On Thursday, July 29, 2010, the President signed into law:

H.R. 4899, the “Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010,” which provides FY 2010 supplemental appropriations for ongoing military, diplomatic, and intelligence operations; support for individuals and communities responding to major disasters; maintenance of ongoing humanitarian work following the earthquake in Haiti; enabling the response to the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico;

H.R. 5610, the “Independent Living Centers Technical Adjustment Act,” which requires an adjustment in how funds for independent living centers under the Rehabilitation Act are allocated in certain States.
 

We are pleased that BP has taken action today to fulfill their commitment to the President and provide a voluntary contribution of $100 million to support unemployed oil rig workers.

2:30 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS:  Good afternoon.  Before we do our regularly scheduled programming, we have with us today to give a little report and to take some questions from you, given the President’s upcoming trips to both Detroit and Chicago to visit Chrysler, GM and Ford plants, today we have with us Ron Bloom, Senior Advisor to the Treasury Secretary for Automobiles; and celebrating his second to last day -- tomorrow is his last day -- and we will sorely miss him -- Ed Montgomery, who is head of the White House Council on Automotive Communities and Workers -- to talk a little bit about what the President will do tomorrow.

I'll just briefly outline -- as I said, the President will make two stops tomorrow in Detroit and Hamtramck, and then the following week in Chicago, to talk about the tough decisions that the President made well over a year ago as it related to our auto industry -- a decision that has since resulted in a restructured and turned around auto industry, one that is adding rather than shedding jobs, and a decision in and of itself that likely saved a million jobs and communities -- certainly saved communities from economic devastation.

So, with that, let me turn it first over to Ron.

MR. BLOOM:  Thank you.  So tomorrow’s visit, the President will begin at the Jefferson North plant of Chrysler, where they’re making the Jeep Grand Cherokee.  The company employs roughly 2,800 people.  It just added a second shift that increased its employment by about 1,100 jobs, to bring it to that 2,800.  The Jeep Grand Cherokee is being very well received in the marketplace.

The President will then travel to Hamtramck.  Around 1,100 people work there and that's the plant where General Motors will be making the Volt. 

So that's what tomorrow is.  And then early next week he'll be traveling to Ford’s Chicago plant, where they have agreed -- where they will be adding another shift, another 1,200 workers, importantly because of a Department of Energy loan.

It’s also worth remarking that today we're releasing a little report that does a bit of an update on the situation in the automobile industry.  I think it’s now available.  Just a couple of highlights from the report:  In the year before these bankruptcies, these companies lost almost 340,000 jobs.  In the year since then, 55,000 jobs have been added to these companies. As Robert pointed out, if we hadn’t stepped in when we did, most observers believe at least a million jobs would have been lost.

While there is still a long way to go, the report points out that the companies are also showing positive signs of financial performance.  In the first quarter, all of them made operating profits.  That's the first time that's happened since 2004.

Ford just reported its second quarter, $2.6 billion in profits.  General Motors announced that in their summer -- normal summer shutdown period, nine of their 11 factories needed to continue working to meet customer demand.  So we think there’s a lot of signs that, while slow, the industry is truly coming back.

We also would note in that regard that at the time of the -- when things began, the automobile supply industry, which, in fact, employs a lot more people than the Big Three themselves, was losing jobs at a great rate.  They were 54 supplier bankruptcies over the course of last year.  The supply base has now stabilized.  There are less than 10 percent of the companies who are in default of their covenants, so we think the supply base is also looking much more stable.

And then, finally, we point out the investments that the President made in the auto industry of the future -- in battery plants, in other high-mileage vehicles.  So we think we’re positioning the United States automobile industry to lead the world in the future.

MR. MONTGOMERY:  A little over a year ago, the President recognized that not only were the companies in trouble, but the communities who relied on this industry were going through distress, as well.  And so he created the Council on Auto Communities and Workers.  And we spent the past year both going out and listening to these communities and then trying to make sure that the resources of the federal government were deployed to help them.

They identified a couple of areas which were priority needs for them -- first, help the workforce.  And so the Department of Labor and the government has made some $50 million in national emergency grants available to help workers in Michigan, Ohio, California, Delaware and Missouri, in the auto sector.  On top of that another $75 million was made available particularly for auto community workers to help them transition to new jobs in the green economy as well as in medical and other high growth sectors.

The second area that they focused on was helping suppliers.  Obviously, Ron talked about some of the assistance we did to keep the supply base in place, but also to help suppliers think about how to diversify, how to get into new lines of business away from automobiles. 

We’ve worked with the Manufacturing Distinction Program and programs like the Ohio Economic Development to reach some 170 different suppliers in the auto sector, specifically in that state alone, to help them with diversification efforts. 

On top of that, investments like the Department of Energy’s 48c Advance Manufacturing Program allowed over $7 billion in capital to be made available to get people out of and into the new sectors of wind and solar and other advance manufacturing to allow these communities to have new opportunities going forward
-- some 180 projects have been funded through that.

And third, these people talked about the fact that these plants, these facilities that were in these communities, which had been a source of strength for them, were now going to be abandoned, many of them going to be abandoned.  And so, working with the Treasury, the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, the administration has put forward a plan that will make some $800 million in investments available to clean up these sites, as well as to engage in economic development kinds of activities.

An example of a kind of a site that will benefit from this fund is Buick City.  That was a huge facility in Flint, Michigan. It closed in 1999.  Nothing done on that site for almost a decade.  With the kinds of work that we've been able to do -- we've got the Environmental Protection Agency already worked out a plan to clean up the site, to put in place -- which they can put in place as soon as the money becomes available at the end of the year, and there’s hope that there’s actually going to be a new investor coming in, take over that site and create some jobs in that area. 

And so those kinds of investments were the kinds of things we've been doing over the course of the year, making sure that workers, suppliers, and the community benefit.

MR. GIBBS:  Any questions?

Q    Yes, Mr. Bloom, could you tell me, does the government see any hurdles to GM being able to go public?  And also, do you expect the government, in the IPO, that it will reduce its stake in GM to under 50 percent?

MR. BLOOM:  We stated previously that we are hopeful that General Motors will be able to go public this year.  We continue to be hopeful in that regard.  A public offering of this nature, or any public offering is very tightly regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so until the company files what’s called a registration statement, we're really not in a position to give any further information about what the offering might or might not look like.

If at some point in the future the company does file a registration statement, which as I said before, we're hopeful it will, then we'll be in a position to give some more information.

Q    Mr. Bloom and Mr. Montgomery, The Washington Post had a story this Sunday that talked about the unequal wage scale or disparate wage scale now as a result of the federal intervention -- some assembly line workers make $14 an hour, some make $28.  is that the new normal?  And is that something that, as this restructured and turned-around auto industry looks at the future a lower wage scale, one that does bring some concerns to those who are on the line now and are anticipating or trying to plan for their future -- is that the new normal in the American auto industry?

MR. BLOOM:  We're not -- I can't say what the new normal is.  The company and their union in the context of this very difficult situation worked out a new labor agreement, which reduced the company’s costs.  We did not intervene and tell the company and the union we would rather they do it one way or the other.  There were very difficult sacrifices made by all stakeholders which allowed these companies to restructure.  And we're confident that over time the companies and their unions will work out a fair and equitable situation.

Q    Mr. Montgomery, any comment on that?

MR. MONTGOMERY:  I would just say it’s not new.  It didn’t start with the notion of a two-tier -- different salaries for the newer workers versus older workers didn’t originate under the restructuring going on here.  But as Ron has just said, obviously this is something that the UAW is negotiating.  They thought that this was necessary for the survival of the company.

MR. GIBBS:  Major, let me just add this.  When the President made these tough decisions he did so asking for that conditions be placed on this money and that tough sacrifices, as these gentlemen have said, be made by all.  I think if you look back at that article, I think everyone was struck that despite what their wage per hour was, those workers were happy to have jobs, happy to be -- the communities are happy that the plants that have been there are there and are thriving.  And as we've said, we have an auto industry that, instead of shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs, is adding jobs.

I think -- and I'm sure Ed can talk to this -- my guess is that when the President walks into any of these plants over the next -- in the next three stops, my guess is that the first 10 or 15 people that he sees and meets and talks to aren’t going to be the first of their generation working in that plant.  They’ll be fathers that worked there before they did, grandfathers that worked before they did, as well.  And these facilities build strong communities and build strong economies, and as a result of the tough investments that we made and the tough sacrifices made by all, we have an industry that looks fundamentally different in its progress than we did just a year and a half ago.

Q    Real quick, Robert, (inaudible) that Ford, though not receiving bailout dollars, benefited nevertheless because suppliers remain alive.  Would you address that and talk to us a little bit about your understanding of how though Ford did not seek, nor did it receive, it still was either an indirect or direct beneficiary of this intervention?

MR. BLOOM:  Yes, I think the entire industry was an indirect beneficiary.  The transplant companies were an indirect beneficiary, too.  This is an incredibly interdependent industry. And if GM had failed, a very large number of suppliers would have immediately failed, who would have been so significant within -- their GM business would have meant that they couldn’t succeed. And that would have had a cascading effect through the balance of the OE industry, Ford included and potentially others, as well.

So I think there’s no question that the President’s intervention helped the entire industry.  I think that's a good thing.  The American automobile industry directly employs today 1.7 million people.  And so that is one of the reasons why it was so important to look at General Motors and say, this company really matters, and if its stakeholders are prepared to do the tough stuff, then it is a good investment to try to help them.

So, yes, I think there were many other companies that benefited and I think that's a very good thing.

MR. GIBBS:  And then, Major, as the CEO of Ford said back in December of 2008, they weren’t looking for direct money, but went to support the efforts of Chrysler and GM because, as he said then and as Ron said, without that supplier base, Ford would not have been making cars within -- not within weeks, but within days, they would have been forced to make some changes, which is certainly significant.

Q    What do you say, Robert, or any of you, to the folks who, at the beginning, a year and a half ago, were deriding this effort, calling it socialism, calling it government takeover?  You had Rush Limbaugh today -- there yesterday talking “Obama Motors” again.  Is essentially the message here a sort of, we told you so?

MR. GIBBS:  No, because -- I’ll say this.  Look, Rush Limbaugh and others wanted to walk away.  Rush Limbaugh and others saw a million people that worked at these factories, that worked at these parts suppliers, that supported communities, and thought we should all just walk away.  The President didn't think that walking away from a million jobs in these communities made a lot of economic sense.

Let’s go back now and look at where we are.  The President and the team expect, after these tough decisions, and after the conditions that were put on the restructuring that enabled them to change the trajectory of where we’re heading -- as Ron said, we’ve got auto companies that for the first time since 2004 all showed an operating profit in the first quarter of this year.

It’s adding jobs.  And the money that this administration invested, about $60 billion, we believe we’re on the path to recouping all of that.  That's a significant story.  And it’s not, as I told a few of you guys yesterday, it’s not a zero-sum game.  A million people leaving their job would have had a multiplying economic effect.  That's a million more people that would have been on unemployment benefits.

And certainly as Ed knows, when you walk into these communities, it’s not as if these communities have a lot of other businesses -- because they're built around these plants.  So you’re walking away from a million workers, you’re walking away from the communities where these plants have been built; and quite frankly, you’re walking away from a future that -- when the President walks into that factory that's building the Chevy Volt, two or three years ago, if you go back, we didn't even -- there was a lot of talk about whether or not you could even develop the technology necessary to put a battery, an electric battery in a car and have it go 40 or 100 miles without kicking into a gas engine or charging it every 10 miles.  That was unsure.

There was also a lot of doubt about whether any type of car like this would ever be built in this country or driven in this country.  And if they were driven in this country, they would likely have been shipped over here and imported.  Now these cars will say made in America, by American workers and bought by Americans.  And that is -- that's significant.

I’ll let those that sat in the cheap seats a year and a half ago and wanted to walk away from a million explain to every one of those workers why they made that decision.  And I think, better yet, ask them if they had to do that decision to do all over again -- knowing that that $60 billion were on track to get paid back, knowing that there’s a million people that are still employed, knowing that we’re adding 55,000 jobs, that plants are working through what’s normally a planned summer shutdown, and that we’re creating the jobs of the future -- whether they thought the decision they made 16 or 18 months ago, different than that of the President of the United States -- whether they still stand by it. 

And then you should ask Mr. Limbaugh -- I don't know what kind of car he drives, but I bet it’s not an F-150.

Q    Can I just follow up real quick?

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.

Q    Even the President has said all along he doesn’t -- he didn't want to be in the position of running a car company and that this kind of a government -- use whatever word -- takeover, intervention, whatever -- isn’t ideal.  Are there things that you got -- even in the success that you’re touting now, are there regrets or things that you are trying to be careful about in terms of not having this become a sort of precedent-setting thing for other industries?

MR. BLOOM:  The President has, in fact, been extremely clear that he did not run for office to be taking over car companies.  And I think, in fact, if you look at our behavior since the bankruptcy ended, he’s been exceptionally true to that word.  The administration -- nobody in the administration is directing General Motors on what to do on a day-to-day basis.  We are not running these companies.

And many people did assume that if we became the owner of the company, the next thing we would do is to direct the affairs of the company.  And that's exactly what we haven’t done.  We were very involved in the bankruptcy.  We did insist on major change in management and the board of directors, and then we have very consciously stepped back, we have not intervened in these companies. 

And while we're very proud of their success and changing the culture the way they have, et cetera, and while we think that the President’s support was essential to giving them that second chance, the fact is they are now grabbing that second chance with their hands and they’re doing it.  So we were actually concerned about those things, and I think we've acted in a way consistent with those concerns.

MR. GIBBS:  There was a process and a structure put in place to ensure that, despite the level of ownership, we were not involved in voting decisions.

Q    But if this thing has worked so well, I mean, in theory, somebody might say, why not do it for other things.  I mean --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, that's not what the President was here to do.  The President made a decision based on what we all believed were economic ramifications that were too big to walk away from.

Q    Mr. Bloom, I'd like to ask you how confident you are the U.S. government is going to be repaid in full, given the improved performance in the auto industry you’ve described.  And also, if I can try you again on the GM IPO.  We've reported that the filing is going to be in the week of August 16th.  Could you at least talk about the timing of the filing?

MR. BLOOM:  You can try me as many times as you want on the IPO, you're not going to get a different answer.  And I think Robert spoke about the investment situation.  The Obama administration has invested $60 billion into the automobile industry.  The latest valuation from the Office of Financial Stability has the value of that investment in the aggregate at $60 billion.

So that's where we are.  And we haven’t realized on that yet.  There’s still has to be a process of selling the shares.  Right now the trajectory is positive. 

MR. GIBBS:  I'd just say, in terms of the -- as Ron said, once you get to a point in an IPA, there are some good rules that the SEC has employed that we're all trying to make sure don't get us called by that agency.

Q    Robert, you can't keep jobs if you can't sell cars.  I wonder how confident you are in the strength of these auto companies and if the administration thinks it’s appropriate to do another round of cash for clunkers or something similar to sort of stimulate this sector.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I don't have the exact figures with me.  Look, when we talked about the decisions that were made around a structured bankruptcy, we were dealing in an economy I think where the yearly car sales were certainly less than 10 million.  And this is off of a high of probably around 17 million.  We're in a better environment now.  I think right now it’s about 11 million. 

MR. BLOOM:  About a 11 and a half [million].

MR. GIBBS:  And so because of consumer demand -- obviously, as these guys mentioned, working through that planned retooling and some are shut down in order to meet an increased amount of customer demand I think demonstrates, one, that the economy as a whole is getting stronger, and that pushed demand for more automobiles; and secondly, these guys are making a profit.

So at this point, we don't see or have plans for redoing the cash for clunkers program.  But I would say the investment that was made on that, not only did that spur an enormous demand, but it took cars off the road that were, by definition, older and more polluting, and put newer, cleaner models on in their place.

I will say it is hard to talk about the success of the decisions that were made in the auto industry without mentioning again the efforts of many, including all of the auto industry and certainly efforts like -- people like Carol Browner on the President’s staff -- to provide certainty in emissions and fuel economy.  The rules that were created working with the industry added certainty for cars and now we've added work trucks to that rule as well.  That, again, provided some certainty in emissions that cars -- the emission targets that cars have, as well as took the mandate that Congress passed on fuel economy and moved it up several years.

It had been somewhere between 20 and 30 years since we had a substantial improvement in fuel economy.  The Senate finally broke that impasse in I think either 2007 or 2008.  Given the certainty of this rule, we were able to push the 2020 target to 2016, in a way that, again, helps our goals in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and gives auto manufacturers the certainty that they have always wanted on the manufacturing side.

Q    I wanted to ask you about Charlie Rangel and whether the White House --

MR. GIBBS:  Let’s do autos first, and then I'll do the regular -- yes, ma’am.

Q    How important is this IPO in recouping the taxpayers (inaudible) -- can you give us some sense of that and some sense of the timeline on Chrysler and GM paying back -- 

MR. BLOOM:  The IPO is important because almost all of our investment in General Motors today is common stock.  We have $2.1 billion of preferred stock, but the vast majority of the investment is in common stock.  So the absolute expected way one receives value on that investment is for the company to offer its shares to the public and then for there to be a public float, and then for us to be able to sell in both -- as part of the IPO and subsequently into that public float.] So it is very important.  And as I said before, we are hopeful that it can be accomplished this year.  After that, it will remain to be determined on what schedule we can sell the rest of the shares. 

In the Chrysler case, most of our investment is in the form of debt.  There’s a small investment in common stock.  We are hopeful that at some point Chrysler will also be able to offer shares to the public.  We don't have any visibility to that at the moment.  But the debt has a maturity date of half at seven and half at eight years from when we made the loan, so in the current trajectory, we would expect Chrysler to pay back their loan when its due.

Q    Robert, you have said several times here that the $60 billion will be paid back, the Obama administration’s portion of it.  Why is there a distinction being made between the full amount that's been paid out of the TARP and what the Obama administration is going to be paid back, that portion that the Obama administration --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Mike, we’re not -- I was not, as you probably know, not here when the Bush administration made that --

Q    When it comes to the sum total of everything that's been paid out of the TARP, will there be a net benefit?  Or will --

MR. GIBBS:  You’re right the total liability is $85 [billion].  Again, our goal, as you’ve heard the President enunciate, is that the taxpayers won’t be on the hook for one dime of money.  That's why you heard the President talk about a financial crisis responsibility fee in order to ensure that taxpayers are fully paid up.

I highlight the difference largely also because the criticism at the end of 2008 was that you are -- you're giving monetary help but not asking that the companies do anything differently.  And, look, we had -- you watched companies go through, in some cases, substantial cash reserves until they were -- they got to this point.  The President recognized part of the reason that we were at that point were some bad management decisions.  And the President required and conditioned that investment on everybody making a sacrifice.  So that's the reason why I said --

Q    Okay.  And I guess this goes to Mr. Bloom.  The Volt is said to be going to be priced around $41,000.  That seems kind of high.  It’s a heavily subsidized, through various tax credits for the batteries and what have you, price to begin with.  Is it marketable at $41,000?  Is that a concern to the administration?

MR. BLOOM:  Well, a couple things.  I think it is worth noting that the company will also be offering a lease at $350 a month.  It’s also worth noting that this is a new technology and most times when new technologies come out, they are more expensive.  And because of the President’s investments in the battery industry, we absolutely expect battery prices to come down over time.  And finally, we do not tell General Motors what to charge for its cars.  We don't tell them what to charge for the Volt.  We’re not going to tell them what to charge for the Cruise.

General Motors has an extremely competent management, supervised closely by a board of directors.  We are confident that they are carefully thinking through what the price of the Volt ought to be, as much as they are with the price of the Cruise or the Cadillac CTS would be.  And exactly that sort of decision -- back to the earlier question -- is exactly what we have resisted the temptation to do.

Q    Right, but the government owns 61 percent of the company.  And so is there a concern that it will succeed or not succeed?

MR. BLOOM:  GM makes decisions every day about cars that they're going to sell -- at least in the next couple years -- a lot more of than the Volt.  And we -- our confidence rests in the management and the board of directors, that they will carefully weigh all those facts.  And we believe General Motors is broadly on a good track.

MR. GIBBS:  Mike, I’ll get you the graph that we -- before the President went to Western Michigan to do the batteries, we had a graph of -- and I’ll get it for you -- that showed as you have more and more of these made, as you streamline that process, the investment that we’ve made -- that will greatly increase the number of those facilities in this country will, by definition, drive down the price for each.

Q    Question for Mr. Montgomery.  You mentioned a $50 million program, a $75 million program.  I wonder if you could talk specifically about Detroit and what your office has been able to provide that community, and then if you could put it in some perspective in terms of the city, which are enormous -- I mean are these programs that are really having an impact on how well a community like Detroit is doing?  Or is this just really working around the edges?

MR. MONTGOMERY:  Well, obviously, clearly Detroit was a distressed community and it has been a distressed community for a considerable period of time.  Its unemployment rate is close to 20 percent and remains there.

The programs that we’ve talked about -- the national emergency grants, there was a regional grant that went to Southeast Michigan, I think around $9 million, which was dedicated to programs in the Detroit region -- they were part of the $75 million.  Detroit won several of those grants.  The Detroit region won several of those grants to help those workers train.

As we’ve said all along, we’ve got a long way to go.  We can’t be happy with the unemployment rate in the state of Michigan at over 13 percent, or in Detroit in the 20 percent.  But these are providing some needed resources to help autoworkers and others in the community begin the process of finding jobs.

Q    So what more needs to be done?  What more can the federal government do going forward?  Do you have recommendations for the President?

MR. MONTGOMERY:  Well, obviously, we want to continue what we have been doing.  How do we create new jobs?  How do we support small businesses?  How do we create -- who are the source of growth, and how do we encourage them to hire additional workers?  I think those are absolutely critical in cities like Detroit and around the Midwest.

MR. GIBBS:  And I’d say I don't think anybody believes that the auto industry alone is going to, as Ed said, bring that unemployment rate, in and of itself, or only, bring that thing down.  But it is also hard to imagine both the city and the state making the kind of progress that we all want it to make without an industry that is making the progress that we’ve seen.

Q    I want to go back, Mr. Bloom, to Mike’s question about the sticker shock on the Volt.  The problem is that the Nissan Leaf is out at the same time for $33,000.  So isn’t it asking a lot of an American to pay an extra $8,000 just to drive the American electric car versus the Japanese electric car? 

MR. BLOOM:  It works out that the lease is the same price, so you can lease the car for --

Q    How?

MR. BLOOM:  If you read General Motors’ press release, they're prepared to lease the car at the same price.  But --

Q    Right, leasing, but not -- not to purchase.

MR. BLOOM:  But I’m not going to get into a debate about whether General Motors on this particular matter has the correct business strategy.  There are dozens and dozens of business decisions they make every day.  They believe that people will buy this car in a sufficient number that they're manufacturing it.

I think they believe that some number will lease it.  And they believe some other number will buy it and use the tax credit that's available.  Over time, we are confident that the prices of these sorts of cars will come down.  Different companies have different strategies.  In the next two years, there will be 20 different either electric or hybrid or gas -- or plug-in hybrid cars hitting the road. These are the first two.

This is going to be a very big open competition.  I think that's terrific.  And I think what’s going to result in it is more and more Americans will eventually be able to buy electric-powered cars.

Q    Just to follow, as owners of this company, or at least 61 percent, wouldn’t it make sense to somehow influence the cost of the Volt to make it more competitive? 

MR. BLOOM:  The problem with that --

Q    Subsidize it --

MR. BLOOM:  The problem with that slippery slope is it never ends -- because I could equally make the argument that General Motors ought to also charge 2.6 percent less for the Cadillac or 3.1 percent less for the Cruise.  Every management decision can be second-guessed.  And we made a very firm decision up front that either we were going to run the company day to day, or we would find the finest management and the most independent, hard-nosed board of directors we could and asked them to take on that responsibility.   We made the latter decision.  And if we violate it on one thing that seems important to us, then we will violate it on everything.  And then I think we’re -- then it is Government Motors.  And the history of the last year is it absolutely has not been, and we intend to keep to that.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  This is for Mr. Bloom.  You and others have mentioned the figure a million jobs saved several times throughout the briefing.  It’s up on the monitor behind you in a graphic, and I see in the graph that you rely for the figure on the Center for Automotive Research, which is a think tank in Michigan, which is funded by the auto industry.  Do you think this is an objective source to come up with this particular number?

MR. BLOOM:  The number is actually from the Bush administration.  The Center for Automotive Resource --

Q    Is that a good source?  (Laughter.)

MR. BLOOM:  I would have thought you wouldn’t accuse them of being too aggressive.  The Center for Automotive Research, who I’d be delighted to have you talk to, has a number that's much, much higher.  We’re actually using the low end of a number of numbers that have been put out.

Q    Thanks.  On the same lines as earlier Volt questions, but maybe -- how many years -- (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Wow.

Q    How many years, realistically, do you think it will be before the majority of American-made cars that are available for consumers are either electric or hybrid or some combination, and before they are affordable, by whatever standard -- $25,000 or whatever that is at the time?

MR. BLOOM:  I think that is -- that's a question that really doesn’t have an answer today.  I think what the President did is he made a series of investments in the key technologies that drive this industry forward, which is the batteries.  And as Ed mentioned, the battery prices, I think most experts now believe are going to come down at a very rapid rate.  Exactly when that hits the crossover point so that most Americans want to buy an electric car, I don't think it’s knowable.  I think the issue for the government is can we do things that can set the conditions for that.

And I think the President by his leadership has done that.  But honestly, it’s going to be private actors in the marketplace competing for market share that are going to determine that answer.  So I don't think we can sit here today and make a prognostication on that.  Obviously, we’re committed to trying to help it happen, but it’s going to happen, importantly, because private sector individuals choose to put their money at risk and make these cars.

MR. GIBBS:  And, look, Margaret, the -- I bought a 2005 -- I bought a new Ford Escape hybrid, which, in 2005, was basically as a gas-electric hybrid that, if you go more than about 25 or 30 miles an hour, kicks into the sole use of the gas engine. 

In 2005, that was basically the cutting edge of domestically offered technology.  Look, in five years, you're at a point where, with the Volt, with the Focus coming online, and other models, that the technology -- the plug-in technology is rapidly advancing.  And as Ron says, the more we make, the less each individual unit will cost, and therefore, the less each automobile will cost.

Q    I mean, if you look at everything combined that's available -- the Ford Fusion hybrid and Honda and all of this, it’s still just a fraction of what’s sold.  Do you think -- I know you don't want to pinpoint an exact date, but is it fair to say it’s at least five years off?  I mean, you're asking Americans to buy in right now to something that will be many years before most people will --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I don't think anybody would disagree with that, except if you go back just a couple of summers -- gas hit above $4 a gallon.  My guess is you saw a lot more -- people can recall seeing a lot more Hummer H2s on the road, say, three years ago than sort of post-late summer 2008.  In fact, by and large, it’s a brand that has been sold.  Look, as the technology changes, I think more and more people will take advantage of it.

MR. BLOOM:  One other thing.  I mean, look, for a lot of years, and Robert pointed this out, these companies were criticized for not having long-term strategic thinking.  We now have these companies thinking long term.  They understand this is not a next year, year after issue.  This is a long-term bet that they’re making on the direction of the industry.  That bet is going to take a while to pay off, but I think we should be applauding their willingness to try to look ahead, because for a lot of years people said the companies wouldn't look ahead, they always tried to fight the future.  Now we have companies trying to shape the future. 

So I'd rather be -- I'd rather criticize them for thinking less far ahead than criticizing them for thinking too far ahead. I think that's a welcome change.

MR. GIBBS:  I mean, the gas prices resulted in the industry itself changing its viewpoint on increasing fuel economy standards, again, something that took decades to happen but was moved along by gas prices.

Q    Mr. Bloom, do you think it’s a good idea for the federal government to buy or lease a substantial number of these Volts at this $41,000 a year price point?

MR. BLOOM:  We have no particular plan to buy or lease the Volt or the Leaf.  There are ongoing discussions about whether there might be an opportunity to have some amount of it, but I don't think that's going to be a principal way this car is going to get introduced.

Q    To follow up on what Mr. Bloom was saying, and then you joined in -- what assurance do you have, does the country have, that they will continue to be so forward-thinking, particularly since gas prices have come down in most parts of the country a long way from a couple summers ago?

MR. BLOOM:  There are no guarantees.  As Robert said, the President made a decision to give this company a second chance.  We insisted on very substantial change in their cost structure, in their operating footprint and in their management and board of directors.  But we are not going to retain operational control to assure ourselves that everything they do meets our satisfaction because we don't believe that’s the proper role for the government.

So is it possible that someday in the future General Motors will lose its way again?  I think the fact that that's possible is a good thing, because that's what American companies are supposed to do -- they’re supposed to compete in the private marketplace.  This was an intervention in an extraordinary moment in our nation’s history.  It was done to prevent, as Robert said, the loss of a million jobs.  We are determined to exit that investment as soon as is practicable and this company’s future will be in the hands of its management, of its board of directors, of its employees, and of all the stakeholders who sacrificed.  We want to get as much of the taxpayers’ money back as we can, but that's not going to cause us to intervene in running the company.

Q    Realistically, when can the administration completely exit its investment in the auto companies -- 2012, beyond?

MR. BLOOM:  I think that's not something that's knowable today.  I think we're -- again, the guidance we put out, which we're sticking to, is as soon as practicable.  And that means exactly what it says.  We don't like having this investment, but we're not going to sell it at a fire sale.  So we're on an orderly course.  We believe General Motors can achieve an IPO this year.  We remain hopeful of that.  We are hopeful Chrysler will be able to achieve one at some point thereafter.  We're going to take this slowly and carefully, and we're not going to be irresponsible.   

We recognize people don't want us to own the company.  We don't want to own the company.  But to do it at a fire sale I think is irresponsible to the taxpayers.  So it’s a careful walk and we're going to walk it carefully.

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I think if you travel back to the decision that the President made in the Roosevelt Room, there was no guarantee at the time in which the President made that decision that one or both of these companies would survive.  You’ll recall very distinct conversations about whether or not it was slightly better than 50-50.  What we've seen since then -- and I think this is a fair characterization -- that where these companies are now exceeds where we believe they’d likely be at this point, and that their situation has only gotten better, quarter by quarter, than, again, where we thought it would be.

So they made some tough decisions.  The President made some tough decisions.  And when we look back at both where we are and where we were, we see real, sustained progress.

Q    Given that success story that you're describing here today, why hasn’t the administration gotten more credit for stepping in and writing these companies --

MR. GIBBS:  Obviously, Elizabeth, I don't think the story that the President is going to embark on telling is well known.  I doubt many people in this room -- and you guys are largely the reporters of said stories -- would -- or have pointed out that for the first time since 2004, each of the three companies, in the first quarter of this year, represented -- had an operating profit, or that since GM emerged from bankruptcy, 55,000 jobs have been added.

Q    Could the administration have done a better job in -- as this turnaround slowly came about -- step by step communicating that better to the public?

MR. GIBBS:  I think we have.  And I'll say this is -- the report that we're putting out on the auto industry isn’t the first one, it’s the second one that we've done.  I look forward to reading in your newspaper tomorrow -- attention, assignment editors -- (laughter) -- the arc of the decision that the President made and where this industry is.

The President will be here and he will tell that story, and will tell it to the workers who work on those lines today because of the sacrifices that they made and the tough decisions that were made here.  We're going to do an awful lot over the next week to 10 days, and I think, in all honesty, if people get a sense of what went into these decisions, what resulted in the structured bankruptcies, and then what has resulted in the success of the companies up to this point, I do think given all that information, I do think people will look at the decision that was made at the end of March of 2009 differently.

Yes, sir.  And I want to let these guys go.

Q    This is the first I've heard of a Department of Energy loan to Ford Motor.  Could you give us some details for the loan? Why the Department of Energy, as opposed to a bank?  And how much money and --

MR. BLOOM:  This is under a program called the ATVM program, also known as Section 136.  This loan was made, I believe, in excess of a year ago.  It was $5.9 billion.  It’s been fairly well discussed and disclosed that this was a program that the Congress had put in place to provide funds for these companies to invest in new technologies to get more fuel efficient.  And that was the purpose of the program and the program is ongoing.  Other companies have applied for it.  There was a loan to Tesla.  There was a loan to Fisker.  There was a loan to Nissan, which was part of the reason they’re building the plant to make the Leaf here in the U.S.  And there was a $5.9 billion loan to Ford.

MR. GIBBS:  And it will allow the -- you saw probably earlier this week Ford unveiled the new model Explorer, which is constructed on a -- not on a truck frame but on a car frame, which not only allows, as Ron said, fuel efficiency here in this country, but attractiveness in selling that car overseas. 

Thank you both. 

Yes, ma’am. 

Q    Can I go back --

MR. GIBBS:  No, I was listening.  But I realize that you were not talking about a new model car and was --

Q    To the Rangel -- 

Q    Is the White House disappointed that there wasn’t a deal reached before the session started today?  Do you think that’s damaging to the party and to candidates? 

MR. GIBBS:  Look, some of this has happened while we’ve been up here and I want to get some more information on where the situation is.  There is a bipartisan panel that’s looking into this and into these serious charges.  We think that is important to do.  And I don’t want to prejudge that outcome.  I will get some information at the end of this and see if I need to update that.

Q    Well, the session ended before we came in here, so -- and a deal was agreed.  So that’s not still an open question.

MR. GIBBS:  Yes, again, I will wait and get a full picture before we have anything additional to say.

Q    All right.  And then let me ask you about the judge’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law -- Republicans already starting to use it in fundraising.  It looks pretty clear it will be an issue of some magnitude in the elections this fall.  Is that something you all are worried about?  And is that something that the political folks here have kind of a plan to deal with?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I would echo what the Justice Department said yesterday about the judge’s decision.  I think the judge ruled that what -- and reaffirmed that the responsibility for immigration reform and for immigration law is -- rests with the federal government.  We all understand the frustration of Arizona and border states at this problem, but believe that instead of a patchwork of 50 state laws, that Congress has in the past and should act now to enact comprehensive immigration reform.

Look, Jennifer, in terms of the politics, the President has made decisions since coming into office -- autos being one of them -- that he didn’t make based on polling.  I think if that were the case, we’d be looking for a new pollster.

The President and the Justice Department believed that what we filed was the right thing to do and that the right thing to do now based on that ruling is what will be harder, and that is comprehensive immigration reform.  It’s been done before and it can be done again if those that are involved in this are willing to be part of the solution.  And I think that’s the next step.

Q    Well, I understand that’s your policy position and politics -- good policy is good politics and all that sort of thing at the end of the day.  But you’re not going to get comprehensive immigration reform before the November elections happen.  So you’ve got this sort of political status quo that you’re going to have to deal with in some form or fashion over the next several weeks before that voting happens.  So how do you -- is there messaging?  Does the President get involved in terms of talking about this?  How do you deal with the political --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I think we will talk about the need for everyone involved to step up and solve that problem.  I hope that everybody that’s running for office at a federal level this fall will talk about after the judge has ruled that this is the purview of the federal government -- I hope each of these candidates will discuss what they think -- what the federal government must do to deal with it.

And it is -- there are a lot of different components, but only enacting those components comprehensively, from border security on through, are we going to be able to solve this problem.  And I think that’s what the President will spend time talking about.

Yes, sir.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  Since you had the monthly AfPak meeting, I want to ask about that.

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.

Q    Does the President think that the WikiLeak leak of documents has put Afghan informers at risk?

MR. GIBBS:  I would say from General Jones’ statement last Sunday, from the President’s statement -- and I know while we were out here, the Pentagon has -- Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen are briefing on both that situation and on the meeting today itself -- and I said, we believe that this has the potential to put people -- our troops, those that cooperate with our efforts -- into harm’s way.

Q    Has it identified any points in the documents where people have been named?

MR. GIBBS:  I don’t want to get into -- I don’t want to get into that level of that detail.  I will say this, and I know this is -- I just want to be clear.  We did not see any of these documents prior to their being put online.  We worked with The New York Times on some questions that they had.  They were able to see some of the documents beforehand.  And, as I said earlier, I think they handled this story in a responsible way.  But I reiterate that we have not -- did not -- and did not see those documents, nor were we contacted about seeing those documents beforehand. 

Let me give you just a little bit of a broad read-through on what was discussed this afternoon -- or this morning.  This was the seventh regular meeting of the group on Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The meeting began with an update on the situation in Afghanistan where they discussed the success of the recent Kabul Conference, including the absence of significant security disruptions, and the steps that were announced to move forward on strengthening governance and pursuing reintegration.    

General Petraeus gave a security update reviewing the progress that has been made across the country.  On Pakistan, the group reviewed the recent strategic dialogue that Secretary Clinton held in Pakistan, while also discussing our continued efforts to support the Pakistani military’s actions against violent extremists within its -- within its borders.

Q    But just to come back to the WikiLeaks, was the sense in the meeting that there’s going to be an operational impact?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I would say that that was the --

Q    Due to the leaks, I mean.

MR. GIBBS:  I will say this.  WikiLeaks was not something that took up any real measurable amount of time in today’s meeting.  I think each of the principals, including the President, has commented on the operational security risks that 90,000-plus secret documents, classified documents being put on the Internet poses to our troops, poses to those that are cooperating in efforts to make Afghanistan and Pakistan more secure.  And we’ll go from there.

Yes, sir.

Q    Thanks, Robert.  I just wanted to follow up on immigration.  You seemed to be saying that you acknowledge it’s highly unlikely there will be a congressional deal before the elections.  But I wanted to talk about after the elections.  Republican Darrell Issa yesterday -- I want to acknowledge in the premise of my question that he is not the most friendly Republican to the White House -- but he said on CNN and other places yesterday that he thinks there is an appetite on Capitol Hill, and he included himself and said that he and other Republicans -- if the President guaranteed that comprehensive reform would not have amnesty, he thinks there would be some Republicans who would come on board with a guest worker program. I just wonder how you react to that, and whether you think that’s sincere, that there are Republicans -- because on other issues, as you’ve noted, they haven’t worked with you.  Do you think that there’s a sincere chance here?

MR. GIBBS:  I do, if -- look, and I said this to Jennifer, this is -- it’s not unthinkable that progress can be made on this issue because it has been made on this issue in the past.  Now, was that a time in which Republicans worked a little bit more closely with Democrats?  The answer to that, obviously, is yes. 

I have not seen what Congressman Issa supported in the past. I would suggest, Ed, we cannot deal with immigration reform comprehensively without dealing with those that are here.  I don’t know what his plans are for that.  I know the President has outlined comprehensively -- and, again, Republicans in the past have worked on that.  It is the President’s sincere hope that out of this decision and out of the understandable frustration of those that are dealing with this problem locally each and every day that we can make real progress on dealing with this tough issue. 

And, look, we have all watched this issue play out over the past five years.  This was not just -- I remember going through Iowa and having caucus-goers asking the President tough questions about immigration.  But I think if we all work together and work together honestly, I think progress can indeed be made. 

Q    Two other quick things.  Shirley Sherrod -- the President mentioned her today.  And since her firing and then the apology, some Republicans including Congressman Steve King of Iowa have raised these allegations that Shirley Sherrod got a government payout as part of a previous settlement with Black Farmers.  And they seem to think there is some sort of a connection between that and her getting a political appointment to the USDA last year.  Do you know any details of that?  And do you think that there --

MR. GIBBS:  There is no connection that I’m aware of, certainly, no.

Q    And then on -- finally, on the President’s unemployment event a couple of days back, a local TV station in Charlottesville is now saying that one of the people that the President held up as an example is Leslie Macko.  And he said that she is something who -- we need to extend unemployment compensation benefits for people like Leslie.  And the station is reporting that she was convicted of prescription drug fraud in March of 2009, about a month before she lost her job.  And I wonder, was the White House aware of this before they brought her out to use her as an example?  And do you do any sort of background on check?

MR. GIBBS:  I don't know the circumstances around this particular event.  I certainly -- I saw a couple of news reports before I came out here.  Without knowing a lot, I would certainly say that had that type of information been known, I doubt seriously that -- she would not have participated in the event here.

I hope that doesn’t take away from -- and I don't think it should take away from the message the President had that day, that as in the midst of the greatest economic calamity that we’ve seen since the Great Depression, that we ought not take steps together to extend unemployment insurance to those that are out of work.

Q    But are you examining your policies?  Is there a background check that's done?

MR. GIBBS:  I don't know the specifics.  Again, it’s safe to say that had we known it, she wouldn't have been.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Robert, the President talked extensively at the Urban League and also on “The View” about this whole -- about Shirley Sherrod, about talking about race.  Now Ms. Sherrod says she’s going to sue Andrew Breitbart.  I wonder, does the White House think that that suit is justified?  And also how does that --

MR. GIBBS:  I will excuse myself from that based on the fact that I have -- I’m not a lawyer.  Even if I was, I wouldn’t -- I don't know why I would get into answering questions about one citizen’s decision to sue another.

Q    But how does that play into the whole narrative, to the whole teachable moment?  I mean if you have an incident like this and it turns into a lawsuit, surely that doesn’t play into what the White House hopes come out of an event like this.

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, I’m not going to speak for the actions of the individual that put up a video that clearly was heavily edited to the point of not showing the end of the story. But I’m not going to get into the legal back-and-forth of this.

Q    But if this --

MR. GIBBS:  No, no, but let’s understand this, regardless of the lawsuit or who wins or who files it or where it’s heard, that's not -- I don't know how that detracts from the fact that, as the President has said since that and reiterated in the past couple days, that it is important to listen to all of what people have to say, to hear their entire story before making a judgment.

I don't think that is changed at all by legal decisions that are made around that.  That is still -- that's still the lesson that someone should take from all this.  And I don't know why you wouldn’t take that lesson based on the fact that somebody made a legal decision.

Q    But because this was an administration employee by the fact that this person actually worked for the USDA, so that -- the President stepped in with Henry Louis Gates and held “the beer summit” in something that he was much less involved in.  Is it appropriate then, so this does not descend into a lawsuit, for him to hold some kind of a conversation on race, or to do something to mitigate this so that we’re not talking about this forever?

MR. GIBBS:  We’re not talking about what forever, the lawsuit?

Q    We’re not having this back-and-forth between Sherrod and Breitbart.

MR. GIBBS:  The President got close to 60 million votes not to be somebody’s chief legal advisor, but to be the Commander-in-Chief and to run the affairs of the United States of America.  Individuals can and should make their own legal decisions regardless of who their employer is.

Q    Robert, that's not what she’s saying.  You were brought -- this administration was brought into it, in the weeds of this because of your reaction and --

MR. GIBBS:  April, I would not get involved in -- if a federal employee had been dismissed from federal service, got into a car and --

Q    Forced to resign.

MR. GIBBS:  Or however -- and got into a car accident that they believe they should sue about, why would the President or the administration get involved in that?

Q    But this administration --

MR. GIBBS:  No, no, but why would --

Q    --  is a casualty of this Breitbart --

MR. GIBBS:  Hold on, April, why would the President --

Q    -- a highly -- heavily edited videotape --

MR. GIBBS:  Why would the President or the administration get involved in that lawsuit?

Q    Because you are -- this administration is part of the  --

MR. GIBBS:  We would get involved in that lawsuit?

Q    No, this is -- no, what I’m saying is you’ve been brought into --

MR. GIBBS:  I appreciate it -- I’m happy to talk about what the President talked about.  The President, I just want to be clear, doesn’t work for the Legal Services Administration, okay? He doesn’t provide legal advice to employees of the administration.  I wouldn’t ask the President legal advice on something that I was doing.  I --

Q    Would you consider yourself a casualty of this Breitbart tape, what happened here?

MR. GIBBS:  I think as I said in the days past it, I thought the administration acted rashly.  I think the media in moving this story quickly acted rashly.  I think people probably, based on the video, came to conclusions about what or wasn’t said rashly.  I said that all a week ago.

Q    But if the conversation on race was worth having for Henry Louis Gates, why is not worth having and being a leader on that now?

MR. GIBBS:  Yunji, I don't think the President has to be the teacher at every teachable moment.  I hope you can look at what happened and discern the lessons that one should take away from it without having to have the President tell you what to take away from it.

Q    They're still fighting.

MR. GIBBS:  Who’s still fighting?

Q    Shirley Sherrod and Breitbart.

MR. GIBBS:  And I assume that that's going to happen -- I don't understand how that's part of what you take away from -- that now is what you take away from this whole moment?

Q    What I take away from it is irrelevant.  I just wonder if --

MR. GIBBS:  No, no, no, you’ve posed the question.  Let’s delve into what -- you’ve said that the teachable moment is now erased based on the fact that one person has decided to take legal action.  Does that erase the teachable moment that you took away from this individual circumstance?

Q    Absolutely not.  But I wonder if the President --

MR. GIBBS:  I don't think it’s takes away from most people’s teachable moment. 

Q    - can be more of a mediator or a leader in this circumstance.

MR. GIBBS:  Again, I think the President has spoken about what he takes away from it.  I hope you take away something from it without necessarily having to speak to the President about it. I think we can all come to our own reasonable conclusions about it.

Chip.

Q    I take it the President is not planning on a major speech on race as a -- (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  If he does, he’ll hire Yunji as a lawyer -- (laughter.)

Q    I just wanted to confirm that.  Is the President -- first of all, do you have anything on the Arlington Cemetery situation, the Claire McCaskill investigation now finding that it&rsq

NOTICE

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS OF CERTAIN PERSONS TO UNDERMINE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF LEBANON OR ITS DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES AND INSTITUTIONS

On August 1, 2007, by Executive Order 13441, the President declared a national emergency and ordered related measures blocking the property of certain persons undermining the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes or institutions and certain other persons, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706).  The President determined that the actions of certain persons to undermine Lebanon's legitimate and democratically elected government or democratic institutions; to contribute to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Lebanon, including through politically motivated violence and intimidation; to reassert Syrian control or contribute to Syrian interference in Lebanon; or to infringe upon or undermine Lebanese sovereignty contribute to political and economic instability in that country and the region and constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

While there have been some recent positive developments in the Syrian-Lebanese relationship, continuing arms transfers to Hizballah that include increasingly sophisticated weapons systems serve to undermine Lebanese sovereignty, contribute to political and economic instability in Lebanon, and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.  Therefore, the national emergency declared on August 1, 2007, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond August 1, 2010.  In accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13441.

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

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    July 29, 2010.

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.  In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared with respect to the actions of certain persons to undermine the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes and institutions is to continue in effect beyond August 1, 2010.

While there have been some recent positive developments in the Syrian-Lebanese relationship, continuing arms transfers to Hizballah that include increasingly sophisticated weapons systems serve to undermine Lebanese sovereignty, contribute to political and economic instability in the region, and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.  For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared on August 1, 2007, to deal with that threat and the related measures adopted on that date to respond to the emergency.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    July 29, 2010.

4:58 P.M. EDT

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  Please have a seat.

     I want to start, obviously, by thanking Lisa for her introduction and having the courage to share her story with all of us today.  It’s for every survivor like Lisa who has never gotten their day in court, and for every family that feels like justice is beyond reach, and for every tribal community struggling to keep its people safe, that I’ll be signing the Tribal Law and Order Act into law today. 

     And in doing so, I intend to send a clear message that all of our people -- whether they live in our biggest cities or our most remote reservations -- have the right to feel safe in their own communities, and to raise their children in peace, and enjoy the fullest protection of our laws. 

     As many of you know, I campaigned on this issue.  And during our last -- during our tribal conference last year, I pledged my administration’s fullest support for this bill.  And I told Senator Dorgan last week that I intended to sign it in a ceremony here at the White House with all of you.  So today, I am proud to make good on my word. 

     Now, I’m told there’s a Seneca proverb that says “He who would do great things should not attempt them all alone.”  (Laughter.)  And that’s particularly true of this legislation, which is the product of tireless efforts by countless individuals across this country.  Congressional leaders like Senator Dorgan, Representative Herseth Sandlin, and others who are here today, and tribal leaders like Chairman Marcus Levings, President Theresa Two Bulls, President Diane Enos, Chief Chad Smith, Vice Chairman Jonathan Windy Boy -- we are grateful to all of them for their extraordinary support.  And then we’ve got leaders in our administration like Attorney General Holder and Secretary Salazar, Kimberly Teehee, Jodi Gillette here at the White House who work tirelessly on this legislation. 

     And that’s nothing to say of all the dedicated judges and prosecutors and tribal and BIA law enforcement officers -- some of whom are here today -- who’ve supported these efforts.  And the determined survivors most of all, like Lisa, who even when it’s too late to undo what happened to them, still speak out to seek justice for others. 

     All of you come at this from different angles, but you’re united in support of this bill because you believe, like I do, that it is unconscionable that crime rates in Indian Country are more than twice the national average and up to 20 times the national average on some reservations.  And all of you believe, like I do, that when one in three Native American women will be raped in their lifetimes, that is an assault on our national conscience; it is an affront to our shared humanity; it is something that we cannot allow to continue. 

     So ultimately, it’s not just the federal government’s relationship with tribal governments that compels us to act, it’s not just our obligations under treaty and under law, but it’s also our values as a nation that are at stake.  And that’s why earlier this year, after extensive consultations with tribal leaders, Attorney General Holder announced significant reforms to increase prosecutions of crimes committed in Indian Country.  He hired more Assistant U.S. Attorneys and more victim-witness specialists.  And he even created a position for a National Indian Country Training Coordinator who will work with prosecutors and law enforcement officers throughout Indian Country.   

And under Secretary Salazar’s leadership, we’re launching new community policing pilot programs.  We’ve overhauled the recruitment process for BIA officers, resulting in a 500 percent jump in applications and the largest hiring increase in history.  And we’re working to deploy those officers to the field as quickly as possible.

     The bill I’m signing into law today will build on these efforts, because it requires the Justice Department to disclose data on cases in Indian Country that it declines to prosecute and it gives tribes greater authority to prosecute and punish criminals themselves.  It expands recruitment and retention and training for BIA and Tribal officers and gives them better access to criminal databases.  It includes new provisions to prevent counterfeiting of Indian-produced crafts and new guidelines and training for domestic violence and sex crimes.  And it strengthens tribal courts and police departments and enhances programs to combat drug and alcohol abuse and help at-risk youth. 

     So these are significant measures that will empower tribal nations and make a real difference in people’s lives.  Because as I said during our tribal conference, I have no interest in just paying lip service to the problems we face.  I know that too often, this community has heard grand promises from Washington that turned out to be little more than empty words.  And I pledged to you then that if you gave me a chance, this time it would be different.  I told you I was committed to moving forward and forging a new and better future together in every aspect of our government-to-government relationship.

     And slowly but surely, that is exactly what we are doing.  At this moment, agencies across our government are implementing detailed plans to increase coordination and consultation with tribal governments -- and I intend to hold them accountable for following through. 

     We’ve also included a permanent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act in the health care reform legislation we passed this spring.  We’re strengthening Tribal education.  We’re working to spur economic development throughout Indian Country.  And in consultation with Indian tribes, we’re now formally reviewing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  And after 14 long years, we’ve finally settled the Cobell case and we’re working with Congress to get the settlement approved as quickly as possible.

     So we’re moving forward, and we’re making progress.  And as we celebrate today, I’m reminded of a visit I made a couple of years ago to the Crow Nation out in Montana.  While I was there, I was adopted into the Nation by a wonderful couple -- Hartford and Mary Black Eagle -- so I’m Barack Black Eagle.  (Laughter.)  But I was also -- I was also given a Crow name that means “One Who Helps People Throughout the Land.”  And it’s a name that I view not as an honor that I deserve, but as a responsibility that I must work to fulfill.

     And looking back, I can’t help but think that only in America could a guy like me named Barack Obama -- adoptive son of the Crow Nation -- go on to become President.  (Laughter and applause.)  That was improbable when it happened two years ago -- (laughter) -- but it would have been inconceivable a generation or two before that.  And I think the same could be said of this legislation.

And that should ultimately give us all hope.  It should remind us that our union has a way of -- over time -- becoming more, and not less, perfect -- more inclusive, more fair, more free.  And that’s because of people like you -- leaders and public servants and everyday folks who understand that we’re more than just heirs to a difficult past.  Here in America, we have a chance to choose a different future, and to heed those better angels of our nature and cast our lot with something bigger than ourselves. 

     So it’s in that spirit that I hope we define the relationship between our nations in the years ahead, and it is the goal of this legislation that I am proud to sign into law today.

     Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

     (The bill is signed.)

END           5:09 P.M. EDT
 

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of South Dakota and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in the area struck by severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding during the period of June 16-24, 2010.

Federal funding is available to State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding in Dewey, Perkins, and Ziebach Counties, and the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures for all counties and Tribes within the State.

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Michael L. Parker as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected area. 

FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the State and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  FEMA (202) 646-3272.

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of Iowa and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in the area struck by severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes beginning on June 1, 2010, and continuing.

Federal funding is available to State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes in the counties of Adams, Appanoose, Audubon, Buena Vista, Butler, Cherokee, Clay, Davis, Decatur, Franklin, Howard, Humboldt, Iowa, Lee, Lyon, Madison, Marion, Mills, Monroe, Montgomery, O’Brien, Osceola, Palo Alto, Ringgold, Shelby, Union, Van Buren, Wapello, Warren, Wayne, Webster, and Wright.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Thomas A. Hall as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected area. 

FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the State and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  FEMA (202) 646-3272.

Washington Convention Center
Washington, D.C.

10:09 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Everybody, please have a seat.  Have a seat.  Take a load off.  (Applause.)  Thank you. 

Good morning, Urban Leaguers. 

AUDIENCE:  Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  It is wonderful to be here with all of you.  It is wonderful to be here.  And let me begin by congratulating Marc Morial for his outstanding leadership, his great friendship.  (Applause.)  I want to thank the entire National Urban League on your centennial.  From your founding, amid the great migration, to the struggles of the civil rights movement, to the battles of today, the Urban League has been on the ground, in our communities, working quietly -– day in, day out -– without fanfare; opening up opportunity, rolling back inequality, making our union just a little more perfect.  America is a better place because of the Urban League.  And I'm grateful to all of you for the outstanding contributions that you’ve made. (Applause.)  

The last time I spoke with you was during your Orlando conference in August -- (applause) -- got Orlando in the house.  (laughter) -- Orlando conference back in August of 2008.  I didn’t have any gray hair back then.  (Laughter.)  Say that's all right?  (Laughter and applause.)  But I want to remind you what things were like in August of 2008.  Our economy was in freefall. We had just seen seven straight months of job loss.  Foreclosures were sweeping the nation.  And we were on the verge of a financial crisis that threatened to plunge our economy into a second Great Depression.

So, from the moment I took office, we had to act immediately to prevent an even greater catastrophe.  And I knew that not everything we did would be popular.  Sometimes when we do things, the scribes, the pundits here in Washington, they act surprised. They say, why would you do such a thing, it doesn’t poll well.  And I have to explain to them I’ve got my own pollsters.  (Laughter and applause.)  But I wasn’t elected just to do what’s popular; I was elected do what was right.  That's what you supported me for.  (Applause.)

And because of what we did, America, as a whole, is in a different place today.  Our economy is growing, instead of shrinking.  Our private sector has been adding jobs for six straight months, instead of losing them.  (Applause.)

Yesterday a report was put out by two prominent economists  -- one of them John McCain’s old economist -- that said if we hadn’t taken the actions that we took, we would have had an additional 8 million people lose their jobs. 

Now, that doesn’t mean we’re out of the woods yet.  Every sector of our economy was shaking by the crisis; every demographic group felt its impact.  And as has been true in the wake of other recent recessions, this one had an especially brutal impact on minority communities -- communities that were already struggling long before the financial crisis hit.

The African American unemployment rate was already much higher, the incomes and wealth of African American families already lower.  There was less of a cushion.  Many minority communities -- whether in big cities or rural towns -- had seen businesses and opportunities vanish for years, stores boarded up, young people hanging out on the street corners without prospects for the future.

So when we came in to office, we focused not just on rescuing our economy in the short run, but rebuilding our economy for the long run -- creating an economy that lifts up all Americans.  (Applause.)   Not just some, but all.

That’s why we passed health insurance reform that will give every American -- (applause) -- more choices, more control over their health care; will narrow the cruel disparities between Americans of different backgrounds.  That’s why we passed Wall Street reform -- not only to make sure that taxpayers aren’t paying for somebody else’s foolishness, but also to protect consumers from predatory credit cards and lending practices, regulating everything from mortgages to payday loans; making sure that we’re protecting our economy from the recklessness and irresponsibility of a few.  (Applause.)
 
Across agencies, we’re taking on the structural inequalities that have held so many of our fellow citizens back, whether it’s making more housing available and more affordable, making sure civil rights and anti-discrimination laws are enforced, making sure our crime policy is not only tough, but also smart.  So yesterday, we took an important step forward when Congress passed a fair sentencing bill that I look forward to signing into law -- (applause) -- a bipartisan bill to help right a longstanding wrong by narrowing sentencing disparities between those convicted of crack cocaine and powder cocaine.  It’s the right thing to do. (Applause.)  We’ve gotten that done.

So we’ve made progress.  And yet, for all of our progress -– progress that’s come through the efforts of groups like the Urban League; progress that makes it possible for me to stand here as President -- we were reminded this past week that we still got work to do when it comes to promoting the values of fairness and equality and mutual understanding that must bind us together as a nation. 

Now, last week, I had the chance to talk to Shirley Sherrod -– an exemplary woman whose experiences mark both the challenges we have faced and the progress that we’ve made.  She deserves better than what happened last week -- (applause) -- when a bogus controversy based on selective and deceiving excerpts of a speech led her -- led to her forced resignation. 

Now, many are to blame for the reaction and overreaction that followed these comments -– including my own administration. And what I said to Shirley was that the full story she was trying to tell –- a story about overcoming our own biases and recognizing ourselves in folks who, on the surface, seem different -– is exactly the kind of story we need to hear in America.  (Applause.) 

It’s exactly what we need to hear because we’ve all got our biases.  And rather than jump to conclusions and point fingers, and play some of the games that are played on cable TV, we should all look inward and try to examine what’s in our own hearts.  (Applause.)  We should all make more of an effort to discuss with one another, in a truthful and mature and responsible way, the divides that still exist -- the discrimination that's still out there, the prejudices that still hold us back -- a discussion that needs to take place not on cable TV, not just through a bunch of academic symposia or fancy commissions or panels, not through political posturing, but around kitchen tables, and water coolers, and church basements, and in our schools, and with our kids all across the country.  (Applause.)

If we can have that conversation in our own lives, if we can take an opportunity to learn from our imperfections and our mistakes, to grow as individuals and as a country, and if we engage in the hard work of translating words into deeds -- because words are easy and deeds are hard -- then I’m confident that we can move forward together and make this country a little more perfect than it was before.  (Applause.)

Now, since we’re on the topic of speaking honestly with one another, I want to devote the balance of my time, the balance of my remarks, to an issue that I believe will largely determine not only African American success, but the success of our nation in the 21st century -- and that is whether we are offering our children the very best education possible.  (Applause.)

I know some argue that as we emerge from a recession, my administration should focus solely on economic issues.  They said that during health care as if health care had nothing to do with economics; said it during financial reform as if financial reform had nothing to do with economics; and now they're saying it as we work on education issues.  But education is an economic issue -- if not “the” economic issue of our time.  (Applause.)

It’s an economic issue when the unemployment rate for folks who’ve never gone to college is almost double what it is for those who have gone to college.  (Applause.)  It’s an economic issue when eight in 10 new jobs will require workforce training or a higher education by the end of this decade.  It’s an economic issue when countries that out-educate us today are going to out-compete us tomorrow.

Now, for years, we’ve recognized that education is a prerequisite for prosperity.  And yet, we’ve tolerated a status quo where America lags behind other nations.  Just last week, we learned that in a single generation, America went from number one to 12th in college completion rates for young adults.  Used to be number one, now we’re number 12. 

At the same time, our 8th graders trail about eight -- 10 other nations -- 10 other nations in science and math.  Meanwhile, when it comes to black students, African American students trail not only almost every other developed nation abroad, but they badly trail their white classmates here at home -- an achievement gap that is widening the income gap between black and white, between rich and poor. 

We’ve talked about it, we know about it, but we haven’t done enough about it.  And this status quo is morally inexcusable, it s economically indefensible, and all of us are going to have to roll up our sleeves to change it.  (Applause.)

And that's why -- that is why, from day one of this administration, we’ve made excellence in American education -- excellence for all our students -- a top priority.  And no one has shown more leadership on this issue than my Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who is here today.  (Applause.)

I chose Arne not only because he’s a great ballplayer --  (laughter) -- Arne and I play a little bit on the weekends -- I choose Arne because I knew that for him, closing the achievement gap, unlocking the potential of every child, isn’t just a job, it’s been the cause of his life.

Now, because a higher education has never been more important –- or more expensive -– it’s absolutely essential that we put a college degree within reach for anyone who wants it.  And that’s why we’re making higher education more affordable, so we can meet the goals I’ve set of producing a higher share of college graduates than any other nation by 2020.  I want us to be back at number one instead of number 12.  (Applause.) 

And in pursuit of that goal, we eliminated taxpayer subsidies to big banks.  We saved tens of billions of dollars, and we used those savings to open the door to additional financial aid -- to open the door for college to millions more students.  This is something that a lot of you may not be aware of, but we have added tens of billions of dollars that were going to bank middlemen, so that that money is now going to students -- millions more students who are getting scholarships to go to college.  (Applause.)  That’s already been done.

We’re making loan repayment more manageable, so young people don’t graduate -- like Michelle and me -- with such big loan payments every month.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Thank you!

THE PRESIDENT:  You’re welcome.  Right there.  (Laughter.)  You can relate.  (Laughter.) 

And we’re reinvesting in our Historically Black Colleges and Universities.  (Applause.)  Our HBCUs, we are reinvesting in them, while at the same time reforming and strengthening our community college, which are great, undervalued assets -- (applause) -- great assets that are a lifeline to so many working families in every community across America.

But here’s the thing.  Even if we do all this good stuff for higher education, too many of our children see college as nothing but a distant dream -– because their education went off the rails long before they turned 18.  These are young people who’ve been relegated to failing schools in struggling communities, where there are too many obstacles, too few role models -– communities that I represented as a state senator; communities that I fought to lift up as a community organizer.

I remember going to a school back in my organizing days and seeing children -- young children, maybe five or six -- eyes were brimming with hope, had such big dreams for the future.  You’d ask them, what do you want to be when you grow up?  They’d want to be a doctor; they’d want to be a lawyer.  And then I remember the principal telling me that soon, all that would change.  The hope would start fading from their eyes as they started to realize that maybe their dreams wouldn’t come to pass -- not because they weren’t smart enough, not because they weren’t talented enough, but because through a turn of fate they happened to be born in the wrong neighborhood.  They became victim of low expectations, a community that was not supporting educational excellence.

And it was heartbreaking.  It is heartbreaking.  And it reinforced in me a fundamental belief that we’ve got an obligation to lift up every child in every school in this country, especially those who are starting out furthest behind.  (Applause.) 

That’s why I want to challenge our states to offer better early learning options to make sure our children aren’t wasting their most formative years -- (applause) -- so that they can enter into kindergarten already ready to learn -- knowing their colors, knowing their numbers, knowing their shapes, knowing how to sit still.  (Laughter.)  Right?  That’s no joke.  You got to learn that, especially when you’re a boy.  (Laughter.)  That’s why we placed such heavy emphasis on the education our children are getting from kindergarten through 12th grade.

Now, over the past 18 months, the single most important thing we’ve done -- and we’ve done a lot.  I mean, the Recovery Act put a lot of money into schools, saved a lot of teacher jobs, made sure that schools didn’t have to cut back even more drastically in every community across this country.  But I think the single most important thing we’ve done is to launch an initiative called Race to the Top.  (Applause.)  We said to states, if you are committed to outstanding teaching, to successful schools, to higher standards, to better assessments -– if you’re committed to excellence for all children -– you will be eligible for a grant to help you attain that goal.

And so far, the results have been promising and they have been powerful.  In an effort to compete for this extra money, 32 states reformed their education laws before we even spent a dime. The competition leveraged change at the state level.  And because the standards we set were high, only a couple of states actually won the grant in the first round, which meant that the states that didn’t get the money, they’ve now strengthened their applications, made additional reforms.  Now 36 have applied in the second round, and 18 states plus the District of Columbia are in the running to get a second grant.  (Applause.) 

So understand what’s happened.  In each successive round, we’ve leveraged change across the country.  And even students in those districts that haven’t gotten a grant, they’ve still benefited from the reforms that were initiated.  And this process has sown the seeds of achievement.  It’s forced teachers and principals and officials and parents to forge agreements on tough, and often uncomfortable issues -- to raise their sights and embrace education.

For the most part, states, educators, reformers, they’ve responded with great enthusiasm around this promise of excellence.  But I know there’s also been some controversy about Race to the Top.  Part of it, I believe, reflects a general resistance to change.  We get comfortable with the status quo even when the status quo isn’t good.  We make excuses for why things have to be the way they are.  And when you try to shake things up, some people aren’t happy. 

There have been criticisms from some folks in the civil rights community about particular elements of Race to the Top.  So I want to address some of those today.  I told you we’re going to have an honest conversation.

First, I know there’s a concern that Race to the Top doesn’t do enough for minority kids, because the argument is, well, if there’s a competition, then somehow some states or some school districts will get more help than others.  Let me tell you, what’s not working for black kids and Hispanic kids and Native American kids across this country is the status quo.  That's what’s not working.  (Applause.)  What’s not working is what we’ve been doing for decades now.

So the charge that Race to the Top isn’t targeted at those young people most in need is absolutely false because lifting up quality for all our children -- black, white, Hispanic -- that is the central premise of Race to the Top.  And you can’t win one of these grants unless you’ve got a plan to deal with those schools that are failing and those young people who aren’t doing well.  Every state and every school district is directly incentivized to deal with schools that have been forgotten, been given up on. 

I also want to directly speak to the issue of teachers.  We may have some teachers here in the house.  (Applause.)  I know Urban League has got some teachers.  Nothing is more important than teachers.  (Applause.)  My sister is a teacher.  I’m here because of great teachers.  The whole premise of Race to the Top is that teachers are the single most important factor in a child’s education from the moment they step into the classroom.  And I know firsthand that the vast majority of teachers are working tirelessly, are passionate about their students, are often digging into their own pockets for basic supplies, are going above and beyond the call of duty. 

So I want teachers to have higher salaries.  I want them to have more support.  I want them to be trained like the professionals they are –- with rigorous residencies like the ones that doctors go through.   (Applause.)  I want to give them a career ladder so they’ve opportunities to advance, and earn real financial security.  I don't want talented young people to say I’d love to teach but I can’t afford it.  (Applause.) 

I want them to have a fulfilling and supportive workplace environment.  I want them to have the resources -- from basic supplies to reasonable class sizes -- that help them succeed.   And instead of a culture where we’re always idolizing sports stars or celebrities, I want us to build a culture where we idolize the people who are shaping our children’s future.  (Applause.)  I want some teachers on the covers of some of those magazines.  (Applause.)  Some teachers on MTV, featured.  (Applause.)

I was on the “The View” yesterday, and somebody asked me who Snooki was.  I said, I don't know who Snooki is.  (Laughter.)  But I know some really good teachers that you guys should be talking about.  (Laughter and applause.)  I didn't say the teacher part, but I just -- (laughter.)  The question is, who are we lifting up?  Who are we promoting?  Who are we saying is important? 

So I am 110 percent behind our teachers.  (Applause.)  But all I’m asking in return -- as a President, as a parent, and as a citizen -- is some measure of accountability.  (Applause.)  So even as we applaud teachers for their hard work, we’ve got to make sure we’re seeing results in the classroom.  If we’re not seeing results in the classroom, then let’s work with teachers to help them become more effective.  If that doesn’t work, let’s find the right teacher for that classroom.  (Applause.)

Arne makes the point very simply:  Our children get only one chance at an education, so we need to get it right.

I want to commend some of the teachers unions across this country who are working with us to improve teaching -- like the Delaware Education Association, which is working with state leaders as part of their Race to the Top efforts, not only to set aside 90 minutes of collaboration time a week to improve instruction, but to strengthen teacher development and evaluation.  That's the right way to go.

So, for anyone who wants to use Race to the Top to blame or punish teachers -- you’re missing the point.  Our goal isn’t to fire or admonish teachers; our goal is accountability.  It’s to provide teachers with the support they need to be as effective as they can be, and to create a better environment for teachers and students alike. 

Now, there’s also the question of how hard our teachers should push students in the classroom.  Nations in Asia and Europe have answered this question, in part by creating standards to make sure their teachers and students are performing at the same high levels throughout their nation.  That’s one of the reasons that their children are doing better than ours.  But here at home, there’s often a controversy about national standards, common standards -- that violates the principle of local control. Now, there’s a history to local control that we need to think about, but that -- that’s the argument.

So here’s what Race to the Top says:  Instead of Washington imposing standards from the top down, let’s challenge states to adopt common standards voluntarily, from the bottom up.  That doesn’t mean more standards; it means higher standards, better standards, standards that clarify what our teachers are expected to teach and what our children are expected to learn -– so high school graduates are actually prepared for college and a career. I do not want to see young people get a diploma but they can’t read that diploma.  (Applause.) 

Now, so far, about 30 states have come together to embrace and develop common standards, high standards.  More states are expected to do so in the coming weeks.  And by the way, this is different from No Child Left Behind, because what that did was it gave the states the wrong incentives.  A bunch of states watered down their standards so that school districts wouldn’t be penalized when their students fell short.  And what’s happened now is, at least two states -– Illinois and Oklahoma –- that lowered standards in response to No Child Behind -- No Child Left Behind -- are now raising those standards back up, partly in response to Race to the Top.

And part of making sure our young people meet these high standards is designing tests that accurately measure whether they are learning.  Now, here, too, there’s been some controversy.  When we talk about testing, parents worry that it means more teaching to the test.  Some worry that tests are culturally biased. Teachers worry that they’ll be evaluated solely on the basis of a single standardized test.  Everybody thinks that’s unfair.  It is unfair. 

But that’s not what Race to the Top is about.  What Race to the Top says is, there’s nothing wrong with testing -– we just need better tests applied in a way that helps teachers and students, instead of stifling what teachers and students do in the classroom.  Tests that don’t dictate what’s taught, but tell us what has been learned.  Tests that measure how well our children are mastering essential skills and answering complex questions.  And tests that track how well our students are growing academically, so we can catch when they’re falling behind and help them before they just get passed along.  (Applause.) 

Because of Race to the Top, states are also finding innovative ways to move beyond having just a snapshot of where students are, and towards a real-time picture that shows how far they’ve come and how far they have to go.  And armed with this information, teachers can get what amounts to a game tape that they can study to enhance their teaching and their focus on areas where students need help the most.

Now, sometimes a school’s problems run so deep that you can do the better assessments and the higher standards and a more challenging curriculum, and that’s not enough.  If a school isn’t producing graduates with even the most basic skills –- year after year after year after year -– something needs to be done differently.  You know, the definition, somebody once said, of madness is you do the same thing over and over again and keep expecting a different result.  If we want success for our country, we can’t accept failure in our schools decade after decade.

And that’s why we’re challenging states to turn around our 5,000 lowest performing schools.  And I don’t think it’s any secret that most of those are serving African American or Hispanic kids.  We’re investing over $4 billion to help them do that, to transform those schools -– $4 billion, which even in Washington is real money.  (Applause.)  This isn’t about -- unlike No Child Left Behind, this isn’t about labeling a troubled school a failure and then just throwing up your hands and saying, well, we’re giving up on you.  It’s about investing in that school’s future, and recruiting the whole community to help turn it around, and identifying viable options for how to move forward.

Now, in some cases, that’s going to mean restarting the school under different management as a charter school -– as an independent public school formed by parents, teachers, and civic leaders who’ve got broad leeway to innovate.  And some people don’t like charter schools.  They say, well, that’s going to take away money from other public schools that also need support.  Charter schools aren’t a magic bullet, but I want to give states and school districts the chance to try new things.  If a charter school works, then let’s apply those lessons elsewhere.  And if a charter school doesn’t work, we’ll hold it accountable; we’ll shut it down.

So, no, I don’t support all charter schools, but I do support good charter schools.  I’ll give you an example.  There’s a charter school called Mastery in Philadelphia.  And in just two years, three of the schools that Mastery has taken over have seen reading and math levels nearly double –- in some cases, triple.  Chaka Fattah is here, so he knows what I’m talking about.  One school called Pickett went from just 14 percent of students being proficient in math to almost 70 percent.  (Applause.)  Now -- and here’s the kicker -- at the same time academic performance improved, violence dropped by 80 percent -– 80 percent.  And that’s no coincidence.  (Applause.)

Now, if a school like Mastery can do it, if Pickett can do it, every troubled school can do it.  But that means we’re going to have to shake some things up.  Setting high standards, common standards, empowering students to meet them; partnering with our teachers to achieve excellence in the classroom; educating our children -- all of them -- to graduate ready for college, ready for a career, ready to make most of their lives -- none of this should be controversial.  There should be a fuss if we weren’t doing these things.  There should be a fuss if Arne Duncan wasn’t trying to shake things up.  (Applause.)

So Race to the Top, isn’t simply the name of an initiative. It sums up what’s happening in our schools.  It’s the single most ambitious, meaningful education reform effort we’ve attempted in this country in generations.

And I know there are a number of other steps we need to take to lift up our education system -- like saving teachers’ jobs across this country from layoffs -- and I’ll continue fighting to take those steps and save those jobs.  But I’ll also continue to fight for Race to the Top with everything I’ve got, including using a veto to prevent some folks from watering it down.  (Applause.)

Now, let me wrap up by saying this.  I know there are some who say that Race to the Top won’t work.  There are cynics and naysayers who argue that the problems in our education system are too entrenched, that think that we’ll just fall back into the same old arguments and divides that have held us back for so long.  And it is true, as I’ve said since I ran for President, and that everybody here knows firsthand, change is hard.  I don't know if you’ve noticed.  That's why I’ve got all this gray hair. (Laughter.) 

Fixing what was broken in our health care system is not easy.  Fixing what was broken on Wall Street is not easy.  Fixing what’s broken in our education system is not easy.  We won’t see results overnight.  It may take a decade for these changes to pay off.  But that’s not a reason not to make them.  It’s a reason to start making them right now, to feel a sense of urgency -- the fierce urgency of now.  (Applause.)

We also know that as significant as these reforms are, there’s going to be one more ingredient to really make a difference:  parents are going to have to get more involved in their children’s education.  (Applause.)  Now, in the past, even that statement has sparked controversy.  Folks say, well, why are you talking about parents?  Parents need help, too.  I know that. Parents need jobs.  They need housing.  They need -- in some cases -- social services.  They may have substance abuse problems.  We’re working on all those fronts. 

Then some people say, well, why are you always talking about parental responsibility in front of black folks?  (Laughter and applause.)  And I say, I talk about parent responsibility wherever I talk about education. 

Michelle and I happen to be black parents, so -- (laughter and applause) -- I may -- I may add a little umph to it when I’m talking to black parents.  (Laughter.)  

But to paraphrase Dr. King, education isn’t an either/or proposition.  It’s a both/and proposition.  It will take both more focus from our parents, and better schooling.  It will take both more money, and more reform.  It will take both a collective commitment, and a personal commitment.

So, yes, our federal government has responsibilities that it has to meet, and I will keep on making sure the federal government meets those responsibilities.  Our governors, our superintendants, our states, our school districts have responsibilities to meet.  And parents have responsibilities that they have to meet.  And our children have responsibilities that they have to meet.  (Applause.)

It’s not just parents.  It’s the children, too.  Our kids need to understand nobody is going to hand them a future.  (Applause.)  An education is not something you just tip your head and they pour it in your ear.  (Laughter.)   You’ve got to want it.  You’ve got to reach out and claim that future for yourself. And you can’t make excuses.  (Applause.)

I know life is tough for a lot of young people in this country.  The places where Urban League is working to make a difference, you see it every day.  I’m coming from the Southside of Chicago.  (Applause.)  So I know -- I see what young people are going through there.  And at certain points in our lives, young black men and women may feel the sting of discrimination.  Too many of them may feel trapped in a community where drugs and violence and unemployment are pervasive, and they are forced to wrestle with things that no child should have to face. 

There are all kinds of reasons for our children to say, “No, I can’t.”  But our job is to say to them, “Yes, you can.”  (Applause.)  Yes, you can overcome.  Yes, you can persevere.  Yes, you can make what you will out of your lives.  (Applause.) 

I know they can, because I know the character of America’s young people.  I saw them volunteer on my campaign.  They asked me questions in town hall meetings.  They write me letters about their trials and aspirations.

I got a letter recently postmarked Covington, Kentucky.  It was from Na’Dreya Lattimore, 10 years old -- about the same age as Sasha.  And she told me about how her school had closed, so she had enrolled in another.  Then she had bumped up against other barriers to what she felt was her potential.  So Na’Dreya was explaining to me how we need to improve our education system. She closed by saying this:

“One more thing,” she said.  (Laughter.)  It was a long letter.  (Laughter.)  “You need to look at us differently.  We are not black, we’re not white, biracial, Hispanic, Asian, or any other nationality.”  No, she wrote -– “We are the future.”  (Applause.) 

Na’Dreya, you are right.  And that’s why I will keep fighting to lead us out of this storm.  But I’m also going to keep fighting alongside the Urban League to make America more perfect, so that young people like Na’Dreya -- people of every race, in every region -- are going to be able to reach for that American Dream.  They’re going to know that there are brighter days ahead; that their future is full of boundless possibilities. I believe that, and I know the Urban League does, too.

Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.) 

END
10:53 A.M. EDT