The President:
Well, it is
wonderful to be here,
and I always look forward to
an opportunity to speak
to some of our top
businesses across the country
who are hiring people,
investing in America,
making the economy run.
And many of you I've had a
chance to interact with before.
As you know, oftentimes when
I do something like this,
I want to spend more time
answering questions
and having a conversation than
giving any formal remarks.
Let me just provide a little
bit of an introduction.
Obviously, over the
last couple of months,
most of the oxygen
in this town
has been consumed
with two things --
one, the government shutdown
and the possibility of default
that was ultimately resolved;
and the second has
been the rollout
of the Affordable Care Act
and the fact that my
website is not working
the way it's supposed to.
And it's entirely legitimate
that those have been
issues of great concern.
The impact of the shutdown
and the threat of default
I think not only did
some significant damage
to the economy
at a time when we didn't
need self-inflicted wounds,
but it also spoke to some of the
larger problems we've seen here
in Washington, and the sense
of dysfunction and the seeming
incapacity of both parties
in Congress to work together
to advance an agenda that's
going to help us grow.
With respect to the
Affordable Care Act,
I think people are legitimately
concerned because we have
a major problem with health care
in this country --
41 million people
without health insurance,
a lot of people underinsured.
And once again,
how we fix a health care system
that's been broken for too
many people for too long I think
ends up speaking to how much
confidence we have in government
and whether we still have
the capacity, collectively,
to bring about changes that
are going to be good
for our economy,
good for our businesses,
good for the American people.
I do want to say, though,
that beyond the headlines,
we have made real
progress in the economy,
and sometimes that hasn't
gotten enough attention.
Some of the tough decisions
that we made early on
have paid off --
decisions that helped us
not only recover from a crisis,
but begin to lay a stronger
foundation for future growth.
We refocused on manufacturing
exports, and today,
our businesses sell more goods
and services made in America
than ever before
around the world.
After a decade of shedding jobs,
our manufacturing sector
has now added about
half a million new jobs,
and it's led by an
American auto industry
that has come roaring back
after decades of decline.
We decided to reverse our
dependence on foreign oil,
and today, we generate
more renewable energy
than ever before
and more natural gas
than anybody in the world.
And for the first time
in nearly 20 years,
America now produces more
of our own oil than we buy
from other countries.
When I took office,
we invested a fraction
of what other countries did
in wireless infrastructure,
and today,
it's up nearly 50 percent,
helping companies unleash jobs,
innovation and a booming
app economy that's created
more than 500,000 jobs.
When I took office,
only 5 percent
of the world's smartphones ran
on American operating systems.
Today, more than 80 percent do.
And it's not just in the
high-tech economy
that we're seeing progress.
For example, American farmers
are on pace to have one of their
best years in decades, and they
have consistently been able to
export more, make more profits
and help restore rural economies
than when we came into office.
And, yes, we decided to take
on a broken health care system.
And even though the rollout of
the new health care marketplace
has been rough,
to say the least,
about half a million Americans
are now poised to gain
health care coverage
beginning January 1st.
That's after only
a month of sign-up.
We also have seen
health care costs growing
at the slowest rate in 50 years.
Employer-based health costs are
growing at about one-third
of the rate of a decade ago,
and that has an impact
on your bottom line.
And after years of
trillion-dollar deficits,
we reined in spending,
wound down two wars,
and began to change a tax code
that I believe was too skewed
towards the wealthiest
among us at the expense
of the middle class.
And since I took office,
we have now cut our
deficits by more than half.
Add it all up, and businesses
like yours have created
7.8 million new jobs
over the past 44 months.
We've gone farther
and recovered faster
than most other
advanced nations.
And so in a lot of ways,
America is poised
for a breakout.
We are in a good
position to compete
around the world
in the 21st century.
The question is, are we going
to realize that potential?
And that means that we've
still got some more work to do.
Our stock markets and
corporate profits are soaring,
but we've got to make sure
that this remains a country
where everyone who works
hard can get ahead.
And that means
we've still got
to
address long-term unemployment.
We still have to
address stagnant wages
and stagnant incomes.
And frankly, we've got
to stop governing by crisis
here in this town.
Because if it weren't for
Washington's dysfunction,
I think all of us agree
we'd be a lot further along.
The shutdown and the threat of
default harmed our jobs market,
they cost our economy
about $5 billion,
and economists predict
it will slow
our GDP growth this quarter --
and it didn't need to happen.
It was self-inflicted.
We should not be injuring
ourselves every few months.
We should be investing
in ourselves.
And in a sensible world,
that starts with a budget
that cuts what we don't
need, closes wasteful loopholes,
and helps us afford
to invest in the things
that we know
will help businesses like yours
and the economy as a whole --
education, infrastructure,
basic research and development.
We would have a grand bargain
for middle-class jobs that
combines tax reform with
a financing mechanism
that lets us create jobs,
rebuilding infrastructure
that your businesses depend on,
but we haven't gotten as much
take-up from the other side
as we'd like to see so far.
We have the opportunity
for bipartisan authority
to negotiate the best trade
deals possible so businesses
and workers can take
advantage of new markets
that are opening up
around the world.
We haven't seen the kind of
take-up from the other side
that we'd like to see so far.
We've got the opportunity to fix
a broken immigration system
that strengthens our economy
and our national security.
The good news here is the Senate
has already passed a bipartisan
bill that economists say
would grow our economy
by $1.4 trillion and shrink our
deficits by nearly a trillion
over the next two decades.
You wouldn't turn
down a deal that good,
and Congress shouldn't either.
So I'm hoping
that Speaker Boehner
and the House of Representatives
can still work
with us to get that done.
And we need to be going all
out to prepare our kids
and our workers for the demands
of a 21st-century economy.
I've proposed giving every child
an early start at success
by making high-quality
preschool available
to every four-year-old
in America.
We know that you get more bang
for the buck when it comes
to early childhood education
than just about anything else,
and you've got great
examples around the country,
oftentimes in red states,
that are doing just that.
We need to make that
same investment.
We're working to bring down
the costs of a college degree
so more young people can
get a higher education.
And one thing that
I'm very excited about --
and this has been a good example
of a public-private
partnership --
is the idea of redesigning
our high schools
to make sure that more young
people get hands-on training
and develop the
skills that they need,
particularly in math,
science and engineering,
that businesses are looking for.
And in fact,
today we're announcing
a competitive grant program
that will encourage
more high schools
to partner with colleges
and local businesses
to better prepare our kids
for college or a career.
And in December,
I'll be bringing together
college presidents and
other leaders to figure out ways
to help more low-income
students attend
and to succeed in college.
So just to sum up,
my basic message is this:
We know what the challenges are.
We know what the solutions are.
Some of them are tough, but
what's holding us back is not
a lack of good policy ideas or
even what used to be considered
good bipartisan policy ideas.
We just have to break
through the stubborn cycle
of crisis politics
and start working together.
More obstruction, more
brinkmanship won't help anybody.
It doesn't help
folks politically.
My understanding is nobody in
this town is doing particularly
well at the moment
when it comes to the opinions
of the American people,
but it certainly doesn't
help anybody economically.
On many of the issues,
I think you and I would agree,
and I want you to know that
I'm rooting for your success,
and I look forward to making
sure that we are able
in the remaining three
years that I'm President
to work together to not only
improve the business climate,
but also improve
the prospects for Americans
all across the country
who have been treading water,
feel like they're losing ground,
are anxious about the future and
their children's futures,
but I think are still hopeful
and still possess that
fundamental American optimism.
If they see leadership working
across the board on their
behalf, then I'm confident that
we can make enormous progress.
So with that, why don't
we get Jerry up here
and I'll start
answering his questions.
I hope he adds some input.
[laughter]
If he starts asking
me about what happened
to the Kansas City Chiefs,
I'm not sure I'll have
a good answer for that one.
[applause]
Gerald Selb:
Well, thank you, Mr. President.
Let me start by thanking you
officially for joining us today.
I think you probably see a lot
of familiar faces out there,
most friendly, most of them.
And I would also note
that you're getting
here a little late.
Congressman Paul
Ryan is coming later.
He is going to get
here a little early.
So if you guys
overlap a little bit,
maybe we can just get some
problems solved right here.
What do you think?
The President:
Let's do it.
[laughter]
Let's do it.
Gerald Selb:
It's your chance.
We have talked amongst ourselves
or tried to sort of take
the sense of the room.
So I'm going to try to reflect
some of the conversations that
have been going on here in the
questions I'm going to ask you.
You'll not be stunned
that I'm going to ask you
about health care first.
You indicated there and you've
indicated publicly quite clearly
that the rollout
has been difficult.
What do you think you've
learned from this experience
about the government's ability
to do this sort of thing,
about the law itself, or
about your own administration?
The President:
Well, there are
a couple of things.
Number one is that
this has been a big problem
for a very long time
and so it was always going
to be challenging not just
to pass a law,
but also to implement it.
There's a reason why, despite
a century of talking about it,
nobody had been able to
successfully try to deal with
some of the underlying problems
in the health care system.
The good news is that many of
the elements of the Affordable
Care Act are already
in place and are working
exactly the way
they're supposed to.
So making sure that consumers
who have employer-based health
insurance are getting a better
deal and that are protected
from some of the fine print
that left them in the lurch
when they actually got sick --
that's in place.
Making sure that young people
under the age of 26 can stay
on their parents' plan --
that's helped 3 million
children already.
That's making a difference.
Helping seniors to get better
prescription drug prices --
that's already
helped millions of seniors
and billions of
dollars in savings.
Rebates for people who
see insurance companies
who are not spending
enough on actual care,
more on administrative
costs or profits,
they're getting rebates.
They may not know it's
the Affordable Care Act
that's giving them rebates,
but it's happening.
So there were a number of things
that were already in place
over the last three years that
got implemented effectively.
The other thing that hasn't
been talked about a lot is cost.
There was a lot
of skepticism when we passed
the Affordable Care Act
that we were going to be giving
a lot of people care
but we weren't doing anything
about the underlying costs.
And, in fact,
over the last three years,
we've seen health
care costs grow
at the slowest pace in 50 years.
And that affects the bottom
lines of everybody here.
And there are a lot of smart
delivery system reforms
that slowly across
the system are being implemented
and they're making
a big difference.
And that's saving us money.
That's why, by the way, some of
the projections that in terms
of what the Affordable Care Act
would do to deficits have
actually proved even better
than we had originally expected.
What I have learned, though,
with respect to setting
up these marketplaces --
which are essentially
mechanisms where people
who are currently in
the individual market
or don't have health insurance
at all can join together, shop,
and insurance companies will
compete for their business --
setting those things up is very
challenging just mechanically.
The good news is that choice and
competition has actually worked
and insurers
came in with bids
that were even lower
than people expected --
about 16 percent lower than
had originally been projected.
The challenge has been just
making sure that consumers
are actually able to get
on a website, see those choices,
and shop.
And I think that we probably
underestimated the complexities
of building out
a website that needed
to work the way it should.
There is a larger problem that
I probably -- speak personally,
but also as the
administration --
could have identified earlier,
and that is the way the federal
government does procurement
and does IT is just
generally not very efficient.
In fact, there's
probably no bigger gap
between the private sector
and the public sector than IT.
And we've seen that
in, for example,
the VA and the Department
of Defense trying to deal
with electronic medical
records for our servicemen
as they move into civilian life.
Most of that stuff is
still done on paper.
We've spent
billions of dollars --
I'm not saying "we"
as in my administration,
I mean we've now had about
a decade of experimentation,
spent billions of dollars
and it's still not working
the way it should.
So what we probably needed to do
on the front end was to blow up
how we procure for IT,
especially on a
system this complicated.
We did not do that successfully.
Now, we are getting it fixed,
but it would have been better
to do it on the front end
rather than the back end.
And the last point I'll make
is that in terms of expectation
setting, there's no doubt that
in an environment in which
we had to fight tooth and
nail to get this passed,
it ended up being passed on a
partisan basis -- not for lack
of trying, because I met with an
awful lot of Republicans to try
to get them to go along --
but because there was just
ideological resistance to
the idea of dealing with the
uninsured and people with
preexisting conditions.
There was a price to that, and
it was that what was already
going to be hard was operating
within a very difficult
political environment.
And we should have anticipated
that that would create
a rockier rollout than if
Democrats and Republicans
were both invested in success.
One of the problems we've had
is one side of Capitol Hill
is invested in failure,
and that makes, I think,
the kind of iterative process of
fixing glitches as they come up
and fine-tuning the
law more challenging.
But I'm optimistic that
we can get it fixed.
Gerald Selb:
Well, that's the question
I was going to ask next.
Is it possible you've lost
enough time here and enough
potential customers in the
exchanges that you're not going
to reach the critical mass of
signups that you need to make
the marketplace work?
Is that a danger that you
have to worry about right now?
The President:
Well, it's something that
we have to pay attention to.
But keep in mind that this model
of marketplaces was based on
what was done in Massachusetts,
and the experience in
Massachusetts was that
in the first month,
153 or 163 people signed up
out of an ultimate 36,000.
It was less than 1 percent
signed up in that first month --
partly because buying insurance
is a complicated process
for a lot of people.
When they have more choices,
it means that they're going
to take more time.
There's no doubt that
we've lost some time,
but the website is
getting better each week.
By the end of this month,
it will be functioning
for the majority of
people who are using it.
They'll be able to shop,
see what their choices are.
The prices are good.
The prices are not changing
during the open enrollment
period that goes
out until March.
And so I think that we're
going to have time to catch up.
What's also been expressed as
a concern is the mix of people
that sign up.
So we might end up having
millions of people sign up;
they're happy with
their new coverage,
but we've got more
people who are older,
more likely to get sick
than younger and healthier.
We've got to monitor
that carefully.
We always anticipated, though,
that younger folks would be the
last folks in, just because --
it's been a while since you and
I were young -- but as I recall,
you don't think that you're
going to get sick at that time.
So, look, I am confident that
the model that we've built,
which works off of the existing
private insurance system,
is one that will succeed.
We are going to have to, A, fix
the website so everybody feels
confident about that.
We're going to have to obviously
re-market and re-brand,
and that will be challenging
in this political environment.
But keep in mind, in the first
month we also had 12 million
people visit the site.
The demand is there.
There are 41 million people who
don't have health insurance.
The folks in the
individual market,
many of them are going to
get a much better deal
in the marketplaces.
And so we've just got to keep
on improving the customer
experience and make sure that
we're fending off efforts
not to fix the problem --
because if somebody
wants to help us fix it,
I'm all game,
but fending off efforts
to completely undermine it.
Gerald Selb:
Let me turn to the economy,
the broader economy,
probably the predominant
concern of people in this room.
We seem to be stuck in an
economic growth pattern of okay,
but not great growth.
Your friend, Larry Summers,
was here earlier today and said
essentially the problem
or one of the problems
is that the system can't
do two things at once.
It can't cut deficits
and spur growth.
It needs to do one or
the other right now.
It needs to spur growth,
should not worry
so much about deficits.
Do you agree?
And if you do agree,
how do you make that happen?
The President:
Actually, Larry and I,
and most of my economic team --
in fact,
all of my economic team --
have consistently maintained
that there is a way
to reconcile the concerns
about debt and deficits
with the concerns about growth.
What we know is, is that
our fiscal problems
are not short-term deficits.
Our discretionary budget, that
portion of the federal budget
that isn't defense
or Social Security or Medicare
or Medicaid,
the entitlement programs,
is at its smallest
level in my lifetime,
probably since
Dwight Eisenhower.
We are not lavishly
spending on a whole bunch
of social programs out there.
And in many ways, a lot of
these programs have become more
efficient and pretty effective.
Defense, we spent
a lot from 2001 to 2011,
but generally we
are stabilizing.
And the Pentagon,
working with me,
have come up with plans that
allow us to meet our security
needs while still bringing down
some of the costs of defense,
particularly after having ended
the war in Iraq and on the brink
of ending the war
in Afghanistan.
So when we talk about our
deficit and debt problems,
it is almost entirely
health care costs.
You eliminate the delta, the
difference between what we spend
on health care and what every
other country -- advanced
industrialized nation
spends on health care,
and that's our long-term debt.
And if we're able to
bend the cost curve,
we help solve the problem.
Now, one way to do that is just
to make health
care cheaper overall.
That's I think the
best way to do it,
and that's what we've been doing
through some of the measures
in the Affordable Care Act.
There are some other provisions
that we could take that would
maintain our commitment
to seniors, Medicare,
Social Security, the
disabled, and Medicaid,
while still
reducing very modestly
the costs of those programs.
If we do those things, that
solves our real fiscal problem,
and we could take
some of that money,
a very modest portion
on the front end,
and invest in infrastructure
that puts people back to work,
improve our research
and development.
So the idea would be do some
things in the short term that
focus on growth; do some things
in the long term that deal
with the long-term debt.
That's what my budget reflects.
That's what a
multiple series of negotiations
with John Boehner talked about,
the so-called grand bargain.
We couldn't quite
get there in the end,
mainly because Republicans had
a great deal of difficulty with
the idea of putting in more
revenue to balance out some
of the changes that were
made on entitlements.
Gerald Selb:
I would guess a lot of
people in this room would
say another way to make some of
those things happen would be to
fix the corporate tax code that
everybody agrees is a mess.
You've got some companies that
pay way too much compared to
their international competitors;
some companies don't pay at all.
It's not a good system.
it's not an efficient
system, everybody agrees,
but it doesn't ever
seem to change.
Can you make it change?
And can you do something
about repatriation
of U.S. assets overseas?
The President:
Well, here is the good news,
is that both my administration
and Republicans have talked
about corporate tax reform.
And Paul Ryan, who is going
to be coming after me,
said he's interested
in corporate tax reform.
And we've reached out to him and
we've said let's get to work.
We put forward a very specific
set of proposals that would
lower the corporate tax
rate, broaden the base,
close some loopholes.
And in terms of international
companies and competitiveness,
what we've said is rather than
a whole bunch of tangled laws
that incentivize folks
to keep money overseas,
let's have a modest but
clear global minimum tax,
get rid of some
of the huge fluctuations
that people experience.
It will save companies money,
make them more competitive and,
in terms of transitioning
to that system,
actually allow some people
to bring back money and,
in a one-time way,
help us finance infrastructure
and some other projects
that need to get done.
I don't expect Republicans
to adopt exactly the proposal
that we've put forward.
But there's not that much
separation between what
Democrats are talking about --
I know Chairman Max Baucus
put out something today,
the Chairman
of the Finance Committee --
what Dave Camp over in the
House has talked about.
This should be bridgeable.
The one thing
I would caution is --
and I've said this
to the Business Roundtable
and other corporate leaders
who I've talked to --
people like the idea of
corporate tax reform in theory.
In practice,
if you want to make
the corporate
tax reform deficit-neutral,
then you actually have
to close some loopholes.
And people like the
idea of a simpler tax system
until it's their
particular loophole
that's about to get closed.
And what we can't afford to do
is to keep all the loopholes
that are currently in place and
lower the corporate tax rate.
We would then blow another hole
in the deficit that would have
to be filled.
And what I'm not willing to do
is to have higher rates on the
middle class in order
to pay for that.
Gerald Selb:
Some of the CEOs here had
a working group earlier today,
the mission of which was
to address the question
of how do you stay competitive.
Interestingly, at least to me,
their first priority --
first priority --
was this: immigration reform.
The U.S. needs
immigration reform to retain
talented workers
educated in the U.S.
and attract talent
to the U.S. Immigration reform
could provide an instant
jolt to the U.S. economy
which we need.
I know you agree
with that statement,
but it's hard to see
that happening right now.
You've got the
Senate off on one track --
it's passed a comprehensive bill
the House won't
even agree to take up.
Democrats want to do
comprehensive reform.
Republicans want to do
step-by-step reform.
It's a poisonous
political atmosphere.
Can you make it happen?
The President:
I am actually optimistic that
we're going to get this done.
I am a congenital optimist.
I would have to be --
I'm named Barack Obama
and I ran for President.
[laughter]
Gerald Selb:
And won.
The President:
And won twice.
[laughter]
So, look,
keep in mind, first of all,
that what the CEOs here
said is absolutely right.
This is a boost to our economy.
Everywhere I go, I meet with
entrepreneurs and CEOs who say,
I've got these terrific folks,
they just graduated from CalTech
or MIT or Stanford, they're
ready to do business here,
some of them have these amazing
new ideas that we think we can
commercialize -- but they're
being dragged back to their home
countries, not because they
want to go but because the
immigration system doesn't work.
The good news is that the Senate
bill was a bipartisan bill and
we know what the component
parts of this are.
We've got to have
strong border security.
We've got to have better
enforcement of existing laws.
We've got to make sure that we
have a legal immigration system
that doesn't cause people to
sit in the queue for 5 years,
10 years, 15 years --
in some cases, 20 years.
We should want to immediately
say to young people who we've
helped to educate in this
country, you want to stay,
we want you here.
And we do have to deal with
about 11 million folks who are
in this country, most of them
just seeking opportunity;
they did break the law by coming
here or overstaying their visa,
and they've got to earn their
way out of the shadows --
pay a fine, learn English,
get to the back of the line,
pay their back taxes --
but giving them a mechanism
whereby they can
get right by our society.
And that's reflected
in the Senate bill.
Now, I actually think
that there are a number
of House Republicans --
including Paul Ryan, I think,
if you ask him about it
-- who agree with that.
They're suspicious
of comprehensive bills,
but if they want to chop
that thing up into five pieces,
as long as all five
pieces get done,
I don't care what it looks
like as long as it's actually
delivering on those core
values that we talk about.
Gerald Selb:
But Democrats have been
pretty suspicious
that all five pieces
won't get done.
The President:
And that's the problem.
I mean, the key is -- what we
don't want to do is simply
carve out one piece of it --
let's say agricultural jobs,
which are important,
but is easier, frankly,
or the high-skilled jobs that
many in your audience here would
immediately want to
do -- but leave behind
some of the tougher stuff
that still needs to get done.
We're not going to have a
situation in which 11 million
people are still living in
the shadows and potentially
getting deported
on an ongoing basis.
So we're going to
have to do it all.
In my conversations
with the Republicans,
I actually think the
divide is not that wide.
So what we just have to do is
find a pathway where Republicans
in the House, in particular,
feel comfortable enough about
process that they can
go ahead and meet us.
This, by the way, Jerry, I think
is a good example of something
that's been striking me about
our politics for a while.
When you go to other countries,
the political divisions
are so much
more stark and wider.
Here in America,
the difference between Democrats
and Republicans, we're fighting
inside the 40-yard line,
maybe in --
Gerald Selb:
You've fooled
most people on that
in the last few months, I'd say.
[laughter]
The President:
Well, no, no.
I would distinguish between the
rhetoric and the tactics
versus
the ideological differences.
I mean,
in most countries you've got --
people call me
a socialist sometimes,
But, no, you've got
to meet real socialists.
[laughter]
You'll have a sense of
what a socialist is.
[laughter]
I'm talking about lowering
the corporate tax rate.
My health care reform is based
on the private marketplace.
The stock market is looking
pretty good last time I checked.
And it is true that I'm
concerned about growing
inequality in our system, but
nobody questions the efficacy
of market economies in terms of
producing wealth and innovation
and keeping us competitive.
On the flip side,
most Republicans,
even the tea party --
one of my favorite signs
during the campaign
was folks hoisting a sign,
"Government, keep your hands
off my Medicare."
[laughter]
Think about that.
[laughter]
I mean, ideologically,
they did not like the idea
of the federal government,
and yet they felt very
protective about the basic
social safety net that
had been structured.
So my simple point is this:
If we can get beyond
the tactical advantages
that parties perceive
in painting folks as extreme
and trying to keep an eye
always on the next election,
and for a while at least,
just focus on governing,
then there is probably
70 percent overlap
on a whole range of issues.
A lot of Republicans want
to get infrastructure done,
just like I do.
A lot of them believe in basic
research, just like I do.
A lot of them want to reform
entitlements to make sure that
they're affordable for
the next generation; so do I.
A lot of them say they want
to reform our tax system;
so do I.
There are going to be
differences on the details,
and those details matter and
I'll fight very hard for them.
But we shouldn't think that
somehow the reason we've got
these problems is because our
policy differences are so great.
Gerald Selb:
Well, the details are
obviously important enough
to shut down the government
just a couple of weeks ago.
And everybody knows we're headed
back toward showdowns again --
January, budget;
February, debt ceiling.
Jack Lew was here earlier,
your Treasury Secretary,
and said he thought maybe the
system crossed a threshold
in October and has realized it
doesn't want to go back
and do that again.
Are you confident it's not going
to go back and do that again?
And by the way, the OECD,
the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development,
suggested today
that the U.S. just get rid
of the debt ceiling entirely.
Would you be in favor of that?
The President:
I think that the way
our system is set up is
like a loaded gun, and once
people thought we can get
leverage on policy disputes
by threatening default,
that was an extraordinarily
dangerous precedent.
And that's a principle
that I had to adhere to,
not just for me but
for the next President --
that you're not going
to be able to threaten
the entire U.S. or world economy
simply because you disagree with
me about a health care bill.
I'd like to believe that the
Republicans recognize that was
not a good strategy, and we're
probably better off with
a system in which that threat is
not there on a perpetual basis.
I do not foresee
what we saw in October
being repeated in January.
But the broader point is one
that I think all of us
have to take to heart.
We have to be able to disagree
on policy issues without
resorting to the kinds of
extreme tactics that end up
hurting all of us.
And that's been my main
disagreement with a lot
of my Republican friends.
And frankly, the American
people agree with that.
They don't expect us
to march in lockstep.
There's a reason why we've got
two parties in this country.
They do expect that we
are constantly thinking
about how are we
making sure they can find a job
that pays well,
that their kids can go
to college and afford it,
that we are growing
and competitive,
that we are dealing
with our fiscal position
in a sensible way.
And if we keep them
in mind consistently,
then I think we're
going to be successful.
One thing -- you've got some
international CEOs here,
and I think they'll confirm
this -- when I travel,
what's striking to me is
people around the world think
we've got a really good hand.
You just take the
example of energy.
They say America is poised
to change our geopolitics
entirely because of the advances
we've made in oil production
and natural gas production.
It means manufacturing
here is much more attractive
than it used to be.
That's a huge
competitive advantage.
We've got the most productive
workers just about in the world,
and our workers have become
more and more productive,
and a lot of companies look
at that and say we wish we had
workers who were able to
operate the way these folks do.
Our university systems,
our research infrastructure --
all those things are the
envy of the world.
And one of the great
things about America --
sometimes we get worried
that we're losing traction
and the sky is falling,
and back in the '80s,
Japan was about to take over,
and then China,
and obviously before that,
the Soviet Union --
and we usually come out okay
because we change and we adapt.
I just want
everybody to remember
that we're in a
very strong position to compete
as long as our political
system functions.
It doesn't have
to be outstanding.
This is sort of
like Winston Churchill,
two cheers for democracy.
And it's always
going to be messy.
But it's got to function
better than it has.
Gerald Selb:
I'm in the red zone
on the clock here,
but let me --
I do want to ask a question
about international affairs.
You've mentioned the world
and the U.S. position in it.
There's the possibility this
week of an agreement with Iran,
a preliminary, limited agreement
in which they would
free some of their
nuclear activities
in return for some
relief on sanctions.
Your Israeli friends
have been arguing,
along with some
of your friends
as well as your
foes in Congress,
that if you give the
Iranian regime any relief
on sanctions, the sanctions
regime will fall apart;
countries that don't want to be
there in the first place will
head for the exits;
it will all come apart --
and that's the danger of what
you're negotiating right now.
I know you talked
to some senators
about this very topic today.
Is there going to be a deal?
And why can you ease sanctions
without having them fall apart?
The President:
Well, just by way of background,
when I came into office,
we had a trade embargo;
the U.S. had done some
things unilaterally.
We did not have a strong,
enforceable international
mechanism to really
put the squeeze on Iran
around its nuclear program,
despite the fact that
it had violated a range
of U.N. and nonproliferation
treaty requirements.
So we built, we constructed,
with the help of Congress,
the strongest
sanctions regime ever.
And it has put a bite
on the Iranian economy.
They have seen a 5 percent
contraction the last year
in their economy.
It's projected to be another
contraction this year.
And in part
because the sanctions
have been so effective,
we were able to get Iran
to seriously come to the table
and look at how are they
going to give assurances
to the international community
that they are, in fact,
not pursuing a nuclear
weapons program.
I don't know if we'll be
able to close a deal this week
or next week.
We have been very
firm with the Iranians
even on the interim deal
about what we expect.
And some of
the reporting out there
has been somewhat inaccurate,
understandably,
because the P5-plus-1,
the members of the --
permanent members
of the Security Council
in addition to --
and Germany as well --
have kept the
negotiations fairly tight.
But the essence
of the deal would be
that they would halt advances
on their nuclear program;
they would
roll back some elements
that get them closer to what
we call breakout capacity,
where they can run for --
a weapon before
the international community
has a chance to react;
that they would subject
themselves to more vigorous
inspections even than the
ones that are currently there,
in some cases,
daily inspections.
In return, what we would do
would be to open up the spigot
a little bit for a
very modest amount of relief
that is entirely subject
to reinstatement if, in fact,
they violated any part
of this early agreement.
And it would purchase
a period of time --
let's say, six months --
during which we could
see if they could get
to the end state of a position
where we, the Israelis,
the international community
could say with confidence Iran
is not pursuing
a nuclear weapon.
Now, part of the
reason I have confidence
that the sanctions
don't fall apart
is because we're not
doing anything around
the most powerful sanctions.
The oil sanctions,
the banking sanctions,
the financial
services sanctions --
those are the ones that
have really taken a big chunk
out of the Iranian economy.
So oil production and oil sales
out of Iran have dropped
by more than half since these
sanctions were put in place.
They've got over
$100 billion of oil revenue
that is sitting outside
of their country.
The rial, their currency,
has dropped precipitously.
And all those sanctions
and the architecture for them
don't go anywhere.
Essentially, what we do
is we allow them to access
a small portion of these
assets that are frozen.
Keep in mind, though, that
because the oil and banking
sanctions stay in place, they
will actually still be losing
money even during this six-month
period relative to the amount of
oil sales they had back in 2011.
So what we are suggesting
both to the Israelis,
to members of Congress here,
to the international community,
but also to the
Iranians, is, let's look,
let's test the proposition
that over the next six months
we can resolve this in
a diplomatic fashion,
while maintaining the essential
sanctions architecture,
and, as President
of the United States,
me maintaining all
options to prevent them
from getting nuclear weapons.
I think that is a test
that is worth conducting.
And my hope and expectation
is not that we're going to solve
all of this just this week
in this interim phase,
but rather that we're purchasing
ourselves some time to see how
serious the Iranian regime might
be in re-entering membership in
the world community and taking
the yoke of these sanctions off
the backs of their economy.
Gerald Selb:
Well, Mr. President, with that,
let me just thank you
again for joining us.
I appreciate it very much.
[applause]
The President:
I enjoyed it.
Thank you very much.
[applause]
