Peter Orszag on Building a New Foundation for Growth

Katherine Brandon
July 22, 2009
02:20 PM EDT
White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag addressed the Council on Foreign Relations today, outlining the Administration’s response to the economic crisis, and how the Administration is working to build a new foundation for economic growth and broadly shared prosperity.
Orszag reminded the audience that when President Obama was elected in November, the economy was in a freefall.  The administration had to work to restore confidence. This is why the administration has been looking to the future, and laying the groundwork for a stable foundation, so that we will be prepared for future shocks.  The Capital Assistance Program, the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, and the Recovery Act were all part of this approach. From his prepared remarks:
In designing the Recovery Act, we also recognized that the economic situation we inherited was so severe that we needed to assure producers and consumers that aggregate demand would be boosted not just for a few months, but for a sustained period.  That is why we envisioned a Recovery Act that would ramp up rapidly in 2009, have its peak impact in 2010, and lay the groundwork for further growth thereafter.
Now, the Recovery Act has encountered some criticism in recent days – from all sides. And a piece of legislation of this size and import should be scrutinized.  In conducting this debate, however, we need to understand what the Act was designed to do.
Remember that the Recovery Act was designed to take effect over a two-year period with about 70 percent of all funds going out in the first 18 months.
As a result, and since job growth typically lags behind economic activity, both Administration and independent forecasts have predicted that only a very small part of the total job creation expected from the Recovery Act would take place by the end of the second quarter.  Therefore evaluating how well the Recovery Act is working based on recent movement in employment numbers is misleading.
Implementation of the Recovery Act is on schedule, and the $220 billion in relief has already had a direct impact. Orszag explained how the Recovery Act is helping our economy rebound:
Goldman Sachs, for one, projects that the Recovery Act will add about 3 percentage points on an annualized basis to GDP in the second quarter and have a similar effect in the third quarter.  To be sure, other analysts may reach slightly different quantitative conclusions than Goldman Sachs – and in any case we have a way to go before anyone should become satisfied with our economic performance.  Nonetheless, it is becoming increasingly clear that the economy is no longer on the brink of disaster.
The equity markets have rebounded, and credit markets have thawed.  The TED spread—an indicator of stress in private credit markets—was typically below 50 basis points before the crisis. In October of last year, it peaked at over five times that, at 460 basis points.  It has now settled back under 50 basis points.   And the consensus among private forecasters is that the economy will return to positive growth this year.
But even as progress is made, this year will continue to be difficult for American workers, as the unemployment rate typically lags behind other parts of the economy. He argued that recovery is not just about rescue, but about rebuilding our economy so that we can have long-term, sustainable growth -- and that health care reform is an essential element to building this new foundation:
The evidence is clear that the biggest threat to our fiscal future is rising health care costs. If health care costs grow at the same rate over the next four decades as they did over the previous four, Medicare and Medicaid spending will go from about 5 percent of GDP to about 20 percent by 2050. That was about the size of the entire federal government last year.
Our fiscal future is so dominated by healthcare that if we can slow the rate of cost growth by just 15 basis points a year, the savings for Medicare and Medicaid would equal the impact from eliminating Social Security’s entire 75-year shortfall.
The fiscal importance of health care reform is indisputable.  Yet in the current debate, there’s been a lot of controversy surrounding whether the bills that are emerging from Congress accomplish our fiscal goals or not.  So let me be clear: the President will not sign a health care reform bill unless it is deficit neutral with hard, scoreable savings over the next decade and on a stable trajectory as the decade ends.
In addition to reforming health care in a deficit-neutral way, the President has also insisted that we take additional steps to transforming our system to one that delivers better care, rather than more care.
Because if we fail to do more to move towards a high-value, low-cost healthcare system, we will be on an unsustainable fiscal path no matter what else we do.  As it stands now, the health care system does the opposite of what it should -- creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to provide more care, not the best care.
 
Related Topics: Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, Health Care

Ending the "Speculation"

Jesse Lee
Jesse Lee
July 20, 2009
02:45 PM EDT
OMB Director Peter Orszag knocks down a few budget stories floating around.  
Related Topics: Fiscal Responsibility

Of SAPs and F-22s

Jesse Lee
Jesse Lee
July 15, 2009
06:25 PM EDT
When a President wants to go on record with his feelings about legislation that is making its way through Congress, he or (some day soon!) she issues a Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP. Today the President issued a SAP on the National Defense Authorization Act, which was generally supportive of the legislation but which laid out an unambiguous veto threat over one fiscally irresponsible provision.

Get the details from OMB Director Peter Orszag at his blog.

Related Topics: Fiscal Responsibility

TARP Funds Returned, Spending Reigned In

Jesse Lee
Jesse Lee
June 09, 2009
03:05 PM EDT
Viewing this video requires Adobe Flash Player 8 or higher. Download the free player.
download .mp4 (159.8 MB) | read the transcript
Today the President spoke in the East Room of the White House, bearing good news for the taxpayer. The President’s intention was to discuss all of the progress already underway on the fiscal responsibility front, from ending the kind of wasteful no-bid contracting we have all come to know, to cutting unnecessary programs, to eliminating subsidies lavished on health insurance companies through Medicare. 

At the top of the list was codifying the PAYGO principle, stating that government cannot spend an additional dollar without saving it somewhere else, into law. As the President often notes -- and noted again today -- it is a principle that families are forced to live by and one that helped balance the government’s books for years before it was abandoned.

But as it happened, there was even more good news before he discussed those issues:
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you all for joining us here in the White House.  Before I begin, I want to comment briefly on the announcement by the Treasury Department with regard to the financial stability plan.
As you know, through this plan and its predecessor, taxpayer dollars were used to stabilize the financial system at a time of extraordinary stress.  And these funds were also meant to be an investment -- and they were meant to be temporary.  And that's why this morning's announcement is important. 
Several financial institutions are set to pay back $68 billion to taxpayers.  And while we know that we will not escape the worst financial crisis in decades without some losses to taxpayers, it's worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies the government has actually turned a profit.
This is not a sign that our troubles are over -- far from it.  The financial crisis this administration inherited is still creating painful challenges for businesses and families alike.  And I think everybody sees it in their own individual districts. But it is a positive sign.  We're seeing an initial return on a few of these investments.  We're restoring funds to the Treasury where they'll be available to safeguard against continuing risks to financial stability.  And as this money is returned, we'll see our national debt lessened by $68 billion -- billions of dollars that this generation will not have to borrow and future generations will not have to repay.
I've said repeatedly that I have no interest in managing the banking system -- or, for that matter, running auto companies or other private institutions.  So today's announcement is welcome news to me.  But I also want to say the return of these funds does not provide forgiveness for past excesses or permission for future misdeeds.  It's critical that as our country emerges from this period of crisis, that we learn its lessons; that those who seek reward do not take reckless risk; that short-term gains are not pursued without regard for long-term consequences.

The President gives remarks(President Barack Obama delivers remarks on the new tax or entitlement policies for the pay-as-you-go plan Tuesday, June 9, 2009, in the East Room of the White House.  Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
Related Topics: Fiscal Responsibility

Director Orszag Continues the Conversation on Health Care Costs

Jesse Lee
Jesse Lee
June 01, 2009
01:36 PM EDT
OMB Director Peter Orszag posts another contribution to the conversation on health care costs:
"As the debate about health care reform takes center stage this summer, more and more commentators will be focusing – rightly – on the impact of reform on the federal budget."
Read the full post on what he calls "A 'Belt and Suspenders' Approach to Fiscally Responsible Health Reform."
Related Topics: Fiscal Responsibility, Health Care

Director Orszag on Health Care and Fiscal Discipline

Jesse Lee
Jesse Lee
May 29, 2009
03:17 PM EDT
OMB Director Orszag explains why the fiscal problems the President inherited don't preclude health reform, but rather necessitate it.
Read the full post.
Related Topics: Fiscal Responsibility, Health Care
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                      May 27, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:24 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS:  Good afternoon.  My condolences to all of you that weren’t allowed to go to Las Vegas and Los Angeles, including myself.  Let me get organized here.
Mr. Feller.
Q    Thanks, Robert.  Two questions on the Supreme Court, please.  As expected, the debate to try to define Judge Sotomayor is underway from interested parties from the left and from the right.  The President obviously had his say yesterday to the American people, but I'm wondering, as this debate unfolds and heads towards confirmation, what is the White House's plan today, every day, to try to influence the debates, to try to make sure your message stays out there?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, as I said yesterday, Ben, I think the most effective advocate for making the case for the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor is, in fact, Judge Sotomayor.  She's begun reaching out to senators, talking on the phone today with Senators Reid -- Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, and Senator Sessions.  We're working on a readout of those calls.  I don't have that handy at the moment.
We anticipate that -- (cell phone rings.)
Q    That's her now.  (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS:  Right, calling one of you weighty senators to weigh in on her confirmation.  We expect that as the Senate comes back next week, she'll begin visits up on Capitol Hill.  And as soon as we get scheduling information we'll certainly let you know that, as well.
But then, again, I think that this is somebody who brings, as I said yesterday, a richness of experience -- 17 years on the federal bench -- and that if people take an objective and fair look at her record, we think they'll come to the conclusion that she's highly qualified to be a member of the Supreme Court.
Q    That plan that you just laid out of the Judge herself talking to senators, obviously that happens in a private setting. Meanwhile the debate is happening that the American people are going to be hearing about -- so does the White House have a role in that debate?
MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think we'll probably find a way to make it easier on you to find legal experts and her colleagues that share the President's enthusiasm about the pick.  I don't doubt that we won't do that.  I mean, I think it's -- I think that we'll certainly play a role in that.  I think, again, our strong belief is that she has a record that speaks highly of who she is as a judge.
Q    One more on that, if I could.  You made a comment yesterday, "I think the President picked the person he believed best suited for the job at this time."  And in his C-SPAN interview a few days ago, the President said, different times call for different justices, and he mentioned the civil rights movement in particular in that comment.  So I'm wondering, what is it specifically about this time that makes Judge Sotomayor the right pick?  What does the nation's current state have to do with it?
MR. GIBBS:  Well -- and I don't necessarily mean that in relation to six months from now would he have picked somebody else.  I think what he got in the pick of Judge Sotomayor, as I said yesterday, was somebody who brings a wealth of experience.  The President was impressed with her approach to judging and a compelling life story that I think underscores the President's desire to have somebody that understands the role the Supreme Court plays in the everyday lives of the American people and looking for somebody to bring their common sense and that perspective to the Court.
Yes, sir.
Q    A couple of questions, first on North Korea.  What's the administration's reaction to North Korea's threat to attack South Korea after it said it would join a U.S.-led plan to check vessels suspected of carrying materials that could be used for weapons of mass destruction?  And is the U.S. taking any precautions, militarily or otherwise, to cope with this?
MR. GIBBS:  I don't have any information on any military precautions.  I would say this:  that threats are not going to bring -- threats won't get North Korea the attention it craves.  Their actions are continuing to further deepen their own isolation from the international community and from the rights and obligations that they themselves have agreed to live up to.  As an example, I think a rough count -- this is the fifth time in 15 years that they've sought to nullify the armistice governing the Korean War.  And I think their actions would be better focused on living up to their rights and obligations.
Q    Are you saying you're not really taking the threat seriously?
MR. GIBBS:  No, we're certainly concerned and take any threat seriously.  But my sense is they're trying to get renewed attention through saber rattling and bluster and threats, and I think the attention they're trying to gain is not going to be successful, given what they're trying to do.
Q    And another subject, oil prices have doubled over the last six months.  The Saudi oil minister said today that the global economy could -- was strong enough to cope with oil prices of $75 to $80 a barrel.  What's the administration's reaction to that?  And is there any concern in the administration that rising oil prices could derail any economic recovery?
MR. GIBBS:  This is something that the administration obviously watches, but I don't have anything directly on the $75 -- look, obviously the President is concerned about anything that raises the cost of living in a fragile economic time.  I think it underscores again the President's call and commitment to greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  I think one of the steps that was taken in the last couple weeks were renewed and strengthened fuel mileage standards.  And obviously legislation is working its way through Congress that would further decrease that dependence on foreign oil, and we'd certainly like to see that pass.
Q    Will the President be speaking to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia next week about keeping oil prices reined in?
MR. GIBBS:  I can only imagine that will be a topic, yes.
Yes, sir.
Q    A couple questions, Robert.  First of all, a lot of public officials have been complaining that the stimulus dollars just aren't getting out to the states and cities quickly enough. In addition, the President made a pretty big deal about going to Columbus, Ohio, and talking about the stimulus dollars saving some cadets jobs.  But now Columbus is talking about raising taxes from 2 percent to 2.5 percent, and if they don't get this additional revenue they're going to have to lay off some of those cadets specifically.  And I'm wondering if you think that in any way you guys oversold, or the American people got a misimpression about how quickly the stimulus was going to take effect.
MR. GIBBS:  No, in fact, I think you guys asked me about why only 75 to 80 percent of it would be spent in two years, right?  So, look, our focus is on trying to get as much money out the door as quickly as humanly possible while ensuring that there isn't waste; that projects that don't need to be funded take up money that can and should be going to other projects.
I think -- and I don't have some of the numbers in front of me, but we've funded thousands of road projects that will create jobs.  The President has -- a lot of money clearly has gone out the door to states and localities dealing with things like unemployment insurance, which are tremendously important right now.
There is no doubt that many states across the country are facing increasingly difficult economic times.  The President understands and is aware of that.  One of the reasons that we had an increase in money going directly to those states was to try to help those problems.
In terms of the police in Columbus, the President remains committed to that.  We've actually -- there's certainly money in the budget to continue to hire police.  But we also understand the stimulus, the recovery plan is a temporary infusion of money into the system.  There are long-term budget problems in states and localities that are certainly going to have to be addressed. We're monitoring those.  The President is doing, and the administration continues to do all that they can to get money out as quickly as humanly possible.
Q    Okay.  And just a separate question.  Today in California, Ted Olson, former Solicitor General for President Bush, and David Boies, are introducing a lawsuit against the state of California, saying that by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the ability to marry they are violating the Equal Protection Rights under the U.S. Constitution for same-sex couples.  Why are they wrong?
MR. GIBBS:  I have not read the opinion or --
Q    The President supports the idea that people should be able to -- same-sex couples should be able to enter in civil unions.  Boies and Olson -- a very conservative lawyer -- are saying that is a violation --
MR. GIBBS:  Olson.  (Laughter.)
Q    Not Boies, right -- Olson, a very conservative lawyer, saying that is a violation of the Constitution.  It is also the position the President holds, that there should be civil unions, not same-sex marriage.  Why is it not a violation of the Equal Protection clause?
MR. GIBBS:  Jake, let me have somebody take a look at the pleading that they're going to make.  I don't know what they're arguing --
     
Q    Generally.  Just forget the specific argument; I'm just talking about their general argument is that by having -- by not allowing same-sex couples to marry, it is a violation of equal protection.
MR. GIBBS:  Right, well, again --
Q    And that's the President's position, so --
MR. GIBBS:  But let me -- well, the President's position, we're all aware of.  I hesitate to be general about the legal underpinnings of an argument based on some portion of the Constitution.  I think that they may be somewhat hard to generalize.  So let me have somebody take a look at that and see if we have anything based on what Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies are doing.
Yes, sir.
Q    Is the administration -- towards North Korea now -- is the administration frustrated at all that North Korea doesn't appear to be intimidated by the global reaction to their test firing of missiles and their nuclear --
MR. GIBBS:  That they're intimidated?
Q    Yes, that they don't appear to be intimidated by this. They keep doing these tests.  Is there any frustration at all from the administration that --
MR. GIBBS:  I think there's a frustration that the North Koreans don't seem to want to live up to the obligations that they've previously made to the international community, and I think the international community has spoken out swiftly about that.  You guys all covered when -- around our first trip, their test, and whether or not you could get the Security Council to make a decision to pass some resolution.  The unified international condemnation of this came fast and furious.
But again, I think, and I think the vast majority of our allies strongly believe, that what North Korea is doing is hurting North Korea; that they're -- I can't speak to what motivations they have, except the fact that it underscores the deepening of their actions in isolating themselves from the rest of the world.  I think that's apparent each and every day.
Q    And is there a sense that North Korea will back down before this escalates any further?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think we are, again, strongly hopeful that they'll understand that this is not doing them any good, that it further isolates themselves; they further -- they're further -- they're farther and farther away from living up to the obligations that they themselves set.  And we continue to look at ways to ensure through the access of infrastructure, either banks or ports, that we're doing, and our allies are doing, all that we can to ensure that they're not moving material that could be used to produce a weapon of mass destruction.
Yes, sir.
Q    Two things; first, GM.  Recently, when Chrysler was front and center, the President singled out investors as one of the causes of that bankruptcy.  He said, "It was unacceptable to let a small group of speculators endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice."  Does the President consider GM bondholders to be speculators who refuse to sacrifice?  Does he see them in the same light?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, Chip, as you know, there is a looming deadline that the President and his task force set for GM to enter into a restructuring agreement that creates the path towards a viable auto company.  That deadline is looming.  But as I said yesterday I don't want to get involved in the day-to-day negotiations from up here.
Q    This is more than a negotiation.  I mean, the bondholders are not playing ball here, just as the speculators did with Chrysler.  Does he seem bothered --
MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I think the statement --
Q    -- refusing to sacrifice the way the speculators did?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, I do think -- well, two things.  I do think --
Q    Are they the bad guys?
MR. GIBBS:  I do think the President strongly believes that, as he said in the lead-up to the Chrysler deadline, that all the stakeholders involved -- the company, labor, management, bondholders, debt-holders -- were all going to have to make some sacrifices if we're going to see GM continue.
I would also point out, I think, Chip, that statement came at a point in which the vast majority -- I think it later became public that basically the people that were holding out sort of vociferously represented far less than 5 percent of the company. Instead of prejudging how the negotiations will go over the course of the next several days as we lead up to that deadline, I'd let those stakeholders continue that negotiation in order to get the best possible outcome for GM, for its workers, for the communities that GM is in, and for the taxpayers of this country.
Q    So he doesn't see them in the same light, the bondholders and GM, in the same light that he saw the speculators in Chrysler?
MR. GIBBS:  Again, you're talking about a statement that -- you're talking about holdouts when, again, probably 97 or 98 percent of the people had an agreement.  We're working towards -- our hope is an agreement with all the stakeholders involved to continue General Motors, and I think we're making progress and hopefully we'll have news to report soon on that.
Q    And are you familiar with -- switching topics for a moment to Sotomayor -- are you familiar with Newt Gingrich's blog -- (laughter.)  You are not?
MR. GIBBS:  No.
Q    Okay.  Well, he apparently -- I'm told it is on his blog that he said, "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latino woman.'  Wouldn't they have to withdraw?  New racism is no better than old racism.  A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latino woman racist should also withdraw."
MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.  I think we're satisfied that when the people of America and the people of the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker --
Q    He also tweeted us.  (Laughter.) 
MR. GIBBS:  -- that they'll come to the same conclusion that the President did:  that judicial experience that exceeds any nominee -- federal judicial experience that exceeds any nominee for a hundred years, strict adherence to precedent -- I think when people get a chance to look at her record, I feel certain that partisan politics will take a backseat to common sense and open-minded decisions based on a full examination of the record. And I think that's what every Supreme Court and every judicial nominee deserves. 
I think if you look at -- again, I mentioned this yesterday -- this is somebody who was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton, approved by the Senate in each occasion. So I think she is somebody who is highly qualified, of keen intellect, and somebody that's going to be a great member of the Supreme Court.  I've heard a lot of people in the last couple days, they've mentioned intellect.  I'm not entirely sure where people that make that argument -- I'm not sure what number they graduated in their class at Princeton, but my sense is it's not second.
Yes, sir.
Q    The President moves on to Los Angeles today, where he hosts a fundraiser where the top price is up to a reported $30,000, at the Beverly Hills Hilton or at one of the Beverly Hills hotels.  A congressman from the Central Valley of California, Jim Costa, says, "The President is not feeling any empathy towards me.  He promised he would visit the California heartland. He's not doing that.  He's merely attending a fundraiser here."  Is the President taking California for granted politically?
MR. GIBBS:  I don't see how that would be the case.  We've certainly -- I don't know how many days we spent out there earlier on a I think a two- or three-day trip.  I can't -- I didn't go on that one either; I seem to miss out on --
Q    But today's context includes the financial crisis there and the controversy over Proposition 8.  The President, as far as we know, is not going to speak out on any of these issues while he's in California.  Do you think that's appropriate?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, let's try not to mix up the questions here and let me see if I can keep them straight.  I think the notion that the President isn't concerned about the economic conditions of this country I don't think holds a lot of validity, given the actions that he's taken to get our economy moving again; to get the resources that California needs to invest in their infrastructure and to take care of their citizens; to ensure that kids have health care.  I think he's taken steps to do that and I think most people in California are confident in that, as well.

 Jonathan.

Q    A couple questions, one on the Court and one on North Korea.  On North Korea, the Moscow summit is a little more than a month away; that was supposed to show progress on the President's very ambitious arms control agenda that was laid out in Prague.  Part of that was supposed to be some movement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and movement ahead of the nonproliferation treaty meetings next year.  And I wonder what impact a nuclear test is going to have on movement on those two issues.  Is it going to undermine progress on the test ban and on the nonproliferation treaty, or somehow will it redouble efforts?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think it gives the entire world the unique opportunity to take the strong steps that the President has outlined.  I think we're all keenly aware of what's involved and the stakes that are involved, and I know that the team continues to work ahead of the Moscow summit in order to make progress on these issues.  And I think they're working toward that.
Q    Do you have a time -- I mean, is there any thought of submitting the CTBT to the Senate --
MR. GIBBS:  Let me check with NSC guys on that.
Q    Okay.  And then on the Court, President Bush would routinely bring in outside people, greybeards, sherpas, to chaperone his nominees around the Senate.  What makes you guys seem so confident that you don't feel like you need that kind of team working for Judge Sotomayor?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, the absence of a certain colored beard I don't think denotes a casualness about which we're going the confirmation process.  Obviously the team is -- there's a team here that's very involved in this.  I will check the color of their facial hair at the conclusion of this briefing; I don't think Mr. Klain grew one overnight. 
But there are people in the Counsel's office, people that are in the Vice President's office, the West Wing, that are working on this.  We're not -- I don't think you could look at what happened yesterday and say that we're taking any of this lightly.
Yes, sir.
Q    Robert, does the President know for a fact that Judge Sotomayor supports the ruling in Roe v. Wade?
MR. GIBBS:  As I said yesterday, Mark, the President doesn't have a litmus test and that question was not one that he posed to her.
Q    Didn't he make that a campaign promise, that he would appoint justices who support --
MR. GIBBS:  I'd have to look -- I don't know whether -- I don't remember exactly what was said on that topic, but I can look that up.

Q    Okay.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, sir.
Q    I want to follow up on Matt's question.  When he meets with King Abdullah next week, you said that he'd -- you would imagine that oil would be on the agenda.  What would the President ask King Abdullah?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, I'm not going to get into the full meeting agenda and all that's going to be said on each side.  We'll likely have an opportunity to read out that meeting after it happens.
Q    Would he ask for the Saudis to increase --
MR. GIBBS:  See previous answer.  (Laughter.)
Q    Switch to GM.  You mentioned, in response to Chip's question, "we're making progress."  Isn't bankruptcy a fait accompli?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think the deadline is near but it's not passed yet.  We'll see -- look, there could be, as happened in the case of Chrysler, there could be progress on an agreement with stakeholders leading up to something that might be an eventual bankruptcy.
Q    The only thing left was the bondholders and their deadline passed last night at 11:59 p.m.
MR. GIBBS:  Well, then I will --
Q    There's nothing left -- unless I'm missing something.
MR. GIBBS:  Well, you never know.  I think that the team continues to work on trying to get all the stakeholders involved to move and make progress and they're going to continue to do that up until that deadline.  I don't anticipate that that's going to change at all.
Major.
Q    Robert, on autos -- not in the negotiating realm at all, but last week 36 members of the House wrote a letter to the President saying:  We're a little concerned that the task force is making decisions that the legislative body also ought to have some role in.  They talk about what happened to Chrysler -- this is members of a union who voted to make some sacrifices, yet they found out after the Chrysler deal that their jobs had been terminated.  The implications for Chrysler dealerships they say are affecting their constituents.
Can you talk broadly about what it is about the task force that gives it so much legitimate power that members of Congress now wonder if the legislative branch also ought to have a more direct voice and legislative role in as the future of the auto industry is being debated and decided here at the White House. 
MR. GIBBS:  Well, let's first of all, just for some context, Major, understand that decisions on plant closings and decisions on dealerships are not made by the auto task force or by its members or people that work in the White House.  These are decisions that are made by companies about what it is they believe is the best path toward renewed viability for their company.  And understand that in the case of Chrysler I think 75 percent of the auto dealers remained open; that encompasses about 87 percent of annual auto sales.
I would say this to any member of Congress and to any member of the public:  If it weren’t for the task force on autos, and if it weren’t for the President's intervention, a hundred percent of those dealerships would be gone, a hundred percent of those plants would be closed, and Roger would have just asked me about the liquidation assets of Chrysler, rather than whether or not we're making progress with General Motors.
So, look, Congress certainly is involved in auto decisions obviously as it relates to setting fuel mileage standards that the President worked on last week, as well as proposals to create tax incentives to trade in older cars that aren’t doing as well on fuel mileage, to both increase auto sales and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  But I think the vast majority of members I think are appreciative of the efforts of the task force each and every day in order to keep as much as we possibly can in a viable auto industry here in America.
Q    And those lawmakers who would agree with your initial point that the White House has not made decisions on dealerships or union contracts being terminated or kept, they would also point out that the viability standard is set by the task force and decisions flow from that viability standard set here at the White House.  Therefore, the White House does have an enormous say, some might say an inordinate say, in things affecting their constituents.  And your response to that would be?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, I would say that we have a major role to play, and I think we are playing it in a way that is preserving and protecting as many jobs as possible, protecting as many communities as possible, and hopefully restructuring -- working to restructure an auto industry that has fallen on vastly hard times, and that we're doing all that we can to move that in a different direction.
Q    To follow up on Chip, briefly, are you saying that there's no racial dimension and there should be no racial dimension interpreted or drawn from Judge Sotomayor's comments made in 2001 at Berkeley -- after she was confirmed both times by the Senate, so the Senate never had a chance to evaluate that, just to point that out -- that there is no racial dimension?  Americans who look at that should think, what, if they think that their might be a racial dimension there?     
MR. GIBBS:  I think, one, I think Americans should read all of what she talked about.  Read the full article.  I admonished April yesterday for her YouTube clip.  Read the whole article, and I think there's --
Q    There's a larger contextual point there -- 
MR. GIBBS:  Read a couple of sentences past that and we can certainly discuss that.  But more importantly, Major, let's -- as I said to Chip and others, you have somebody with the vast federal judicial experience that she has, not somebody who served on the court for a year or less than a year, but somebody who served on the court for quite some time.  I think there's a strong record with which to evaluate. 
I think we can all move past YouTube snippets and half-sentences and actually look at the honest-to-God record of these nominees -- even as April shakes her head.  I think even April will do some due diligence and come to the conclusion that the President came to, that we've nominated somebody that deserves --
Q    It's out of her mouth.  Those were words that she said out of her mouth.  You can admonish YouTube.  You can admonish that and talk about her record, but she said these words.
Q    Well, I'm just asking you, Robert --
MR. GIBBS:  I understand, but I'm asking --
Q    I'm just asking you if you want to offer -- as the White House had nominated her -- something that you believe the American public should read into it or evaluate from that statement that they read that we haven't heard from the podium so far.  So I'm just offering you the opportunity --
MR. GIBBS:  I'm sorry, just tell me the last part again.
Q    Something that the White House wants to add to what Americans who may look at that fair-mindedly and say, this sounds to me as if there's a racial dimension to it, and maybe that might trouble them.  Do you have anything to add to that?
MR. GIBBS:  I think it -- I have confidence in Americans reading not just part of, but the whole statement, and I have confidence in Americans evaluating the full depth of her record and coming to an honest and open-minded conclusion.
Q    In all fairness, a follow to that -- it's not just a racial dimension, but it's a gender dimension.  And do you at least acknowledge that she did say these words?  You're asking us to look beyond.
MR. GIBBS:  I can confirm that it appears likely that she intoned both of those sentences, yes.
Q    I mean, you're spinning it, trying to make us look at the record.  Okay, we look at the record.  But we're also looking at her words.
MR. GIBBS:  Can I just say -- and I want to make sure that I get this on the record -- looking at the record isn't spinning you, okay.  
     
Q    I know, but you're spinning --
MR. GIBBS:  I appreciate that --
Q    -- what she actually said.
MR. GIBBS:  I'm not spinning what she said.  If I'm spinning what she said, April, then you at least have to acknowledge that you're not understanding even remotely the full context of what she said in that debate.  Right?
Q    I understand it, but I --
MR. GIBBS:  No, no, no, no, no.  I just want to know, do you believe that in judging eight seconds, or six seconds of what somebody says in a 40-minute clip, you've fully understood and taken into account the full context of what she said?
Q    You have to look at the context --
MR. GIBBS:  Is that a spin?
Q    -- but, yes, as well, you have to also see the words that she said.  You have to have a whole --
MR. GIBBS:  Well, I feel confident that if you look at the context and then listen to the words, you, your listeners, and everyone that you talk to will have a greater and fuller appreciation for exactly what she said, just as I hope that people don't take a 10-second snippet of what you and I are talking about and form some larger conversation.
Q    Robert, some of us have read the entire speech --
Q    Thank you.
Q    -- and we're wondering if you can explain what she meant.  Because some of us who have read the entire, lengthy speech --
MR. GIBBS:  And I talked about this yesterday.  Let me get
--
Q    She wasn't saying that a Latina woman judge and a white male judge would have equal views; she said one was better than the other.
MR. GIBBS:  Here's what I believe.  I think she's talking about the unique experiences that she has.  I think the next sentence -- I don't have it in front of me -- I think the next sentence denotes that -- 
     
Q    We want to get it.  (Laughter.) 
MR. GIBBS:  I am surprised you don't have it, right, April. Have you -- cue your YouTube up right there on your Blackberry. Again, I think if you look at the totality of this, if you look at the next few sentences, I have every confidence that people will come to the conclusion that -- and again, and look at her whole record.
Q    You're not spinning us.  We're asking you, spin us.  (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS:  I appreciate --
Q    Explain what you think she meant.
Q    Thank you.
MR. GIBBS:  I have done that now --
Q    And why there is no racial component to it.
MR. GIBBS:  -- I have done that --
Q    You dismissed Newt Gingrich as not doing well enough at Princeton or doing as well as Judge Sotomayor at Princeton --
MR. GIBBS:  I think -- I don't think --
Q    -- and all he's saying is there's a racial component to it, and a fair-minded person could read that and wonder to themselves if there's not a racial component.  You deny that.  I'm just trying to get an explanation as to why.
MR. GIBBS:  Well, I'm saying -- I'm also saying you should read all of it.
Q    We have.
MR. GIBBS:  I think you should look at the totality of -- (laughter) -- let my look denote that I'm casting doubt on what you just said, April.
Q    Have you read it?
MR. GIBBS:  I've read most of it, yes.
Q    And what conclusion do you draw?  And what conclusion does the White House draw?
MR. GIBBS:  That she has different experiences than -- she has lived a different life than some people have, based on her upbringing; that she understands that --
Q    And it's okay, therefore, to say that that different life could lead you naturally to better conclusions than someone who didn't live that life?
MR. GIBBS:  Or you could certainly lead to different conclusions, because we all have perspectives.
Q    She said "better."
MR. GIBBS:  Again, look at the totality of it.  I have confidence that people will come to a reasonable conclusion on this.
Michael.
Q    In rolling out this nomination, the President --
MR. GIBBS:  I hereby admonish everyone -- okay, I'm sorry -- not just April.
Q    In rolling out the nomination, the President and others in the administration have highlighted kind of the Horatio Alger aspects of Judge Sotomayor's life.  Why is that important in the upcoming confirmation?  And why talk about that so much?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think -- again, I think it provides -- I think the President talked about, in looking for somebody to fill a seat on the Court, was looking for somebody that had -- when I talk about the richness of experience, I include a life and an upbringing that are different than some people have had.  I think that provides a unique way in looking at the world.  I think it provides somebody with important perspective. 
And I think many people in America can see some part of her -- some part of them in her story; that whether it is coming from lesser means, working hard to get through school, excelling, again, working hard as a prosecutor, as a litigator, becoming -- I forget -- I saw this somewhere, that when President Bush nominated her, I think she was the youngest judge on that -- in that district court.  So, look, I think that all of that is not only personally compelling, but I think that does give you a different way of looking at the world.
Q    Robert, two questions related to Judge Sotomayor.  First, there's just been some commentary that if she's confirmed she would be the sixth Catholic to serve on the Supreme Court.  I'm just wondering, did issues of faith come up at all in the President's conversations with her?
MR. GIBBS:  I will check.  The President had those conversations just with her, and staff wasn't there.
Q    Was her religious background given any consideration at all?
MR. GIBBS:  Not that I know of.
Q    Okay.  And then, beyond that, you talked before about getting your message out, and you'll convene six legal experts today, later today, to talk to reporters.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that this -- I can't think of another instance where the White House has convened outside experts who haven't -- who don't have a formal advisory role to the President to make your case on a particular issue.  And I'm wondering, do you regard this as some kind of political or marketing campaign that you have to sort of convene outsiders to get your message out?  What's the reasoning --
MR. GIBBS:  Usually you just rely on me to spin people.
Q    Right.  So now you're bringing in -- bringing in other folks.
MR. GIBBS:  Sorry, I had to swerve and just try to go back at April one more time.
No, look, I think that -- I don't think this is necessarily unique.  I think we have on occasion provided experts for people to follow up with that share the same viewpoint that the President does on a particular issue.  I think it's important that we help you guys find people that have played an important role in her development or in her life or have worked with her, or people that certainly agree with the President's pick.
Q    Is this the beginning of the war room?
MR. GIBBS:  No -- I think this was asked yesterday -- we don't -- I think to have a war room denotes that we think there's some coming war, and we don't believe that.
Q    Robert, can you talk a little bit about the Abbas meeting tomorrow, what's on the agenda and what the White House hopes to accomplish?
MR. GIBBS:  I don't have anything more specific than just the continuation of the discussions that the President started at the beginning of the administration -- one of the calls was to Mr. Abbas -- as we continue to go through and talk to leaders in the region that are involved in the very important peace talks.  But we'll have a stronger readout on what the President conveys on that tomorrow afternoon after that meeting.
Q    It originally was envisioned that you were going to have three meetings.  Of course, you had Netanyahu here and you were going to have President Mubarak, who you're not going to see until the President gets to Cairo.  Has his absence affected the progress you're making?
MR. GIBBS:  I don't believe it has.  I mean, obviously, again, it was a very tragic circumstance that led to that.  I know the President is anxious to have that meeting, but I don't think that it has materially changed where we are, no.
Q    Robert, you promised -- you promised.  (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS:  Did I promise?  I don't know about that.  Let me continue my tour around, and we'll see how I am on my promise.
Yes, sir.
Q    Just to follow, would the President like President Abbas to resume peace talks with Israel?  And just quickly, does the President believe that China has more leverage to bring to bear on North Korea than it has exerted after previous missile and nuclear crises?
MR. GIBBS:  Well, on the first part, obviously we were heartened to hear what Prime Minister Netanyahu said about resuming talks, and we're hopeful that the same goes for Mr. Abbas when we see him on Thursday.
In terms of -- I think the Chinese government has been exceptionally strong in their words of condemnation regarding the actions of North Korea over the past few days.  I think many speculated that, both in the previous test a few weeks -- well, certainly in the previous test a few weeks ago, that we would have trouble getting unanimity among the Security Council.  That's not been the case, and I think that's because a lot of parties have played important and constructive roles.  I think, as was the case in 2006, the Chinese government strongly condemned the actions of North Korea as they continue to isolate themselves.
Q    Robert, back on Sotomayor.  During the process of vetting and all the papers that the President was given and seen, did he ever, out of curiosity, find himself in disagreement with Justice Sotomayor, and if so, on what cases and in what material?
MR. GIBBS:  I didn't go through exactly what material he read with -- on that or what the basis would be.  I don't have anything on that.
Q    Did he ever express any disagreement with the decisions she made?
MR. GIBBS:  He didn't in front of me, but that doesn't mean that he didn't in front of others.
Q    Robert?
MR. GIBBS:  Lester, I'm a glutton for punishment.  (Laughter.)
Q    Thank you, thank you very much.  Just one question concerning what the President said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, "I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said.  This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable."  End of quote.  Do you remember that statement?
MR. GIBBS:  I can confirm that he said that.
Q    Good.  In consideration of this very good promise of transparency, why can't the President respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital -- (laughter) -- 400,000.
MR. GIBBS:  Are you looking for the President's birth certificate?
Q    Yes.
MR. GIBBS:  It's on the Internet, Lester.
Q    No, no, no -- the long form listing his hospital and physician.  (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS:  Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me.  The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the President's birth.  I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people -- (laughter) -- that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the President's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download.  I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy.
Thanks, guys.
END                                       
2:09 P.M. EDT
                                            
 
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
 
______________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                     May 27, 2009
 President Obama Marks 100th Day of Recovery Act with Release of "100 Days, 100 Projects" Report
Report Includes Over $467 Million Recovery Act Investment in Geothermal, Solar Technology President Will Announce Today in Nevada
 
LAS VEGAS, NV – President Barack Obama today marked the 100th day of the Recovery Act by releasing "100 Days, 100 Projects," a report from the Vice President that highlights the progress the country has made in the first 100 days of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the work that is already being done to build a new foundation for America’s economic recovery.  To view the report, click HERE.
"One hundred days ago, in the midst of the worst economic crisis in half a century, we passed the most sweeping economic recovery act in history – a plan designed to save jobs, create new ones, and put money in people’s pockets," President Obama said.  "Now, one hundred days later, we are meeting our economic challenges head-on and beginning to see early signs of progress across the country."
Among the projects in the report are two new Recovery Act investments totaling over $467 million to expand and accelerate the development and use of geothermal and solar energy throughout the country that the President will announce today during a visit to Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  Nellis Air Force Base is home to the largest solar photovoltaic array in the United States, and 25 percent of the energy used by the 12,000 people that live and work on the base is generated by the 72,000 solar panel installation.  The Recovery Act funds announced today represent a substantial down payment on bringing renewable energy technology like that used at Nellis to the mass market and is expected to create thousands of jobs, particularly in the western United States.  To learn more about the new Recovery Act investments in geothermal and solar energy technology, click HERE.
Today’s announcement is just one of the many ways the Recovery Act is jump-starting the economy today and building a new foundation for sustained economic growth in the future.  Across the country, the Recovery Act is already at work, providing essential financial relief for American families and businesses, creating and saving jobs, and spurring technology and infrastructure investments that will lay the groundwork for the new economy – and work is just getting started.
  • In Southern California, construction is underway on the I-405 Sepulveda Pass Project on the San Diego Freeway, one of the most congested highways in the nation, because of a $189.9 million Recovery Act investment
  • In Cumberland, Maine, Storey Brothers Trucking, a small family-owned business that was struggling to pay its 19 employees is now back to work and boosting the local economy because of a $2 million Recovery Act grant awarded to the Portland Water District for upgrading the town’s sewer system.  
  • In Pearl, Mississippi, a $1.3 million Recovery Act grant award is allowing the Family Health Care Clinic to open three new branches that will offer medical and dental services to low-income and uninsured residents and provide increased job oppor­tunities in the community by employing 70 staff over the next two years.
  • At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a $17.5 million Recovery Act grant is funding the development of a solar fuels research center that will conduct research on how to use artificial photo­synthesis to produce low-cost and efficient solar fuels.
President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law on February 17, 2009.  Just 100 days into the two-year economic recovery program, over $112 billion in Recovery Act funds has been obligated to stimulative programs and projects and over 150,000 jobs have been created or saved by the Recovery Act. 
In addition to providing immediate relief measures for American families like the Making Work Pay tax credit and a 65 percent reduction in COBRA health insurance premiums, the Recovery Act also provides new and expanded energy-efficiency and first-time homebuyer tax credits that are driving fresh consumer demand and makes multi-billion dollar long-term investments in high-speed rail, broadband access, a nationwide smart energy grid and a modern health information technology system.  To learn more about the Recovery Act, click HERE.
##
THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             May 22, 2009
 
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT SIGNING OF
THE CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTABILITY, RESPONSIBILITY AND
DISCLOSURE ACT
Rose Garden
 3:08 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  Please, have a seat -- I'm sorry. It is a great pleasure to have all of you here at the White House on this gorgeous, sunny day.  The sun is shining.  The birds are singing.  Change is in the air.  (Laughter.)
This has been a historic week; a week in which we've cast aside some old divisions and put in place new reforms that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, prevent fraud against homeowners, and save taxpayers money by preventing wasteful government contracts; a week that marks significant progress in the difficult work of changing our policies and transforming our politics.
But the real test of change ultimately is whether it makes a difference in the lives of the American people.  That's what matters to me.  That's what matters to my administration.  That's what matters to the extraordinary collection of members of Congress that are standing with me here, but also who are in the audience.  And we're here today because of a bill that will make a big difference:  the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act.
I want to thank all the members of Congress who were involved in this historic legislation, but I want to give a special shout-out to Chris Dodd, who has been a relentless fighter to get this done.  (Applause.)  Chris wouldn't give up until he got this legislation passed.  He's spent an entire career fighting against special interests and fighting for ordinary people, and this is just the latest example. 
I want to thank his partner in crime, Senator Richard Shelby.  (Applause.)  On the House side, Representatives Barney Frank, Carolyn Maloney, and Luis Gutierrez, for their outstanding work.  (Applause.)  And I want to also thank all the consumer advocates who are here today who fought long and hard for these kinds of reforms.
You know, most Americans use credit cards all the time.  In the majority of cases, this is a convenience or a temporary, occasional crutch:  a means to make life a little easier; to make the rare, large, or unexpected purchase that's paid off as quickly as possible. 
We've also seen credit cards become, for a minority of customers, part of an uneasy, unstable dependence.  Some end up in trouble because of reckless spending or wishful thinking.  Some get in over their heads by not using their heads.  And I want to be clear:  We do not excuse or condone folks who've acted irresponsibly.  We don't excuse irresponsibility.  
But the reason this legislation is so important is because there are many others -- many who have written me letters, or grabbed my arm along rope lines, or shared their stories while choking back tears -- who relied on credit cards not because they were avoiding responsibilities, but precisely because they wanted to meet their responsibilities -- and got trapped.
These are hardworking people whose hours were cut, or the factory closed, who turned to a credit card to get through a rough month -- which turned into two, or three, or six months without a job.  These are parents who found, to their surprise, that their health insurance didn't cover a child's expensive procedure and had to pay the hospital bill; families who saw their mortgage payments jump and used the credit card more often to make up the difference.
These are borrowers who discovered that credit card debt is all too easily a one-way street:  It's easy to get in, but almost impossible to get out.  It's also, by the way, a lot of small business owners who have helped to finance their dream through credit cards and suddenly, in this economic downturn, find themselves getting hammered. 
Part of this is the broader economy, but part of it is the practices of credit card companies.  Contracts are drafted not to inform, but to confuse.  Mysterious fees appear on statements.  Payment deadlines shift.  Terms change.  Interest rates rise.  And suddenly, a credit card becomes less of a lifeline and more of an anchor.
That's what happened to Janet Hard of Freeland, Michigan, who's here today.   Where's Janet?  Right here.  Janet is a nurse.  Her husband is a pipefitter.  They've got two boys.  Janet and her husband have tried to be responsible; she's made her payments on time.  But despite this, Janet's interest rate was increased to 24 percent.  And that 24 percent applied not just for new purchases, but retroactively to her entire balance. And so, despite making steady payments totaling $2,400 one year, her debt went down only by $350 that year.
And Janet's family is not alone.  Over the past decade, credit card debt has increased by 25 percent in our country.  Nearly half of all Americans carry a balance on their cards.  Those who do, carry an average balance of more than $7,000.  And as our economic situation worsened -- and many defaulted on their debt as a result of a lost job, for example -- a vicious cycle ensued.  Borrowers couldn't pay their bills, and so lenders raised rates.  As rates went up, more borrowers couldn't pay.
Millions of cardholders have seen their interest rates jump in just the past six months.  One in five Americans carry a balance that has been charged interest rates above 20 percent.  One in five. 
I also want to emphasize, these are costs that often hit responsible credit card users.  Interest can be charged even if you pay your bill on time.  Rates can be increased on outstanding balances even if you aren't late with a payment.  And if you sit -- if you start to pay down your balance, which is the right thing to do, a company can require you to pay down the debt with the lowest interest rate first -- instead of the highest -- which makes it much harder to ever get out of the red.
So we're here to put a change to all that.  With this bill, we're putting in place some common-sense reforms designed to protect consumers like Janet.  I want to be clear about this:  Credit card companies provide a valuable service; we don't begrudge them turning a profit.  We just want to make sure that they do so while upholding basic standards of fairness, transparency, and accountability.  Just as we demand credit card users to act responsibly, we demand that credit card companies act responsibly, too.  And that's not too much to ask.
And that's why, because of this new law, statements will be required to tell credit card holders how long it will take to pay off a balance and what it will cost in interest if they only make the minimum monthly payments.  We also put a stop to retroactive rate hikes that appear on a bill suddenly with no rhyme or reason. 
Every card company will have to post its credit card agreements online, and we'll monitor those agreements to see if new protections are needed.  Consumers will have more time to understand their statements as well:  Companies will have to mail them 21 days before payment is due, not 14.  And this law ends the practice of shifting payment dates.  This always used to bug me -- when you'd get like -- suddenly it was due on the 19th when it had been the 31st.
Lastly, among many other provisions, there will be no more sudden charges -- changes to terms and conditions.  We require at least 45 days notice if the credit card company is going to change terms and conditions.
So we're not going to give people a free pass; we expect consumers to live within their means and pay what they owe.  But we also expect financial institutions to act with the same sense of responsibility that the American people aspire to in their own lives.
And this is a difficult time for our country, born in many ways of our collective failure to live up to our obligations -- to ourselves and to one another.  And the fact is, it took a long time to dig ourselves into this economic hole; it's going to take some time to dig ourselves out.
But I'm heartened by what I'm seeing:  by the willingness of old adversaries to seek out new partnerships; by the progress we've made these past months to address many of our toughest challenges.  And I'm confident that as a nation we will learn the lessons of our recent past and that we will elevate again those values at the heart of our success as a people:  hard work over the easy buck, responsibility over recklessness, and, yes, moderation over extravagance.
This work has already begun, and now it continues.  I thank the members of Congress for putting their shoulder to the wheel in a bipartisan fashion and getting this piece of legislation done.  Congratulations to all of you.  The least I can do for you is to sign the thing.  (Laughter and applause.)
(The bill is signed.) 
All right, everybody.  Thank you.  Have a great weekend.  (Applause.)
END               
3:19 P.M. EDT
 

Reform for Our Troops

Jesse Lee
Jesse Lee
May 22, 2009
10:25 AM EDT
This morning the President signed legislation that seems an obvious step, and yet it is one that has not been taken despite all of the incidents that have cried out for it: reform of the defense procurement and contracting system.  This accomplishment for American taxpayers ,and for our military who can now stretch every dollar that much further for those who serve our country, was made all the more gratifying by the bipartisan consensus that it finally found.
The President recognized Senator McCain in particular in his remarks:
Last year, the Government Accountability Office, or the GAO, looked into 95 major defense projects and found cost overruns that totaled $295 billion.  Wasteful spending comes from exotic requirements, lack of oversight, and indefensible no-bid contracts that don't make our troops or our country any safer.  To put this in perspective, these cost overruns would have paid our troops' salaries and provided benefits for their families for more than a year. 
At a time when we're fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this is unexcusable and unconscionable.  As Secretary Gates has said, one dollar of waste in our defense budget is a dollar we can't spend to support our troops, or prepare for future threats, or protect the American people.  Well, it's finally time to end this waste and inefficiency.
Already, I've announced reform that will greatly reduce no-bid defense contracts and save the government billions of dollars.  And Secretary Gates, working with our military leadership, has also proposed a courageous set of reforms in our defense budget that will target waste and strengthen our military for the future.  In taking on this enormously difficult task, he's done a tremendous job, and I want to publicly commend Secretary Gates for that.
The bill I'm signing today, known as the Weapons System Acquisition Reforms Act, represents an important next step in this procurement reform process.  It reforms a system where taxpayers are charged too much for weapons systems that too often arrive late -- a system that suffers from spending on unproven technologies, outdated weapons, and a general lack of oversight. 
The purpose of this law will be to limit cost overruns before they spiral out of control.  It will strengthen oversight and accountability by appointing officials who will be charged with closely monitoring the weapons systems we're purchasing to ensure that costs are controlled.  If the cost of certain defense projects continue to grow year after year, those projects will be closely reviewed, and if they don't provide the value we need, they will be terminated.  This law will also enhance competition and end conflicts of interest in the weapons acquisitions process so that American taxpayers and the American military can get the best weapons at the lowest cost.
And this legislation is long overdue, and it's been a long time coming.  But we're finally signing it into law because of the dedication and commitment of a few key members of Congress who've been fighting for years for this reform:  Senators Carl Levin and John McCain; Representatives Ike Skelton, John McHugh, Rob Andrews, and Mike Conaway.  I'm very proud of the extraordinary work that all these gentlemen have done who are standing behind me today.  Senator McCain couldn't be here today because he's making sure he has a good seat to watch his son graduate from the Naval Academy in a few hours, and that's where I'm headed as soon as I catch my ride over here.
But I will tell you that defense procurement reform was one of the issues that John McCain and I discussed in our first meeting after the election.  We pledged to work together to get it done, and today I'm extraordinarily proud to stand here and sign a bill that passed with unanimous support from both parties at every step of the way.

The President signs Procurement Reform (President Barack Obama hands a pen to U.S. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) as he signs the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act in the Rose Garden at the White House Friday, May 22, 2009. Standing from left are: Andrews, Rep. John McHugh (R-NY), Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX). Official White House Photo by Samantha Appleton)
Related Topics: Defense, Fiscal Responsibility