and investing those dollars in your healthier products instead. That’s how we can make healthy eating a way of life for our kids and for our families.  And make no mistake about it, meeting these goals isn’t just the right decision for the short or medium term; it can affect your businesses for decades to come.

See, the decisions that you make about marketing won’t just affect what our kids are eating today -- those decisions are going to also affect the health of your workforce tomorrow. Businesses are losing $37 [$73] billion a year due to absenteeism, lost productivity, and health care costs associated with obesity-related conditions.  And just imagine what that number will look like in twenty years from now if we stand by and let today’s unhealthy kids grow into unhealthy adults who become the employees of tomorrow. 

And there’s another long-term factor that’s also worth considering, and that is the potential trend in our kids’ food preferences and taste.  You see, over the past few years, we’ve seen some real changes in the foods our kids are eating,

starting from the time they’re born.  For example, changes in the Women, Infants and Children Program are helping millions of women across America buy healthier products for their kids.  And 10,000 childcare centers across the country have committed to serving more nutritious food as part of Let’s Move Childcare.

In addition, we have implemented sweeping changes in America’s school lunch program, such that nearly 32 million children across the country are now eating more fruits, and vegetables, whole grains, and other healthy foods every day.  And starting next year, school vending machines will be stocked with healthy items as well. 

So healthier eating is starting to become the new norm for our kids.  This is what they’re getting used to, and for many, this is all they’ll ever know.  And as their palates and their habits adjust, that could have a serious effect on their taste and preferences not just as children, but for the rest of their lives.  It could even affect what they ultimately buy and serve their own children in the future.  So this isn’t just some passing trend or fad. 

So there might be those out there whose strategy is to just wait this out -- folks who might still be thinking to themselves, well, in a few years, this lady will be gone -- (laughter) -- and this whole Let’s Move thing will finally be over, so we can go back to business as usual.  And I know that none of you here are thinking that way.  (Laughter.)  But if you know anyone who is -- (laughter) -- you might want to remind them that I didn’t create this issue, and it’s not going to go away three and a half years from now when I’m no longer First Lady. 

This issue has truly taken on a life of its own because it is affecting just about every family and every community in this country.  Parents are increasingly anxious as they see their kids developing diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure -- conditions that would have been unthinkable to find in children just a generation ago.  There are now 79 million pre-diabetics in this county, many of them young adults, and we’re

even seeing people in their twenties and thirties having heart attacks and strokes. 

So I have yet to meet a single parent who doesn’t understand the threat of obesity to their health and to their children’s health.  And they are looking for solutions.  They’re starting to think about how they feed themselves and their families.  And you all can take advantage of this.  You can get ahead of the curve.  You have everything it takes right now to seize this societal challenge as an unprecedented business opportunity.  Right now, your companies employ some of the most brilliant, creative, innovative minds in the entire country.  And you all can sell just about anything to our kids.  And if anyone can get our kids to eat their vegetables, it’s all of you. 

And I know it won’t be easy.  I know you might have to take some short-term risks to get a long-term payoff.  But that’s what great American companies do -- they act boldly, they innovate, they take risks.  And remember, it wasn’t that long ago that “going green” or taking your business online were considered risky endeavors.  But throughout our history, the companies that saw where the future was headed and took that leap have been rewarded. 

And I want you to know that I will do everything in my power to celebrate and highlight this kind of leadership on behalf of our kids.  That’s what I’ve been doing since I first started working on this issue, whether it was visiting a

Walmart stocked with fresh produce, or having dinner at an Olive Garden with a healthier kids menu, or hanging out with Mickey to celebrate Disney’s achievements on this issue.  And I am eager to have these kinds of celebrations with every company in this room.

So I hope that all of you will really engage.  I hope that you’ll really talk to each other, and learn from each other, and come up with new solutions that will make a real difference for our kids.  We want to hear from everyone involved in this issue -- from industry leaders to advocates to researchers and to parents -- because we’re all in this together.

And while I know I’ve been talking a lot about corporate America’s responsibilities on this issue, the advocates and experts here today have an important responsibility too.  Your words matter.  You all can help either provide incentives to change, or you can be barriers to change.  So we need you to be constructive in your criticisms and strategic in your calls to action, because when it comes to marketing, it can be hard for companies to take risks.  They face pressures from Wall Street.  There are also limits to how fast they can move and how far they can go before they start losing customers. 

So when companies do step up and take risks, we need to be supportive, even if we think they haven’t gone far enough.  We need to help them make those risks pay off, so that they’ll go even farther, and so that other companies will follow their lead. 

And as for those of you in the private sector, I hope that you will head back to your companies ready to think big and act boldly on behalf of our kids because while running a profitable business is important, I know that you all aren’t just business executives.  You all are also good neighbors, and good citizens, and proud parents and grandparents.  Many of you didn’t go into business just to make money, but to problem solve and make people’s lives better.  You went into business to create great American products and build great American institutions, and to leave a legacy that your kids and grandkids will inherit with pride. 

And in the end, that’s what Let’s Move is all about.  It’s about the legacy we’re leaving for the next generation and generations to come.  And standing here today with all of you, people who represent some of the most visionary, pioneering companies and organizations in this country, I have never felt more confident about our children’s future and, of course, the future of this country. 

So I look forward to hearing about what you all come up with today, and I look forward to celebrating new commitments and achievements in the months and years ahead.

Thank you all.  God bless you.  Good luck and work hard.  (Applause.)

END
1:36 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
September 18, 2013

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

Tamara Wenda Ashford, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court for a term of fifteen years, vice Mary Ann Cohen, retired.

Leslie Ragon Caldwell, of New York, to be an Assistant Attorney General, vice Lanny A. Breuer, resigned.        

Richard Stengel, of New York, to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, vice Tara D. Sonenshine.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
September 18, 2013

Notice -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism

NOTICE

- - - - - - -

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS

WHO COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, the President declared a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals or the United States.

The actions of persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism declared in Executive Order 13224.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
September 18, 2013

Message to the Congress -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism declared in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, is to continue in effect beyond September 23, 2013.

The crisis constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the United States that led to the declaration of a national emergency on September 23, 2001, has not been resolved. These actions continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224 with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
September 18, 2013

Statement by the Press Secretary on S. 130, S. 157, S. 256, S. 304 and S. 459

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013, the President signed into law:

S. 130, the "Powell Shooting Range Land Conveyance Act," which directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey, without consideration, a certain parcel of Federal land to the Powell Recreation District in Wyoming;

S. 157, the "Denali National Park Improvement Act," which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for microhydro electric projects in the Kantishna Hills area of the Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska; authorizes the exchange of Federal lands within the Park with land owned by Doyon Tourism, Inc.; authorizes the Secretary to issue permits to construct a natural gas pipeline in the Park; and designates the Talkeetna Ranger Station as the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station;

S. 256, which conveys to the Government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands the submerged lands surrounding the islands extending three geographical miles outward from the coastline and delays certain scheduled minimum wage increases;

S. 304, the "Natchez Trace Parkway Land Conveyance Act of 2013," which directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey, without consideration, approximately 67 acres of Federal land to the State of Mississippi; and

S. 459, the "Minuteman Missile National Historic Site Boundary Modification Act," which modifies the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South Dakota.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
September 18, 2013

Presidential Memorandum to Congress -- ATOMAL Agreement with Croatia

September 18, 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

SUBJECT: Provision of Atomic Information to Croatia

In your August 12, 2013, memorandum you recommended that I approve, pursuant to sections 123 and 144 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, an agreement for cooperation authorizing the exchange of U.S. Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data within the context of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as between the Government of the United States and the following new member of NATO: the Republic of Croatia (hereinafter the "New Party"). The subject agreement is the Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information, including a technical annex and security annex (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "ATOMAL Agreement"), which entered into force on March 12, 1965, with respect to the United States and the other members of NATO at that time.

Having considered your recommendations and the cooperation provided in the ATOMAL Agreement with respect to the New Party, in accordance with sections 123 and 144 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, I hereby:

     a. determine that the performance of the ATOMAL Agreement, including the proposed cooperation and the proposed communication of Restricted Data thereunder with respect to the New Party, will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and security;

     b. approve the ATOMAL Agreement with respect to the New Party; and

     c. authorize the Department of Defense to cooperate with the New Party to the ATOMAL Agreement in the context of NATO upon satisfaction of the requirements of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
September 18, 2013

Message to Congress -- ATOMAL Agreement with Croatia

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

I am pleased to transmit to the Congress, consistent with sections 123 and 144 b. of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2153 and 2164(b)), the text of the Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information, including a technical annex and security annex (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "ATOMAL Agreement"), as a proposed agreement for cooperation authorizing the exchange of U.S. Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data within the context of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) between the United States of America and the following member of NATO: the Republic of Croatia (hereinafter the "New Party").

In addition, I am pleased to transmit my written approval, authorization, and determination concerning the ATOMAL Agreement with respect to the New Party, with a copy of the memorandum of the Secretary of Defense with respect to the agreement. The ATOMAL Agreement entered into force on March 12, 1965, with respect to the United States and the other NATO members at that time. The Czech Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, Spain, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, Romania, the Slovak Republic, and the Republic of Slovenia subsequently became parties to the ATOMAL Agreement. The New Party has signed this agreement and has indicated its willingness to be bound by it. The ATOMAL Agreement with respect to the New Party meets the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Although the ATOMAL Agreement continues in force with respect to the United States and the other current parties to it, it will not become effective as an agreement for cooperation authorizing the exchange of atomic information with respect to the New Party until completion of procedures prescribed by sections 123 and 144 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

For more than 40 years, the ATOMAL Agreement has served as the framework within which NATO and the other NATO members that have become parties to this agreement have received the information that is necessary to an understanding and knowledge of, and participation in, the political and strategic consensus upon which the collective military capacity of the Alliance depends. This agreement permits only the transfer of atomic information, not weapons, nuclear material, or equipment. Participation in the ATOMAL Agreement will give the New Party the same standing within the Alliance with regard to nuclear matters as that of the other current parties to the ATOMAL Agreement. This is important for the cohesiveness of the Alliance and will enhance its effectiveness.

I have considered the views and recommendations of the Department of Defense (DOD) and other interested agencies in reviewing the ATOMAL Agreement and have determined that its performance, including the proposed cooperation and the proposed communication of Restricted Data thereunder with respect to the New Party, will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and security. Accordingly, I have approved the ATOMAL Agreement with respect to the New Party and authorized the DOD to cooperate with the New Party in the context of NATO upon satisfaction of the requirements of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

The 60-day continuous session period provided for in section 123 begins upon receipt of this submission.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 18, 2013.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
September 18, 2013

Remarks by the President at the Business Roundtable

Business Roundtable Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 

10:46 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)  Well, Jim, thank you for the introduction.  Thanks to Dave and Andrew and John -- all the men and women of the Business Roundtable.  I’ve had a chance to not only present before this body before, but many of you have been doing wonderful work with the administration on a whole range of issues.  And the point that Jim just made about the commitment that some of the companies here made in hiring and promoting our returning veterans is extraordinary.  And so we’re very, very grateful for that.

Last time I was here in December I told Jim -- once the mics were working -- (laughter) -- that I’m hugely invested in your success, because this room represents not only an enormous amount of economic output, but also represents the hopes and dreams of people who are working very hard trying to make a living -- small businesses who are supplying large companies like yours.  When you succeed, when you’re doing well, when you’re competitive at a global scale, then America can do well also.  And so we want to be a consistent partner with you on a whole range of issues, and we have. 

If you think about where we were five years ago -- obviously we’re marking the fifth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman that triggered the worst financial crisis and then, ultimately, worst economic crisis that we’ve seen in our lifetimes -- I think it’s fair to say that we’ve come a long way. 

At that point, the auto industry was flat-lining.  You had the entire financial sector locked up.  A number of banks were in deep trouble.  And most acutely for ordinary families all across this country, they were losing jobs, losing homes, losing their life savings.  And there was a genuine fear across the board that we might not be able to pull out way out of it. 

And we have.  Thanks to the grit and resilience of the American people, thanks to some outstanding work that’s been done by many of your companies, we are in a much stronger position now than when we were then.  And we’ve created now 7.5 million new jobs in the private sector.  Many of your companies have added to your payrolls.  And that’s made a huge difference.

We’ve seen quarters of consecutive growth that are still too slow, not as fast as we’d like, but relative to other developed countries around the world, we’ve actually fared a lot better.  The housing market has begun to recover.  Exports are at record highs.  We are producing more energy than we ever have before.  And although in a world energy market, for us to say that we’re entirely energy independent is a little bit of a misnomer.  What’s absolutely true is, is that the geopolitics of energy have shifted, and that’s strengthened our manufacturing base here and made it a much more attractive place for us to invest.

The deficits have been coming down at the fastest rate since World War II.  The deficit has been cut in half since I came into office.  Health care costs, which were and continue to be a major source of concern, are increasing at the slowest rate in 50 years.  And for many of you in terms of your bottom lines, employer-based health care plans have gone up at about a third of what they were going up when I first took office. 

And so there’s a lot of bright spots in the economy, a lot of progress has been made and a lot of good news to report.  But I think what we all recognize is we’re not where we need to be yet.  We’ve still got a lot of work to do.  And we know what it is that we need to do.  We know that if we implement immigration reform, that that can add potentially a trillion dollars to our economy and that we will continue to attract the best and brightest talent around the world. 

We know that we can do even more when it comes to exports, which is why I’m out there negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership and now a Transatlantic Trade Partnership that will allow us to create a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement with essentially two-thirds of the world markets, which is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets.

We know that we’ve still got to make a lot of progress when it comes to our education system.  And I want to thank the BRT because you’ve worked with us on issues like creating a common cause -- a common core that ensures that every young person in America has the opportunity to get prepared for the kinds of jobs that are going to exist in the 21st century.  And I’m going to be talking to all of you a lot to work with us in making college much more affordable, because just as we’ve had to take a hard look at what we can do to start bringing down health care costs, we’ve also got to start taking a hard look at what we’re going to do to bring down college costs.  We now have over a trillion dollars’ worth of student loan debt that is hampering the economy, preventing young people from buying homes, starting families, and spending money buying your products.

The good news is that every one of the challenges that we confront, every one of the barriers -- whether it’s education, immigration, infrastructure -- that prevent us from being as competitive as we could be, they’re all solvable.  We have good ideas.  There’s actually pretty good consensus in terms of how we might move forward.  The problem is right now that this town, Washington, is locked up.  And we are not seeing the kind of progress that we should on these issues.

So immigration is the most obvious example.  We have bipartisan agreement; we got a bill passed out of the Senate.  It’s sitting there in the House, and if Speaker Boehner called that bill today, it would pass.  We’ve got a majority of the House of Representatives that’s prepared to vote for it, and we could transform our immigration system in a way that would be really good for your companies and really good for our economy. 

The reason it’s not happening is because there’s a small faction that insists that our tradition as a nation of laws but also a nation of immigrants somehow is un-American and they oppose it.  And that duplicates itself on a whole range of these issues.  And now, in the next several weeks, it’s going to manifest itself in what is going to be probably the most critical debate about our economy over the next several months, and that is what we do about our budget.  So let me just speak very briefly to that issue. 

As I said before, our deficits are coming down very fast.  In fact, the IMF and other international organizations that had cautioned us previously about our deficits are actually now concerned that we're bringing our deficits down too fast.  That's the assessment of the economists.  On the current trajectory that we're on and if we were to pass the budget that I put forward, our deficits would continue to go down.  And we would have a deficit-to-GDP ratio below 3 percent, which is typically the standard at which it's sustainable. 

Now, in order for us to do that we've got to do a couple of things.  Number one, we've got to continue to be tightfisted when it comes to spending on things we don't need.  We've got to continue to streamline government.  We've got to continue to cut out waste.  And there's waste to be had, and there are programs that don't work or used to work and are now obsolete and we should eliminate.  And we've identified a whole range of programs that we want to eliminate and programs that we'd like to consolidate. 

But what is also true is that if we're going to be honest about our debt and our deficits, our real problem is the long term, not the short term.  We're not overspending on education.  We're not overspending on research and development.  We're not overspending on helping the disabled.  Those things have all been flat for a long time or are coming down.  Our challenge has to do with our long-term entitlement programs and mostly have to do with our health care costs. 

So the fact that the Affordable Care Act has been put into place and that many of you are taking steps within your own companies, we're seeing health care costs come down.  We're still going to have to do a little bit more, because the population is aging and demographics means that people are going to be using more health care costs and the government is going to have to grapple with that.  That's a long term challenge.

The budget I put forward actually proposes some smart fixes on Medicare, some smart fixes on Medicaid, and creates a sustainable path where we continue to invest in the things we need to grow -- education, infrastructure, research and development -- deals with our long-term structural deficits that arise out of entitlements, and put us in a strong position for decades to come.

The problem we have right now is that, again, that same faction in Congress is no longer talking about debt and deficits when it comes to resolving the budget.  Initially, this was an argument about how much we spend on discretionary spending, how much do we spend on defense -- you could sit down across the table, try to negotiate some numbers.  That's no longer the argument.  What we now have is a ideological fight that's been mounted in the House of Representatives that says, we're not going to pass a budget and we will threaten a government shutdown unless we repeal the Affordable Care Act.

We have not seen this in the past that a budget is contingent on us eliminating a program that was voted on, passed by both chambers of Congress, ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, is two weeks from being fully implemented, and that helps 30 million people finally get health care coverage.  We've never seen that become the issue around a budget battle.  And so that's right now the primary roadblock to resolving the budget. 

What’s worse, that same faction has said, if we can't succeed in shutting the government down and leveraging that to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, we may be prepared to let the government default on our debt.

Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up -- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy.  All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress.  It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.

And I’ve heard people say, well, in the past, there have been negotiations around raising the debt ceiling.  It’s always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we’re running up our debt, so people don't like to vote on it, and, typically, there’s some gamesmanship in terms of making the President’s party shoulder the burden of raising the -- taking the vote.  And then there’s some political campaign later that smacks them around for saying, Joe Smith voted to raise the debt ceiling by $2 trillion.  And it sounds terrible and it’s a fun talking point for politics, but it always gets done.

And if there is a budget package that includes the debt ceiling vote, it’s not the debt ceiling that is driving the negotiations; it’s just it’s stuck into the budget negotiations, because if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes anyway, you might as well go ahead and stick that in there.

You have never seen in the history of the United States the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt ceiling being used to extort a President or a governing party, and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and have nothing to do with the debt. 

So here’s where we are -- and I think this is the bottom line, and I want to make sure everybody is clear here.  I have presented a budget that deals with -- continues to deal with our deficit effectively.  I am prepared to work with Democrats and Republicans to deal with our long-term entitlement issues.  And I am prepared to look at priorities that the Republicans think we should be promoting and priorities that they think we should be  -- we shouldn’t be promoting.  So I’m happy to negotiate with them around the budget, just as I’ve done in the past.

What I will not do is to create a habit, a pattern, whereby the full faith and credit of the United States ends up being a bargaining chip to set policy.  It’s irresponsible.  The last time we did this in 2011, we had negative growth at a time when the recovery was just trying to take off.  And it would fundamentally change how American government functions.

And if you doubt that, just flip the script for a second and imagine a situation in which a Democratic Speaker said to a Republican President, I’m not going to increase the debt ceiling unless you increase corporate taxes by 20 percent.  And if you don't do it, we’ll default on the debt and cause a worldwide financial crisis.  Even though that Democratic Speaker didn't have the votes to force through that particular piece of legislation, they would simply say, we will blow the whole thing up unless you do what I want.  That can't be a recipe for government.

And I have responsibilities at this point not just to the current generation but to future generations, and we’re not going to set up a situation where the full faith and credit of the United States is put on the table every year or every year and a half, and we go through some sort of terrifying financial brinksmanship because of some ideological arguments that people are having about some particular issue of the day.  We’re not going to do that.

So the good news is that we can raise the debt ceiling tomorrow just by a simple vote in each chamber, and set that aside, and then we can have a serious argument about the budget. And there are significant differences still between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the budget.

But it is going to be important for all of you I think over the next several weeks to understand what’s at stake and to make sure that you are using your influence in whatever way you can to get back to what used to be called regular order around here -- doing things in a way that reflect the genuine, messy negotiations of democracy but do not promise apocalypse every three months.  And I think this is the time for us to say once and for all we can't afford these kinds of plays.

I know the American people are tired of it.  I'm tired of it, and I suspect you're tired of it, too, because it’s pretty hard to plan your businesses when these kinds of things are looming at any given moment. 

So, with that, let me stop and let me open it up for questions. 

END
11:05 A.M. EDT