Presidential Press Conferences

Presidential Press Conference at 100 Days, 4/29/09

OBAMA: Please, be seated. Before we begin tonight, I just want to provide everyone with a few brief updates on some of the challenges we're dealing with right now.

First, we are continuing to closely monitor the emergency cases of the H1N1 flu virus throughout the United States. As I said this morning, this is obviously a very serious situation, and every American should know that their entire government is taking the utmost precautions and preparations.

Our public health officials have recommended that schools with confirmed or suspected cases of this flu strongly consider temporarily closing. And if more schools are forced to close, we've recommended that both parents and businesses think about contingency plans if their children do have to stay home.

I've requested an immediate $1.5 billion in emergency funding from Congress to support our ability to monitor and track this virus and to build our supply of antiviral drugs and other equipment. And we will also ensure that those materials get to where they need to be as quickly as possible.

And, finally, I've asked every American to take the same steps you would take to prevent any other flu: keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough; stay home from work if you're sick; and keep your children home from school if they're sick.

We'll continue to provide regular updates to the American people as we receive more information. And everyone should rest assured that this government is prepared to do whatever it takes to control the impact of this virus.

The second thing I'd like to mention is how gratified I am that the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution today that will serve as an economic blueprint for this nation's future.

Your request is being processed...
Obama 100 Days Press Conference: FULL TRANSCRIPT
digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama 100 Days Press Conference: FULL TRANSCRIPT stumble reddit del.ico.us ShareThis RSS

  |   04/29/09 09:37 PM
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Read More: Barack Obama Press Conference, Full Transcript Of Obama Press Conference, Full Transcript Of Press Conference, Obama 100 Days Press Conference, Obama Press Conference, Obama Press Conference Transcript, Obama Primetime Press Conference, Politics News
Be the First to Submit
This Story to DiggBuzz up!
Obama Presser
Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam

    *
      Share
    *
      Print
    *
      Comments

The full transcript of Obama's third press conference on April 29, 2009:

OBAMA: Please, be seated. Before we begin tonight, I just want to provide everyone with a few brief updates on some of the challenges we're dealing with right now.

First, we are continuing to closely monitor the emergency cases of the H1N1 flu virus throughout the United States. As I said this morning, this is obviously a very serious situation, and every American should know that their entire government is taking the utmost precautions and preparations.

Our public health officials have recommended that schools with confirmed or suspected cases of this flu strongly consider temporarily closing. And if more schools are forced to close, we've recommended that both parents and businesses think about contingency plans if their children do have to stay home.

I've requested an immediate $1.5 billion in emergency funding from Congress to support our ability to monitor and track this virus and to build our supply of antiviral drugs and other equipment. And we will also ensure that those materials get to where they need to be as quickly as possible.

And, finally, I've asked every American to take the same steps you would take to prevent any other flu: keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough; stay home from work if you're sick; and keep your children home from school if they're sick.

We'll continue to provide regular updates to the American people as we receive more information. And everyone should rest assured that this government is prepared to do whatever it takes to control the impact of this virus.

The second thing I'd like to mention is how gratified I am that the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution today that will serve as an economic blueprint for this nation's future.
Story continues below

I especially want to thank Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, all of the members of Congress who worked so quickly and effectively to make this blueprint a reality.

This budget builds on the steps we've taken over the last 100 days to move this economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity.

We began by passing a recovery act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs and provided a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families. We passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for 11 million American children whose parents work full time. And we launched a housing plan that has already contributed to a spike in the number of homeowners who are refinancing their mortgages, which is the equivalent of another tax cut.

But, even as we clear away the wreckage of this recession, I've also said that we can't go back to an economy that's built on a pile of sand, on inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards, on overleveraged banks and outdated regulations that allow recklessness of a few to threaten the prosperity of all.

We have to lay a new foundation for growth, a foundation that will strengthen our economy and help us compete in the 21st century. And that's exactly what this budget begins to do.

It contains new investments in education that will equip our workers with the right skills and training, new investments in renewable energy that will create millions of jobs and new industries, new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses, and new savings that will bring down our deficit.

I also campaigned on the promise that I would change the direction of our nation's foreign policy. And we've begun to do that, as well. We've begun to end the war in Iraq, and we forged with our NATO allies a new strategy to target Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

OBAMA: We have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and banning torture without exception.

And we've renewed our diplomatic efforts to deal with challenges ranging from the global economic crisis to the spread of nuclear weapons.

So I think we're off to a good start, but it's just a start. I'm proud of what we've achieved, but I'm not content. I'm pleased with our progress, but I'm not satisfied.

Millions of Americans are still without jobs and homes, and more will be lost before this recession is over. Credit is still not flowing nearly as freely as it should. Countless families and communities touched by our auto industry still face tough times ahead. Our projected long-term deficits are still too high, and government is still not as efficient as it needs to be.

We still confront threats ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, as well as pandemic flu. And all this means you can expect an unrelenting, unyielding effort from this administration to strengthen our prosperity and our security in the second hundred days, in the third hundred days, and all of the days after that.

You can expect us to work on health care reform that will bring down costs while maintaining quality, as well as energy legislation that will spark a clean-energy revolution. I expect to sign legislation by the end of this year that sets new rules of the road for Wall Street, rules that reward drive and innovation, as opposed to short-cuts and abuse.

And we will also work to pass legislation that protects credit card users from unfair rate hikes and abusive fees and penalties. We'll continue scouring the federal budget for savings and target more programs for elimination. And we will continue to pursue procurement reform that will greatly reduce the no-bid contracts that have wasted so many taxpayer dollars.

So we have a lot of work left to do. It's work that will take time, and it will take effort. But the United States of America, I believe, will see a better day.

We will rebuild a stronger nation, and we will endure as a beacon for all of those weary travelers beyond our shores who still dream that there's a place where all of this is possible. I want to thank the American people for their support and their patience during these trying times, and I look forward to working with you in the next hundred days, in the hundred days after that, all of the hundreds of days to follow to make sure that this country is what it can be.

And with that, I will start taking some questions.

And I'll start with you, Jennifer.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. With the flu outbreak spreading and worsening, can you talk about whether you think it's time to close the border with Mexico and whether -- under what conditions you might consider quarantining, when that might be appropriate?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, as I said, this is a cause for deep concern, but not panic. And I think that we have to make sure that we recognize that how we respond intelligently, systematically, based on science and what public health officials have to say, will determine in large part what happens.

I've consulted with our public health officials extensively on a day-to-day basis, in some cases an hour-to-hour basis. At this point, they have not recommended a border closing. From their perspective, it would be akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out, because we already have cases here in the United States.

We have ramped up screening efforts, as well as made sure that additional supplies are there on the border so that we can prepare in the eventuality that we have to do more than we're doing currently.

But the most important thing right now that public health officials have indicated is that we treat this the same way that we would treat other flu outbreaks, just understanding that, because this is a new strain, we don't yet know how it will respond.

So we have to take additional precautions, essentially, take out some additional insurance. Now, that's why I asked for an additional $1.5 billion, so that we can make sure that everything is in place should a worst-case scenario play out.

I do want to compliment Democrats and Republicans who worked diligently back in 2005 when the bird flu came up. I was part of a group of legislators who worked with the Bush administration to make sure that we had beefed up our infrastructure and our stockpiles of antiviral drugs, like Tamiflu.

OBAMA: And I think the Bush administration did a good job of creating the infrastructure so that we can respond. For example, we've got 50 million courses of anti-viral drugs in the event that they're needed.

So, the government is going to be doing everything that we can. We're coordinating closely with state and local officials. Secretary Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security, newly installed Secretary Sebelius of Health and Human Services, our acting CDC director, they are all on the phone on a daily basis with all public health officials across the states to coordinate and make sure that there's timely reporting, that if -- as new cases come up, that we're able to track them effectively, that we're allocating resources so that they're in place.

The key now I think is to make sure that we're maintaining great vigilance, that everybody responds appropriately when cases do come up, and individual families start taking very sensible precautions that -- can make a huge difference.

So wash your hands when you shake hands. Cover your mouth when you cough. I know it sounds trivial, but it makes a huge difference. If you are sick, stay home. If your child is sick, keep them out of school.

To -- if you are feeling certain flu symptoms, don't get on an airplane, don't get on a -- any system of public transportation where you're confined and you could potentially spread the virus.

So those are the steps that I think we need to take right now. But understand that because this is a new strain, we have to be cautious. If this was a strain that we were familiar with, then we might have to -- then I think we wouldn't see the kind of alert levels that we're seeing, for example, with the World Health Organization. OK?

Deb Price of Detroit News. Where's Deb?

Good to see you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

On the domestic auto industry, have you determined that bankruptcy is the only option to restructure Chrysler? And do you believe that the deep cuts in plant closings that were outlined this week by General Motors are sufficient? OBAMA: Let me speak to Chrysler first because the clock is ticking on Chrysler coming up with a plan. I am actually very hopeful, more hopeful than I was 30 days ago, that we can see a resolution that maintains a viable Chrysler auto company out there.

What we've seen is the unions have made enormous sacrifices on top of sacrifices that they had previously made. You've now seen the major debt holders come up with a set of potential concessions that they can live with.

All of that promises the possibility that you can get a Fiat- Chrysler merger and that you have an ongoing concern. The details have not yet been finalized, so I don't know to jump the gun. But I am feeling more optimistic than I was about the possibilities of that getting done.

With respect to GM, we're going to have another 30 days. They're still in the process of presenting us with their plans. But I've always said that GM has a lot of good product there and if they can get through these difficult times, and engage in some of the very difficult choices that they've already made, that they can emerge a strong, competitive, viable company.

And that's my goal in this whole process. I would love to get the U.S. government out of the auto business as quickly as possible. We have a circumstance in which a bad recession compounded some great weaknesses already in the auto industry.

And it was my obligation and continues to be my obligation to make sure that any taxpayer dollars that are in place to support the auto industry are aimed not at short-term fixes that continue these companies as wards of the state, but rather institutes the kind of restructuring that allows them to be strongly competitive in the future. I think we're moving in that direction.

Last point, you asked about Chrysler bankruptcy. It was the prudent and appropriate thing for Chrysler to do to engage in the filings that they -- that received some notice a while back because they had to prepare for possible contingencies.

It's not clear that they're going to have to use it. The fact that the major debt-holders appear ready to make concessions means that, even if they ended up having to go through some sort of bankruptcy, it would be a very quick type of bankruptcy and they could continue operating and emerge on the other side in a much stronger position.

So my goal is to make sure that we've got a strong, viable, competitive auto industry. I think some tough choices are being made. There's no denying that there's significant hardship involved, particularly for the workers and the families in these communities.

And we're going to be coming behind whatever plan is in place to make sure that the federal government is providing as much assistance as we have to ensure that people are landing back on their feet, even as we strengthen these core businesses. Jake? Where's Jake? There he is.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You've said in the past that waterboarding, in your opinion, is torture. Torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?

OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

And -- and so I strongly believed that the steps that we've taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a -- in a position where we can still get information.

In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy.

At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians.

And it makes us -- it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.

So this is a decision that I'm very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on an unscrupulous enemy.

OK?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) sanctioned torture?

OBAMA: I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the -- whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.

OBAMA: Mark Knoller?

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Let me follow up, if I may, on Jake's question. Did you read the documents recently referred to by former Vice President Cheney and others saying that the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" not only protected the nation but saved lives?

And if part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?

OBAMA: I have read the documents. Now they have not been officially declassified and released. And so I don't want to go to the details of them. But here's what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question.

Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?

So when I made the decision to release these memos and when I made the decision to bar these practices, this was based on consultation with my entire national security team, and based on my understanding that ultimately I will be judged as commander-in-chief on how safe I'm keeping the American people.

That's the responsibility I wake up with and it's the responsibility I go to sleep with. And so I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe. But I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking short cuts that undermine who we are.

And there have been no circumstances during the course of this first 100 days in which I have seen information that would make me second guess the decision that I have made. OK?

Chuck Todd.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to move to Pakistan. Pakistan appears to be at war with the Taliban inside their own country. Can you reassure the American people that if necessary America could secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and keep it from getting into the Taliban's hands or, worst case scenario, even al Qaeda's hands?

OBAMA: I'm confident that we can make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure. Primarily, initially, because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands. We've got strong military-to-military consultation and cooperation.

I am gravely concerned about the situation in Pakistan, not because I think that they're immediately going to be overrun and the Taliban would take over in Pakistan. I'm more concerned that the civilian government there right now is very fragile and don't seem to have the capacity to deliver basic services: schools, health care, rule of law, a judicial system that works for the majority of the people.

And so as a consequence, it is very difficult for them to gain the support and the loyalty of their people. So we need to help Pakistan help Pakistanis. And I think that there's a recognition increasingly on the part of both the civilian government there and the army that that is their biggest weakness.

On the military side, you're starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally. And you're starting to see the Pakistani military take much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists.

We want to continue to encourage Pakistan to move in that direction. And we will provide them all of the cooperation that we can. We want to respect their sovereignty, but we also recognize that we have huge strategic interests, huge national security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don't end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.

QUESTION: But in a worst-case scenario...

OBAMA: I'm not going to engage in...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) military could secure this nuclear...

OBAMA: I'm not going to engage in -- in hypotheticals of that sort. I feel confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands.

OK, Jeff Mason?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. One of the biggest changes you've made in the first 100 days regarding foreign policy has had to do with Iraq. But do the large-scale -- there's large-scale violence there right now. Does that affect the U.S.'s strategy at all for withdrawal? And could it affect the timetable that you've set out for troops?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it's important to note that, although you've seen some spectacular bombings in Iraq that are a -- a legitimate cause of concern, civilian deaths, incidents of bombings, et cetera, remain very low relative to what was going on last year, for example.

And so you haven't seen the kinds of huge spikes that you were seeing for a time. The political system is holding and functioning in Iraq.

Part of the reason why I called for a gradual withdrawal as opposed to a precipitous one was precisely because more work needs to be done on the political side to further isolate whatever remnants of Al Qaida in Iraq still exists.

And I'm very confident that, with our commander on the ground, General Odierno, with Chris Hill, our new ambassador, having been approved and already getting his team in place, that they are going to be able to work effectively with the Maliki government to create the conditions for an ultimate transfer after the national elections.

But there's some -- some serious work to do on making sure that how they divvy up oil revenues is ultimately settled, what the provincial powers are and boundaries, the relationship between the Kurds and the central government, the relationship between the Shia and the Kurds. Are they incorporating effectively Sunnis, Sons of Iraq, into the structure of the armed forces in a way that's equitable and just?

Those are all issues that have not been settled the way they need to be settled. And what we've done is, we've provided sufficient time for them to get that work done, but we've got to keep the pressure up, not just on the military side, but on the diplomatic and development sides, as well.

Chip Reid?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. On Senator Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, you said you were thrilled; I guess nobody should be surprised about that.

But how big a deal is this, really? Some Republicans say it is huge. They believe it's a game-changer. They say that, if you get the 60 votes in the Senate, that you will be able to ride roughshod over any opposition and that we're on the verge of, as one Republican put it, "one-party rule."

Do you see it that way? And, also, what do you think his switch says about the state of the Republican Party?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think very highly of Arlen Specter . I think he's got a record of legislative accomplishment that is as good as any member of the Senate.

And I think he's always had a strong independent streak. I think that was true when he was a Republican; I think that will be true when he's a Democrat.

He was very blunt in saying I couldn't count on him to march lockstep on every single issue. And so he's going to still have strong opinions, as many Democrats in the Senate do.

I've been there. It turns out, all the senators have very strong opinions. And I don't think that's going to change.

I do think that having Arlen Specter in the Democratic caucus will liberate him to cooperate on critical issues, like health care, like infrastructure and job creation, areas where his inclinations were to work with us, but he was feeling pressure not to.

And I think the vote on the recovery act was a classic example. Ultimately, he thought that was the right thing to do. And he was fiercely berated within his own party at the time for having taken what I consider to be a very sensible step. So -- so I think it's, overall, positive.

OBAMA: Now, I am under no illusions that suddenly I'm going to have a rubber-stamp Senate. I've got Democrats who don't agree with me on everything, and that's how it should be.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Every senator who's there, whether I agree with them or disagree with them, I think truly believes that they are doing their absolute best to represent their constituencies.

And we've got regional differences, and we've got some parts of the country that are affected differently by certain policies. And those have to be respected, and there's going to have to be compromise and give-and-take on all of these issues.

I do think that, to my Republican friends, I want them to realize that me reaching out to them has been genuine. I can't sort of define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn't work and the American people voted to change.

But there are a whole host of areas where we can work together. And I've said this to people like Mitch McConnell . I said, look, on health care reform, you may not agree with me that I -- we should have a public plan. That may be philosophically just too much for you to swallow.

On the other hand, there are some areas like reducing the costs of medical malpractice insurance where you do agree with me. If I'm taking some of your ideas and giving you credit for good ideas, the fact that you didn't get 100 percent can't be a reason every single time to oppose my position.

And if that is how bipartisanship is defined, a situation in which basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in a historic election, you know, we're probably not going to make progress.

If, on the other hand, the definition is that we're open to each other's ideas, there are going to be differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard, core differences that we can't resolve, but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress.

QUESTION: Is the Republican Party in the desperate straits that Arlen Specter seems to think it is? OBAMA: You know, politics in America changes very quick. And I'm a big believer that things are never as good as they seem and never as bad as they seem.

You're talking to a guy who was 30 points down in the polls during a -- a primary in Iowa. So -- so I never -- I don't believe in crystal balls.

I do think that our administration has taken some steps that have restored confidence in the American people that we're moving in the right direction and that simply opposing our approach on every front is probably not a good political strategy.

Ed Henry?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above -- quote, "above my pay grade."

Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

OBAMA: You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

OBAMA: The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus.

Jeff Zeleny.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?

OBAMA: Now let me write this down.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: I've got...

QUESTION: Surprised, troubled...

OBAMA: I've got -- what was the first one?

QUESTION: Surprised.

OBAMA: Surprised. QUESTION: Troubled.

OBAMA: Troubled.

QUESTION: Enchanted.

OBAMA: Enchanted, nice.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: And humbled.

OBAMA: And what was the last one, humbled?

QUESTION: Humbled. Thank you, sir.

OBAMA: All right. OK. Surprised. I am surprised compared to where I started, when we first announced for this race, by the number of critical issues that appear to be coming to a head all at the same time.

You know, when I first started this race, Iraq was a central issue, but the economy appeared on the surface to still be relatively strong. There were underlying problems that I was seeing with health care for families and our education system and college affordability and so forth, but obviously, I didn't anticipate the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And so, you know, the typical president, I think, has two or three big problems. We've got seven or eight big problems. And so we've had to move very quickly and I'm very proud of my team for the fact that we've been able to keep our commitments to the American people, to bring about change, while at the same time managing a whole host of issues that had come up that weren't necessarily envisioned a year-and-a-half ago.

Troubled? I'd say less troubled, but, you know, sobered by the fact that change in Washington comes slow. That there is still a certain quotient of political posturing and bickering that takes place even when we're in the middle of really big crises.

I would like to think that everybody would say, you know what, let's take a time-out on some of the political games, focus our attention for at least this year, and then we can start running for something next year. And that hasn't happened as much as I would have liked.

Enchanted? Enchanted. I will tell you that when I -- when I meet our servicemen and -women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They're really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country.

And, you know, the more I interact with our servicemen and women, from the top brass down to the lowliest private, I'm just -- I'm grateful to them.

Humbled by the -- humbled by the fact that the presidency is extraordinarily powerful, but we are just part of a much broader tapestry of American life, and there are a lot of different power centers. And so I can't just press a button and suddenly have the bankers do exactly what I want or, you know, turn on a switch and suddenly, you know, Congress falls in line.

And so, you know, what you do is to -- is to make your best arguments, listen hard to what other people have to say, and coax folks in the right direction.

This metaphor has been used before, but the ship of state is an ocean liner. It's not a speedboat. And so the way we are constantly thinking about this issue, of how to bring about the changes that the American people need, is to -- is to say, if we can move this big battleship a few degrees in a different direction, you may not see all the consequences of that change a week from now or three months from now, but 10 years from now or 20 years from now, our kids will be able to look back and say, "That was when we started getting serious about clean energy. That's when health care started to become more efficient and affordable. That's when we became serious about raising our standards in education."

And -- and so I -- I have a much longer time horizon than I think you do when you're a candidate or if you're listening, I think, to the media reportage on a day-to-day basis.

And I'm humbled, last, by the American people who have shown extraordinary patience and I think a recognition that we're not going to solve all of these problems overnight.

OK. Lori Montenegro?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, when you met with the Hispanic Caucus a few weeks ago, reports came out that the White House was planning to have a forum to talk about immigration and bring it to the forefront.

Going forward, my question is, what is your strategy to try to have immigration reform? And are you still on the same timetable to have it accomplished in the first year of your presidency?

And, also, I'd like to know if you're going to reach out to Senator John McCain , who is Republican and in the past has favored immigration reform?

OBAMA: Well, we reach out to -- to Senator McCain on a whole host of issues. He has been a leader on immigration reform. I think he has had the right position on immigration reform. And I would love to partner with him and others on what is going to be a critical issue. We've also worked with Senator McCain on what I think is a terrific piece of legislation that he and Carl Levin have put together around procurement reform. We want that moved, and we're going to be working hard with them to get that accomplished.

What I told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is exactly what I said the very next day in a town hall meeting and what I will continue to say publicly, and that is we want to move this process.

We can't continue with a broken immigration system. It's not good for anybody. It's not good for American workers. It's dangerous for Mexican would-be workers who are trying to cross a dangerous border.

OBAMA: It is -- it is putting a strain on border communities, who oftentimes have to deal with a host of undocumented workers. And it keeps those undocumented workers in the shadows, which means they can be exploited at the same time as they're depressing U.S. wages.

So, what I hope to happen is that we're able to convene a working group, working with key legislators like Luis Gutierrez and Nydia Velazquez and others to start looking at a framework of how this legislation might be shaped.

In the meantime, what we're trying to do is take some core -- some key administrative steps to move the process along to lay the groundwork for legislation. Because the American people need some confidence that if we actually put a package together, we can execute.

So Janet Napolitano , who has great knowledge of this because of having been a border governor, she's already in the process of reviewing and figuring out how can we strengthen our border security in a much more significant way than we're doing.

If the American people don't feel like you can secure the borders, then it's hard to strike a deal that would get people out of the shadows and on a pathway to citizenship who are already here, because the attitude of the average American is going to be, well, you're just going to have hundreds of thousands of more coming in each year.

On the other hand, showing that there is a more thoughtful approach than just raids of a handful of workers as opposed to, for example, taking seriously the violation of companies that sometimes are actively recruiting these workers to come in. That's again something we can start doing administratively.

So what we want to do is to show that we are competent and getting results around immigration, even on the structures that we already have in place, the laws that we already have in place, so that we're building confidence among the American people that we can actually follow through on whatever legislative approach emerges. OK?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: I see the process moving this first year. And I'm going to be moving it as quickly as I can. I've been accused of doing too much. We are moving full steam ahead on all fronts.

Ultimately, I don't have control of the legislative calendar, and so we're going to work with legislative leaders to see what we can do.

Andre Showell? There you go.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

As the entire nation tries to climb out of this deep recession, in communities of color, the circumstances are far worse. The black unemployment rate, as you know, is in the double digits. And in New York City, for example, the black unemployment rate for men is near 50 percent.

My question to you tonight is given this unique and desperate circumstance, what specific policies can you point to that will target these communities and what's the timetable for us to see tangible results?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that every step we're taking is designed to help all people. But, folks who are most vulnerable are most likely to be helped because they need the most help.

So when we passed the Recovery Act, for example, and we put in place provisions that would extend unemployment insurance or allow you to keep your health insurance even if you've lost your job, that probably disproportionately impacted those communities that had lost their jobs. And unfortunately, the African-American community and the Latino community are probably overrepresented in those ranks.

When we put in place additional dollars for community health centers to ensure that people are still getting the help that they need, or we expand health insurance to millions more children through the Children's Health Insurance Program, again, those probably disproportionately impact African-American and Latino families simply because they're the ones who are most vulnerable. They have got higher rates of uninsured in their communities.

So my general approach is that if the economy is strong, that will lift all boats as long as it is also supported by, for example, strategies around college affordability and job training, tax cuts for working families as opposed to the wealthiest that level the playing field and ensure bottom-up economic growth.

And I'm confident that that will help the African-American community live out the American dream at the same time that it's helping communities all across the country.

Michael Scherer of TIME?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you criticized President Bush's use of the state secrets privilege, but U.S. attorneys have continued to argue the Bush position in three cases in court. How exactly does your view of state secrets differ from President Bush's? And do you believe presidents should be able to derail entire lawsuits about warrantless wiretapping or rendition if classified information is involved?

OBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it's overbroad.

But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We're in for a week, and suddenly we've got a court filing that's coming up. And so we don't have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We've got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.

There -- I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can't litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.

But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it's not such a blunt instrument.

And we're interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak.

STAFF: Last question.

OBAMA: Jonathan Weisman, you get -- you get the last word. Where are you? There you are.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. You are currently the chief shareholder of a couple of very large mortgage giants. You're about to become the chief shareholder of a car company, probably two.

And I'm wondering, what kind of shareholder are you going to be? What is the government's role as the keeper of public -- public trust and bonds in -- in soon-to-be public companies again? Thank you.

OBAMA: Well, I think our -- our first role should be shareholders that are looking to get out. You know, I don't want to run auto companies. I don't want to run banks. I've got two wars I've got to run already. I've got more than enough to do. So the sooner we can get out of that business, the better off we're going to be.

We are in unique circumstances. You had the potential collapse of the financial system, which would have decimated our economy, and so we had to step in.

As I've said before, I don't agree with every decision that was made by the previous administration when it came to TARP, but the need for significant intervention was there, and it was appropriate that we moved in.

With respect to the auto companies, I believe that America should have a functioning, competitive auto industry. I don't think that taxpayers should simply put -- attach an umbilical cord between the U.S. Treasury and the auto companies so that they are constantly getting subsidies, but I do think that helping them restructure at this unique period when sales -- you know, the market has essentially gone from 14 million down to 9 million, I don't think that there's anything inappropriate about that.

My goal on all this is to help these companies make some tough decisions based on realistic assumptions about economic growth, about their market share, about what that market is going to look like, to prevent systemic risk that would affect everybody, and, as soon as their situations are stabilized and the economy is less fragile so that those systemic risks are diminished, to get out, find some private buyers, and...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) products or services (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: I don't think that we should micromanage, but I think that, like any investor, the American taxpayer has the right to scrutinize what's being proposed and make sure that their money is not just being thrown down the drain.

And so, you know, we've got to strike a balance. I don't want to be -- I'm not an auto engineer. I don't know how to create an affordable, well-designed plug-in hybrid. But I know that, if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same.

So my job is to ask the auto industry: Why is it you guys can't do this? And, in some cases, they're starting to do it, but they've got these legacy costs. You know, there are some terrific U.S. cars being made, both by Chrysler and G.M.

The question is, you know, give me a plan so that you're building off your strengths and you're projecting out to where that market is going to be. I actually think, if you look at the trends, that those auto companies that emerge from this crisis, when you start seeing the pent-up demand for autos coming back, they're going to be in a position to really do well, globally, not just here in the United States.

So I just want to help them get there. But I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy, you know, meddling in the private sector, if -- if you could tell me right now that, when I walked into this office that the banks were humming, that autos were selling, and that all you had to worry about was Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, getting health care passed, figuring out how to deal with energy independence, deal with Iran, and a pandemic flu, I would take that deal.

(LAUGHTER)

And -- and that's why I'm always amused when I hear these, you know, criticisms of, "Oh, you know, Obama wants to grow government." No. I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that's not the hand that's been dealt us.

And, you know, every generation has to rise up to the specific challenges that confront them. We happen to have gotten a big set of challenges, but we're not the first generation that that's happened to. And I'm confident that we are going to meet these challenges just like our grandparents and forbearers met them before. All right? Thank you, everybody.

President Obama Holds Press Conference at End of Latin Summit, 4/19/09

New York Times

Hilton Hotel

Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago

12:17 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Hey, guys. You guys have a seat -- thanks. This is nice. This is a nice view, huh? Oh, it’s beautiful. Did you guys go out last night, by the way? (Laughter.) Chuck Todd, did I see you on the cruise ship? (Laughter.)

MR. TODD: That wasn’t me.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we just concluded a very productive summit. And I want to thank the people of Trinidad and Tobago for their wonderful hospitality and their gracious welcome. I want to thank Prime Minister Manning and First Lady Manning, his government, for the hospitality they’ve shown me and our entire delegation.

This summit has been held at a time of great challenge and great opportunity for the United States and the Americas. The consequences of a historic economic crisis are being felt across the hemisphere, putting new pressure on peoples and governments that are already strained. Migration to and from each of our nations has serious implications for all nations. The safety and security of our citizens is endangered by drug trafficking, lawlessness and a host of other threats. Our energy challenge offers us a chance to unleash our joint economic potential, enhance our security and protect our planet. And too many citizens are being denied dignity and opportunity and a chance to live out their dreams in Cuba and all across the hemisphere.

These are some of the issues I discussed here in Trinidad and Tobago with leaders like President Garcia of Peru, President Bachelet of Chile, President Uribe of Colombia, President Preval of Haiti, and Prime Minister Harper of Canada. The subject of many of these meetings and conversations has been launching a new era of partnership between our nations. Over the past few days, we’ve seen potential positive signs in the nature of the relationship between the United States, Cuba and Venezuela. But as I’ve said before, the test for all of us is not simply words, but also deeds. I do believe that the signals sent so far provide at least an opportunity for frank dialogue on a range of issues, including critical areas of democracy and human rights throughout the hemisphere.

I do not see eye to eye with every regional leader on every regional issue. And I do not agree with everything that was said at this summit by leaders from other nations. But what we showed here is that we can make progress when we’re willing to break free from some of the stale debates and old ideologies that have dominated and distorted the debate in this hemisphere for far too long. We showed that while we have our differences, we can -- and must -- work together in areas where we have mutual interests, and where we disagree we can disagree respectfully. We showed that there are no senior or junior partners in the Americas; we’re simply partners, committed to advancing a common agenda and overcoming common challenges.

And that spirit of shared responsibility was reflected in the achievement of the summit and in the work that the United States has done in concert with nations across Americas. First, we’re building on our unprecedented efforts in the United States -- and on the work that we did at the G20 summit in London -- to jumpstart job creation, reform a broken financial regulatory system, and put our economies on the path of sustainable growth and shared prosperity. We’re tripling the International Monetary Fund’s lending capacity. We’re urging the Inter-American Development Bank to increase its current lending level. And the United States is launching a new Microfinance Growth Fund for the hemisphere that will make meaningful differences for businesses and entrepreneurs across America [sic].

Over the past few days, we also discussed what we can do to ensure that the policies we pursue in our own countries advance and do not undercut our broader regional recovery. Together, these efforts will help drive economic expansion in the United States and across the hemisphere and ensure that we do not see an erosion of the progress that we’ve made to lift people out of poverty and into the middle class.

Second, we’re acting boldly, we are acting swiftly, and we are acting in concert to combat threats that are endangering the safety and security of citizens across the Americas. This week, I traveled to Mexico, where I met with President Calderón to advance our shared commitment to combating the drug cartels, stemming the southbound flow of guns and money, and protecting citizens on both sides of our common border.

We’re also taking a number of other key steps in concert with our regional partners. So when I met with the Central American nations and the Caribbean nations, they had similar concerns and we pledged to work together to defend our nations and keep our people safe. The United States is investing $30 million in enhanced security partnerships with Caribbean nations to ensure that they have the resources they need to combat drug traffickers seeking to enter their borders from Mexico and Central America. And I’m also making it a priority to ratify the Illicit Trafficking in Firearms Convention and to enhance cooperation with nations across the region to reduce the threat of existing weapons stockpiles.

Third, we’re taking a critical step to drive our economic expansion, enhance our security, and protect the bounty and beauty of the hemisphere with a new Energy-Climate Partnership of the Americas that I proposed. Through this partnership, we will harness the progress being made by nations across the hemisphere -- from Brazil’s work on biofuels, to Chile’s investments in solar power, to Mexico’s efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, to El Salvador’s work on geothermal energy.

This is a voluntary and flexible partnership that nations across this region are invited to join; a partnership that will enhance energy efficiency, improve our infrastructure, and support investments that can make energy more affordable. In doing so, we can create the jobs of the future, promote renewable sources of energy, and make the Americas a model for cooperation.

Now, meeting these challenges and seizing these opportunities will not be easy. It will not happen overnight. Our efforts to work together may be strained at times by disagreements, and one of the things that I think is going to be critical to do is to make sure that we are working with our respective teams to encourage implementation at a more granular level. Sometimes at these summits we have very lofty statements; there’s got to be follow-through across the way.

But I firmly believe that if we’re willing to break free from the arguments and ideologies of an earlier era and continue to act, as we have at this summit, with a sense of mutual responsibility and mutual respect and mutual interest, then each of our nations can come out of this challenging period stronger and more prosperous, and we can advance opportunity, equality, and security across the Americas.

So, with that, let me take some questions. I’m going to start with Edna Schmidt at Univision.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. The spotlight on your visit here was on the handshake and smiles with Hugo Chavez, but we didn’t see much interaction with some of the other leaders of the region like Daniel Ortega, Rafael Correa, or Evo Morales, who yesterday accused the United States of still interfering in its affairs and, even though it’s too soon, he says, of not seeing much of change. Did you have any private meetings with any of these leaders, and if so, can you tell us what was discussed?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I had meetings with all the leaders involved, including Daniel Ortega, who was the chairperson of the Central American meeting. I had very cordial conversations with President Morales and President Correa. And I think it’s just that President Chavez is better at positioning the cameras.

And in all these conversations, here’s what I emphasized: that we’re not going to agree on every issue, but that as long as we are respectful of democratic processes, as long as we’re respectful of principles of sovereignty for all nations, that we can find areas where we can work in common. And my sense is, if you talk to any of those leaders, that they would say that they feel encouraged about the possibility of a more constructive relationship.

Now, specifically on the Bolivia issue, I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere. That is not the policy of our government. That is not how the American people expect their government to conduct themselves. And so I want to be as clear as possible on that.

But one of the things that I mentioned in both public remarks as well as private remarks is that the United States obviously has a history in this region that’s not always appreciated from the perspective of some, but that what we need to do is try to move forward, and that I am responsible for how this administration acts and we will be respectful to those democratically elected governments, even when we disagree with them.

Scott Wilson, Washington Post.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said during the summit that you were here not to debate the past. You also said we must learn from our history. You just referred to this history. What have you learned over two days of listening to leaders here about how U.S. policy is perceived in the region? And can you name a specific policy that you will change as a result of what you’ve heard?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that what was reemphasized in all the discussions that I had was a sense, on the one hand, that the United States is critical to the economic growth and opportunities in the region. Even the most vociferous critics of the United States also want to make sure that the United States’ economy is working and growing again, because there is extraordinary dependence on the United States for exports, for remittances.

And so in that sense people are rooting for America’s success. I do think that there is a strain of thought in the region that, in the past, many of the problems surrounding economic growth and opportunity or the lack thereof resulted because of a too rigid application of a free market doctrine imposed by the IMF -- what is termed the “Washington consensus.”

I think in some cases, those issues have been addressed. At the G20 summit, for example, we talked about the need to create a reformed international financial -- set of international financial institutions that provide additional flexibility, provide more voice and vote to developing countries. In some cases, it may be just a carryover of knee-jerk anti-American sentiment, or simply differing -- differences in terms of economic theories and how the economies should grow.

One thing that I thought was interesting -- and I knew this in a more abstract way but it was interesting in very specific terms -- hearing from these leaders who when they spoke about Cuba talked very specifically about the thousands of doctors from Cuba that are dispersed all throughout the region, and upon which many of these countries heavily depend. And it’s a reminder for us in the United States that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence and have -- have a beneficial effect when we need to try to move policies that are of concern to us forward in the region.

And I think that’s why it’s so important that in our interactions not just here in the hemisphere but around the world, that we recognize that our military power is just one arm of our power, and that we have to use our diplomatic and development aid in more intelligent ways so that people can see very practical, concrete improvements in the lives of ordinary persons as a consequence of U.S. foreign policy.

Chuck Todd.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Building a little bit, actually, on the answer that you had there, you’ve been to three continents now in the last three weeks, 40-odd world leaders that you’ve been in the same room with --

THE PRESIDENT: Time to get home. (Laughter.)

Q Yes, exactly.

THE PRESIDENT: I’m going to Iowa next week. (Laughter.)

Q Yes, talk about déjà vu.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q What should -- a lot of people are going to start trying to write about the “Obama doctrine.” What should be the -- what are the pillars of that that you think people should be taking away -- after observing you on the world stage the last three weeks, what are the pillars of the Obama doctrine?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, I will leave it up to you, Chuck, to write the definitive statement on Obamaism. But there are a couple of principles that I’ve tried to apply across the board: Number one, that the United States remains the most powerful, wealthiest nation on Earth, but we’re only one nation, and that the problems that we confront, whether it’s drug cartels, climate change, terrorism, you name it, can’t be solved just by one country. And I think if you start with that approach, then you are inclined to listen and not just talk.

And so in all these meetings what I’ve said is, we have some very clear ideas in terms of where the international community should be moving; we have some very specific national interests, starting with safety and security that we have to attend to; but we recognize that other countries have good ideas, too, and we want to hear them. And the fact that a good idea comes from a small country like a Costa Rica should not somehow diminish the fact that it’s a good idea. I think people appreciate that. So that’s number one.

Number two, I think that -- I feel very strongly that when we are at our best, the United States represents a set of universal values and ideals -- the idea of democratic practices, the idea of freedom of speech and religion, the idea of a civil society where people are free to pursue their dreams and not be imposed upon constantly by their government. So we’ve got a set of ideas that I think have broad applicability. But what I also believe is that other countries have different cultures, different perspectives, and are coming out of different histories, and that we do our best to promote our ideals and our values by our example.

And so if we are practicing what we preach and if we occasionally confess to having strayed from our values and our ideals, that strengthens our hand; that allows us to speak with greater moral force and clarity around these issues.

And again, I think people around the world appreciate that we’re not suggesting we are holding ourselves to one set of standards and we’re going to hold you to another set of standards; that we’re not simply going to lecture you, but we’re rather going to show through how we operate the benefits of these values and ideals.

And the -- as a consequence of listening, believing that there aren’t junior partners and senior partners in the international stage, I don’t think that we suddenly transform every foreign policy item that’s on the agenda. I know that in each of these meetings the question has been, well, did you get something specific? What happened here? What happened there?

Countries are going to have interests, and changes in foreign policy approaches by my administration aren’t suddenly going to make all those interests that may diverge from ours disappear. What it does mean, though, is, at the margins, they are more likely to want to cooperate than not cooperate. It means that where there is resistance to a particular set of policies that we’re pursuing, that resistance may turn out just to be based on old preconceptions or ideological dogmas that, when they’re cleared away, it turns out that we can actually solve a problem.

And so we’re still going to have very tough negotiations on a whole host of issues. In Europe, people believe in our plan for Afghanistan, but their politics are still such that it’s hard for leaders to want to send more troops into Afghanistan. That’s not going to change because I’m popular in Europe or leaders think that I’ve been respectful towards them. On the other hand, by having established those better relations, it means that among the population there’s more confidence that working with the United States is beneficial, and they are going to try to do more than they might otherwise have done.

And here in this hemisphere, I think as a consequence of a summit like this, it becomes much easier for our friends -- countries like Mexico or Colombia, that are stalwart partners with us on issues like drug trafficking -- it becomes much easier for them to work with us because their neighbors and their populations see us as a force for good or at least not a force for ill.

Jake.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve heard from a lot of Latin America leaders here who want the U.S. to lift the embargo against Cuba. You’ve said that you think it’s an important leverage to not lift it. But in 2004, you did support lifting the embargo. You said, it’s failed to provide the source of raising standards of living, it’s squeezed the innocent, and it’s time for us to acknowledge that this particular policy has failed. I’m wondering, what made you change your mind about the embargo?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, 2004, that seems just eons ago. What was I doing in 2004?

Q Running for Senate.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it while -- I was running for Senate. There you go. Look, what I said and what I think my entire administration has acknowledged is, is that the policy that we’ve had in place for 50 years hasn’t worked the way we want it to. The Cuban people are not free. And that’s our lodestone, our North Star, when it come to our policy in Cuba.

It is my belief that we’re not going to change that policy overnight, and the steps that we took I think were constructive in sending a signal that we’d like to see a transformation. But I am persuaded that it is important to send a signal that issues of political prisoners, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy -- that those continue to be important, that they’re not simply something to be brushed aside.

What was remarkable about the summit was that every leader who was participating was democratically elected. We might not be happy with the results of some elections; we might be happier with others; we might disagree with some of the leaders, but they all were conferred the legitimacy of a country speaking through democratic channels. And that is not yet there in Cuba.

Now, I think that as a starting point, it’s important for us not to think that completely ignoring Cuba is somehow going to change policy, and the fact that you had Raul Castro say he’s willing to have his government discuss with ours not just issues of lifting the embargo, but issues of human rights, political prisoners, that’s a sign of progress.

And so we’re going to explore and see if we can make some further steps. There are some things that the Cuban government could do. They could release political prisoners. They could reduce charges on remittances to match up with the policies that we have put in place to allow Cuban merican families to send remittances. It turns out that Cuba charges an awful lot, they take a lot off the top. That would be an example of cooperation where both governments are working to help Cuban families and raise standards of living in Cuba.

So there are going to be some ways that the Cuban government I think can send some signals that they’re serious about pursuing change. And I’m hopeful that over time the overwhelming trend in the hemisphere will occur in Cuba, as well. And I think that all of the governments here were encouraged by the fact that we had taken some first steps. Many of them want us to go further, but they at least see that we are not dug in into policies that were formulated before I was born.

Bill Plante. No? Bill is not here? That’s shocking. (Laughter.) Dan from CNN.

Q During the campaign you were criticized by some within your own party for perhaps not being able to be tough on foreign policy matters. Now you’ve had this friendly interaction with Mr. Chavez. Are you concerned at all about how this might be perceived back in the U.S. as perhaps being soft? Already one senator is calling this friendly interaction irresponsible. And as a quick follow-up, if I may, when you got the book from Mr. Chavez, what did you really think? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I think it was a nice gesture to give me a book; I’m a reader. And you’re right, we had this debate throughout the campaign, and the whole notion was, is that somehow if we showed courtesy or opened up dialogue with governments that had previously been hostile to us, that that somehow would be a sign of weakness. The American people didn’t buy it. And there’s a good reason the American people didn’t buy it -- because it doesn’t make sense.

You take a country like Venezuela -- I have great differences with Hugo Chavez on matters of economic policy and matters of foreign policy. His rhetoric directed at the United States has been inflammatory. There have been instances in which we’ve seen Venezuela interfere with some of the -- some of the countries that surround Venezuela in ways that I think are a source of concern.

On the other hand, Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States’. They own Citgo. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.

So if the question, Dan, is, how does this play politically, I don’t know. One of the benefits of my campaign and how I’ve been trying to operate as President is I don’t worry about the politics -- I try to figure out what’s right in terms of American interests, and on this one I think I’m right.

Julia -- who, by the way, I saw getting jostled a lot during the photo sprays. Cameramen, I just want you to know. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I’d like to ask a question about an issue back home about the economy and the stress tests and whether or not you expect that along with the stress tests, with the results next month, that one or more executives will be asked to step down as -- as it was with the auto restructuring plan.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, well, I don’t want to speculate ahead of the release of the stress test numbers. I think what you’ll see is that, not surprisingly, different banks are in different situations. They’re going to need different levels of assistance from taxpayers and, as I’ve said before, if taxpayer money is involved then I’ve got a responsibility to ensure some transparency and accountability in the operations of those businesses. We try to use as light a touch as we can, but I’m not going to simply put taxpayer money into a black hole where you’re not going to see results or some exit strategy, so that taxpayers ultimately are relieved of these burdens.

We’ve seen I think some progress in certain parts of the banking sector. As I mentioned before, I’m encouraged by the number of refinancings and mortgages that’s already taking place, but I have also said we’re not out of the woods. This is still a difficult time for the economy. Credit is still contracted. Banks still are not lending at previous levels. The non-bank sector that accounted for 40 percent of credit prior to this crisis still hasn’t recovered the way it should. And we’re still having to take a series of extraordinary steps.

So we’ll have more information as these stress test numbers are provided. I haven’t seen all of them yet. They’re being completed I think while we were on this trip. But I’m sure that we’ll have more to say about this over the next -- next several days.

Okay? April. Oh, you look surprised. (Laughter.) Come on, April -- I hope you’ve got a good question.

Q Okay. I have two, actually.

THE PRESIDENT: All right, well, you only get one, though. (Laughter.)

Q I’ll take that one. Mr. President, as you’re concluding your summit here and the meeting in Mexico, there is a U.S. -- a U.N. conference, the world conference on racism in Geneva tomorrow. The U.S. is boycotting. And what say you about that? And is Zionism a main issue in the reason why the U.S. is boycotting the racism conference?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me, first of all, say that I believe in the United Nations. I believe in the possibility of the United Nations serving as an effective forum to deal with a whole host of transnational conflicts.

And so I want to be as encouraging as I can, and I’ve said that to the General Secretary.

For that reason, we’re actually -- have pursued a seat on the Human Rights Commission, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, because even though up until this point we haven’t been very pleased with how it’s operated, we think that it’s worthwhile for us to go in there and try to make it into a constructive organization because of the extraordinary range of human rights violations that exist around the world. And I think America should be a leader; we can’t opt out of those discussions.

Now, in that same spirit, I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe -- which, by the way, are not a particular province of any one country. Obviously we’ve had our own experiences with racial discrimination, but if you come down to Central and South America and the Caribbean, they have all kinds of stories to tell about racial discrimination.

Somebody mentioned earlier President Morales. Whatever I think about his politics, the fact that he is the first indigenous -- person of indigenous background to be elected in a country that has a enormous indigenous population indicates how much work remains to be done around the world.

So we would love to engage constructively in a discussion like that. Here’s the problem: You had a previous conference -- I believe it was in 2001, maybe it was 2002 -- I think it was 2001 -- in which it became a session through which folks expressed antagonism towards Israel in ways that were oftentimes completely hypocritical and counterproductive. And we expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you incorporated -- if you adopted all the language from 2001, that’s just not something we could sign up for.

So if we have a clean start, a fresh start, we’re happy to go. If you’re incorporating a previous conference that we weren’t involved with that raised a whole set of objectionable provisions, then we couldn’t participate or it wouldn’t be worth it for us to participate because we couldn’t get past that particular issue.

And unfortunately, even though I think other countries made great efforts to accommodate some of our concerns and assured us that this conference would be more constructive, our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something that we just don’t believe.

So what we’ve said -- and I said this to Secretary General Moon who was here addressing the summit -- we’re happy to work with them to see if we can move forward on some of these issues. Hopefully some concrete steps come out of the conference that we can partner with other countries on to actually reduce discrimination around the globe. But this wasn’t an opportunity to do it.

So -- okay? I think the -- it’s warm and I’ve got to get home. But I appreciate you guys. Thank you.

By the way, whose wallet is this? Is this one of my staff’s here? Did you guys put this on -- is that yours, Marvin? That was to prop up my remarks? Okay, I don’t want you to forget it. Thank you, guys.

Q Mr. President, you haven’t addressed the Iranian journalist. I think people would like to hear about that.

THE PRESIDENT: I will. Obviously I am gravely concerned with her safety and well-being. We are working to make sure that she is properly treated and to get more information about the disposition of her case.

She is an American citizen, and I have complete confidence that she was not engaging in any sort of espionage. She is an Iranian American who was interested in the country which her family came from. And it is appropriate for her to be treated as such and to be released.

We are going to be in contact with -- through our Swiss intermediaries -- with the Iranian government and want to ensure that we end up seeing a proper disposition of this case.

Okay? Thanks. Thank you, guys.

END 12:53 P.M. EDT

President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon Hold Press Conference, 4/16/09

Congressional Quarterly

CQ Transcripts Wire

Thursday, April 16, 2009; 4:25 PM

SPEAKERS: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

PRESIDENT OF MEXICO FELIPE CALDERON

[*] CALDERON: Your Excellency, Mr. Barack Obama, president of the United States of America, ladies and gentlemen of the accompanying delegation, ladies and gentlemen, for the people and the government of Mexico, it is a reason of great joy to welcome today President Barack Obama.

Mr. President, you are most welcome to our country.

Almost half a century ago, Mexico welcomed also with thrill and emotion and care President John F. Kennedy. On that occasion, this great statesman said about our relationship: "Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies."

So those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.

Today, Mexico and the United States, we are, we can and we must be neighbors, friends, partners and allies. We are connected through our past, through our historic and demographic ties. Our present brings us together because we share challenges and opportunities.

And particularly we're united by a vision of the future, of a North American region with greater development and more prosperous, with a more competitive economy, and a comprehensive and integrated one; a North America that will be safer of the threats of terrorism and organized crime; a North America that embraces fully its responsibilities that have to do with the global arena and with the environment.

CALDERON: To build this future, Mexico is doing its part. My country is immersed in a historic transformation process. We live a robust democracy, which is also plural. We're also facing firmly the costs of the struggles in order to turn Mexico into a safer country.

We are a nation that firmly believes in freedom -- economic freedom and political freedom -- and in this integration as a way for development.

We are promoting structural reforms to modernize our economy and to make it more competitive.

At the same time, we're conducting major efforts to put an end to extreme poverty and backlog, and to build a fairer society whose children will not have to abandon their land for lack of opportunity.

We truly believe that it is possible to transform Mexico. And with this goal in mind, we work constantly every day.

We know that many of the challenges that we face call for the joining efforts among governments and their people.

CALDERON: As you have pointed out, Mr. President, there has been another way of doing politics: a tradition based on the simple idea that whatever happens to our neighbor should not remain indifferent; upon the basic notion that what brings us together is more important than what separates us.

I am fully convinced that Mexico and the United States of America can and must act under these principles. We have before us the opportunity to initiate a new era of trust and cooperation.

CALDERON: Mr. President, let's start this new era in the relationships between the United States of America and Mexico.

A new era where we shall forge together the sustainable development of our people and the prosperity of our citizens, in which we will work together to turn our common border into an example of productivity and security.

An era where we will raise competitiveness at the regional level, and where we will recognize that in order to grow and prosper, Mexico needs the United States investment and the United States of America needs the strength of the Mexican labor force.

An era -- a new era where the human rights of all will be respected in either side of the border.

A new era where fighting organized crime will be fully embraced with a shared responsibility as a battle that Americans and Mexicans have to fight and that we shall win as allies, where the safety of our people will be conquered (ph) and preserved as the fruit of our common effort.

CALDERON: A new era of understanding among our people in order to reach a fairer perception and understanding of migration.

A new era upon which the proposal that you have issued to the American people would reach a migratory comprehensive reform that will open up the door of hope for the re-encounter (ph) of thousands of Mexican families that are split on both sides of the border.

A new era of agreements in the international arena, where our countries will be active promoters of global solutions to the major challenges of our time: the global economic crisis and climate change.

A new era where both neighboring nations, yet different in their origin, history and culture, come together to foster the world, to embrace clear and determining commitments in our fight against climate change and for the preservation of nature and our common future destiny as mankind

CALDERON: Mr. President Obama, I know that this new era is possible if we work together. Mexico and the United States will manage to overcome the challenges that the 21st century places before us.

Mr. President, let's build a new era. Yes, we can.

(APPLAUSE)

Once again, welcome to Mexico.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: Thank you very much. This is an extraordinary honor and an extraordinary pleasure to be here in Mexico with all of you today.

I want to thank President Calderon and his wonderful first lady and the delegation for their hospitality and facilitating this trip.

And I want to thank the people of Mexico for the warmth with which I have been received, especially the young people who are here today. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

There is a reason why the first visit that I had with a foreign leader after my election was with President Calderon.

OBAMA: It was a reminder, as John F. Kennedy said, that the bonds between our two countries cannot be broken.

We are joined by a border, but our bonds are so much more than that. In my hometown of Chicago, the population is at least one-third made up of people of Mexican heritage. All across America, all across the United States, we have benefited from the culture, the language, the food, the insights, the literature, the energy, the ambitions of people who have migrated from our southern neighbor. And my hope is, is that the United States has had something to offer to Mexico as well.

So our relationship, our friendship is strong, but, as President Calderon said, we can make it stronger.

OBAMA: At a time where all of us are dealing with an extraordinary global recession, where unemployment is on the rise, where credit has begun to shrink and where businesses are struggling, it is more important than ever that we work together, not only to restore economic growth in Mexico and the United States, but also to make sure that growth is sustainable and to make sure that growth is from the bottom up so that each and every person, every young person here in Mexico, as well as every young person in the United States has an opportunity to live out their dreams.

At a time when the Mexican government has so courageously taken on the drug cartels that have plagued both sides of the borders, it is absolutely critical that the United States joins as a full partner in dealing with this issue, both through initiatives like the Merida Initiative, but also, on our side of the border, in dealing with the flow of guns and cash south.

OBAMA: And at a time when Mexico is not just a regional leader, but now a global leader, as shown by its outstanding participation in the G-20 summit and other multilateral organizations, it's critical that we join together around issues that can't be solved by any one nation, issues like climate change, issues like poverty, issues like terrorism.

These are issues in which the United States and Mexico will have to stand side by side in order to promote common security and common prosperity.

OBAMA: So it is wonderfully fitting to see the children of Mexico, as well as, I suspect, a few children of the United States here together waving flags of both countries, because we are reminded -- because we are reminded that ultimately the reason that we serve in government, ultimately the reason that bilateral relationships like this are so important, is because it allows us to promote a better future for our children.

That's what we're fighting for: for their dreams, for their opportunities, for their futures. And I'm very much looking forward to developing the kind of relationship between Mexico and the United States that will allow all the children here and all the children in both countries to thrive for years to come.

So thank you very much, Mr. President, Madam First Lady and all of you, for welcoming me in such a gracious way. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

END

NEWS CONFERENCE BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AFTER G20 SUMMIT, 4/2/2009

Watch the video.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                April 2, 2009

ExCel Center
London, United Kingdom 

6:44 P.M. (Local) 

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Earlier today, we finished a very productive summit that will be, I believe, a turning point in our pursuit of global economic recovery.

By any measure, the London summit was historic.  It was historic because of the size and the scope of the challenges that we face, and because of the timeliness and magnitude of our response.

The challenge is clear.  The global economy is contracting. Trade is shrinking.  Unemployment is rising.  The international finance system is nearly frozen.  Even these facts can't fully capture the crisis that we're confronting, because behind them is the pain and uncertainty that so many people are facing.  We see it back in the United States.  We see it here in London.  We see it around the world:  families losing their homes, workers losing their jobs and their savings, students who are deferring their dreams.  So many have lost so much.  Just to underscore this point, back in the United States, jobless claims released today were the highest in 26 years.  We owe it to all of our citizens to act, and to act with a sense of urgency.

In an age where our economies are linked more closely than ever before, the whole world has been touched by this devastating downturn.  And today, the world's leaders have responded with an unprecedented set of comprehensive and coordinated actions.

Now, just keep in mind some historical context.  Faced with similar global challenges in the past, the world was slow to act, and people paid an enormous price.  That was true in the Great Depression, when nations prolonged and worsened the crisis by turning inward, waiting for more than a decade to meet the challenge together.  Even as recently as the 1980s, the slow global response deepened and widened a debt crisis in Latin America that pushed millions into poverty.

Today, we've learned the lessons of history.  I know that in the days leading up to the summit, some of you in the press, some commentators, confused honest and open debate with irreconcilable differences.  But after weeks of preparation, and two days of careful negotiation, we have agreed on a series of unprecedented steps to restore growth and prevent a crisis like this from happening again.

Let me outline what I think has been most significant.

Number one, we are committed to growth and job creation.  All G20 nations have acted to stimulate demand, which will total well over $2 trillion in global fiscal expansion.  The United States is also partnering with the private sector to clean out the troubled assets, the legacy assets that are crippling some banks, and using the full force of the government to ensure that our action leads directly to loans to businesses large and small, as well as individuals who depend on credit.  And these efforts will be amplified by our G20 partners, who are pursuing similarly comprehensive programs.

And we also agreed on bold action to support developing countries, so that we aren't faced with declining markets that the global economy depends on.  Together, the G20 is tripling the IMF's lending capacity and promoting lending by multilateral development banks to increase the purchasing power and expand markets in every country.

We've also rejected the protectionism that could deepen this crisis.  History tells us that turning inward can help turn a downturn into a depression.  And this cooperation between the world's leading economies signals our support for open markets, as does our multilateral commitment to trade finance that will grow our exports and create new jobs.

That's all on the growth front.

And next we made enormous strides in committing ourselves to comprehensive reform of a failed regulatory system.  And together, I believe that we must put an end to the bubble-and-bust economy that has stood in the way of sustained growth and enabled abusive risk-taking that endangers our prosperity.

At home, back in the States, our efforts began with the approach that Secretary Geithner proposed last week, the strongest regulatory reforms any nation has contemplated so far to prevent the massive failure of responsibility that we have already seen.  Today, these principles have informed and enabled the coordinated action that we will take with our G20 partners.

To prevent future crises, we agreed to increased transparency and capital protections for financial institutions. We're extending supervision to all systemically important institutions, markets and products, including hedge funds.  We'll identify jurisdictions that fail to cooperate, including tax havens, and take action to defend our financial system.  We will reestablish the Financial Stability Forum with a stronger mandate.  And we will reform and expand the IMF and World Bank so they are more efficient, effective and representative.

Finally, we are protecting those who don't always have a voice at the G20, but who have suffered greatly in this crisis.  And the United States is ready to lead in this endeavor.  In the coming days, I intend to work with Congress to provide $448 million in immediate assistance to vulnerable populations -- from Africa to Latin America -- and to double support for food safety to over $1 billion so that we are giving people the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty.  We will also support the United Nations and World Bank as they coordinate the rapid assistance necessary to prevent humanitarian catastrophe.

I have to say, though, that this is not just charity.  These are all future markets for all countries, and future drivers of world economic growth.

Let me also underscore my appreciation to Prime Minister Brown, his entire team, and all my colleagues from around the world who contributed to the summit's success.  You know, it's hard for 20 heads of state to bridge their differences.  We've all got our own national policies; we all have our own assumptions, our own political cultures.  But our citizens are all hurting.  They all need us to come together.  So I'm pleased that the G20 has agreed to meet again this fall, because I believe that this is just the beginning.  Our problems are not going to be solved in one meeting; they're not going to be solved in two meetings.  We're going to have to be proactive in shaping events and persistent in monitoring our progress to determine whether further action is needed.

I also want to just make a few remarks about additional meetings I had outside of the G20 context.  While here in London I had the opportunity to hold bilateral meetings with leaders of Russia, China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and India, as well as Great Britain.  And these discussions were extraordinarily valuable and productive.  Of course, we spoke about additional steps to promote economic recovery and growth.  But we also discussed coordinated actions on a range of issues:  how we could reduce the nuclear threat; how we could forge a coordinated response to North Korea's planned missile launch; how we can turn back terrorism and stabilize Afghanistan; how we can protect our planet from the scourge of climate change.  I'm encouraged that we laid the groundwork for real and lasting progress on a host of these issues.

Ultimately, the challenges of the 21st century can't be met without collective action.  Agreement will almost never be easy, and results won't always come quickly.  But I am committed to respecting different points of view, and to forging a consensus instead of dictating our terms.  That's how we made progress in the last few days.  And that's how we will advance and uphold our ideals in the months and years to come.

You know, at home, I've often spoken about a new era of responsibility.  And I believe strongly that this era must not end at our borders.  In a world that's more and more interconnected, we all have responsibilities to work together to solve common challenges.  And although it will take time, I am confident that we will rebuild global prosperity if we act with a common sense of purpose, persistence, and the optimism that the moment demands.

So I appreciate your attention, and I'm going to take a few questions.  I've got a list of a few people I'm going to call on and then I will intersperse some folks I'm calling on randomly.

Helene Cooper.

     Q    Mr. President, -- (inaudible) --

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, I think we did okay.  You know, when I came here, it was with the intention of listening and learning, but also providing American leadership.  And I think that the document that has been produced as well as the concrete actions that will follow reflect a range of our priorities.  

We wanted to make sure that we had a strong, coordinated response to growth -- and that's reflected in the document and in the actions that will be taken.  We thought it was important to make sure that we had a strong, coordinated regulatory response  -- and many of the details of the regulatory response draw from principles that we had developed prior to coming here. 

We felt that it was very important to strengthen our international financial institutions because developing countries, emerging markets are threatened -- even though they may not have been the cause of this crisis -- they are threatened by capital flight; they're threatened by reduced trade finance; drops in consumer demand in developed countries that were their export markets, and so we knew that it was going to be important to provide those countries with assistance.  And we have created as fundamental a reworking of the resources available to these international financial institutions as anything we've done in the last several decades.

So, overall, I'm pleased with the product.  And I'll leave it to others to determine whether me and my team had anything to do with that.  All right?

Chuck Todd.  Chuck.

Q    What concrete items that you got out of this G20 can you tell the American people back home who are hurting, the family struggling, seeing their retirement go down, or worrying about losing their job -- what happened here today that helps that family back home in the heartland?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, as I said before, we've got a global economy, and if we're taking actions in isolation in the United States, but those actions are contradicted overseas, then we're only going to be halfway effective -- maybe not even half. 

You've seen, for example, a drastic decline in U.S. exports over the last several months.  You look at a company like Caterpillar, in my home state of Illinois, which up until last year was doing extraordinarily well; in fact, export growth was what had sustained it even after the recession had begun.  As a consequence of the world recession, as a consequence of the contagion from the financial markets debilitating the economies elsewhere, Caterpillar is now in very bad shape.  So if we want to get Caterpillar back on its feet, if we want to get all those export companies back on their feet, so that they are hiring, putting people back to work, putting money in people's pockets, we've got to make sure that the global economy as a whole is successful. 

And this document, which affirms the need for all countries to take fiscal responses that increase demand, that encourages the openness of markets, those are all going to be helpful in us being able to fix what ails the economy back home.

Let me mix in a -- Justin Webb, BBC.  Where's Justin?  There he is.  Go ahead.

Q    Mr. President, in the spirit of openness, with which you say you're --

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Why don't you get a microphone?  See, everybody is complaining.  (Laughter.)  I'm sure that's all your fellow British journalists.  (Laughter.)

Q    They're extraordinarily well behaved, Mr. President.  (Laughter.)  In the spirit of openness, with which you say you're going to run your administration, could you give us an insight into an area or areas where you came to London wanting something and you didn't get it; where you compromised, where you gave something away to achieve the wider breakthrough agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, I think that if you look at the language of the document, there are probably some areas where it wasn't so much of a sacrifice as it might not have been our number-one priority, but it became clear that it was very important to certain other actors.

I'd rather not specify what those precise items would be, because this is a collective document.  But there's no doubt that each country has its own quirks and own particular issues that a leader may decide is really, really important; something that is non-negotiable for them.  And what we tried to do as much as possible was to accommodate those issues in a way that didn't -- did not hamper the effectiveness of the overall document to address what I think are the core issues related to this crisis.

Now, keep in mind -- I think that this kind of coordination really is historic.  I said in the meeting that if you had imagined 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 30 years ago, that you'd have the leaders of Germany, France, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, a President of the United States named Obama -- (laughter) -- former adversaries, in some cases former mortal enemies, negotiating this swiftly on behalf of fixing the global economy, you would have said, that's crazy.  And yet it was happening, and it happened with relatively little -- relatively few hiccups.  And I think that's a testimony to the great work that Gordon Brown did, and his team, in organizing the summit, the collective work in our teams in doing some good preparation, some good ground work.  So I'm very proud of what's been done. 

This alone is not enough.  And obviously the actions that each of us take in our individual countries are still absolutely vital.  So we have a set of principles, for example, around dealing with systemic risk that I think will be very important in preventing the kinds of financial crises that we've seen. 

That does not entirely solve the problem of toxic assets that are still in U.S. banks and certain British banks and certain European banks.  And how each individual nation acts to deal with that is still going to be vitally important.  How well we execute the respective stimulus programs around the world is going to be very important.  The quicker they are, the more effective they are at actually boosting demand, the more all of us will benefit.  The more encumbered they are by bureaucracy and mismanagement and corruption, that will hamper our development efforts as a whole.

     So this is not a panacea, but it is a critical step, and I think it lays the foundation so that, should the actions that we've taken individually and collectively so far not succeed in boosting global demand and growth, should you continue to see a freezing of credit or a hemorrhaging of jobs around the world, I think we've created a good foundation for this leadership to come back together again and take additional steps until we get it right.

     Okay, Michael Shear.  Where's Michael?

     Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I wonder if you view this trip that you're on and the actions that you've taken here at the G20 and with the bilateral meetings that you've had as representing a break from the foreign policy of your predecessor. And if so, could you describe where you see and how you see the principles that guide a different view of the world?

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, you know, I didn't accompany President Bush on his various summits, so I don't know how he was operating.  And I won't -- I won't warrant a guess on that.

     I can tell you that what I've tried to do since I started running for President and since I was sworn in as President, is to communicate the notion that America is a critical actor and leader on the world stage, and that we shouldn't be embarrassed about that, but that we exercise our leadership best when we are listening; when we recognize that the world is a complicated place and that we are going to have to act in partnership with other countries; when we lead by example; when we show some element of humility and recognize that we may not always have the best answer, but we can always encourage the best answer and support the best answer.

     So I think that's the -- that's the approach that we've tried to take in our foreign policy since my administration came in.  Now, we come in at extraordinarily challenging times, and yet I actually think that that calls for this type of leadership even more.  But, ultimately, we won't know how effective we are until we look back a year from now, or two years from now, or three years from now and see if it worked. 

And what the American people care about I suspect are the same thing that the British people care about, and that is, are you putting people back to work?  Are businesses growing again?  Is business -- is credit flowing again?  And, you know -- and that's just true with respect to this summit.  But when it comes to our Afghanistan policy, the question is going to be, have we made ourselves safer; have we reduced the risks and incidents of terrorism?

     And so the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  But hopefully, I think at least we've set a tone internationally where people don't -- where they give us the benefit of the doubt.  They're still going to have their interests, and we're going to have ours.  There are going to be tough negotiations, and sometimes we're going to have to walk away from those negotiations if we can't arrive at a common accord.  There are going to be real dangers that can't always be talked through and have to be addressed.  But at least we can start with the notion that we're prepared to listen and to work cooperatively with countries around the world.

     All right, let me sprinkle in another -- it's got to be an international person.  All right, this young lady right there. 

     Q    Mr. President, Emma Alberici from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.  At the moment, in the U.S., the U.K., and in Australia, executive salaries and bonuses are decided in the boardrooms of major publicly listed companies.  Who will be making those decisions on salaries and bonuses as a result of the agreement you've made here today?  And if it is still the boards, will they be guided by principles or legislation?

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  The principles that we outlined I think put in place or move us in the direction of what I consider to be best practices, which is that there is some accountability with respect to executive compensation.

     Now, theoretically, that should be the shareholders.  But the way that too many corporations have operated for too long is that you have a CEO who basically selects his board; the board, in a fairly cozy relationship oftentimes with the executive, hires a executive compensation firm, which, surprisingly, tends to think that it's necessary to retain the best talent to pay people $20 or $30 million a year; and we get into the kinds of habits and practices that I think have not been -- have not served shareholders well, I think ultimately distort the decision-making of many CEOs.

     When I was in the United States Senate, I actually worked on a piece of legislation that would -- made the simple proposition that executive compensation should be subject to a shareholder vote, even if it was nonbinding, so that there was transparency and accountability and perhaps a shame function that would take place.  And that principle, I think, is reflected in these guidelines.

     What it says is, is that if you get shareholders involved and those shareholders are given a set of principles and best practices by which they can judge executive compensation, then you can still have outsized rewards and success for successful business people, but it will be based on not short-term performance, not three-month performance, not your ability to flip quick profits off products like derivatives that don't turn out to be particularly productive to the company, but based on sustained, effective growth.  And that's what's embodied in these documents, and I think that you're going to see a lot of countries try to encourage that kind of transparency and accountability.

     It doesn't mean the state micromanaging -- ( sneezes) -- excuse me -- I've been fighting this all week -- it doesn't mean that we want the state dictating salaries; we don't.  We -- I strongly believe in a free-market system, and as I -- as I think people understand in America, at least, people don't resent the rich; they want to be rich.  And that's good.  But we want to make sure that there's mechanisms in place that holds people accountable and produces results.  Okay?

     Got to go back to my crew.  Jake Tapper.

     Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Two questions.  One, can you say with confidence that the steps the G20 nations are taking today -- committing to today will help the world, or will prevent the world to avoid a depression or a deeper recession?

     And two, your friend and ally, Prime Minister Brown, said that "The old Washington consensus is over; today we have reached a new consensus."  Is he right?  And what do you think he meant by that?

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  In life there are no guarantees; in economics there are no guarantees.  The people who thought they could provide guarantees, many of them worked at AIG and it didn't work out so well.  So there are always risks involved. 

     I have no doubt, though, that the steps that have been taken are critical to preventing us sliding into a depression.  They are bolder and more rapid than any international response that we've seen to a financial crisis in memory.  And I think that they will have a concrete effect in our ability, individually, in each nation, to create jobs, save jobs that exist, grow the economy, loosen up credit, restore trust and confidence in the financial markets.

     So these steps -- another way of putting it is I think the steps in the communiqué were necessary.  Whether they're sufficient, we've got to -- we've got to wait and see.  I'm actually confident, though, that given the common commitment in the United States and in the other G20 countries to act rapidly and boldly, that if we see other inklings of panic in the marketplace, or things unwinding, that this group, once again, will respond as needed.

     So I guess maybe just to use an analogy that was used several times in this meeting, an analogy that I've used in the past:  You got a sick patient; I think we applied the right medicine; I think the patient is stabilized; there's still wounds that have to heal and there's still emergencies that could arise, but I think that you've got some pretty good care being applied.

     You had a second, follow-up question?

     Q    Prime Minister Brown saying --

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Oh, the Washington consensus.  Well, the Washington consensus, as I'm sure you're aware, Jake, is sort of a term of art about a certain set of policies surrounding globalization and the application of a cookie-cutter model to economic growth, trade liberalization, deregulation that was popular and did help globalize and grow the economy, and was led by some of our leading economists and policymakers in Washington. 

     I think that there's always been a spectrum of opinion about how unfettered the free market is.  And along that spectrum, I think there have been some who believe in very fierce regulation and are very suspicious of globalization, and there are others who think that it's always -- that the market is always king.  And I think what we've learned here, but if anybody had been studying history they would have understood earlier, is that the market is the most effective mechanism for creating wealth and distributing resources to produce goods and services that history has ever known, but that it goes off the rail sometimes; that if it's completely unregulated, that if there are no thoughtful frameworks to channel the creative energy of the market, that it can end up in a very bad place.

     And so, in that sense, I think that we just went through a couple of decades where there was an artificial complacency about the dangers of markets going off the rails.  And a crisis like this reminds us that we just have to put in some common-sense rules of the road, without throwing out the enormous benefits that globalization have brought in terms of improving living standards, reducing the cost of goods, and bringing the world closer together.

     All right, I've got time for just a couple more questions.  I'm going to find a journalist here --

     Q    -- (inaudible) -- (Laughter.)

     Q    How about me?

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  All right, I'm going to call on this gentleman right here.  He's been very persistent.

     Q    Excuse me.  China Central Television.  Since the world leaders have been talking about increasing the voice and voting rights of developing countries, I would like to ask two questions instead of just one.  First of all, on behalf of China --

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I may choose which one I want to answer.  (Laughter.)

     Q    Of course. 

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  That's always the danger of asking two questions.  (Laughter.)

     Q    First of all, you've had a very fruitful meeting with our President.  And during the Clinton administration, U.S.-China relationship were characterized, in Clinton's words, "strategic, constructive partnership."  During the Bush era, it was -- the catchphrase was "stakeholder."  The Bush administration expects China to become a responsible stakeholder in international affairs.  Have you come up with a catchphrase of your own?  And certainly it is not the G2, is it?

     My second question is, on behalf of the world, politics is very local, even though we've been talking about global solution, as indicated by your recent preference over American journalists and British -- which is okay.  (Laughter.)  How can you make sure that you will do whatever you can so that -- that local politics will not trump or negatively affect good international economics? Thank you, Mr. President.

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, those are excellent questions.  On the first question, your American counterparts will tell you I'm terrible with those little catchphrases and sound bites.  So I haven't come up with anything catchy yet, but if you have any suggestions, let me know.  (Laughter.)  I'll be happy to use them.

     In terms of local politics, look, I'm the President of the United States.  I'm not the President of China, I'm not the President of Japan, I'm not the President of the other participants here.  And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better.  That's why they put me in there.  That accounts for some of the questions here, about how concretely does me being here help them find a job, pay for their home, send their kids to college, live what we call the American Dream.  And I will be judged by my effectiveness in meeting their needs and concerns.  

But in an era of integration and interdependence, it is also my responsibility to lead America into recognizing that its interests, its fate is tied up with the larger world; that if we neglect or abandon those who are suffering in poverty, that not only are we depriving ourselves of potential opportunities for markets and economic growth, but ultimately that despair may turn to violence that turns on us; that unless we are concerned about the education of all children and not just our children, not only may we be depriving ourselves of the next great scientist who's going to find the next new energy source that saves the planet, but we also may make people around the world much more vulnerable to anti-American propaganda.

     So if I'm effective as America's President right now, part of that effectiveness involves holding a -- providing Americans insight into how their self-interest is tied up with yours.  And that's an ongoing project because it's not always obvious. 

And there are going to be times where short-term interests are going to differ; there's no doubt about it.  And protectionism is the classic example.  You can make arguments that if you can get away with protecting your markets, as long as the other folks don't protect theirs, then in the short term you may benefit.  And it then becomes important not only for me to try to give people a sense of why, over the long term, that's counterproductive, but also it becomes important for me to put policies in place in the United States that provide a cushion, provide support for those people who may suffer local dislocations because of globalization.  And that's something that I think every government has to think about.           

There are individuals who will be harmed by a trade deal.  There are businesses who will go out of business because of free trade.  And to the extent that a government is not there to help them reshape their company or retrain for the new jobs that are being created, over time you're going to get people who see -- who rightly see their personal self-interest in very narrow terms.  Okay?

Two more questions.  Jonathan Weisman.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  During the campaign you often spoke of a diminished power and authority of the United States over the last decade.  This is your first time in an international summit like this, and I'm wondering what evidence you saw of what you spoke of during the campaign.  And specifically, is the declaration of the end of the Washington consensus evidence of the diminished authority that you feared was out there?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, first of all, during the campaign I did not say that some of that loss of authority was inevitable.  I said it was traced to very specific decisions that the previous administration had made that I believed had lowered our standing in the world.  And that wasn't simply my opinion; that was, it turns out, the opinion of many people around the world. 

I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we've made, that you're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world.  And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you're seeing people more hopeful about America's leadership.

Now, we remain the largest economy in the world by a pretty significant margin.  We remain the most powerful military on Earth.  Our production of culture, our politics, our media still have -- I didn't mean to say that with such scorn, guys -- (laughter) -- you know I'm teasing -- still has enormous influence.  And so I do not buy into the notion that America can't lead in the world.  I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that we had important things to contribute. 

     I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions.  Just a -- just to try to crystallize the example, there's been a lot of comparison here about Bretton Woods.  "Oh, well, last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade."  Well, if there's just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that's a -- that's an easier negotiation.  (Laughter.)  But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in.

     And so that's not a loss for America; it's an appreciation that Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse.  Japan is rebuilt, is a powerhouse.  China, India -- these are all countries on the move.  And that's good.  That means there are millions of people -- billions of people -- who are working their way out of poverty.  And over time, that potentially makes this a much more peaceful world. 
 
And that's the kind of leadership we need to show -- one that helps guide that process of orderly integration without taking our eyes off the fact that it's only as good as the benefits of individual families, individual children:  Is it giving them more opportunity; is it giving them a better life?  If we judge ourselves by those standards, then I think America can continue to show leadership for a very long time.

     I'm going to call one foreigner -- (laughter) -- actually, I'm the foreigner.  That's why I smiled.  One correspondent not from America.  And then I will -- (loud commotion) -- we're not doing bidding here.  (Laughter.)  But I also want to make sure that I'm not showing gender bias.  So this young lady right here -- not you, sir, I'm sorry.
 
     Q    Hi, Mr. President.

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  How are you?

     Q    Thank you for choosing me.  I'm very well.  I'm from the Times of India.

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Wonderful.

     Q    You met with our Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh.  What did you -- what is America doing to help India tackle terrorism emanating from Pakistan?

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, first of all, your Prime Minister is a wonderful man.

     Q    Thank you.  I agree.  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well --

Q    I agree. 

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Did you have something to do with that, or -- (laughter.)  You seem to kind of take -- take credit for it a little bit there.  (Laughter.)
 
     Q    Really proud of him, sir.

     PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Of course.  You should be proud of him.  I'm teasing you.

     I think he's a very wise and decent man, and has done a wonderful job in guiding India, even prior to being Prime Minister, along a path of extraordinary economic growth that is a marvel, I think, for all the world.

     We did discuss the issue of terrorism.  And we discussed it not simply in terms of terrorism emanating from Pakistan, although obviously we are very concerned about extremists and terrorists who have made camp in the border regions of Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan.  But we spoke about it more broadly in terms of how we can coordinate effectively on issues of counterterrorism. 

We also spoke about the fact that in a nuclear age, at a time when perhaps the greatest enemy of both India and Pakistan should be poverty, that it may make sense to create a more effective dialogue between India and Pakistan.  But obviously we didn't go in depth into those issues. 

We talked about a whole range of other issues related to, for example, energy, and how important it is for the United States to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprint so that we can help to forge agreements with countries like China and India that, on a per-capita basis, have a much smaller footprint and so justifiably chafe at the idea that they should have to sacrifice their development for our efforts to control climate change; but also acknowledging that if China and India, with their populations, had the same energy usage as the average American, then we would have all melted by now.

And so that was a very interesting conversation that I will be pursuing not just with India, but hopefully with China and with other countries around the world.  In some ways our European counterparts have moved more quickly than we have on this issue. But I think even the Europeans have recognized that it's not easy.  It's even harder during times of economic downturn.

And so we're going to have to combine the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency with rapid technological advances.  And to the extent that in some cases we can get international cooperation and pool our scientific and technical knowledge around things like developing coal sequestration, for example, that can be extremely helpful.  Okay?

I'm going to call on my last American correspondent, Chip.  And, Chip, my heart goes out to you.

Q    Thank you.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.  I appreciate that.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I just heard about that.

Q    Certainly there is a lot of sentiment in G20 countries that the United States was a major cause of the global economic meltdown.  To what degree did that topic come up in your discussions?  Did it make it difficult for some countries to accept advice from the United States when they blame the United States and its economic system for causing this in the first place?  And how do you respond to people who do blame America?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, you know, I don't think that -- I think my colleagues in the G20 were extraordinarily gracious about my participation.  I think that they continue to express the desire to work with America, admiration about many things American.  There were occasional comments, usually wedged into some other topic, that indicated from their perspective that this started in America, or this started on Wall Street, or this started with particular banks or companies.

     Perhaps what helped was my willingness to acknowledge that  -- and it's hard to deny -- that some of this contagion did start on Wall Street.  And as I've said back home, as I've said in public and as I would say in private, we had a number of firms that took wild and unjustified risks, we had regulators that were asleep at the switch, and it has taken an enormous toll on the U.S. economy and has spread to the world economy.

     Now, I think that part of the reason people didn't give me too hard a time is because if you look at European banks or Asian banks, that they've had their own issues both in the past and in the future.  And I think there was a very constructive discussion about the fact that, given global financial flows, that unless we've got much more effective coordinated regulatory strategies, supervision, standards, that these problems will appear again.

     Money is -- can move around the globe in a second.  And it will seek out the highest returns, and if those highest returns end up being built on a house of cards, then we're going to be seeing another threat to the world financial system wherever that house of cards might be.

     And so, overall, I think there was an extraordinarily constructive approach among all the leaders.  I was very impressed with them.  I'm very grateful to them.  And I'm excited about the ability not just to help heal this economy but also to make progress on a sustainable model of economic growth that relies less on a cycle of bubble and bust -- something that I've spoken about back home.

     All right?  Thank you, everybody.  Appreciate it.  (Applause.) 

                        END           7:36 P.M. (Local)

Prime Time Press Conference by the President, 3/24/09

OBAMA: Good evening. Now, before I take questions from the correspondents, I want to give everyone who's watching tonight an update on the steps we're taking to move this economy from recession to recovery, and ultimately to prosperity. Now, it's important to remember that this crisis didn't happen overnight and it didn't result from any one action or decision. It took many years and many failures to lead us here. And it will take many months and many different solutions to lead us out. There are no quick fixes, and there are no silver bullets.

That's why we've put in place a comprehensive strategy designed to attack this crisis on all fronts. It's a strategy to create jobs, to help responsible homeowners, to restart lending, and to grow our economy over the long term. And we're beginning to see signs of progress.

The first step we took was to pass a recovery plan to jump-start job creation and put money in people's pockets. This plan's already saved the jobs of teachers and police officers. It's creating construction jobs to rebuild roads and bridges.

And yesterday, I met with a man whose company is reopening a factory outside of Pittsburgh that's rehiring workers to build some of the most energy-efficient windows in the world.

And this plan will provide a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families that will appear in people's paychecks by April 1st. The second step we took was to launch a plan to stabilize the housing market and help responsible homeowners stay in their homes. This plan's one reason that mortgage interest rates are now at near historic lows.

We've already seen a jump in refinancing of some mortgages, as homeowners take advantage of lower rates. And every American should know that up to 40 percent of all mortgages are now eligible for refinancing. This is the equivalent of another tax cut, and we're also beginning to ...

... see signs of increased sales and stabilizing home prices for the first time in a very long time. The third part of our strategy is to restart the flow of credit to families and businesses. To that end, we've launched a program designed to support the markets for more affordable auto loans, student loans and small-business loans, a program that's already securitized more of this lending in the last week than in the last four months combined.

Yesterday, Secretary Geithner announced a new plan that will partner government resources with private investment to buy up the assets that are preventing our banks from lending money.

And we will continue to do whatever is necessary in the weeks ahead to ensure the banks Americans depend on have the money they need to lend, even if the economy gets worse.

Finally, the most critical part of our strategy is to ensure that we do not return to an economic cycle of bubble and bust in this country. We know that an economy built on reckless speculation, inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards does not create lasting wealth. It creates the illusion of prosperity, and it's endangered us all.

The budget I submitted to Congress will build our economic recovery on a stronger foundation so that we don't face another crisis like this 10 or 20 years from now. We invest in the renewable sources of energy that will lead to new jobs, new businesses, and less dependence on foreign oil. We invest in our schools and our teachers, so that our children have the skills they need to compete with any workers in the world.

We invest in reform that will bring down the cost of healthcare for families, businesses and our government. And in this budget, we have -- we have to make the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term, even under the most pessimistic estimates.

At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest.

And that's why clean energy jobs and businesses will do all across America. That's what a highly skilled workforce can do all across America. That's what an efficient healthcare system that controls costs and entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid will do.

That's why this budget is inseparable from this recovery: because it is what lays the foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity.

The road to that prosperity is still long, and we will hit our share of bumps and setbacks before it ends. But we must remember that we can get there if we travel that road as one nation, as one people.

You know, there was a lot of outrage and finger-pointing last week, and much of it is understandable. I'm as angry as anybody about those bonuses that went to some of the very same individuals who brought our financial system to its knees, partly because it's yet another symptom of the culture that led us to this point.

But one of the most important lessons to learn from this crisis is that our economy only works if we recognize that we're all in this together, that we all have responsibilities to each other and to our country.

Bankers and executives on Wall Street need to realize that enriching themselves on the taxpayers' dime is inexcusable, that the days of outsized rewards and reckless speculation that puts us all at risk have to be over.

At the same time, the rest of us can't afford to demonize every investor or entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit. That drive is what has always fueled our prosperity, and it is what will ultimately get these banks lending and our economy moving once more.

We'll recover from this recession, but it will take time, it will take patience, and it will take an understanding that, when we all work together, when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interest to the wider set of obligations we have toward each other, that's when we succeed, that's when we prosper, and that's what is needed right now. So let's look toward the future with a renewed sense of common purpose, a renewed determination, and, most importantly, renewed confidence that a better day will come.

All right. With that, let me take some questions. And I've got a list here. Let's start off with Jennifer Loven, A.P.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Your Treasury secretary and the Fed chairman were on Capitol Hill today asking for this new authority that you want to regulate big, complex financial institutions. But given the problems that the financial bailout program has had so far -- banks not wanting to talk about how they're spending the money, the AIG bonuses that you mentioned -- why do you think the public should sign on for another new sweeping authority for the government to take over companies, essentially?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that it is precisely because of the lack of this authority that the AIG situation has gotten worse. Now, understand that AIG is not a bank. It's an insurance company. If it were a bank and it had effectively collapsed, then the FDIC could step in, as it does with a whole host of banks, as it did with IndyMac, and in a structured way renegotiate contracts, get rid of bad assets, strengthen capital requirements, resell it on the private marketplace.

So we've got a regular mechanism whereby we deal with FDIC- insured banks. We don't have that same capacity with an institution like AIG. And that's part of the reason why it has proved so problematic.

I think a lot of people understandably say, "Well, if we're putting all this money in there, and if it's such a big systemic risk to allow AIG to liquidate, why is it that we can't restructure some of these contracts? Why can't we do some of the things that need to be done in a more orderly way?"

And the reason is, is because we have not obtained this authority. We should have obtained it much earlier so that any institution that poses a systemic risk that could bring down the financial system we can handle and we can do it in an orderly fashion that quarantines it from other institutions.

We don't have that power right now; that's what Secretary Geithner was talking about. And I think that there's going to be strong support from the American people and from Congress to provide that authority, so that we don't find ourselves in a situation where we've got to choose between either allowing an enormous institution like AIG, which is not just insuring other banks, but is also insuring pension funds and potentially putting people's 401(k)s at risk if it goes under, that's one choice, and then the other choice is just to allow them to take taxpayer money without the kind of conditions that we'd like to see on it. So that's -- that's why I think the authority is so important.

QUESTION: Why should the public trust the government to handle that authority well?

OBAMA: Well, as I said before, if you look at how the FDIC has handled a situation like Indy bank, for example, it actually does these kinds of resolutions effectively when it's got the tools to do it. We don't have the tools right now. OK. Chuck Todd?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Some have compared this financial crisis to a war. And in times of war, past presidents have called for some form of sacrifice. Some of your programs, whether for Main Street or Wall Street, have actually cushioned the blow for those that were irresponsible during this -- during this economic period of prosperity or supposed prosperity that you were talking about. Why, given this new era of responsiblity that you're asking for, why haven't you asked for something specific that the public should be sacrificing to participate in this economic recovery?

OBAMA: Well, let me -- let me take that question in a couple -- couple of phases. First of all, it's not true that we have not asked sacrifice from people who are getting taxpayer money. We have imposed some very stiff conditions. The only problem that we've had so far are contracts that were put in place before we took over.

But moving forward, anybody -- any bank, for example, that is receiving capital from the taxpayers is going to have to have some very strict conditions in terms of how it pays out its executives, how it pays out dividends, how it's reporting its lending practices, so we want to make sure that there's some stiff conditions in place.

With respect to the American people, I think folks are sacrificing left and right. I mean, you've got a lot of parents who are cutting back on everything to make sure that their kids can still go to college. You've got workers who are deciding to cut an entire day -- an entire day's worth of pay so that their fellow co-workers aren't laid off.

I think that, across the board, people are making adjustments large and small to accommodate the fact that we're in very difficult times right now.

What I've said here in Washington is that we've got to make some tough choices. We've got to make some tough budgetary choices. What we can't do, though, is sacrifice long-term growth, investments that are critical to the future, and that's why my budget focuses on healthcare, energy, education, the kinds of things that can build a foundation for long-term economic growth, as opposed to the fleeting prosperity that we've seen over the last several years.

I mean, when you have an economy in which the majority of growth is coming from the financial sector, when AIG selling a derivative is counted as an increase in the gross domestic product, then that's not a model for sustainable economic growth.

And what we have to do is invest in those things that will allow the Americans' capacity for ingenuity and innovation, their ability to take risks, but make sure that those risks are grounded in good products and good services that they believe they can market to the rest of the country, that those models of economic growth are what we're promoting, and that's what I think our budget does.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) You've described this as -- as an economic crisis like nothing we have seen since the Great Depression.

OBAMA: Well, as -- as I said, the American people are making a host of sacrifices in their individual lives. We are going through an extraordinary crisis, but we believe that, taken -- if you take the steps that we've already taken, with respect to housing, with respect to small businesses, if you look at what we're doing in terms of increasing liquidity in the financial system, that the steps that we're taking can actually stabilize the economy and get it moving again.

What I'm looking from the American people to do is that they are going to be doing what they've always done, which is working hard, looking after their families, making sure that, despite the economic hard times, that they're still contributing to their community, that they're still participating in volunteer activities, that they are paying attention to the debates that are going on in Washington.

And the budgets that we're putting forward and some of the decisions that we're having to make are going to be tough decisions, and we're going to need the support of the American people. And that's part of why what I've tried to do is to be out front as much as possible explaining in very clear terms exactly what we're doing. Jake?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats are writing a budget. And according to press accounts and their own statements, they're not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus, they're talking about phasing that out, they're not including the cap- and-trade that you have in your budget, and they're not including other measures.

I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap-and- trade?

OBAMA: Well, I've emphasized repeatedly what I expect out of this budget. I expect that there's serious efforts at healthcare reform and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path.

I've said that we've got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We've got to invest in education, K through 12 and beyond, to upgrade the skills of the American worker so we can compete in -- in the international economy. And I've said that we've got to start driving our deficit numbers down.

Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process. I have not yet seen the final product coming out of the Senate or the House, and we're in constant conversations with them. I am confident that the budget we put forward will have those principles in place.

When it comes to the middle-class tax cut, we already had that in the recovery. We know that that's going to be in place for at least the next two years. We had identified a specific way to pay for it. If Congress has better ideas in terms of how to pay for it, then we're happy to listen.

When it comes to cap-and-trade, the broader principle is that we've got to move to a new energy era, and that means moving away from polluting energy sources towards cleaner energy sources. That is a potential engine for economic growth.

I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere. The way it's structured has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through.

Our point in the budget is: Let's get started now. We can't wait. And my expectation is that the Energy committees or other relevant committees in both the House and the Senate are going to be moving forward a strong energy package. It will be authorized. We'll get it done. And I will sign it. OK?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) willing to sign a budget that doesn't have those two provisions?

OBAMA: No, I -- what I said was that I haven't seen yet what provisions are in there. The bottom line is, is that I want to see healthcare, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit.

And there are going to be a lot of details that are still being worked out, but I have confidence that we're going to be able to get a budget done that's reflective of what needs to happen in order to make sure that America grows. OK, Chip Reid?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, "I didn't run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation." But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on healthcare, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history.

OBAMA: Yes.

QUESTION: Isn't that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said "passing on our problems to the next generation"?

OBAMA: First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because, as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them. That would be point number one. Point number two. Both under our estimates and under the CBO estimates, both -- the most conservative estimates out there, we drive down the deficit over the first five years of our budget. The deficit is cut in half. And folks aren't disputing that.

Where the dispute comes in is what happens in a whole bunch of out-years. And the main difference between the budget that we presented and the budget that came out of the Congressional Budget Office is assumptions about growth.

They're assuming a growth rate of 2.2 percent; we're assuming a growth rate of 2.6 percent. Those small differences end up adding up to a lot of money. Our assumptions are perfectly consistent with what Blue Chip forecasters out there are saying.

Now, none of us know exactly what's going to happen six or eight or 10 years from now. Here's what I do know: If we don't tackle energy, if we don't improve our education system, if we don't drive down the costs of healthcare, if we're not making serious investments in science and technology and our infrastructure, then we won't grow 2.6 percent, we won't grow 2.2 percent. We won't grow.

And so what we've said is, let's make the investments that ensure that we meet our growth targets that put us on a pathway to growth as opposed to a situation in which we're not making those investments and we still have trillion-dollar deficits. And there's an interesting reason why some of these critics haven't put out their own budget. I mean, we haven't seen an alternative budget out of them.

And the reason is because they know that, in fact, the biggest driver of long-term deficits are the huge healthcare costs that we've got out here that we're going to have to tackle and we -- that if we don't deal with some of the structural problems in our deficit, ones that were here long before I got here, then we're going to continue to see some of the problems in those out-years.

Democratic President Barack Obama gestures during his second full White House news conference in primetime March 24, 2009

And -- and so what we're trying to emphasize is, let's make sure that we're making the investments that we need to grow to meet those growth targets, at the same time we're still reducing the deficit by a couple of trillion dollars.

We are cutting out wasteful spending in areas like Medicare. We're changing procurement practices when it comes to the Pentagon budget. We are looking at social service programs and education programs that don't work and eliminate them.

And we will continue to go line by line through this budget, and where we find programs that don't work, we will eliminate them. But it is -- it is going to be an impossible task for us to balance our budget if we're not taking on rising healthcare costs, and it's going to be an impossible task to balance our budget or even approximate it if we are not boosting our growth rates. And -- and that's why our budget focuses on the investments we need to make that happen.

QUESTION: But even under your budget, as you said, over the next four or five years, you're going to cut the deficit in half, then, after that, six years in a row, it goes up, up, up. If you're making all these long-term structural cuts, why does it continue to go up in the out-years?

OBAMA: Well, look, it is going to take a whole host of adjustments, and we couldn't reflect all of those adjustments in this budget. Let me give you an example. There's been a lot of talk about entitlements in Medicare and Medicaid. The biggest problem we have long term is Medicare and Medicaid. But whatever reforms we initiate on that front -- and we're very serious about working on a bipartisan basis to reduce those deficits or reduce those costs -- you're not going to see those savings reflected until much later.

And so a budget is a snapshot of what we can get done right now, understanding that eight, 10 years from now, we will have had a whole series of new budgets and we're going to have to make additional adjustments.

And once we get out of this current economic crisis, then it's going to be absolutely important for us to take another look and say, are we growing as fast as we need to grow? Are there further cuts that we need to make? What other adjustments are -- is it going to take for us to have a sustainable budget level?

But, keep in mind, just to give one other example, as a percentage of gross domestic product, we are reducing non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since the '60s, lower than it was under Reagan, lower than it was under Clinton, lower than it was under Bush, or both Bushes.

And so, if we're growing, if we are doing what's necessary to create new businesses and to expand the economy, and we are making sure that we're eliminating some of these programs that aren't working, then, over time, that gap can close.

But I'm -- look, I'm not going to lie to you. It is tough. As I said, that's why the critics tend to criticize, but they don't offer an alternative budget. Because even if we were not doing healthcare, we were not doing energy, we were not doing education, they'd still have a whole bunch of problems in those out-years, according to CBO projections. The only difference is that we will not have invested in what's necessary to make this economy grow. Is Lourdes here from Univision?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Today, your administration presented a plan to help curb the violence in Mexico and also to control any or prevent any spillover of the violence into the United States. Do you consider the situation now a national security threat? And do you believe that it could require sending national troops to the border? Gov. Perry of Texas -- Texas has said that you still need more troops and more agents. How do you respond to that?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, let's focus on what we did today. It's very significant. We are sending millions of dollars in additional equipment to provide more effective surveillance. We are providing hundreds of additional personnel that can help control the border, deal with customs issues.

We are coordinating very effectively with the Mexican government and President Calderon, who has taken on an extraordinarily difficult task of dealing with these drug cartels that have gotten completely out of hand.

And so the steps that we've taken are designed to make sure that the border communities in the United States are protected and you're not seeing a spillover of violence and that we are helping the Mexican government deal with a very challenging situation.

Now, we are going to continue to monitor the situation. And if the steps that we've taken do not get the job done, then we will do more. One last point that I want to make about this. As I said, President Calderon has been very courageous in taking on these drug cartels. We've got to also take some steps, even as he is doing more to deal with the drug cartels, sending drugs into the United States, we need to do more to make sure that illegal guns and cash aren't flowing back to these cartels.

That's part of what's financing their operations. That's part of what's arming them. That's what makes them so dangerous. And this is something that we take very seriously and we're going to continue to work on diligently in the months to come. Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes? Is Kevin here? There you go.

QUESTION: Mr. President, where do you plan to find savings in the Defense and Veterans Administration's budgets when so many items that seem destined for the chopping block are politically untenable, perhaps?

OBAMA: I'm sorry. So many...

QUESTION: When so many items that may be destined for the chopping block seem politically untenable, from major weapons systems, as you mentioned procurement, to wounded-warrior care costs, or increased operations in Afghanistan, or the size of the military itself.

OBAMA: Well, a couple -- a couple of points I want to make. The budget that we've put forward reflects the largest increase in veterans funding in 30 years. That's the right thing to do. Chuck asked earlier about sacrifices. I don't think anybody doubts the extraordinary sacrifices that men and women in uniform have already made. And when they come home, then they have earned the benefits that they receive. And, unfortunately, over the last several years, all too often the VA has been under-resourced when it comes to dealing with things like post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury, dealing with some of the backlogs in admission to VA hospitals.

So there are a whole host of veterans issues that I think every American wants to see properly funded, and that's what's reflected in our budget. Where the savings should come in -- and I've been working with Secretary Gates on this, and we'll be detailing it more in the weeks to come -- is, how do we reform our procurement system so that it keeps America safe and we're not wasting taxpayer dollars?

And there is uniform acknowledgement that the procurement system right now doesn't work. That's not just my opinion. That's John McCain's opinion. That's Carl Levin's opinion.

There are a whole host of people who are students of the procurement process that will say, if you've got a whole range of billion-dollar, multibillion-dollar systems that are -- where we're seeing cost overruns of 30 percent or 40 percent or 50 percent, and then still don't perform the way they're supposed to or are providing our troops with the kinds of tools that they need to succeed on their missions, then we've got a problem.

Now, I think everybody in this town knows that the politics of changing procurement is tough, because, you know, lobbyists are very active in this area. You know, contractors are very good at dispersing the jobs and plants in the Defense Department widely. And so what we have to do is to go through this process very carefully, be more disciplined than we've been in the last several years.

As I've said, we've already identified potentially $40 billion in savings just by some of the procurement reforms that are pretty apparent to a lot -- a lot of critics out there. And we are going to continue to find savings in a way that allows us to put the resources where they're needed, but to make sure that we're not simply fattening defense contractors.

One last point. In order for us to get a handle on these costs, it's also important that we are honest in what these costs are. And that's why it was so important for us to acknowledge the true costs of the Iraq war and the Afghan war, because if -- if those costs are somehow off the books and we're not thinking about them, then it's hard for us to make some of the tough choices that need to be made. OK, Ed Henry. Where's Ed? There he is.

QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. President. You spoke again at the top about your anger about AIG. You've been saying that for days now. But why is it that it seems Andrew Cuomo seems to be in New York getting more actual action on it?

And when you and Secretary Geithner first learned about this 10 days, two weeks ago, you didn't go public immediately with that outrage. You waited a few days. And then when -- you went public after you realized Secretary Geithner really had no legal avenue to stop it.

And, more broadly, I just want to follow up on Chip and Jake. You've been very critical of President Bush doubling the national debt. And, to be fair, it's not just Republicans hitting you. Democrat Kent Conrad, as you know, said, quote, "When I look at this budget, I see the debt doubling again."

You keep saying that you've inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?

OBAMA: Of course I do, Ed, which is why we're doing everything we can to reduce that deficit. Look, if this were easy, then, you know, we would have already had it done, and the budget would have been voted on, and everybody could go home. This is hard.

And the reason it's hard is because we've accumulated a structural deficit that's going to take a long time, and we're not going to be able to do it next year or the year after or three years from now. What we have to do is bend the curve on these deficit projections. And the best way for us to do that is to reduce healthcare costs. That's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of almost every single person who has looked at our long-term fiscal situation.

Now, how do we -- how are we going to reduce healthcare costs? Because the problem is not just in government-run programs. The problem is in the private sector, as well. It's experienced by families. It's experienced by businesses.

And so what we've said is, look, let's invest in health information technologies. Let's invest in preventive care. Let's invest in mechanisms that look at who's doing a better job controlling costs while producing good quality outcomes in various states and let's reimburse on the basis of improved quality, as opposed to simply how many procedures you're doing. Let's do a whole host of things, some of which cost money on the front end but offer the prospect of reducing costs on the back end.

Now, the alternative is to stand pat and to simply say, "We are just going to not invest in healthcare. We're not going to take on energy. We'll wait until the next time that gas gets to $4 a gallon. We will not improve our schools. And we'll allow China or India or other countries to lap our young people in terms of their performance. We will settle on lower growth rates, and we will continue to contract, both as an economy and our ability to -- to provide a better life for our kids."

That, I don't think, is the better option. Now, am I completely satisfied with all the work that needs to be done on deficits? No. That's why I convened a fiscal responsibility summit -- that started in this room -- to start looking at entitlements and to start looking at the big drivers of costs over the long term. Not all of those are reflected in our budget, partly because the savings we anticipate would be coming in years outside of the 10-year budget cycle that we're talking about. OK?

QUESTION: But on AIG, why did you wait -- why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? It seems like the action is coming out of New York and the attorney general's office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, "Look, we're outraged." Why did it take so long?

OBAMA: It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak. (LAUGHTER) All right. Major?

QUESTION: Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you. Taking this economic debate a bit globally, senior Chinese officials have publicly expressed an interest in international currency. This is described by Chinese specialists as a sign that they are less confident than they used to be in the value and the reliability of the U.S. dollar. European countries have resisted your calls to spend more on economic stimulus.

I wonder, sir, as a candidate who ran concerned about the image of the United States globally, how comfortable you are with the Chinese government, run by communists, less confident than they used to be in the U.S. dollar and European governments, some of them center-left, some of them socialist, who say you're asking them to spend too much?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I haven't asked them to do anything. What I've suggested is, is that all of us are going to have to take steps in order to lift the economy. We don't want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren't with the hope that somehow the countries that are making those important steps lift everybody up. And so somebody's got to take leadership.

It's not just me, by the way. I was with Kevin Rudd, the prime minister of Australia, today, who was very forceful in suggesting that countries around the world, those with the capacity to do so, take the steps that are needed to fill this enormous hole in global demand. Gordon Brown, when he came to visit me, said the exact same thing.

So the goal at the G-20 summit, I think, is to do a couple of things, number one, say to all countries: Let's do what's necessary in order to create jobs and to get the economy moving again. Let's avoid steps that could result in protectionism, that would further contract global trade. Let's focus on, how are we going to move our regulatory process forward, in order so that we do not see the kinds of systemic breakdowns that we've already seen?

And that requires -- that means not just dealing with banks, but also some of the other financial flows that are out here that are currently unregulated. We've got to update regulations that date back to the 1930s, and we're going to have to do some coordination with other countries in order to accomplish that.

As far as confidence in the U.S. economy or the dollar, I would just point out that the dollar is extraordinarily strong right now. And the reason the dollar is strong right now is because investors consider the United States the strongest economy in the world with the most stable political system in the world.

So you don't have to take my word for it. I think that there is a great deal of confidence that, ultimately, although we are going through a rough patch, that the prospects for the world economy are very, very strong. And -- and last point I would make, in terms of changing America's image in the world, Garrett, I -- you know, I haven't looked at the latest polling around the world, but I think -- I think it's fair to say that the response that people have had to our administration and the steps that we've taken are ones that are restoring a sense of confidence and the ability of the United States to assert global leadership.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) OBAMA: That will just strengthen -- excuse me?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) global currency?

OBAMA: I don't believe that there's a need for a global currency. Mike Allen, Politico? Hi, Mike.

QUESTION: Mr. President, are you -- thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?

OBAMA: No, I think it's -- I think it's the right thing to do, where we've got to make some difficult choices. Here's what we did with respect to tax policy. What we said was that, over the last decade, the average worker, the average family have seen their wages and incomes flat. Even in times where supposedly we were in the middle of an economic boom, as a practical matter, their incomes didn't go up. And so, well, we said, "Let's give them a tax cut. Let's give them some relief, some help, 95 percent of American families."

Now, for the top 5 percent, they're the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I -- I fall in that category. And what we've said is, for those folks, let's not renew the Bush tax cuts, so let's go back to the rates that existed back in -- during the Clinton era, when wealthy people were still wealthy and doing just fine, and let's look at the -- the level at which people can itemize their deductions.

And what we've said is: Let's go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan. People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you're in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you're writing off 28 percent.

Now, if it's really a charitable contribution, I'm assuming that that shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether you're giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street. And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It's just that they wouldn't be able to write off 39 percent.

In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize -- when I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some -- a bus driver who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent -- he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair.

So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who've benefited enormously over the last several years. It's not going to cripple them. They'll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately, if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.

QUESTION: It's not the well-to-do people. It's the charities. Given what you've just said, are you confident the charities are wrong when they contend that this would discourage giving?

OBAMA: Yes, I am. I mean, if you look at the evidence, there's very little evidence that this has a significant impact on charitable giving. I'll tell you what has a significant impact on charitable giving, is a financial crisis and an economy that's contracting. And so the most important thing that I can do for charitable giving is to fix the economy, to get banks lending again, to get businesses opening their doors again, to get people back to work again. Then I think charities will do just fine. Kevin Chappelle? Hi, Kevin.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. A recent report found that, as a result of the economic downturn, 1 in 50 children are now homeless in America. With shelters at full capacity, tent cities are sprouting up across the country. In passing your stimulus package, you said that help was on the way. But what would you say to these families, especially children, who are sleeping under bridges and in tents across the country?

OBAMA: Well, the first thing I'd say is that I'm heartbroken that any child in America is homeless. And the most important thing that I can do on their behalf is to make sure their parents have a job. And that's why the recovery package said, as a first priority, how are we going to save or create 3.5 million jobs?

How can we prevent layoffs for teachers and police officers? How can we make sure that we are investing in the infrastructure for the future that can put people back to work right away? How do we make sure that, when people do lose their jobs, that their unemployment insurance is extended, that they can keep their health care?

So, there are a whole host of steps that we've done to provide a cushion for folks who have fallen on very hard times and to try to spur immediate projects that can put people back to work.

Now, in the meantime, we've got to work very closely with the states to monitor and to help people who are still falling through the cracks. And, you know, the homeless problem was bad even when the economy was good.

Part of the change in attitudes that I want to see here in Washington and all across the country is a belief that it is not acceptable for children and families to be without a roof over their heads in a country as wealthy as ours.

And so we're going to be initiating a range of programs, as well, to deal with homelessness. One area in particular I want to focus on is the issue of veterans. The rate of homelessness among veterans is much, much higher than for non-veteran populations.

And so we've got -- a number of the increases that we're looking for in our budget on veterans funding directly addresses the issue of homeless veterans. That, I think, can provide some real help. Ann Compton? Hey, Ann. You sound surprised.

QUESTION: I am surprised. Could I ask you about race?

OBAMA: You may.

QUESTION: Yours is a rather historic presidency. And I'm just wondering whether, in any of the policy debates that you've had within the White House, the issue of race has come up or whether it has in the way you feel you've been perceived by other leaders or by the American people? Or has the last 64 days before a relatively color-blind time?

OBAMA: I -- I think that the last 64 days has been dominated by me trying to figure out how we're going to fix the economy, and that affects black, brown and white. And, you know, obviously, at the inauguration, I think that there was justifiable pride on the part of the country that we had taken a step to move us beyond some of the searing legacies of racial discrimination in this country, but that lasted about a day.

And -- and, you know, right now, the American people are judging me exactly the way I should be judged. And that is: Are we taking the steps to improve liquidity in the financial markets, create jobs, get businesses to re-open, keep America safe? And that's what I've been spending my time thinking about. OK. John Ward, Washington Times? Where's John?

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

OBAMA: There you go.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Sure.

QUESTION: In your remarks on stem cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. I'm just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells, but not a lot with embryonic?

OBAMA: OK. No, I think it's -- I think it's a legitimate question. I -- I wrestle with these issues every day. As I mentioned to -- I think in an interview a couple of days ago, by the time an issue reaches my desk, it's a hard issue. If it was an easy issue, somebody else would have solved it and it wouldn't have reached me.

Look, I believe that it is very important for us to have strong moral guidelines, ethical guidelines, when it comes to stem cell research or anything that touches on, you know, the issues of possible cloning or issues related to, you know, the human life sciences. I think those issues are all critical, and I've said so before. I wrestle with it on stem cell; I wrestle with it on issues like abortion.

I think that the guidelines that we provided meet that ethical test. What we have said is that, for embryos that are typically -- about to be discarded, for us to be able to use those in order to find cures for Parkinson's or for Alzheimer's or, you know, all sorts of other debilitating diseases, juvenile diabetes, that -- that it is the right thing to do. And that's not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a number of people who are also against abortion.

Now, I am glad to see progress is being made in adult stem cells. And if the science determines that we can completely avoid a set of ethical questions or political disputes, then that's great.

I have -- I have no investment in causing controversy. I'm happy to avoid it if that's where the science leads us. But what I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach, and that's what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed.

QUESTION: I meant to ask -- just to follow up -- do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?

OBAMA: No. I think there's -- there's always an ethical and a moral element that has to be -- be a part of this. And so, as I said, I -- I don't take decisions like this lightly. They're ones that I take seriously, and -- and I respect people who have different opinions on this issue.

But I think that this was the right thing to do and the ethical thing to do. And as I said before, my hope is, is that we can find a mechanism, ultimately, to cure these diseases in a way that gains 100 percent consensus. And we certainly haven't achieved that yet, but I think on balance this was the right step to take. OK. Stefan Collison, AFP?

QUESTION: Mr. President, you came to office pledging to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. How realistic do you think those hopes are now, given the likelihood of a prime minister who is not fully signed up to a two-state solution and a foreign minister who has been accused of insulting Arabs?

OBAMA: It's not easier than it was, but I think it's just as necessary. We don't yet know what the Israeli government is going to look like, and we don't yet know what the future shape of Palestinian leadership is going to be comprised of. What we do know is this: that the status quo is unsustainable, that it is critical for us to advance a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in their own states with peace and security.

And by assigning George Mitchell the task of working as special envoy, what we've signaled is that we're going to be serious from day one in trying to move the parties in a direction that acknowledges that reality.

How effective these negotiations may be, I think we're going to have to wait and see. But, you know, we -- we were here for St. Patrick's Day, and you'll recall that we had what had been previously sworn enemies celebrating here in this very room. You know, leaders from the two sides of Northern Ireland that, you know, a couple of decades ago -- or even a decade ago -- people would have said could never achieve peace, and here they were, jointly appearing, and talking about their commitment, even in the face of violent provocation.

And what that tells me is that, if you stick to it, if you are persistent, then -- then these problems can be dealt with. That whole philosophy of persistence, by the way, is one that I'm going to be emphasizing again and again in the months and years to come as long as I'm in this office. I'm a big believer in persistence.

I think that, when it comes to domestic affairs, if we keep on working at it, if we acknowledge that we make mistakes sometimes, and that we don't always have the right answer, and we're inheriting very knotty problems, that we can pass healthcare, we can find better solutions to our energy challenges, we can teach our children more effectively, we can deal with a very real budget crisis that is not fully dealt with in my -- in my budget at this point, but makes progress.

I think, when it comes to the banking system, you know, it was just a few days ago or weeks ago where people were certain that Secretary Geithner couldn't deliver a plan. Today, the headlines all look like, "Well, all right, there's a plan." And I'm sure there will be more criticism, and we'll have to make more adjustments, but we're moving in the right direction.

When it comes to Iran, you know, we did a video, sending a message to the Iranian people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And some people said, "Well, they did not immediately say that we're eliminating nuclear weapons and stop funding terrorism." Well, we didn't expect that. We expect that we're going to make steady progress on this front.

We haven't immediately eliminated the influence of lobbyists in Washington. We have not immediately eliminated wasteful pork projects. And we're not immediately going to get Middle East peace. We've been in office now a little over 60 days. What I am confident about is that we're moving in the right direction and that the decisions we're making are based on, how are we going to get this economy moving? How are we going to put Americans back to work? How are we going to make sure that our people are safe? And how are we going to create not just prosperity here, but work with other countries for global peace and prosperity?

And we are going to stay with it as long as I'm in this office, and I think that -- you look back four years from now, I think, hopefully, people will judge that body of work and say, "This is a big ocean liner. It's not a speedboat. It doesn't turn around immediately. But we're in a better -- better place because of the decisions that we made. All right? Thank you, everybody. 

First Prime Time Press Conference by the President, February 9th, 2009

Monday, February 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm

Press Conference by the President

Press Conference by the President
East Room
8:01 P.M. EST
February 9, 2009

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everybody. Please be seated.

Before I take your questions tonight, I'd like to speak briefly about the state of our economy and why I believe we need to put this recovery plan in motion as soon as possible.

I took a trip to Elkhart, Indiana today. Elkhart is a place that has lost jobs faster than anywhere else in America. In one year, the unemployment rate went from 4.7 percent to 15.3 percent. Companies that have sustained this community for years are shedding jobs at an alarming speed, and the people who've lost them have no idea what to do or who to turn to. They can't pay their bills and they've stopped spending money. And because they've stopped spending money, more businesses have been forced to lay off more workers. In fact, local TV stations have started running public service announcements that tell people where to find food banks, even as the food banks don't have enough to meet the demand.

As we speak, similar scenes are playing out in cities and towns across America. Last Monday more than a thousand men and women stood in line for 35 firefighter jobs in Miami. Last month our economy lost 598,000 jobs, which is nearly the equivalent of losing every single job in the state of Maine. And if there's anyone out there who still doesn't believe this constitutes a full-blown crisis, I suggest speaking to one of the millions of Americans whose lives have been turned upside down because they don't know where their next paycheck is coming from.

And that is why the single most important part of this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is the fact that it will save or create up to 4 million jobs -- because that's what America needs most right now.

It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the role of the private sector. But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through Congress is designed to do.

When passed, this plan will ensure that Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own can receive greater unemployment benefits and continue their health care coverage. We'll also provide a $2,500 tax credit to folks who are struggling to pay the costs of their college tuition, and $1,000 worth of badly needed tax relief to working and middle class families. These steps will put more money in the pockets of those Americans who are most likely to spend it, and that will help break the cycle and get our economy moving.

But as we've learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems -- especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it's only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.

And that's why we have come together around a plan that combines hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the middle class with direct investment in areas like health care, energy, education, and infrastructure -- investments that will save jobs, create new jobs and new businesses, and help our economy grow again, now and in the future.

More than 90 percent of the jobs created by this plan will be in the private sector. They're not going to be make-work jobs, but jobs doing the work that America desperately needs done, jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our dangerously deficient dams and levees so that we don't face another Katrina. They'll be jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil, and modernizing our costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and countless lives.

They'll be jobs creating the 21st century classrooms, libraries, and labs for millions of children across America. And they'll be the jobs of firefighters and teachers and police officers that would otherwise be eliminated if we do not provide states with some relief.

After many weeks of debate and discussion, the plan that ultimately emerges from Congress must be big enough and bold enough to meet the size of the economic challenges that we face right now. It's a plan that is already supported by businesses representing almost every industry in America; by both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. It contains input, ideas, and compromises from both Democrats and Republicans. It also contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we're spending every dime. What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark, and it has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most objectionable.

Now, despite all of this, the plan is not perfect. No plan is. I can't tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis as well as the pain felt by millions of Americans. My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing a little or nothing at all will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence. Those are deficits that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe. And I refuse to let that happen. As long as I hold this office, I will do whatever it takes to put this economy back on track and put this country back to work.

I want to thank the members of Congress who've worked so hard to move this plan forward. But I also want to urge all members of Congress to act without delay in the coming week to resolve their differences and pass this plan.

We find ourselves in a rare moment where the citizens of our country and all countries are watching and waiting for us to lead. It's a responsibility that this generation did not ask for, but one that we must accept for the future and our children and our grandchildren. And the strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose.

That's the test facing the United States of America in this winter of our hardship. And it is our duty as leaders and citizens to stay true to that purpose in the weeks and months ahead. After a day of speaking with and listening to the fundamentally decent men and women who call this nation home, I have full faith and confidence that we can do it. But we're going to have to work together. That's what I intend to promote in the weeks and days ahead.

And with that, I'll take some of your questions. And let me go to Jennifer Loven, AP.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier today in Indiana, you said something striking. You said that this nation could end up in a crisis without action that we would be unable to reverse. Can you talk about what you know or what you're hearing that would lead you to say that our recession might be permanent, when others in our history have not? And do you think that you risk losing some credibility or even talking down the economy by using dire language like that?

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, no -- I think that what I've said is what other economists have said across the political spectrum, which is that if you delay acting on an economy of this severity, then you potentially create a negative spiral that becomes much more difficult for us to get out of. We saw this happen in Japan in the 1990s, where they did not act boldly and swiftly enough, and as a consequence they suffered what was called the "lost decade" where essentially for the entire '90s they did not see any significant economic growth.

So what I'm trying to underscore is what the people in Elkhart already understand: that this is not your ordinary run-of-the-mill recession. We are going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We've lost now 3.6 million jobs, but what's perhaps even more disturbing is that almost half of that job loss has taken place over the last three months, which means that the problems are accelerating instead of getting better.

Now, what I said in Elkhart today is what I repeat this evening, which is, I'm absolutely confident that we can solve this problem, but it's going to require us to take some significant, important steps.

Step number one: We have to pass an economic recovery and reinvestment plan. And we've made progress. There was a vote this evening that moved the process forward in the Senate. We already have a House bill that's passed. I'm hoping over the next several days that the House and the Senate can reconcile their differences and get that bill on my desk.

There have been criticisms from a bunch of different directions about this bill, so let me just address a few of them. Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And in fact there are several who've suggested that FDR was wrong to intervene back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.

Most economists, almost unanimously, recognize that even if philosophically you're wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem we have right now -- what started on Wall Street goes to Main Street, suddenly businesses can't get credit, they start carrying back their investment, they start laying off workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending -- when you have that situation, that government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy. We stand to lose about $1 trillion worth of demand this year and another trillion next year. And what that means is you've got this gaping hole in the economy.

That's why the figure that we initially came up with of approximately $800 billion was put forward. That wasn't just some random number that I plucked out of a hat. That was Republican and Democratic, conservative and liberal economists that I spoke to who indicated that given the magnitude of the crisis and the fact that it's happening worldwide, it's important for us to have a bill of sufficient size and scope that we can save or create 4 million jobs. That still means that you're going to have some net job loss, but at least we can start slowing the trend and moving it in the right direction.

Now, the recovery and reinvestment package is not the only thing we have to do -- it's one leg of the stool. We are still going to have to make sure that we are attracting private capital, get the credit markets flowing again, because that's the lifeblood of the economy.

And so tomorrow my Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, will be announcing some very clear and specific plans for how we are going to start loosening up credit once again. And that means having some transparency and oversight in the system. It means that we correct some of the mistakes with TARP that were made earlier, the lack of consistency, the lack of clarity in terms of how the program was going to move forward. It means that we condition taxpayer dollars that are being provided to banks on them showing some restraint when it comes to executive compensation, not using the money to charter corporate jets when they're not necessary. It means that we focus on housing and how are we going to help homeowners that are suffering foreclosure or homeowners who are still making their mortgage payments, but are seeing their property values decline.

So there are going to be a whole range of approaches that we have to take for dealing with the economy. My bottom line is to make sure that we are saving or creating 4 million jobs, we are making sure that the financial system is working again, that homeowners are getting some relief. And I'm happy to get good ideas from across the political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans. What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested and they have failed. And that's part of what the election in November was all about.

Okay, Caren Bohan of Reuters.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to shift gears to foreign policy. What is your strategy for engaging Iran, and when will you start to implement it? Will your timetable be affected at all by the Iranian elections? And are you getting any indications that Iran is interested in a dialogue with the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but that its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world; that their attacks or their financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon, or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon -- that all those things create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace. What I've also said is that we should take an approach with Iran that employs all of the resources at the United States' disposal, and that includes diplomacy.

And so my national security team is currently reviewing our existing Iran policy, looking at areas where we can have constructive dialogue, where we can directly engage with them. And my expectation is in the coming months we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table, face to face, diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in a new direction.

There's been a lot of mistrust built up over the years, so it's not going to happen overnight. And it's important that even as we engage in this direct diplomacy, we are very clear about certain deep concerns that we have as a country -- that Iran understands that we find the funding of terrorist organizations unacceptable; that we're clear about the fact that a nuclear Iran could set off a nuclear arms race in the region that would be profoundly destabilizing.

So there are going to be a set of objectives that we have in these conversations, but I think that there's the possibility at least of a relationship of mutual respect and progress. And I think that if you look at how we've approached the Middle East, my designation of George Mitchell as a special envoy to help deal with the Arab-Israeli situation, some of the interviews that I've given, it indicates the degree to which we want to do things differently in the region. Now it's time for Iran to send some signals that it wants to act differently as well, and recognize that even as it has some rights as a member of the international community, with those rights come responsibilities.

Chip Reid.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You have often said that bipartisanship is extraordinarily important overall, and in the stimulus package. But now when we ask your advisors about the lack of bipartisanship so far -- zero votes in the House, three in the Senate -- they say, well, it's not the number of votes that matters, it's the number of jobs that will be created. Is that a sign that you are moving away, your White House is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship? And what went wrong? Did you underestimate how hard it would be to change the way Washington works?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I don't think -- I don't think I underestimated it. I don't think the -- the American people underestimated it. They understand that there have been a lot of bad habits built up here in Washington and it's going to take time to break down some of those bad habits.

You know, when I made a series of overtures to the Republicans -- going over to meet with both Republican caucuses; you know, putting three Republicans in my Cabinet, something that is unprecedented; making sure that they were invited here to the White House to talk about the economic recovery plan -- all those were not designed simply to get some short-term votes. They were designed to try to build up some trust over time. And I think that as I continue to make these overtures, over time hopefully that will be reciprocated.

But understand the bottom line that I've got right now, which is what's happening to the people of Elkhart and what's happening across the country. I can't afford to see Congress play the usual political games. What we have to do right now is deliver for the American people. So my bottom line when it comes to the recovery package is, send me a bill that creates or saves 4 million jobs. Because everybody has to be possessed with a sense of urgency about putting people back to work, making sure the folks are staying in their homes and that they can send their kids to college.

That doesn't negate the continuing efforts that I'm going to make to listen and engage with my Republican colleagues, and hopefully the tone that I've taken, which has been consistently civil and respectful, will pay some dividends over the long term. There are going to be areas where we disagree, and there are going to be areas where we agree.

As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package in terms of the debate and listening to some of what's been said in Congress is that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing. Now, if that's their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we're probably not going to make much progress, because I don't think that's economically sound and I don't think that's what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.

There are others who recognize that we've got to do a significant recovery package, but they're concerned about the mix of what's in there. And if they're sincere about it, then I'm happy to have conversations about this tax cut versus that tax cut, or this infrastructure project versus that infrastructure project. But what I -- what I've been concerned about is some of the language that's been used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth.

First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we have right now, and the economic crisis that we have right now.

Number two is that although there are some programs in there that I think are good policy, some of them aren't job creators. I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that those programs should be out of this particular recovery package, and we can deal with them later. But when they start characterizing this as pork without acknowledging that there are no earmarks in this package -- something again that was pretty rare over the last eight years -- then you get a feeling that maybe we're playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people.

So I'm going to keep on engaging. I hope that as we get the Senate and the House bills together, that everybody is willing to give a little bit. I suspect that the package that emerges is not going to be a hundred percent of what I want. But my bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs, and are we laying the foundation for long-term economic growth. This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments that I'm hearing.

When people suggest that, what a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy efficient -- why would that be a waste of money? We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings, or weatherizing 2 million American's homes, as was called for in the package. So that right there creates economic stimulus. And we are saving taxpayers when it comes to federal buildings potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets, and we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?

Now, maybe philosophically you just don't think that the federal government should be involved in energy policy. I happen to disagree with that. I think that's the reason why we find ourselves importing more foreign oil now than we did back in the early '70s when OPEC first formed. And we can have a respectful debate about whether or not we should be involved in energy policymaking, but don't suggest that somehow that's wasteful spending. That's exactly what this country needs.

The same applies when it comes to information technologies in health care. We know that health care is crippling businesses and making us less competitive as well as breaking the banks of families all across America, and part of the reason is we've got the most inefficient health care system imaginable. We're still using paper -- we're still filing things in triplicate. Nurses can't read the prescriptions that doctors have written out. Why wouldn't we want to put that on an electronic medical record that will reduce error rates, reduce our long-term cost of health care, and create jobs right now?

Education -- yet another example. The suggestion is why should the federal government be involved in school construction. Well, I visited a school down in South Carolina that was built in the 1850s. Kids are still learning in that school, as best they can. When the railroad -- it's right next to a railroad, and when the train runs by, the whole building shakes and the teacher has to stop teaching for a while. The auditorium is completely broken down; they can't use it. So why wouldn't we want to build state-of-the-art schools with science labs that are teaching our kids the skills they need for the 21st century, that will enhance our economy and, by the way, right now will create jobs?

So we can differ on some of the particulars, but again, the question I think the American people are asking is, do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation. But doing nothing, that's not an option from my perspective.

All right. Chuck Todd. Where's Chuck?

Q Thank you, Mr. President. In your opening remarks, you talked about that if your plan works the way you want it to work, it's going to increase consumer spending. But isn't consumer spending or overspending how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first before they start spending money into the economy?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people's monies based on shaky assets. And because of the enormous leverage where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system. That led to a contraction of credit, which in turn meant businesses couldn't make payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy, so people started making decisions accordingly -- reducing investment, initiated layoffs -- which in turn made things worse.

Now, you are making a legitimate point, Chuck, about the fact that our savings rate has declined and this economy has been driven by consumer spending for a very long time -- and that's not going to be sustainable. You know, if all we're doing is spending and we're not making things, then over time other countries are going to get tired of lending us money and eventually the party is going to be over. Well, in fact, the party now is over.

And so the sequence of how we're approaching this is as follows: Our immediate job is to stop the downward spiral, and that means putting money into consumers' pockets, it means loosening up credit, it means putting forward investments that not only employ people immediately but also lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth. And that, by the way, is important even if you're a fiscal conservative, because the biggest problem we're going to have with our federal budget is if we continue a situation in which there are no tax revenues because economic growth is plummeting at the same time as we've got more demands for unemployment insurance, we've got more demands for people who've lost their health care, more demand for food stamps. That will put enormous strains on the federal budget as well as the state budget.

So the most important thing we can do for our budget crisis right now is to make sure that the economy doesn't continue to tank. And that's why passing the economic recovery plan is the right thing to do, even though I recognize that it's expensive. Look, I would love not to have to spend money right now. This notion that somehow I came in here just ginned up to spend $800 billion, that wasn't -- that wasn't how I envisioned my presidency beginning. But we have to adapt to existing circumstances.

Now, what we are going to also have to do is to make sure that as soon as the economy stabilizes, investment begins again; we're no longer contracting but we're growing; that our mid-term and long-term budget is dealt with. And I think the same is true for individual consumers. Right now they're just trying to figure out, how do I make sure that if I lose my job, I'm still going to be able to make my mortgage payments. Or they're worried about how am I going to pay next month's bills. So they're not engaging in a lot of long-term financial planning.

Once the economy stabilizes and people are less fearful, then I do think that we're going to have to start thinking about how do we operate more prudently, because there's no such thing as a free lunch. So if you want to get -- if you want to buy a house, then putting zero down and buying a house that is probably not affordable for you in case something goes wrong, that's something that has to be reconsidered.

So we're going to have to change our bad habits. But right now, the key is making sure that we pull ourselves out of the economic slump that we're in.

All right, Julianna Goldman, Bloomberg.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Many experts, from Nouriel Roubini to Senator Schumer, have said that it will cost the government more than a trillion dollars to really fix the financial system. During the campaign you promised the American people that you won't just tell them what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. Won't the government need far more than the $350 billion that's remaining in the financial rescue funds to really solve the credit crisis?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the credit crisis is real and it's not over. We averted catastrophe by passing the TARP legislation. But as I said before, because of a lack of clarity and consistency in how it was applied, a lack of oversight in how the money went out, we didn't get as big of a bang for the buck as we should have.

My immediate task is making sure that the second half of that money, $350 billion, is spent properly. That's my first job. Before I even think about what else I've got to do, my first task is to make sure that my Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, working with Larry Summers, my National Economic Advisor, and others, are coming up with the best possible plan to use this money wisely -- in a way that's transparent; in a way that provides clear oversight; that we are conditioning any money that we give to banks on them reducing executive compensation to reasonable levels; and to make sure that they're not wasting that money.

We are going to have to work with the banks in an effective way to clean up their balance sheets so that some trust is restored within the marketplace, because right now part of the problem is that nobody really knows what's on the banks' books. Any given bank, they're not sure what kinds of losses are there. We've got to open things up and restore some trust.

We also have to deal with the housing issue in a clear and consistent way. I don't want to preempt my Secretary of the Treasury; he's going to be laying out these principles in great detail tomorrow. But my instruction to him has been, let's get this right, let's create a template in which we're restoring market confidence. And the reason that's so important is because we don't know yet whether we're going to need additional money or how much additional money we'll need until we've seen how successful we are at restoring a sense of confidence in the marketplace, that the federal government and the Federal Reserve Bank and the FDIC, working in concert, know what they're doing. That can make a big difference in terms of whether or not we attract private capital back into the marketplace.

And ultimately, the government cannot substitute for all the private capital that has been withdrawn from the system. We've got to restore confidence so that private capital goes back in.

Jake.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. My question follows Julianna's in content. The American people have seen hundreds of billions of dollars spent already, and still the economy continues to free fall. Beyond avoiding the national catastrophe that you've warned about, once all the legs of your stool are in place, how can the American people gauge whether or not your programs are working? Can they -- should they be looking at the metric of the stock market, home foreclosures, unemployment? What metric should they use? When? And how will they know if it's working, or whether or not we need to go to a plan B?

THE PRESIDENT: I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving 4 million jobs. That's bottom line number one, because if people are working, then they've got enough confidence to make purchases, to make investments. Businesses start seeing that consumers are out there with a little more confidence, and they start making investments, which means they start hiring workers. So step number one, job creation.

Step number two: Are we seeing the credit markets operate effectively? I can't tell you how many businesses that I talk to that are successful businesses, but just can't get credit. Part of the problem in Elkhart, that I heard about today, was the fact that -- this is the RV capital of America. You've got a bunch of RV companies that have customers who want to purchase RVs, but even though their credit is good, they can't get the loan. Now, the businesses also can't get loans to make payments to their suppliers. But when they have consumers, consumers can't get the loans that they need. So normalizing the credit markets is I think step number two.

Step number three is going to be housing: Have we stabilized the housing market? Now, the federal government doesn't have complete control over that, but if our plan is effective, working with the Federal Reserve Bank, working with the FDIC, I think what we can do is stem the rate of foreclosure and we can start stabilizing housing values over time. And the most -- the biggest measure of success is whether we stop contracting and shedding jobs, and we start growing again. Now, I don't have a crystal ball, and as I've said, this is an unprecedented crisis. But my hope is that after a difficult year -- and this year is going to be a difficult year -- that businesses start investing again, they start making decisions that, you know, in fact there's money to be made out there, customers or consumers start feeling that their jobs are stable and safe, and they start making purchases again. And if we get things right, then starting next year we can start seeing some significant improvement.

Ed Henry. Where's Ed, CNN? There he is.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You promised to send more troops to Afghanistan. And since you've been very clear about a timetable to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, I wonder what's your timetable to withdraw troops eventually from Afghanistan?

And related to that, there's a Pentagon policy that bans media coverage of the flag-draped coffins from coming in to Dover Air Force Base. And back in 2004, then-Senator Joe Biden said that it was shameful for dead soldiers to be "snuck back into the country under the cover of night." You've promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that policy so the American people can see the full human cost of war?

THE PRESIDENT: Your question is timely. We got reports that four American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq today, and obviously our thoughts and prayers go out to the families. I've said before that -- you know, people have asked me when did it hit you that you are now President? And what I told them was the most sobering moment is signing letters to the families of our fallen heroes. It reminds you of the responsibilities that you carry in this office and the consequences of decisions that you make.

Now, with respect to the policy of opening up media to loved ones being brought back home, we are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense, so I don't want to give you an answer now before I've evaluated that review and understand all the implications involved.

With respect to Afghanistan, this is going to be a big challenge. I think because of the extraordinary work done by our troops, and some very good diplomatic work done by Ambassador Crocker in Iraq, we just saw an election in Iraq that went relatively peacefully. And you get a sense that the political system is now functioning in a meaningful way.

You do not see that yet in Afghanistan. They've got elections coming up, but effectively the national government seems very detached from what's going on in the surrounding community.

In addition, you've got the Taliban and al Qaeda operating in the FATA and these border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and what we haven't seen is the kind of concerted effort to root out those safe havens that would ultimately make our mission successful.

So we are undergoing a thorough-going review. Not only is General Petraeus now the head of CENTCOM conducting his own review, he's now working in concert with the special envoy that I've sent over, Richard Holbrooke, one of our top diplomats, to evaluate a regional approach. We are going to need more effective coordination of our military efforts with diplomatic efforts with development efforts with more effective coordination with our allies in order for us to be successful.

The bottom line, though -- and I just want to remember [sic] the American people, because this is going to be difficult -- is this is a situation in which a region served as the base to launch an attack that killed 3,000 Americans. And this past week, I met with families of those who were lost in 9/11 -- a reminder of the costs of allowing those safe havens to exist. My bottom line is that we cannot allow al Qaeda to operate. We cannot have those safe havens in that region. And we're going to have to work both smartly and effectively, but with consistency, in order to make sure that those safe havens don't exist. I do not have yet a timetable for how long that's going to take. What I know is, I'm not going to make -- I'm not going to allow al Qaeda or bin Laden to operate with impunity, planning attacks on the U.S. homeland.

All right. Helene Cooper. Where's Helene? There you are.

Q Thank you, sir. I wanted to ask you on the next bank bailout. Are you going to impose a requirement that the financial institutions use this money to loosen up credit and make new lending? And if not, how do you make the case to the American people that this bailout will work, when the last one didn't?

THE PRESIDENT: Again, Helene -- and I'm trying to avoid preempting my Secretary of the Treasury, I want all of you to show up at his press conference as well; he's going to be terrific. But -- this relates to Jake's earlier question -- one of my bottom lines is whether or not credit is flowing to the people who need it. Is it flowing to banks -- excuse me, is it flowing to businesses, large and small? Is it flowing to consumers? Are they able to operate in ways that translate into jobs and economic growth on Main Street? And the package that we've put together is designed to help do that.

And beyond that, I'm going to make sure that Tim gets his moment in the sun tomorrow.

All right. Major Garrett. Where's Major?

Q Mr. President, at a speech Friday that many of us covered, Vice President Biden said the following thing about a conversation the two of you had in the Oval Office, about a subject he didn't disclose: "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong." Since the Vice President brought it up, can you tell the American people, sir, what you were talking about? And if not, can you at least reassure them it wasn't the stimulus bill or the bank rescue plan -- (laughter) -- and if in general, you agree with that ratio of success, 30 percent failure, 70 percent success?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to. (Laughter.) Not surprisingly. But let me try this out. I think what Joe may have been suggesting, although I wouldn't put numerical -- I wouldn't ascribe any numerical percentage to any of this -- is that given the magnitude of the challenges that we have, any single thing that we do is going to be part of the solution, not all of the solution. And as I said in my introductory remarks, not everything we do is going to work out exactly as we intended it to work out.

This is an unprecedented problem. And when you talk to economists, there is some general sense of how we're going to move forward; there's some strong consensus about the need for a recovery package of a certain magnitude; there's a strong consensus that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket, all tax cuts or all investment, but that there should be a range of approaches.

But even if we do everything right on that, we've still got to deal with what we just talked about, the financial system, and making sure that banks are lending again. We're still going to have to deal with housing. We're still going to have to make sure that we've got a regulatory structure -- a regulatory architecture for the financial system that prevents crises like this from occurring again. Those are all big, complicated tasks. So I don't know whether Joe was referring to that, but I use that as a launching point to make a general point about these issues.

Q Did you get any promise from them?

THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea, I really don't.

Michael Fletcher, The Washington Post.

Q Yes, thank you, sir. What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez's admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it's depressing news on top of what's been a flurry of depressing items when it comes to Major League Baseball. And if you're a fan of Major League Baseball, I think it -- it tarnishes an entire era to some degree. And it's unfortunate, because I think there are a lot of ballplayers who played it straight. And the thing I'm probably most concerned about is the message that it sends to our kids.

What I'm pleased about is Major League Baseball seems to finally be taking this seriously, to recognize how big of a problem this is for the sport. And that our kids, hopefully, are watching and saying, you know what, there are no shortcuts; that when you try to take shortcuts, you may end up tarnishing your entire career, and that your integrity is not worth it. That's the message I hope is communicated.

All right, Helen. This is my inaugural moment here. (Laughter.) I'm really excited.

Q Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan are maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists? And also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that Pakistan -- there is no doubt that in the FATA region of Pakistan, in the mountainous regions along the border of Afghanistan, that there are safe havens where terrorists are operating. And one of the goals of Ambassador Holbrooke, as he is traveling throughout the region, is to deliver a message to Pakistan that they are endangered as much as we are by the continuation of those operations. And that we've got to work in a regional fashion to root out those safe havens. It's not acceptable for Pakistan or for us to have folks who, with impunity, will kill innocent men, women and children. I believe that the new government of Pakistan and Mr. Zardari cares deeply about getting control of this situation. We want to be effective partners with them on that issue.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Holbrooke is there, and that's exactly why he is being sent there, because I think that we have to make sure that Pakistan is a stalwart ally with us in battling this terrorist threat.

With respect to nuclear weapons, you know, I don't want to speculate. What I know is this: that if we see a nuclear arms race in a region as volatile as the Middle East, everybody will be in danger. And one of my goals is to prevent nuclear proliferation generally. I think that it's important for the United States, in concert with Russia, to lead the way on this. And, you know, I've mentioned this in conversations with the Russian President, Mr. Medvedev, to let him know that it is important for us to restart the conversations about how we can start reducing our nuclear arsenals in an effective way so that -- so that we then have the standing to go to other countries and start stitching back together the nonproliferation treaties that, frankly, have been weakened over the last several years.

Q Why do we have to pick --

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, all right.

Q -- on who (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: Sam Stein, Huffington Post -- where's Sam? Here.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Today Senator Patrick Leahy announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that before you turn the page, you have to read the page first. Do you agree with such a proposal, and are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen the proposal, so I don't want to express an opinion on something that I haven't seen.

What I have said is that my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, and that we abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process, as we are vigorously going after terrorists that can do us harm. And I don't think those are contradictory; I think they are potentially complementary.

My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen; but that generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards. I want to pull everybody together, including, by the way, the -- all the members of the intelligence community who have done things the right way and have been working hard to protect America, and I think sometimes are painted with a broad brush without adequate information.

So I will take a look at Senator Leahy's proposal, but my general orientation is to say, let's get it right moving forward.

Mara Liasson.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. If it's this hard to get more than a handful of Republican votes on what is relatively easy -- spending tons of money and cutting people's taxes -- when you look down the road at health care and entitlement reform and energy reform, those are really tough choices. You're going to be asking some people to get less and some people to pay more.

What do you think you're going to have to do to get more bipartisanship? Are you going to need a new legislative model, bringing in Republicans from the very beginning, getting more involved in the details yourself from the beginning, or using bipartisan commissions? What has this experience with the stimulus led you to think about when you think about these future challenges?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I said before, Mara, I think that old habits are hard to break. And we're coming off an election and I think people want to sort of test the limits of what they can get. There's a lot of jockeying in this town and a lot of who's up and who's down and positioning for the next election.

And what I've tried to suggest is that this is one of those times where we've got to put that kind of behavior aside, because the American people can't afford it. The people in Elkhart can't afford it. The single mom who's trying to figure out how to keep her house can't afford it. And whether we're Democrats or Republicans, surely there's got to be some capacity for us to work together -- not agree on everything, but at least set aside small differences to get things done.

Now, just in terms of the historic record here, the Republicans were brought in early and were consulted. And you'll remember that when we initially introduced our framework, they were pleasantly surprised and complimentary about the tax cuts that were presented in that framework. Those tax cuts are still in there. I mean, I suppose what I could have done is started off with no tax cuts, knowing that I was going to want some, and then let them take credit for all of them. And maybe that's the lesson I learned.

But there was consultation. There will continue to be consultation. One thing that I think is important is to recognize that because all these -- all these items that you listed are hard, that people have to break out of some of the ideological rigidity and gridlock that we've been carrying around for too long.

And let me give you a prime example -- when it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility. Again, it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Having said that, I think there are a lot of Republicans who are sincere in recognizing that unless we deal with entitlements in a serious way, the problems we have with this year's deficit and next year's deficit pale in comparison to what we're going to be seeing 10 or 15 years or 20 years down the road.

Both Democrats and Republicans are going to have to think differently in order to come together and solve that problem. I think there are areas like education where some in my party have been too resistant to reform, and have argued only money makes a difference. And there have been others on the Republican side or the conservative side who said no matter how much money you spend, nothing makes a difference, so let's just blow up the public school systems.

And I think that both sides are going to have to acknowledge we're going to need more money for new science labs, to pay teachers more effectively, but we're also going to need more reform, which means that we've got to train teachers more effectively, bad teachers need to be fired after being given the opportunity to train effectively, that we should experiment with things like charter schools that are innovating in the classroom, that we should have high standards.

So my whole goal over the next four years is to make sure that whatever arguments are persuasive and backed up by evidence and facts and proof that they can work, that we are pulling people together around that kind of pragmatic agenda. And I think that there was an opportunity to do this with this recovery package because as I said, although there are some politicians who are arguing that we don't need a stimulus, there are very few economists who are making that argument.

I mean, you've got economists who were advising John McCain, economists who were advisors to George Bush -- one and two -- all suggesting that we actually needed a serious recovery package. And so when I hear people just saying, oh, we don't need to do anything, this is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill -- without acknowledging that by definition, part of any stimulus package would include spending -- that's the point -- then what I get a sense of is that there's some ideological blockage there that needs to be cleared up.

But I am the eternal optimist. I think that over time people respond to civility and rational argument. I think that's what the people of Elkhart and people around America are looking for. And that's what I'm -- that's the kind of leadership I'm going to try to provide.

All right, thank you, guys.

END                  9:01 P.M. EST