The President:
Good morning, everybody. I will take your
questions in a second. But first, I just want to say
a few words about the economy. Next week, the Senate will
vote on the American Jobs Act. And I think by now I've made
my views pretty well known. Some of you are even keeping
a tally of how many times I've talked about the
American Jobs Act. And the reason I keep going
around the country talking about this jobs bill is because people
really need help right now. Our economy really
needs a jolt right now. This is not a game; this is
not the time for the usual political gridlock. The problems Europe is having
today could have a very real effect on our economy at a
time when it's already fragile. But this jobs bill can help
guard against another downturn if the situation in
Europe gets any worse. It will boost economic growth;
it will put people back to work. And by the way, this
is not just my belief. This is what independent
economists have said -- not politicians, not just
people in my administration. Independent experts who do this
for a living have said this jobs bill will have a significant
effect for our economy and for middle-class families
all across America. And what these independent
experts have also said is that if we don't act, the
opposite will be true. There will be fewer jobs;
there will be weaker growth. So as we look towards next week,
any senator out there who's thinking about voting
against this jobs bill, when it comes up for a vote,
needs to explain exactly why they would oppose something
that we know would improve our economic situation at such an
urgent time for our families and for our businesses. Congressional Republicans say
one of the most important things we can do is cut taxes. Then they should love this plan. This jobs bill would cut taxes
for virtually every worker and small business in America. If you're a small business owner
that hires someone or raises wages, you would
get another tax cut. If you hire a veteran,
you get a tax cut. Right now, there's a small
business in Ohio that does high-tech manufacturing and
they've been expanding for the past two years. They're considering hiring
more, and this tax break would encourage them to do it. Hundreds of thousands of
teachers and firefighters and police officers have
been laid off because of state budget cuts. This jobs bill has funding to
put a lot of those men and women back to work. It has funding to prevent a
lot more from losing their job. I had a chance to meet a
young man named Robert Baroz. He's an English teacher in
Boston who came to the White House a few weeks ago. He's got two decades
of teaching experience, he's got a Master's degree, he's
got an outstanding track record of helping his students
make huge gains in reading and writing. In the last few years, he's
received three pink slips because of budget cuts. Why wouldn't we want to pass
a bill that puts somebody like Robert back in the
classroom teaching our kids? Some of you were with me when
we visited a bridge between Ohio and Kentucky that's
been classified as "functionally obsolete." That's a fancy way of saying
it's old and breaking down. We've heard about bridges in
both states that are falling apart, and that's true
all across the country. In Maine, there is a bridge that
is in such bad shape that pieces of it were literally
falling off the other day. And, meanwhile, we've
got millions of laid-off construction workers who could
right now be busy rebuilding roads, rebuilding bridges,
rebuilding schools. This jobs bill gives them a
chance to get back to work rebuilding America. Why wouldn't we
want that to happen? Why would you vote against that? The proposals in this bill are
not just random investments to create make-work jobs. They are steps we have to take
if we want to build an economy that lasts, if we want to be
able to compete with other countries for jobs that
restore a sense of security to middle-class families. And to do that, we've got to
have the most educated workers. We have to have the
best transportation and communications networks. We have to support
innovative small businesses. We've got to support
innovative manufacturers. Now, what's true is we've also
got to rein in our deficits and live within our means, which is
why this jobs bill is fully paid for by asking millionaires
and billionaires to pay their fair share. Some see this as class warfare. I see it as a simple choice: We
can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires
and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them
to have lower tax rates in some cases than plumbers
and teachers, or we can put teachers and
construction workers and veterans back on the job. We can fight to protect tax cuts
for folks who don't need them and weren't asking for them, or
we can cut taxes for virtually every worker and small
business in America. But we can't afford to do both. That's the choice that's
going to be before the Senate. There are too many people
hurting in this country for us to do nothing and the economy is
just too fragile for us to let politics get in
the way of action. We've got a responsibility to
the people who sent us here. So I hope every senator thinks
long and hard about what's at stake when they cast
their vote next week. With that, I will
take your questions, and I will start with Ben
Feller of Associated Press. The Press:
Thank you very
much, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about
two economic matters. Federal Reserve Chairman
Bernanke warned Congress this week that the economic recovery
is "close to faltering." Do you agree? And secondly, on your jobs bill,
the American people are sick of games -- and you mentioned
games in your comments. They want results. Wouldn't it be more productive
to work with Republicans on a plan that you know could pass
Congress as opposed to going around the country talking about
your bill and singling out -- calling out Republicans by name? The President:
Well, first of all, with respect
to the state of the economy, there is no doubt that
growth has slowed. I think people were much more
optimistic at the beginning of this year. But the combination
of a Japanese tsunami, the Arab Spring, which
drove up gas prices, and most prominently Europe I
think has gotten businesses and consumers very nervous. And we did not help here in
Washington with the debt ceiling debacle that took place, a
bit of game-playing that was completely unnecessary,
completely unprecedented in terms of how we dealt
with our responsibilities here in Washington. You combine all that -- there
is no doubt that the economy is weaker now than it was at
the beginning of the year. And every independent economist
who has looked at this question carefully believes that for us
to make sure that we are taking out an insurance policy against
a possible double-dip recession, it is important for us to
make sure that we are boosting consumer confidence, putting
money into their pockets, cutting taxes where we
can for small businesses, and that it makes sense for us
to put people back to work doing the work that needs to be done. That's exactly what
this jobs bill does. Now, with respect to
working with Congress, I think it's fair to say that I
have gone out of my way in every instance, sometimes at my own
political peril and to the frustration of Democrats, to
work with Republicans to find common ground to move this
country forward -- in every instance, whether it was
during the lame duck session, when we were able to get an
agreement on making sure that the payroll tax was
cut in the first place, and making sure that
unemployment insurance was extended, to my constant efforts
during the debt ceiling to try to get what's been
called a grand bargain, in which we had a balanced
approach to actually bringing down our deficit and debt
in a way that wouldn't hurt our recovery. Each time, what we've
seen is games-playing, a preference to try to score
political points rather than actually get something done
on the part of the other side. And that has been true not
just over the last six months; that's been true over the
last two and a half years. Now, the bottom line is
this: Our doors are open. And what I've done over the
last several weeks is to take the case to the American
people so that they understand what's at stake. It is now up to
all the senators, and hopefully all the
members of the House, to explain to their
constituencies why they would be opposed to common-sense ideas
that historically have been supported by Democrats and
Republicans in the past. Why would you be opposed to tax
cuts for small businesses and tax cuts for American workers? My understanding is that
for the last decade, they've been saying we need
to lower taxes for folks. Well, why wouldn't we want to
do that through this jobs bill? We know that we've got roads and
bridges and schools that need to be rebuilt. And historically, Republicans
haven't been opposed to rebuilding roads and bridges. Why would you be opposed now? We know that the biggest problem
that we've had in terms of unemployment over the last
several months has not been in the private sector; it's
actually been layoffs of teachers and cops
and firefighters. We created over 2 million jobs
in the private sector -- a million jobs this year
alone in the private sector, but in the public sector, we
keep on seeing these layoffs having an adverse effect
on economies in states all across the country. Why wouldn't we want to make
sure that those teachers are in the classroom teaching our kids? So here's the bottom line: My
expectation and hope is that everybody will vote for this
jobs bill because it reflects those ideas that traditionally
have been supported by both Democrats and Republicans. If it turns out that there are
Republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain
to me -- but more importantly, to their constituencies and the
American people -- why they're opposed and what would they do. We know that this jobs bill,
based on independent analysis, could grow the economy almost
an additional 2 percent. That could mean an
additional 1.9 million jobs. Do they have a plan that
would have a similar impact? Because if they do,
I'm happy to hear it. But I haven't heard them offer
alternatives that would have that same kind of impact, and
that's what we need right now. A lot of the problems that this
economy is facing are problems that predate the financial
crisis -- middle-class families seeing their wages and
their incomes flat, despite rising costs for
everything from health care to a college education. And so folks have been
struggling not just for the last three years; they've
been struggling for over a decade now. And at a time when so many
people are having such a hard time, we have to
have an approach, we have to take action, that is
big enough to meet the moment. And what I've heard from
Republicans is, well, we're agreeing to do
these trade bills. That's great. I'm in favor of those trade
bills and I'm glad they're passing, but that's not going to
do enough to deal with the huge problems we have right now
with respect to unemployment. We passed patent legislation. That was bipartisan work. I'm thrilled that we were
able to get Republicans and Democrats to work
together on that. But that is a long-term issue
for our economic competitiveness. It's not putting Americans
to work right now. So the bottom line is this,
Ben: If next week senators have additional ideas that will put
people back to work right now and meet the challenges
of the current economy, we are happy to consider them. But every idea that we
put forward are ones that traditionally have been
supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. And I think it's important
for us to have a vote on those ideas, because I believe
that it's very hard to argue against them. And if Mr. McConnell
chooses to vote against it, or if members of his caucus
choose to vote against it, I promise you we're
going to keep on going, and we will put forward maybe
piece by piece each component of the bill. And each time they're going to
have to explain why it is that they'd be opposed to putting
teachers back in the classroom, or rebuilding our schools, or
giving tax cuts to middle-class folks, and giving tax
cuts to small businesses. The Press:
Do you think the recovery
is close to faltering? The President:
I think that if we
don't take action, then we could end up having more
significant problems than we have right now. And some of it is
just simple math. The payroll tax cut that
we passed is set to expire. The jobs plan includes
an extension of the payroll tax cut. Now, if that is not extended
then that is over $1,000 out of the pockets of the average
American family at a time when they're already
feeling a severe pinch. That means they're going
to be spending less. That means businesses are
going to have less customers. And that's going to have an
adverse effect on an economy that is already weaker
than it should be. Okay. Chuck Todd. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. Before I get to my question, do
we assume by how you're talking about the bill in the Senate
that you are okay with the change in how to pay for it, the
surtax -- the 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires? The President:
We've always said that we would
be open to a variety of ways to pay for it. We put forward what we thought
was a solid approach to paying for the jobs bill itself. Keep in mind, though, that what
I've always said is that not only do we have to
pay for the jobs bill, but we also still have to do
more in order to reduce the debt and deficit. So the approach that the Senate
is taking I'm comfortable with in order to deal
with the jobs bill. We're still going to need to
reform this tax code to make sure that we're
closing loopholes, closing special
interest tax breaks, making sure that the
very simple principle, what we call the Buffett rule,
which is that millionaires and billionaires aren't paying
lower tax rates than ordinary families, that that's in place. So there's going to be more work
to do with respect to making our tax system fair and just
and promoting growth. But in terms of the immediate
action of getting this jobs bill passed, I'm fine with the
approach that they're taking. The Press:
My question has to do with
your powers of persuasion. During the debt ceiling debate,
you asked for the American public to call members of
Congress and switchboards got jammed. You have done a similar thing
while going around the country doing this. Talking to members of Congress,
there's not the same reaction; you're not seeing -- hearing
about phones being jammed. Talking to one
member of Congress, he told me there's a
disillusionment he's concerned about with the public that maybe
they just don't believe anything can get done anyway. Are you worried about your
own powers of persuasion, and maybe that the American
public is not listening to you anymore? The President:
Well, no. What we've seen is the
American people respond very enthusiastically to the specific
provisions of the jobs bill. They are very skeptical about
Congress's ability to act right now, and that's understandable. The American people
are very frustrated. They've been frustrated
for a long time. They don't get a sense that
folks in this town are looking out for their interests. They get a sense that folks in
this town are thinking about their own jobs, their own
careers, their own advancement, their party interests. And so if the
question is, Chuck, are people feeling cynical and
frustrated about the prospects of positive action in
this city -- absolutely. And I can go out there
and make speeches, but until they
actually see action, some of that cynicism
is going to be there. As you said, during the
debt ceiling debate, a very solid majority -- I
think maybe even higher than 70 percent -- agreed with the
approach that I talked about, which was we should have
a balanced approach to deficit reduction. And what the American people saw
is that Congress didn't care -- not just what I thought; they
didn't care about what the American people thought. They had their own agenda. And so if they see that
over and over again, that cynicism is not going to be
reduced until Congress actually proves their cynicism wrong
by doing something that would actually help the
American people. This is a great
opportunity to do it. This is a great
opportunity to do it. And keep in mind, if the
American jobs bill passes, we're still going
to have challenges. We're still going to have to
make sure that we've got the best education
system in the world, because that is going to be
critical for our long-term competitiveness and creating
good, solid middle-class jobs. We're still going to have
to keep investing in basic research and science. We're still going to have to
make sure that we do even more on infrastructure. I mean, what's contained in the
American jobs bill doesn't cover all the roads and bridges and
infrastructure that needs to be improved around the country. So it's not as if that's going
to solve all our problems, but it is an important start
that we know would end up growing the economy and
putting hundreds of thousands, millions of people back
to work at a time when they need it the most. And it's paid for. The one persuasive argument that
the Republicans previously had made against a bill like this
is the deficit is growing -- we can't afford it. Well, we can afford it, if we're
willing to ask people like me to do a little bit more in taxes. We can afford it without
affecting our deficit. Our proposal is paid for. So that can't be the excuse. And so, yes, until they see
Congress actually putting country ahead of party
politics and partisanship, they're going to be skeptical. And it doesn't matter how
many times I preach to them, this is not a reflection of
their lack of faith in the American jobs bill. They haven't seen Congress
able to come together and act. This is a good
opportunity, though. The Press:
-- disillusionment? The President:
What we've seen is, is
that they agree with what we've put forward. Now, here's what I'll also
say, is that based on the debt ceiling vote, what they've
seen is that the Republicans in Congress, even when the
American people agree with me, oftentimes will vote against
something I'm proposing. So there may be some skepticism
that I personally can persuade Republicans to take actions
in the interest of the American people. But that's exactly why I need
the American people to try to put some pressure on them. Because I think, justifiably,
what they've seen is that oftentimes -- even ideas
that used to be supported by Republicans, if
I'm proposing them, suddenly Republicans forget
it and they decide they're against it. Jackie. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. As you travel the country, you
also take credit for tightening regulations on Wall Street
through the Dodd-Frank law, and about your efforts to
combat income inequality. There's this movement -- Occupy
Wall Street -- which has spread from Wall Street
to other cities. They clearly don't think that
you or Republicans have done enough, that you're in
fact part of the problem. Are you following this movement,
and what would you say to its -- people that are attracted to it? The President:
Obviously I've heard of it. I've seen it on television. I think it expresses the
frustrations that the American people feel -- that we had the
biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge
collateral damage all throughout the country, all
across Main Street, and yet you're still seeing
some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight
efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this
problem in the first place. So, yes, I think
people are frustrated, and the protestors are giving
voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our
financial system works. Now, keep in mind I have said
before and I will continue to repeat, we have
to have a strong, effective financial sector
in order for us to grow. And I used up a lot
of political capital, and I've got the dings
and bruises to prove it, in order to make sure that we
prevented a financial meltdown, and that banks stayed afloat. And that was the
right thing to do, because had we seen a financial
collapse then the damage to the American economy would
have been even worse. But what I've also said is
that for us to have a healthy financial system, that requires
that banks and other financial institutions compete on the
basis of the best service and the best products
and the best price, and it can't be competing
on the basis of hidden fees, deceptive practices, or
derivative cocktails that nobody understands and that
expose the entire economy to enormous risks. That's what Dodd-Frank
was designed to do. It was designed to make
sure that we didn't have the necessity of taxpayer bailouts;
that we said, you know what? We're going to be able to
control these situations so that if these guys get into
trouble, we can isolate them, quarantine them,
and let them fail. It says that we're going to have
a consumer watchdog on the job, all the time, who's going to
make sure that they are dealing with customers in a fair way,
and we're eliminating hidden fees on credit cards, and
mortgage brokers are going to have to -- actually have to be
straight with people about what they're purchasing. And what we've seen over the
last year is not only did the financial sector -- with the
Republican Party in Congress -- fight us every inch of the way,
but now you've got these same folks suggesting that we should
roll back all those reforms and go back to the way it
was before the crisis. Today, my understanding is
we're going to have a hearing on Richard Cordray, who is my
nominee to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He would be America's chief
consumer watchdog when it comes to financial products. This is a guy who is well
regarded in his home state of Ohio, has been the
treasurer of Ohio, the attorney general of Ohio. Republicans and Democrats
in Ohio all say that he is a serious person who
looks out for consumers. He has a good reputation. And Republicans have threatened
not to confirm him not because of anything he's done, but
because they want to roll back the whole notion of
having a consumer watchdog. You've got Republican
presidential candidates whose main economic
policy proposals is, we'll get rid of the financial
reforms that are designed to prevent the abuses that
got us into this mess in the first place. That does not make sense
to the American people. They are frustrated by it. And they will continue to be
frustrated by it until they get a sense that everybody is
playing by the same set of rules, and that you're rewarded
for responsibility and doing the right thing as opposed
to gaining the system. So I'm going to be fighting
every inch of the way here in Washington to make sure that we
have a consumer watchdog that is preventing abusive practices
by the financial sector. I will be hugely supportive of
banks and financial institutions that are doing the right
thing by their customers. We need them to be lending. We need them to be lending
more to small businesses. We need them to help do
what traditionally banks and financial services are
supposed to be doing, which is providing business
and families resources to make productive investments that
will actually build the economy. But until the American people
see that happening, yes, they are going to continue to
express frustrations about what they see as two sets of rules. The Press:
Do you think Occupy Wall Street
has the potential to be a tea party movement in 2012? The President:
What I think is that the
American people understand that not everybody has
been following the rules; that Wall Street is
an example of that; that folks who are working hard
every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal
to their companies, that that used to be the
essence of the American Dream. That's how you got ahead
-- the old-fashioned way. And these days, a lot of folks
who are doing the right thing aren't rewarded, and a lot of
folks who aren't doing the right thing are rewarded. And that's going to express
itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like
once again we're getting back to some old-fashioned
American values in which, if you're a banker, then you
are making your money by making prudent loans to businesses and
individuals to build plants and equipment and hire workers that
are creating goods and products that are building the economy
and benefitting everybody. Jake Tapper. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. Just to follow up on Jackie's
question -- one of the reasons why so many of the people of the
Occupy Wall Street protests are so angry is because, as you say,
so many people on Wall Street did not follow the rules, but
your administration hasn't really been very
aggressive in prosecuting. In fact, I don't think any Wall
Street executives have gone to jail despite the rampant
corruption and malfeasance that did take place. So I was wondering if
you'd comment on that. And then just as a separate
question -- as you're watching the Solyndra and Fast and
Furious controversies play out, I'm wondering if it gives you
any pause about any of the decision-making going on in your
administration -- some of the emails that Democrats puts out
indicating that people at the Office of Management and
Budget were concerned about the Department of Energy; some
of the emails going on with the Attorney General saying he
didn't know about the details of Fast and Furious. Are you worried at all about
how this is -- how your administration is running? The President:
Well, first on the issue of
prosecutions on Wall Street, one of the biggest problems
about the collapse of Lehmans and the subsequent financial
crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of
that stuff wasn't necessarily illegal, it was just immoral
or inappropriate or reckless. That's exactly why we
needed to pass Dodd-Frank, to prohibit some
of these practices. The financial sector is very
creative and they are always looking for ways to make money. That's their job. And if there are loopholes
and rules that can be bent and arbitrage to be had, they
will take advantage of it. So without commenting on
particular prosecutions -- obviously that's not my job;
that's the Attorney General's job -- I think part of
people's frustrations, part of my frustration, was a
lot of practices that should not have been allowed weren't
necessarily against the law, but they had a huge
destructive impact. And that's why it was important
for us to put in place financial rules that protect the
American people from reckless decision-making and
irresponsible behavior. Now, with respect to Solyndra
and Fast and Furious, I think I've been very clear
that I have complete confidence in Attorney General Holder
in how he handles his office. He has been very aggressive in
going after gunrunning and cash transactions that are going
to these transnational drug cartels in Mexico. There has been a lot of
cooperation between the United States and Mexico on this front. He's indicated that he was not
aware of what was happening in Fast and Furious;
certainly I was not. And I think both he and I
would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns
were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented
by the United States of America. He has assigned an Inspector
General to look into how exactly this happened, and I have
complete confidence in him and I've got complete confidence in
the process to figure out who, in fact, was responsible
for that decision and how it got made. Solyndra -- this is a loan
guarantee program that predates me that historically has had
support from Democrats and Republicans as well. And the idea is pretty
straightforward: If we are going to be able to
compete in the 21st century, then we've got to dominate
cutting-edge technologies, we've got to dominate
cutting-edge manufacturing. Clean energy is part of that
package of technologies of the future that have to be based
here in the United States if we're going to be
able to succeed. Now, the loan guarantee program
is designed to meet a particular need in the marketplace, which
is -- a lot of these small startups, they can
get angel investors, they can get several million
dollars to get a company going, but it's very hard for
them to then scale up, particularly if these are new
cutting-edge technologies. It's hard for them to
find private investors. And part of what's happening
is China and Europe, other countries, are putting
enormous subsidies into these companies and giving them
incentives to move offshore. Even if the technology was
developed in the United States, they end up going to China
because the Chinese government will say; we're going
to help you get started. We'll help you scale up. We'll give you low-interest
loans or no-interest loans. We will give siting. We will do whatever it takes
for you to get started here. And that's part of the reason
why a lot of technologies that developed here, we've now lost
the lead in -- solar energy, wind energy. And so what the loan guarantee
program was designed to do was to close that gap and say, let's
see if we can help some of those folks locate here and create
jobs here in the United States. Now, we knew from the start that
the loan guarantee program was going to entail some
risk, by definition. If it was a risk-free
proposition, then we wouldn't have
to worry about it. But the overall portfolio
has been successful. It has allowed us to help
companies, for example, start advanced battery
manufacturing here in the United States. It's helped create jobs. There were going to be some
companies that did not work out; Solyndra was one of them. But the process by which
the decision was made was on the merits. It was straightforward. And of course there were going
to be debates internally when you're dealing with something
as complicated as this. But I have confidence that the
decisions were made based on what would be good for the
American economy and the American people and putting
people back to work. And by the way, let me make
one last point about this. I heard there was a Republican
member of Congress who's engaging in oversight on this,
and despite the fact that all of them in the past have
been supportive of this loan guarantee program, he
concluded, you know what? We can't compete against China
when it comes to solar energy. Well, you know what? I don't buy that. I'm not going to surrender to
other countries' technological leads that could end up
determining whether or not we're building a strong middle
class in this country. And so we're going to have to
keep on pushing hard to make sure that manufacturing
is located here, new businesses are located
here, and new technologies are developed here. And there are going to be times
where it doesn't work out, but I'm not going to cave to
the competition when they are heavily subsidizing
all these industries. The Press:
Just a follow-up on Wall Street. Are you satisfied with how
aggressive your administration has been when it
comes to prosecuting? Because I know a lot of it was
legal, but a lot of was not. There was fraud that took place. The President:
Right. Well, let me say this:
The President can't go around saying, prosecute somebody. But as a general principle,
if somebody is engaged in fraudulent actions, they
need to be prosecuted. If they violated
laws on the books, they need to be prosecuted. And that's the
Attorney General's job, and I know that
Attorney General Holder, U.S. attorneys all
across the country, they take that job
very seriously. Okay? Hans. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. You just spoke of the need
for banks to start lending, you talked earlier about how
creative they can be in chasing profit, and yet earlier in the
week you said that banks "don't have some inherent
right to just, you know, get a certain amount of profit." You also said in that interview
that you can stop them. How do you plan on stopping
them from charging this $5 fee, or whatever the fee is? And do you think that your
government has a right to dictate how much profits
American companies make? The President:
I absolutely do not think that. I was trying to make
a broader point, which is that people have been
using financial regulation as an excuse to charge consumers more. Right? I mean, basically the argument
they've made is, well, you know what, this hidden fee
was prohibited and so we'll find another fee to make up for it. Now, they have that right,
but it's not a good practice. It's not necessarily
fair to consumers. And my main goal is to make
sure that we've got a consumer watchdog in place who is
letting consumers know what fair practices are, making sure that
transactions are transparent and making sure that banks have to
compete for customers based on the quality of their
service and good prices. Now, the frustrating thing that
we have right now is that you've got folks over in
Congress, Republicans, who have said that they see
their role as eliminating any prohibitions on any practices
for financial companies. And I think that's part of the
frustration that the American people feel, because they've
just gone through a period in which they were seeing
a bunch of hidden fees, rate hikes that they
didn't know about, fine print that they
could not understand. That's true for credit cards. That's true for mortgages. It contributed to overall
weakness in the economy. And, yes, I think it is entirely
appropriate for the government to have some oversight role
to make sure that consumers are protected. So banks -- and any business
in America -- can price their products any way they want. That's how the
free market works. As long as there's transparency
and accountability, and consumers understand what
they're getting -- and there are going to be instances where a
policy judgment is made that, you know what, there are certain
practices that just aren't fair. And that's how the market
has always operated. The Press:
So is it your understanding the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can't actually prevent
the debit card fees from going in place, like the
ones that are being -- The President:
I think that what the Consumer
Finance Protection Bureau could do is to make sure that
consumers understood exactly what they were getting,
exactly what was happening. And I think that Congress could
make determinations with respect to whether or not a certain
practice was fair or not. David Nakamura. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. Just following up on Jake's
question about Solyndra -- the loan program, guaranteed loan
program that you talked about was giving out $38 billion
in guaranteed loans, and promised to save or create
65,000 jobs, green jobs, in clean energy. And there's been reports
that actually only 3,500 new jobs have been
created in that industry. Why has that industry been
so slow to respond to the investment that your
administration has provided? And what do you see
going forward as to how it will respond? The President:
Well, I think that what has
been true historically is that businesses that rely
on new technologies, a lot of times it's going
to take a while before they get takeoff. And there are a lot of upfront
investments that have to be made in research and
capital and so forth, a lot of barriers for companies
that are trying to break in. Keep in mind that clean energy
companies are competing against traditional energy companies. And traditional energy is
still cheaper in a lot of ways. The problem is, is it's
running out, it's polluting, and we know that demand is going
to keep on increasing so that if we don't prepare now,
if we don't invest now, if we don't get on top
of technologies now, we're going to be facing 20
years from now a China that -- and India having a billion
new drivers on the road; the trendlines in terms of
oil prices, coal, et cetera, going up; the impact on
the planet increasing. And we're not just going to be
able to start when all heck is breaking loose and say,
boy, we better find some new energy sources. So in the meantime, we've got
to make these investments, but that makes it more
difficult for a lot of these companies to succeed. What's also a
problem, as I said, is that other countries are
subsidizing these industries much more aggressively than we
are -- hundreds of billions of dollars the Chinese government
is pouring into the clean energy sector, partly because they're
projecting what's going to happen 10 or 20 years from now. So, look, I have confidence in
American businesses and American technology, and American
scientists and entrepreneurs being able to win
that competition. We are not going to be
duplicating the kind of system that they have in China where
they are basically state-run banks giving money to
state-run companies, and ignoring losses and
ignoring bad management. But there is a role to play
for us to make sure that these companies can at least
have a fighting shot. And it does mean that there are
going to be some that aren't successful, and it's going to
be an uphill climb for some. And obviously it's very
difficult for all companies right now to succeed when
the economy is as soft and as weak as it. The Press:
There have been reports with
Solyndra in particular that investors warned your
administration that the government -- that loan of
$500 million in that company might not be a wise use
of taxpayers' money. In retrospect, do you think your
administration was so eager for Solyndra to succeed that
it missed some of the critical warnings? The President:
I will tell you that even for
those projects under this loan guarantee program that have
ended up being successful, there are those in
the marketplace who have been doubtful. So, I mean, there's always going
to be a debate about whether this particular approach to this
particular technology is going to be successful or not. And all I can say is that the
Department of Energy made these decisions based on their
best judgment about what would make sense. And the nature of these programs
are going to be ones in which for every success there
may be one that does not work out as well. But that's exactly what the loan
guarantee program was designed by Congress to do, was to take
bets on these areas where we need to make sure that
we're maintaining our lead. Bill Plante. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. Anybody on Capitol Hill will say
that there's no chance that the American Jobs Act,
in its current state, passes either House. And you've been out on the
campaign trail banging away at them saying, pass this bill. And it begins, sir, to look
like you're campaigning, and like you're following the
Harry Truman model against the do-nothing Congress
instead of negotiating. Are you negotiating? Will you? The President:
I am always open
to negotiations. What is also true is they
need to do something. I'm not -- look, Bill, I think
it is very clear that if members of Congress come in
and say, all right, we want to build infrastructure
-- here's the way we think we can do it. We want to put construction
workers back to work; we've got some ideas -- I am
ready, eager, to work with them. They say, we've got this great
idea for putting teachers back in the classroom; it's a little
different than what you've proposed in the jobs bill. I'm ready, eager,
to work with them. But that's not what
we're hearing right now. What we're hearing is
that their big ideas, the ones that make sense,
are ones we're already doing. They've given me
a list of, well, here's the Republican job
creation ideas: Let's pass free trade agreements. It's great that we're passing
these free trade agreements. We put them forward; I
expect bipartisan support. I think it's going to be good
for the American economy. But it's not going to meet
the challenge of 9 percent unemployment, or an economy
that is currently weakening. It's not enough. Patent reform: very
important for our long-term competitiveness. There's nobody out there who
actually thinks that that's going to immediately fill the
needs of people who are out of work, or strengthen
the economy right now. So what I've tried to do is
say, here are the best ideas I've heard. Not just from partisans, but
from independent economists. These are the ideas most
likely to create jobs now and strengthen the
economy right now. And that's what the American
people are looking for. And the response from
Republicans has been: No. Although they haven't given a
good reason why they're opposed to putting construction
workers back on the job, or teachers back
in the classroom. If you ask them, well, okay,
if you're not for that, what are you for? Trade has already been done;
patent reform has been done. What else? The answer we're getting
right now is, well, we're going to roll back
all these Obama regulations. So their big economic plan to
put people back to work right now is to roll back financial
protections and allow banks to charge hidden fees on credit
cards again or weaken consumer watchdogs, or alternatively
they've said we'll roll back regulations that make sure we've
got clean air and clean water, eliminate the EPA. Does anybody really think that
that is going to create jobs right now and meet the
challenges of a global economy that are -- that is weakening
with all these forces coming into play? I mean, here is a good question,
here's a little homework assignment for folks: Go ask the
Republicans what their jobs plan is if they're opposed to
the American Jobs Act, and have it scored, have it
assessed by the same independent economists that have
assessed our jobs plan. These independent economists say
that we could grow the economy as much as 2 percent, and as
many as 1.9 million workers would be back on the job. I think it would be interesting
to have them do a similar assessment -- same people. Some of these folks, by the way,
traditionally have worked for Republicans, not just Democrats. Have those economists evaluate
what, over the next two years, the Republican
jobs plan would do. I'll be interested
in the answer. I think everybody here -- I
see some smirks in the audience because you know that it's
not going to be real robust. And so, Bill, the
question, then, is, will Congress do something? If Congress does something,
then I can't run against a do-nothing Congress. If Congress does nothing, then
it's not a matter of me running against them; I think the
American people will run them out of town, because
they are frustrated, and they know we need
to do something big and something bold. Now, the American people are
also concerned about making sure that we have a government
that lives within its means, which is why I put forward a
plan that would also reduce our deficit and our debt in a more
aggressive way than what the special committee has
been charged with. Folks want to talk about
corporate tax reform. I've already said I'm happy to
engage with them on corporate tax reform. I'm happy to engage with them,
working to see what we can do to streamline and
simplify our tax code, eliminate all the loopholes,
eliminate these special interest carveouts and potentially lower
rates in the process while raising more revenue. I am happy to negotiate with
them on a whole host of issues, but right now we've
got an emergency. And the American people are
living that emergency out every single day and they
have been for a long time. They are working really hard. And if they're not on the job,
then they're working really hard to find a job. And they're losing their homes
and their kids are having to drop out of school because they
can't afford student loans. And they're putting off visiting
a doctor because when they lost their job they lost
their health insurance. They are struggling. And as a consequence, by the
way, all of us are struggling, even those who are well off. The irony is the same folks
that the Republicans claim to be protecting, the well off
-- the millionaires and the billionaires -- they'd
be doing better, they'd be making more money
if ordinary Americans had some money in their pockets and were
out there feeling more confident about the economy. That's been the lesson of our
history -- when folks in the middle and at the
bottom are doing well, the folks at the
top do even better. The Press:
Is this kind of public pressure
the only leverage you have, sir? The President:
Look, we have a democracy. And right now, John Boehner is
the Speaker of the House and Mitch McConnell is
the Republican Leader. And all I can do is make the
best arguments and mobilize the American people so
that they're responsive. So far they haven't been
responsive to not just me but public opinion. We saw that during
the debt ceiling vote. But we're just going to
keep on making the case. But I guess what I'm
saying, though, here, Bill, is -- and I said this when I
made my speech at the joint session -- the election
is 13, 14 months away. I would love nothing more than
to not have to be out there campaigning because we were
seeing constructive action here in Congress. That's my goal. That's what I'm looking for. But I'm also dealing with a
Republican Majority Leader who said that his number-one goal
was to beat me -- not put Americans back to work,
not grow the economy, not help small businesses
expand, but to defeat me. And he's been saying that
now for a couple of years. So, yes, I've got to go out and
enlist the American people to see if maybe he'll
listen to them if he's not listening to me. Matt Spetalnick. Where's Matt? The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. One question on the economy
and one on foreign policy. First of all, the Senate has
taken up today a bill aimed at pressuring China to
let its currency rise. What's your position
on that bill? Would you veto or sign it,
should it hit your desk? On the foreign policy front, do
you agree with Admiral Mullen's accusation that Pakistan's
intelligence agency has used the Haqqani network
as a virtual arm? And what, if any, consequences
up to and including a cut-off of aid would you be
willing to consider? The President:
Obviously we've been seeing a
remarkable transformation of China over the last two decades,
and it's helped to lift millions of people out of
poverty in China. We have stabilized our
relationship with China in a healthy way. But what is also true is that
China has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system
to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries,
particularly the United States. And I have said that publicly,
but I've also said it privately to Chinese leaders. And currency manipulation
is one example of it, or at least intervening in the
currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be
valued lower than the market would normally dictate. And that makes their
exports cheaper, and that makes our exports
to them more expensive. So we've seen some improvement,
some slight appreciation over the last year, but
it's not enough. It's not just currency, though. We've also seen, for example,
intellectual property, technologies that
were created by U.S. companies with a
lot of investment, a lot of upfront capital,
taken, not protected properly by Chinese firms. And we've pushed China
on that issue as well. Ultimately, I think that you
can have a win-win trading relationship with China. I'm very pleased that we're
going to be able to potentially get a trade deal
with South Korea. But I believe what I think
most Americans believe, which is trade is great as long
as everybody is playing by the same rules. Now, the legislation that is
being presented in Congress is an effort to get at that. My main concern -- and I've
expressed this to Senator Schumer -- is whatever
tools we put in place, let's make sure that these are
tools that can actually work, that they're consistent
with our international treaties and obligations. I don't want a situation where
we're just passing laws that are symbolic knowing that they're
probably not going to be upheld by the World Trade
Organization, for example, and then suddenly U.S.
companies are subject to a whole bunch of sanctions. We've got a -- I think we've
got a strong case to make, but we've just got to make sure
that we do it in a way that's going to be effective. Last point is, my administration
has actually been more aggressive than any in recent
years in going after some of these practices. We've brought very aggressive
enforcement actions against China for violations in
the tire case, for example, where it's been upheld by the
World Trade Organization that they were engaging in
unfair trading practices. And that's given companies
here in the United States a lot of relief. So my overall goal is,
I believe U.S. companies, U.S. workers, we can compete
with anybody in the world. I think we can make
the best products. And a huge part of us
winning the future, a huge part of rebuilding this
economy on a firm basis that's not just reliant on maxed-out
credit cards and a housing bubble and financial
speculation, but is dependent on us making
things and selling things -- I am absolutely confident that
we can win that competition. But in order to do it, we've
got to make sure that we're aggressive in looking out
for the interests of American workers and American businesses,
and that everybody is playing by the same rules, and that
we're not getting cheated in the process. The Press:
Is China (inaudible)? The President:
That is a -- that is a term of
art, so the Treasury Secretary, I've got to be careful
here -- it's his job to make those decisions. But it's indisputable that
they intervene heavily in the currency markets, and that
the RMB, their currency, is lower than it probably would
be if they weren't making all those purchases in the currency
markets to keep the RMB lower. With respect to Pakistan, I have
said that my number-one goal is to make sure that al Qaeda
cannot attack the U.S. homeland and cannot affect U.S.
interests around the world. And we have done an outstanding
job, I think, in going after, directly, al Qaeda in this
border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We could not have been as
successful as we have been without the cooperation of
the Pakistan government. And so, on a whole range
of issues they have been an effective partner with us. What is also true is that our
goal of being able to transition out of Afghanistan and leave a
stable government behind -- one that is independent, one that
is respectful of human rights, one that is democratic --
that Pakistan, I think, has been more ambivalent
about some of our goals there. And I think that they
have hedged their bets, in terms of what
Afghanistan would look like. And part of hedging their bets
is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters
who they think might end up regaining power in
Afghanistan after coalition forces have left. What we've tried to persuade
Pakistan of is that it is in their interest to have
a stable Afghanistan; that they should not be
feeling threatened by a stable, independent Afghanistan. We've tried to get conversations
between Afghans and Pakistans going more effectively than
they have been in the past, but we've still got
more work to do. And there is no doubt that there
is some connections that the Pakistani military and
intelligence services have with certain individuals
that we find troubling. And I've said that publicly,
and I've said it privately to Pakistani officials as well. They see their security
interests threatened by an independent Afghanistan in part
because they think it will ally itself to India, and Pakistan
still considers India their mortal enemy. Part of what we want to do is
actually get Pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach towards
India would be in everybody's interests, and would help
Pakistan actually develop, because one of the biggest
problems we have in Pakistan right now is
poverty, illiteracy, a lack of development, civil
institutions that aren't strong enough to deliver for
the Pakistani people. And in that environment
you've seen extremism grow. You've seen militancy grow
that doesn't just threaten our efforts in Afghanistan but
also threatens the Pakistani government and the
Pakistani people as well. So trying to get that
reorientation is something that we're continuing to
work on; it's not easy. The Press:
I'm sorry, sir -- consequences
of being (inaudible)? The President:
We will constantly evaluate our
relationship with Pakistan based on, is, overall, this
helping to protect Americans and our interests. We have a great desire to help
the Pakistani people strengthen their own society and
their own government. And so I'd be hesitant to
punish aid for flood victims in Pakistan because of
poor decisions by their intelligence services. But there is no doubt that we're
not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic
relationship with Pakistan if we don't think that they're
mindful of our interest as well. I'll make this
the last question. Aamer Madhani. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. The President:
Caught you by surprise, huh? (laughter) The Press:
You did. What should European leaders
do to resolve the sovereign debt crisis going forward? And second, how risky is
this continued situation to the U.S. economy? And finally, do you feel that
the European leaders have been negligent in pushing
austerity too soon? The President:
Those are good questions. The biggest headwind the
American economy is facing right now is uncertainty about
Europe, because it's affecting global markets. The slowdown that we're seeing
is not just happening here in the United States, it's
happening everywhere. Even in some of the
emerging markets like China, you're seeing greater caution,
less investment, deep concern. In some ways, as frustrating as
the financial sector has been here in the United States
after the Lehmans collapse, the aggressive actions that were
taken right after Lehmans did help us to strengthen the
financial sector and the banking sector in ways that Europe
did not fully go through. And uncertainty around Greece
and their ability to pay their debts runs on -- in the capital
markets -- on the debt that many of these southern European
countries have been facing, as well as Ireland and Portugal. All that has put severe strain
on the world financial system. I speak frequently with
Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy; they are mindful
of these challenges. I think they want to act to
prevent a sovereign debt crisis from spinning out of control,
or seeing the potential breakup of the euro. I think they're very committed
to the European project. But their politics is
tough because, essentially, they've got to get agreement
with not only their own parliaments; they've got to get
agreement with 20 parliaments, or 24 parliaments,
or 27 parliaments. And engineering that kind
of coordinated action is very difficult. But what I've been seeing over
the last month is a recognition by European leaders of the
urgency of the situation. And nobody is obviously going to
be affected more than they will be if the situation there
spins out of control. So I'm confident that they
want to get this done. I think there are some technical
issues that they're working on in terms of how they get a big
enough -- how do they get enough firepower to let the markets
know that they're going to be standing behind euro members
who may be in a weaker position. But they've got to act fast. And we've got a G20 meeting
coming up in November. My strong hope is that by
the time of that G20 meeting, that they have a very clear,
concrete plan of action that is sufficient to the task. It will have an effect -- it's
already having an effect here in the United States; it will
continue to have an effect on our economy because the world is
now interconnected in ways that it's never been before. And that's one of the biggest
challenges that we have post-2008, after this
financial crisis, is that America has
always been -- well, over the last 20 years --
has been the engine for world economic growth. We were the purchasers
of last resort, we were the importers
of last resort, we would stimulate our economies
and our American consumers would buy stuff around the world. And so if they got into
trouble, they could always say, well we're going
to sell to the U.S. Well, we're now going through
a situation where families are cutting back and trying
to reduce their debts; businesses are more cautious. And the U.S. government
obviously has its own fiscal challenges. I mean, we've got to make sure
that we're living within our means, although we've got to
do it gradually and not in ways that immediately affect
a fragile economy. So what that means is, Europe is
not going to be able to export its way out of this problem. They're going to have
to fix that problem. And part of the goal that I've
been trying to promote for the last two years and I'll repeat
at the G20 is more balanced economic growth worldwide. We've got to get into a
posture where the U.S. is always going to
be a big market, and we're going to welcome
goods from all around the world, but we've also got to be
selling goods around the world. We can't just be running up
our debt in order to help other folks' economies. We've got to have --
as not only families, our businesses and our
government -- we've got to make sure that we're being
prudent and we're producing here in the United States. And by the way, that's
what's going to create strong middle-class jobs here
in the United States. I think part of what's going
on for the country generally is this sense of, you know what, a
lot of that debt that had been built up prior to 2008, that
we were living on borrowed time because the underlying
fundamentals of the economy weren't as strong as
they needed to be. And that's why not only do we
have to put Americans back to work now, but we've also got to
keep on reforming our education system so it's producing the
highest-skilled graduates in the world. It's why we've got to keep on
investing in basic research and science. It's why we've got to make
sure that we're rebuilding our infrastructure. It's why we've got to have
a smarter energy policy, because that's a huge source of
us having to import from other countries instead of being able
to export to other countries. All those things are
going to be important, and all those things are
going to be challenging. They're going to be hard. But right now, we've got the
problem of putting people back to work. That's why Congress needs
to pass this jobs bill. And last point I'll make: If
Bill is right and everybody on Capitol Hill is cynical and
saying there's no way that the overall jobs bill passes
in its current form, we're just going to
keep on going at it. I want everybody to be clear. My intention is to insist
that each part of this, I want an explanation as to
why we shouldn't be doing it, each component part: putting
people back to work rebuilding our roads, putting teachers
back in the classroom, tax cuts for small businesses
and middle-class families, tax breaks for our veterans. We will just keep on going at
it and hammering away until something gets done. And I would love nothing more
than to see Congress act so aggressively that I can't
campaign against them as a do-nothing Congress. All right? Thank you very much, everybody.
