Remarks by the President on Senate Passage of Health Insurance Reform

State Dining Room

8:47 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.  In a historic vote that took place this morning members of the Senate joined their colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass a landmark health insurance reform package -- legislation that brings us toward the end of a nearly century-long struggle to reform America’s health care system.

Ever since Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform in 1912, seven Presidents -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- have taken up the cause of reform.  Time and time again, such efforts have been blocked by special interest lobbyists who’ve perpetuated a status quo that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people.  But with passage of reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people.

The reform bill that passed the Senate this morning, like the House bill, includes the toughest measures ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable.  Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny you coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition.  They will no longer be able to drop your coverage when you get sick.  No longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for the treatments you need.  And you’ll be able to appeal unfair decisions by insurance companies to an independent party.

If this legislation becomes law, workers won’t have to worry about losing coverage if they lose or change jobs.  Families will save on their premiums.  Businesses that would see their costs rise if we do not act will save money now, and they will save money in the future.  This bill will strengthen Medicare, and extend the life of the program.  It will make coverage affordable for over 30 million Americans who do not have it -- 30 million Americans.  And because it is paid for and curbs the waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this bill will help reduce our deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion in the coming decades, making it the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade. 

As I’ve said before, these are not small reforms; these are big reforms.  If passed, this will be the most important piece of social policy since the Social Security Act in the 1930s, and the most important reform of our health care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s.  And what makes it so important is not just its cost savings or its deficit reductions.  It’s the impact reform will have on Americans who no longer have to go without a checkup or prescriptions that they need because they can’t afford them; on families who no longer have to worry that a single illness will send them into financial ruin; and on businesses that will no longer face exorbitant insurance rates that hamper their competitiveness.  It’s the difference reform will make in the lives of the American people. 

I want to commend Senator Harry Reid, extraordinary work that he did; Speaker Pelosi for her extraordinary leadership and dedication.  Having passed reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we now have to take up the last and most important step and reach an agreement on a final reform bill that I can sign into law.  And I look forward to working with members of Congress in both chambers over the coming weeks to do exactly that.

With today’s vote, we are now incredibly close to making health insurance reform a reality in this country.  Our challenge, then, is to finish the job.  We can't doom another generation of Americans to soaring costs and eroding coverage and exploding deficits.  Instead we need to do what we were sent here to do and improve the lives of the people we serve.  For the sake of our citizens, our economy, and our future, let’s make 2010 the year we finally reform health care in the United States of America.

Everybody, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year.

Q    Do you have a holiday wish for the troops?

THE PRESIDENT:  I do, and I will be actually -- I'm on my way right now to call a few of them and wish them Merry Christmas and to thank them for their extraordinary service as they're posted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

END
8:52 A.M. EST

Remarks by the President after Meeting with Small and Community Bank CEOS

Roosevelt Room

11:52 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  All right, everybody.  Well, it's good to see all of you.  I just concluded a meeting with 12 regional community banks to have the same conversation that I had with some of the larger banks last week and that I've been having with CEOs of companies across the country over the last year, and that is how do we continue to consolidate the gains we've made over the course of this year in terms of economic recovery, but most importantly, how we move forward over the next year so that businesses are getting the capital that they need and that we are starting to see people hired again, people able to finance their homes, finance college educations and so forth.

Community banks serve a vital function all across the country.  They are folks who know their customers, don't just lend them money but also provide them advice if they're entrepreneurs and getting started.  They are intimately woven into the fabric of the community.  I think it's fair to say that most of these community banks were not engaged in some of the hugely risky activities that helped to precipitate the financial crisis.  At the same time, they continue to try to do their best in their local and regional markets to make sure that businesses who are now being affected by the overall recession are able to pick themselves back up.

What I did was to go around the room and to hear from each of them.  Not all these communities are the same -- we've got everything from Kalamazoo to Harlem to small communities in Arkansas that focus mostly on farm loans. 

There were some general themes that were out there -- one, that there are businesses that are looking for loans out there that are profitable, that are ready to make money.  And the key is to match them up with banks that are in a position to lend.  There are some banks that have seen the increase in the savings rate and higher deposits give them a pretty good capital base, but they're still constrained by some regulatory restraints.

We are looking to see if there are possibilities to cut some of the red tape.  We don't have direct influence over our independent regulators, but we think that the more that we can highlight that in some ways the pendulum may have swung too far in the direction of not lending after a decade in which it had gone way too far in the direction of getting money out the door no matter the risk -- that if we can get that balance right that there are businesses and communities out there that are ready to grow again, and we just need to help make that happen.

I also had a discussion with all these bankers about the prospects for financial regulatory reform.  As I said, many of the issues when it comes to large systemic banks and what precipitated the crisis on Wall Street don't apply to these smaller banks.  Most of them are very supportive of the idea of financial regulatory reform.  I think, fairly, they just want to make sure that as we regulate better, that that doesn't automatically mean that we're just loading them up with more paperwork and more burdens.  And I think we do have an obligation to make sure that the regulatory schemes that we come up with are more streamlined and more efficient and send clear signals to the banks involved.

I did emphasize to them that community banks do have a responsibility to their customers and that many of these consumer protections and efforts to make our -- to create a single consumer financial protection agency would apply to them.  And we think that's important, because every bank, large and small, is providing credit cards and providing debit cards and providing mortgage loans.  And we think that the more we are making sure that banks aren't competing by how obscure their fine print is, but rather competing on the basis of the quality of their service and the terms of their loans, the better off consumers are going to be, and ultimately the better off banks are going to be as well.

So I very much appreciate them all coming in.  I think the main message that I want everybody to take away, and certainly this is the message that I took away from the conversations here, is that there remains enormous opportunities as we come out of this recession for businesses to start growing again and to start hiring again.  And everything that we're going to be doing here in the White House over the next several months is going to be geared towards catalyzing and spurring additional lending, particularly to small businesses, because we feel very optimistic that the work is behind us and that now is the time for us to seize opportunities.

With that, I want to wish everybody, if I don't see you guys before Christmas, a Happy Christmas -- a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

All right?  Thank you guys.

Q    When do you think you'll leave?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I will not leave until my friends in the Senate have completed their work.  My attitude is, is that if they're making these sacrifices to provide health care to all Americans, then the least I can do is to be around and to provide them any encouragement and last-minute help if necessary.

All right?  Thank you guys.

END
11:58 A.M. EST

Remarks by the President on the SAVE Award and Making Government More Efficient and Effective

Diplomatic Reception Room

11:21 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  Good morning.  Before I begin, I want to say a brief word about the historic vote which took place early this morning.  The United States Senate knocked down a filibuster aimed at blocking a final vote on health care reform, and scored a big victory for the American people.  By standing up to the special interests -- who've prevented reform for decades and who are furiously lobbying against it now -- the Senate has moved us closer to reform that makes a tremendous difference for families, for seniors, for businesses, and for the country as a whole.

For those who have insurance, reform will mean greater security and stability.  No longer will people with preexisting conditions be excluded from coverage.  No longer will people who are seriously ill be dropped from coverage.  And no longer will families be allowed to go broke because they’re forced to pay exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses. 

Many people recall the enormous fights around the Patient's Bill of Rights that never got done.  Well, you know what, the Patient's Bill of Rights is embedded in this health care bill and -- to make sure that all Americans who have insurance right now are getting a fair deal from their insurance companies.

Small businesses and those who don’t get insurance through their employer will finally be able to get insurance at a price that they can afford with tax credits to help.  And Medicare will be stronger and its solvency extended by nearly a decade.  Seniors will get more assistance with prescription drug costs than they're getting right now.  And finally, these reforms will help the inexorable and unsustainable rise in health care costs that are overwhelming families, businesses, and the federal budget. 

The Congressional Budget Office now reports that this bill will reduce our deficit by $132 billion over the first decade, and by as much as $1.3 trillion in the decade after that.  So I just want to be clear, for all those who are continually carping about how this is somehow a big spending government bill, this cuts our deficit by $132 billion the first 10 years, and by over a trillion in the second.  That argument that opponents are making against this bill does not hold water. 

Now, embracing this kind of responsibility in Washington is what also brings us here today.  I am pleased to be joined this morning by my Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Ric Shinseki; my budget director, Peter Orszag; and our special guest, last but not least, the winner of the first annual SAVE Award -- and that's Nancy Fichtner of Loma, Colorado. 

Having met with Nancy a few minutes ago, I can tell you Nancy means business.  She is a single working mom; she's a clerk with the VA; she's an artist; she's an outdoorswoman; and she is an avid hunter.  In fact, somewhere in the western United States, there is an elk that is breathing a sigh of relief because Nancy is here instead of where she would have been:  hunting with her kids.  (Laughter.)  And I believe her children are here -- where's Nancy's kids?  There they are right there.  It's great to see you guys.  Nancy's daughter -- she skins and guts her elk, so don't mess with her either.  (Laughter.)

We're all here for a simple reason.  At a time when we face not only a fiscal crisis, but also a host of difficult challenges as a nation, business as usual in Washington just won't cut it.  We need a government that's more efficient, that's more effective, and far more fiscally responsible.

When my administration walked through the door, the country faced a growing economic downturn as well as a deepening fiscal hole.  Washington had passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy and an expensive new entitlement program without paying for any of it.  Health care costs continued to rise, year after year.  And little effort was made to cut wasteful spending.  As a result, over the previous eight years, the national debt doubled -- doubled.  In January, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion.  And we had to make the difficult decision to add to the deficit in the short term to prevent the potential collapse of our economy. 

But as I've said, in the long run, we can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences; as if waste doesn't matter; as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money.  That's what we've seen time and time again.  Washington has been more concerned about the next election than the next generation.  It's put off hard choices in spending bill after spending bill, budget after bloated budget.

Government contracting is a perfect example.  Between 2002 and 2008, the amount spent on government contracts more than doubled.  The amount spent on no-bid, non-competitive contracts jumped by 129 percent.  This is an inexcusable waste of money.  And that's why, back in March, I ordered federal departments and agencies to come up with plans to save up to $40 billion a year in contracting by 2011.  And over the past six months, agencies have been making cuts by looking for better deals, by ending contracts and doing work in house, and by opening up no-bid contracts to competitive bidding.  Because of these efforts, I'm proud to announce today that we are on track to meet our goals.  Twenty-four departments have identified more than $19 billion in savings for this year alone. 

And this is only the latest example.  At my very first Cabinet meeting, I directed every secretary to join us in scouring the budget, line by line, to find ways to make government more efficient and less wasteful.  Together, we identified more than 100 programs to scale back or end completely, as well as other ways to cut costs, finding $17 billion in savings so far. 

We're also going after roughly $100 billion wasted on improper payments to contractors, organizations, and individuals. To put this in perspective, these mistakes, and in some cases abuses, cost taxpayers more each year than the budgets for the Education and Homeland Security Departments combined. 

We have done what some said was impossible:  preventing wasteful spending on outdated weapons systems that even the Pentagon said it doesn't need.  And I’ve insisted from the beginning that health care reform will not add one dime to our deficit.  And as I just noted, not only is it not adding to our deficit, it's actually reducing it.  

Finally, I’ve issued a challenge to every man and woman who works for the federal government:  If you see a way that government could do its job better, or do the same job for less money, I want to know about it.  That’s why we started the SAVE Award, to draw on those who know government best to improve how government works.  We asked federal employees to submit reform proposals based on their experiences.  And in a testament to the seriousness with which these folks are taking their jobs, we received more than 38,000 proposals in just three weeks. 

From these submissions, four finalists were selected and put to an online vote.  Nancy is here because she won.  Her idea stems from her experience at the VA Medical Center where she works.  She noticed that whenever patients left the hospital, leftover medications like eye drops or inhalers were just thrown away.  And often, veterans would have to go right back to the pharmacy to refill what was discarded.  So the VA is paying twice -- it’s waste, plain and simple.  And thanks to Nancy -- and to Secretary Shinseki and the folks at Veterans Affairs -- we’re putting a stop to it.  The change is already underway.

Of course, Nancy’s proposal was just one of many great ideas that came to us.  We’ve already begun to implement a host of suggestions made through the SAVE contest.  And while promoting electronic paystubs or scheduling Social Security appointments online or re-purposing unused government supplies may not be the most glamorous reforms in history, when taken together, these small changes can add up; they add up to a transformation of how government works. 

And that’s why we’re going to turn the SAVE Award into an annual event.  That’s why we’re holding a forum at the White House next month to seek more ideas from the private sector, specifically about how we can better use technology to reform our government for the 21st century. 

After years of irresponsibility, we are once again taking responsibility for every dollar we spend, the same way families do.  It’s true that what I’ve described today will not be enough to get us out of our fiscal mess by itself.  We face a deficit that will take some tough decisions in the next year’s budget and in years to come to get under control.  But these changes will save the American people billions of dollars.  And they’ll help to put in place a government that’s more efficient and effective, that wastes less money on no-bid contracts, that’s cutting bureaucracy and harnessing technology, that’s more fiscally responsible, and that better serve the American taxpayer.  That’s the government we need.  That’s the government I intend to implement.  That's the kind of government that the American people deserve.  And that’s the kind of government that people like Nancy are helping to build each and every day. 

So, Nancy, congratulations.  We're proud of you.  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  We're very proud of your mom.  (Laughter.) That's great.

Thank you, everybody.

END
11:31 A.M. EST

Remarks by the President during press availability in Copenhagen

Bella Center
Copenhagen, Denmark
 

10:30 P.M. CET

     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me start with a statement and then I'll take a couple of questions.

     Today we've made meaningful and unprecedented -- made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen.  For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change.

     Let me first recount what our approach was throughout the year and coming into this conference.  To begin with, we've reaffirmed America's commitment to transform our energy economy at home.  We've made historic investments in renewable energy that have already put people back to work.  We've raised our fuel efficiency standards.  And we have renewed American leadership in international climate negotiations.

     Most importantly, we remain committed to comprehensive legislation that will create millions of new American jobs, power new industry, and enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

     That effort at home serves as a foundation for our leadership around the world.  Because of the actions we're taking we came here to Copenhagen with an ambitious target to reduce our emissions.  We agreed to join an international effort to provide financing to help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, adapt to climate change.  And we reaffirmed the necessity of listing our national actions and commitments in a transparent way.

     These three components -- transparency, mitigation and finance -- form the basis of the common approach that the United States and our partners embraced here in Copenhagen.  Throughout the day we worked with many countries to establish a new consensus around these three points, a consensus that will serve as a foundation for global action to confront the threat of climate change for years to come.

This success would have not been possible without the hard work of many countries and many leaders -- and I have to add that because of weather constraints in Washington I am leaving before the final vote, but we feel confident that we are moving in the direction of a significant accord.

In addition to our close allies who did so much to advance this effort, I worked throughout the day with Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, who was representing Africa, as well as Premier Wen of China, Prime Minister Singh of India, President Lula of Brazil, and President Zuma of South Africa, to achieve what I believe will be an important milestone.

Earlier this evening I had a meeting with the last four leaders I mentioned -- from China, India, Brazil, and South Africa.  And that's where we agreed to list our national actions and commitments, to provide information on the implementation of these actions through national communications, with international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines.  We agreed to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, and importantly, to take action to meet this objective consistent with science.

Taken together these actions will help us begin to meet our responsibilities to leave our children and our grandchildren a cleaner and safer planet.

Now, this progress did not come easily, and we know that this progress alone is not enough.  Going forward, we're going to have to build on the momentum that we've established here in Copenhagen to ensure that international action to significantly reduce emissions is sustained and sufficient over time.  We've come a long way, but we have much further to go.

To continue moving forward we must draw on the effort that allowed us to succeed here today -- engagement among nations that represent a baseline of mutual interest and mutual respect.  Climate change threatens us all; therefore, we must bridge old divides and build new partnerships to meet this great challenge of our time.  That's what we've begun to do here today.

For energy holds out not just the perils of a warming climate, but also the promise of a more peaceful and prosperous tomorrow.  If America leads in developing clean energy, we will lead in growing our economy, in putting our people back to work, and in leaving a stronger and more secure country to our children.

And around the world, energy is an issue that demands our leadership.  The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and to shape the future that we seek.  That's why I came to Copenhagen today, and that's why I'm committed to working in common effort with countries from around the globe.  That's also why I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but rather the beginning, the beginning of a new era of international action.

     So with that, let me just take a couple of questions, and I'm going to start with Jeff Mason.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Can you give a little bit more detail about how the transparency issue will work, how countries will show or prove that they're doing what they say they'll do on emissions curbs?  And can you speak also more specifically about cutting emissions?  There's no mention of that in your statement or in what we've heard so far, specifically about the agreement.

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, on the second question first, the way this agreement is structured, each nation will be putting concrete commitments into an appendix to the document, and so will lay out very specifically what each country's intentions are.

     Those commitments will then be subject to a international consultation and analysis, similar to, for example, what takes place when the WTO is examining progress or lack of progress that countries are making on various commitments.  It will not be legally binding, but what it will do is allow for each country to show to the world what they're doing, and there will be a sense on the part of each country that we're in this together, and we'll know who is meeting and who's not meeting the mutual obligations that have been set forth.

     With respect to the emissions targets that are going to be set, we know that they will not be by themselves sufficient to get to where we need to get by 2050.  So that's why I say that this is going to be a first step.  And there are going to be those who are going to -- who are going to look at the national commitments, tally them up and say, you know, the science dictates that even more needs to be done.  The challenge here was that for a lot of countries, particularly those emerging countries that are still in different stages of development, this is going to be the first time in which even voluntarily they offered up mitigation targets.  And I think that it was important to essentially get that shift in orientation moving, that's what I think will end up being most significant about this accord.

     From the perspective of the United States, I've set forth goals that are reflected in legislation that came out of the House that are being discussed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate.  And although we will not be legally bound by anything that took place here today, we will I think have reaffirmed our commitment to meet those targets.  And we're going to meet those targets, as I said before, not simply because the science demands it, but also because I think it offers us enormous economic opportunity down the road.

     Q    And the first part of the question, about the transparency issue?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as I said, there is a specific --

     Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Exactly.  There is the annexing combined with a process where essentially they are presenting to the world -- subject to international consultation and then analysis -- exactly what are these steps.  So if I make a claim that I'm reducing greenhouse gases because I've changed mileage standards on cars, there will be a process whereby people will be able to take a look and say, is that in fact in effect?

Jennifer Loven.

Q    Thank you, sir.  You’ve talked to, in your remarks earlier today, about other nations needing to accept less than perfect in their view.  Can you talk about what you gave up and where you might have shifted the U.S. position to get to this point?  And also, if this was so hard to get to, just what you have today, how do you feel confident about getting to a legally binding agreement in a year?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think it is going to be very hard and it's going to take some time.  Let me sort of provide the context for what I saw when I arrived.

And I think it's important to be able to stand in the shoes of all the different parties involved here.  In some ways the United States was coming with a somewhat clean slate, because we had been on the sidelines in many of these negotiations over several years.

Essentially you have a situation where the Kyoto Protocol and some of the subsequent accords called on the developed countries who were signatories to engage in some significant mitigation actions and also to help developing countries.  And there were very few, if any, obligations on the part of the developing countries.

Now, in some cases, for countries that are extremely poor, still agrarian and so forth, they're just not significant contributors to greenhouse gases.  But what's happened obviously since 1992 is that you've got emerging countries like China and India and Brazil that have seen enormous economic growth and industrialization.  So we know that moving forward it's going to be necessary if we're going to meet those targets for some changes to take place among those countries.  It's not enough just for the developed countries to make changes.  Those countries are going to have to make some changes, as well -- not of the same pace, not in the same way, but they're going to have to do something to assure that whatever carbon we're taking out of the environment is not just simply dumped in by other parties.

     On the other hand, from the perspective of the developing countries like China and India, they're saying to themselves, per capita our carbon footprint remains very small, and we have hundreds of millions of people who don't even have electricity yet, so for us to get bound by a set of legal obligations could potentially curtail our ability to develop, and that's not fair.

     So I think that you have a fundamental deadlock in perspectives that were brought to the discussions during the course of this week.  And both sides have legitimate points.

     My view was that if we could begin to acknowledge that the emerging countries are going to have some responsibilities, but that those responsibilities are not exactly the same as the developed countries, and if we could set up a financing mechanism to help those countries that are most vulnerable, like Bangladesh, then we would be at least starting to reorient ourselves in a way that allows us to be effective in the future.

     But it is still going to require more work and more confidence-building and greater trust between emerging countries, the least developed countries, and the developed countries before I think you are going to see another legally binding treaty signed.

     I actually think that it's necessary for us ultimately to get to such a treaty, and I am supportive of such efforts.  But this is a classic example of a situation where if we just waited for that, then we would not make any progress.  And in fact I think there might be such frustration and cynicism that rather than taking one step forward, we ended up taking two steps back.

But I want to be very clear that ultimately this issue is going to be dictated by the science, and the science indicates that we're going to have to take more aggressive steps in the future.  Our hope is that by investing in clean energy, in research, in development, in innovation, that in the same way that the Clean Air Act ended up spurring all kinds of innovations that solved the acid rain problem at a much cheaper and much more rapid pace than we expected, that by beginning to make progress and getting the wheels of innovation moving, that we are in fact going to be in a position to solve this problem.

     But we're going to need technological breakthroughs to get to the goals that we're looking for.  In the meantime, we've got to be able to take the steps that are in our grasp right now, like for example energy efficiency, something I emphasized last week.

     All right.  Helene Cooper.  I'm sorry.

     Q    What about the compromise shift question? 

     THE PRESIDENT:  I have to say that, quietly, we did some pretty good ground work during the course of this year, so that our position was relatively clear.  I think that the one principle that I brought to this is that whatever commitments we make, I want to be able to be sure that they're actually commitments that we can keep.  So we tried to be modest in what we thought we could accomplish.  I think there was interest on the part of some to, for example, increase our mitigation targets.  Although when you look out in the years 2025 or 2030, our goals are actually entirely comparable with Europe's.  On the front end they appear to be less, because frankly, they've had a head start over the last several years in doing things like energy efficiency that we care about.

     What I said to the other people in the room is, is that I want to make sure that whatever it is that we promise we can actually deliver on, and that it would be unrealistic for us to think that we can turn on a dime and that suddenly a clean-energy economy is going to emerge overnight, given the fact that it's going to require significant effort.  And companies and industries are going to be wanting to make changes -- we're already seeing those changes, but they haven’t all borne fruit yet.  And we want to make sure that we're not getting too far ahead of ourselves in terms of targets, even as I understand that the science compels us to move as rapidly as we can.

     All right.  Helene Cooper.

     Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask you about this listing of the -- in the appendix.  Going forward do you think that's going to continue to be sufficient, or do you think verification is going to remain a source of friction between the U.S. and China?  And also on cap and trade, are you able to -- were you able to assure the leaders here that you'll make that a legislative priority next year?

     THE PRESIDENT:  With respect to the appendix, these countries have set forth for the first time some very significant mitigation efforts, and I want to give them credit for that.  I mean, if you look at a country like India, as I said, they've got hundreds of millions of people who don't have electricity, hundreds of millions of people who, by any standard, are still living in dire poverty.  For them, even voluntarily to say, we are going to reduce carbon emissions relative to our current ways of doing business by X percent is an important step.  And we applaud them for that.

     The problem actually is not going to be verification in the sense that this international consultation and analysis mechanism will actually tell us a lot of what we need to know.  And the truth is that we can actually monitor a lot of what takes place through satellite imagery and so forth.  So I think we're going to have a pretty good sense of what countries are doing.

     What I think that some people are going to legitimately ask is, well, if it's not legally binding what prevents us from, 10 years from now, looking and saying, you know, everybody fell short of these goals and there's no consequences to it?  My response is that, A, that's why I think we should still drive towards something that is more binding than it is.  But that was not achievable at this conference.

     And the second point that I'd make is that Kyoto was legally binding and everybody still fell short anyway.  And so I think that it's important for us, instead of setting up a bunch of goals that end up just being words on a page and are not met, that we get moving -- everybody is taking as aggressive a set of actions as they can; that there is a sense of mutual obligation and information sharing so that people can see who's serious and who's not; that we strive for more binding agreements over time; and that we just keep moving forward.  That's been the main goal that I tried to pursue today.

And I think that as people step back, I guarantee you there are going to be a lot of people who immediately say, the science says you got to do X, Y, Z; in the absence of some sort of legal enforcement, it's not going to happen.  Well, we don't have international government, and even treaties, as we saw in Kyoto, are only as strong as the countries' commitments to participate.

Because of the differing views between developing countries and developed countries, in terms of future obligations, the most important thing I think we can do at this point -- and that we began to accomplish but are not finished with -- is to build some trust between the developing and the developed countries to break down some of the logjams that have to do with people looking backwards and saying, well, Kyoto said this, or Bali said that, or you guys need to do something but we don't need to do something; getting out of that mindset and moving towards a position where everybody recognizes we all have to move together.  If we start from that position, then I think we're going to be able to make progress in the future.

But this is going to be hard.  This is hard within countries; it's going to be even harder between countries.  And one of the things that I've felt very strongly about during the course of this year is that hard stuff requires not paralysis, but it requires going ahead and making the best of the situation that you're in at this point, and then continually trying to improve and make progress from there.

Okay, thank you very much everybody.  We'll see some of you on the plane.

Q    Mr. President, who will sign the agreement -- since you're leaving, who here has the power to sign it?

THE PRESIDENT:  We've got our negotiators who are here.  I'm not going to be the only leader who I think leaves before it's finally presented, but they are empowered to sign off -- given at this point that most of the text has been completely worked out.

     Q    Does it require signing, is it that kind of agreement?

     THE PRESIDENT:  You know, it raises an interesting question as to whether technically there's actually a signature -- since, as I said, it's not a legally binding agreement, I don't know what the protocols are.  But I do think that this is a commitment that we, as the United States, are making and that we think is very important.

     All right.  Thanks, guys.

                                                     END                                            10:53 P.M. CET